“Typically, organizations have trained managers in change process models rather than change implementation frameworks. Given the track record for failed change interventions, there is an opportunity for organizational development professionals to provide effective guidance through the application of a comprehensive change implementation model . . .”
Improving Change
Implementation
Practical Adaptations of Kotter’s Model
By Nicole Stragalas
IntroductionWhile it is common for corporate man-agement training programs to provide examples of change process models, discus-sion of change implementation models is infrequent. Given the high percentage of failed change management efforts, it is essential for corporations to direct more attention to the specifics of change execu-tion. Managers would also benefit from the review of broad-scale organization approaches, rather than primarily focus-ing on process models at the individual level, where the emphasis is on employee reaction rather than practical execution of specific steps. One comprehensive implementation model, developed by John Kotter, offers clear guidance for large-scale change management efforts. While the Kotter framework is more closely related to organizational behavior, in that it targets macro-level organizational theory, it is also appropriate as an organizational develop-ment tool, providing a three-dimensional linkage between individuals, groups, and the organization.
Although Kotter’s work has been validated through significant research and is a staple component in graduate manage-ment programs, the seemingly limited use of the model to guide many corporate change initiatives suggests there are gaps in translation. A cursory examination of recent research into successful change management interventions may provide information that would expand and clarify Kotter’s implementation model. By match-ing specific recommendations from recent
research with each stage in Kotter’s design, specific themes emerge. These themes, grouped by stakeholder—leadership, employees, organization—reveal valuable insights, enhancing the usefulness of this model for corporations seeking to improve the odds for positive, lasting organizational change.
Change Process Models in Corporate Training Programs
A significant number of transformation models have been introduced and ana-lyzed within the field of organizational development. In corporations, however, three change models are most commonly reviewed in leadership development pro-grams. Two, by William Bridges and Edgar Schein, are process models that can be applied at an organizational level, but are typically discussed at the individual or team level. The third, by Kotter, is more appro-priately classified as a change implementa-tion model. Certain elements are common in all three approaches.
Bridges proposed there are three significant stages in managing transi-tions. He defined these stages as “Ending, Losing, Letting Go; Neutral Zone; and New Beginning” (Bridges, 2003, p. 5). Individuals begin a change process with a certain sense of loss and feelings of dis-comfort, move through a period of “psy-chological realignments and repatternings” (p. 5), and come through the transition with a “new identity… new energy… and new sense of purpose that make the change begin to work” (p. 5). Two areas developed
Table 1: Comparison of Change Process and Implementation Models
William Bridges
Three stages:
Ending. Losing, Letting Go Neutral Zone
New Beginning (Bridges, 2003)
Four rules for the New Beginning: • Be consistent
• Ensure quick successes • Symbolize the new identity • Celebrate the success
On Simultaneous Change: “The first thing … need[ed] in order to handle non-stop organizational change is an overall design… [where]… the various changes are integrated as component elements.” (p. 101)
When “no larger strategy exists” (for a rapidly developing change situation), the organization must proactively define the “underlying common purpose” (costs, new competitor, need for agility, etc.) (p. 101)
Actions to deal with “non-stop” change include:
• Make transition to “change as the norm”
• Clarify purpose • Rebuild trust
• Unload “old baggage”
• Sell problems, not solutions (cannot sell each change “piecemeal”) (p. 106)
Edgar Schein (Lewin)
Three stages:
Unfreezing/Disconfirmation Cognitive Restructuring Refreezing
(Schein, 2004)
Three sub-processes in Unfreezing: • Sufficient “disconfirming data” to
create discomfort/imbalance • Data connected to important goals/
ideals, causing “anxiety and guilt” • Psychological safety exists in sufficient
form to enable problem-solving and learning without loss of identity (p. 320)
On Unfreezing: “… Some sense of threat, crisis, or dissatisfaction must be present before enough motivation is present to start the process of unlearning and relearning.” (p. 324)
On Refreezing (conditions for transformative change):
• “Survival anxiety or guilt must be greater than learning anxiety” • “Learning anxiety must be reduced
rather than increasing survival anxiety” (p. 331)
Creating Psychological Safety includes 8 conditions, such as:
• A compelling positive vision • Involvement of learner • Positive role models
• Reward and discipline system con-sistent with new model (p. 332-333) Based model on work of Lewin, with modifications
John Kotter
Eight Stages:
• Establish Sense of Urgency • Form a Powerful Guiding Coalition • Create a Vision
• Communicate the Vision
• Empower Others to Act on the Vision • Plan for and Create Short-Term Wins • Consolidate Improvements and
Produce More Change
• Institutionalize New Approaches (Kotter, 2007)
Key conditions for success:
• All stages are necessary (no shortcuts) • At least 75% of managers must believe
“the status quo is more dangerous than the unknown”
• Coalitions, in larger companies, need to be 20-50 people
• Communication must be multi-channeled and continuous
• Thousands of people must be willing to help with “short-term sacrifices” • Need to allow for broader job latitude • Need rewards/performance appraisal
to match new vision
• Managers must be positive, visible role models
• Proactive explanations made showing connections between new approaches and improved performance
On Urgency: “Well over 50% of companies… fail in this first phase… Executives underestimate how hard it can be to drive people out of their comfort zones. [Some] become paralyzed by the downside possibilities… [which] often comes from having too many managers and not enough leaders. Management’s mandate is to minimize risk and to keep the current system operating. Change, by definition, requires creating a new system, which in turn always demands leadership” (p. 3).
by Bridges, but often left out of manage-ment training, are (1) the four rules for the New Beginning to take hold and (2) actions to deal with continuous and simultaneous change. The core actions for reinforcing new beginnings include: consistency in messages (p. 69); strategically selected quick successes that increase morale (p. 71); applications of symbolism linking the past and present (p. 71); and celebra-tion of achieved goals (p. 72). Bridges also advocated the development of activities that would ensure companies were primed for ongoing transformations. Some of these
processes have been identified as repeated clarifications of purpose (p. 107), modeling of trustworthiness (e.g., listening carefully, asking for feedback, following through on statements) (p. 109), and providing pres-sure valves for the expression of frustra-tions related to the past (old baggage) (p. 111). Another important continuous change preparation action is “selling problems, not solutions” (p. 111); this framing helps managers avoid the pitfall of “selling each change piecemeal” (p. 111). Overall, Bridges outlines implementation considerations in his model, but the information is limited in scope and does not offer concrete steps for execution. Further, in leadership training, managers typically only learn about the three stages and are not provided an oppor-tunity to analyze the other facets inherent in Bridges’ work.
Edgar Schein, basing his model on the original design of Lewin (Schein, 2004), also described three stages in a change
process: Unfreezing/disconfirmation; Cognitive Restructuring; and Refreezing (Schein). Using a more traditional psy-chological approach, Schein discusses his analysis in terms of disequilibrium, leading to emotions of anxiety and guilt, which results in a cognitive restructuring to re-establish equilibrium in the new context. In the Unfreezing stage, Schein posits “… Some sense of threat, crisis, or dissat-isfaction must be present before enough motivation is present to start the process of unlearning and relearning” (2004, p. 32 4). To achieve change, a sufficient
envi-ronment of psychological safety must be created to support problem-solving and learning without loss of identity (Schein, 2004). For psychological safety to exist, while sustaining sufficient anxiety to moti-vate an individual to participate in the orga-nizational change process, two conditions must be met: (1) “Survival anxiety… must be greater than learning anxiety” and (2) “Learning anxiety must be reduced, rather than increasing survival anxiety” (p. 331). To that end, specific conditions for psychologi-cal safety, such as presenting a compelling positive vision, involving the employee learner, and providing positive manage-ment role models, must be established in the Refreezing phase (Schein).
Key aspects of Schein’s change process model are reflected in Kotter’s implemen-tation model. It can be argued that indi-vidual employee requirements, necessary for adaptation to occur, are addressed through the eight stages defined by Kotter
(refer to Table 1). Organizational imple-mentation must address the needs of the individual employees; additional research into follower behavior and antecedents to employee acceptance of change helps define the action steps necessary for effec-tive implementation. Further, Schein’s model, with its emphasis on arguably nega-tive emotional states such as anxiety, guilt, and survival anxiety, presents a contextual framework that may subtly undermine change efforts. A more positive “world view” is instrumental in defining employee engagement strategies, which in turn pro-vides the proper antecedents for employee receptiveness and adaptability to change in the organization.
Change Implementation Model: Kotter In the third model, Kotter defines eight stages in change adaptation and organiza-tional transformation: “(1) establish a sense of urgency; (2) form a powerful guiding coalition; (3) create a vision; (4) communi-cate the vision; (5) empower others to act on the vision; (6) plan for and create short-term wins; (7) consolidate improvements and produce more change; (8) institutional-ize new approaches” (Kotter, 2007, p. 4). He further provides broad action steps within each stage, based on his extensive primary research with more than 100 companies (2007). These action steps are delineated in Table 2.
Kotter identifies specific conditions essential for successful transformations. It is important to review the salient factors he identified, as the other later research results expand and inform Kotter’s analysis. For example, in stage 1, “Create urgency,” at least “75% of managers must believe the status quo is more dangerous than the unknown” (Kotter, 2007, p. 4). This observation links back to Schein’s process theory: “there must be sufficient disconfirming data to create discomfort/ imbalance” (2004, p. 320). Managers must also be positive, visible role models, offering proactive explanations to illustrate the connection between new approaches and improved organizational performance (stages 2 and 4) (Kotter, 2007). Attention should be paid to providing employees
For psychological safety to exist, while sustaining sufficient
anxiety to motivate an individual to participate in the
organizational change process, two conditions must be met:
(1) “Survival anxiety… must be greater than learning anxiety”
and (2) “Learning anxiety must be reduced, rather than
increasing survival anxiety”... To that end, specific conditions
for psychological safety, such as presenting a compelling
positive vision, involving the employee learner, and providing
positive management role models, must be established in the
Refreezing phase...
Table 2: Implementation Steps, Drawn from Research, As Associated with Kotter’s 8 Stages
Kotter’s Eight Stages
(Kotter, 2007, p. 1 table, all)
Establish a sense of Urgency
Actions:
• Analyze environment for potential crises and opportunities
• Convince 75% of managers status quo is more dangerous than the unknown
Form a powerful guiding coalition
Actions:
• Assemble group with commitment and power to lead effort
• Encourage them to work as team outside hierarchy
Create a vision
Actions:
• Create a vision that guides transformation • Develop strategies for turning vision to reality
Communicate the vision
Actions:
• Communication is multi-channeled and continuous • Coalition managers model the new behaviors/
actions
Empower others to act on the vision
Actions:
• Change or eliminate processes and factors impeding transformation
• Encourage risk-taking, innovation, and action
Plan for and create short-term wins
• Define and proactively promote visible improvement successes
• Recognize and reward employees involved
Consolidate improvements and produce more change
• Build on credibility from early successes to advance more implementation plans (e.g., removing barriers, getting additional resources, etc.) • Promote/hire individuals who support and can
enact the vision/implementation plans • Energize the process with additional targets
Institutionalize new approaches
• Proactively explain connections between new approaches and transformation successes • Create succession plans that identify individuals
who can carry the vision forward in the long-term
Implementation Steps from Outside Research to Support Stages
2007, p. 67-80), (Cowley, 2007, p. 25-30), (Choi, 2006, p. 24-43), (Hoover, 2008,
p. 37-44), (Leybourne, 2006, p. 73-95), (Parish et al., 2008, p. 32-52), (Soltani, 2005, p. 1009-21), (Van Dam et al., 2008, p. 313-334)
• Communicate specifics regarding expected results, time tables, and employee change (Cowley)
• Build understanding before commitment (Brower)
• Break down, through language, old models—nullify information no longer relevant or functional (Brower)
• Promote, through language, disengagement from outdated commitments (Brower) • Confront “brutal facts” (Brower quoting Collins, p. 70)
• Establish intellectual and emotional actualization (Hoover)
• Signal involvement (senior leaders), including change advocacy through informal channels and deployment of resources through formal processes (Cowley)
• Build a “linked arm” coalition (senior leaders) (Cowley)
• Motivate followers through empathy, envisioning, and empowerment, including establishment of high standards for performance and creative strategies for goals (Choi) • Emphasize what data is now relevant, affirm the mission, inspire energy towards that
(Brower)
• Establish intellectual and emotional actualization (Hoover) • Communicate expected results in advance (Cowley)
• Signal involvement (senior leaders), including change advocacy through informal channels and deployment of resources through formal processes (Cowley)
• Establish behavioral and perceptual actualization (Hoover)
• Signal involvement (senior leaders), including change advocacy through informal channels and deployment of resources through formal processes (Cowley)
• Communicate specifics regarding expected results, time tables, and employee changes (Cowley)
• Recognize followers may respond to charismatic leader because of sense of trust and self-efficacy (Choi)
• Allow and officially sanction improvisation, which can provide new ways of completing tasks when resources are in limited supply (time, materials, staffing) (Leybourne) • Build high-quality leader-member exchange relationships through increased sharing of
information, mutual trust, and encouragement of employee participation (change process quality). When there are high-quality LMX relationships, employees are receptive to change (Van Dam et al.)
• Ensure senior manager signals are communicated in order to create sustained employee accountability (commitment to see the projects/changes through) (Cowley)
• Allow and sanction improvisations which can provide new ways of completing tasks when resources are in limited supply (time, materials, staffing) (Leybourne)
• Establish and sustain key antecedents to affective commitment to change (employee engagement): positive employee-manager relationships, job motivation, and role autonomy (Parish)
• Build and sustain positive leader-member exchange relationships through increased sharing of information, mutual trust, and encouraged employee participation (change process quality). (Van Dam et al.)
• Balance use between formal and informal channels necessary for sustainable accountability (Cowley)
• Control management mobility to manifest benefits of organizational learning, ensure consistency in leader style and prioritization, and ensure manager accountability for long-term outcomes (Soltani)
• Clarify purpose, unload “old baggage” (past frustrations with change processes), and sell problems, not solutions (Bridges)
more latitude in their job tasks, encourag-ing risk-takencourag-ing and innovative thinkencourag-ing (Kotter). The reward and performance appraisal systems must be realigned to directly support the vision and actions asso-ciated with the changes (stages 6 and 7) (Kotter).
Expanding and Refining Kotter’s Action Steps
In analyzing Kotter’s model from an orga-nizational practitioner’s perspective, the stages and action steps are clear, but broad. A business seeking to implement a strate-gic change initiative based on this original information could become frustrated with the gaps in explanation; the model is designed to provide a framework and start-ing points, rather than offer a step-by-step action plan. A meaningful consultation would need to incorporate further research and guidance based on those findings. To begin developing an updated and synthe-sized construct, it is beneficial to select studies offering cross-functional perspec-tives. Accordingly, the research review included two articles by corporate organi-zational development practitioners, three articles examining change management from the employee (follower) perspective, including one theoretical model, another two studies from the leader perspective, and finally, the presentation of a general theoretical model. The relevant findings are summarized in Table 2.
The research analysis yields informa-tion and insights that significantly enhance the original action steps and observations presented by Kotter. In Table 2, the relevant activities drawn from each research study are matched to the appropriate stage from Kotter’s model. As some actions would be important in more than one stage, these specific findings are listed in each appli-cable element. To emphasize that the goal is the identification of detailed implemen-tation steps, the matched findings are presented as directives (action items).
Current evaluations of successful change management determinants suggest there is a wealth of empirical support for the central eight-stage framework, and recommendations from individual studies
provide contextual dimension and practical activities that an organizational develop-ment practitioner could use in creating a comprehensive strategic change manage-ment intervention. One area not addressed in Kotter’s model or in the literature review was the factor of continuous or simultaneous change. To counter this potential limitation, Bridges’ recom-mended actions for “dealing with non-stop change” (2003, p. 106) are incorporated into the enhanced implementation steps for stage 8 (refer to Table 2). Clearly, not all change inter ventions are at the
organiza-tional level, and many change initiatives are taking place in concurrent time frames. A well-defined implementation plan must address this reality in many business environments.
While the linking of enhanced action steps with Kotter’s stages offers practical value in change management implemen-tation design (as reviewed in Table 2), it can be difficult to gain perspective on over-arching themes represented in the literature. In relation to the organizational development professional’s role, while the change process may move through progressive stages, the actual action steps must be managed in groups, with sub-processes addressed simultaneously. For example, leadership skills, behaviors, and actions are important in stage 1, but equally significant in the other seven stages. An organizational development professional would recommend projects that address leadership characteristics across all stages, developing training or coaching interven-tions that (a) improve language choice
(Brower, 2007), (b) bring awareness to employee antecedents impacting receptive-ness to change (Van Dam et al., 2008), and (c) provide practical action steps for communicating expected change results and measurements from the beginning (Cowley, 2007). Essential enhancements to the Kotter framework, as drawn from the research review, will thus be discussed through the lens of stakeholder groups. The three identified stakeholders are leadership (senior, middle, and front-line managers); employees (followers); and the organization (system).
Enhanced Action Steps: Leadership An important insight for leadership (see Figure 1, next page, for summary) is the acknowledgment managers have the most impact in generating change management success. From communicating the vision, modeling new behaviors, and signaling support for change, to rewarding employ-ees for innovation and improvisation, to building employee engagement—manag-ers carry the keys to unlock the benefits of transformational change. Organizational development professionals should devote considerable energy to the design of corporate-wide development tools and mea-sures that proactively develop core change management competencies.
These skill sets and behaviors include: 1. Communicating specifics regarding
expected change process results, includ-ing how performance will be measured, what resources will be committed, and projected employee changes (Cowley, 2007).
To begin developing an updated and synthesized construct,
it is beneficial to select studies offering cross-functional
perspectives. Accordingly, the research review included two
articles by corporate organizational development practitioners,
three articles examining change management from the
employee (follower) perspective, including one theoretical
model, another two studies from the leader perspective, and
finally, the presentation of a general theoretical model.
2. Using “building up” and “breaking down” language (Brower et al., 2007, p. 69) to generate understanding and commitment, where establish-ing understandestablish-ing is the fi rst priority. Breaking down language means negat-ing information no longer relevant or functional, then promoting disengage-ment from outdated commitdisengage-ments (Brower et al.). Building up language includes emphasizing information directly relevant to the new vision, then “affi rm[ing] the [company’s] mission and inspir[ing] commitment to it” (2007, p. 69).
3. Developing high-quality “leader-member exchange relationships” (Van Dam et al., 2008, p. 315) to increase employee receptivity to change.
High-quality relationships exist when the leader communicates relevant infor-mation frequently, follows through on actions to build trust, and empowers employees to participate in decisions, especially those relating to the change process (Van dam et al.).
4. Supporting innovation and improvisa-tion. Improvisation can lead to posi-tive results, where team responses are faster, processes are improved expe-rientially during the change process, and employees feel empowered in the change implementation (Leybourne, 2006). Managers must signal support for creative approaches and sanction activities that do not necessarily fall within normal formal channels and processes (Leybourne).
Enhanced Action Steps: Employees The proposed action steps for employees substantively mirror the action steps for leadership. Many of the leader recommen-dations were based on the evaluation of motivating followers. Charismatic leaders affect organizational outcomes through envisioning, empathy, and empowerment (Choi, 2006). They meet followers’ needs for achievement, affi liation, and referential power through such actions as demonstrat-ing innovative strategies to reach goals, setting high standards for employee and organizational performance, establishing trust and emotional bonds, and modeling behaviors others wish to imitate (Choi). Cowley’s research at Eli Lilly supports Choi’s components, indicating employees
Figure 1: Recommended Enhanced Action Steps to Kotter Model, Grouped by Stakeholder
LEADERSHIP
Communicate specifics regarding expected results Use “building up” and “breaking down” language for
understanding and commitment Be visible in communications, using formal and
informal channels Support improvisation
Sell problems, not solutions, for encompassing change Engage employees through purpose
and challenge
EMPLOYEES
Want specifics: expected results, impacts, timetables, and measures Look for signals from senior management before accepting accountability, investing,
and committing
Require an intact management team through the transformation Seek role autonomy, participation, a
relationship with managers, and connection to vision
ORGANIZAT ION
Shape effective management practices Train and coach managers to exhibit the
identified skills and behaviors Match reward systems to transformed vision,
processes, and leadership behaviors Support risk-taking and innovation Target the identified antecedents for
successful change management Use employee engagement strategies to
look to senior management for signals the change process is accepted. These signals include visible support for the initia-tive, action in coordination with a senior management coalition, and the use of informal and formal organization channels to initiate the allocation of resources for the change initiative (Cowley, 2007). When employees register these signals, they will commit to the process and take account-ability (assuming the envisioning, empathy, and empowerment activities have been successful).
These recommendations are all linked to employee engagement. Employee engagement is the level of employee com-mitment to the work and to the organi-zation, which is linked to motivation, satisfaction, and direction of energy. One specific employee engagement model, Gallup Q12, identifies twelve elements, or questions, that identify and measure levels of employee engagement (actively engaged, somewhat engaged, actively disengaged) (Asplund, 2007). Organizations pursuing change implementation success can take action to increase organizational levels of employee engagement, using the Gallup Q12 action process or another design. Many of the factors identified in Kotter’s model and through the research review, collectively viewed as antecedents to effective change management for leadership and employees, can be positively influenced through pro-active employee engagement design and implementation.
Enhanced Action Steps: Organization At the organization level, the analysis leads to summary conclusions used to develop company-wide interventions. The organiza-tional development professional, in exam-ining the action steps related to Leadership and Employee stakeholder groups, can build a comprehensive list of targets for organizational development; these goals, if successfully achieved, set up the company for success in many change implementa-tion processes, not simply for a specific strategic change initiative. This point is significant when considering the current business environment, where change
processes are occurring continuously and simultaneously.
The systemic intervention goals on the organizational development professional’s agenda might include: (1) Employee engagement program with correspond-ing management action planncorrespond-ing; (2) Re-tooled reward and recognition programs matching change management priorities, expected goals, and associated measures: and (3) Management training and coaching targeting communication messages, com-munication language, high-quality leader-member exchange relationships, job design
and worker autonomy, appropriate applica-tion of new reward/recogniapplica-tion systems, and team activities designed to promote innovation and improvisation.
It is important for organizations to rec-ognize that managers across the organiza-tion are at different levels of development. Successful change management, particu-larly in continuous changing organizations, hinges on systemic improvements in man-agement and leadership execution. Since some change initiatives are taking place at business unit or departmental levels, it is difficult to target management skills and behavior on a “case by case” basis—this strategy is inefficient and generally ineffec-tive. Concerted management development programs, focused on key change imple-mentation skill sets, will help ensure that change efforts are successful and organiza-tional performance in projects unrelated to change will also be enhanced.
Conclusion
Dynamic business conditions lead to rapid corporate change on several lev-els. Typically, organizations have trained managers in change process models rather than change implementation frameworks. Given the track record for failed change interventions, there is an opportunity for organizational development professionals to provide effective guidance through the application of a comprehensive change implementation model, Kotter’s eight-stage process. Recent research supports
Kotter’s design and provides insights into more detailed action steps that can ensure appropriate and relevant application of the outlined process. Organizational develop-ment professionals can use this informa-tion to design concurrent development interventions for leadership, employee, and organization (system) stakeholders. A proactive approach to change management can potentially improve implementation and increase the percentage of successful change initiatives—saving organizations money, sustaining employee engagement and retention, and ensuring business com-petitive advantage.
At the organization level, the analysis leads to summary
conclusions used to develop company-wide interventions.
The organizational development professional, in examining
the action steps related to Leadership and Employee
stakeholder groups, can build a comprehensive list of targets
for organizational development; these goals, if successfully
achieved, set up the company for success in many change
implementation processes, not simply for a specific strategic
change initiative. This point is significant when considering
the current business environment, where change processes are
occurring continuously and simultaneously.
References
Asplund, J., Fleming, J., & Harter, J. (2007). Return on investment in engag-ing employees. The Gallup Management Journal Online, p. 1-2. Retrieved from http://gmj.gallup.com.
Bridges, W. (2003). Managing Transitions (2nd Ed.). Cambridge, MA, Perseus Books.
Brower, H., Fiol, C.M., & Emrich, C. (2007). The language of leaders. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(3), 67-80. Choi, J. (2006). A motivational theory of
charismatic leadership: Envisioning, empathy, and empowerment. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(1), 24-43.
Cowley, B. (2007). Why change succeeds: An organization self-assessment. Organization Development Journal, 25(1), 25-30.
Hoover, J.D. (2008). Cognitive mapping and diagnostic aspects of organizational change. Organization Development Journal, 26(1), 37-44.
Kotter, J. (2007). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.hbr.org.
Leybourne, S. (2006). Managing impro-visation within change management: Lessons from UK financial services. The Services Industries Journal, 26(1), 73-95. Parish, J., Cadwallader, S., & Busch, P.
(2008). Want to, need to, ought to: Employee commitment to organiza-tional change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 21(1), 32-52. Schein, E. (2004). Organizational culture
and leadership (3rd Ed.). San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
Soltani, E., Lai, P., & Gharneh, N.S. (2005). Breaking through barriers to TQM effectiveness: Lack of commitment of upper-level management. Total Quality Management, 16(8-9), 1009-1021. Van Dam, K., & Oreg, S. (2008). Daily
work contexts and resistance to organisational change: The role of leader–member exchange, development climate, and change process. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57(2), 313-334.
Yacovone, L. (2007). Organizational design for a supply chain transformation: Best practice at Johnson and Johnson Health Care Systems, Inc. Organization Development Journal, 25(3), 103-109.
Nicole Stragalas is an external OD consultant in Phoenix, AZ specializing in leadership develop-ment and employee engagedevelop-ment. With over 15 years of experience as a senior manager and advi-sor, she has developed national programs in service, sales, and quality assurance in the health-care and banking industries. She has her SPHR certification and is a Six Sigma Green Belt. Her dual masters degrees were earned at the University of Florida; currently, she’s working on her PhD in I/O Psychology through the University of Phoenix. She can be reached at [email protected].
