Answer & Explanation:Change Model AssignmentAssume you are the Sales and Marketing Director for Sea Treasures, a small group of well-known retail stores specializing in exotic sea life and high-end accessories for aquariums.  The company has been in business for over 50 years, but the customer base is shrinking, sales are slow, and you are faced with reducing staff and closing stores. Sea Treasures will be out of business within a year if innovative and creative changes are not made quickly.  After many months, you have finally been able to convince the owner that the only way to sustain the business and increase revenue is to create an Internet Website to sell the large inventory of aquarium decorator items (currently gathering dust in a costly warehouse) .  This will be a short-term, small scale change.  Six months later, you will expand the Website to sell live sea creatures such as tropical fish and small sea turtles online, which is a long-term, large-scale change.You face many challenges in this transformational change initiative, beginning with strong employee resistance, new technology, and shipping methods.  Many small businesses have been faced with these same issues, and have made the transition successfully.  Consider the humble beginnings of Amazon, and look where they are today.  Selecting the best change model for this business, and implementing it step by step provides the foundation for creating an exciting new company.In 3 – 5 pages, explain which change model you would follow for the short-term change and which you would follow for the long-term change.  Provide rationale for your decision and discuss the effects that these changes would have on the employees, managers, and executives within the organization.  Include at least three references and follow standard APA formatting for your paper.Must reference chapter material below:Weiss, J.W. (2016). Organizational Change (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Implementing Change
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:
1. Summarize the nine steps in Ackerman and Anderson’s road map for change.
2. Analyze Cummings and Worley’s five dimensions of leading and managing change.
3. Describe how to align an organization with its new vision and future state.
4. Explain how roles/relationships and interventions are used to implement change.
5. Examine ways to interact with and influence stakeholders.
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 103
12/15/15 9:42 AM
Change is the law of life and those who look only to
the past or present are certain to miss the future.
—John F. Kennedy
Pretest Questions
1. True/False: Celebrating the implementation of change is not something a serious
leader should encourage; changes should be carried out in a professional manner.
2. True/False: Motivating change involves creating readiness for and overcoming resistance to change.
3. True/False: In order to align an organization with its new vision, organizational
culture should remain steady and predictable.
4. True/False: Organizational change is most often led by the highest line of authority,
which is the leadership change team.
5. True/False: Change can be successfully implemented without collaboration if the
plan is a strong one.
6. True/False: Interventions to implement change can consist of reinventing specific
company structures such as its strategies, culture, and supply chain.
Alan Mulally was selected to lead Ford in 2006 after he was bypassed as CEO at Boeing, where
he had worked and was expected to become CEO. Insiders and top-level managers at Ford, some
of whom had expected to become CEO, were initially suspicious and then outraged when Mulally
was hired. They questioned what someone from the airplane industry would know about the car
business (Kiley, 2009).
Chair William (Bill) Clay Ford, Jr.—who selected Mulally as CEO—told Ford’s officers that the
company needed a fresh perspective and a shake-up, especially since it had lost $14.8 billion in
2008—the most in its 105-year history—and had burned through $21.2 billion, or 61%, of its
cash (Kiley, 2009). Because Ford knew that the company’s upper echelon culture was closed,
bureaucratic, and rejected outsiders and new ways of thinking, he was not surprised by his
officers’ reactions. However, Ford’s managers had no idea that the company was fighting for its
life. To succeed, Mulally would need Chair Ford’s full endorsement and support, and he got it.
The company’s biggest cultural challenge was to break down the silos that various executives
had built. As we will discuss more in Chapter 4, silos are specific processes or departments in an
organization that work independently of each other without strong communication between or
among them. A lack of communication can often stifle productivity and innovation, and this was
exactly what was happening at Ford.
Mulally devised a turnaround strategy and developed it into the Way Forward Plan. The plan
centralized and modernized plants to handle several models at once, to be sold in several
markets. The plan was designed to break up the fiefdoms of isolated cultures, in which leaders
independently developed and decided where to sell cars. Mulally’s plan also kept managers
in positions for longer periods of time to deepen their expertise and improve consistency of
operations. The manager who ran the Mazda Motor affiliate commented, “I’m going into my
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 104
12/15/15 9:42 AM
fourth year in the same job. I’ve never had such consistency of purpose before” (as cited in Kiley,
2009, “Meetings About Meetings,” para. 2).
Mulally’s leadership style involved evaluating and analyzing a situation using data and facts and
then earning individuals’ support with his determination (Taylor, 2009). Mulally put a stop to managers’ meetings in which maneuvering for power occurred more than performance-based decision
making. He led by his mantra, “One Team, One Plan, One Goal.” The era of politicking and power
plays among officers was over. Mulally’s style and method was also effective with the unions; negotiations were tough but realistic.
Mulally also created a constant stream of data where all managers saw weekly reports of
Ford’s global operations that compared executives’ performance against profit targets.
Located in the Taurus and Continental rooms near Mulally’s office, the walls showed colorcoded bar charts, graphs, and tables that reflected information on Ford’s businesses in South
America, Russia, China, and other parts of the world. Red indicated divisions that weren’t
hitting profit projections; green indicated those that were on target; and yellow indicated that
performance could go up or down. Updated numbers were validated by pre-earning quarterly
audits. These openly visible charts and graphs created a culture of transparency where no
executive could avoid the truth. Mulally said numbers helped executives anticipate issues and
adjust strategy (Kiley, 2009).
AP Photo/Roberto Pfeil/dapd
Alan Mulally’s leadership was integral to enacting
positive change at Ford.
From the start of his tenure at Ford,
Mulally declared, “I am here to save an
American and global icon” (as cited in
Taylor, 2009, “A New Corporate Culture,”
para. 6). He was performance-driven, just
as he was at Boeing. He once stated, “I live
for Thursday morning at 8 a.m.” (Synder,
2010, para. 3), which was when he met
with direct reports and led by using
his Business Plan Review. Ford’s four
profit centers—the Americas, Europe,
Asia–Pacific, and Ford Credit—reported
out first, followed by 12 functional
areas, including product development,
manufacturing, human resources, and
government relations.
These meetings did not include premeetings or briefing books (Taylor, 2009), and Mulally stated
that the difficult questions he asked were never intended to embarrass anyone. He wanted people
to share information that could produce results in the marketplace. Neither BlackBerrys nor
distracting side conversations were allowed at these meetings. Mutual respect was demanded.
Mulally removed vice presidents from the meetings when they wouldn’t stop talking (Taylor, 2009).
Joe Hinrichs, a manufacturing supervisor, said, “Alan brings infectious energy. This is a person
people want to follow” (as cited in Taylor, 2009, “A New Corporate Culture,” para. 3). Mulally’s
practice and insistence on transparency through open and continuous communication with and
among all professionals at Ford was based on his assertion that “everyone has to know the plan,
its status, and areas that need special attention” (as cited in Taylor, 2009, “A New Corporate
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 105
12/15/15 9:43 AM
Culture,” para. 2). For example, Mulally was resolute that Ford reduce its dependence on light
trucks, since gas is costly. Mulally’s openness gained him support across the company, even with
his candor and straightforwardness.
“Team Mulally,” as the CEO and his followers have been called, has succeeded in turning around
“a very sick company” (Kiley, 2009). The firm never accepted a government bailout like the other
U.S. auto companies. Ford generated $144 billion in revenue in 2014, down from $147 billion in
2013. The company sold 2.842 million vehicles in 2014 (Statista, n.d.).
The company positioned Mark Fields as the new CEO in 2014 following Mulally’s 8-year, highly
successful run. Although Ford’s competitive position is reportedly stronger than it has been since
the late Taurus/Explorer years of the 1990s (Taylor, 2014), there are still concerns ahead for the
company. First, Fields is not Mulally, who stands as one of the most popular CEOs the company
has known (Taylor, 2014). Despite this and the fact that Fields may be more direct and not as
charismatic as Mulally, he knows the company and industry well.
Whether Fields can meet the vehicle-related challenges of the digital and globalization age while
keeping the company from sliding back into a politically charged environment remains to be
seen. Fields has said that he faces the challenge of transitioning Ford’s vehicles from the “ultimate
industrial product” into the “ultimate technology product” (as cited in Nusca, 2015, para. 3).
Mulally’s “One Team, One Plan, One Goal” helped unify the company’s international operations, but
Ford’s sales show that it still is a “North American–centric automaker” (Ford Online, 2008) whose
profits stem mainly from the truck business (it earned $8.781 billion in 2013 pretax profit on North
American auto operations and lost $1.228 billion in the rest of the world [Taylor, 2014]).
The company must also be vigilant with regard to its corporate social responsibilities and legal
advertising. It was twice found guilty of falsely increasing the window-sticker fuel economy
ratings by 7 miles per gallon on several of its models (Taylor, 2014.). Fields must also ensure
that the company’s strategies, culture, and mind-set stay competitive and do not revert to preMulally practices. Fields has stated, “We want people to challenge custom and question tradition.
We want them to not take anything for granted” (as cited in Nusca, 2015, para. 6).
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. What went wrong at Ford that led to the competitive and organizational problems
that existed before Mulally came aboard?
2. What specific change (leadership) practices did Mulally employ to help turn Ford
3. From your own reading, experience, and online research, what do you think
Mulally’s successor should do to make Ford vehicles more competitive?
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 106
12/15/15 9:43 AM
Section 3.1
Road Map for Change
Introduction: Getting From Here to There
Implementing major organizational changes is neither automatic nor mechanical. Transitioning to a new vision and future state is a process, not an event. During any change phase,
organizational leaders and change teams guide and shape people’s mind-sets and behaviors
to adopt new ways of thinking, apply different strategies, reinvigorate the culture, and align
internal systems. Leadership skills, intelligence, courage, and a high capacity for collaboration are required. The bottom line is that the success of any organizational change depends in
large degree on implementation.
Assessment allows change leaders to better assess the reality of the situation and a possible
future, whereas action planning allows changes to have a higher rate of success (Warrick,
2011). Although both factors are important in the change process, many OD practitioners
consider implementation to be most important. Without successful implementation, the
change process doesn’t matter.
The implementation process begins once the urgency for change is communicated, the organization is assessed for the type of change needed, and a plan is communicated throughout
the organization. In the following section, we present a road map that highlights the implementation phases of large-scale changes.
3.1 Road Map for Change
Corporations and organizations that embark on large complicated changes, as Ford did and
continues to do, depend on a road map from which other plans are generated. Chapters 1 and 2
discussed two such road maps: Kotter’s eight-step method and Cooperrider’s four dimensions
in appreciative inquiry. Here we discuss Ackerman and Anderson’s (2010) road map, which
overlaps with the other two. Figure 3.1 shows distinct implementation phases that combine
learning from all the steps to help leaders move to their desired destinations.
The change process model offers a road map without dictating the roads to take (Ackerman &
Anderson, 2010). It is up to leaders to decide the paths they will take based on their individual
circumstances. In this regard, the road map can be used as a “thinking discipline” rather than
a prescribed way of forcing an organization’s behavior into a plan and timeline. Used this way,
leaders can have flexibility as they navigate the organizational, technical, human, and cultural
dimensions of their end-to-end change process.
Even with this process model, transformational changes tend to have a life of their own
(Ackerman & Anderson, 2010). Since both the change process and outcome emerge and
evolve—that is, both process and outcome evolve unexpectedly and sometimes become a new
or even better development than predicted (Ackerman & Anderson, 2010)—leaders generally
launch a planned change without knowing exactly where they are going, even though they have
described a clear end or future state. This is the case because markets, the economy, people, and
many other factors are constantly changing. Still, leaders of transformational changes use road
maps and plans to guide their implementation.
Leaders must let go of old ways in order to move forward. Any implementation plan is only as
sound as the change strategy, and if all other plan variables are consciously and conscientiously
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 107
12/15/15 9:43 AM
Section 3.1
Road Map for Change
Figure 3.1: Road map for change
The change process shown in this model is continuous and can allow leaders to implement change and
organizational reach goals.
Source: Ackerman, L. A., & Anderson, D. (2001). Awake at the wheel: Moving beyond change management to conscious change leadership. OD
Practitioner, 33(3), 46. Copyright© BeingFirst, Inc. Reprinted with permission from the authors.
enacted. Enhanced commitment and excitement, combined with the collective intelligence
of key decision makers, are essential requirements for a transformational change’s success
(Ackerman & Anderson, 2009).
Mulally’s example as a change leader reflects many of the stages presented in Figure 3.1.
While stages 1 through 4 were discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, it is helpful to briefly summarize some of them, paying particular attention to the implementation process. It is also
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 108
12/15/15 9:43 AM
Road Map for Change
Section 3.1
important to note that all stages in any change road map are in some way related to, and in
preparation for, the change’s implementation. In fact, the implementation’s success depends
on how effectively the previous stages were developed and carried out.
Planning and implementing a large organizational change is, in practice, not a linear or
mechanical process. As we said at the start: Change is not an event but a process. Some stages
loop back to previous ones as surprises and emergent changes occur.
Preparing to Lead the Change
Leaders generally embark on a change effort because of a wake-up call (Ackerman & Anderson,
2010). In the case of Ford’s turnaround, it was Bill Ford who watched the company’s stock,
cash, and competitiveness tumble. He called Mulally to lead the charge to change because the
officers in the company were not moved to take urgent action.
Mulally’s mission, then, was to turn Ford around. To prepare to lead the change, he learned
the reality of the situation by studying the facts, numbers, and details. He next began to create a case for the change while identifying the desired outcomes. During this time he was also
building his capability to lead the change, ensuring that he had the relevant skill sets, expertise, and experience (Ackerman & Anderson, 2010). Because he had learned how to deal with
enterprise-wide change at Boeing, Mulally seemed ready for the task. He also was charged
with clarifying an overall change strategy and creating an infrastructure that had the conditions to support the change effort. In this regard, he devised a turnaround strategy—the Way
Forward Plan—that centralized and modernized plants to handle several models at once and
that sold vehicles in several markets.
Creating Vision, Commitment, and Capability
Mulally’s overall vision was to return Ford to its preeminent status in the global auto industry.
His commitment and persistence were evident in his statement that he “expects the very best
of himself and others, [and] seeks to understand rather than to be understood” (as cited in
Taylor, 2009, “A New Corporate Culture,” para. 3). As Bill Ford once said about him, “Alan is
not a very complicated person. He is very driven” (as cited in Taylor, 2009, “A New Corporate
Culture,” para. 3).
Mulally built the necessary capability by reorienting the top-level global officers and 12 functional area managers to the company’s long-term goals and short-term operating objectives.
He ensured this alignment by regularly communicating to all managers via weekly operational reports that compared executives’ performance against profit targets.
Assessing the Situation
Mulally never stopped assessing Ford’s situation—its financial position, sales, marketing
status, and capabilities in relation to global competitors and in regard to his vision to get
Ford back to the top of the industry. In the turnaround described in the opening scenarios,
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 109
12/15/15 9:43 AM
Road Map for Change
Section 3.1
Mulally’s “One Team, One Plan, One Goal” was the road toward his desired state of seeing Ford
as the top global competitor in as many vehicle classes as possible. Although he depended
on his managers’ input to help determine vehicles’ design requirements based on customer
demand, as leader he ensured that the company’s culture did not return to the splintered
state of bickering and isolated control based on different officers’ preferences.
In turnarounds like Ford’s, Mulally’s method reflected a continuous examination of the ongoing impact of his changes. His use of continually changing data, information, and analysis,
interpreted at the Thursday morning meetings, was the basis for analyzing his vision’s impact,
the company’s goal, and its global operational systems.
Plan, Organize, and Implement the Change
Mulally’s plan centered on the implementation of his “One Team, One Plan, One Goal” mantra.
Put simply, that plan was:
Focus on the Ford brand (“nobody buys a house of brands”); compete in every
market segment with carefully defined products (small, medium, and large;
cars, utilities, and trucks); market fewer nameplates (40 worldwide by 2013,
down from 97 worldwide in 2006); and become best in class in quality, fuel
efficiency, safety, and value. (as cited in Taylor, 2009, “A New Corporate Culture,” para. 4)
This plan was easier to outline than achieve. When Mulally first arrived at Ford, he said it was
the toughest environment he had seen, but he believed that the company would succeed if it
adhered to its plan (Taylor, 2009).
Implementing the plan required preparing for all t …
Purchase answer to see full

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHELP