anas alam faizli, master of proj mgmt: assignment change management, emom5103

Assignment Questions EMOM5103 – Change Management May 2010 Dr David Goh Tee Teck

Student Name: Anas Alam Faizli Student ID No. CGS 00385017 Center of Graduate Studies MPM Intake: January 2009

MAY SEMESTER 2010

CHANGE MANAGEMENT – EMOM5103

ASSIGNMENT (50%)

LECTURER

DR DAVID GOH TEE TECK

STUDENT

ANAS BIN ALAM FAIZLI



ASSIGNMENT (50%)

INSTRUCTIONS: ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN PART A AND PART B.

PART A

Question 1

From manager’s perspective, explain the nature of organizational change. List FOUR

(4) changes and briefly explain each of the changes.

Heraclitus quoted that change is the only constant. How can he be wrong? Change is defined

as to alter; to make different; to cause to pass from one state to another; to change the

position, character or appearance of a thing; to change the countenance. Change in a process

is an observed difference in form, quality, or state over time in an organizational entity, such

as an individual’s job, a work group, strategy, a product, or the overall organization (Van de

Ven & Poole, 1995).

Organizational changes are paramount to the lifeline of an organization; it is a process by

which organization moves from their present state to a desired state to achieve effectiveness.

Significant organizational change occurs, for example, when an organization changes its

overall strategy for success, adds or removes a major section or practice, and/or wants to

change the very nature by which it operates. It also occurs when an organization evolves

through various life cycles, just like people must successfully evolve through life cycles.

For organizations to develop, they often must undergo significant change at various points in

their development. That's why the topic of organizational change and development has

become widespread in communications about business, organizations, leadership and

management.

Managers continually make efforts to accomplish successful and significant change as it is

inherent in their jobs. Some are very good at this effort, while others continually struggle and

fail. That's often the difference between people who thrive in their roles and those that get

shuttled around from job to job, ultimately settling into a role where they're frustrated and

ineffective.



John Hayes (2010) suggested that there are three main categories of organizations that may

not experience periods of discontinued change:

1. Self organizing and continuously changing learning organizations as identified by

Brown and Eisenhardt. Intel, Wal-Mart, 3M, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft are good

examples of companies that have the ability to change rapidly and continuously. As

changes have become an everyday thing, these companies turn it into a habit and thus

changes are made easy.

2. Companies operating in niche markets or slow-moving sectors where they have yet to

encounter the requirement of change. These companies are yet to encounter the kind

of environmental change require them to transform their deep structures. As they feel

there is no need for a change this companies will face resistant when trying to

implement changes.

3. Organizations that is able to continue functioning without transforming themselves

because they have sufficient ‘fat’ to absorb the inefficiencies associated with

misalignment. This organizations have big profits and possess a very strong market

presence and this organization cannot feel their inefficiencies thus hinder their ability

to sense that they are in need of a change.

However, beside these exceptions, most organizations experience change as a pattern of a

punctuated equilibrium. Gersick (1991) has studied change models in different domains and

has suggested that the paradigm has the following components: ‘relatively long periods of

stability (equilibrium), punctuated by compact periods of qualitative, metamorphic change

(revolution). The essence of this punctuated equilibrium paradigm is that systems evolved

through the alternation of periods of equilibrium. Academicians like Pettigrem (1987) and

Tushman et al (1986) has supported the punctuated equilibrium paradigm.

Every organization has their different pattern which we can categorize into several different

change types. Nadler and Tushman (1995) make the point that incremental changes can also

be large changes and may not necessarily be small. These are in reference to the resources

required and needed and the impact to the people involved. This can be defined as

incremental change. According to the punctuated equilibrium paradigm, incremental change

happens when the industry is in the equilibrium and focus to do things better through a



process of continuous tinkering, adaptation and monitoring. Incremental changes focus on

individual components, with the goal of maintaining or regaining congruence (Nadler and

Tushman 1989). The gradualist paradigm however suggested that incremental change can be

cumulative and after a period of time can lead or cause transformational change.

Transformational change as suggested by the punctuated equilibrium paradigm, happens

during the periods of disequilibrium. Academicians refer to this as either transformational or

revolutionary. However, most writers such as Tichy and Devanna (1986), Kotter (1999) opt

for the name transformational. Transformational change is based on new relationships and

dynamics within the industry that may undermine basic core competencies, and questions the

organizations purpose. It might necessarily be a better things but it is about doing things

differently and to transform and change the entire organizations strategy and method of

business. An example would be IBM which was only making machines and computer

hardware and was focusing their entire business strategy to providing the hardware required

for the computer. After Microsoft came into the picture IBM tried to challenge the operating

system industry by elevating its own in-house Lotus Smartsuite. This is a big transformation

move for IBM and various change methods had to be taken for this to be effective.

Tushman and Nadler suggested that most companies do not only go through periods of

continuous incremental and discontinuous transformational change. These companies will

see that the pattern of change repeats itself with some degree of regularity and different

industry will see different period cycles. However, in general all industry will see that the

rate of change increase and the time between this period of discontinuity decrease. An

example in the cement industry it takes 30 years for a change to occur – this is because of the

stall in the cement technology but in the automobile industry changes occur in every 5 years.

At the moment the information technology industry will be seeing the fastest change which

sees changes every year as the technology is growing very fast. In a way this relates to the

technology movement of where the industry is in. The faster the technology changes the

faster the need for a change occurs.

It is imperative that these organizations adapt with these changes or become obsolete and fail

to supply the demand to the rising markets. Forester and Kaplan (2001) provide chilling

evidence of the consequences of failing to adapt. A case study was done referring to the



Forbes top 100 companies between 1917 and 1987. Of the 100 original companies, 18

survived until 1987 and 61 of those companies no longer existed which suggest their failure

to adapt to changes and market forces or sentiment which is ever changing. Their ability to

change affects the entire organization which subsequently dooms the organization to failure.

There are infinite reasons why an organization needs to change. An organization that wishes

to prevail and succeed will need to anticipate the requirement to change. There are changes

which can be anticipated and some changes which are totally unanticipated. An example is

like when new regulations are introduced which affects the way organization do businesses,

this is normally anticipated as new public policies take time to be implemented and the

business communities are well aware of the changes to take place. Unanticipated changes are

like the after effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks or the SARS epidemic. The post effect of

this incidents and happenings calls for new market forces and demands which lead to

requirement of change for industry that are serving these markets. Example for SARS would

be the vaccination and health industry. This can be seen as an opportunity to change to reap

the benefits from these happenings.

Some organizations prevail, adapt and do better dealing with anticipated changes and some

are not. These organizations that have anticipated change will always seek out potential

threats and opportunities by being proactive. Some also have special departments looking out

for new opportunities and threats which require the organization to adapt to these changes.

They are always in the lookout and are careful for all major happenings. Some other

organizations are just reactive and did not anticipate these changes and when the time for

change come, they fail to react or resort to last minute desperate measure of changes which is

unplanned and this subsequently will create bad results. Failing to plan is planning to fail. If

the organizations is prepared up-front the options and resorts available at the company

disposal is more and well thought out and helps to make an informed planned decision.

The smaller the organization the easier it is to adapt to changes which in some cases might

not be true also, depending on how organized the organization is. However, generally the

size of the organization will have an impact on how fast a change implementation can be

executed. If a change is unanticipated managers will have less option to choose from as they

will have inadequate time for a good planning. Careful planning requires time and this will



not be the luxury that they will have if they do not anticipate the changes upfront. Time will

also be required as these will involve many people. A good change process will require

every body’s effort and it takes time. Participation from employees and employers will

definitely assist in adapting the changes, which however does need time, the more time they

have the better it will be. An unanticipated change will also be facing problems as they do

not have the luxury to experiment the changes they wanted to implement. If they fail when

changing to another state, it will take time for them to change to another state and once they

do this, they will likely fall behind from other organizations which have already change to

adapt to this need for change. Another point to note is when technology and market shifts. If

the organization changes to this need at a later point, the market demands will definitely go

for those organizations that can offer the supply earlier and the organization will lose out to

the those organizations that has adapted changes earlier on.

Thus, it is advantageous for organization to anticipate change which will lead them for a

better planned change process.

In summary, there are organizations which are proactive and anticipate changes and there are

also organizations which are reactive and did not anticipate changes. Combining the two

dimensions of changes which have been elaborated before lead to four (4) types of changes as

identified by Nadler et al (1995):

1. Tuning (Incremental and Proactive)

Tuning is a change that occurs when there is no imperative requirement for a change in a

proactive organization. It is just like when you send your engine for tuning. You do not

need to change for a new engine but all you need is for the mechanics to do some tuning

to the engine to suit some minimal changes that you need. Tuning involves looking for

better ways to achieve / maintain the current strategic vision of an organization. For an

example, it involves improving policies, methods, procedures, introducing new

technologies, or even redesigning processes in place to reduce cost, time to market or

even to enrich the intellectual skills by developing more people with the required

competencies. Normally tuning is done internally in order for the changes to be minor

adjustment to maintain the alignment that has already existed between the internal

elements of the organizations and between its strategy and the external environment.



2. Adaptation (Incremental and Reactive)

Adaptation occurs when there are pressing demands from external for a change which is

incremental and is an adaptive response to these demands. It happens to reactive

organizations. It can either be a response to a successful new marketing strategy adopted

by a competitor or to a change in the availability of key resources. For an example when

Blackberry comes out with its smart phone that has the business connectivity to the

internet that attracts the corporate market, Nokia, Ericcsson and other phone makers rivals

out to make the same smart phone that has the same capability to match or even outwit

Blackberry’s capability. If these organizations do not change or move towards a change

process, it will definitely lose out to their competitors which are offering better products.

Another good example to note when Mars reduce the price of its confectionary products,

Nestle is force to respond and adapt change either by reducing its price or offering other

variants of products which can challenge the cheaper Mars product. This change is about

doing things in a fundamentally different way.

While tuning and adaptation can involve minor or major changes, they are changes that occur

in the same time frame which are bounded by existing parameters. Tuning and adaptation

does not involve doing entirely different things like changing the playing field or breaking the

rules of the game. It is more like changing the way a particular game is played. It is also not

major and involves many parameters as opposed to re-orientation and re-creation which

entirely change the whole game and shift the goal post. This will be further elaborated

below.

3. Re-orientation (Transformational and Proactive)

Reorientation change happens in a proactive organization that most of the times have

anticipated for these changes to occur. It is a redefinition of the organization which is

initiated in anticipation of future opportunities or threats. These organizations are ready

to adapt these changes. This however can involve a big transformational change but since

it is already anticipated it can be done graciously and gracefully. Small change can be

done in a smaller time period but a big major transformational change will require more

time and perseverance. A good example are like of Nestle in the mid-1980s where they

embarked on a major change programme to ensure that they are sensitive and remain



align to the market forces over the medium term. Nestle has initiated a top-down review

to decide which businesses it should be in and which business it should drop out. It has

also re-engineered the supply chain across the business and performed a bottom-up

analysis of the added value contributed by their main activity. These changes are major

and involved everybody in the organization. However, since these changes are well

planned out and are not obvious to all as it is an anticipated change, and are not an urgent

confirmed required change, it will take hard work to create the sense of urgency and

acceptance by the organization for the willingness to change.

4. Re-creation (Transformational and Reactive)

Re-creation is a change in a reactive organization. It involves transforming the

organization through the fast and simultaneous change of all its basic elements. Nadler

and Tushman (1995) suggested that it inevitably involves organizational frame breaking

and big changes and removal of some elements which is already in the system which can

be disorienting. An example was the change by Lee Iacocca when he became the new

CEO at Chrysler. He executed a process of revolutionary change that involved replacing

almost all of the senior management team, withdraw the company from their familiar

large car market but not making the margins and divesting in many foreign operations.

This change is like re-inventing the wheels. It takes a lot of efforts and involved the

entire organization. This change requires everybody in the organization to move together

towards the change process and need high level of commitment from all participants of

the change process.

Of the four type of changes, the most common is incremental both tuning and adaptation.

However, it is also common for an organization to be in different type of changes at one time.

An organization can be doing tuning and also at the same time doing re-creation or even

having re-orientation and at the same time doing the adaptation or any combination of the

four (4) category type of changes.

The more the manager understand these change requirements and process the better the

organization will fare and perform compared to its competitors.



Question 2

Describe the disciplines of the learning organization as expounded by Peter Senge. List

FIVE (5) disciplines and briefly explain each of the discipline.

According to Pedler et al. (1997) A learning organization is the term given to a company that

facilitates the learning of its members and continuously transforms itself. Learning

organizations develop as a result of the pressures facing modern organizations and enables

them to remain competitive in the business environment. Pedler et al. (1997) also emphasize

that change should not happen just for the sake of change, but should be well thought out

According to Peter Senge (1990: 3) learning organizations are:

…organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they

truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective

aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together.

The very reason behind this is that only organizations that can survive rapid change are those

organizations that are flexible, adaptive and productive. For this to happen the organization

need to be able to discover and utilize people’s commitment and capacity to learn at all levels

using the learning organization model.

Employees normally have the ability and capacity to learn, the question is if the organization

allows them the environment and structures in which they function which are often not

conducive to a learning organization. Furthermore, they might lack the tools and guidance to

make sense of the situations that they face. Organizations that set themselves as a learning

organization will be able to continually expand their capacity and embrace changes.

Peter Senge in his book “The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization”

outlines the five disciplines which he said to be converging to innovate learning

organizations. They are:

1. Systems thinking – the cornerstone of the learning organization

System thinking is the conceptual cornerstone of Senge’s approach. It is the discipline that

interfaces and integrates the other four disciplines, combining it into a coherent body of

theory and practice. Peter Senge also argues that a better appreciation of systems will lead to



a more appropriate action. People normally tend to focus on certain parts or components and

fail to seeing the whole, and also fail to see the organization as a dynamic process. ‘We learn

best from our experience, but we never directly experience the consequences of many of our

most important decisions’, Peter Senge (1990: 23) argues with regard to organizations.

Peter Senge also advocates to see everything as a whole, and not to see solutions that are only

close by. We tend to focus and think that cause and effect is normally relatively near to one

another. However it might not always necessarily be the case. Classically we look to actions

that produce improvements in a relatively short time span. However, when viewed in systems

terms short-term improvements often involve very significant long-term costs. Some of the

problems which we fail to realize is that part of the problems comes from the nature of the

feedback or output we receives. This somethings are not true. Later when we resolve the

problem or think that the problem have been resolved but in reality it remains a problem

which can later grow into a bigger problem. A small action snowballs, with more and more

and still more of the same, resembling compound interest’ (Senge 1990: 81).

Another example is that by cutting advertising budgets, we will see the benefit in terms of

cost saving. In the short run, it might be little impact but on a longer term the decline in the

demands for goods and services might severely been affected.

Peter Senge (1990: 92) concludes:

The systems viewpoint is generally oriented toward the long-term view. That’s why delays

and feedback loops are so important. In the short term, you can often ignore them; they’re

inconsequential. They only come back to haunt you in the long term.

Peter Senge also strongly advocates the use of ‘systems maps’ – diagrams that show the key

elements of systems and how they connect. However, people often have a problem ‘seeing’

systems, and it takes work to acquire the basic building blocks of systems theory, and to

apply them to your organization. On the other hand, failure to understand system dynamics

can lead us into ‘cycles of blaming and self-defense and the failure of an organization to

survive.



In summary, systems thinking is about seeing and viewing the system as a whole, a

conceptual framework for providing connections between units and members. It is the shared

process of reflection, re-evaluation, action and reward.

2. Personal mastery

‘Organizations learn only through individuals who learn. Individual learning does not

guarantee organizational learning. But without it no organizational learning occurs’ (Senge

1990: 139). Personal mastery is the discipline of mastering ourselves. Meaning is to

continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision. It goes beyond competence and

skills, although it involves them. It also goes beyond spiritual opening, although it involves

spiritual growth. Personal mastery is about a special kind of preciency in the subject matter.

People with high personal mastery live in a consistently learning mode. In definition

personal mastery means being a master or a subject matter, but this is not the case as Peter

Senge would want to explain. It is about the process of learning. People with personal

mastery remain aware of their ignorance, their fallbacks, and their incompetence. This will

lead them to a journey of self improvement. Paradoxical? Only for those who do not see the

‘journey is the reward’. (Senge 1990: 142)

In summary personal mastery is a call for individuals to achieve their maximum potentials as

experts in their fields and to address opportunities and problems in new and creative ways.

3. Mental models

These are ‘deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures and images that

influence how we understand the world and how we take action’ (Senge 1990: 8). Mental

model starts with looking beyond the mirror and learning to unearth our internal reflection of

the world, bring it out to the surface and hold to them. It includes the ability to converse and

carry learningful conversations that balance inquiry and ideas where people expose and are

articulate about their thinking ability.

In order for organizations to develop a capacity to work with mental models then people will

necessarily learn new skills and develop new orientations. Moving the organization in the

right direction entails working to transcend the sorts of internal politics and game playing that



dominates traditional organizations. In other words it means fostering openness (Senge 1990:

273-286).

Mental models are culture and assumptions that shape how an organization’s members

approach their work and its relationship to society, relationship of employees to the

organization, peers and clients.

4. Building shared vision

Peter Senge starts from the position that if any one idea about leadership has inspired

organizations for thousands of years, ‘it’s the capacity to hold a share picture of the future we

seek to create’ (1990: 9). This kind of vision is very uplifting and it encourage

experimentation and innovation. It is also crucial that this will foster a sense of the long-

term, which is something that is fundamental to Peter Senge’s fifth discipline.

It is imperative to harness the idea that people excel and learn, not because they are told to

but because they want to. It is a vision that is shared by everybody in the organization.

However, many leaders failed to translate their personal visions into shared visions that are

shared by everybody in the organization. Their ability lacks the discipline of translating

vision into a shared vision. Providing a cookbook that needs to be followed defeats the

purpose but a set of principles and guiding practices that can shared together.

The practice of shared vision involves the skills of unearthing shared ‘pictures of the future’

that foster genuine commitment and enrolment rather than compliance. In mastering this

discipline, leaders learn the counter-productiveness of trying to dictate a vision, no matter

how heartfelt. (Senge 1990: 9)

Visions spread because of a reinforcing process. Increased clarity, enthusiasm and

commitment rub off on others in the organization. There are ‘limits to growth’ in this

respect, but developing the sorts of mental models outlined above can significantly improve

matters. Where organizations can transcend linear and grasp system thinking, there is the

possibility of bringing vision to fruition.



Colloborative creation of organization goals, that is identified, visions, and actions shared by

every members will be an outcomes and result of teamwork where every individual will share

and works to achieve.

5. Team learning

Such learning is viewed as ‘the process of aligning and developing the capacities of a team to

create the results its members truly desire’ (Senge 1990: 236). It builds on personal mastery

and shared vision – but these are not enough. People need to be able to act together. When

teams learn together, Peter Senge suggests, not only can there be good results for the

organization; members will grow more rapidly than could have occurred otherwise.

This discipline should start with a dialogue. Grouping every member and get them into a

genuine thinking together by putting the thinking hat together. …. [It] also involves learning

how to recognize the patterns of interaction in teams that undermine learning. (Senge 1990:

10)

A collective thought by a large group could become a large flow of intelligence. When this

proposed dialogue is joined with systems thinking, it is possible to create a language that will

be more suited for dealing with complexity, and of focusing in-depth issues and forces rather

than being diverted by questions of personality and leadership style.

He adds to this recognition that people are agents, able to act upon the structures and systems

of which they are a part. All the disciplines are, in this way, ‘concerned with a shift of mind

from seeing parts to seeing wholes, from seeing people as helpless reactors to seeing them as

active participants in shaping their reality, from reacting to the present to creating the future’

(Senge 1990: 69). It is to the disciplines that we will now turn.

Peter Senge five disciplines are very insightful and revolutionary. However, not many

organizations have taken this concept and have remained geared for a quick fix.

Organizations that take Peter Senge five discipline will gear towards a learning organization

and will be able to adapt to any misalignment that can arrives.



While there are some issues and problems with conceptualizing of the five disciplines, at

least it does carry within it some questions around what might make for human flourishing.

The emphases on building a shared vision, team working, personal mastery and the

development of more sophisticated mental models and the way he runs the notion of dialogue

through these does have the potential of allowing workplaces to be more convivial and

creative.

The drawing together of the elements via the Fifth Discipline of systemic thinking, while not

being to everyone’s taste, also allows us to approach a more holistic understanding of

organizational life towards a learning organization.

Below are what other writers have written in using Peter Senge’s fifth discipline and using it

for proposing on how to transform colleges and universities into a learning organizations and

ways on how faculty learning communities could enable Senge’s component in a learning

organization.

Transforming Colleges and Universities Into Learning Organizations

Patrick & Fletcher (1998)

Systems Thinking

Creation and recovery of a common language and processes across departments and

divisions; setting and honoring institutional missions, goals, actions, and rewards

Personal Mastery

Support for faculty to continue as experts in their disciplines, yet broaden their scholarship

beyond discovery to include integration, application, and teaching, particularly

multidisciplinary perspectives

Mental Models

Change from a culture of autonomy and rewards for individual work to one of community

building; rewards for faculty contributions to institutional goals and solutions of problems

Building a Shared Vision



Sharing of departmental and disciplinary visions across disciplines; identifying joint

approaches to issues such as implementing student learning communities, improving student

learning, integration of technology, creation of an intellectual community

Team Learning

Colleges and universities with “learning communities for teaching and research with

colleagues and students”

Ways That Faculty Learning Communities Enable Senge's Five Components of a

Learning Organization

Systems Thinking

Time, funding, safety, teams, and rewards to enable multidisciplinary participants to discover,

reflect on, and assess pedagogical and institutional systems; members' discovery and

appreciation of the synergy of connected campus units

Personal Mastery

Development of individual teaching projects to address opportunities or shortcomings in

one's teaching and learning; a developmental introduction to and practice of the scholarship

of teaching with multidisciplinary perspectives; becoming an expert teacher inside and

outside one's discipline

Mental Models

Members' opposition to the isolation and fragmentation of the academy; high value of

colleagueship across disciplines; participation an honor with financial rewards; discovery and

appreciation of differences among students and their development; value of students as

associates and sojourners

Building a Shared Vision

Development of pedagogial goals and joint approaches in each community and sharing these

with the campus, e.g., using technology in teaching, inclusiveness of classroom and

curriculum, active learning, assessment of learning; discussion of campus-wide issues; taking

positions and action



Team Learning

Team learning—the heart and purpose of a faculty learning community



Question 3

Explain the types of intervention used in an organization. List FOUR (4) interventions

and briefly explain each of the intervention.

Interventions plainly put are agents of change that helps manage changes in an organization.

It is a method of executing the change by introducing new agents and actions into the current

setup of an organization. Cummings and Worley (2001:142) define interventions as ‘a set of

sequenced planned actions or events intended to help an organization increase its

effectiveness’.

Burnes (2004) identifies the three main perspectives which he said these perspectives focus

attention on different aspects of organizational life and have implications for the focus of

change efforts and how the change is managed. It will be elaborated further in-depth below

that there are two different contrasting typologies presented to provide a brief overview of the

wide range of interventions available to change agents.

The first typology is suggested by Weisbord (1989) and focuses on who does the intervening

and what is it they do to bring about changes. He has identifies four main types of

intervention as follows:

1. Experts applying scientific principles to solve specific problems

Experts or specialist are normally invited to solve problem when there is a need that requires

special expertise from outside when the organization cannot solve the problem by

themselves. Normally this is due to a requirement for a particular expertise or there is a need

for cutting-edge expertise. However, if not manage properly problems can arise. Experts

come into the picture and do everything they need and there are instances where they

disregard local knowledge. This can lead to further problem and does not solve the problem

intended for the experts to solve. Furthermore the insiders will be reluctant to share their

knowledge and experience with the expert. Not just that, the solution and prescription to the

problem might then be rejected by the insiders / existing employees which will in turn be

difficult for the organization to implement. On another note which works totally the

opposite, the insiders also can be too dependent on the experts and might become a problem

too as they will not be independent and all future problems will have to be relied to the



experts. The best method is to ensure that transfer of technology is done between the experts

/ specialist to the internal employees whenever a specific problem is being solved.

2. Group working collaboratively to solve their own problems

People are normally resistance to change but however they are much more accepting of

change when they are involved in the process of planning and implementing the change.

Thus a group working together to solve the problem will bring a feel of belonging to the

change requirement and will lead them to have a feeling of ownership of the proposed

solution. The group will then be more involved and geared up to implement these changes.

Another method is to bring a consultant / facilitator to guide and get the insiders / employees

to work together, brainstorm and present a solution that everyone agrees which should be

implemented. Since the insiders / employees feel that it is their own idea for a change, the

change process or problem solving execution requirement will be much easier to implement.

Cartwright (1951) has summarized eight principles which emerged from the early research on

group dynamics, which then has influenced the design of interventions. The first five

principles are concerned with the group as a medium of change. The group will be the avatar

of change while the final three focus on the potential benefits of making the group the target

of change. Evidence has suggested that by changing the standards, style, leadership and

structure of the group, it will be possible to then influence and change the behaviour of each

individual group members. The eight principles are as follows:

1. If the group is to be used as a medium of change, those people who are to be changed

and those who are to exert influence of change need to have strong sense of belonging

for the group. This can be achieved by appointing supervisor / coordinator which

commands strong influence in the group.

2. The more attractive a group to its member, the greater the influence it will exert upon

its members. Dividing the group which have similar interest and specialization will

help assist this execution as the members will have more passion for the group.

3. A group has most influence over those matters that attract members to it.

4. The greater the reputation of a group member in the eyes of other group members the

more influence the member can exert. This can be done by having a balance

distribution of strength in each group and ensure strong personnel are placed in each

of the group.



5. Efforts to change individual members or subparts of a group, which, if successful

would have the effect of making them deviate from the norms of the group, and will

encounter strong resistance.

6. It is possible to create strong pressures for change in a group by establishing a shared

perception of the need for change, thus making the source of pressure for change lie

within the group.

7. Information relating to the need for change and the consequences of change, or no

change, must be shared by all relevant people in the group. Good communication

between group members has to be groom for this to be a successful endeavour.

8. Changes in one part of the group or systems produce strain in other parts of the group

or system that can be reduced only by eliminating the initial change or bringing about

readjustments in the related part.

These principles suggested are all about correct alignment of each individual component of

the organization. Enhancing each individual group will then create a chain of reaction that

will bring all employees together in a grouping and will then create an intervention that will

change the entire organization across the board.

3. Expert working to solve system‐wide problems

This is more to changing the technical aspects of the system. Normally operations

researchers, systems analysts and manufacturing system engineers will come in and focus on

changing the technical system. Changing the social and technical systems together is

important for this. Attention has shifted from solving isolated individual problems to more

systematic system wide issues. Organizations have then begun to employ experts to do this.

There are normally plenty of system to choose from and this give rise to the questions of

which system that will provide the best optimum conditions and can contribute most to the

outcomes valued by the stakeholders. Study by Trist and Bamforth (1951) has indicated how

new technology had a profound negative impact on miners and their social system. This

study led to further work that explored ways to minimize this negative impact. The outcome

was another technology which has not only produce impressive improvements, but marked

increase in the group cohesiveness, personal satisfaction and attendance, and also a great

significant improvement in performance.



This development gave rise to proliferation of other interventions in different settings that

were directed towards systemic issues such as managing the organization’s relationship with

its environment and helps promote better alignment of the elements within the organization.

This development has taken a stage further in whole systems interventions.

4. Everybody working to improve the capability of the whole system for future

performance

The latest development has been whole systems interventions in which everybody is involved

in the whole system improvement. This will invite everybody’s participation and encourage

them to take responsibilities in what changes they wanted to implement.

Some of the principles that underpin the whole system approach are summarized as below:

1. Parallel organization versus whole system in the room approaches: This attempts

to introduce change at strategic level and depends on the action and behaviours of

everybody that are affected by the change. This intervention encourages

representatives from different groups and levels to work and produce results. Another

approach is to get everybody and permits everybody to contribute. However, in a

very big organization this will be hard to execute.

2. Problem solving versus preferred future approaches: This encourage group

members to solve problem using ‘preferred future’ approach. The group will restrict

themselves to problem identification and action planning based on the future they

preferred. This approach is seen to associate with higher levels of energy, greater

ownership of the situation and more innovative and future-oriented goals and plans.

3. Organizational biographies: understanding the past and present as a basis for

exploring a preferred future: This is to develop a better understanding of where the

organization has come from, where it is today and how it moved from where it was to

where it is. This is a study of the consistent patterns that has been guiding the

organization and learning from the past.

4. Overcoming resistance to change: Change occurs when organizational members

feel the tense where there is discrepancy between their awareness of the current

reality and their desired future state. They are motivated to reduce this tension by

helping the organization to move towards the desired future state.



5. Open systems planning: All stakeholders and external participants of the

organization are invited to a conference method, to contribute their views about the

current performance and the opportunities and threats it will have to respond in the

future. Large group methods can help promote bottom up change but they do not

need to take away management responsibility for charting the way forward.

We have gone through great depth in explaining the first typology of change that was

suggested by Weisbord (1989).

The second alternative contrasting typology is suggested by Cummings and Worley (2001) in

classifying interventions based on the kinds of issues that they are designed to resolve. These

four interventions suggested are as follows:

1. Human process issues

Human process intervention focus on the development of better working relationships and the

processes people use for communicating, problem solving, and decision making and so on.

This can be applied at the organizational level to deal with more systematic issues. Four

interventions under the human process issues are confrontation meetings, intergroup

relations, and large group and grid interventions.

Confrontation meetings are interventions that are designed to mobilize organization wide

resources to identify problems, set priorities and targets for action.

Intergroup relations interventions are like microcosm groups with members representing

different interest coming together to work on many issues. These interventions are designed

to help two or more groups work to resolve dysfunctional conflicts.

Large group interventions are designed to involve many people, including external

stakeholders, in the management of issues that affect the whole organization.

Grid interventions are normative in the sense that they specify one best way to manage

organizations and involve processes that help organizations move to this ideal.



In short, human process issues are interventions that show how to communicate, solve

problems, make decisions, interact and lead.

2. Technology/structural issues

Techno-structural interventions are typically associated with shifts from rigid and

bureaucratic to more adaptive and cost-efficient organizational forms, and address such issues

as the division of labour, coordination between departments, processes used to produce goods

and services and the design of work.

It focuses on three areas of structure, task methods and job designs. Interventions in the

techno-structural which involves the design of the organization include:

Structural design are where this involve interventions that are aim to identify and move

towards more effective way to structure activities. It is more towards process based and

network based structures to provide the flexibility to cope with increasing uncertainties. In

short, it is a change process that tries to specialise task performances aimed at moving from

traditional ways to a more integrative and flexible forms such as process-based and network-

based structures.

Downsizing interventions is the interventions of reducing the size of the organizing by

letting go wastages of an organization. This reduces costs and bureaucracy through various

methods of reducing personnel layouts, organization redesign and outsourcing.

Business process re-engineering involves a fundamental rethink and redesign of business

processes to achieve a step of change in the performance involved. It normally require the

help of IT personnel to help organization control and coordinate work processes more

effectively. It is more concern in designing work for work groups and individual jobs. It

includes engineering, motivational and socio-technical systems approaches which are ot

produce job enrichment, job varieties, increase of autonomy and voluntarily feedback about

results. It hopes to in calculate the employees’ awareness of self managing which they can

govern their own task behaviours with limited external management control.



Then there are other interventions in the techno-structural category which are designed to

increase employee involvement and enhance their commitment and performance. These

normally involve moving decision making and involve employees from the ground.

Employees at all level will be provided with the power, information, knowledge and skills to

act effectively and the interventions in this category are:

General interventions which are designed to improve work quality such as jobs enrichment,

self managed teams and labour or even management committees.

Interventions of various types involve creation of a parallel structure that operates in

tandem with the formal organization to provide alternative settings, such as team building,

away days, project group gathering, family days, in which the organization can address for

problem and search for a solution.

Other broad based interventions are designed to increase the employee involvement. This

needs involvement from the employee and the managers to redesign the organization and

promote high level of involvement and performance. This is normally a long term effort

designed to focus all the organization’s activities around the concept of quality.

The final category of interventions in the techno-structural areas are work/job design

interventions for groups and individuals:

Engineering approaches to work design focuses on efficiency and job simplification. This

is to ensure that jobs are executed in the most efficient method.

Motivational approaches focus on enriching work experience and are designed to motivate

employees to work more effectively. Organization can hire outside consultant for

motivational speeches or activities or even offer incentives to boost motivation.

Sociotechnical approaches to work design focuses on integrating and interfacing the

technical and social aspects of the work. This involve introduction of self managed work

groups.



3. Human resource issues

Human resource interventions focuses on the employees code of work and research where

that this attributes can be use to integrate people into the organization. This address issues on

how to keep competent personnel, set goals and reward personnel, develop and manage the

personnel and all human resource issues.

This intervention focuses on all human resources issues from hiring to their career growth

and the benefits entitlement and salaries. Three main interventions designed to help, develop

and assist organizational members can be grouped under three headings:

Career planning and development interventions are introduced for employees to manage

their careers and prepare themselves to respond to lack of job security which is now a main

feature of an organizational life especially in the project line.

Workforce diversity interventions are designed to respond to various needs in the

organization, which can come from various groups of employees who have different resource

and perspectives in the organization. This is important to help organization retain a diverse

workforce and utilize it for competitive advantage and benefit.

Employee wellness interventions are designed to promote the wellbeing of organizational

members and to contribute to the development of a productive workforce. This can include

various employee assistance programs and welfare initiatives which can help employees deal

with mental, marital and financial problem which can contribute to poor work management.

Performance management interventions focus on how goal setting, performance appraisal

and reward system can contribute to organizational effectiveness by aligning employees with

business strategy and workplace technology. It involves introducing clear and challenging

goals for the employees and establishes a better fit between employees and organizational

objectives. After clear goals are defined, a performance appraisal of the achievement of an

employee can be appraised and a reward system will be in place to reward deserve

employees.



This intervention involves developing and implementing a ‘bundle’ of HR practices which is

consistent and are aligned to the organization’s strategy to achieve enhancement and

improvement in organizational effectiveness. Various existing HR practices can be further

improve or enhance to help bring about the changes required.

4. Strategic issues

Strategic interventions address issues such as the creation, formulation and implementation of

organizational strategy, and ensuring that the strategy is aligned with organizational vision,

structure and culture. It also needs to ensure all are aligned with the external environment,

and seeking and maintaining the competitive advantage.

Cummings and Worely (2001) suggested that there are three interventions designed to

improve the organization-environment fit:

Open systems planning is an intervention designed to help organization systematically

assess its environment and develop the strategic response to it. Open systems planning are a

powerful process for managing personal and organisational change. It treats organizations as

an open system that must interact with a suitable environment to survive and develop.

Integrated strategic change interventions are directed towards integrating strategic

planning and operational and tactical actions. It is a comprehensive intervention that

examines how plan change that can add value to strategic management. The integrative piece

looks at a synthesis of business strategies and organizational systems responding together to

external and/or internal disruptions.

Trans-organizational development is an intervention that focuses on the creation of

beneficial partnership with other organizations to perform tasks or solve problems that are

way beyond the capability of a single organization. This helps organizations enter into

alliances, partnerships, and joint ventures to perform tasks or solve problems that are too

complex for single organizations to resolve.



Other interventions to know in this category are those that focus directly on changing the

organization’s culture and mental models. It involves diagnosing the existing culture and

assesses the cultural risks with the planned changes.

Effective interventions are based on valid information about the organization’s functioning.

Interventions provide organization members with the opportunity to make free and informed

choices and gain member’s internal commitment to these selected choices. An accurate

diagnosis of the organization’s functioning is pivotal for valid information which can reflect

fairly on what the organization team members feel about their primary concern and issues.

Weisbord (1989) suggested that on his observation that there has been a continuous

development of new types of intervention over the past century. He even suggested that this

could be responses to environmental changes, particularly the trend towards greater

turbulence and uncertainty.

Weisbord suggested that there are a range of interventions available to change agents into

four categories according to who does intervening and what are the improvements that they

bring along. According to this theory, which is categorized from 100 years ago, is that

typically intervention are relied on experts to solve specific problem. The different now 100

years later is that today interventions often involve the whole system, including experts. For

100 years there have been movements and shifts from problem solving past mistakes in a

particular part of the system to improving the capability of the entire system for future

performance.

While in between he said in 1950 groups work on their owns problems and in 1960 experts

improve whole systems. Today’s organizations still employ experts to solve specific

problems, for example to develop a new internet gateway system or design a new database.

Experts are used when an organization has the need to do something that the organization

lack the capability. They are used when the organization need which can only be obtained

from specialist or external consultants.



PART B

Question

Develop diagnostic model. The model should have the following elements:

• Organization level

• Group level, and

• Individual level

A change process involves five major steps which are:

1. Recognizing the need and start a change process.

2. Diagnosis step to review the present state and identify future state as a vision by

developing diagnostic models.

3. Planning and preparing to change.

4. Implementing the change.

5. Sustaining the change.

Here we will elaborate and go into depth on step two of this major steps in a change process

which is the diagnostic model. Explanation of what the diagnostic models are will be given

and a model will be developed to further enhance the understanding of what a diagnostic

model is.

Organizational diagnosis is concerned with identifying what it is that need to be changed.

Organizational behaviour at all different levels is a complex phenomenon and it would be

impossible for the managers to pay attention to every aspect of organizational function.

Diagnostic models offer helps to managers to cope with this complexity.

Managers always tend to try and simplify the real world by developing models that focus

their attention on a limited number of key elements that they feel represent the real world.

They also focus on the way these elements interact with each other and focuses on the outputs

produced by these interactions, which they feel will provide the basis for evaluating

performance and assessing effectiveness.



In general, organizations develop models on the basis of their experience. These models is

hoped to provide good basis of understanding on what is going on and predicting what kinds

of actions or interventions that would produce the best result.

There are many theories and models. These can have motivation, decision making, group

functioning, organization structure and many more. It is a change agents that can be use to

help organization understand the function of each component in the organization.

Before we develop a diagnostic model, below will be an elaboration of what diagnostic

models that are available and a description of each model.

Open System Models

Open system models provide framework of an organization as a system of interrelated

components that transact with a larger environment. From the perspectives of open model

systems, some of the main characteristics of organizations are that they are:

1. Embedded within a larger system

Organizations are normally dependent on the environment for the resources, information

and feedback they require in order to survive.

2. Able to avoid entropy

Organization has the ability to avoid entropy by continuing to receive various inputs that

they transform and exports as outputs. This has to be maintained favourably with the

environment.

3. Regulated by feedback

Systems heavily rely on the feedback to change or regulate their inputs and the

transformation processes. This loop exists so that input and transformation can be

changed to suite the feedback received.

4. Subject to equifinality

A system can be change and transform to provide the same output even if receiving

different input.



5. Cylical in their mode of functioning

Events are patterned so that they are able to occur in repetitive cycles of input, throughput

and output.

6. Equilbrium seeking

Open system have the tendency to gravitate where all the component parts of the system

are in equilibrium and where a steady state exists. If a change occur and upset this

balance, different components will move within the system to restore the balance.

7. Bounded.

Open systems have boundaries where external boundaries differentiate the organization

from the external and regulate the input while internal boundaries differentiate various

components from each other and regulate input and output.

Open system models take alignment as a very pivotal and important part in determining

organization effectiveness. It is pivotal that changes to any of the internal or external

elements of the organization will cause changes to other elements. Kotter (1980) elaborated

this proposition when he developed his integrative model of organizational dynamics which

has seven major elements which are employees and other tangible assets, formal

organizational arrangements, social system, technology, external environment and dominant

coalition. These six major structural elements all interact with key organizational processes

such as information gathering, communication, decision making, matter/energy for

transporting and conversion. It interacts as a source of potential behaviour and constraint and

gives impact on. It will be noticed below that this six structural elements are pivotal for

organization to ensure its effectiveness.

Kotter further elaborated that these are different within a short run, medium term and long

term period of time.

In the short run, organization effectiveness can be defined in terms of the nature of the cause-

effect relationships. It recognized how dominant coalition will play its role in the short run.

Effective organizations are those that have key processes that are characterized by levels of

decision making effectiveness and matter/energy efficiency that help to ensure resources are



used effectively. Basically, key player in the affected industry reacts most effectively in the

short run as they are the dominant coalition in the game.

Medium term wise, which Kotter defined as a few months to a few years, is different. An

effective organization is the one that is able to maintain its short run effectiveness. It is

pivotal that the organization maintain key process elements in an efficient and effective

manner to ensure all six elements are aligned to each other. If misalignment occurs, waste

will grow and threaten the organization. Misalignment normally occurs when phasing

changes in the external environment and growth. This can be resolved by realignment the six

elements.

Kotter defined long term as six to sixty years. It is predicted that the organization’s driving

force and adaptability of the six structural elements will be pivotal to its effectiveness. It is

key that the organization be able to adapt and maintain its external alignment. This

adaptability is important because it determines whether or not the organization will be able to

maintain the required degree of alignment over long term. Therefore it is important that an

organization ensure the six structural elements are as adaptable as possible in order to

survive.

An alternative open system models which is proposed by Nadler and Tushman (1982),

highlights the effect of the congruency of the components part of the organization on its

effectiveness. Nadler focuses more attention on the role of strategy. His model identifies

four class of input:

1. Environment: This includes what the organization is a part of in the market chain,

and also include cultures within the organization operates.

2. Resources: This is such as liquid capital, physical asset, raw materials, technologies

and labour or manpower.

3. History: An important aspect as past strategic decision and the development of

leadership can affect current behaviour of the organization.

4. Strategy: This involves strategizing how the organization resources can be fully

utilized in relation to the opportunities, constraints, and demands of the environment.

Again, like Kotter he reiterated that effective organizations are the one that is able to



align the organization with the external environment and reposition the organization

to ensure that the alignment is maintained.

Nadler and Tushman further elaborated that the major components of the required

transformation processes are:

1. Task, which is viewed in terms of its complexity, predictability, interdependence and

skill demands.

2. Individuals who are members of the organization and how their response capabilities,

intelligence, skills and abilities, experience, training, needs, attitudes, expectations

and so on.

3. Formal organizational arrangements that include all the mechanism used by the

organization to direct, structure or control behaviour.

4. Informal organization, including informal group structures, the quality of intergroup

relations, political processes and so on.

Many of the components that Nadler and Tushman choose to focus on are different from

those that figure in Kotter’s model. Nadler proposed that it is the congruence or alignment

between the organization and the environment and between the internal components of the

organization is the key concept that will aid the organizational diagnosis and the development

of the change strategies.

However alignment concept receive some criticism which academicians suggest is difficult to

apply in practice. Some view the organization and the environment as ‘objective’ as if they

are easily readily open to description and definition. This makes it difficult to establish any

shared understanding of the current and required level of alignment. Another criticism is that

alignment have problem when the focus is the management of incremental change. When

faced with discontinuous change where alignment cannot assist to break with the past and

introduce radical innovation before seeking to re-establish a new state of alignment around a

new task and new structural elements. These criticisms have some merit but system models,

alignment can make effective and an important contribution to effective change management.

Postma and Kok (1999) describe organizational diagnosis as a process of research into the

functioning of an organization. This leads to recommendations for improvement. In practice,



diagnosis is a process that beings with change managers using some kind of holistic model of

organizational functioning to look at the whole organization and then moving on for a

particular each components of the organization.

There are a number of models that focus on assessing the environment and how these

changes can affect organizational performance. Below are other holistic models that can be

used to aid diagnosis.

PEST / SWOT Analysis

PEST is an analytical diagnosis model that is used to examine and assess the environment

and search for evidence that might signal a problem or opportunity. Kotter (1998) claims that

PEST analysis is a useful strategic tool for understanding market growth or decline, business

position, potential and direction for operations. The headings of PEST are a framework for

reviewing a situation, be applied by companies to review a strategic directions, including

marketing proposition. The use of PEST analysis can be seen effective for business and

strategic planning, marketing planning, business and product development and research

reports. PEST also ensures that company’s performance is aligned positively with the

powerful forces of change that are affecting business environment. PEST is useful when a

company decides to enter its business operations into new markets and new countries. The

use of PEST, in this case, helps to break free of unconscious assumptions, and help to

effectively adapt to the realities of the new environment.

PEST as the name indicates is an acronym for political, economic, socio-cultural and

technological factors:

1. Political factors includes all political environment and variables that can affect the

organization which ranges from new legislation, environmental management,

consumer protection, regulations of markets, regulations on telecommunications and

broadcasting, new government policies and everything that is politically related.

2. Economic factors include issues such as exchange rates, cost of borrowing, change in

levels of disposable income, cost of raw materials, and security of supplies, new

competitors, and world economic cycle and so on.

3. Sociocultural factors include demographic trends such as a fall in the birth rate or an

ageing population. This also includes shifting attitudes towards education, training,



work and leisure which can have knock-on effects on the availability of trained

labour, consumption patterns and so on. Cultural factors can also affect business

ethics and the way business is done in different parts of the world.

4. Technological factors include issues such as the levels of investment that

competitions are making in research and development and the outcome of this

investment. The availability of new materials, products, production processes, means

of distribution and so on.

These four factors will be the key categories that a PEST model will work on when doing a

diagnostic model of an organization.

SWOT analysis which is an acronym for Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats

offers a more comprehensive to diagnosing organization-environment fit.

SWOT has a long history as a tool of strategic and marketing analysis. It has features in

strategy textbooks since at least 1972 and can now be found in textbooks on marketing and

any other business disciplines. It advocates say that it can be used to gauge the degree of “fit”

between the organisation’s strategies and its environment, and to suggest ways in which the

organisation can profit from strengths and opportunities and shield itself against weaknesses

and threats.

Strengths - Determine an organisation’s strong points. This should be from both internal and

external environment. It is a distinctive competence when it gives the firm a comparative

advantage in the marketplace. Strengths arise from the resources and competencies available

to the firm.

Weaknesses - Determine an organisation’s weaknesses, not only from its point of view, but

also more importantly, from customers. Although it may be difficult for an organisation to

acknowledge its weaknesses it is best to handle the bitter reality without procrastination.

Opportunities - Another major factor is to determine how organisations can continue to grow

within the marketplace. After all, opportunities are everywhere, such as the changes in

technology, government policy, social patterns, and so on. An opportunity is a major situation

in a firm’s environment. Key trends are one source of opportunities. Identification of a



previously overlooked market segment, changes in competitive or regulatory circumstances,

technological changes, and improved buyer or supplier relationships could represent

opportunities for the organization.

Threats - A threat is a major unfavourable situation in an organization’s environment. Threats

are key impediments to the firm’s current or desired position. The entrance of new

competitors, slow market growth, increased bargaining power of key buyers or suppliers,

technological changes, and new or revised regulations could represent threats to an

organization’s success.

Strebel’s evolutionary cycle of competitive behaviour

Strebel’s (1996) model can be used to anticipate technological and economic changes in the

environment and initiate planned organizational changes that will enable an organization to

be ahead of others. Strebel suggested that there is an evolutionary cycle of competitive

behaviour with different phases that are marked by break points. This break points can be

observed by looking at its competitive trends and can be predicted in advance. The two

phases of the cycles are innovation and efficiency. The phase starts with the innovation

phase by having a sharp increase in divergence and begins when an innovation by a

competitor is seen as an opportunity. This process continues until there is no more

innovation to be added. After this the divergence begins to slow down and starts to decline.

The next phase begin when one competitor started to pay attention on efficiency and start to

reduce cost, this will see the cycle move towards going for the most efficiency in a test for

the survival of the fittest. The cycle can start again when efficiency has been optimized and

there is room for another innovation. Strebel posits that convergence are easier to anticipate

than divergence because every organization will at a point of time looks forward for

efficiency and cost reduction while innovation is something that comes along the way.

Greiner’s five phases of growth

Greiner (1972) cautions managers about the danger of only attending to the external

environment and the future. He goes on further and asserts that for many organizations, the

most pressing problems are rooted in the organization’s past decisions compared to present

events and dynamics. He noted that organization evolves over five phases of development

and each phase involves and created their own crisis due to misalignment. Greiner suggested



that each period is characterized by a dominant management style and also its dominant

problem which has to be resolved in order for the organization to continue to grow. The five

phases are:

1. Growth through creativity leading to a crisis of leadership: This is a typical

example of when an organization started off with a founder having found the

creativity to innovate and create a product. Over time, the needs for specialist and

external managers to manage the organization occurs and if not managed will create

problem for the organization.

2. Growth through directing leading to a crisis of autonomy: The second phase of

growth happens when organization start to structure themselves properly with

organization structure with clear hierarchy and created more bureaucracy. After a

while the needs for greater autonomy occur to solve this problem.

3. Growth through delegation leading to a crisis of control: As the organization

grows the need to delegate power and decision making in order for the organization to

function better arises. However, if not managed properly, will give rise to parochial

mindsets and employees begin to work too independently and may deviate from the

organization’s objectives and vision.

4. Growth through coordination leading to a crisis of red tape: The fourth phase

involves better control and coordination of the work delegation. However, slowly the

organization will be facing with bureaucratization which will eventually stifles

initiative and strangles the growth of the organization.

5. Growth through collaboration: The final phase would be when the organization has

matured enough and ensure greater spontaneity which is encouraged through

developing interpersonal competencies, matrix and network structures and associated

systems that enable people to work together in ways that rely more on social control

and self-discipline rather than formal control and close monitoring from the top.

The important task and critical is for change managers to be aware of the organization’s

history and its current phase of development and identify new set of organization practices

that will provide the way forward into the next period of evolutionary growth as the five

phases that Greiner has suggested.



Flamholtz’s organizational life cycle model

Flamholtz (1995) framework for organizational diagnosis brings together a model of

organizational effectiveness. He refers this as the pyramid of organizational development.

This is also considered by him as an organizational life cycle model and points to a number

of key transformation points. He identifies six tasks which determine an organization’s

effectiveness:

1. Markets: The first challenge is to identify market for good or service.

2. Products and services: The second is to develop, design and produce a product

capable of satisfying that need.

3. Resource management: From the start, organization have to acquire or develop the

resources by financial, technological, physical and human which is necessary to

facilitate current and anticipated levels of production.

4. Operational systems: Organization needs system in order to run the business on a

day to day basis like accounting, billing, human resources and so on.

5. Management systems: This is imperative for an organization to ensure planning,

organizing, management development and control are functioning on a long term

period.

6. Corporate culture: Organizations also need to develop good culture that are aligned

with its mission and strategy to ensure the priorities are consistently attended to.

All this six tasks have to be performed to some degree at the organization’s development.

The first two tasks reflect the business the organization is involved in while the next four

tasks reflect the organization’s infrastructure.

Flamhortz further asserted that organizations progresses through a seven stages of

development cycle from new venture to decline-revitalization which are as follows;

1. New venture

2. Expansion

3. Professionalization

4. Consolidation

5. Diversification

6. Integration

7. Decline-revitalization



It is a good point to note that both Greiner and Flamholtz agrees that managers can use

organizational life cycle models to help the organization recognize their development stage

and identify the kind of issues that might be adversely affecting organizational performance.

Phelps et al. states framework for firm growth

Phelps et al. (2007) proposed an alternative conceptualization of firm growth. Different from

both Greiner and Flamholtz, he makes assumption on linearity, predictability and sequence.

Phelps et al. (2007) argue that in order to continue growing, an organization must

successfully resolve the challenges presented by each tipping point. To do this the

organization must have the capability to find new knowledge suited to resolve these new

challenged which is posed at different tipping point. He continues to draw the notion of

absorptive capacity which was proposed by Cohen and Levinthal, 1990. He goes on to

propose that:

1. The base state is ignorance: The organization does not realize that it is facing

important key issues.

2. The second state is awareness: Once the organization is aware, new knowledge can be

actively sought or passively received to help resolve it.

3. The final state involves the implementation of the action required to achieve real

change.

This model can be applied to help managers become more aware of the issues confronting

their organization with regards to the potential tipping points and the organization’s capacity

to identify, acquire and apply the knowledge it needs to address emerging challenges.

We have gone through the extent of explaining how internal alignment is pivotal to be

managed in order to ensure an organization’s survival. Below is an explanation of two

models use for diagnosing internal alignment.

The McKinsey 7S model

The McKinsey 7S model highlights seven interrelated elements of organizations which when

aligned make important contribution to organizational effectiveness (Pascale and Athos,

1981). The seven elements are:



1. Strategy: Purpose of the business and the way the organization seeks to enhance its

competitive advantage

2. Structure: Division of activities; integration and coordination mechanism; nature of

informal organization

3. Systems: Formal procedures for measurement, reward and resource allocation,

informal routines for communicating, resolving conflicts and so on.

4. Staff: The organization’s human resources, its demographics, educational and

attitudinal characteristics.

5. Style: Typical behaviour patterns of key groups, such as managers and other

professionals, and the organization as a whole.

6. Shared Value: Core beliefs and values and how these influence the organization’s

orientation to customers, employees, shareholders, and society at large.

7. Skills: The organization’s core competencies and distinctive capabilities.

This model can be use for change managers to assess the degree of alignment between the

seven elements.

Weisbord’s six-box model

Weisbord (1976) presents his systemic model as a practice theory that synthesizes knowledge

and experience from change agents. It provides a conceptual map of six boxes that can be

used to apply theories to the assessment of these elements in a way that can unveil new

relationships and connections between elements. The effectiveness of an organization’s

functioning depends on what goes in and between the six boxes. The six boxes are:

1. Purpose: What business are we in.

2. Leadership: Is someone keeping the six boxes in balance.

3. Structure: How do we divide up the work?

4. Relationships: How do we manage conflict among people? How do we manage

relationships with our technologies?

5. Helpful mechanisms: Have we adequate coordination technologies?

6. Rewards: Do all needed tasks have incentives.



By tracing the reasons for any dissatisfaction to what is happening in or between the six

boxes that represent the unit or organization under consideration will be a useful starting

point in a diagnostic exercise.

The Burke-Litwin causal model of organizational performance and change

The Burke-Litwin (1992) open system is able to diagnose both internal and external

alignment. It points to the relative weight of the elements of organizational functioning and

the causal linkages that determine the level of performance and affect the process of change.

The model is also able to determine the different between transformation change and

transcational change. This model comprises of 12 interrelated elements. It is an open

systems model in which the inputs are represented by the external environment element at the

top of the figure and the outputs from the individual and organizational performance at the

bottom. The 12 interrelated elements are:

1. External environments [Top figure – Input]

2. Mission and strategy

3. Leadership

4. Organizational culture

5. Structure

6. Management practices

7. Work unit climate

8. System (policies and procedures)

9. Tasks and individual roles

10. Motivation

11. Individual needs and values

12. Individual and organizational performance [Bottom figure – Output]

The model is presented vertically to reflect causal relationship and the relative impact of

elements on each other. The elements which are on top [item 2-4] exert greater impact on the

elements that is on the lower of the model [item 9-11].

Having said this does not mean that change should start from the top. It is a predictive rather

than a prescriptive model. Burke and Litwin (1992) present an impressive summary of

studies that provide empirical support for the causal linkages hypothesized by their model.



Characteristics of a good model

All the models that have been considered and presented are rather simplifications of the real

world. None of these models actually are guaranteed to accommodate all circumstances and

provide a reliable basis for why things are the way they are but it provides some indication of

where things goes wrong or what actions that can be taken to produce the desired result.

Three characteristics of a good model are as follows:

1. Are relevant to the particular issues under consideration.

2. Help change agents recognize cause-and-effect relationships.

3. Focus on elements that they can influence.

SWOT Analysis Model

A case study will be simulated for Talisman Malaysia limited, an Oil & Gas company to

demonstrate how a SWOT model to be used as a diagnostic model in order to identify and

start planning the changes required for the organization.

Talisman Energy (Talisman) is an independent international upstream oil and gas company

undertaking exploration, development, production, transportation, and marketing of crude oil,

natural gas, and natural gas liquids (NGLs). The company primarily operates in North

America, the North Sea, and Southeast Asia. It is headquartered in Alberta, Canada and

employs over 2,600 people.

Talisman Energy (Talisman) is one of the largest independent oil and gas producers in

Canada. Its main business activities include exploration, development, production,

transportation, and marketing of crude oil, natural gas, and natural gas liquids (NGLs). It has

about seven operating subsidiaries.

Talisman has ongoing production, development, and exploration operations in North

America, the North Sea, Southeast Asia and Australia, North Africa, and Trinidad and

Tobago.



Talisman’s interests in Southeast Asia include operations and exploration acreage in

Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Papua New Guinea, and Australia. In FY2007, Southeast Asia

production averaged 92,057 boe/d.

Talisman’s subsidiaries hold operated interests ranging from 33% to 60% in three blocks in

Malaysia; PM-3 CAA/46-Cai Nuoc, PM-305 and PM-314. In FY2007, Malaysia production

averaged 37,540 boe/d.

In Vietnam, a Talisman subsidiary holds a 30% interest in a joint operating company, which

operates Block 46/02 adjacent to PM-3 CAA on the border with Malaysia.Talisman holds

non-operated interests ranging from 25% to 40% in the Laminaria and Corallina fields and

the Joint Petroleum Development Area (JPDA) 06-105 in Australia.Talisman’s subsidiary

holds a 48% operated interest in a natural gas discovery and a 35% interest in exploration

acreage, both offshore Papua New Guinea.

Talisman Energy is an independent international upstream oil and gas company. The

company's products and services include:

Products: Crude oil, Natural gas, Natural gas liquids, Synthetic oil, Sulphur

Services: Exploration, Development, Production, Transportation, Marketing

For this SWOT Analysis we will have one model for each level:

1. Organizational Level

2. Group Level

3. Individual Level



1) Organizational Level – Talisman Energy Ltd.

INTERNAL

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

1) Strong market position

2) Diversified geographical presence

1) Lack of scale

2) High debt

EXTERNAL

OPPORTUNITY THREATS

1) Acquisition and agreement

2) New oil and gas production

1) Economic slowdown in the US and

Eurozone

2) Environmental regulation

3) Saturation of resources

SWOT SUMMARY

Strengths

Strong market position

Talisman Energy is an independent, international upstream oil and gas company whose main

business activities include exploration, development, production, transportation, and

marketing of crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs). In North America,

Talisman is a leading deep gas explorer and has significant unconventional natural gas

potential. In the North Sea, the company operates more than 40 oilfields and has extensive

exploration acreage in Norway. In Southeast Asia, Talisman has substantial long-life natural

gas reserves and highly prospective exploration acreage.

Diversified geographical presence

Talisman Energy has ongoing production, development, and exploration operations in North

America, the North Sea, Southeast Asia and Australia, North Africa, and Trinidad and

Tobago. The company's operations are conducted principally in five geographic segments:

North America, UK, Scandinavia, Southeast Asia, and others (comprising North Africa,

Trinidad and Tobago, Colombia, Peru, and Qatar). A diversified geographical presence

enables the company to reduce business risks arising in a particular geography.



Weaknesses

Lack of scale

The company lacks the desired scale to compete with large players in the industry. Many of

the company's competitors are much larger in size in terms of revenue generated, number of

employees, and their presence in Europe and other developing market. British Petroleum

(BP), generated revenues of about $288,951 million and employed about 97,600 people

worldwide for the financial year ended December 2009 (FY209). Exxon Mobil Corporation

(Exxon Mobil) generated revenues of about $390,328 million and employed 81,000 people as

on FY09. However, Talisman generated revenues of $7,409.4 million FY09, and employed

about 2,550 people worldwide. Owing to its relatively small scale of operations, the company

could find it difficult to face competition.

High debt

The company has a significant amount of debt. For the FY09, the company has an

outstanding debt of $4,549.1 million. The company’s substantial debt could limit its ability to

obtain additional financing to operate its business. Further, it would make it difficult for the

company to satisfy its obligations including making interest payments on debt obligations.

Opportunities

Acquisitions and agreements

The company has been expanding its geographic reach through acquisitions and agreements.

In January 2008, Talisman announced that one of its subsidiaries have acquired the Tangguh

LNG Project, located in West Papua, Indonesia. Talisman has also entered into agreements

with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) within Iraq for interests in Blocks K44 and

K39 respectively. Talisman Energy has also announced that its wholly-owned limited

partnership FEI Shale (Fortuna) reached agreement to acquire properties in Texas, Arkansas,

and Louisiana, for a total of 108,000 acres (net to Fortuna). Talisman has also recently been

awarded with two deepwater blocks in Sabah namely SB09 and SB10. These agreements and

acquisitions would provide Talisman with growth opportunities and drive its revenue growth.



New oil and gas production

Talisman Energy has considerably increased its oil and gas production in recent times. First

oil production from the Song Doc field in Block 46/02 offshore Vietnam is producing gross

production from five pre-drilled wells is expected to reach approximately 25,000 bbls/d. An

additional three development wells are currently being drilled. Talisman's share of proved

and probable reserves in the Song Doc field is estimated at six million barrels (mmbbls), with

proved reserves of three mmbbls. Talisman Energy announced first gas production from the

Rev Field in Norway. The field is expected to produce at a plateau rate of 100 mmcf/d of gas

and 6,000 bbls/d of condensate and natural gas liquids from two subsea wells. The new oil

and gas production would increase the company’s output which in turn increases its revenues.

Threats

Economic slowdown in the US and Eurozone

The US and European Union are the two key markets for Talisman. According to

International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) World Economic Outlook, January 2009, the US and

Eurozone economies could face slowdown in 2009. The GDP growth rate in the US has

decreased from 2% in 2007 to 1.1% in 2008 and is projected to record a negative growth of

1.6% in 2009. The GDP growth rate in the Eurozone has declined from 2.6% in 2007 to 1%

in 2008 and is projected to record a negative growth of 2% in 2009. A weak economic

outlook for Eurozone and the US would put pressure on the revenues of the company.

Economic slow down in the US and Eurozone could impact industrial development, which

could adversely affect demand for Talisman's products.

Environmental regulations

As a result of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, stringent new regulations have been enacted.

These regulations pose the possibility of unlimited financial liability for pollution damages.

Companies operating in the oil and gas industry are subject to strict environmental

regulations. Distribution and storage houses need to strictly comply with environmental

regulations which keep changing frequently. Compliance with these regulations forces

Talisman, to incur high costs. These factors can have a potential negative impact on the

company's margins.



Saturation of resources

The maturity of the North America basin reserve continues to give rise to increases in both

replacement costs and operating costs. Larger companies are finding it increasingly difficult

to increase their North American production as conventional production is declining in these

more mature basins. Furthermore, output from proven natural gas reserves in Canada has

been declining significantly. There has been a succession of dry holes being drilled in the

region in the last two years. The saturation of reserves in North America would severely

impact the company's operations.

SWOT Element Comment on Current Strategy Gap or

No Gap

Leveraging Strengths

Strong Market Presence To continue expanding and command market

presence No

Diversified geographical

presence

To continue diversifying geographical presence and

expansion to focus on south east asia region which is

currently booming especially in deepwater projects

No

Mitigating Weaknesses

Lack of scale No strategy in plan yet Yes

High debt No strategy in plan yet Yes

Taking advantages of opportunities

Acquisitions and

agreements

To aggressively compete and involves in new bids

for new acquisitions and agreements, hire more

business development executives and continue to

foster good relationship with PETRONAS and other

facilitator in other countries that is involved in

awarding blocks.

No

New oil and gas

production

To produce and develop more oil and gas production

in areas that is currently under exploration, to

execute oil and gas increase recovery program and

encourage such technology. To expedite project

No



which are under development for fast track in

producing new oil and gas production.

Mitigating Threats

Economic slowdown in

US and Eurozone

No strategy in plan yet, but would be able to go

work more further outside the US and Eurozone Yes

Environmental regulations

No strategy in plan yet, but would be able to spend

more money on environmental issues. Prevention is

better than cure. To hire environmental specialist

that can hire the company in ensuring all regulations

is checked and followed.

Yes

Saturation of resources

No strategy in plan yet, but would be able to actively

bid out for more oil & gas blocks to ensure higher

oil & gas reserves.

Yes



2) Group Level – Project Team Department:

INTERNAL


1) Strong personnel

2) Teamwork

1) Manpower status

2) Uncertainties

EXTERNAL

OPPORTUNITY THREATS

1) Design optimization

2) Additional platform

1) Increase of steel price

2) Drop of world oil price

SWOT SUMMARY

Strengths

Strong personnel

Talisman project team are blessed with experience personnel as the company pays the highest

in the market compared to its competitors ExxonMobil, Shell and Petronas Carigali.

Comparison of the compensation paid is made in Malaysia. The project team comprised of

personnel with a minimum of fifteen (15) years of experience specializing in a particular

discipline with experience ranging from small satellites to big mother platforms. In fact, the

same team was the team that has successfully installed BO-A platform offshore Kota Bharu,

Kelantan at the Malaysian – Vietnam claim waters. It was the biggest ever installed single

piece platform in South East Asia weighing a proud 11,000 MT. Most of the personnel are

previously employed by ExxonMobil and other major Oil & Gas players in the world.

Teamwork

The strength of Talisman project team also lies in its teamwork. The working culture

illustrates the close bonding similar to those of a family. This occurred as the same project

team has been working together at various sites and location often far from their own home

and family which nurture the close bonding. As an example, the project team has spent 15

months together in Vung Tau, Vietnam when fabricating the three (3) wellheads for BO-B,

BO-C and BO-D Wellhead Riser Platforms. The project team also experience the lowest rate

of staff turnover and we have the same team in the project since year 2000 with very minimal

changes.



Weakness

Manpower status

All 60 project personnel are third party contractors employed through various manpower

agency. Only the project manager is of permanent status with the company. This opens the

room for the personnel to have less feeling of belonging to the company. Their feeling is

working just purely for money like mercenaries. Thus, there are times when they will not

work more than what their duty calls for and this is a weakness of the setup.

Uncertainties

Project team face uncertainties in every phases of the project, this uncertainties is bigger on a

rapid track project where the management will be pushing for immediate commencement of

fabrication / construction whereas the engineering has yet to be completely finalized. This

open room for changes, cost overrun and major re-works on some cases and in some cases

might ballooned the cost to double and gives bad reputation to the project team. This could

be mitigated with a proper engineering design but without the time allowance this cannot be

materialized. This is a weakness that the project team needs to mitigate.

Opportunity

Design optimization

The new project for IOR Phase II which comprises of possible two or three additional

platforms in the Southern Field offshore Kota Bharu, Kelantan in Vietnam – Malaysia claim

waters design is currently not final. However, budget submission was done on an average

cost design. This open the room for design optimization and the opportunity for the project

team to get the best and most cost effective design for implementation on the project. A

thorough conceptual engineering study can be conducted to catch this opportunity.

Additional platform

The first design calls for only a single platform to be built for IOR Phase II Project.

However, there are reasons and concerns that might implicate this plan and the need to

introduce another platform to ensure a more optimized processing of the crude is required.



There is also an exploratory drilling being made near BO-D fields and if this proves to be

abundant of oil, another new platform would be build. Economic of scale will give the

project team better bargaining power with vendors and suppliers to get better price as the

purchasing requirement increase from a single platform requirement to three platforms. This

is an opportunity for the project team to save costs and budget.

Threats

Increase of steel price

The sudden unanticipated increase of steel price which are way out of control can damage the

project team costs and budget. Apparently the increase is so uncertain that when expected an

increase of 10% it turns up to be an increase of almost 200% in price. This market

unpredictability is a threat to the project team ability to control the costs and budget.

Drop of world oil price

The current economics of the project development for this project is at USD30/bbls. If the

price of world oil drops below this figure, the project will be in the red. Currently it is

hovering at USD70-80/bbls. However it might drop again. This is a threat to the project

development.


No Gap


Strong personnel

Better controls of engineering design, and execution

and stronger monitoring of vendors and

subcontractors. Project team to assist and verify

heavily on the subcontractors work.

No

Teamwork

Interface gap between discipline and stronger

coverage on all the interfacing issues will be use to

ensure better results and performance.

No


Manpower status Project team members that are pivotal to the Yes



company should be absorbed into the direct hire

system or offered a permanent position with a non

significant pay drop.

Uncertainties More time should always be allocated for

engineering phase to reduce uncertainties and risk Yes


Design optimization

This should be one of the top priorities of the project

team where design optimization should always be in

the mindset of each project team member. Since it

is currently on conceptual engineering stage, this is

the best time to take advantage of this opportunity.

No

Additional platform

Additional platform will give the project team more

purchasing power and a higher bargaining capability

with vendors, suppliers and subcontractors.

No

Mitigating Threats

Increase of steel price To minimize the use of structural steel by design

optimization Yes

Drop of world oil price No strategy yet, except for reducing the cost of the

project and making it more economics Yes



3) Individual Level for Anas Alam Faizli:

INTERNAL


1) Confident.

2) Persistent.

3) Competent and Comprehensive

1) Careless.

2) Stress.

3) Non-engineering background

EXTERNAL

OPPORTUNITY THREATS

1) Opening for Project Engineer

2) Permanent position in Performance

Improvement Department

1) Project development of IOR Phase II

suspension.

2) No discovery in SB09 and SB10.

SWOT SUMMARY

Strengths

Confident

I am very confident in doing what I do. I approach problems with the idea that the problem

can be solved no matter how difficult it is. As a result of this, my colleagues and supervisors

have a high confident in myself when executing a job. This also help gets the

acknowledgement from the team. I also earn the respect from my subordinates and they

always give me the best that they can in ensuring project completion.

Persistent

My superior always complaint that I am persistent when I want to get things done. I push

things to the maximum. However this is a positive strength which normally ends up getting

things done no matter how difficult or faced with time constraints. Despite the fact that

everyone says that something cannot be done or completed doesn’t stop me and this is one of

my strength point.

Competent and Comprehensive



I possessed solid experience in the upstream oil & gas industry working with Talisman

Malaysia Limited, Petronas Carigali and Sime Sembcorp Engineering, throughout

development phase; serving under various roles and multiple responsibilities primarily as

Project Engineer in charge of overall project execution with international exposure working

overseas onshore and offshore with expertise as Site Engineer with construction and planning

exposure at fabrication yards.

Competent in project management elements of contracts management, strategic planning,

project risk management, cost controls, critical change project management and also

technical knowledge in construction and capability in facilities engineering throughout its

development phases.

Comprehensive exposure from initialization of Field Development Plan (FDP) formulation,

select engineering, front end engineering, conceptual & basic design, detail engineering,

procurement, fabrication, offshore installation, hookup & commissioning to FIRST OIL /

GAS (startup).

Weakness

Careless

I always strive to complete everything ahead of time and try to be as efficient as possible.

However I notice that at some point of time, there are works execution which could have

been done on a higher quality grounds if more time was properly taken to consider and plan

for the work. As a result of this often I found that some of my works is not as of high quality

as intended.

Stress

I found that some of the time I am bad at handling stress. This works as a weakness, if I can

maintain my cool and unruffled under all circumstance I will be able to perform better.

Normally I will be stress when doing multi tasking with limited amount of time or getting

resistant from subordinates. This affects the outcome of my decision making and work

execution which is a weakness.



Non-engineering background

I come from a computer science degree. This set me behind compared to other peers coming

from engineering background despite the fact that I have been in the oil & gas industry for

more than 8 years. Colleagues and peers are at times tend to have the tendency to under

estimate my opinion and this is something that needs to be overcome.

Opportunity

Opening for Project Engineer

There is a new development in the company. IOR Phase II is kicking off and is now

currently under conceptual engineering. It is a golden opportunity that after I complete my

assignment in Telok Kalong, Kemaman with striking colors. My manager is strongly

pushing me for this position which is a step in my career growth. Having served as a project

engineer will definitely boost up my management skills and exposure which will open the

path for me to strive to become a Project Manager. This is indeed an opportunity that cannot

be resisted.

Permanent position in Performance Improvement Department

There is a new department in the company which is called the Performance Improvement. It

has recently been setup with a manager from Calgary, Canada. There is a vacancy there and

my manager has given me an offer. He mentioned that this is more of a corporate exposure

and will expose me most of the times with the senior management of the company giving

presentation and new ideas to the company which is opening very hard for performance

improvement initiatives. This is an opportunity for a permanent position with the company

and a move to the corporate ladder and society of the industry.

Threats

Project Development of IOR Phase II suspension

IOR Phase II which will involve the development of two new platforms has not received the

greenlight from PETRONAS (Petroleum Nasional Berhad) yet. It is currently under the

formulation of development plan stage with conceptual engineering being executed by

Technip (M) Sdn Bhd. There is a high possibility that the project will receive the nod and



greenlight from PETRONAS for development but if the economics of the project shows red,

there is a risk of the project being suspended. If the project is suspended there will be no

project in the company for next year and will put contract personnel like myself in danger of

job security and have the potential of being release of my contract.

No discovery in SBO9 and SB10

Talisman has been awarded two deepwater blocks in Sabah. However exploration is still

ongoing and there has been no good positive findings yet. This is pivotal and critical for the

next phase of life for Talisman in Malaysia. If they do not find anything in Sabah, there will

be no more projects in Malaysia as all the existing blocks have been fully developed. This

will put my job security at jeopardy and risk losing my contract for the year 2012 onwards.


No Gap


Confident

To continue having the confident and building up

self-esteem and to use it to gain respect and

acknowledgement from colleague, superiors and

subordinates and contractors.

No

Persistent

To continue building up persistency and ensure

everything get done no matter how difficult things

are.

No

Competent and

Comprehensive

To further enhance and improve capability and

move towards personal mastery as proposed by

Senge’s fifth discipline

No


Careless

To always remind myself to double check my works

and ensure quality of the highest order every time

prior to submitting my works.

Yes

Stress

To delegate some of my works to subordinate and be

more organized to minimize stress and if possible to

evade stress and maintain coolness

Yes



Non-engineering

background

To pursue and graduate from Master of Project

Management course and gain recognition from

fellow colleagues and superiors

Yes


Opening for Project

Engineer

To continue pushing and giving the idea to manager

to ensure the role is secured and I will be able to get

the job.

No

Permanent position in

Performance Improvement

Department

To continue pushing and giving the idea to ensure

the role is secured and I will be able to get the job.

To also highlight and shows to management that I’m

doing my Master’s thesis on Performance

Management which will increase my credibility and

integrity.

No

Mitigating Threats

Project Development of

IOR Phase II Suspension

No strategy in plan yet, however will be able to

work my level best to ensure the project gets the

greenlight and go ahead from PETRONAS

Yes

No discovery in SBO9 and

SB10 No strategy in plan yet Yes



REFERENCES

Burke, W.W. and Litwin, G.H (1992) A causal model of organizational performance and

change, Journal of Management, 18(3):523-45.

Cartwright, D. (1951) Achieving change in people: some applications of group dynamics

theory, Human Relations, 4 (2):381-92.

Cummings, T.G and Worley, C.G. (2001) Organizational Development and Change,

Cincinnati, OH: South Western.

Flamholtz, E. (1995) Managing organizational transition: implications for corporate and

human resource management, European Management Journal, 13 (1): 39-51.

Gersick C.(1991) Revolutionary change theories: A multi-level exploration of the punctuated

equilibrium paradigm, Journal of Management Studies.

Greinel, L.E. (1972) Evolution and revolution as organizations grow, Harvard Business

Review, 50:37-46.

John Hayes (2010) The Theory and Practice of Change Management: Third Edition,

Palgrave Macmillan

Kotter, J.P (1980) An Integrative model of organizational dynamicsm in E.E Lawler, D.A.

Nadler and C. Cammann (eds), Organizational Assessment, New York: Wiley.

Kotter, J. (1999), Ten observations. Executive Excellence, August, 1999, 15-16.

Nadler, D., R. Shaw and A.E. Walton (1995) Discontinuous Change: Leading Organization

Transformation, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Nadler, D and Tushman, M. (1982) A Model for diagnosing organizational behavior:

applying a congruence perspective in D.A. Nadler, M.L Tushman and N.G. Hatvany (eds),

Managing Organizations, Boston: Little, Brown.



Nadler, D and Tushman, M. (1989) Organisational framebending. Academy of Management

Executive, 3: 194-202.

Pascale, R. and Athos, A. (1981) The Art of Japanese Management, New York: Warner

Books.

Patrick, S. K. & Fletcher, J. J. (1998) Faculty developers as change agents: Transforming

colleges and universities into learning organizations. To Improve the Academy, 17, 155-170.

Pedler, M., Burgogyne, J. and Boydell, T. (1997) The Learning Company: A strategy for

sustainable development. 2nd Ed. London; McGraw-Hill

Phelps, R., Adams, R. and Bessant, J. (2007) Life cycles of growing organizations: a review

with implications for knowledge and learning, International Journal of Management Reviews,

9(1): 1-30.

Postma, T. and Kok, R. (1999) Organizational diagnosis in practice: a cross-classification

analysis using the DEL-technique, European Management Journal, 17 (6): 584-97.

Senge, P.M (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization: Doubleday

Strebel, P. (1996) Breakpoint: how to stay in the game, Mastering Management, Part 17,

London : Financial Times.

Tichy, Noel M, Devanna, M.A (1986) The transformational leader, Chichester: Wiley.

Trist, E.L. and Bamforth, K.W. (1951) Some social and psychological consequences of the

long-wall method of coal-getting, Human Relations, 1:3-38.

Tushman, M. L., Newman, W. H. and Romanelli, E., (1986) Convergence and Upheaval:

managing the unsteady pace of organizational evolution, California Management Review,

29, 1, pp. 29-44.



Van de Ven & Poole (1995) Explaining Development and Change in Organizations, AMR,

Journal of Management Studies

Weisbord, M. (1976) Organizational diagnosis: six places to look for trouble with or without

a theory, Group and Organization Studies, 1(4): 430-47

Weisbord, M. (1989) Building Productive Workplaces: Change Strategies for the 21st

Century, Blue Sky Videos.

anas alam faizli, master of proj mgmt: assignment change management, emom5103

Documents