ORGANIZATIONAL

CHANGE AND
DEVELOPMENT

Term Report – HBR Articles

Submitted to: Si Kazi Afaq Ahmed

Submitted by:
Ayesha Mufti
Bushra Saba Awan
Youmna Ather
Table of Contents
1-ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE ........................................................................................................... 2

LEADING BUSINESS CHANGE: WHYTRANSFORMATION EFFORTS FAIL .......... 2

CHANGE THROUGH PERSUASION ............................................................. 4
THE SECRET TO LEADING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE IS EMPATHY ............ 6
DON’T JUST TELL EMPLOYEES ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES ARE COMING —
EXPLAIN WHY ........................................................................................ 8
THE HARD SIDE OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT ............................................ 10
DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION IS NOT ABOUT TECHNOLOGY ...................... 14
2-ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE RESISTANCE AND TACTICS FOR REDUCING
RESISTANCE................................................................................................................................................ 16

BEST OF HBR CHOOSING STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE ................................ 16

HOW TO EMBRACE CHANGE USING EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE .............. 18
3-ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................................... 20

THE GREAT TRAINING ROBBERY ............................................................ 20

IS YOURS A LEARNING ORGANIZATION? .................................................. 23
CREATING A PURPOSE-DRIVEN ORGANIZATION ....................................... 25
4-EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP .................................................................... 27
WHEN MANAGERS ARE OVERWORKED, THEY TREAT EMPLOYEES LESS
FAIRLY ................................................................................................. 27
THE COLLABORATION BLIND SPOT ........................................................ 29
MANAGE YOUR ENERGY, NOT YOUR TIME ............................................... 31
TOUR OF DUTY: THE NEW EMPLOYEER-EMPLOYEE COMPACT .................. 34
WHY MANAGERS IGNORE EMPLOYEE IDEAS ............................................ 37
5-ORGANIZATIONAL DIVERSITY .................................................................................................... 38

WHY MAKE DIVERSITY SO HARD TO ACHIEVE? ........................................ 38

CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT HAVE TO MESH40
1-ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

LEADING BUSINESS CHANGE:

WHYTRANSFORMATION EFFORTS FAIL
By John P. Kotter
2007
Introduction:
When it comes to change management, John Kotter is the most cited author worldwide. In 1995,
his book Leading Change became an international bestseller. In this book, Kotter describes 8
necessary steps for cultural change. 17 years later however, he changed his vision on
organizational change from an organization where change is implemented top-down, towards an
organization of voluntary bottom-up improvements.

In this article, Why Transformation Efforts Fail:

John P Kotter (1995), a Konosuke Matsushita Professor of Leadership at Harvard
Business School, talked about how to become a successful transformational leader. Often
resisted by people, change is sometimes essential. Difficult as it is, Kotter said that ―guiding
change may be the ultimate test of a leader.‖ Kotter (1995) developed the eight steps process to
transforming an organization. He emphasized the need to follow the eight steps process in same
order. Both the original theory of 8 steps is explained, as well as a short summary in which
Kotter explains his new view on organizational change.

THE 8 STEPS OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE:

These are the steps need to be implemented in this particular order to increase the chance of success.
Skipping one step can lead to failure of change.

1. Creating Urgency.
People have to be convinced, that the current state of the organization is not the appropriate
one to face the future. A co called ‗burning platform‘ is needed before anyone in the
organization is willing to change anything to begin with.
This first step is to establish a sense of urgency which is done by ―examining market and
competitive realities,‖ ―identifying and discussing crises‖ (actual or potential), or even
―major opportunities‖ (Kotter, 1995).

2. Coalition for Change:

This can be defined, which should include people who have power, knowledge, credibility
and leadership skills. Avoid big ego´s in these kind of teams. A successful team is based on
trust between the team members and a common goal, which touches both heart and mind.
 This second step is to form a powerful guiding coalition. Kotter (1995) stated the importance
of forming a group of leaders to pave the way for change and to encourage this group to work
as a team

3. Vision should then be defined:

To simplify detailed decisions. This third is to create a vision from this, strategies are
developed to realize the vision
(1), to encourage people to take action themselves (2) and coordinate a large number of
actions (3). When the vision is clear, all employees can decide for themselves what needs to
be done to improve the situation without continuously having to discuss these actions with
colleagues or their boss.

4. Generate acceptance among team members:

By sharing the vision as often as possible. Use two minutes in a meeting, five minutes at the
end of a conversation, or make three short connections to the vision in your next speech. It
does not really matter how much time you spent talking about your mission, as long as it is
clear that you believe in it and your actions are based on the direction given by the vision.
This will lead to more people believing in and changing their behavior towards the vision.

5. This fourth step, is to communicate the vision and its strategies by every means. The alliance
leaders impart the new behaviors based on the model behaviors

6. Enable action:
In the organization, by changing the systems in the organization that do not facilitate the
change towards the vision. Ask questions, discuss and challenge these systems by talking to
others.
Fifth step is to empower others to act on the vision. By freeing debris (altering roads that
may extremely delay travel to end goals) and inspiring others to take risks by sharing
―nontraditional ideas, activities, and actions‖ to get to the where, leaders pave the way for
change.

7. Generate short term wins:

to prove that the new direction really works. Proof of effectiveness of the new way of
working will reduce resistance in the organization. It is therefore important not only to focus
on long term improvements, what is described in Lean Literature (Liker, 2004), but also to
generate improvements that will show short term improvements.
The next challenge is to
Sixth step is to plan for and create short-term wins. Achieving short term goals boosts team
morale. Rewarding and recognizing employee champions help inspire others to become
team players and to contribute beyond their job functions

8. Sustain the acceleration:

 Sustain the acceleration of improvements. Keep on learning from the last process
improvement. What went right? What went wrong? Do not rest after one short term
improvement. Simply keep on improving without end.
Seventh is to consolidate improvements and produce more change. Kotter (1995) indicated
the need to hire the right person, promote staff who are capable of achieving the vision, and
develop those who need help in achieving the vision (Kotter, 1995). Systems, structures,
and policies that do not fit the vision must also be changed (Kotter, 1995). Reviving and
sustaining new developments with new schemes and ―change agents‖ are vital (Kotter, 1995

9. Anchor the changes in corporate culture:

People will only change their behavior when they see the connection between the new values
and behaviors in combination to the improved results of the processes. Celebrate the positive
changes, talk about the results and the journey it took to get there and publically recognize
people who played a valuable part in the change and talk about the new values.

Eight is to institutionalize new approaches. At the end of every successful endeavor, leaders
must clearly and sincerely communicate to his team how the ―new behaviors‖ affected
corporate success (Kotter, 1995).

Skipping a step must be avoided to ensure successful execution of the transformation

process. Each step prevents significant errors. And with fewer errors, successful
transformation is within reach.

17 years after publishing his book Leading Change, Kotter‘s vision has shifted. His 8 step
approach to change in which change is implemented top-down, was usable in a world where
organizations count up to a hundred people.
In the current world, where organizations are much bigger, a small group of change managers
will not be enough to actually change the processes the way they need to be changed; these
organizations need ‗an army of volunteers for improvement’. Kotter states that at least
10% of the organization should actively participate in improvement processes to keep the
culture of continuous improvement going. The others do not necessarily need to participate in
the improvements, but do need to understand what the volunteers are doing.
This insight effects the 8 steps. Generating this army of volunteers would be the new step
number 4. Change managers do not only need to explain what they are doing, the need to
persuade others into implementing improvements themselves

CHANGE THROUGH PERSUASION

By David A Garvin
June, 2012
This article focuses why brining in change is so hard and how‘s it brought through persuasion.
Without a doubt, the toughest challenge faced by leaders during a turnaround is to avoid
backsliding into dysfunctional routines — habitual patterns of negative behavior by individuals
and groups that are triggered automatically and unconsciously by familiar circumstances or
stimuli. Employees need help maintaining new behaviors, especially when their old ways of
working are deeply ingrained and destructive. Effective change leaders provide opportunities for
employees to practice desired behaviors repeatedly, while personally modeling new ways of
working and providing coaching and support.
In the study of successful turnarounds, we‘ve found that effective leaders explicitly reinforce
organizational values on a constant basis, using actions to back up their words. Their goal is to
change behavior, not just ways of thinking through persuasion. There are 4 ways to peruse.
PHASE 1. SETTING THE STAGE
Convince employees that radical change is imperative. They should demonstrate why the new
direction is the right one.
EXAMPLE PHASE 1.
Levy chose to act as the managerial equivalent of a good doctor. He developed a bold message
that provided compelling reasons to do things differently and then cast that message in capital
letters to signal the arrival of a new order. He described the open management style he would
adopt.
PHASE 2. CREATING THE FRAME
Effective leaders need to help employees interpret the plans for change. With complex plans,
skilled leaders use ―frame‖ to provide context and shape perspective. This way, leaders can help
people digest ideas in particular way.
EXAMPLE PHASE 2
A detailed email memo:
 Modify critics, reduce the fears of doctors and nurses
 Provide further detailed about the turnaround plan
 Anticipate and respond to prospective concerns
PHASE 3. MANAGING THE MOOD
Leaders must pay close attention to employees‘ emotions. The ebb and flow of their feelings and
moods - and work hard to preserve a receptive climate for change. This requires a delicate
balancing between presenting good and bad news in just the right proportion. Employees need to
feel that their sacrifices have not been in vain and their accomplishments have been recognized
and rewarded. Communication must strike the right notes of optimistic and realism and carefully
calibrate the timing, tone, and positioning of every message.
EXAMPLE PHASE 3
 1. Challenges for leader (Paul Levy): To give remaining employees to grieve and recover
from layoffs and other difficult measures. To make them feel that he cared for and
supported them. To ensure that the turnaround plan proceeded apace.
2. Actions: Balance bad news and good news To acknowledge employees‘ feeling of
depression while helping them look to the future
• In an email, Levy explicitly empathized with employees‘ feelings and then urged employees to
look forward and concluded on a strongly optimistic note. To keep employees focused on the
continuing hard work ahead.
• Spoke plainly about the need to control costs and reminded employees that merit pay increase
would remain on hold.
PHASE 4. REINFORCING GOOD HABITS 13 EFFECTIVE CHANGE
LEADER
Personally model new ways of working and provide coaching and support. Explicitly reinforce
organizational values on a constant basis, using action to back up their words. Recognize that
many staff simply do not know how to make decisions as a group or work cooperatively, and
accordingly delegate critical decisions and responsibilities to provide them with ample
opportunities to practice new ways of working.
EXAMPLE PHASE 4
Levy had established meeting rules requiring staff to state their objections to decision and to
―disagree without being disagreeable‖. - When one medical chief emailed Levy, complained
about a decision had made during a meeting and copied the other chief and board chairman-
Levy took action. - He responded the email with the same audience publicly reprimanding the
chief for his tone, lack of civility, and the failure to follow the rule about speaking up during
meetings.
CONCLUSION
In a receptive environment, employees not only understand why change is necessary; they‘re
also emotionally committed to making it happen, and they faithfully execute the required step.

THE SECRET TO LEADING

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE IS
EMPATHY
Patti Sanchez
December 20, 2018
The study show that leaders across the board agree: if you want to lead a successful
transformation, communicating empathetically is critical. But the truth is that most leaders don‘t
actually know how to do it. A lack of audience empathy when conveying news about an
organizational transformation can cause it to fail. If you are a company leader hoping to
undertake a successful organizational change, you need to make sure your team is onboard and
motivated to help make it happen. The following strategies can you help you better understand
your employees‘ perspectives.
Following steps should be taken to make the change effective:
1. Profile Your Audience at Every Stage
2. Tell People What to Expect
3. Involve Individuals at All Levels
Profile Your Audience at Every Stage
Change consultants typically advise leaders to create personas of various audiences when they
kick-off a change initiative. But, considering that people‘s wants and needs will evolve
throughout the process, you should reevaluate these personas during every phase of the journey.
Using the insights from some interviews conducted, they were able to identify how each
employee segment felt about the change effort, and planned communications based on whether
they were excited, frightened, or frustrated. Employees who were excited about the change, for
example, received communication that encouraged them to motivate their reluctant peers.
As your organizational transformation unfolds and you enter new phases of the change, make
sure you repeat the interviewing and empathetic listening process. That way, you can gauge how
people are feeling over time, and tailor your communication to match their mood.

Tell People What to Expect

While you may need to keep some facts private during a transition, the general rule is that the
more informed your people are, the more they‘ll be able to deal with discomfort. So, learn about
your team‘s specific fears, and then acknowledge them openly. While you may need to keep
some facts private during a transition, the general rule is that the more informed your people are,
the more they‘ll be able to deal with discomfort. So, learn about your team‘s specific fears, and
then acknowledge them openly.

Involve Individuals at all Levels

A transformation won‘t succeed without broad involvement. A large European retail bank
modeled this well during an organizational overhaul. Following a ―dialogue-based planning‖
model, the CEO created a top-level story for the bank, and then asked his executive directors to
add a ―chapter,‖ sharing details relevant to their departments. Each director then asked their own
team to add to the chapter, incorporating ideas about how a change would impact them and their
unique responsibilities. This continued down five levels, all the way to branch managers, and
helped every impacted individual understand their part. A transformation won‘t succeed without
broad involvement. What happens in the end, is that the frontline employees will end up bringing
about a practical, useful change at the organization — one that improves things for all parties.
Business practices evolve rapidly, but there‘s one technique business leaders should always rely
on to effectively motivate and lead: empathic communication. Develop and show empathy for
everyone involved in your corporate transition, and you‘ll lead a team that feels valued, included,
and driven to help your initiative succeed.

DON’T JUST TELL EMPLOYEES

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES ARE COMING
— EXPLAIN WHY
By Morgan Galbraith
OCTOBER 05, 2018
Employees around the world are reporting that big organizational changes are affecting their
jobs. From leadership transitions and restructurings, to mergers and acquisitions, to regulatory
changes, there seems to be constant unrest in the workforce. But according to one survey of more
than half a million U.S. employees, almost one-third don‘t understand why these changes are
happening.
This can be detrimental for any company trying to implement change. When employees don‘t
understand why changes are happening, it can be a barrier to driving ownership and commitment
and can even result in resistance or push back. And employees‘ resistance to change is a leading
factor for why so many change transformations fail.
You must spend time explaining the changes and why they are important. Based on my
experience supporting organizational change initiatives, there are four key aspects to helping
employees understand change, to drive commitment, and to ultimately contribute to your
success.
Inspire people by presenting a compelling vision for the future . During times of
uncertainty, people experiencing change want a clear view of the path ahead. It‘s important to
share what you know – including what‘s changing, when, and how. But for most change
initiatives, it is also helpful to start with a narrative or story that clearly articulates the ―big
picture‖ – why change is important and how it will positively affect the organization long-term.
This should serve as the foundation for how you communicate about the change moving forward.
Keep employees informed by providing regular communications. Change
communications is never a one-and-done event; keeping employees informed is something that
you will have to do throughout every step of the change process. Studies have found that
continual communication is a leading factor in a transformation‘s success. When thinking about
how to communicate, keep the following in mind:
Be clear and consistent: All of your communications should tie back to the narrative that
you developed, reiterating the case for change and presenting a compelling future vision.
You will not have all the answers: Often times, you will not have all the answers
employees are looking for, and that breeds anxiety and uncertainty. It‘s important to focus on
what you know, and be candid about what you don‘t. If you do not have an answer, say so. When
this occurs, it‘s important to let employees know you are committed to communicating openly
and transparently, and will follow-up as soon as you know more.
Don’t forget to articulate “What’s in it for me?”: One of the most important phrases
you may come across in change communications is ―what‘s in it for me?‖ If your employees
understand what‘s in it for them personally, you‘re more likely to see individuals commit to and
own the change. Failing to articulate ―what‘s in it for me‖ will only hinder your efforts.
Empower leaders and managers to lead through change . Major changes or
transformations often require asking employees to adopt specific behaviors or skillsets in order
to be successful. And when senior leaders model the behavior changes, transformations are five
times more likely to be successful.
Leaders not only need to be equipped with information and resources, but they need to feel
confident leading through change. This can be especially challenging, as leaders encounter more
pressure to provide better answers and to support their teams. But how your leadership reacts to
change will trickle down and impact your managers, who then impact your employees and their
engagement.
To empower leaders and managers, executives and change leads should help them understand the
fundamentals of change, including how to be an effective leader during times of change, how
individuals react to and navigate change, and how to address roadblocks or areas of resistance.
Find creative ways to involve employees in the change. When planning for major
change events, it is important to solicit feedback and engage people in the process. This helps
build ownership in the change, and makes employees more likely to support the change and even
champion it.
Being able to effectively lead change within your organization is crucial – and impacts more
your culture and your bottom line. Companies who are highly effective at change management
are three and a half times more likely to significantly outperform industry peers.
Assuming employees understand the changes, your company is going through will jeopardize
your change initiative. So, the next time you‘re approaching a change project, be sure to think
about how you can inspire, inform, empower, and engage your most powerful ambassadors – and
successfully lead your company into the future

THE HARD SIDE OF CHANGE

MANAGEMENT
By Harold l. Sirkin, Perry Keenan and Alan Jackson
October 2005
For over three decades, academics, managers, and consultants, realizing that transforming
organizations is difficult, have dissected the subject. They‘ve sung the praises of leaders who
communicate vision and walk the talk in order to make change efforts succeed. They‘ve
sanctified the importance of changing organizational culture and employees‘ attitudes. They‘ve
teased out the tensions between top-down transformation efforts and participatory approaches to
change. And they‘ve exhorted companies to launch campaigns that appeal to people‘s hearts and
minds. Still, studies show that in most organizations, two out of three transformation initiatives
fail. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
What‘s missing, we believe, is a focus on the not-so-fashionable aspects of change management:
the hard factors. These factors bear three distinct characteristics. First, companies are able to
measure them in direct or indirect ways. Second, companies can easily communicate their
importance, both within and outside organizations. Third, and perhaps most important,
businesses are capable of influencing those elements quickly. Some of the hard factors that affect
a transformation initiative are the time necessary to complete it, the number of people required to
execute it, and the financial results that intended actions are expected to achieve. Our research
shows that change projects fail to get off the ground when companies neglect the hard factors.
That doesn‘t mean that executives can ignore the soft elements; that would be a grave mistake.
However, if companies don‘t pay attention to the hard issues first, transformation programs will
break down before the soft elements come into play.
That‘s a lesson we learned when we identified the common denominators of change. In 1992, we
started with the contrarian hypothesis that organizations handle transformations in remarkably
similar ways. We researched projects in a number of industries and countries to identify those
common elements. Our initial 225-company study revealed a consistent correlation between the
outcomes (success or failure) of change programs and four hard factors: project duration,
particularly the time between project reviews; performance integrity, or the capabilities of
project teams; the commitment of both senior executives and the staff whom the change will
affect the most; and the additional effort that employees must make to cope with the change. We
called these variables the DICE factors because we could load them in favor of projects‘ success.

The Four Key Factors

Duration
companies make the mistake of worrying mostly about the time it will take to implement change
programs. They assume that the longer an initiative carries on, the more likely it is to fail—the
early impetus will peter out, windows of opportunity will close, objectives will be forgotten, key
supporters will leave or lose their enthusiasm, and problems will accumulate. However, contrary
to popular perception, our studies show that a long project that is reviewed frequently is more
likely to succeed than a short project that isn‘t reviewed frequently. Thus, the time between
reviews is more critical for success than a project‘s life span.
Scheduling milestones and assessing their impact are the best way by which executives can
review the execution of projects, identify gaps, and spot new risks. The most effective milestones
are those that describe major actions or achievements rather than day-to-day activities. They
must enable senior executives and project sponsors to confirm that the project has made progress
since the last review took place. Good milestones encompass a number of tasks that teams must
complete. For example, describing a particular milestone as ―Consultations with Stakeholders
Completed‖ is more effective than ―Consult Stakeholders‖ because it represents an achievement
and shows that the project has made headway. Moreover, it suggests that several activities were
completed—identifying stakeholders, assessing their needs, and talking to them about the
project. When a milestone looks as though it won‘t be reached on time, the project team must try
to understand why, take corrective actions, and learn from the experience to prevent problems
from recurring.
Integrity
By performance integrity, we mean the extent to which companies can rely on teams of
managers, supervisors, and staff to execute change projects successfully. In a perfect world,
every team would be flawless, but no business has enough great people to ensure that. Besides,
senior executives are often reluctant to allow star performers to join change efforts because
regular work can suffer. But since the success of change programs depends on the quality of
teams, companies must free up the best staff while making sure that day-to-day operations don‘t
falter. In companies that have succeeded in implementing change programs, we find that
employees go the extra mile to ensure their day-to-day work gets done.
Since project teams handle a wide range of activities, resources, pressures, external stimuli, and
unforeseen obstacles, they must be cohesive and well led. It‘s not enough for senior executives to
ask people at the watercooler if a project team is doing well; they must clarify members‘ roles,
commitments, and accountability. They must choose the team leader and, most important, work
out the team‘s composition.
Smart executive sponsors, we find, are very inclusive when picking teams. They identify talent
by soliciting names from key colleagues, including human resource managers; by circulating
criteria they have drawn up; and by looking for top performers in all functions. While they
accept volunteers, they take care not to choose only supporters of the change initiative. Senior
executives personally interview people so that they can construct the right portfolio of skills,
knowledge, and social networks. They also decide if potential team members should commit all
their time to the project; if not, they must ask them to allocate specific days or times of the day to
the initiative. Top management makes public the parameters on which it will judge the team‘s
performance and how that evaluation fits into the company‘s regular appraisal process. Once the
project gets under way, sponsors must measure the cohesion of teams by administering
confidential surveys to solicit members‘ opinions.
Commitment
Companies must boost the commitment of two different groups of people if they want change
projects to take root: They must get visible backing from the most influential executives (what
we call C1), who are not necessarily those with the top titles. And they must take into account
the enthusiasm—or often, lack thereof—of the people who must deal with the new systems,
processes, or ways of working (C2).
Top-level commitment is vital to engendering commitment from those at the coal face. If
employees don‘t see that the company‘s leadership is backing a project, they‘re unlikely to
change. No amount of top-level support is too much. In 1999, when we were working with the
CEO of a consumer products company, he told us that he was doing much more than necessary
to display his support for a nettlesome project. When we talked to line managers, they said that
the CEO had extended very little backing for the project. They felt that if he wanted the project
to succeed, he would have to support it more visibly! A rule of thumb: When you feel that you
are talking up a change initiative at least three times more than you need to, your managers will
feel that you are backing the transformation.
Effort
When companies launch transformation efforts, they frequently don‘t realize, or know how to
deal with the fact, that employees are already busy with their day-to-day responsibilities.
According to staffing tables, people in many businesses work 80-plus-hour weeks. If, on top of
existing responsibilities, line managers and staff have to deal with changes to their work or to the
systems they use, they will resist.
Project teams must calculate how much work employees will have to do beyond their existing
responsibilities to change over to new processes. Ideally, no one‘s workload should increase
more than 10%. Go beyond that, and the initiative will probably run into trouble. Resources will
become overstretched and compromise either the change program or normal operations.
Employee morale will fall, and conflict may arise between teams and line staff. To minimize the
dangers, project managers should use a simple metric like the percentage increase in effort the
employees who must cope with the new ways feel they must contribute. They should also check
if the additional effort they have demanded comes on top of heavy workloads and if employees
are likely to resist the project because it will demand more of their scarce time.
Creating the Framework
As we came to understand the four factors better, we created a framework that would help
executives evaluate their transformation initiatives and shine a spotlight on interventions that
would improve their chances of success. We developed a scoring system based on the variables
that affect each factor. Executives can assign scores to the DICE factors and combine them to
arrive at a project score.
Applying the DICE Framework
The simplicity of the DICE framework often proves to be its biggest problem; executives seem
to desire more complex answers. By overlooking the obvious, however, they often end up
making compromises that don‘t work. Smart companies try to ensure that they don‘t fall into that
trap by using the DICE framework in one of three ways.
Track Projects.
Some companies train managers in how to use the DICE framework before they start
transformation programs. Executives use spreadsheet-based versions of the tool to calculate the
DICE scores of the various components of the program and to compare them with past scores.
Over time, every score must be balanced against the trajectory of scores
Manage portfolios of projects
When companies launch large transformation programs, they kick off many projects to attain
their objectives. But if executives don‘t manage the portfolio properly, those tasks end up
competing for attention and resources. For instance, senior executives may choose the best
employees for projects they have sponsored or lavish attention on pet projects rather than on
those that need attention. By deploying our framework before they start transformation
initiatives, companies can identify problem projects in portfolios, focus execution expertise and
senior management attention where it is most needed, and defuse political issues.
Force conversation
When different executives calculate DICE scores for the same project, the results can vary
widely. The difference in scores is particularly important in terms of the dialogue it triggers. It
provokes participants and engages them in debate over questions like ―Why do we see the
project in these different ways?‖ and ―What can we agree to do to ensure that the project will
succeed?‖ That‘s critical, because even people within the same organization lack a common
framework for discussing problems with change initiatives. Prejudices, differences in
perspectives, and a reluctance or inability to speak up can block effective debates. By using the
DICE framework, companies can create a common language and force the right discussions.
 DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION IS NOT
ABOUT TECHNOLOGY
by Behnam Tabrizi, Ed Lam, Kirk Girard, and Vernon Irvin
MARCH 13, 2019

A recent survey of directors, CEOs, and senior executives found that digital transformation (DT)
risk Is their #1 concern in 2019. Yet 70% of all DT initiatives do not reach their goals. Of the
$1.3 trillion
That was spent on DT last year, it was estimated that $900 billion went to waste. Why do some
DT Efforts succeed and others fail?

Fundamentally, it‘s because most digital technologies Digital Transformation provide Is Not
About possibilities. Technology for efficiency gains and customer intimacy. But if people lack
the right mindset to change and the current organizational practices are flawed, DT will simply
magnify those flaws. Five key lessons have helped us lead our organizations through digital
transformations that succeeded.

Lesson 1: Figure out your business strategy before you invest in anything. Leaders who aim
to enhance organizational performance through use of digital technologies often have a specific
tool in mind. ―Our organization needs a machine learning strategy,‖ perhaps. But digital
transformation should be guided by the broader business strategy. There is no single technology
that will deliver ―speed‖ or ―innovation‖ as such. The best combination of tools for a given
organization will vary from one vision to another.

Lesson 2: Leverage insiders. Organizations that seek transformations (digital and otherwise)
frequently bring in an army of outside consultants who tend to apply one-size-fits-all solutions in
the name of ―best practices.‖ Our approach to transforming our respective organizations is to rely
instead on insiders — staff who have intimate knowledge about what works and what doesn‘t in
their daily operations. Often new technologies can fail to improve organizational productivity not
because of fundamental flaws in the technology but because intimate insider knowledge has been
overlooked.

Lesson 3: Design customer experience from the outside in. If the goal of DT is to improve
customer
satisfaction and intimacy, then any effort must be preceded by a diagnostic phase with in-depth
input from customers.
Lesson 4: Recognize employees‘ fear of being Digital Transformation replaced. Is When Not
About employees Technology perceive that digital transformation could threaten their jobs, they
may consciously or unconsciously resist the changes.
If the digital transformation then turns out to be ineffective, management will eventually
abandon the effort and their jobs will be saved (or so the thinking goes). It is critical for leaders
to recognize those fears and to emphasize that the digital transformation process is an
opportunity for employees to upgrade their expertise to suit the marketplace of the future.

Lesson 5: Bring Silicon Valley start-up culture inside. Silicon Valley start-ups are known for
their agile decision making, rapid prototyping and flat structures. The process of digital
transformation is inherently uncertain: changes need to be made provisionally and then adjusted;
decisions need to be made quickly; and groups from all over the organization need to get
involved. As a result, traditional hierarchies get in the way. It‘s best to adopt a flat organizational
structure that‘s kept somewhat separate from the rest of the organization. This need for agility
and prototyping is even more pronounced than it might be in other change- management
initiatives because so many digital technologies can be customized. Leaders have to decide on
what apps from which vendors to use, which area of business best benefit from switching to that
new technology, whether the transition Digital Transformation should be Is Not rolled About
Technology out in stages, and so on. Often, picking the best solution requires extensive
experimentation on interdependent parts. If each decision has to go through multiple layers of
management to move forward, mistakes cannot be detected and corrected quickly. Furthermore,
for certain digital technologies, the payoff only occurs after a substantial portion of the business
has switched to the new system. For example, a cloud computing system designed to aggregate
global customer demand can only generate useful analytics when stores in different countries all
collect the same type of data regularly. This requires ironing out differences in existing
organizational processes across different regions. If the details of how a new technology will be
used are chiefly developed by employees from one country, they might not be aware of the
potential incompatibilities.
Digital transformation worked for these organizations because their leaders went back to
the fundamentals: they focused on changing the mindset of its members as well as the
organizational culture and processes before they decide what digital tools to use and how to use
them. What the members envision to be the future of the organization drove the technology, not
the other way around
2-ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
RESISTANCE AND TACTICS FOR
REDUCING RESISTANCE

BEST OF HBR CHOOSING STRATEGIES FOR

CHANGE
By John P. Kotter and Leonard A. Schlesinger
2008
Faced with stiffer competition and dizzying technological advances, companies often must
change course to stay competitive. But most change initiatives backfire. That‘s because many
managers take a one-size fits-all approach to change. They assume they can combat resistance, a
notorious obstacle, by involving employees in the design of the initiative. But that works only
when employees have the information they need to provide useful input. It‘s disastrous when
they don‘t. Also, managers often don‘t tailor the speed of their change strategy to the situation.
For instance, they may apply a go-slow approach even when an impending crisis calls for rapid
change. To lead change successfully, Kotter and Schlesinger recommend:

DIAGNOSING the types of resistance you‘ll encounter—and tailoring your

countermeasures accordingly. To illustrate, with employees who fear the adjustments the change will
require, provide training in new skills.

Manger do the diagnosis on the basis of the following

1. PAROCHIAL SELF INTEREST:
One major reason people resist organizational change is that they think they will lose
something of value as a result because people focus on their own best interests and
not on those of the total organization and they have Fear of loss of job
2. MISUNDERSTANDING &LACK OF TRUST:
When employees do not understand change implications
Lack of trust I this way Employee become demotivated or sometime try to resist
3. DIFFERENT ASSESSMENTS:
When there is a difference in the point of view and change initiators believe that they
have enough information but most of the time employer‘s assumptions are not correct
4. LOW TOLERANCE FOR CHANGE:
Employee fear that they will not be able to develop the new skills and behavior that
will be required of them and they limited in their ability to change
• ADAPTING
Your change strategy to the situation. For example, if your company must transform to avert an
imminent crisis, accelerate your initiative—even if that risks greater resistance
 HOW TO EMBRACE CHANGE USING
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE
By Kandi Wiens and Darin Rowell
DECEMBER 31, 2018

CHANGES AT WORK CAN BE EMOTIONALLY INTENSE

like it creates confusion, fear, frustration, and helplessness.
Experts have even said that the experience of going through change at work can mimic that of
people who are suffering from grief over the loss of a loved one. Because change can be so
physically and emotionally draining, it often leads to burnout and puts into motion an insidious
cycle that leads to even greater resistance to change.
No Manger wants any problems to bring change, when people starts resisting it‘s not good for
their career or for any organization. Improving adaptability to change, a critical emotional
intelligence competency, is key to breaking this cycle most of the time, this skill can be learned.
In fact, in our work as coaches, it‘s often a priority for our clients. They‘re tired of feeling
frustrated and angry about changes at work, and they want to be seen as adaptable rather than
resistant.
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE STRATEGIES
Organization introduces a big change, consider these four emotional intelligence strategies to
help you embrace the change rather than brace for it:
1. Identify the source of your resistance .
Understanding reasons for your resistance through self-awareness.
For example, if you‘re resisting because you‘re worried that the change will make
you look incompetent, you can create a learning plan for the new skills you will need
in order to be successful. Even if you don‘t like the direction the organization is
moving, being involved in the implementation may help you regain a sense of control
and reduce your urge to resist.
2. Question the basis of your emotional response .
Our emotional reactions to change often reflects ―stories‖ which looks like true. In
actuality stories are in line with reality.
Ask yourself: This type of questioning helps to illuminate the stories driving our
emotions and influence our perceptions
 What is my primary emotion associated with this change?
 Is it fear, anger, frustration?
 Once you identify the emotion, ask what that‘s about?
 What do I believe to be true that‘s making me angry/fearful/frustrated?
 As an example, a senior executive in the transportation industry identified her intense
emotional reaction as anger. As she continued to question the basis of her anger, she
discovered an underlying story: she was powerless and a victim to the impending
change initiative. With this new awareness she was able to separate her emotional
reaction and ―story‖ from the actual events. This allowed her to identify several
options to take on new leadership responsibilities for a major aspect of the change
initiative. With these new opportunities to take back her power, her mentality shifted
from thinking that the changes were happening to her, to focusing on how she could
take on a leadership role that would create new opportunities for both her career and
the organization.
3. Own your part in the situation:
It‘s not always easy to fess up to the part we play in creating a negative situation. A
self-aware person reflects on how their attitudes and behaviors contribute to their
experience of the change. For example, let‘s say that you‘ve noticed yourself
becoming increasingly and more immediately tense each time you hear of a new
change. Practicing mindfulness will allow you to examine your feelings and how they
are affecting your attitude. Any negativity or pessimism is going to impact your
behavior, performance, and well-being (and not in a good way). By reflecting on how
your initial reaction contributes to a negative chain of events, it‘ll be easier to adjust
your attitude to be more open to considering new perspectives, which will ultimately
change the way you react to everything.
4. Turn up your positive outlook:
Things may feel a little bleak when you don‘t agree with a new change, but studies
show that having a positive outlook can open us up to new possibilities and be more
receptive to change. Asking yourself a few simple questions will help you think more
optimistically. First, ask yourself Where are the opportunities with this change? And
then, How will these opportunities help me and others?
Conclusion
The ability to quickly and easily adapt to change is often a competitive advantage for
a leader. Next time you feel yourself resisting, use the four approaches above to build
momentum and psychological energy for you and others. Make the intentional choice
not just to embrace change but to positively propel it forward
3-ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

THE GREAT TRAINING ROBBERY

By Michael Beer, Magnus Finnstrom & Derek Schrader
4/21/2016
Why Training Programs Fail:
Education and training with the objective of individual learning and development is a worthy
endeavor in it‘s own right. Individuals are eager to learn knowledge and skills that will advance
their careers, unfortunately often in another company. However, senior executives and their HR
professionals invest, we assume, to improve individual and organizational effectiveness and
performance. Their assumption that leadership and management training will improve these is, as
we illustrate above, wrong. The tragedy is that that much of the understanding about the transient
effect of education and training has been known for decades.
Understanding of the futility of training individuals to change organizational behavior without
changing the organizational system began with the seminal Ohio State Leadership Studies in the
1960‘s. A leadership-training program successfully changed attitudes of first line supervisors
about how they should lead. A follow-up study found, however, that most supervisors regressed
to their pre-training beliefs about effective leadership. The only exceptions were those whose
bosses practiced and believed in the new leadership style the program was designed to teach.
Numerous studies intended to evaluate the effectiveness of training and education find that
training succeeds only when an individual‘s goals are aligned with training objectives, bosses
and peers support newly learned skills and attitudes, trainees have the opportunity to apply newly
learned abilities and there are sufficient resources (time and money) to practice new learning.
These are all facets of the organizational system – the context that shapes attitudes and behavior.
Indeed, a Meta analysis of many training studies finds that only 10% of training programs are
effective.

The effects of failed training are not only a poor return on investment. Education that advocates
leadership behavior and values at odds with the organizational climate triggers cynicism as the
EPD example illustrates. It also enables senior management to be fooled into thinking that they
are implementing an organizational change, thus delaying their realization that they must
themselves lead the change.
For these reasons we argue for a new reverse logic based on systems thinking, namely, that
organizational change and development led by the senior team must be underway to create a
favorable context for learning and development initiatives. The seeds of new individual skills,
knowledge and attitudes can only thrive in fertile ground –a changed pattern of roles,
responsibilities and relationships that typically emerge from a new organization design led by the
senior team. These encourage, even demand new behavior. Embedding training in a visible
senior team-led change effort works for the following reason:

1. It motivates individuals to learn and change.

2. It creates the conditions (a supporting context) that enable individuals to successfully enact
their newly learned knowledge, skills and attitudes.
3. It leads to changes that simultaneously foster immediate improvements in individual and
organizational effectiveness and performance.
4. It puts the conditions in place – the new system – that allows individuals to sustain their newly
learned skills, knowledge and attitudes.

Why the Great Training Robbery Persists:

HR professional are locked into a false implicit assumption about organizations, namely, that
they function as an aggregation of talented individuals as opposed to a system of interactions
shaped by multiple facets – strategy, structure, processes, leadership style, peoples‘ background,
culture and HR policies and practices. These multiple facets drive individual behavior.
The employee competence framework widely embraced by HR researchers and professionals is a
reflection of this false assumption. It prevents HR professional from reframing their intervention
strategy as organization development and is at the root of persistent training failures.
Seeking to show the relevance of the HR function, HR professionals justify training budgets by
tying their programs to strategy, but in an erroneous way. Requisite managerial competencies are
defined by an analysis of the strategy. These are then translated into requisite education and
training programs and sold to top management as means for improving organizational
effectiveness and performance. The model is based on the assumption we are calling into
question, that well trained, even inspired individuals, can change the system.
Why does this model persist? Our work with organization suggests that many HR professionals
find it uncomfortable or impossible to confront senior leaders and their senior teams with the
truth. They find it hard to tell them about how their leadership, organization design and policies
and practices are the root cause of failures in strategy execution and why they need to be
changed to create fertile ground for training initiatives to succeed. Senior management
unconsciously colludes with HR professionals through their reluctance to hear the truth about the
system of management they have created and to embrace the challenge of organizational change.
Given this conundrum, HR professionals turn to the easiest change lever to sell--education and
training--and senior management agrees.
Their exist un-discussible barriers because lower levels find it difficult to speak up about them.
These are the barriers – particularly the leader and senior team - that must begin to change before
training and education programs can be effective.

The Silent Killer

· Unclear strategy, values and conflicting priorities
· An ineffective senior team
· Leadership style – top down or laissez faire
 · Poor coordination across functions, businesses and/or geographic regions
· Inadequate leadership/management skills and development in the organization
· Closed vertical communication – truth cannot speak to power
· Integrate leadership development with organization development

We advocate a new logic. Senior executives and their HR professionals should embed individual
or group development in an organization change and development strategy motivated and visibly
led by the senior team.

What is the sequence of steps embedded in the new logic?

1. The senior team defines an inspiring strategic direction to motivate change in the
organizational system
2. It then develops a diagnosis of the organization based on confidential interviews of
key lower level people, and then redesigns the pattern of roles, responsibilities and
relationships needed to enact the strategy.
3. Just-in-time coaching and process consultation follows to help people become
more effective in their new roles, responsibilities and relationships.
4. Classroom education to impart requisite technical skills and knowledge follows.
5. Changes in various facets of the talent, management and HR system – new metrics
for individual and team performance, performance appraisal system, the careers system to
develop needed individuals as well as leadership succession decisions – follow to ensure
sustaining change in organization behavior.

A New Strategy for HR:

The great training robbery will persist unless CEOs and their CHROs redefine their learning and
development strategy. The conventional wisdom is that organizations will become more effective
through talent acquisition and development of individual competencies. We do not argue that this
is not important, but as the research and experience we have shared indicates, organizational and
management systems powerfully shape attitudes and behavior. And a large complex organization
does not have one management system and culture. Its multiple businesses, regions, functions
and operating units have different cultures even in companies with strong leaders and corporate
cultures as the examples above show.
The following questions must be addressed by an honest assessment of the existing leadership
and management system, first at the top, then in each major sub-unit:
1. Is the leadership team aligned around a clear, inspiring strategy and values?
2. Has the leadership team enabled the collection of the unvarnished truth about barriers that may
be getting in the way of unit effectiveness and performance, including its own behavior?
3. Has the leadership team begun to lead a change process to address what the diagnosis
revealed?
4. Is HR offering organization development consulting and coaching to enable real time learning
and practice of requisite attitudes and behaviors?
5. Do corporate training programs properly support the unit‘s change agenda and/or does the
sub-unit‘s leadership and culture offer a fertile context for corporate programs aimed at corporate
change?

If your answer to any of these questions is not a clear yes, your company—with all the best
intentions— may be falling victim to the great training robbery

IS YOURS A LEARNING
ORGANIZATION?
David A. Garvin, Amy C. Edmondson, and Francesca Gino
March 2008

It is mandatory for organizations to become learning organizations due to tougher competitions, technology
advances and shifting customer preferences. In a learning organization, employees constantly create,
acquire, and transfer knowledge. But few companies have achieved this ideal because managers don’t know
the precise steps for building a learning organization. And they lack tools for assessing whether their teams
are learning or how that learning is benefiting the company.
Building Blocks of the Learning Organization
Organizational research over the past two decades has revealed three broad factors that are essential for
organizational learning and adaptability: a supportive learning environment, concrete learning processes and
practices, and leadership behavior that provides reinforcement. We refer to these as the building blocks of
the learning organization.
Because all three building blocks are generic enough for managers and firms of all types to assess, our tool
permits organizations and units to slice and dice the data in ways that are uniquely useful to them. They can
develop profiles of their distinctive approaches to learning and then compare themselves with a benchmark
group of respondents.
Building Block 1: A supportive learning environment. An environment that supports learning has four
distinguishing characteristics.
Psychological safety: Employees cannot fear being belittled or marginalized for learning purpose when they
disagree with peers or authority figures, ask naive questions, own up to mistakes, or present a minority
viewpoint. Instead, they must be comfortable expressing their thoughts about the work at hand.
Appreciation of differences: When people become aware of opposing ideas learning occurs. Recognizing the
value of competing functional outlooks and alternative worldviews increases energy and motivation, sparks
fresh thinking, and prevents lethargy and drift.
Openness to new ideas: Learning is not simply about correcting mistakes and solving problems. It is also
about crafting novel approaches. Employees should be encouraged to take risks and explore the untested
and unknown.
Time for reflection: All too many managers are judged by the sheer number of hours they work and the tasks
they accomplish. When people are too busy or overstressed by deadlines and scheduling pressures, however,
their ability to think analytically and creatively is compromised. They become less able to diagnose problems
and learn from their experiences. Supportive learning environments allow time for a pause in the action and
encourage thoughtful review of the organization’s processes.
Building Block 2: Concrete learning processes and practices: A learning organization is not cultivated
effortlessly. It arises from a series of concrete steps and widely distributed activities, not unlike the workings
of business processes such as logistics, billing, order fulfillment, and product development. Learning
processes involve the generation, collection, interpretation, and dissemination of information. They include
experimentation to develop and test new products and services; intelligence gathering to keep track of
competitive, customer, and technological trends; disciplined analysis and interpretation to identify and solve
problems; and education and training to develop both new and established employees.
For maximum impact, knowledge must be shared in systematic and clearly defined ways. Sharing can take
place among individuals, groups, or whole organizations. Knowledge can move laterally or vertically within a
firm. The knowledge-sharing process can, for instance, be internally focused, with an eye toward taking
corrective action. Right after a project is completed, the process might call for post-audits or reviews that are
then shared with others engaged in similar tasks. Alternatively, knowledge sharing can be externally
oriented—for instance, it might include regularly scheduled forums with customers or subject-matter experts
to gain their perspectives on the company’s activities or challenges. Together, these concrete processes
ensure that essential information moves quickly and efficiently into the hands and heads of those who need
it.
Building Block 3: Leadership that reinforces learning: Organizational learning is strongly influenced by the
behavior of leaders. When leaders actively question and listen to employees—and thereby prompt dialogue
and debate—people in the institution feel encouraged to learn. If leaders signal the importance of spending
time on problem identification, knowledge transfer, and reflective post-audits, these activities are likely to
flourish. When people in power demonstrate through their own behavior a willingness to entertain
alternative points of view, employees feel emboldened to offer new ideas and options.
The three building blocks of organizational learning reinforce one another and, to some degree, overlap. Just
as leadership behaviors help create and sustain supportive learning environments, such environments make
it easier for managers and employees to execute concrete learning processes and practices smoothly and
efficiently. Continuing the virtuous circle, concrete processes provide opportunities for leaders to behave in
ways that foster learning and to cultivate that behavior in others.
Moving Forward: Leadership alone is insufficient. By modeling desired behaviors—open-minded questioning,
thoughtful listening, consideration of multiple options, and acceptance of opposing points of view—leaders
are indeed likely to foster greater learning. However, learning oriented leadership behaviors alone are not
enough. The cultural and process dimensions of learning appear to require more explicit, targeted
interventions. We studied dozens of organizations in depth when developing our survey questions and then
used the instrument with four firms that had diverse sizes, locations, and missions. All four had higher scores
in learning leadership than in concrete learning processes or supportive learning environment. Performance
often varies from category to category. This suggests that installing formal learning processes and cultivating
a supportive learning climate requires steps beyond simply modifying leadership behavior. Organizations are
not monolithic. Managers must be sensitive to differences among departmental processes and behaviors as
they strive to build learning organizations. Groups may vary in their focus or learning maturity. Managers
need to be especially sensitive to local cultures of learning, which can vary widely across units. For example,
an early study of medical errors documented significant differences in rates of reported mistakes among
nursing units at the same hospital, reflecting variations in norms and behaviors established by unit managers.
In most settings, a one-size-fits-all strategy for building a learning organization is unlikely to be successful.
Comparative performance is the critical scorecard. Simply because an organization scores itself highly in a
certain area of learning behavior or processes does not make that area a source of competitive advantage.
Surprisingly, most of the organizations we surveyed identified the very same domains as their areas of
strength. “Openness to new ideas” and “education and training” almost universally scored higher than other
attributes or categories, probably because of their obvious links to organizational improvement and personal
development. A high score therefore conveys limited information about performance. The most important
scores on critical learning attributes are relative—how your organization compares with competitors or
benchmark data. Learning is multidimensional. All too often, companies’ efforts to improve learning are
concentrated in a single area—more time for reflection, perhaps, or greater use of post audits and after-
action reviews. Our analysis suggests, however, that each of the building blocks of a learning organization
(environment, processes, and leadership behaviors) is itself multidimensional and that those elements
respond to different forces. You can enhance learning in an organization in various ways, depending on which
subcomponent you emphasize—for example, when it comes to improving the learning environment, one
company might want to focus on psychological safety and another on time for reflection. Managers need to
be thoughtful when selecting the levers of change and should think broadly about the available options. Our
survey opens up the menu of possibilities.
The goal of our organizational learning tool is to promote dialogue, not critique. All the organizations we
studied found that reviewing their survey scores was a chance to look into a mirror. The most productive
discussions were those where managers wrestled with the implications of their scores, especially the
comparative dimensions (differences by level, subunit, and so forth), instead of simply assessing performance
harshly or favorably. These managers sought to understand their organizations’ strengths and weaknesses
and to paint an honest picture of their cultures and leadership. Not surprisingly, we believe that the learning
organization survey is best used not merely as a report card or bottom-line score but rather as a diagnostic
instrument—in other words, as a tool to foster learning.

CREATING A PURPOSE-DRIVEN
ORGANIZATION
By ROBERT E. QUINN & ANJAN V. THAKOR
JULY–AUGUST 2018

When organizations embrace purpose, it’s often because a crisis forces leaders to challenge their
assumptions about motivation and performance and to experiment with new approaches. But you don’t
need to wait for a dire situation. The framework we’ve developed can help you build a purpose-driven
organization when you’re not backed into a corner. It enables you to overcome the largest barrier to
embracing purpose—the cynical “transactional” view of employee motivation—by following eight essential
steps.

1. Envision an inspired workforce: According to economists, every employer faces the “principal-agent
problem,” which is the standard economic model for describing an organization’s relationships with
its workers. Here’s the basic idea: The principal (the employer) and the agent (the employee) form a
work contract. The agent is effort-averse. For a certain amount of money, he or she will deliver a
certain amount of labor, and no more. Since effort is personally costly, the agent under performs in
providing it unless the principal puts contractual incentives and control systems in place to counter
that tendency.
2. Discover the purpose: To “learn and unlearn the organization,” as she put it, she interviewed every
faculty member. She expected to find much diversity of opinion—and she did. But she also found
surprising commonality, what she called “an emerging story” about the faculty’s strong desire to
have a positive impact on society. Ball wrote up what she heard and shared it with the people she
interviewed. She listened to their reactions and continued to refine their story.
3. Recognize the need for authenticity: Purpose has become a popular topic. Even leaders who don’t
believe in it face pressure from board members, investors, employees, and other stakeholders to
articulate a higher purpose. This sometimes leads to statements like the one produced by the task
force at the oil company. When a company announces its purpose and values but the words don’t
govern the behavior of senior leadership, they ring hollow. Everyone recognizes the hypocrisy, and
employees become more cynical. The process does harm. If your purpose is authentic, people know,
because it drives every decision and you do things other companies would not, like paying the
families of dead employees. Dunne told us that often an organization discovers its purpose and
values when things are going badly—and that its true nature is revealed by what its leaders do in
difficult times. He said, “You judge people not by how much they give but by how much they have
left after they give.
4. Turn the authentic message into a constant message: Embracing this mindset meant saying no to
anything that didn’t reflect it. In the division’s call center, for example, there had been a proposal to
invest additional resources in technology and people so that the group could solve customers’
problems faster and better. But the project was rejected because when managers and employees
used their stated purpose as a filter and asked themselves whether that investment would make
them better operators, the answer was no. What the company really needed to do, they
determined, was examine how the operations themselves could be improved to eliminate failures
that produced call center inquiries in the first place. When a leader communicates the purpose with
authenticity and constancy, as Meola did, employees recognize his or her commitment, begin to
believe in the purpose themselves, and reorient. The change is signaled from the top, and then it
unfolds from the bottom.
5. Stimulate individual learning: Conventional economic logic tends to rely on external motivators. As
leaders embrace higher purpose, however, they recognize that learning and development are
powerful incentives. Employees actually want to think, learn, and grow.
6. Turn midlevel managers into purpose-driven leaders: To build an inspired, committed workforce,
you’ll need middle managers who not only know the organization’s purpose but also deeply connect
with it and lead with moral power. That goes way beyond what most companies ask of their midlevel
people.
 7. Connect the people to the purpose: Once leaders at the top and in the middle have internalized the
organization’s purpose, they must help frontline employees see how it connects with their day-to-
day tasks. But a top-down mandate does not work. Employees need to help drive this process,
because then the purpose is more likely to permeate the culture, shaping behavior even when
managers aren’t right there to watch how people are handling things.
8. Unleash the positive energizers: Every organization has a pool of change agents that usually goes
untapped. We refer to this pool as the network of positive energizers. Spread randomly throughout
the organization are mature, purpose- driven people with an optimistic orientation, people like
Corey Mundle at Hampton Inn. They naturally inspire others. They’re open and willing to take
initiative. Once enlisted, they can assist with every step of the cultural change. These people are easy
to identify, and others trust them.

4-EMPLOYER AND EMPLOYEE

RELATIONSHIP

WHEN MANAGERS ARE OVERWORKED,

THEY TREAT EMPLOYEES LESS FAIRLY
Elad N. SherfRavi S. GajendranVijaya Venkataramani
JUNE 04, 2018

Fair managers can reap big dividends. Extensive research finds that employees who feel fairly treated are
better performers, helpful to colleagues, more committed to their workgroups and the organization, and less
likely to steal or be rude to others.
Yet, all too often, employees find themselves being treated unfairly – their boss makes decisions concerning
them without consultation or due process, or their boss is inconsistent in applying rules. They may think that
their boss is incompetent or biased, or even worse, just plain mean. Although this may be true of a few bosses,
most recognize the importance of fairness and want to act fairly. So why then do some act unfairly, even when
they recognize its corrosive effects?
In a recent paper, published at the Academy of Management Journal, we propose that one explanation is that
many managers are, simply put, too busy to be fair. They are often expected to juggle multiple responsibilities
under intense time and work pressures, and so treating employees fairly may take a backseat to other pressing
priorities.

To be judged as fair by employees, bosses have to attend to four

aspects of fairness:
First, they have to ensure distributive fairness by making sure that employees are equitably rewarded for
their contributions.

Second, they have to follow transparent and clear procedures in arriving at those rewards. These include
ensuring decisions are consistently applied across people and situations and are based on accurate information,
suppressing bias in the decision process, and providing opportunities for employees to voice concerns.

Third, they have to engage in informational fairness by explaining the logic behind their decisions in a
timely manner.

Fourth, they have to be interpersonally fair by treating employees with dignity and respect.
Seeing fairness in this light suggests that unfairness may be less about bosses being biased or mean, and more
about them lacking adequate personal resources to juggle multiple, competing priorities. When fairness is up
against other technical responsibilities, it can become the unfortunate casualty of busyness. Surveys have
found that many employees complain that managers are ―too busy‖ to meet with them, listen to their concerns,
or update them about decisions. Similarly, managers have acknowledged that they behave insensitively
towards employees or act less fairly because they are ―overloaded‖ or lack time.
In this paper, it is sought to develop a more rigorous understanding of whether and why overworked bosses are
less likely to treat employees fairly also sought to understand what organizations could do to help overworked
managers act more fairly.

Investigation
On rewards could prompt managers to maintain fairness along with their technical performance. Examined
these questions via three studies.
 In our first study, we recruited 107 managers in the United States to complete two daily surveys
for 10 workdays.
 The first survey, completed around the middle of the workday, asked them about their workload
that day.
 The second survey, completed at the end of the workday, asked them about the extent to which
they had prioritized their core work tasks over fairness toward employees that day and the extent to
which they had acted fairly towards employees based on the four fairness aspects outlined above.

Finding
This finding depended on whether organizations rewarded managers for fairness.

 In an earlier survey, we had asked managers whether their organization rewarded them for
treating employees fairly, and some organizations did so more than others. For those that did reward
fairness
 A second study explored a slightly different question: Are managers with persistently heavier
workloads more likely to treat their employees unfairly compared to those with persistently lighter
workloads? We surveyed 166 managers in India about their workload over the previous three months,
and whether they prioritized technical tasks over fairness tasks during this period.
 Then we asked a direct report of each of the managers about their bosses‘ fairness towards them, and
we had a second direct report assess the boss‘ task performance.
Using these three independent data sources, we found that bosses with heavier (vs. lighter) workloads
prioritized core technical tasks over treating employees fairly, and as a result, were less likely to be reported as
acting fairly by their employees. Like the previous study, we surveyed managers as to whether their
organizations rewarded fair treatment. We again found that in organizations that rewarded fairness, managers
were more likely to act fairly despite heavier workloads. Supporting our argument that managers are only
―pushed‖ to de-prioritize fairness when they are overworked, managers with lighter workloads acted fairly
regardless of such rewards.
In this study, we were also able to tease out whether managers with heavy workloads who were rewarded for
acting fairly did so at the cost of their performance on core work tasks. Interestingly, in organizations where
fairness was rewarded, overworked bosses were more likely to act fairly and perform well on other work tasks,
compared to those in organizations where fairness was less explicitly rewarded.

 Our third study had 239 business undergraduates complete a managerial simulation in the lab.
They had to complete a technical task and a fairness-related task (write a memo to an employee
explaining an unfavorable promotion decision). We varied the amount of time participants had to
complete the task to simulate varying workloads–20 vs. 30 minutes for heavy vs. light workloads. We
also randomly assigned them to a condition in which the company‘s reward system favored technical
performance vs. a condition in which the company reward system was balanced between technical
performance and fairness.

So, what can we learn from all of this? Well, being fair requires time and effort, and
overworked managers may struggle to prioritize fairness when more urgent technical tasks demand their
attention. For managers who want to ensure that they treat their employees fairly, it is important to shield being
fair from other competing
tasks. this studies clarifying to managers that it is ok to devote less time to technical tasks and more to
engagement with employees. Notably, at least in the studies we conducted, prioritizing technical work tasks
harmed fairness, but did not improve technical performance. So organizations that reward fairness may see a
win-win: busy leaders can act fairly without compromising their performance on core work tasks

THE COLLABORATION BLIND SPOT

By LISA B KAWAN
APRIL, 2019

It says that leaders understand the central role that cross-group collaboration plays in business
today. Its how companies of all shapes and sizes—from Starbucks and Space to boutique banks
and breweries—plan to innovate, stay relevant, and solve problems that seem unsolvable. It‘s
how they plan to meet changing customer expectations, maintain market share, and stay ahead
(or just abreast) of competitors. In short, it‘s how companies plan to succeed, compete, and just
survive.

Stalling Out
Here‘s the problem: In mandating and planning for collaborative initiatives, leaders tend to focus
on logistics and processes, incentives and outcomes. That makes perfect sense. But in doing so
they forget to consider how the groups they‘re asking to work together might experience the
request—especially when those groups are being told to break down walls, divulge information,
sacrifice autonomy, share resources, or even cede responsibilities that define them as a group.
All too often, groups feel threatened by such demands, which seem to represent openings for
others to encroach on their territory. What if the collaboration is a sign that they‘ve become less
important to the company? What if they give up important resources and areas of responsibility
and never get them back? What will happen to their reputation?

But in doing so they forget to consider how the groups they‘re asking to work together might
experience the request—especially when those groups are being told to break down walls,
divulge information, sacrifice autonomy, share resources, or even cede responsibilities that
define them as a group. All too often, groups feel threatened by such demands, which seem to
represent openings for others to encroach on their territory.

An Existential Threat
Especially in industries experiencing disruption, skilled workers have good reason to fear that
their skills are becoming obsolete and that changes to the status quo mean that they and their
departments have become less valuable to the company. So it‘s natural for groups to feel that
requests for collaboration threaten their security— even when that‘s not the intent.

A SENSE OF SECURITY
found that groups define and develop their sense of security along three main dimensions:
identity, legitimacy, and control. Any leader who wants to encourage effective cross-group
collaboration first needs to understand why groups care so much about these dimensions and
how they feed into a sense of security. Group identity, simply put is what a group understands
itself to be. It‘s existential. To know what you stand for and to do your job as a group, you have
to know what you are. Identity provides groups with a center of gravity and meaning in the
company, which help build a sense of security. Group Legitimacy develops when a group‘s
existence is perceived by others as fitting and acceptable within the company, and the group is
perceived to be of value. Control over what you do as a group is vital, too. It‘s not enough just to
know what you are as a group and to feel that the company accepts and affirms your existence.
You also have to be able to act autonomously, determine the terms on which you work, and
effect meaningful change.

The lesson here is fundamental: Leaders who want to get collaboration off the ground need to
start by doing a threat assessment. How might the collaboration be unsettling to the groups
involved? What‘s the best way to dissipate that sense of threat?

Minimize the Resistance

If you‘re hoping to launch cross-group collaboration, first work to identify and minimize
whatever resistance the initiative is likely to engender. You should do this along all three of the
dimensions we‘ve just discussed.

THREAT WARNINGS
An overt territorial assertion, such as that one‘s own group is in charge or that the other group‘s
opinion doesn‘t matter. Overt attacks on others, such as publicly criticizing another group‘s
operations or processes Power plays, such as calling a high-profile ―summit‖ to discuss a topic
but excluding the other group from the invitation Covert manipulations of boundaries, such as
framing or subtly shaping perceptions about the expertise of one‘s group as being either very
different from the other group‘s or very similar. Covert blocking behaviors, such as dumping so
much data on another group, in such a complicated form, that the other groups can do not understand
nor do anything with it

MANAGE YOUR ENERGY, NOT YOUR

TIME
By Tony Schwartz and Catherine McCarthy
FROM THE OCTOBER 2007 ISSUE

There is an ever increasing demand on employees to perform at a higher level. Traditionally it

was accepted that this demand could be met by employees spending an ever increasing amount
of time in the office. The longer hours inevitably lead to exhaustion, more stress, illness and
ironically a less productive work force. Organizations need to change the way they view the
relationship between themselves and employees in order to create a mutually beneficial and
sustainable association. An environment needs to be created that energizes employees and
unleashes their creativity.

In their article Manage your energy not your time (Harvard Business Review October
2007) Tony Schwartz and Catherine McCarthy argue that while time is a limited resource,
personal energy is renewable. Organizations should invest in replenishing the personal energy of
employees. This will result in employees having better physical, emotional and mental
resilience. According to their research, the benefits of rejuvenating the personal energy of
employees goes straight to the bottom line.
Schwarts and McCarthy maintain that the implicit contract between organisations and employees
needs to be reviewed. According to Schwartz and McCarthy the implicit contract between
organisations and employees is currently "that each will try to get as much from the other as they
can, as quickly as possible, and then move on without looking back." Organisations need to
change this implicit contract to an explicit contract pursuant to which they invest in employees
across all dimensions of their lives, thus building and sustaining their value. The individuals turn
up at work energised and consequently more productive than ever.

1. How to energise and get energised

Schwartz and McCarthy, recommend that the following four dimensions of personal energy be
renewed:

2. Physical Energy
We all need adequate nutrition, exercise, sleep and rest in order increase our energy levels, focus
our attention and manage our emotions. Organisations generally considers it the employees
problem to ensure that they practise healthy behaviours. Given the amount of time an employee
spends at work and the detrimental impact poor health has on the employees performance at
work, organisations need to encourage, and where possible, facilitate the development of healthy
physical habits.

Nutrition

Eat frequent small meals throughout the day. Organisations can assist by having healthy food
available throughout the day and not only over lunch time.

Exercise

Do cardiovascular training at least three times a week and strength training at least once. Leaders
within the organisation could encourage group exercise activities such as lunch time runs/walks,
team sports etc.

Sleep

Go to bed earlier and reduce alcohol use.

Rest

Take brief but regular breaks throughout the day, away from your desk, at 90 to 120 minute
intervals.

3. 2. Emotional Energy
"When people are able to take more control of their emotions, they can improve the quality of
their energy, regardless of the external pressures they’re facing. To do this, they first must
become more aware of how they feel at various points during the workday and of the impact
these emotions have on their effectiveness. Most people realize that they tend to perform best
when they’re feeling positive energy. What they find surprising is that they’re not able to perform
well or to lead effectively when they’re feeling any other way."

Schwartz and McCarthy suggest building the following habits into the day in order to avoid
slipping into negative emotions (fight-or-flight mode) allowing people to think clearly, logically
and reflectively.

Deep abdominal breathing

Deep abdominal breathing assists in diffusing negative emotions such as irritability, impatience,
anxiety and insecurity.

Expressing appreciation

Regularly expressing detailed specific appreciation to others in notes, emails, calls or

conversation stimulates positive energy in yourself and others.

Adopt the lens approach to upsetting situations

View upsetting situations through three different lenses:

 the reverse lens: "What would the other person in this conflict say and how might they be
right?";
 the long lens: "How would I like to view this situation in 6 months time?";
 the wide lens: "How can I grow and learn from this situation?".

3. Spiritual Energy

If what a person is doing really matters to them they typically feel more positive energy, focus
better and demonstrate greater perseverance. According to Schwartz and McCarthy to access the
energy of the human spirit, people need to clarify priorities and establish accompanying rituals in
three categories:

 doing what they do best and enjoy most at work;

 consciously allocating time and energy to the areas of their lives—work, family, health,
service to others—they deem most important; and
 living their core values in their daily behaviours.

Temporarily switching from one task to another can increase the amount of time required to
complete the primary task by as much as 25%. Momentarily stopping a task to answer an email
or a call requires you to refocus your concentration back on the primary task costing you time.
Schwartz and McCarthy suggest building the following simple rituals into your day in order to
prevent mental fatigue and remain energised:

 reduce interruptions by performing high concentration tasks away from phones and
email;
 respond to voice mails and emails at designated times during the day;
 Identify the most important challenge for the next day every evening and make it your
first priority the following morning.

My thoughts

In my opinion there are two important aspects that need to be adhered to in order to
implement Schwartz and McCarthy's suggestions.

One is that you need the buy-in from the top down:

"This new way of working takes hold only to the degree that organizations support their people
in adopting new behaviours. We have learned, sometimes painfully, that not all executives and
companies are prepared to embrace the notion that personal renewal for employees will lead to
better and more sustainable performance. To succeed, renewal efforts need solid support and
commitment from senior management, beginning with the key decision maker."

Key decision makers therefore need to believe in the benefit of the changes and visibly
implement these healthy daily rituals into their own days.

The other aspect that needs to change is the notion of the implicit contract between the employer
and the employee, where each tries to get from the other as much as possible in as little time as
possible. The logical conclusion of such a agreement (I think) is inevitable burnout of the
employee and a high staff turn-over. Alternatively, a stalemate results, where the employee does
only as much as is needed for him to hold on to his job. Either way, productivity and creativity
suffers. Thus, the implicit contract needs to be changed into an explicit contract where all the
individuals needs are met resulting in energised, creative and productive employees!

TOUR OF DUTY: THE NEW

EMPLOYEER-EMPLOYEE COMPACT
By Hoffman, R., Casnocha, B., & Yeh, C
JUNE, 2013

The employer employee compact was based on stability. Jobs were secured if the company was
performing financially well or if the employees were following the rules and regulations of the
company.
But then came globalization and information age. This made the flow of information very easy
and made the employees more aware of their demands and requirements. So did it to the
employers. They were now well aware of what to expect from the employees and how to make
them give their 100% to work.

None of the new approaches offered so far have really taken hold. Instead of developing a better
compact, many—probably most—companies have tried to become more adaptable by
minimizing the existing one. Need to cut costs? Lay off employees. Need new skills? Hire
different employees. Under this laissez-faire arrangement, employees are encouraged to think of
themselves as ―free agents,‖ looking to other companies for opportunities for growth and
changing jobs whenever better ones beckon. The result is a winner-take-all economy that may
strike top management as fair but generates widespread disillusionment among the rest of the
workforce.

Even companies that have succeeded using minimalist compacts experience negative fallout,
because the compacts encourage turnover and hamper employee productivity. More important,
although the lack of job security indirectly creates incentives for employees to become more
adaptable and entrepreneurial, the lack of mutual benefit encourages the most adaptable and
entrepreneurial to take their talents elsewhere. The company reaps some cost savings but gains
little in the way of innovation and adaptability.

The time came when new compact became mandatory to be introduced. You can‘t have an agile
company if you give employees lifetime contracts—and the best people don‘t want one employer
for life anyway. But you can build a better compact than ―every man for himself.‖ In fact, some
companies are doing so.

Both the parties are seeking an alliance rather than just exchanging money for time, it can build a
stronger relationship between them even as it acknowledges that relationship‘s finite life in the
organization. This allows both sides to take more risks, investing time and resources to find
global maxima rather than simply seeking local peaks.

The new compact isn‘t about being nice. It‘s based on an understanding that a company is its
talent, that low performers will be cut, and that the way to attract talent is to offer appealing
opportunities.

• Three simple, straightforward ways in which organizations have made the new compact
tangible and workable are:

(1) Hiring employees for defined ―tours of duty,‖

(2) Encouraging, even subsidizing, the building of employee networks outside the
organization, and

(3) Creating active alumni networks that facilitate career-long relationships between
employers and former employees.
The tour of duty represents an ethical commitment by employer and employee to a specific
mission that‘s expected to last a finite amount of time. An ideal mission is mutually beneficial:
the company gains new products, customers, profits, etc. and the employee gains new skills,
experiences, connections, and so on.

It‘s action plan included when possible, a tour of duty should offer an employee the possibility of
a breakout entrepreneurial opportunity. This might involve building and launching a new
product, reengineering an existing business process, or introducing an organizational innovation.

It should serve as a personalized retention plan that gives a valued employee concrete,
compelling reasons to finish her tour and that establishes a clear time frame for discussing the
future of the relationship.

Building Employee Network. You can engage with smart minds outside your company through
the network intelligence of your employees. The wider an employee‘s network, the more he or
she will be able to contribute to innovation.

Therefore, employers should encourage employees to build and maintain professional networks
that involve the outside world. Essentially, you want to tell your workers, ―We will provide you
with time to build your network and will pay for you to attend events where you can extend it. In
exchange, we ask that you leverage that network to help the company.‖ This is a great example
of mutual trust and investment: You trust your employees by giving them the resources to build
their networks, and they‘re investing in your business by deploying some of their relationship
capital in your company‘s behalf.

Alumni Network. The first thing you should do when a valuable employee tells you he is leaving
is try to change his mind. The second is congratulating him on the new job and welcome him to
your company‘s alumni network.

Just because a job ends, your relationship with your employee doesn‘t have to.

One obvious benefit of alumni networks is the opportunity to rehire former employees.

Keep a database of information on all former employees: personal e-mail and phone, LinkedIn
profile, Twitter handle, blog URL, areas of expertise, and so on.

Departing employees are more likely than current ones to be honest, and the flaws in your
business and organizational practices may be on their minds. Listen closely to what they say.

If you‘re a consumer company, offer alumni discounts in addition to the customary employee
discounts. The cost is minimal, and the trust and goodwill gained can be substantial. Some might
consider it extravagant to ―reward‖ employees who have left, but that view misses the point.
Most employees don‘t leave because they‘re disloyal; they leave because you can‘t match the
opportunity offered by another company.
 WHY MANAGERS IGNORE
EMPLOYEE IDEAS
By ELAD N. SHERFSUBRA
April, 2019
This article highlights that managers do not always promotes employee‘s ideas. In fact, they can
even actively disregard employees concerns and act in ways that discourage employees from
speaking up at all. It‘s demonstrated that managers often fail to create speak-up cultures not
because they are self-focused or care only about their egos and ideas, but because their
organizations put them in impossible positions. We found that managers face two distinct
hurdles:

They are not empowered to act on input from below, and they feel compelled to adopt a short
term outlook to work. They often work in environments that do not provide them with autonomy
to change things. They experience centralized decision structures, in which authority lies at the
top of the hierarchy, and they are merely ―go-betweens.‖ And even when they are empowered to
act, they still confront demands to show success in the short term rather than look out for longer-
term sustainability. Under such circumstances, even the best-intentioned managers likely avoid
soliciting employee ideas and might even stifle them.

Various studies were conducted. Two of the main studies were:

First, they had 160 students act as managers in a behavioral experiment, where they had to
supervise an employee completing a task virtually. They manipulated their sense of
empowerment on the task by either providing them with very rigid task instructions or with
autonomy in how they could complete the task. The students, acting as managers, had the
opportunity to ask their employee for ideas or opinions. They tested whether the extent of
autonomy in their role affected the student-managers‘ willingness to seek input from below. As
expected, student-managers in the low autonomy condition were less likely to encourage their
employee to speak up and provide input. In fact, these participants indicated that they would
allocate 25% less time to discuss work issues with their employees compared with those in the
high autonomy condition.

For the next study, they recruited 424 working adults online for another behavioral experiment.
Via a vignette case study, they asked the participants to imagine themselves as a manager who
has the opportunity to seek input from employees on improving work processes in the team.
They manipulated participants‘ sense of empowerment by describing their work situation as one
in which they had ample autonomy and influence or one in which they were limited by the rigid
organizational bureaucracy. Here, it was found that managers in the low empowerment condition
were 30% less likely to seek feedback from their employees than those in the high empowerment
condition.

Key Learning Objectives:

People tend to blame managers when they fail to create speak-up cultures. We say that their ego
or fear of change prevents them from encouraging voice from employees. But the findings
indicate that it is unreasonable to ask managers to solicit and encourage ideas and input from
employees when they are not empowered themselves and are asked to focus on short-term
outcomes.

Nurturing long-term views and opening up opportunities for managers to step-away from the
immediate demands of the work can help ensure that managers promote creativity and
innovation within their teams. Allocating more resources and influence to those managers who
display long-term orientation can reap increased benefits.

5-ORGANIZATIONAL DIVERSITY

WHY MAKE DIVERSITY SO HARD

TO ACHIEVE?
By John Rice
(2012)

Company‘s been working for years to add diversity to its leadership ranks.
There is a doubt is that managers sincerely want to reshape the talent pipeline.
You’ve distributed the responsibility for increasing diversity.
It’s standard: Have a campus recruitment team, a separate group hiring, and a diversity
department concerned with maintenance and comprehensiveness. Recruitment teams focus on
hiring goals, but they aren‘t accountable for how well new employees perform or how many
remain after two years. Diversity departments, which do track new hires‘ success (and, unlike
recruiting, can commit funds to programs beyond the current budget cycle), are disconnected
from recruitment strategies. If no one person or group is responsible for building a diverse senior
management pipeline, it‘s hard to develop an integrated, game-changing strategy
And outside experts, faced with your multiple stakeholders‘ distinct agendas, can‘t even have a
strategic discussion with you, let alone get buy-in for a comprehensive approach. So you‘re not
getting the ―better mousetrap‖ solutions you get from innovative supplier ecosystems in other
areas of your business.
You’re managing activities, not outcomes.
Diversity initiatives probably focus on ―inputs‖ such as the number of mentoring programs,
event sponsorships, or résumés collected. Think about performance as strategically as you do in
your core operating businesses: Be very clear about what success will look like in five years.
Define metrics to track progress toward that vision
Prioritize among competing tactics Drive increased investment toward initiatives that produce
results use feedback to make refinements along the way. Define metrics to track progress toward
that vision. Prioritize among competing tactics, and drive increased investment toward initiatives
that produce results. Use feedback to make refinements along the way.

Your focus is on fixing the culture.

Changing the organizational culture to level the playing field is important. Culture change
happens very slowly—and usually not at all until new faces have appeared in your company‘s
leadership ranks and new perspectives have begun to reshape its strategies. First priority should
be to improve performance and promotion rates in underrepresented groups. Culture change
comes more voluntarily from a critical form of diverse executives than from a series of seminars
or one prominent minority hire.

Culture change comes more readily from a critical mass of diverse

executives than from one high-profile hire.
You prioritize minority candidates for diversity department roles.
This practice is everywhere, and it‘s understandable. But minority managers are usually
struggling themselves with the issues their companies want them to solve. They may be risk-
averse—especially given their awareness that, with so few senior minority members around, they
and their new strategies are highly visible. A company that wants its diversity executives to
advocate for bold new approaches should think about rotating high-performing line executives
(whether minority or nonminority) into diversity roles. Having already established their
reputations internally as revenue producers, they can navigate any setbacks that come from new
approaches.

Don‘t undermine your own efforts to make your leadership pipeline more diverse. Instead,
incorporate the same rigor and results orientation that you apply elsewhere in your operations.
The problem is entirely manageable—if you‘re willing to manage it.
 CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT HAVE
TO MESH
By Ryan W. Quinn Robert E. Quinn
JANUARY 07, 2016
This article discusses why organization tends to fall short for leadership development and change
management goals. The major reason organizations struggle is because they treat both leadership
development and change management as separate rather than interrelated challenges. Cultural
changes cannot happen without leadership, and efforts to change culture are the crucible in
which leadership is developed.
For better results, organizations should coordinate their leadership development and change
management efforts, approaching them as one and the same. True leadership involves deviating
from cultural expectations in ways that inspire others to choose to follow. What‘s more,
leadership is not the sole responsibility of the C-suite. Managers at all levels of an organization
must overcome resistance if genuine cultural change is to occur. Thus, change initiatives—which
require a deviation from a dominant set of norms and behaviors—are the best learning
environments for star managers to develop leadership skills, as well as a necessary component of
a successful culture-change initiative. Thus the article recommends an approach that is both top-
down and bottom-up.
The bottom-up approach requires potential leaders throughout the organization to engage in a
process of learning how to enact a desired change in an organization‘s culture in the everyday
experiences of organizational life
A bottom-up process is unlikely to work unless it is also embedded in a top-down learning
process.
A successful top-down process begins with executives clarifying desired results for change
management/leadership programs. A top-down process creates structure and motivation for
employees to maintain engagement in the change/leadership development process. It also
provides emotional and social support potential leaders, because deviating from cultural
expectations can be a lonely endeavor.
It was concluded that selected leaders should be given structure, accountability, support, and
motivation as they engage this process. Freedom should be given to leaders. The objectives of
the change and development effort, the scope of initiative, the time frame, the type of support to
be given, and the rewards for success should be made clear when invitations are extended. Once
the structure and motivation is secured and outlined, potential leaders can launch their repeated
efforts at creating experiences that enact the new objectives using the plan-act-reflect cycle.
Ideally, reflections could be shared so that potential leaders learn from each other as well as from
their own efforts.
Also Change management and leadership development programs have a woeful record at most
organizations. In large part that‘s because they come up against a common challenge—deviating
from a dominant culture (the true test of leadership) is very difficult. Tasking managers with
driving bottom-up cultural change will provide leadership training in itself. They will require
top-down support to succeed.

Reference articles

How to Embrace Change Using Emotional Intelligence

https://hbr.org/2018/12/how-to-embrace-change-using-emotional-intelligence
Change Management and Leadership Development Have to Mesh
https://hbr.org/2016/01/change-management-and-leadership-development-have-to-mesh
The Great Training Robbery
https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/the-great-training-robbery
The Hard Side of Change Management
https://hbr.org/2005/10/the-hard-side-of-change-management
Why Make Diversity So Hard to Achieve?
https://hbr.org/2012/06/why-make-diversity-so-hard-to-achieve
The Secret to Leading Organizational Change Is Empathy
https://hbr.org/product/the-secret-to-leading-organizational-change-is-empathy/H04O62-PDF-ENG
The Collaboration Blind Spot
https://hbr.org/2019/03/the-collaboration-blind-spot
Creating a Purpose-Driven Organization
https://hbr.org/2018/07/creating-a-purpose-driven-organization
Manage Your Energy, Not Your Time

https://hbr.org/2007/10/manage-your-energy-not-your-time

https://hbr.org/2019/03/digital-transformation-is-not-about-technology

Digital Transformation Is Not About Technology

https://hbr.org/2013/06/tours-of-duty-the-new-employer-employee-compact

Tours of Duty: The new employer-employee compact

https://hbr.org/2008/07/choosing-strategies-for-change
Choosing the Strategy for Change

https://hbr.org/2019/04/research-why-managers-ignore-employees-ideas

Why Managers Ignore Employees Ideas

https://hbr.org/2005/02/change-through-persuasion

Change through Persuasion

https://hbr.org/2008/03/is-yours-a-learning-organization

Is Yours A Learning Organization?

https://hbr.org/2018/06/research-when-managers-are-overworked-they-treat-employees-less-fairly

When Managers Are Overworked, They Treat Employees Less Fairly

https://hbr.org/2007/01/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail

Leading Business Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail

https://hbr.org/2018/10/dont-just-tell-employees-organizational-changes-are-coming-explain-why

Don’t Just Tell The Employee That Organizational change Are Coming