INSTRUCTIONS – PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE RESPONDING. Nee.docx

INSTRUCTIONS – PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE
RESPONDING.
Need a paper for the leadership role of a Chief Executive
Officer. This paper is for a United States University and should
be written in good, clear and concise English.
Your answers should demonstrate your understanding of
strategic management and leadership theories. You should not
only incorporate references to class discussions and learning
topics but also cite at least two relevant scholarly resources on
strategic leadership, such as many of those listed in the
reference list of your course readings. References are listed
below.
•What values do you think are most important in a CEO? Why
are they important?
•Identify a CEO in the United States who has those values. How
have those values played a role in the company’s success?
•What are the major barriers to being an effective CEO?
•Which theory or theories of leadership do you feel are relevant
to your situation at work?
•Describe an instance when you demonstrated leadership. This
can be a generic statement.
The report should be six to seven pages, excluding cover page,
executive summary, reference list, and appendices. Any tables,
graphs, and figures should be included as appendices. Your
report should have one-inch margins and be double spaced in

12-point Times New Roman font. In-text citations and
references should abide by APA format. The report should be
organized using headings and subheadings to improve its
readability.
Strategic Leadership
Strategic leadership is concerned with managing a company's
resources, including its strategy-making process, to create and
sustain competitive advantage. An increased interest in strategic
leadership reflects the need to understand how executives
respond to rapid technological and social change and increasing
international competition to lead their companies and
outperform competition.
There are three important responsibilities for strategic
leadership in an organization: (1) monitoring the external
environment to identify threats and opportunities, (2)
formulating strategy, and (3) implementing the strategy for the
future prosperity of the organization. (Narayanan, Zane, &
Kemerer, 2011; Porter, 1980).
The following guidelines are based on research and practitioner
insights (Bennis & Nanus, 1985; Kotter, 1996; Nanus, 1992;
Narayanan, Zane, & Kemerer, 2011; Wall & Wall, 1995;
Worley, Hitchin, & Ross, 1996):
•Determine long-term objectives and priorities.
•Learn what clients and customers need and want.
•Learn about the products and activities of competitors.
•Assess current strengths and weaknesses.
•Identify core competencies.
•Evaluate the need for a major change in strategy.
•Identify promising strategies.
•Evaluate the likely outcomes of a strategy.

•Involve other executives in selecting a strategy.
These guidelines focus on understanding the environment that
determines need for strategic change, the performance
determinants, and ways leaders can influence these performance
determinants (Cannella & Monroe, 1997). "The theory and
research on leadership has long recognized that effective
leaders empower others to participate in the process of
interpreting events, solving problems, and making decisions"
(Argyris, 1964; Likert, 1967).
Events and industry trends are often not well defined. They pose
multiple alternatives and choices. Successful strategic
leadership, therefore, requires ability to manage ambivalence
and to give an organization a sense of direction. Leaders create
a clear and compelling vision of where the organization should
go, and energize people by eloquently communicating this
vision to make it a part of the organization culture (Wesley &
Mintzberg, 1989).
References
Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the
organization. New York: John Wiley.
Bennis, W. G., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: The strategies for
taking charge. New York: Harper & Row.
Cannella, A. A., Jr., & Monroe, M. J. (1997). Contrasting
perspectives on strategic leaders: Toward a more realistic view
of top managers. Journal of Management, 23(3), 213–237.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business
School Press.

Likert, R. (1967). The human organization: Its management and
value. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership: Creating a compelling
sense of direction for your organization. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Narayanan, V. K., Zane, L. J., & Kemerer, B. (2011). The
cognitive perspective in strategy: An integrative review. Journal
of Management, 37, 305–351.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: Free
Press.
Wall, S. J., & Wall, S. R. (1995). The new strategists: Creating
leaders at all levels. New York: Free Press.
Worley, C. G., Hitchin, D. E., & Ross, W. L. (1996). Integrated
strategic change: How OD builds competitive advantage.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
1
Resistance to Change in Organizations
Jeanny Paren

University of Economics, Prague
[email protected]
Abstract
Resistance to change is a widely spread phenomenon. This
paper discusses resistance
to change in organizations and looks at what leaders can do to
reduce resistance to change.
It introduces the subject in the context of change management
and relevant models and
discusses selected concepts. The paper looks at common errors
to organizational change
efforts and their consequences, defence mechanism system and
explores reasons why people
resist change. It further focuses on approaches for reducing
resistance to change. The findings
stress the importance of communication and education in order
to reduce resistance to change
in organizations.
Keywords: Change Management, Resistance to Change
Main Conference Topic: Management & Organizational
Behaviour

Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to critically discuss resistance to
change in organizations
and what leaders can do to reduce resistance to change. First
part will critically discuss
resistance to change in organizations and second part will
examine how leaders can reduce
resistance to change.
Change is most frequently described as a necessary response to
one or more
of a potentially endless list of drivers. These are technological
developments, mergers and
acquisitions, increasing competitiveness in the organization´s
target markets, achieving or
maintaining growth, economic conditions, legislative or
regulatory changes, globalisation,
customer pressure or strategic realignment (Firoozmand, 2014).
According to Barnett and
Carroll (1995, pp. 217), organizational change can be usefully
conceptualized in terms of
process, that refers to how change occurs, and its content,
describing what actually changes
in the organization. Changes can be large or small, evolutionary

or revolutionary, sought after
or resisted (Hayes, 2010). Hayes (2010) described the generic
process model of change that
incorporates many of the features of other process models (e.g.
Lewin´s three stage model and
its modification by Lippet et al, 1958, Egan 1996 and Beckhard
and Harris, 1987, all cited
in Hayes, 2010). It provides a conceptual framework for
thinking about the management of
change. The model is illustrated in Exhibit 1. It can be observed
that people issues need to be
attended to throughout the whole change process for both,
incremental as well as
transformational change (Hayes, 2010). With respect to the
topic of this paper, resistance to
change, that is highly connected with people; further text will
focus mainly on the “Managing
the people issues” step that stretches over the whole process of
change.
Exhibit 1: Generic process model of change
Recognize need
and start change
process

Diagnosis
(review present
state, identify
future state)
Plan and prepare
to change
Implement the
change
Sustain the
change
Managing people issues
Review
External change
Problems and opportunities
Source: Adopted from Hayes (2010, pp. 14)
2
Resistance to Change in Organizations
What is resistance to change? Resistance is a natural part of the
change and is to be
expected (Coghlan, 1993; Bovey & Hede, 2001). Resistance to
change is by itself neither

good nor bad (Lawrence, 1954, 1969). It is a socially
constructed phenomenon that is
generated and defined through interaction of all parties in the
change (Van Dijk & Van Dick,
2009). A common point is that resistance to change is seen as an
important reason for change
process failures (Armenakis et al., 1993). Lawrence (1954,
1969) stated that resistance is
always an important signal calling for further inquiry by
management. Wiersema and Bantel
(1992) argued that there is a correlation between age and
resistance; as people age, flexibility
decreases and resistance to change increases.
Pardo del Val and Fuentes (2003) and Bouckenooghe (2010)
reviewed the literature
on attitudes towards change and extracted various definitions of
resistance. The Macmillan
English Dictionary (2002, pp. 1205) offers several definitions
of resistance, one of which is:
“The refusal to accept something new such as plan, idea or
change.” Published literature
on resistance to organizational change has focused more on
organizational issues rather than

on individual psychological factors (Bovey & Hede, 2001).
Resistance to change is
an important topic in change management and should be
seriously considered to help
the organization to achieve the advantages of the transformation
(Pardo del Val and
Fuentes, 2003). Brower and Abolafia (1995) stated that the
study of resistance
in organizations has been dominated by two perspectives,
managerial and bureaucratic. From
a managerial perspective, resistance is dysfunction that
managers learn to “cope with” and
most radical perspectives see resistance as a weapon in the class
struggle. Bureaucratic
resistance, on the contrary, is a common and varied mode of
organizational behaviour and
often enacted to support the goals of organization (Brower and
Abolafia, 1995). Lewin (1947)
argued that through a force field comprising a balance of forces
pushing for and resisting
change, any level of behaviour is maintained in a condition of
quasi stationary equilibrium.
Such level of level of behaviour can be transformed by either
adding forces for change in the

desired direction or by reducing the resisting forces. Lewin
pointed out that approaches
focusing on the removal of restraining forces within the
individual, group or organization are
likely to result in a more permanent change compared to
approaches involving the application
of outside pressure for change.
Kotter (1996) identified eight errors common to organizational
change efforts and
stated that making any of them can have serious consequences
(see Exhibit 2). Kotter pointed
out that with awareness and skills, these errors can be avoided
or greatly mitigated. The key is
to understand why organizations resist needed change, what is
the multistage process that can
overcome inertia and how leadership should be used (Kotter,
1996).
Exhibit 2: Eight errors common to organizational change efforts
and their consequences
COMMON ERRORS
• Allowing too much complacency
• Failing to create a sufficiently powerful guiding coalition
• Underestimating the power of vision

• Undercommunicating the vision by a factor of 10
• Permitting obstacles to block the new vision
• Failing to create short-term wins
• Declaring victory too soon
• Neglecting to anchor changes firmly in the corporate culture
CONSEQUENCES
• New strategies aren´t implemented well
• Acquisitions don´t achieve expected synergies
• Reengineering takes too long and costs too much
• Downsizing doesn´t get costs under control
• Quality programs don´t deliver hoped-for results
Source: Adopted from Kotter (1996; Chapter 1)
Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) identified four main reasons why
people resist change.
1. Parochial self-interest: People think that they will lose
something of value as a result.
3

2. Misunderstanding and lack of trust: People do not understand
the implications of
change and perceive that it might cost them more than they will
gain.
3. Different assessments: People assess the situation differently
from their managers or
change initiators and see more costs than benefits resulting from
the change, not only
on an individual, but also on a company level.
4. Low tolerance for change: People fear that they will not be
able to develop the new
skills and behaviour that will be required of them.
Assessing which of the possibilities might apply to those
affected by change is
important as it can help manager select an appropriate way to
overcome resistance (Kotter and
Schlesinger, 1979). Bovey and Hede (2001) conducted a study
where they investigated
the role of defence mechanism, both adaptive and maladaptive,
in individual resistance.
The results indicated a positive correlation with behavioural
intention to resist change for five
maladaptive defence mechanisms, and a negative correlation for
adaptive ones. Each of these
defences is described in Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 3: Description of defence mechanism
Defence mechanism Description
Humour (adaptive)
An individual deals with internal/external stressors by
emphasising amusing and ironic
aspects.
Anticipation (adaptive)
experiencing or anticipating
consequences and emotional reactions in advance and
considering realistic alternative
responses or solutions.
Denial (maladaptive)
An individual deals with internal/external stressors by refusing
to acknowledge some
painful aspects of external reality or subjective experience that
is apparent to others.
Dissociation (maladaptive)
An individual deals with internal/external stressors with a
breakdown in the usually
integrated functions of consciousness, memory, perception of
self or the environment.
Isolation of affect (maladaptive)
separating ideas from the
feelings originally associated with them. The individual loses
touch with the feelings
associated with a given idea while remaining aware of the
cognitive elements.

Projection (maladaptive)
An individual deals with internal/external stressors by falsely
attributing to another
their own unacceptable feelings, impulses, or thoughts.
Acting out (maladaptive)
An individual deals with internal/external stressors by actions
rather than reflections
or feelings and includes transference which is the reaction in
present relationships of
experiences from earlier childhood relationships.
Source: Adapted from American Psychiatric Association (1994,
pp. 755-7; as cited in Bovey & Hede, 2001, pp. 537)
Bovey and Hede (2001) identified two intervention strategies
that can be applied by
management during periods of change in organizations in order
to address the effects of
defence mechanism on resistance. They further argued that once
individuals demonstrate
symptoms of resistance, it is important to differentiate between
the symptoms of resistance
and the causes behind it. In a performed study, Bovey and Hede
(2001) aimed to identify,
measure and evaluate some of the unconscious motivations
associated with an individual´s
level of resistance to organizational change (see Exhibit 4).

They argued that behavioural
intention to resist is derived to measure an individual´s
intentions to engage in either
supportive or resistant behaviour towards organizational change
(Bovey & Hede, 2001,
pp.537). Management and leaders need to be aware of the ways
that personal issues may
impact on an employee´s thoughts, feelings and behaviour once
implementing change (Bovey
& Hede, 2001). Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) argued that when
implementing change, it is
important to diagnose human resistance. They further stressed
that it is necessary to
understand the individual in order to diagnose the true cause of
the resistance. Bovey and
Hede (2001) argued that once the benefits of working with the
human dimension are
understood and accepted, management is to be more inclined to
develop, promote and
implement appropriate intervention strategies. In order to assist
management to work
4

with individual resistance, Bovey and Hede (2001, pp. 545)
proposed two types of
intervention strategies. First, information-based interventions
provide the individual with
information to create awareness and understanding of
unconscious processes and how these
influence an individual´s motivations and behaviours in
changing environment. Second,
counselling interventions focus on activities designed to assist
individuals to analyse, interpret
and understand how their own defence mechanisms influence
their perceptions and
motivations towards change. Ideally, counselling interventions
support information-based
interventions (Bovey & Hede, 2001). Lawrence (1954, 1969)
argued that the key to
the problem of resistance to change is to understand the true
nature of resistance. Employees
usually resist social change, the change of their human
relationships, rather than technical
change. Companies should use a range of tactics in conjunction
to engage their employees as
early as possible and base their tactics on the type of
transformation they are planning and

the methods to which company employees will respond best
(Meaney and Pung, 2008).
Morrison and Milliken (2000) argued that organizational silence
results as a critical barrier to
organizational change and developments, as well as a
significant demoralizing force.
Exhibit 4: Framework for measuring behavioural intentions
Overt
(openly expressive
behaviour)
Active
(originate action)
Passive
(no acting, inert)
Covert
(Concealed
behaviour)
Elements
• Resistance
• Oppose
• Argue
• Obstruct

• Support
• Initiate
• Embrace
Elements
• Resistance
• Observe
• Refrain
• Wait
• Support
• Agree
• Accept
Elements
• Resistance
• Stall
• Dismantle
• Undermine
• Support
• Support

• Co-operate
Elements
• Resistance
• Ignore
• Withdraw
• Avoid
• Support
• Give in
• Comply
Source: Adapted from Bovey & Hede (2001, pp. 540)
Approaches for Reducing Resistance to Change
What can be done to overcome resistance to change? Many
scholars performed studies
in order to deliver relevant answer. Coch and French (1948)
concluded that it is possible for
management to greatly modify or completely remove resistance
to change in methods of
work. They suggested that this change can be accomplished by
the use of group meetings

where management effectively communicates the need for
change and stimulates group
participation in planning the changes. According to Meaney and
Pung (2008), both,
employees and leaders need to be engaged in the transformation
process. They showed that
even though the CEO or business unit leader was strongly
involved in most transformation
projects, these leaders were much more involved and visible at
companies where
transformation was successful. Executives who believe that
their organizations transformed
themselves successfully are far likelier than others to say that
their goals were both clearly
defined and truly transformational (Meaney and Pung, 2008).
Kotter and Schlesinger (1979)
identified six methods for dealing with resistance to change:
5
the need of change
beforehand. This will help people see the need for and the logic
of change. This can

involve one-to-one discussions, presentations, memos and
reports.
involved in some
aspect of the design and implementation of change.
should be supportive and
provide training in new
skills, give employee time off after a demanding period or just
listen and provide
emotional support.
active or potential resisters.
pulation and co-option: Manipulation is the covert
attempt to influence others
to change and normally involves selective use of information
and the conscious
structuring of events. One common form is co-option.
and implicit coercion:
Managers essentially
force people to accept a change by explicitly or implicitly
threatening them or by
actually firing or transferring them.
For effort to be successful, manager should employ the
approaches with sensitivity to
their strengths and limitations (see Exhibit 5 for detailed

overview of common use,
advantages and drawbacks for each method) and appraise the
situation realistically (Kotter
and Schlesinger, 1979).
Exhibit 5: Methods for dealing with resistance to change
Approach Commonly used in situations Advantages Drawbacks
Education &
Communication
Where there is a lack of information of
inaccurate information and analysis.
Once persuaded, people will often help
with the implementation of the change.
Can be very time consuming
if lots of people are involved.
Participation &
Involvement
Where the initiators do not have all the
information they need to design the change,
and where others have considerable power to
resist.
People who participate will be
committed to implementing change,
and any relevant information the have
will be integrated in the change plan.

Can be very time consuming
if participators design an
inappropriate change.
Facilitation &
Support
Where people are resisting because of
adjustment problems.
No other approach works as well with
adjustment problems.
Can be time consuming,
expensive and still fail.
Negotiation &
Agreement
Where someone or some group will clearly
lose out in a change and where that group has
considerable power to resist.
Sometimes it is a relatively easy way to
avoid major resistance.
Can be too expensive in
many cases if it alerts others
to negotiate for compliance.
Manipulation &
Co-optation
Where other tactics will not work or are too
expensive.

It can be a relatively quick and
inexpensive solution to resistance
problems.
Can lead to future problems
if people feel manipulated.
Explicit & Implicit
coercion
Where speed is essential, and the change
initiators possess considerable power.
It is speedy and can overcome any kind
of resistance.
Can be risky if it leaves
people mad at the initiators.
Source: Adopted from Kotter and Schlesinger (1979, pp: 111;
2008, pp: 136)
Once selecting optimal change strategy, the strategic options
available to managers can
be thought of as existing on a continuum (see Exhibit 6; Kotter
and Schlesinger, 1979).
At the one end, the change strategy calls for a rapid
implementation, a clear plan of action and
little involvement of other and attempts to overcome resistance.
At the other end, the strategy
calls for a slower change process with no detailed plan and

involvement of many people and
attempts to reduce resistance to a minimum. In order to decide
where change effort should be
positioned, it is important to look at four situational factors
described in Exhibit 6. Kotter and
Schlesinger (1979) suggested that a manager can improve his
chance of success
in an organizational change effort by: a/ conducting a detailed
organizational analysis
identifying the current situation, problems and the forces that
are possible causes for those
problems; b/ conducting an analysis of factors relevant to
producing the needed changes;
c/ selecting a change strategy that specifies factors as described
in Exhibit 6; and d/ monitoring
the implementation process. Pardo del Val and Fuentes (2003)
suggested that managers should
pay special attention to certain topics. To reduce e.g. resistance
caused by deep-rooted values,
6
managers should consider whether organizational culture fits
with change objectives and

provide training as a tool to surpass communication difficulties
and thus reduce resistance.
Exhibit 6: Strategic continuum
Fast Slower
Clearly planned. Not clearly planned at the beginning.
Little involvement of others. Lots of involvement of others.
Attempt to overcome any resistance. Attempt to minimize any
resistance.
Key situational variables
The amount and type of resistance that is anticipated.
The position of the initiators vis-à-vis the resisters (in terms of
power, trust, and so forth).
The locus of relevant data for designing the change and the
needed energy for implementing it.
The stakes involved (for example, the presence or lack of
presence of a crisis, the consequences of resistance and lack of
change).
Source: Adopted from Kotter and Schlesinger (1979, pp: 112;
2008, pp: 137)
According to Prediscan et al. (2013), reducing resistance to
change is a well-defined

and crucial phase in a process of change implementation in
organizations. For a successful
close of this phase, important resources such as necessary
expertise in the field of change
management, action coordination by competent change agents,
time and financial supply, are
necessary for motivating the affected employees by the change.
Allen et al. (2007) suggested
that when developing change communication strategies,
cascading approach may be most
beneficial. This means that senior management is to be provided
with the more strategic
component of change communication and supervisors are to be
provided with more practical
information that can be communicated to employees. Brower
and Abolafia (1995) suggested
that managers, who wish to tap the change announcement
embedded in resistance events,
should promote within their organization a tolerance for
ambiguity and for multiple
interpretations of events and routines. Managers must give
permission to surface issues that
are the organization´s deeply rooted “undiscussables” and,
therefore, protected by defensive

routines (Argyris, 1990 as cited in Brower and Abolafia, 1995).
Brower and Abolafia (1995)
further stated that managers need to monitor their
organizations´ learning processes and may
also develop methods to monitor responses to resistance events.
Kotter (1995; 1996) outlined
eight critical success factors for leading change which are
illustrated and described in Exhibit 7.
Exhibit 7: Eight steps to transforming organization
1. Establishing a Sense of Urgency
•Examining market and competitive
realities
•Identifying and discussing crises,
potential crises, or major
opportunities
2. Forming a Powerful Guiding
Coalition
•Assembling a group with enough
power to lead the change effort
•Encouraging the group to work
together as a team
3. Creating a Vision
•Creating a vision to help direct the
change effort

•Developing strategies for achieving
that vision
4. Communicating the Vision
•Using every vehicle possible to
communicate the new vision and
strategies
•Teaching new behaviors by the
example of the guiding coalition
5. Empowering Others to Act on
the Vision
•Getting rid of obstacles to change
•Changing systems or structures that
seriously undermine the vision
•Encouraging risk taking and
nontraditional ideas, activities, and
actions
6. Planning for and Creating Short-
Term Wins
•Planning for visible performance
improvements
•Creating those improvements
•Recognizing and rewarding
employees involved in the
improvements

7. Consolidating Improvements and
Producing Still More Change
•Using increased credibility to change systems,
structures, and policies that don’t fit the vision
•Hiring, promoting, and developing employees
who can implement the vision
•Reinvigorating the process with new projects,
themes, and change agents
8. Institutionalizing New Approaches
•Articulating the connections between the
new behaviors and corporate success
•Developing the means to ensure leadership
development and succession
Source: Adopted from Kotter (1995, re-printed 2007, pp. 99)
7
Firoozmand (2014) stated that positioning change advocates
across and within
the organization can strengthen actions to accentuate the
positive and minimize the negative,
while encouraging participation and engagement. He referred to

the stage two of the Kotter´s
model, though arguing that change leaders should look not just
for catalysts and change
champions, but also for “early adopters” whose enthusiasm and
support can be built upon.
Firoozmand (2014) stressed also the importance of
communication and education, especially
where resistance is based on misunderstanding or inaccurate
assumptions. According to
Kegan and Lashow Lahey (2001), resistance to change does not
reflect opposition, nor is
it merely a result of inertia. Instead, many people are
unwittingly applying productive energy
towards a hidden competing commitment, despite holding a
sincere commitment to change.
The resulting dynamic equilibrium stalls the effort in what
looks like resistance but is in fact
a kind of personal immunity to change. Kegan and Lashow
Lahey (2001) discussed
the problematic of competing commitments and suggested
process to help the employee
overcome own immunity to change: 1/ Notice and record current
behaviour. 2/Look for
contrary evidence. 3/ Explore the history. 4/ Test the

assumption. 5/ Evaluate the results.
Uncovering an employee´s competing commitment helps to
explain behaviour that seemed
irrational and ineffective and that conflicted with what the
manager and even the employee
are trying to achieve. They stated that “Helping people
overcome their limitations to become
more successful at work is at the very heart of effective
management.” (Kegan and Lashow
Lahey, 2001, pp. 86)
Exhibit 8: Seven levers for persuading others to embrace new
ideas
1. Reason You present all relevant considerations of an idea,
including its pros and cons.
2. Research
You provide numerical and other information about your idea’s
ramifications,
or data relevant to your idea.
3. Resonance
You and your ideas are convincing to your listener because of
your track
record, effective presentation, and sense of your audience.
4. Representational re-descriptions
You deliver your message in a variety of formats, including
stories, statistics,
and graphics.

5. Resources and rewards
You draw on resources to demonstrate the value of your idea
and provide
incentives to adopt your idea.
6. Real-world events
You monitor events in the world on a daily basis and, whenever
possible, draw
on them to support your idea.
7. Resistances
You devote considerable energy to identifying the principal
resistances to your
ideas (both conscious and unconscious resistances) and try to
defuse them
directly and implicitly.
Source: Adopted from Gardner (2004, as cited in Keller
Johnson, 2004, pp. 3)
Gardner (2004, as cited in Keller Johnson, 2004, pp. 3)
emphasized that leaders
seeking support for their ideas cannot rely on a single method of
persuasion, they need to
employ tactics carefully tailored to affect disparate people. In
his work, Gardner introduced
seven levers for breaking through resistance to new ideas. These
levers are Reason, Research,
Resonance, Representational redescriptions, Resources and
rewards, Real-world Events and

Resistances and are further presented in Exhibit 8. Gardner
argued that with the use of these
seven levers, resistance to change can be reduced. The
organizational leaders can design
the change implementation which attend to requisites that are
influential to resistance to
change, such as mutuality, risk, input, propinquity, empathy and
commitment (Simoes &
Esposito, 2014). Some people are leading change, while others
are being led, and those
leading are usually further along the intellectual, emotional and
behavioural transition than
those being led (Firoozmand, 2014).
8
Summary and Conclusion
Presented paper critically discussed resistance to change in
organizations and what
leaders can do to reduce resistance to change. First part
introduced resistance to change

in the context of change management and relevant models. It
further looked at resistance to
change in organization where several concepts were discussed.
Among others, eight errors
common to organizational change efforts and their
consequences (Kotter, 1996), reasons why
people resist change (Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979) and defence
mechanism system (Bovey
and Hede, 2001). Research showed that individuals who are
unconsciously inclined to use
maladaptive defences are more likely to resist organizational
change and those who
unconsciously adopt adaptive defences are less likely to resist
organizational change
(Bovey & Hede, 2001). It is important for management to work
with the human factors
associated with resistance to aid the change process, such as
unconscious processed in a form
of defence mechanisms, rather than focussing energy and
attention on technical aspects only
(Bovey & Hede, 2001). Leaders and managers should apply
intervention strategies in order to
assist the employee to identify and interpret their own
perceptions of change and thus

developing greater understanding of self. Such personal growth
and development is likely to
reduce the level of resistance through adjusted individual´s
perceptions of organizational
change (Bovey & Hede, 2001). Second part focused on
approaches for reducing resistance to
change. Main concepts were introduced by Kotter and
Schlesinger (1979), Kotter (1996),
Kegan and Lashow Lahey (2001) and Gardner (2004). They
stressed the importance
of communication and education in order to reduce resistance to
change.
To conclude, change that does not have an impact on the
organization is pointless.
Change cannot have an impact on an organization without also
having an impact
on the people within it. Should they remain unaffected at the
end of a change process, it is
valid to question its achievement and its purpose (Firoozmand,
2014). “Resistance, properly
understood as feedback, can be an important resource in
improving the quality and clarity of
the objectives and strategies at the heart of a change proposal.
And, properly used, it can

enhance the prospects for successful implementation.” (Ford &
Ford, 2009, pp. 103) Area of
resistance to change offers sufficient space for future research.
Brief biographies of the author
Jeanny Paren is a Ph.D. student at the University of Economics
in Prague, Faculty
of International Relations, where she also received her Bachelor
and Master Degrees. She is
a business professional with more than 10 years of experience
in sales, account and project
management, consulting, risk and financial analysis across a
range of industries. She lives
in Frankfurt, Germany and her current research interests include
a broader range of topics in
management, economics and finance.
References
1. Allen, J., Jimmieson, N.L., Bordia, P., Irmer, B.E. (2007)
Uncertainty during Organizational Change: Managing
Perceptions through Communication. Journal of Change
Management. 7/2. pp. 187-210.
2. Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., Mossholder, K.W. (1993)
Creating readiness for organizational change. Human
Relations. 46/6. Pp. 681-704.
3. Barnett, W.P., Carroll, G.R. (1995) Modeling Internal

Organizational Change. Annual Review of Sociology.
Vol. 21. pp. 217-236.
4. Bouckenooghe, D. (2010) Positioning Change
Recipients´Attitudes Toward Change in the Organization
Change Literature. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 46/4.
pp. 500-531.
5. Bovey, W.H., Hede, A. (2001) Resistance to Organisational
Change: The role of defence mechanism. Journal
of Managerial Psychology. 16/7. pp. 534-548.
6. Brower, R.S., Abolafia, M.Y. (1995) The Structural
Embeddedness of Resistance Among Public Managers.
Group & Organization Management. 20/2. pp. 149-166.
7. Coch, L., French, J.R.P. (1948) Overcoming Resistance to
Change. Human Relations. Vol. 1. pp. 512–32.
8. Coghlan, D. (1993) A person-centred approach to dealing
with resistance to change. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal. 14/4. pp. 10-14.
9. Firoozmand, N. (2014) Managing Resistance to Change.
Training Journal. 03/2014. pp. 27-31.
9
10. Ford, J.D., Ford, L.W. (2009) Decoding Resistance to
Change. Harvard Business Review. 87/4. pp. 99–103.
11. Hayes, J. (2010) The Theory and Practice of Change
Management. 3rd edn. Hampshire. Palgrave Macmillan.
12. Kegan, R., Lashow Lahey, L. (2001) The Real Reason
People Won t́ Change. Harvard Business Review.
79/10. pp. 84-92.
13. Keller Johnson, L. (2004) Tactics for Changing Minds.
Harvard Management Update. 9/6. pp. 3-4.
14. Kotter, J.P. (1995, re-printed 2007) Leading Change: Why
Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business

Review. 01/2007. pp. 96-103.
15. Kotter, J.P. (1996) Leading Change. Harvard Business
Press. Books24x7. [Online] (Accessed: 12 May 2014)
16. Kotter, J.P., Schlesinger, L.A. (1979) Choosing Strategies
for Change. Harvard Business Review. 57/2.
pp. 106-114.
17. Lawrence, P.R. (1954) How to Deal with Resistance to
Change. Harvard Business Review. 32/3. pp. 49–57.
18. Lawrence, P.R. (1969) How to Deal with Resistance to
Change. Harvard Business Review. 47/1. pp. 4–12,
pp. 166-176.
19. Lewin, K. (1947) Frontiers in Group Dynamics II. Channels
of Group Life; Social Planning and Action
Research. Human Relations. 1/2. pp. 143-153.
20. Macmillan Education (2002) Macmillan English Dictionary
for Advanced Learners. International Student
Edition. Oxford. Macmillan Publishers Limited.
21. Meaney, M., Pung, C. (2008) Creating Organizational
Transformations. McKinsey Quarterly. pp. 1-7.
22. Morrison, E.W., Milliken, F.J. (2000) Organizational
Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in
a Pluralistic World. Academy of Management Review. 25/4. Pp.
706-725.
23. Pardo del Val, M., Fuentes, C.M. (2003) Resistance to
Change: A Literature Review and Empirical Study.
Management Decision. 41/2. pp. 148-155.
24. Predişcan, M., Braduţanu, D., Roiban, R.N. (2013) Forces
That Enhance or Reduce Employee Resistance to
Change. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science
Series. 22/1. pp. 1606–1612.
25. Simoes, P.M.M., Esposito, M. (2014) Improving Change
Management: How Communication Nature
Influences Resistance to Change. Journal of Management
Development. 33/4. pp. 324–41.
26. Van Dijk, R., Van Dick, R. (2009) Navigating
Organizational Change: Change Leaders, Employee Resistance

and Work-Based Identities. Journal of Change Management.
9/2. pp. 143–63.
27. Wiersema, M.F., Bantel, K. (1992) Top management team
demography and corporate strategic change.
Academy of Management Journal. 35/1. pp 91–121.
Copyright of Proceedings of the Multidisciplinary Academic
Conference is the property of
MAC Praque Consulting s.r.o. and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites
or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Communication Strategy for Leading Change
© 2019 Laureate Education, Inc. 1
Program Transcript
SHERYL THOMPSON: One of the largest potential roadblocks
that leaders of
change in organizations will encounter is resistance to the
proposed change. This
resistance can negatively impact the change process and may
very well impede its
progression if it is not handled appropriately. Employees may
resist change for a
myriad of reasons, including fear of job loss, function, or role.

Therefore, it is
important to understand the psychological effects of change and
employ sensitivity
in dealing with employees' reactions while allowing them the
necessary space and
time to move from resistance to acceptance, then commitment to
the change.
It won't be a linear transition for employees to move through
these phases. This
means that one of the key roles for leaders of change is to
support and encourage
individuals throughout the change process. Those that are
impacted will oscillate
between accepting the new state and missing the old one. The
change leader
needs to accommodate this reality, as well as anticipate
different reactions to
change. Furthermore, they need to use communication,
listening, and coaching
skills to identify and support people, both as individuals and as
a group, so they
transition as quickly and effectively as possible.
The importance of developing a well-thought-out
communication strategy is often
overlooked when embarking on a change initiative. Providing
employees with
timely, accurate, and relevant information can positively
influence their productivity
and morale during a change initiative. Effective communication
during a change
effort can also help to overcome resistance to change.
Therefore, it is necessary
to build a communication strategy to inform and guide people
throughout the

change initiative.
The strategy should cover the specific communication channels
and methods that
will be used to share the details of the initiative to all
stakeholders. It is important
to get stakeholders to understand the current state and the
desired state, what
needs to be accomplished and why. The more people know, the
less they have to
assume, and this will hopefully minimise fear and resistance.
The change leader
also needs to be strategic about what is communicated to whom,
as well as the
objective that the message is trying to accomplish. Is it trying
to create awareness,
engage, mobilise, or drive behaviour change? This means that
timing is also very
important.
Another key thing to consider regarding the communication
strategy is to ensure
that all stakeholders are involved in getting the messages
across. These are
stakeholders with influence, whether via their official positions
or social networks.
They have the ability to get individuals engaged with the
process. They will also
be a source of providing feedback to the change leader
regarding the
effectiveness of the communication strategy being employed.
Are the chosen
communication channels working? Are the right contents being
shared with the

relevant people? Do individuals feel like they have a detailed
understanding of the
change initiative? Finally, it is important for the change leader
to monitor the
impact of his or her communication strategy and provide
follow-up.
Take a few minutes to reflect on an experience you have had
with an IT change in
an organisation. Would you say that an effective
communication strategy was
used? Did it make a positive difference? Was the change
leader an employee of
the company or a consultant? Did this have an impact? What
would you have
done differently?
An informed and open process will lead to successful change.
Therefore,
communication is key. Remember that communication is more
than just
distributing information. It is meaningful dialogue that gets all
stakeholders on the
same page. You should monitor the strategy and use feedback
from stakeholders
to make it more effective.
Additional Content Attribution

FOOTAGE:
GettyLicense_165564292.jpg - Science Photo Library / Brand X
Pictures / Getty
Images
GettyLicense_152831315.jpg - Monty Rakusen / Cultura / Getty
Images
GettyLicense_184313628.jpg - Tom Merton / Caiaimage / Getty
Images
GettyLicense_112156432.jpg - Paul Bradbury / OJO Images /
Getty Images
GettyLicense_144779020.jpg - [Diane Collins and Jordan
Hollender]/[DigitalVision]/Getty Images
GettyLicense_149616139.jpg - [Blend Images - Inti St
Clair]/[Brand X
Pictures]/Getty Images
GettyLicense_157636639_7.jpg - [nullplus]/[E+]/Getty Images
GettyLicense_175139498.jpg - Paul Bradbury / Caiaimage /
Getty Images
Images
GettyLicense_472987077.mov - slavemotion / Creatas Video /
Getty Images
GettyLicense_173809400_14.jpg - [Blend Images - Jade]/[Brand
X Pictures]/Getty
Images

GettyLicense_483599179.jpg - CaiaImage / Caiaimage / Getty
Images
GettyLicense_486485201.jpg - [Westend61]/[None]/Getty
Images
GettyLicense_453362189.mov – RoosterHD / Creatas Video /
Getty Images
GettyLicense_454822148_h1.mov - [ReeldealHD
Ltd.]/[Verve+]/Getty Images
GettyLicense_145056981.jpg - [Mmdi]/[DigitalVision]/Getty
Images
GettyLicense_158553958_h9.mov - [antadi1332]/[Creatas
Video]/Getty Images
GettyLicense_450670375.jpg - [AzmanL]/[iStock / 360]/Getty
Images
GettyLicense_126462394.jpg - [Fotosearch]/[None]/Getty
Images
GettyLicense_145056981.jpg - [Mmdi]/[DigitalVision]/Getty
Images

GettyLicense_546206501.jpg - [Plume
Creative]/[DigitalVision]/Getty Images
GettyLicense_181215447_20.jpg - [JGI/Jamie Grill]/[Blend
Images]/Getty Images
GettyLicense_181849845.jpg - izusek / Vetta / Getty Images
Images
GettyLicense_475333583.jpg - Sydney Roberts / DigitalVision /
Getty Images
GettyLicense_184073462.mov – nmlfd / Creatas Video / Getty
Images
GettyLicense_692025519.jpg - Monty Rakusen / Cultura / Getty
Images
GettyLicense_654220638.jpg - Tinpixels / E+ / Getty Images
GettyLicense_624895056.jpg - Prasit photo / Moment / Getty
Images
GettyLicense_568777727.jpg - Hero Images / Hero Images /
Getty Images
GettyLicense_522302116.jpg - Pinkypills / iStock / Getty
Images Plus / Getty
Images
GettyLicense_151561743.jpg - Jacob Wackerhausen / E+ / Getty
Images
GettyLicense_485207991.jpg - Hero Images / Hero Images /

Getty Images
1
Change Management Case Study
Imagine you are the CEO of a large company, called Hamilton
Snacks, which
has just acquired a smaller company, called Arlo’s Granola.
You are responsible for
creating a Change Management Plan to ensure that the
acquisition is successful and
sustainable.
History and Background
Hamilton Snacks
Hamilton Snacks was founded in Seattle, WA, in 1957. The
business began as a
small, storefront shop that primarily sold candy and fountain
drinks. By the late 1980s,
the business had expanded to include potato chips, pretzels, and
cookies, which are
now sold in most major grocery stores in the United States,
Mexico, Canada, and parts

of Europe. Hamilton Snacks now employs approximately 3,000
people and has enjoyed
steady growth until about 5 years ago due to the increasing
public demand for healthier
snack options. You were hired as CEO shortly thereafter and
implemented a plan to
remove high fructose corn syrup, MSG, and GMOs from all
products. Unfortunately, the
products are still of relatively low nutritional value, and the
business is still known for
selling “junk food.” In addition, Hamilton Snacks just received
negative press for
contributing to deforestation due to its use of a particular palm
oil supplier.
Hamilton Snacks has a hierarchical structure, with many layers
of management
and is known for attracting Type A personalities. Employees
describe the culture as fast
paced and process driven. Major decisions are generally made
by senior leaders and
filtered through middle management to employees. Senor
leaders and mid-level
managers have offices, but most make a concerted effort to
leave their doors open and

talk with employees every day. The rest of employees sit in a
cube formation outside of
the offices. Hamilton Snacks offers competitive benefits
packages, and employees are
generally happy with their health insurance, vacation time, and
401k plans. In addition,
the company offers an on-site gym and a day care center in
every location, which
employees pay a minimal fee to use.
Arlo’s Granola
Arlo’s Granola was founded in Olympia, WA, in 1995. The
original owner, Arlo
Miller, was a health and environmental enthusiast and began the
business in his
kitchen. Frustrated by the lack of healthy snack options in
grocery stores, he made all-
natural granola bars and sold them at local health food stores.
Since then, the business
has grown to 800 employees and now produces vitamin drinks
and a wide variety of
plant-based snack bars. Arlo’s Granola is now sold in many
major grocery stores in the
United States. Arlo’s son, Cooper, recently became CEO after

his father retired 5 years
ago. Cooper is committed to preserving the brand but recognizes
the need for more
capital to break into the global market.
2
Arlo’s Granola has a flat organizational structure and is known
for attracting
creative employees with a strong passion for health, wellness,
and the environment.
Employees describe the culture as fun, team oriented, and
relaxed. There is no dress
code or mandated reporting times; therefore, employees often
wear jeans to work and
arrive at different times in the morning. Senior leaders have
offices, but managers sit
with employees in an open floorplan with no partitions between
desks. Major decisions
are debated among teams, and multiple options are presented to
senior leaders, who
make the final decision. Like Hamilton Snacks, Arlo’s Granola
offers competitive

benefits packages, and generally employees are very happy.
Current State
The acquisition has been finalized. You remain committed to
transforming
Hamilton Snacks into a company that is known for offering
healthy, nutritious, and
delicious snacks with no harmful ingredients. Therefore, you
are excited to work with
Arlo’s Granola leaders, who you believe will help you transform
the Hamilton Snacks
brand. Your senior leadership team has increased in size from
seven to 11 leaders.
Seven of the leaders are from Hamilton Snacks and the other
four are from Arlo’s
Granola, including the CEO, Cooper. There are some
redundancies in leadership
positions, but you have decided to delay eliminating any of the
positions until you get to
know Arlo’s Granola leaders better.
Last month Arlo’s Granola employees moved into a building
across the street
from the Hamilton Snacks offices. You have heard that there is
growing frustration

among both Arlo Granola and Hamilton Snacks employees.
Hamilton Snacks
employees are envious that Arlo’s Granola employees have
bigger desks, more
comfortable chairs, and newer computers. They also complain
that Arlo’s Granola
employees are “inefficient” and “scatter brained.” Conversely,
Arlo’s Granola employees
are finding it difficult to adjust to the Hamilton Snacks culture
and are skeptical of the
company’s motives, believing that profit is valued above the
public’s well-being and the
environment.
How will you address these challenges? What steps will you
take to ensure that
the acquisition is successful?
Change Management Models: A
Comparative Analysis and Concerns
—BRIAN JOSEPH GALLI
Long Island University-Post, Greenvale,
NY 11548, USA
IEEE DOI 10.1109/EMR.2018.2866860

Abstract—To better understand change management, we
compare some
popular change management models in relation to project
management and
organizations in this study. After a brief introduction of five
major models,
various advantages and disadvantages are identified for each.
Lessons and
implications for organizations and management are also
introduced.
Key words: Change management, project management, change
manage-
ment models, Kurt Lewin, Kotter’s 8-Step, ADKAR, McKinsey
7-S, general
electric CAP
INTRODUCTION
CHANGE is inevitable, whether it is
personal or professional. Also, change
is necessary in order to grow,
especially in your professional career.
Maintaining the same position ten to
fifteen years later usuallymeans that
change has been limited. However, we
as individuals and organizations are
creatures of habit, so change is not
always easy. Professional changes
are even trickier to deal with as a
project manager or organization
leader. In these positions, you are
responsible for helping your team
members and employees to reach
their full potential and to produce great
work. This goal is tricky because of the

multiple personalities involved, but
changemanagement may be a useful
mechanism in this circumstance.
A proactive organization and project
management team customarily has a
preset change management plan for
project or organization structure,
business systems/processes, or
employee role change requirements.
Change management consists of
three layers: organizations, people,
and projects. To fully understand the
various change models, we must first
understand why they are needed and
what change management means at
its core.
Change management is “the
application of a structured process
and set of tools for leading the people
side of change to achieve a desired
business outcome; it is both a
process and a competency” (Creasy,
2018). This situation requires an
organization, project team, or
individual to notice a need for change.
Furthermore, it seeks to evolve from
their current state to implement
change/s to reach a desired state.
Calling it a process means that once it
is implemented, it can be used
repeatedly, but calling it a
competency means that it should
generate an effective outcome for the

majority of the time.
Before a project team or organization
can construct a viable change
management plan, they should
understand the available change
models to find which is most effective
for their project or organization. There
are many recognized models
available; in this article, we will focus
on some of the more popular and
theoretically sound models.
A GENERAL CHANGE
MANAGEMENT PROCESS
As mentioned earlier, change
management (CM) is evolving from a
current state to a desired state.
Before executing change, a series of
phases need consideration. Figure 1
shows a general change
management process from a project
management perspective. In the
124 IEEE ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT REVIEW, VOL. 46,
NO. 3, THIRD QUARTER, SEPTEMBER 2018
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9392-244X
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9392-244X
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9392-244X
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9392-244X
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9392-244X
project planning cycle, the project

manager has a process and change
management model in place that is
specific to their management style.
The first phase involves identifying
the need for a change. This means
that either something has come up in
the project that the team or manager
would like to change or a different
outcome arises than previously
discussed. When this situation
happens, the activities that take place
are deciding the current, the future,
and the transition state. A basic
question is how it will affect the scope
of the project and if the scope needs
to be altered.
In the second phase, the team or
manager determines the change
details. It is a process in the sense of
how the team conducts certain tasks
and activities will be changed. A
question arises on whether there is a
role change where a team member(s)
will take on a new role or
responsibility. On the other hand, is it
an overall change to be based on
client needs? Cost and risk analyses
are performed in this phase to
consider the feasibility of change
based on time and financial
resources.
The next phase is when CM models
roles begin. This plays a large role in

how the change will be implemented.
Stakeholders’ needs and interests
require assessment, with
commensurate communication to
them, for effective change to
progress. Whether the change is
minor or major, the project manager
will experience some resistance to
the proposed changes from both
team members and stakeholders.
This is why the selected change
management model is such a crucial
part of the CM process; each model
has methods in place to help curb
resistance. This is also where the
action, communication, and
resistance plan for the CM process
need to be created and tailored to the
different stakeholder groups.
Fourthly, there is the implementation
stage. The transition state occurs and
the plans are now put into motion,
while a CM process has actually been
formed. Lastly, the monitoring phase
controls the changes and ensures
that they are on track to get to the
desired state. Any errors are caught
and lessons are learned for future
references to update the CM process,
which helps to ensure success future
CM process use.
Now that we understand some of the
generic CM process stages in a

project environment, we will discuss
in detail some of the models that are
most commonly used. This
comparative discussion includes their
differences and similarities. Then, a
recommendation that is based on
some CM model strengths and
weaknesses is made.
CHANGE MANAGEMENT MODELS
“Due to varying factors internal to an
organization’s environment, not all
changes are the same; therefore,
management needs to use different
change models and methodologies
depending on the situation”
(Schech-Storz, 2013).
CM models typically utilize various
theories. Variations in personnel and
organizational cultures have led to
various perspectives. Five popular
and tested models are reviewed here,
including Kurt Lewin’s Change
Management Model, Kotter’s 8 Step
Change Model, ADKAR Change
Management Model, The McKinsey
7-S Model, and General Electric’s
Change Acceleration Process (CAP).
Kurt Lewin’s Change Management
Model “Kurt Lewin and E.H. Schein,
considered precursors of change
management models, believe that the

process of change involves three
basic stages: the behavioral thaw
(unfreezing), the change (transition)
and the recrystallization of behaviors
(change)” (Talmaciu, 2014).
Lewin’s theory (Lewin, 1951)
proposes that organizations need to
have time initially to reflect on the
change and organizational
Figure 1. A general change management process. Source:
http://www.adaptivehvm.com/changemangement.
CHANGE MANAGEMENT MODELS: A COMPARATIVE
ANALYSIS AND CONCERNS 125
involvement analysis prior to
“unfreezing” the organization. Lewin
made several assumptions for
effective change. His first assumption
was that there needs to be a change
motivator or else the change does not
occur. The second assumption was
that employees are at the heart of
changes within the organization.
Then, his third assumption was that
those affected by the change need to
adapt, incorporate the new processes
into their routine, and discontinue
past practices. Lastly, Lewin
postulates that even with desirable
goals, resistance to change is
common. For a change to be

effective, replacing organizational
behaviors and attitudes must
reinforce it.
Figure 2 summarizes Lewin’s theory.
There is an initial understanding that
the organization or project process
needs to be changed. Initial
understanding requires an in-depth
analysis for what is and what isn’t
working. A plan then needs creation.
The CM process has now entered its
transition phase. This phase is where
the resistance from employees will
begin to take place, as well as
hiccups, because the employees are
not used to the new changes. When
this occurs, it is important to have
resources readily available for team
members or employees to ease the
transition. These resources can be in
the form of training, instructions, or
simply having access to the project
manager or department manager to
make inquiries. In the third phase of
refreezing, according to Levasseur
(2001), the model requires change
agents to work actively with
organizational personnel to install,
test, debug, use, measure, and
enhance the new system.
Kotter’s 8 Step Change
Model Kotter’s 8 Step Change
Model (Kotter, 1996) expanded

Lewin’s original change theory. Kotter
believed that “Leadership must create
and sustain the kind of changes
needed for successful organizations
to compete in the current competitive
world” (Kotter, 1996).
The eight steps in the model include:
1. Create a sense of urgency.
2. Create a core coalition.
3. Develop and form a strategic
vision.
4. Communicate and share vision
plans.
5. Empowering employees to act
on the vision.
6. Generate short-term wins.
7. Consolidate gains and produce
more change.
8. Initiate and set new changes.
Figure 3 below shows an example of
how the model operates. In step one,
the project team or organization
realizes the need for change, which is
where they create a sense of urgency
to get the ball rolling. Kotter (2012)
stated in the Harvard Business
Review that “creating a sense of
urgency is critical to increasing the
organization’s awareness that it

needs strategic adjustments and that
there are always opportunities in
sight.” In the second step of creating
core coalition, Kotter notes that for
“effective change to happen, a team
of effective leaders must develop into
a coalition to build urgency around
the need for change. People must
know change is necessary” (Kotter,
1996).
Developing a strategic vision requires
formulating a clear and sensible
transformation vision. The
transformation vision is required to
align objectives and to progress as a
group (Calegari, 2015). Change will
not be successful without a well-
developed strategic vision because
the project team or organization does
not have an overall roadmap for the
change process. Also, the employees
must understand why the change is
needed in order to support it.
Effectively communicating the
strategic vision is the next step.
Management and the CM team
Figure 2. Kurt Lewin’s change management model.
Figure 3. John Kotter’s model.

should share the vision of change to
get employees and team members
onboard. The CM team needs to get
the employees to see the need for the
change. This step is crucial because
if not handled properly, there could be
fundamental resistance from
employees, and team members can
feel left out.
In step five, to empower employees
means to allow them to try new ideas
and approaches. Communication
alone is never sufficient. Employees
need support in removing obstacles
to the vision (Kotter, 1996).
Meanwhile, step six, sees that the
changes and progress is made with
significant outcomes and sharing is
needed. Short-term wins help, and
demonstrating that the change effort
is constructive is important. These
wins help the CM team to test the
vision against real conditions and to
make necessary adjustments.
Step seven requires that the
organization or project team should
consolidate gains and produce more
change. Not allowing complacency
and continuous progress is a goal.
Change efforts often fail because
participants revert back to their prior
habits, usually failing to continue

change implementation. Finally, there
is the initiation of new change. In this
stage, the goal is to institutionalize
the change and to anchor it in the
organizational culture (Kanter, 2003).
ADKAR Model The ADKAR Model
(Hiatt, 2006), as opposed to the
previous models, focuses on people
change adaptation, as opposed to the
change itself. The ADKAR model is
sequenced by how an individual
experiences the change. The ADKAR
lifecycle begins after identifying a
change. From this initiation point,
there is a framework and sequence
for managing the people side of
change (Hiatt, 2006). The acronym
stands for five goals that the model
aims to accomplish. These are:
1. Awareness
2. Desire
3. Knowledge
4. Ability
5. Reinforcement
Figure 4 shows the ADKAR Model
sequence. We now consider the
factors that affect the 5 steps.
Awareness is when an organization
or project team informs employees of
a need for change. The primary issue
at this stage is determining the level
of change for a specific project.
Desire from the employees and

project team requires the motivation
to participate in the change along with
the ability to perform necessary
changes. Thus, employees need
knowledge of how to change and
what the change entails. ADKAR
continues to Ability, which are the
skills required to implement change
on a day-to-day basis. Reinforcement
is then needed to maintain and
sustain change in the organization or
project (Hiatt, 2006).
The McKinsey 7-S Model The
McKinsey 7-S Model was developed
by Tom Peters, Richard Pascale, and
Robert Waterman Jr., while McKinsey
& Company employees. The model
analyzes seven organization or
project team aspects, highlighting the
changes to be made. The 7 S Model
consists of:
1. Strategy
2. Structure
3. Systems
4. Skills
5. Staff
6. Style
7. Shared Goals
Figure 5 shows a McKinsey 7-S
Model and its linkages. Strategy
involves transforming the
organization from the current position
to the new position, as identified by

the objectives. The structure identifies
and defines the roles, responsibilities,
and accountability relationships
(Singh, 2013). Systems are formal
procedures of the organization or
project team. They include
management control systems,
performance measurement/reward
systems, planning, budgeting,
resource allocation systems, and
information systems. The systems
influence behavior because they are
the mechanisms that affect resources
available for a given entity, as well as
the processes by which individuals
are rewarded and groups measured
(Spaho, 2014).
Skills are the ability of employees and
team members to do the
organization’s or project team’s work.
The staff possesses the skills, which
is the model element. Also, this
element looks at the way in which the
company hires and retains staff into
the organization or project team.
Lastly, shared goals are the central
organizational beliefs and attitudes
helping employees to understand the
organizational purpose, as well as
how it will affect the internal and
external environments.
General Electric’s Change
Acceleration Process Model
(CAP) General Electric Company

came up with its own version of a CM
model to transform how people
accept, operate, and employ new
business strategies. The CAP Model
allows an organization to manage
business model change
implementation. GE recognized a
need for the model, since the success
or failure of a new business project
deals with both acceptance and
quality. They represent this with the
Figure 4. The ADKAR change model stages.
equation Q � A ¼ E. (Polk, 2011).
The equation means that good quality
work with good acceptance will result
in effective change or results.
The model has 7 steps, see Figure 6
(Neri & Mason, 2008) and include:
1. Leading Change: A champion
who will drive change is
identified. A champion who
sponsors the change
management program initiates
most successful change
initiatives; the champion must be
publicly visible, committed to the
change.

2. Creating A Shared Need: The
team identifies the reason for a
change, makes certain reasons
for a change, makes certain the
reasons are widely understood,
and overcomes resistance to
change.
3. Shaping AVision: The team
delineates a desired outcome of
change and conveys it to key
stakeholders.
4. Mobilizing Commitment: Key
stakeholders are identified;
resistance analysis is performed;
actions are developed to gain
support and commitment.
5. Making Changes Last: The
team institutes appropriate
systems and structures to
sustain results.
6. Monitoring Progress: Realistic
benchmarks are set and
measured.
7. Changing Systems &
Structures: Changes are
integrated into the organization’s
culture.
COMPARATIVE FINDINGS

Each Model’s Strengths and
Weaknesses Lewin’s model is a
simple and effective three-step
process, which makes it attractive for
large organizations and project teams
to use. Analyzing aspect changes is
easy to do. The three major steps are
transparent enough for change
Figure 6. GE’s change acceleration process. Source: Holloway
(2015) leading and engaging sustainable change.
Figure 5. The McKinsey 7-S model. Source: Hughes (2012).
management novices to understand
how to do the change from start to
finish. However, a disadvantage is
that the model does not detail how to
deal with the human part of the
change, which is a common limitation
of most methods. People resistance
to change could potentially impact the
organization/project team if not
handled correctly. Another
disadvantage is that the unfreezing
phase can be time-consuming and
costly if planned poorly or with
minimal top management support.
The Kotter model, in comparison to
Lewin’s model, provides greater

direction on how to implement
change. It further incorporates the
people side of change. Unlike Lewin,
Kotter gives advice on which point in
the process to communicate with
employees in the model. The advice
on including employees is effective
for organizations with a traditional
managerial hierarchy. While the
model includes employees, it comes
across as a top-down approach. The
employees do not have input or the
option to share ideas before strategic
vision creation. Another disadvantage
occurs if a step is skipped or
executed incorrectly. This affects
other steps and leaves the
organization and project team to
delay or regress. As a result, there
could be wasted time and effort.
The ADKARmodel’s advantage is the
relatively increased focus of employee
and project teammember acceptance
of change. The process starts and
ends with them as the forefront of
change, so this characteristic is
extremely important in choosing a CM
model. The disadvantage of using this
model is that since it focuses primarily
on the people side of the change, it is
better suited for project teams and
environments, as opposed to large-
scale organizations with complex
processes.

The McKinsey 7-S model advantage
occurs in showing the weakness and
strengths in seven core dimensions of
the organization or project team. This
characteristic provides managers with
an opportunity to more clearly identify
where the need for change lies.
However, the disadvantage of this
model is that it can be time-
consuming and tedious to go through
all of the levels. Since it is a complex
model, it would be difficult to
implement in a large organization.
Another disadvantage is that instead
of focusing the entire model on the
people side of change, it really only
focuses on the skills and staff
portions of the model.
The advantage of GE Change
Acceleration Process method is its
flexibility. When management utilizes
this model, they must understand that
it can exist in a nonlinear fashion, as
various elements change in important
to the CM team and their constituents.
The disadvantage of the CAP Model
is in its requirement of a strong leader,
otherwise the model weakens. The
leader must be able to get everyone
onboard and committed to making the
change.
Model Comparisons In a careful
review of these five models, one thing

becomes abundantly clear with every
one. No matter the model, change will
only be successful if communicated
and accepted by employees or
project team members. It is also
critical that an organization or project
team should be able to manage CM
effectively with appropriate support,
knowledge, and resources. CM has a
lot of moving parts to it, so
management must understand all
resistant forces. Failure to do so can
be costly, decrease loyalty, reduce
the probability of reaching goals,
waste money, or squander resources.
Nevertheless, not all resistance to
change is bad because it forces
management to check their vision or
roadmap to help identify problem
areas. Resistance also provides
management with information about
the intensity of an employee’s
emotions on the issues or provides a
means of releasing emotions.
Each of the models grasp the basic
concept of CM, which is starting at a
current state and realizing a need for
change, entering the transition phase,
implementing the change, and then
getting to their desired state. Three of
the five models (Kotter’s, McKinsey,
and CAP) provide the substantial
details on beginning, managing, and
sustaining change. This level of detail

provides clarity and structure, such as
if Lewin’s Model is not managed
properly, things can easily go awry.
Some models focused more on the
process of executing change itself,
rather than on the people dimension.
Furthermore, Lewin’s and Kotter’s
models were the most limited on the
people aspect. ADKAR had the
greatest focus on employees and
team members, but it is limited when
seeking large-scale implementations.
Failure to effectively understand and
manage CM models contributes to
why change management initiatives
are branded as nebulous and trivial
undertakings. Thus, it is critical that
the selected CM model reinforces
change and is linked to a successful
and sustainable implementation
(Holloway, 2015).
The initial goal of this paper was to
find the most effective model. After all
of the research was done, it was clear
that the most effective model is
contingent. There are a couple of
perspectives on the most effective
model because of the differing
characteristics of project teams and
broader organizations.
For large organizations, our
perspective is that the most effective

CM model is likely to be General
Electric’s Change Acceleration
Model. This is the most effective
because it was designed with large
organizations in mind. The large
quantities of people in large
organizations need to have many
who are committed to a change to
work successfully. As a result, this
model separates the steps into
enough detail to manage change
elementally and in smaller pieces.
Most importantly, it monitors the
progress of the change before
implementation.
Since a project has the constraint of a
schedule, the CM process that it
employs needs to be extremely
effective to not throw the project into
overruns or scope creep. The most
effective model that can support this
critical element is likely to be Kotter’s
8 Step Change Model. This model
concurrently incorporates relevant
change agents, stakeholders, and
team members to carry out an
effective change, which expedites the
CM program.

These perspectives are very general,
and we are only mentioning the
effectiveness, advantages, and
disadvantages in a broad overview.
There are many other items to
consider. This section provides a
starting point for managers to
consider what is appropriate for their
organization and/or project team.
Also, the insights provided are based
on the broad literature in this area.
DEALING WITH CHANGE
MANAGEMENT MODELS:
ORGANIZATIONAL AND
MANAGERIAL CONCERNS
There are many concerns and
implications at various levels of the
organization and managerial layers.
Some of these dimensions are
obvious, and the research literature
confirms them. However, these
concerns and issues bear repeating.
They are meant to aid managers and
organizations to remember that a
broader picture for the application of
these models is needed, especially
before they are consumed by the
minutiae of CM models and
implementation.
Strategic and operational change is a
constant concern to remain
competitive. Top-down and bottom-up
leadership approaches are

necessary. Additionally, strong and
well-directed visions could aid change
management. Poorly delivered
organizational policies and a
misalignment between top-down and
bottom-up philosophies will doomCM.
Adequate training is needed for
management and leadership to
oversee their approach. Furthermore,
leadership training on various
aspects and importance of overall
performance is necessary.
Inadequate leadership development
programs, skills, and supervision are
major concerns for these CM models.
With the proper training, a leader can
see that the focus should be on
managing these variables, their
concepts, and models, rather than
being concerned over short-term
profits and costs alone.
Financial elements and resources
allocation will limit organizational CM
programs. Focusing on short-term
problems may not produce long-term
solutions. The network and
complexity of organizations means
that unintended consequences will
arise; managers should be aware of
these to think systematically and
holistically (Clancy, 2018).
At the managerial level, leadership
and collaboration play critical roles.

Management should broaden
mentoring and leadership skills for
every department or team to identify
weaknesses. Gap analysis and
benchmarking, to identify change
needs and weaknesses against
standard and industry practices, is
always a tricky proposition. The
relationships of models, factors, and
tools beyond the CM models
presented here can become a difficult
to integrate. Thus, awareness and
care are needed when various tools
are sought to be integrated with these
CM models.
Team thinking and buy-in goes
beyond the individual. Project teams,
as well as project and organizational
leadership, need to determine the
type of training content.
Understanding the choices is the first
step.
Team performance evaluation is
important for their effectiveness.
This is beyond training, measuring,
and monitoring the various aspects
of teams. Essentially, knowledge
and expertise in delivering on the
vision is necessary. Also, linking
project and team performance and
effectiveness to broader business
performance is necessary. Linking
these performance metrics and
goals to CM programs is a non-

trivial task.
Even with all of these caveats,
managers should be wary when
implementing CM programs where
paralysis occurs. Sometimes
focusing on the many peripherals
and preparation may cause CM
efforts to drag out. As a result,
motivation and moral need careful
examination.
Engineering and technical
professions typically prefer
analytical solutions and have these
skills. Providing the project
management and engineering
community with an overview of
these CM models is a first stage.
Then, selecting the appropriate one
for your situation is critical,
especially based on culture and
skills of project and engineering
managers.
Decision tools can be integrated
throughout these CM models; project
managers and engineers have a
variety of analytical tools at their
disposal. Similar to broader
managerial concerns, falling prey to
poorly integrated tools used for CM
can cause difficulties and barriers to
progress. Focusing too much on the
analytics and not enough on the

culture can be a trap for many
analytical thinkers.
CONCLUSION
Overall, this paper examines five
popular CM tools. Each tool has a
slightly different perspective.
Although we provide some direction
and concerns, it is ultimately your
environment that will determine which
is best for you. Whether at the
organizational or project
management level, change is
ubiquitous. However, be aware that
the model itself can be perfect for the
organization or company, but without
the willingness or desire to change
from employees and team members,
the process to implement change will
almost always fail.
Poor leadership is a big influence on
the success of the change. This led
me to my final thoughts on the topic of
CM: people are the changes, not the
models, and people will only change if
they see and feel the need to do so.
Thus, it is so important to effectively
communicate the need for change

and to include employees, as well as
team members, to feel part of the
change.
Resistance is normal, but it comes
into play when employees feel left out
or that someone is telling them how to
do their jobs. This is where conflict
arises. A proactive change
management leader will address his/
her project team members’ concerns
immediately to ensure that they are
comfortable with getting onboard with
the changes.
This overview is intended to build
your knowledge, lessons from the
research, and long history of CM
models. The references provided
present details into some of the
various aspects of the issues
presented here. Finally, these
references prove to be valuable
resources.
REFERENCES
Calegari, M. F., Sibley, R. E., and Turner, M. E. (2015). A road
map for using Kotter’s
organizational change model to build faculty engagement in
accreditation.
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 19(3), 31–43.
Clancy, T. (2018). Systems thinking: Three system archetypes
every manager

should know. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 46(2),
32–41.
Creasy, T. (2018). An Introduction Guide to Change
Management. Retrieved April 2,
2018, from www.prosci.com
Hiatt, J. M. (2013). Employees Survival Guide to Change: The
Complete Guide To
Surviving and Thriving During Organizational Change.
Loveland, CO, USA:
Prosci Research.
Holloway, S. D. (2015). Leading and Engaging Sustainable
Change: Achieving
Organizational Transformation through the Transformative
Methodologies of the
Change Acceleration Process and Lean Six Sigma (Order No.
10014007).
Available from ProQuest Central.
Hughes, J. (2012). Paper E2 enterprise management. Journal of
International
Financial Management, 44, 39–42.
Kanter, R. M. (2003). Challenge of organizational change: How
companies
experience it and leaders guide it. New York, NY, USA: Free
Press.
Kotter, J. (2012). Accelerate!. Harvard Business Review, 9–12.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Cambridge, MA, USA:
Harvard Business
School Press.
Levasseur, R. E. (2001). People skills: Change management

tools - Lewin’s change
model. Interfaces, 31(4), 71–73.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social change. New York, NY,
USA: Harper & Row.
Neri, R. A. et al. (2008). Application of six sigma/CAP
methodology: Controlling
blood-product utilization and costs. Journal of Healthcare
Management, 53(3),
183–95.
Polk, J. D. (2011). Lean six sigma, innovation, and the change
acceleration process
can work together. Physician Executive Journal, 37(1), 38–42.
Schech-Storz, M. D. (2013). Organizational change success in
project
management: A comparative analysis of two models of change.
ProQuest
Dissertations and Theses, 20–25.
Singh, A. (2013). A study of role of McKinsey’s 7S framework
for achieving
organizational excellence. Organization Development Journal,
31(3), 39–50.
Spaho, K. (2014). 7S Model as a framework for project
management. Paper
presented at the 8th International Scientific Conference on
Economic and Social
Development, 450–464.

Talmaciu, I. (2014). Comparative analysis of different models
of organizational
change. Valahian Journal of Economic Studies, 5(4), 78–80.
Retrieved April 7,
2018.
<<
/ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles true
/AutoRotatePages /None
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2)
/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated 050SWOP051 v2)
/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Warning
/CompatibilityLevel 1.4
/CompressObjects /Off
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages true
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Default
/DetectBlends true
/DetectCurves 0.0000
/ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB
/DoThumbnails true
/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedOpenType false
/ParseICCProfilesInComments true
/EmbedJobOptions true

/DSCReportingLevel 0
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1
/ImageMemory 1048576
/LockDistillerParams true
/MaxSubsetPct 100
/Optimize true
/OPM 0
/ParseDSCComments false
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true
/PreserveDICMYKValues true
/PreserveEPSInfo false
/PreserveFlatness true
/PreserveHalftoneInfo true
/PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings true
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts false
/TransferFunctionInfo /Remove
/UCRandBGInfo /Preserve
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
/Algerian
/Arial-Black
/Arial-BlackItalic
/Arial-BoldItalicMT
/Arial-BoldMT
/Arial-ItalicMT
/ArialMT
/ArialNarrow
/ArialNarrow-Bold
/ArialNarrow-BoldItalic
/ArialNarrow-Italic
/ArialUnicodeMS

/BaskOldFace
/Batang
/Bauhaus93
/BellMT
/BellMTBold
/BellMTItalic
/BerlinSansFB-Bold
/BerlinSansFBDemi-Bold
/BerlinSansFB-Reg
/BernardMT-Condensed
/BodoniMTPosterCompressed
/BookAntiqua
/BookAntiqua-Bold
/BookAntiqua-BoldItalic
/BookAntiqua-Italic
/BookmanOldStyle
/BookmanOldStyle-Bold
/BookmanOldStyle-BoldItalic
/BookmanOldStyle-Italic
/BookshelfSymbolSeven
/BritannicBold
/Broadway
/BrushScriptMT
/CalifornianFB-Bold
/CalifornianFB-Italic
/CalifornianFB-Reg
/Centaur
/Century
/CenturyGothic
/CenturyGothic-Bold
/CenturyGothic-BoldItalic
/CenturyGothic-Italic
/CenturySchoolbook
/CenturySchoolbook-Bold
/CenturySchoolbook-BoldItalic
/CenturySchoolbook-Italic

/Chiller-Regular
/ColonnaMT
/ComicSansMS
/ComicSansMS-Bold
/CooperBlack
/CourierNewPS-BoldItalicMT
/CourierNewPS-BoldMT
/CourierNewPS-ItalicMT
/CourierNewPSMT
/EstrangeloEdessa
/FootlightMTLight
/FreestyleScript-Regular
/Garamond
/Garamond-Bold
/Garamond-Italic
/Georgia
/Georgia-Bold
/Georgia-BoldItalic
/Georgia-Italic
/Haettenschweiler
/HarlowSolid
/Harrington
/HighTowerText-Italic
/HighTowerText-Reg
/Impact
/InformalRoman-Regular
/Jokerman-Regular
/JuiceITC-Regular
/KristenITC-Regular
/KuenstlerScript-Black
/KuenstlerScript-Medium
/KuenstlerScript-TwoBold
/KunstlerScript
/LatinWide
/LetterGothicMT
/LetterGothicMT-Bold

/LetterGothicMT-BoldOblique
/LetterGothicMT-Oblique
/LucidaBright
/LucidaBright-Demi
/LucidaBright-DemiItalic
/LucidaBright-Italic
/LucidaCalligraphy-Italic
/LucidaConsole
/LucidaFax
/LucidaFax-Demi
/LucidaFax-DemiItalic
/LucidaFax-Italic
/LucidaHandwriting-Italic
/LucidaSansUnicode
/Magneto-Bold
/MaturaMTScriptCapitals
/MediciScriptLTStd
/MicrosoftSansSerif
/Mistral
/Modern-Regular
/MonotypeCorsiva
/MS-Mincho
/MSReferenceSansSerif
/MSReferenceSpecialty
/NiagaraEngraved-Reg
/NiagaraSolid-Reg
/NuptialScript
/OldEnglishTextMT
/Onyx
/PalatinoLinotype-Bold
/PalatinoLinotype-BoldItalic
/PalatinoLinotype-Italic
/PalatinoLinotype-Roman
/Parchment-Regular
/Playbill
/PMingLiU

/PoorRichard-Regular
/Ravie
/ShowcardGothic-Reg
/SimSun
/SnapITC-Regular
/Stencil
/SymbolMT
/Tahoma
/Tahoma-Bold
/TempusSansITC
/TimesNewRomanMT-ExtraBold
/TimesNewRomanMTStd
/TimesNewRomanMTStd-Bold
/TimesNewRomanMTStd-BoldCond
/TimesNewRomanMTStd-BoldIt
/TimesNewRomanMTStd-Cond
/TimesNewRomanMTStd-CondIt
/TimesNewRomanMTStd-Italic
/TimesNewRomanPS-BoldItalicMT
/TimesNewRomanPS-BoldMT
/TimesNewRomanPS-ItalicMT
/TimesNewRomanPSMT
/Times-Roman
/Trebuchet-BoldItalic
/TrebuchetMS
/TrebuchetMS-Bold
/TrebuchetMS-Italic
/Verdana
/Verdana-Bold
/Verdana-BoldItalic
/Verdana-Italic
/VinerHandITC
/Vivaldii
/VladimirScript
/Webdings
/Wingdings2

/Wingdings3
/Wingdings-Regular
/ZapfChanceryStd-Demi
/ZWAdobeF
]
/NeverEmbed [ true
]
/AntiAliasColorImages false
/CropColorImages true
/ColorImageMinResolution 150
/ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleColorImages true
/ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/ColorImageResolution 150
/ColorImageDepth -1
/ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1
/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeColorImages true
/ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterColorImages false
/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/ColorACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
/HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2]
>>
/ColorImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.40
>>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 15
>>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256

/TileHeight 256
/Quality 15
>>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages true
/GrayImageMinResolution 150
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 300
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages false
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.76
>>
/GrayImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.40
>>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 15
>>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 15
>>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false

/CropMonoImages true
/MonoImageMinResolution 1200
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 600
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict <<
/K -1
>>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier ()

/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName ()
/PDFXTrapped /False
/CreateJDFFile false
/Description <<
/CHS
<FEFF4f7f75288fd94e9b8bbe5b9a521b5efa76840020004100640
06f006200650020005000440046002065876863900275284e8e55
464e1a65876863768467e5770b548c62535370300260a853ef4ee5
4f7f75280020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c002000
410064006f0062006500200052006500610064006500720020003
5002e003000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c676562535f00521b5
efa768400200050004400460020658768633002>
/CHT
<FEFF4f7f752890194e9b8a2d7f6e5efa7acb76840020004100640
06f006200650020005000440046002065874ef69069752865bc66
6e901a554652d965874ef6768467e5770b548c52175370300260a
853ef4ee54f7f75280020004100630072006f00620061007400205
48c002000410064006f0062006500200052006500610064006500
7200200035002e003000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c4f86958b
555f5df25efa7acb76840020005000440046002065874ef63002>
/DAN
<FEFF004200720075006700200069006e0064007300740069006
c006c0069006e006700650072006e0065002000740069006c0020
006100740020006f0070007200650074007400650020004100640
06f006200650020005000440046002d0064006f006b0075006d00
65006e007400650072002c0020006400650072002000650067006
e006500720020007300690067002000740069006c002000640065
00740061006c006a006500720065007400200073006b00e600720
06d007600690073006e0069006e00670020006f00670020007500
640073006b007200690076006e0069006e0067002000610066002
00066006f0072007200650074006e0069006e006700730064006f
006b0075006d0065006e007400650072002e00200044006500200
06f00700072006500740074006500640065002000500044004600
2d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e0074006500720020006b006

1006e002000e50062006e00650073002000690020004100630072
006f00620061007400200065006c006c006500720020004100630
072006f0062006100740020005200650061006400650072002000
35002e00300020006f00670020006e0079006500720065002e>
/DEU
<FEFF00560065007200770065006e00640065006e00200053006
90065002000640069006500730065002000450069006e00730074
0065006c006c0075006e00670065006e0020007a0075006d00200
0450072007300740065006c006c0065006e00200076006f006e00
2000410064006f006200650020005000440046002d0044006f006
b0075006d0065006e00740065006e002c00200075006d00200065
0069006e00650020007a0075007600650072006c00e4007300730
0690067006500200041006e007a00650069006700650020007500
6e00640020004100750073006700610062006500200076006f006
e00200047006500730063006800e40066007400730064006f006b
0075006d0065006e00740065006e0020007a00750020006500720
07a00690065006c0065006e002e00200044006900650020005000
440046002d0044006f006b0075006d0065006e007400650020006
b00f6006e006e0065006e0020006d006900740020004100630072
006f00620061007400200075006e0064002000520065006100640
065007200200035002e003000200075006e00640020006800f600
680065007200200067006500f600660066006e006500740020007
70065007200640065006e002e>
/ESP
<FEFF005500740069006c0069006300650020006500730074006
100200063006f006e0066006900670075007200610063006900f3
006e0020007000610072006100200063007200650061007200200
064006f00630075006d0065006e0074006f007300200064006500
2000410064006f006200650020005000440046002000610064006
50063007500610064006f00730020007000610072006100200076
0069007300750061006c0069007a00610063006900f3006e00200
06500200069006d0070007200650073006900f3006e0020006400
6500200063006f006e006600690061006e007a006100200064006
500200064006f00630075006d0065006e0074006f007300200063
006f006d00650072006300690061006c00650073002e002000530
065002000700075006500640065006e0020006100620072006900

7200200064006f00630075006d0065006e0074006f00730020005
000440046002000630072006500610064006f007300200063006f
006e0020004100630072006f006200610074002c0020004100640
06f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e00
3000200079002000760065007200730069006f006e00650073002
00070006f00730074006500720069006f007200650073002e>
/FRA
<FEFF005500740069006c006900730065007a002000630065007
30020006f007000740069006f006e00730020006100660069006e
00200064006500200063007200e90065007200200064006500730
0200064006f00630075006d0065006e0074007300200041006400
6f006200650020005000440046002000700072006f00660065007
300730069006f006e006e0065006c007300200066006900610062
006c0065007300200070006f007500720020006c0061002000760
069007300750061006c00690073006100740069006f006e002000
6500740020006c00270069006d007000720065007300730069006
f006e002e0020004c0065007300200064006f00630075006d0065
006e00740073002000500044004600200063007200e900e900730
02000700065007500760065006e0074002000ea00740072006500
20006f007500760065007200740073002000640061006e0073002
0004100630072006f006200610074002c002000610069006e0073
0069002000710075002700410064006f006200650020005200650
06100640065007200200035002e00300020006500740020007600
65007200730069006f006e007300200075006c007400e90072006
900650075007200650073002e>
/ITA (Utilizzare queste impostazioni per creare documenti
Adobe PDF adatti per visualizzare e stampare documenti
aziendali in modo affidabile. I documenti PDF creati possono
essere aperti con Acrobat e Adobe Reader 5.0 e versioni
successive.)
/JPN
<FEFF30d330b830cd30b9658766f8306e8868793a304a30883073
53705237306b90693057305f002000410064006f0062006500200
050004400460020658766f8306e4f5c6210306b4f7f75283057307
e305930023053306e8a2d5b9a30674f5c62103055308c305f00200
05000440046002030d530a130a430eb306f300100410063007200

6f0062006100740020304a30883073002000410064006f0062006
5002000520065006100640065007200200035002e003000204ee5
964d3067958b304f30533068304c3067304d307e3059300230533
06e8a2d5b9a3067306f30d530a930f330c8306e57cb30818fbc307f
3092884c3044307e30593002>
/KOR
<FEFFc7740020c124c815c7440020c0acc6a9d558c5ec0020be44
c988b2c8c2a40020bb38c11cb97c0020c548c815c801c73cb85c00
20bcf4ace00020c778c1c4d558b2940020b3700020ac00c7a50020
c801d569d55c002000410064006f0062006500200050004400460
020bb38c11cb97c0020c791c131d569b2c8b2e4002e0020c774b8
07ac8c0020c791c131b41c00200050004400460020bb38c11cb29
40020004100630072006f0062006100740020bc0f002000410064
006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e0
0300020c774c0c1c5d0c11c0020c5f40020c2180020c788c2b5b2c
8b2e4002e>
/NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten
te maken waarmee zakelijke documenten betrouwbaar kunnen
worden weergegeven en afgedrukt. De gemaakte PDF-
documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe
Reader 5.0 en hoger.)
/NOR
<FEFF004200720075006b0020006400690073007300650020006
9006e006e007300740069006c006c0069006e00670065006e0065
002000740069006c002000e50020006f007000700072006500740
0740065002000410064006f006200650020005000440046002d00
64006f006b0075006d0065006e00740065007200200073006f006
d002000650072002000650067006e0065007400200066006f0072
0020007000e5006c006900740065006c006900670020007600690
073006e0069006e00670020006f00670020007500740073006b00
7200690066007400200061007600200066006f007200720065007
4006e0069006e006700730064006f006b0075006d0065006e0074
00650072002e0020005000440046002d0064006f006b0075006d0
065006e00740065006e00650020006b0061006e002000e5007000
6e00650073002000690020004100630072006f006200610074002
00065006c006c00650072002000410064006f0062006500200052

0065006100640065007200200035002e003000200065006c006c0
0650072002e>
/PTB
<FEFF005500740069006c0069007a00650020006500730073006
1007300200063006f006e00660069006700750072006100e700f5
0065007300200064006500200066006f0072006d0061002000610
0200063007200690061007200200064006f00630075006d006500
6e0074006f0073002000410064006f00620065002000500044004
600200061006400650071007500610064006f0073002000700061
0072006100200061002000760069007300750061006c0069007a0
06100e700e3006f002000650020006100200069006d0070007200
650073007300e3006f00200063006f006e0066006900e10076006
50069007300200064006500200064006f00630075006d0065006e
0074006f007300200063006f006d0065007200630069006100690
073002e0020004f007300200064006f00630075006d0065006e00
74006f00730020005000440046002000630072006900610064006
f007300200070006f00640065006d002000730065007200200061
0062006500720074006f007300200063006f006d0020006f00200
04100630072006f006200610074002000650020006f0020004100
64006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002
e0030002000650020007600650072007300f50065007300200070
006f00730074006500720069006f007200650073002e>
/SUO
<FEFF004b00e40079007400e40020006e00e40069007400e4002
000610073006500740075006b007300690061002c0020006b0075
006e0020006c0075006f0074002000410064006f0062006500200
050004400460020002d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e007400
740065006a0061002c0020006a006f0074006b006100200073006
f0070006900760061007400200079007200690074007900730061
007300690061006b00690072006a006f006a0065006e0020006c0
075006f00740065007400740061007600610061006e0020006e00
e400790074007400e4006d0069007300650065006e0020006a006
1002000740075006c006f007300740061006d0069007300650065
006e002e0020004c0075006f00640075007400200050004400460
02d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e0074006900740020007600
6f0069006400610061006e0020006100760061007400610020004

100630072006f0062006100740069006c006c00610020006a0061
002000410064006f0062006500200052006500610064006500720
0200035002e0030003a006c006c00610020006a00610020007500
7500640065006d006d0069006c006c0061002e>
/SVE
<FEFF0041006e007600e4006e00640020006400650020006800e
4007200200069006e0073007400e4006c006c006e0069006e0067
00610072006e00610020006f006d0020006400750020007600690
06c006c00200073006b006100700061002000410064006f006200
650020005000440046002d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e007
400200073006f006d002000700061007300730061007200200066
00f60072002000740069006c006c006600f60072006c006900740
06c006900670020007600690073006e0069006e00670020006f00
6300680020007500740073006b007200690066007400650072002
000610076002000610066006600e4007200730064006f006b0075
006d0065006e0074002e002000200053006b00610070006100640
0650020005000440046002d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e00
740020006b0061006e002000f600700070006e006100730020006
90020004100630072006f0062006100740020006f006300680020
00410064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200
035002e00300020006f00630068002000730065006e0061007200
65002e>
/ENU (Use these settings to create PDFs that match the
"Suggested" settings for PDF Specification 4.0)
>>
>> setdistillerparams
<<
/HWResolution [600 600]
/PageSize [612.000 792.000]
>> setpagedevice

INSTRUCTIONS – PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE RESPONDING. Nee.docx

INSTRUCTIONS – PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE RESPONDING. Nee.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to INSTRUCTIONS – PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE RESPONDING. Nee.docx

Similar to INSTRUCTIONS – PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE RESPONDING. Nee.docx (20)

More from carliotwaycave

More from carliotwaycave (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

INSTRUCTIONS – PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE RESPONDING. Nee.docx