3 Implementing Change hxdbzxyiStockThinkstockLearnin.docx

3 Implementing Change
hxdbzxy/iStock/Thinkstock
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the
following:
1. Summarize the nine steps in Ackerman and Anderson’s road
map for change.
2. Analyze Cummings and Worley’s five dimensions of leading
and managing change.
3. Describe how to align an organization with its new vision and
future state.
4. Explain how roles/relationships and interventions are used to
implement change.
5. Examine ways to interact with and influence stakeholders.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 103 12/15/15 9:42 AM
© 2015 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for
resale or redistribution.
Introduction

Change is the law of life and those who look only to
the past or present are certain to miss the future.
—John F. Kennedy
Pretest Questions
1. True/False: Celebrating the implementation of change is not
something a serious
leader should encourage; changes should be carried out in a
professional manner.
2. True/False: Motivating change involves creating readiness
for and overcoming resis-
tance to change.
3. True/False: In order to align an organization with its new
vision, organizational
culture should remain steady and predictable.
4. True/False: Organizational change is most often led by the
highest line of authority,
which is the leadership change team.
5. True/False: Change can be successfully implemented without
collaboration if the
plan is a strong one.
6. True/False: Interventions to implement change can consist of
reinventing specific
company structures such as its strategies, culture, and supply
chain.
Alan Mulally was selected to lead Ford in 2006 after he was
bypassed as CEO at Boeing, where

he had worked and was expected to become CEO. Insiders and
top-level managers at Ford, some
of whom had expected to become CEO, were initially suspicious
and then outraged when Mulally
was hired. They questioned what someone from the airplane
industry would know about the car
business (Kiley, 2009).
Chair William (Bill) Clay Ford, Jr.—who selected Mulally as
CEO—told Ford’s officers that the
company needed a fresh perspective and a shake-up, especially
since it had lost $14.8 billion in
2008—the most in its 105-year history—and had burned through
$21.2 billion, or 61%, of its
cash (Kiley, 2009). Because Ford knew that the company’s
upper echelon culture was closed,
bureaucratic, and rejected outsiders and new ways of thinking,
he was not surprised by his
officers’ reactions. However, Ford’s managers had no idea that
the company was fighting for its
life. To succeed, Mulally would need Chair Ford’s full
endorsement and support, and he got it.
The company’s biggest cultural challenge was to break down
the silos that various executives
had built. As we will discuss more in Chapter 4, silos are
specific processes or departments in an
organization that work independently of each other without
strong communication between or
among them. A lack of communication can often stifle
productivity and innovation, and this was
exactly what was happening at Ford.
Mulally devised a turnaround strategy and developed it into the
Way Forward Plan. The plan
centralized and modernized plants to handle several models at

once, to be sold in several
markets. The plan was designed to break up the fiefdoms of
isolated cultures, in which leaders
independently developed and decided where to sell cars.
Mulally’s plan also kept managers
in positions for longer periods of time to deepen their expertise
and improve consistency of
operations. The manager who ran the Mazda Motor affiliate
commented, “I’m going into my
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 104 12/15/15 9:42 AM
Introduction
fourth year in the same job. I’ve never had such consistency of
purpose before” (as cited in Kiley,
2009, “Meetings About Meetings,” para. 2).
Mulally’s leadership style involved evaluating and analyzing a
situation using data and facts and
then earning individuals’ support with his determination
(Taylor, 2009). Mulally put a stop to man-
agers’ meetings in which maneuvering for power occurred more
than performance-based decision
making. He led by his mantra, “One Team, One Plan, One
Goal.” The era of politicking and power
plays among officers was over. Mulally’s style and method was
also effective with the unions; nego-
tiations were tough but realistic.
Mulally also created a constant stream of data where all

managers saw weekly reports of
Ford’s global operations that compared executives’ performance
against profit targets.
Located in the Taurus and Continental rooms near Mulally’s
office, the walls showed color-
coded bar charts, graphs, and tables that reflected information
on Ford’s businesses in South
America, Russia, China, and other parts of the world. Red
indicated divisions that weren’t
hitting profit projections; green indicated those that were on
target; and yellow indicated that
performance could go up or down. Updated numbers were
validated by pre-earning quarterly
audits. These openly visible charts and graphs created a culture
of transparency where no
executive could avoid the truth. Mulally said numbers helped
executives anticipate issues and
adjust strategy (Kiley, 2009).
From the start of his tenure at Ford,
Mulally declared, “I am here to save an
American and global icon” (as cited in
Taylor, 2009, “A New Corporate Culture,”
para. 6). He was performance-driven, just
as he was at Boeing. He once stated, “I live
for Thursday morning at 8 a.m.” (Synder,
2010, para. 3), which was when he met
with direct reports and led by using
his Business Plan Review. Ford’s four
profit centers—the Americas, Europe,
Asia–Pacific, and Ford Credit—reported
out first, followed by 12 functional
areas, including product development,
manufacturing, human resources, and
government relations.

These meetings did not include premeetings or briefing books
(Taylor, 2009), and Mulally stated
that the difficult questions he asked were never intended to
embarrass anyone. He wanted people
to share information that could produce results in the
marketplace. Neither BlackBerrys nor
distracting side conversations were allowed at these meetings.
Mutual respect was demanded.
Mulally removed vice presidents from the meetings when they
wouldn’t stop talking (Taylor, 2009).
Joe Hinrichs, a manufacturing supervisor, said, “Alan brings
infectious energy. This is a person
people want to follow” (as cited in Taylor, 2009, “A New
Corporate Culture,” para. 3). Mulally’s
practice and insistence on transparency through open and
continuous communication with and
among all professionals at Ford was based on his assertion that
“everyone has to know the plan,
its status, and areas that need special attention” (as cited in
Taylor, 2009, “A New Corporate
AP Photo/Roberto Pfeil/dapd
Alan Mulally’s leadership was integral to enacting
positive change at Ford.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 105 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Introduction

Culture,” para. 2). For example, Mulally was resolute that Ford
reduce its dependence on light
trucks, since gas is costly. Mulally’s openness gained him
support across the company, even with
his candor and straightforwardness.
“Team Mulally,” as the CEO and his followers have been called,
has succeeded in turning around
“a very sick company” (Kiley, 2009). The firm never accepted a
government bailout like the other
U.S. auto companies. Ford generated $144 billion in revenue in
2014, down from $147 billion in
2013. The company sold 2.842 million vehicles in 2014
(Statista, n.d.).
The company positioned Mark Fields as the new CEO in 2014
following Mulally’s 8-year, highly
successful run. Although Ford’s competitive position is
reportedly stronger than it has been since
the late Taurus/Explorer years of the 1990s (Taylor, 2014),
there are still concerns ahead for the
company. First, Fields is not Mulally, who stands as one of the
most popular CEOs the company
has known (Taylor, 2014). Despite this and the fact that Fields
may be more direct and not as
charismatic as Mulally, he knows the company and industry
well.
Whether Fields can meet the vehicle-related challenges of the
digital and globalization age while
keeping the company from sliding back into a politically
charged environment remains to be
seen. Fields has said that he faces the challenge of transitioning
Ford’s vehicles from the “ultimate
industrial product” into the “ultimate technology product” (as
cited in Nusca, 2015, para. 3).

Mulally’s “One Team, One Plan, One Goal” helped unify the
company’s international operations, but
Ford’s sales show that it still is a “North American–centric
automaker” (Ford Online, 2008) whose
profits stem mainly from the truck business (it earned $8.781
billion in 2013 pretax profit on North
American auto operations and lost $1.228 billion in the rest of
the world [Taylor, 2014]).
The company must also be vigilant with regard to its corporate
social responsibilities and legal
advertising. It was twice found guilty of falsely increasing the
window-sticker fuel economy
ratings by 7 miles per gallon on several of its models (Taylor,
2014.). Fields must also ensure
that the company’s strategies, culture, and mind-set stay
competitive and do not revert to pre-
Mulally practices. Fields has stated, “We want people to
challenge custom and question tradition.
We want them to not take anything for granted” (as cited in
Nusca, 2015, para. 6).
Critical-Thinking Questions
1. What went wrong at Ford that led to the competitive and
organizational problems
that existed before Mulally came aboard?
2. What specific change (leadership) practices did Mulally
employ to help turn Ford
around?
3. From your own reading, experience, and online research,
what do you think
Mulally’s successor should do to make Ford vehicles more
competitive?

wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 106 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Section 3.1 Road Map for Change
Introduction: Getting From Here to There
Implementing major organizational changes is neither automatic
nor mechanical. Transition-
ing to a new vision and future state is a process, not an event.
During any change phase,
organizational leaders and change teams guide and shape
people’s mind-sets and behaviors
to adopt new ways of thinking, apply different strategies,
reinvigorate the culture, and align
internal systems. Leadership skills, intelligence, courage, and a
high capacity for collabora-
tion are required. The bottom line is that the success of any
organizational change depends in
large degree on implementation.
Assessment allows change leaders to better assess the reality of
the situation and a possible
future, whereas action planning allows changes to have a higher
rate of success (Warrick,
2011). Although both factors are important in the change
process, many OD practitioners
consider implementation to be most important. Without
successful implementation, the
change process doesn’t matter.
The implementation process begins once the urgency for change

is communicated, the orga-
nization is assessed for the type of change needed, and a plan is
communicated throughout
the organization. In the following section, we present a road
map that highlights the imple-
mentation phases of large-scale changes.
3.1 Road Map for Change
Corporations and organizations that embark on large
complicated changes, as Ford did and
continues to do, depend on a road map from which other plans
are generated. Chapters 1 and 2
discussed two such road maps: Kotter’s eight-step method and
Cooperrider’s four dimensions
in appreciative inquiry. Here we discuss Ackerman and
Anderson’s (2010) road map, which
overlaps with the other two. Figure 3.1 shows distinct
implementation phases that combine
learning from all the steps to help leaders move to their desired
destinations.
The change process model offers a road map without dictating
the roads to take (Ackerman &
Anderson, 2010). It is up to leaders to decide the paths they will
take based on their individual
circumstances. In this regard, the road map can be used as a
“thinking discipline” rather than
a prescribed way of forcing an organization’s behavior into a
plan and timeline. Used this way,
leaders can have flexibility as they navigate the organizational,
technical, human, and cultural
dimensions of their end-to-end change process.
Even with this process model, transformational changes tend to
have a life of their own
(Ackerman & Anderson, 2010). Since both the change process

and outcome emerge and
evolve—that is, both process and outcome evolve unexpectedly
and sometimes become a new
or even better development than predicted (Ackerman &
Anderson, 2010)—leaders generally
launch a planned change without knowing exactly where they
are going, even though they have
described a clear end or future state. This is the case because
markets, the economy, people, and
many other factors are constantly changing. Still, leaders of
transformational changes use road
maps and plans to guide their implementation.
Leaders must let go of old ways in order to move forward. Any
implementation plan is only as
sound as the change strategy, and if all other plan variables are
consciously and conscientiously
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 107 12/15/15 9:43 AM
I.
PREPARE TO LEAD
THE CHANGE
IX.
LEARN AND
COURSE CORRECT
VIII.

CELEBRATE AND INTEGRATE
THE NEW STATE
VII.
IMPLEMENT THE CHANGE
VI.
PLAN AND ORGANIZE FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
V.
ANALYZE THE IMPACT
IV.
DESIGN THE DESIRED STATE
III.
ASSESS THE SITUATION
TO DETERMINE
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
II.
CREATE ORGANIZATIONAL
VISION, COMMITMENT,
AND CAPABILITY
HEAR THE
WAKE-UP
CALL

enacted. Enhanced commitment and excitement, combined with
the collective intelligence
of key decision makers, are essential requirements for a
transformational change’s success
(Ackerman & Anderson, 2009).
Mulally’s example as a change leader reflects many of the
stages presented in Figure 3.1.
While stages 1 through 4 were discussed in Chapters 1 and 2, it
is helpful to briefly sum-
marize some of them, paying particular attention to the
implementation process. It is also
Figure 3.1: Road map for change
The change process shown in this model is continuous and can
allow leaders to implement change and
organizational reach goals.
Source: Ackerman, L. A., & Anderson, D. (2001). Awake at the
wheel: Moving beyond change management to conscious change
leadership. OD
Practitioner, 33(3), 46. Copyright© BeingFirst, Inc. Reprinted
with permission from the authors.
I.
PREPARE TO LEAD
THE CHANGE
IX.
LEARN AND
COURSE CORRECT

VIII.
CELEBRATE AND INTEGRATE
THE NEW STATE
VII.
IMPLEMENT THE CHANGE
VI.
PLAN AND ORGANIZE FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
V.
ANALYZE THE IMPACT
IV.
DESIGN THE DESIRED STATE
III.
ASSESS THE SITUATION
TO DETERMINE
DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
II.
CREATE ORGANIZATIONAL
VISION, COMMITMENT,
AND CAPABILITY
HEAR THE
WAKE-UP
CALL

wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 108 12/15/15 9:43 AM
important to note that all stages in any change road map are in
some way related to, and in
preparation for, the change’s implementation. In fact, the
implementation’s success depends
on how effectively the previous stages were developed and
carried out.
Planning and implementing a large organizational change is, in
practice, not a linear or
mechanical process. As we said at the start: Change is not an
event but a process. Some stages
loop back to previous ones as surprises and emergent changes
occur.
Preparing to Lead the Change
Leaders generally embark on a change effort because of a wake-
up call (Ackerman & Anderson,
2010). In the case of Ford’s turnaround, it was Bill Ford who
watched the company’s stock,
cash, and competitiveness tumble. He called Mulally to lead the
charge to change because the
officers in the company were not moved to take urgent action.
Mulally’s mission, then, was to turn Ford around. To prepare to
lead the change, he learned
the reality of the situation by studying the facts, numbers, and

details. He next began to cre-
ate a case for the change while identifying the desired
outcomes. During this time he was also
building his capability to lead the change, ensuring that he had
the relevant skill sets, exper-
tise, and experience (Ackerman & Anderson, 2010). Because he
had learned how to deal with
enterprise-wide change at Boeing, Mulally seemed ready for the
task. He also was charged
with clarifying an overall change strategy and creating an
infrastructure that had the condi-
tions to support the change effort. In this regard, he devised a
turnaround strategy—the Way
Forward Plan—that centralized and modernized plants to handle
several models at once and
that sold vehicles in several markets.
Creating Vision, Commitment, and Capability
Mulally’s overall vision was to return Ford to its preeminent
status in the global auto industry.
His commitment and persistence were evident in his statement
that he “expects the very best
of himself and others, [and] seeks to understand rather than to
be understood” (as cited in
Taylor, 2009, “A New Corporate Culture,” para. 3). As Bill
Ford once said about him, “Alan is
not a very complicated person. He is very driven” (as cited in
Taylor, 2009, “A New Corporate
Culture,” para. 3).
Mulally built the necessary capability by reorienting the top-
level global officers and 12 func-
tional area managers to the company’s long-term goals and
short-term operating objectives.
He ensured this alignment by regularly communicating to all

managers via weekly opera-
tional reports that compared executives’ performance against
profit targets.
Assessing the Situation
Mulally never stopped assessing Ford’s situation—its financial
position, sales, marketing
status, and capabilities in relation to global competitors and in
regard to his vision to get
Ford back to the top of the industry. In the turnaround described
in the opening scenarios,
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 109 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Mulally’s “One Team, One Plan, One Goal” was the road
toward his desired state of seeing Ford
as the top global competitor in as many vehicle classes as
possible. Although he depended
on his managers’ input to help determine vehicles’ design
requirements based on customer
demand, as leader he ensured that the company’s culture did not
return to the splintered
state of bickering and isolated control based on different
officers’ preferences.
In turnarounds like Ford’s, Mulally’s method reflected a
continuous examination of the ongo-
ing impact of his changes. His use of continually changing data,

information, and analysis,
interpreted at the Thursday morning meetings, was the basis for
analyzing his vision’s impact,
the company’s goal, and its global operational systems.
Plan, Organize, and Implement the Change
Mulally’s plan centered on the implementation of his “One
Team, One Plan, One Goal” mantra.
Put simply, that plan was:
Focus on the Ford brand (“nobody buys a house of brands”);
compete in every
market segment with carefully defined products (small, medium,
and large;
cars, utilities, and trucks); market fewer nameplates (40
worldwide by 2013,
down from 97 worldwide in 2006); and become best in class in
quality, fuel
efficiency, safety, and value. (as cited in Taylor, 2009, “A New
Corporate Cul-
ture,” para. 4)
This plan was easier to outline than achieve. When Mulally first
arrived at Ford, he said it was
the toughest environment he had seen, but he believed that the
company would succeed if it
adhered to its plan (Taylor, 2009).
Implementing the plan required preparing for all the stages
discussed previously. In the road
map shown in Figure 3.1, implementation occurred after the
preparation stages were com-
pleted, based on the development of the master implementation
plan (Taylor, 2009). Because
Mulally had Chair Ford’s and the board of directors’ support,

and because he painstakingly
prepared himself with the financial, organizational, cultural,
and operational detail, he knew
he was ready to implement.
It is very important to state that Mulally met with and debriefed
the officers, managers, and
many employees at Ford before and while planning the change.
Mulally had also met with
Chair Ford several times and discussed the company’s situation
before accepting the job. It
all seemed to pay off. Mulally’s insistence on transparency
through open communication with
and among all professionals at Ford ensured that everyone knew
the plan and where the
company was in the process. So, although the change was not
easy, neither was it impossible
or unrealistic. Mulally had used a road map and a plan, as well
as his intuition, discipline, and
confidence.
The change has proved successful to date, as shown in Ford’s
financials and Mulally’s 2011
stock bonus. Mulally and Ford have “Celebrated and Integrated
the New Change,” as stage 8 in
Figure 3.1 shows. At his retirement in 2014, Mulally received
almost $300 million with stock
shares and options. While at Ford, he received a total base
salary of $13.5 million with cash
bonuses of $30.8 million. He took in a total of $44.2 million in
cash by the end of 2014 (Isidore,
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 110 12/15/15 9:43 AM

2014). The road ahead has already proved challenging for
Mulally’s successor Fields, as noted
earlier, as Ford continues the journey through stage 9, learn and
course correct. The remain-
der of this chapter discusses how other planned changes are
implemented.
Check Your Understanding
1. Explain how Mulally’s change program at Ford exemplifies
and differs from the stages in
Figure 3.1.
2. What are some important differences between change
assessment and implementation? Which
of these two processes would you feel more interested and
confident using to define, lead, and
manage change in an organization? Explain your reasoning.
Managing Change
Mapping the Road for Change
Suppose you are a member of the C-suite (that is, the top-level
officers of a company, including
the chief executive officer, chief financial officer, and others)
at a multinational corporation.
After a period of stable, albeit slow, growth, you begin to notice
changes in output. The
40-year reputation of the company is at stake, as are the jobs of
your employees. In order to

prevent a downward spiral that will result in layoffs and
possibly plant closings, a change
must be made.
Developments of concern include customer complaints, faulty
supplies that prompted a recall,
and plummeting revenue. In the interim, a short-term survival
plan is in place to sustain
the company until the problems are reversed, but you and other
members of the C-suite
are meeting to discuss an overall change in the way you do
business. It is crucial to evolve
with the markets and be attuned to changes in the business
environment, but this change
requires more than that. When warning signals like these are
received, it is necessary to steer
the company in the right direction to avoid costly pitfalls that
may threaten its long-term
prosperity.
The change process model in Figure 3.1 is called on to
formulate the plan. The input of
C-suite members and unit managers is an integral part of the
initial planning. Leadership
recognizes that careful mapping must be completed for the
change to take hold and truly
transform the company.
Discussion Questions
1. When embarking on transformational change, what
considerations do you need to
keep in mind as a leader to move the company to the desired
state?
2. What is the impetus for change, and what tools are necessary

to move forward?
3. What are the principles of implementing a change?
4. How important are the members of your workforce in a
change implementation, and
how do you utilize their efforts?
(See the end of the chapter for possible answers.)
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 111 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Section 3.2 Implementing Change Through Leading and
Mobilizing
3.2 Implementing Change Through Leading
and Mobilizing
Implementing change is an art and a science. Not all leaders and
CEOs succeed the way
Mulally did. In fact, there is a mixed track record when CEOs
leave one industry to change a
company in another. As discussed in Chapter 2, John Sculley
from PepsiCo, who was chosen
by Apple’s board of directors to take over as CEO from Steve
Jobs, failed in that capacity, as did
his two successors. Robert Nardelli, a vice president at GE,
became CEO of Home Depot and
was eventually pushed out by the board because his directive
approach brought about mixed
results. CEO William Perez, formerly of SC Johnson (which
makes household brands such as

Glade, Pledge, Windex, and so on) became CEO of Nike but
resigned after 13 months due to
disagreements with Nike founder Philip Knight and the fact that
he was running an unfamiliar
business. However, there are some success stories, such as that
of Eric Schmidt, who was CEO
of Novell and became CEO of Google from 2001 to 2011
(Kiley, 2009). We begin this section
with the example of a change master, ex-CEO Larry Bossidy,
who came from GE to successfully
turn around AlliedSignal, which later became Honeywell.
AlliedSignal/Honeywell and Larry Bossidy
Bossidy became the chair and CEO of AlliedSignal, Inc., in
1991. The so-called Bossidy era
spanned from 1992 to the early 2000s. The company began as
Allied Chemical & Dye Cor-
poration in 1920 before becoming AlliedSignal, Inc., following
the acquisition of Signal
Companies, Inc., in 1985 (International Directory of Company
Histories, 1998). As a large
industrial corporation, it was a player in many industries,
including aerospace, chemicals,
fibers, automotive parts, plastics, and other advanced materials
(International Directory
of Company Histories, 1998). In
1999 a merger caused Allied-
Signal, Inc., to become Honey-
well International, Inc. It ranked
number 74 on the Fortune 500
listing in 2015, with revenues of
more than $40 billion (Fortune,
2015b). Looking back, the vision
of AlliedSignal, Inc., was to “be
one of the world’s premier com-

panies, distinctive and successful
in everything we do” (Interna-
tional Directory of Company His-
tories, 1998, para. 1). Its success
in achieving this was largely due
to Bossidy’s strategy and vision.
The Bossidy era was distinctive
for its quick and ruthless but effec-
tive change (International Direc-
tory of Company Histories, 1998).
Bossidy came from the electronics
AP Photo/Marty Lederhandler
Larry Bossidy (right) shakes hands with Michael R.
Bonsignore, chair and CEO of Honeywell, after the 1999
merger between the two companies. Bossidy would
become known for his ability to affect rapid, if ruthless,
change.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 112 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Mobilizing
and electrical equipment industry, spending the majority of his
34 distinguished years at GE.
His leadership positions included chief operating officer (COO)
of the GE Capital Corporation
(also known as GE Capital), executive vice president and

president of the company’s Services
and Materials Sector, and vice chair and executive officer of
GE. After entering a new industry
and successfully mobilizing change, he is credited with
transforming AlliedSignal, Inc., into
one of the world’s most admired companies. He achieved
earnings per share growth of 13%
or more for 31 consecutive quarters and an eightfold increase in
the company’s share price
(LeighBureau, n.d.).
Despite his tough methods and company drive, Bossidy was
well respected. He was named
CEO of the Year by Financial World magazine in 1994 and
Chief Executive of the Year by CEO
Magazine in 1998 (LeighBureau, n.d.). He knew where he
wanted AlliedSignal to go and how
he wanted to get there. He knew that significant changes were
necessary and wasn’t afraid to
make them.
Housecleaning
Bossidy’s first move at AlliedSignal was to “clean house,”
which he did by reducing the num-
ber of employees from 98,300 in 1991 to 76,700 by 1996
(International Directory of Company
Histories, 1998). He saw that the company was internally
focused and too crippled by inef-
fective organization—they had “centralized all the paper and
decentralized all the people”
(Tichy & Charan, 1995, para. 29). Bossidy set out to fix this.
News headlines about this time announced, “Larry Bossidy
won’t stop pushing,” and articles
described him as a “tough guy” (Lobel, 2000, p. 1). Bossidy was
known for valuing hard work and

rewarding those who demonstrated it. He reportedly said that he
expected involvement, ideas,
collaboration, leadership, development, drive, anticipation,
growth, and adaptability from every
one of his direct reports (Bossidy, 2007). He used these
expectations as guidelines when imple-
menting change. He didn’t stop after he reduced the labor force.
He cleaned up unprofitable
operations, sold off many small and some significant business
units, and cut capital spending.
Corporate culture was the hardest to change, but Bossidy’s
approach created a team-oriented,
less bureaucratic culture that was heavily focused on
performance (Lobel, 2000).
A “Churn and Burn” Culture
Bossidy had high expectations, and he demanded from
employees what he demanded of him-
self: results-oriented high yields, quality, and no-nonsense
execution. This message was clearly
communicated and incorporated into the company culture.
Bossidy’s strategic goals for 1999
were growth, employee development/learning, and quality
improvement using Six Sigma—“a
management philosophy developed by Motorola that emphasizes
setting extremely high objec-
tives, collecting data, and analyzing results to a fine degree as a
way to reduce defects in products
and services” (SearchCIO, n.d.). He worked toward these goals
by stretching each employee to
his or her potential, which often translated into long days and
stressing demands (Lobel, 2000).
Bossidy was once quoted as saying, “Meetings start at 7AM and
run until 6PM. It’s hard to get
stuff done around other times. After weeks of meetings, you

have a pile of stuff on your desk
and people think you’ve been on vacation” (as cited in Lobel,
2000, p. 4). The culture was
challenging but attracted employees who thrived in that type of
performance-driven environ-
ment. As Sandra Beach Lin, then vice president and general
manager of the Specialty Wax and
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 113 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Mobilizing
Additive group, noted, employees knew that they would be in
trouble if the company did not
make its numbers, and therefore did not need to be pushed by
management. Instead, they
pushed themselves (Lobel, 2000).
A Dramatic New Structure
Bossidy’s new vision required a dramatic new structure, and he
was willing to make bold
moves on the battlefield (Tichy & Charan, 1995). As he put it,
“I don’t want to have to come
back a year from now and restructure all over again. If we’re
going to take a charge, I want to
take a big one” (as cited in Tichy & Charan, 1995, para. 53).
In October 1997 AlliedSignal announced that it was
restructuring from three sectors to
11 business units (International Directory of Company

Histories, 1998). The Aerospace sec-
tor became Turbocharging Systems, Engines, Aerospace
Equipment Systems, Electronics
and Avionics Systems, Aerospace Marketing Sales & Service,
and Federal Manufacturing &
Technologies. The Automotive sector became Automotive
Products Group and Truck Brake
Systems. Finally, the Engineered Materials sector became
Specialty Chemicals, Polymers, and
Electronic Materials.
This was no small change. It eliminated an entire layer of
management. Bossidy issued a press
release saying that each new unit
is a significant factor in its market and has global reach, world-
class talent,
and the critical mass to operate autonomously. Removing the
sector layer
will enable these businesses to make faster decisions and serve
customers
with greater speed, flexibility, and cost effectiveness.
(Reference for Business,
2015, “Bossidy Era,” para. 4)
The Key: Goal Deployment
As CEO, Bossidy began each year by rolling out strategic goals
that became the foundation
for the goal deployment process (Lobel, 2001). All employee
goals were linked to those of the
enterprise. Before Bossidy could implement any of these
transformations, the company had
to be united in vision and values. He started at the top with an
off-site meeting for the top
12 company managers. They agreed on seven values: customers,
integrity, people, teamwork,

speed, innovation, and performance (Tichy & Charan, 1995).
Employees at all levels then set goals with these seven values
guiding their planning. The goals
were deployed through what was referred to as Total Quality
(TQ). AlliedSignal fully commit-
ted to use TQ as the driver for change; if anyone did not believe
in this initiative, they were
asked to change or leave the company. Some employees
changed, while others left (Tichy &
Charan, 1995).
Coach Bossidy
Bossidy’s results-driven culture was also people-oriented. As he
said, “I think you don’t
change a culture. I think you coach people to win” (Tichy &
Charan, 1995, para. 22). Bossidy’s
coaching allowed employees at all levels to set goals and
understand they would be stretched
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 114 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Mobilizing
to achieve maximum performance. This culture was a
significant success factor in implement-
ing the dramatic changes made during the Bossidy era.
Bossidy talked to employees and practiced what management
writer Tom Peters called MBWA,

management by walking around. Coaches are not very effective
without good two-way commu-
nication, so in his first 2 months as CEO, Bossidy talked to
about 5,000 employees at all levels
across the country. Talking to people was Bossidy’s main form
of coaching. He coached them at
what is known as skip-level, informal lunches of about 20
employees (Tichy & Charan, 1995).
He was intentional about creating interactive settings and using
surveys. Getting employees on
board was key: Obtaining support from lower level employees
can be powerful and convinces
middle management to support the change as well (Tichy &
Charan, 1995).
Communication is not the end-all, be-all to coaching people to
win. Successful change leaders
like Bossidy also provide support. As Bossidy astutely
recognizes, leaders cannot get their
employees to perform well by yelling at them and abusing them.
Instead, they must show
employees the big picture and demonstrate how change will
benefit the company. They do
this by establishing credibility and giving employees incentives
and help. With this support,
employees can and will do anything (Tichy & Charan, 1995).
By coaching his employees to win, Bossidy’s increased
influence bolstered his authority in
both strategy and operations. Tichy and Charan (1995) posit
that “managers add value by
brokering with people, not by presiding over empires” (para.
77). That is what Bossidy did at
AlliedSignal, Inc.—he brokered with those still at the company
to transform it.

There are many factors necessary for effectively leading and
managing large organizational
changes; having a plan and a model are certainly two. The
following are other factors advo-
cated by experts and studies in the field and illustrated by
Bossidy at AlliedSignal.
Five Dimensions of Leading and Managing Change
Bossidy embodied elements of many implementation models of
organizational change,
including Cummings and Worley’s (2001) five dimensions of
leading and managing change
depicted in Figure 3.2. Those dimensions include motivating
change, creating a vision, devel-
oping political support, managing the transition, and sustaining
momentum. Because we dis-
cuss the dimensions of developing political support in Section
3.5 of this chapter and present
strategies for sustaining change in Chapter 5, we will focus here
on motivating change, creat-
ing a vision, and managing the transition.
Warrick’s (2010) six-step change implementation process will
also be discussed within the con-
text of Cummings and Worley’s model. Warrick’s steps include
the following:
1. Keep the big picture in mind.
2. Choose the right interventions.
3. Use a sound change model to plan and manage the change
process.
4. Keep people engaged and make the incentive for change
greater than the incentive to
stay the same.

5. Identify and manage resistance to change.
6. Follow through and learn from the process. (Warrick, 2011,
pp. 259–260)
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 115 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Motivating Change
Effective Change
Management
• Creating readiness for change
• Overcoming resistance to change
Creating a Vision
• Mission
• Valued outcomes
• Valued conditions
• Midpoint goals
Developing Political Support
• Assessing change agent power
• Identifying key stakeholders
• Influencing stakeholders
Managing the Transition
• Activity planning
• Commitment planning

• Management structures
Sustaining Momentum
• Providing resources for change
• Building a support system for
change agents
• Reinforcing new behaviors
Mobilizing
Planned organizational change
does not happen by accident.
Although not all events in a
change can be controlled, there
are logics to leading and manag-
ing change initiatives in orga-
nizations. The following five
dimensions illustrate practical
steps for leading such planned
changes.
Motivating Change
Bossidy was a master at moti-
vating change. He created
readiness and overcame resis-
tance. Most resistance occurs
because people know and/
or believe that many planned
changes do not succeed; the
reasons for change are not
clear; or the organization’s
leaders are not fully invested
in making sure the change is

successful (Warrick, 2011).
Leaders need to identify the
specific reasons why change is
resisted and respond accord-
ingly. Bossidy’s approach to
motivating change involved
intense and widespread com-
munication with all employ-
ees to avoid as much resistance as possible. He succeeded in
preventing some resistance by
keeping the big picture and his vision in mind while dealing
with the reality of the situation.
Two-way actions and communications must also take place to
set an organizational tone
regarding change and must be continually updated as progress is
made. Stakeholders need to
know what the change is, why it is happening, what has been
accomplished so far, how their
efforts contribute, and when the change will be completed. For
example, Bossidy spoke with
5,000 leaders before implementing the change and then hosted
small lunches with employ-
ees to evaluate the change process as it was taking place. He
gained employees’ respect
through good communication. Leaders must gain the respect of
the organization when lead-
ing change, and when resistance is persistent and/or
unwarranted, they must take corrective
action before change efforts are negatively affected (Warrick,
2011).
Creating a Vision
As we saw with Mulally at Ford, leading change also requires
vision—a big-picture view framed
by the organization’s goals and an assessment of past, current,

and future conditions. The change
process is dynamic and must be informed by the organization’s
larger vision and values.
Figure 3.2: Five dimensions of change leadership
and management
Navigating the five dimensions of change includes motivating
change and sustaining a change, and several steps in between.
Source: Adapted from Thomas G. Cummings and Christopher G.
Worley. Organization
development & change. Fig. 7.1, p. 109. Copyright © 2001 by
South-Western College
Publishing, a division of Thomson Learning.
Motivating Change
Effective Change
Management
• Creating readiness for change
• Overcoming resistance to change
Creating a Vision
• Mission
• Valued outcomes
• Valued conditions
• Midpoint goals
• Assessing change agent power
• Identifying key stakeholders

• Influencing stakeholders
• Activity planning
• Commitment planning
• Management structures
Sustaining Momentum
• Providing resources for change
• Building a support system for
change agents
• Reinforcing new behaviors
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 116 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Mobilizing
Bossidy’s vision was to make AlliedSignal a distinctive,
successful, premier global company.
This vision informed every decision and communication he
made. He saw where AlliedSignal
could go and took the time to understand how it would get
there. He had not only a big- picture
view, but a systems-level understanding. The organization as a
whole is a system comprising
many parts that interact with one another. Effective change
leaders must understand that

changing one part of an organization can also affect the other
parts, and that a structural
change may alter the organization’s culture (Warrick, 2011).
Although we discuss the importance of developing political
support in Section 3.5, we note
here that Bossidy took into account his company’s political
environment in relation to change
and responded accordingly. He understood the importance of
internal politics in implement-
ing change. To Bossidy, AlliedSignal executives were important
stakeholders, and he took
action to influence them through goals and performance
measures.
For example, when two marketing and sales executives could
not get along and were not act-
ing in alignment with the vision, Bossidy fired both of them and
had a guard escort them out.
He recognized that negative political dynamics were hindering
change and company perfor-
mance. The two were hired back at 3:00 p.m., after convincing
Bossidy that they would be
able to work well together despite their differences. Bossidy
gave them a second chance, and
the lesson was learned (Bossidy, 2007).
Interventions must be designed and implemented to motivate
and manage the transition.
Bossidy began his change process at AlliedSignal with several
big bang interventions. He
laid off 21,600 employees, sold off business units, reduced
capital spending, and did major
restructuring. He was not afraid of large-scale change and knew

it was needed to move Allied-
Signal toward the vision. These interventions were not
implemented prematurely or without
adequate planning. Planning is a key responsibility of leaders
when motivating change and
managing the transition. In some instances activities can be
combined with planning, and
leaders must be careful to avoid misdirected or unnecessary
efforts at any level.
Additionally, using a sound model to plan and manage the
change process increases the effec-
tiveness of implementation. Whether Bossidy explicitly
followed Warrick’s proposed steps or
not, it is clear that he employed all of them while leading
change at AlliedSignal/Honeywell.
Bossidy believed in relying heavily on a practical road map that
identifies possible obstacles
to overcome (Bossidy & Charan, 2002).
Bossidy also employed elements from the change road maps
presented earlier in this text.
For example, he created a sense of urgency for change (NHS
North West, 1996) through his
decisiveness and timeliness, stating that people should expect
him to make well thought-
out, quick decisions once he obtained the information that he
needed (Bossidy, 2007). The
moment he took over AlliedSignal in 1991, he did just that.
Bossidy gathered all the informa-
tion he needed and made quick decisions to eliminate jobs and
restructure from three sectors
to 11 units. Urgency was created as employees experienced
swift action and follow-through.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 117 12/15/15 9:43 AM

Mobilizing
Bossidy was decisive; there was no honeymoon period while the
company considered
change. As soon as he had the plan and information to support
it, change began to occur. He
used a guiding dominant coalition to implement his change
strategy (NHS North West, 1996).
Bossidy knew he needed a strong management team to
implement the change he wanted. In
his first 2 years, 30% to 40% of his day was spent hiring and
developing leaders (Bossidy,
2001). In engaging in hands-on hiring, Bossidy was handpicking
a coalition to share his vision
and help him implement change.
Bossidy generated short-term wins (NHS North West, 1996) to
bolster support for the imple-
mentation process by focusing only on what needed to be
changed and leaving the rest of the
company alone (Bossidy & Charan, 2002). In just 5 years,
Bossidy’s changes increased the
company’s return on sales to 7.3% and reduced long-term debt
to only 22% of total capital
(International Directory of Company Histories, 1998).
Communication and strongly enforced
goals allowed the AlliedSignal team to work quickly to
implement change.

Feedback was another critical suc-
cess factor in leading and managing
the transition at AlliedSignal. Some
organizations may neglect to collect
feedback, putting change initiators
at risk of not knowing when their
changes are not working as planned
(International Directory of Company
Histories, 1998). Change is handled
best by organizations that are ori-
ented toward learning, and feedback
is the most direct and continuous
way to learn about change within the
organization. Feedback on the change
process provides leaders with useful
information about what is and isn’t
working and ideas for improvements
or efficiencies.
Feedback can be gathered using many unique methods. These
include surveys, interviews,
observation by employees responsible solely for monitoring
change, and using teams. Bossidy
used his continuous communication process not only to gather
new information and obtain
a sense of how the change affected people, but also to give
positive and negative feedback to
his team and employees, both about the change and their
performance. Feedback ensures
that mobilization is a dynamic, living process and, when done
well, orients the organization
toward learning.
Sustaining Momentum
While managing and mobilizing change, employees must also be
engaged and involved, espe-

cially those who lack access to higher level leaders and
managers. This is because leadership
may become engaged in other tasks, key players may be unable
to fulfill all their responsibili-
ties, and leadership changes may jeopardize the organizational
changes (Warrick, 2010). It
BananaStock/Thinkstock
Interviews are one way to gather continuous feedback
from both employees and management, something
that is crucial to smoothly managing change.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 118 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Section 3.3 Strengthening Alignment With the New Vision and
Future State
takes a concerted effort to provide the resources necessary to
sustain change and reinforce
new behaviors.
Communication is an important tool when building support
systems and providing a unified
and complete understanding of the vision. Bossidy created a
demanding environment, but
he also provided many outlets for communication and feedback
(in terms of concerns, ideas,
plans, goals, and performance). His expectations with regard to
employee performance and
responsibilities were made very clear. Bossidy later became

known in management litera-
ture as a leader who excelled at execution, which involved
engaging and involving employees
(Bossidy & Charan, 2002).
However, with regard to creating incentives for change, it is
also important to note that these
changes typically only benefit the organization and signify more
work and little benefit for
those employees who are actually implementing the change. To
this point, Bossidy was not pro-
ficient at providing incentives for change as much as he
emphasized the achievement of goals.
His “incentive” was that employees would likely be fired if they
didn’t meet the performance
goal. This type of culture worked at AlliedSignal because
employees attracted to the company
were those who were looking for this type of environment;
however, this performance-driven
method does not often result in the best change. It also requires
more oversight and time when
creating goals (Holstein, 2002).
Despite the harsh performance-driven culture, Bossidy
succeeded in following through on
the process of the change initiative. He sustained momentum
through the change, which is
not easy. It takes a great deal of discipline and determination to
provide successful, lasting
changes and to convince leadership to continue with the process
until all goals are achieved.
However, successful implementation is worth the hard work—it
accomplishes necessary
changes, increases confidence in the change process, and
empowers and excites employees
at all levels.

1. If you were instructed to help a team plan a large change for
an organization that recently
hired you, outline some steps you would take to share at your
first meeting.
2. What are some concepts and actions that Bossidy used in the
change effort at AlliedSignal? How
successful was he in his efforts?
3.3 Strengthening Alignment With the New Vision
and Future State
Organizational change expert Daryl Conner (2006) stated in his
book Managing at the Speed
of Change that once effective change leaders determine what
must be done, achieving these
goals involves three components of organizational change:
intent, people, and delivery.
Intent involves creating and sharing the vision for the end result
of the change and protecting
its integrity as the company moves through the change process.
This step is especially impor-
tant at the beginning of a change effort, since it helps garner
commitment and motivation.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 119 12/15/15 9:43 AM

Future State
People refers to the human aspects of change. It involves
developing employees’ commitment
to the change, reducing resistance, aligning the change with the
company culture, and creating
synergy. Delivery includes setting up governance, overseeing
interdependencies, providing
progress reports, and prioritizing and assigning resources. When
all three components are
combined, there is a higher probability of adding full value to
the process and its outcomes.
The issue in integrating these three components in
organizational change is that each one deals
with a specialized area (Conner, 2006). Therefore, when a
pressing project or goal is being
pursued, rarely are the three areas dealt with simultaneously.
From this reasoning, Conner
(2006) discovered the importance of strategy execution—that is,
combining the components
of intent, people, and delivery to increase the probability of the
change initiative’s success.
Another way to view how planned organizational change
combines intent, people, and
delivery—including implementation—is through the need to
align the major dimensions of
vision, strategy, culture/people, and processes that were
discussed in Chapters 1 and 2. At the
implementation stage of organizational change, aligning these
dimensions involves redirect-
ing the activities of leaders, managers, and professionals to the
new vision and future state of
a transformational change.

Leadership: Aligning
People and Culture to the
New Vision and Strategy
Aligning the organization to a new
vision and strategy begins at the lead-
ership level. Leaders like Bossidy of
AlliedSignal and Mulally of Ford trans-
formed their companies through dra-
matic vision and cultural alignment to
it. Collins (2000) noted the distinction
among values, vision, and operations:
Core values are timeless and should
not be changed, but the operating
practices and culture of an organiza-
tion should never stop changing.
Before a leader can align the people and culture with the vision,
she or he must distinguish what
should change and what should not. An organization’s vision is
comprised of three elements:
(a) its mission or purpose—the reason why it exists; (b) its
enduring core values; and (c) its ambi-
tious, achievable goals for the future. The most important of
these elements is the company’s core
values (Collins, 2000). Strong core values give leaders the
platform for vision and change.
Strategy, Culture, and Processes
An essential part of effective change is selecting leaders who
can align the right vision and
strategy to an organization’s industry environment, and then
ensure that the culture and

GuidoVrola/iStock/Thinkstock
A leader must be able to guide a company toward a
new vision while keeping the people and the organi-
zational culture in alignment with core values.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 120 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Future State
other organizational dimensions are working together toward
common goals. Because CEOs
and leaders are chosen to identify a new vision and select an
effective strategy for a failing or
faltering organization, the stakes are high for the leader. This is
especially important when
implementing a sizable change because alignment helps to
uphold the organization’s core val-
ues, reinforce its purpose, and move it toward its goals. When a
company’s alignment is strong,
anyone can walk in and know what its vision is without
explicitly being told (Collins, 2000).
While we have discussed leaders’ strategies, styles, and
methods of organizational change, as
well as the effects of change on employees and teams, it is also
important to raise awareness
of the importance of organizations’ and companies’ boards of
directors. These are the bodies
whom leaders generally report to and must gain approval for

their strategies and actions. It is
the role of boards of directors to keep the organization, and the
leader, on course of the purpose
and mission of the enterprise. A case of a leader whose
strategies were not accepted by the
board of directors is Hewlett-Packard’s former CEO Leo
Apotheker. In August 2011 Apotheker
announced to the tech world that HP was spinning off its
personal computer (PC) division and
business—in which HP is one of the world’s leading
manufacturers (Taylor, 2011). Debate in the
industry and at HP ensued. Meg Whitman, former CEO of eBay,
was hired to replace Apotheker
and his strategy. Shortly after she came aboard, Whitman
announced that the PC division is
still right for the company and for its customers, partners,
shareholders, and employees (Couts,
2011). An excerpt from HP’s formal statement on the strategy
change stated:
The strategic review involved subject matter experts from
across the businesses
and functions. The data-driven evaluation revealed the depth of
the integration
that has occurred across key operations such as supply chain, IT
and procure-
ment.… Finally, it also showed that the cost to recreate these in
a standalone
company outweighed any benefits of separation. (Couts, 2011,
para. 8)
Aligning to Strategy
After the CEO or leader and top-level executives select a new
strategy, implementing a
transformational strategy generally requires a shift in the
organization’s culture, values,

structure, roles, skills, and processes. In the HP example, it
appeared that the proposed
strategy change would not add to the company’s
competitiveness and would be detrimental
to HP’s culture and stakeholders.
Note that Mulally at Ford achieved alignment through his “One
Team, One Plan, One Goal” man-
tra, which was embodied in the strategy of the Way Forward
Plan. He insisted on transparency
and communication, so that the vision was clear and supported
by the entire organization.
A similar example comes from the 3M Company. Leaders at 3M
were also able to create
alignment because of clear and enduring core values, a strong
vision, and the fact that they
created opportunities to execute these (Collins, 2000). 3M’s
corporate values state that the
company will:
act with uncompromising honesty and integrity in everything we
do; satisfy
our customers with innovative technology and superior quality,
value and ser-
vice; provide our investors an attractive return through
sustainable, global
growth; respect our social and physical environment around the
world; value
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 121 12/15/15 9:43 AM

Future State
and develop our employees’ diverse talents, initiative and
leadership; and
earn the admiration of all those associated with 3M worldwide.
(3M, 2015,
“Our Values,” paras. 1–6)
All aspects of the company and its operations align with these
values. It has worked hard to
create a culture based on excellence and innovation that is
firmly aligned with its core values.
At 3M, scientists have been permitted to spend 15% of their
time on projects of personal inter-
est (a similar practice exists at Google). As 3M leaders see it,
creativity allows for innovation and
progress and is an important way to align employees and their
efforts to the vision. 3M also
requires that 30% of division revenue come from new products.
The company supports new
ideas (through an internal venture capital fund), provides a dual
career track, and gives entre-
preneurial and innovation awards (Collins, 2000). Through its
actions, 3M leaders make the
company’s vision and strategies clear. Action is the primary
means of alignment.
When aligning employees with the vision, lead-
ers should consider nonfinancial incentives in
addition to financial ones. Nonfinancial incen-
tives can sometimes be as or more effective
than monetary rewards in developing long-term
employee engagement (Dewhurst, Guthridge, &

Mohr, 2009). Part of aligning people to the
vision is motivating and keeping them engaged.
Employee morale can be improved with acco-
lades from managers and one-on-one attention
from leaders, as well as the opportunity to par-
ticipate in task forces or lead projects (Dewhurst
et al., 2009).
Businesses are in need of leaders and employees
who are involved and eager to exceed expecta-
tions, particularly in an environment of continu-
ous change (Dewhurst et al., 2009). Engagement
and alignment stem from good communication
and motivation. In the case of Ford, Mulally had a
well-communicated plan that he consistently fol-
lowed. This created a sense of stability, making the
change seem more manageable.
Transitioning Cultures
A challenge pertaining to alignment arises when
achieving the new vision requires a fundamental shift in culture.
Employee distraction and
demoralization can impede cultural changes and result in
negative, counterproductive energy
within an organization (Ghislanzoni, Heidari-Robinson, &
Jermiin, 2010). Canada’s Bombar-
dier faced such a cultural transition in the early 2000s. Pierre
Beaudoin, CEO and president
Blend Images/Superstock
Nonfinancial incentives, such as
employee-of-the-month programs, can
be just as effective as money when it
comes to keeping employees engaged.

wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 122 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Future State
since 2008, had a formidable task. To change the culture,
Beaudoin had to shift the company
from hard goals to soft goals and find a way to champion
change. Once driven solely by its
manufacturing and engineering goals, Bombardier was on its
way to becoming a company
dedicated to its customers, its workforce, and continuous
improvement (Simpson, 2011).
Bombardier was affected by the aviation and aerospace industry
recession that followed the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, but the company also
acquired the railway transporta-
tion company Adtranz from DaimlerChrysler in the same year.
The company’s function-based
structure had allowed it to make such acquisitions and grow.
This growth was positive but
kept the focus away from the customer. The Bombardier culture
was in silos (per function)
and needed to be integrated and aligned toward a new,
customer-focused vision. Employees
didn’t understand the company’s vision or values, making it
nearly impossible for them to
support it. The culture was one in which value was placed on
any individual who was able to

get the job done in a crisis but with very little focus on
teamwork (Simpson, 2011).
The company then made a shift from hard to soft goals. Hard
goals, or goals that have clear,
quantifiable criteria like performance figures, are often easier to
measure. They are necessary
but cannot be the main focus if a cultural transition is to take
place. Instead, soft goals, or
goals without clear, measureable criteria—such as employee
initiative and communication—
had to be the focus. Bombardier leaders translated soft goals
into hard measurements wher-
ever possible to help the company evaluate progress. The goal
was to encourage frontline
employees to become more proactive and take initiative. This
process took time, as culture
cannot be changed quickly (Simpson, 2011). The leaders at
Bombardier understood a critical
success factor in alignment—goals must be connected to the
daily work of each employee. If
employees cannot see or understand the alignment, it will not be
sustainable.
Effective alignment is achieved when there are champions of
change. Champions are visible,
daily examples of alignment. As Bombardier recognized, it is
critical to have employees who
will reach out to others and spread new ideas throughout the
company (Simpson, 2011). By
engaging employees across all levels to become champions of
change, the vision and strategy
spread more quickly, consistently, and thoroughly throughout
the organization.
Changing Systems and Processes

Aligning culture to new strategies lays the groundwork to
successfully implement new sys-
tems and processes. Looking back at stage 6 in Figure 3.1,
planning and organizing must occur
before the change can be successfully implemented.
A process is a series of actions or steps designed to achieve a
particular goal, objective, or
milestone. The strategy dictates the necessary processes. The
leader must evaluate whether
those processes exist yet in the organization and, if so, whether
(and how) they are contribut-
ing to implementation. Many companies must move from a
narrow, project-based perspec-
tive to a broad, program-based, end-to-end perspective
(Browning, 1993). This can happen
on either a micro or macro level; but either way, changing
systems and processes requires a
big-picture view. The leader must see and understand how all
the pieces should and do work
together to accomplish the strategy.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 123 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Future State
Accountability is important when working with new or
improved systems and processes.
With this in mind, Browning (1993) suggests that the
organization create the role of process

owner. The process owner is the employee who is given both
responsibility and accountabil-
ity regarding how the new or improved process functions
(Browning, 1993). This relates back
to alignment; for new systems and processes to work, there must
be spaces for them, cre-
ated when the organization was aligned to the new vision.
Changes in processes and systems
must be made carefully and correctly to prevent employee and
cultural morale from dropping
(Ghislanzoni et al., 2010).
Ghislanzoni and colleagues (2010) note the top five strategies
used by successful organiza-
tions when changing their systems and processes. The first is
that successful organizations
use reorganization to change employees’ mind-sets and
behaviors. Processes and systems
are often completely integrated, meaning that employees at all
levels of the organization are
involved. If done well, a change in processes and systems can
help align the culture to the new
vision, and reinforce that alignment.
The second strategy focuses on what the new organizational
model is and how it would work
within the company (Ghislanzoni et al., 2010). Leaders must
look at both the conceptual and
the reality when implementing change—one without the other is
incomplete and ineffective.
The third strategy involves implementing the model quickly to
begin immediately provid-
ing value. Implementation often happens more slowly than
leaders would like, but changes
that have been competently and thoroughly planned and
organized are more likely to be less

wasteful and more successful.
The fourth strategy is to attend to any risks or roadblocks as
early as possible in the process,
which enforces the need for the leader to monitor the process
and plan before it is imple-
mented. Finally, successful companies launch new business
initiatives just prior to or at the
same time implementation is completed (Ghislanzoni et al.,
2010). Small and early victories
are key, and sustaining the momentum is important for
implementing change. This is also
true at the system and process level.
Fine, Hansen, and Roggenhofer (2008) note six habits lean
leaders—that is, leaders who
streamline and bring effective practices—adopt when changing
systems and processes:
1. A focus on operating processes
2. Root-cause problem solving
3. Clear performance expectations
4. Aligned leadership
5. A sense of purpose
6. Support for people
Processes should be a focus, and successful leaders must ensure
that processes are standard-
ized (Fine et al., 2008). The goal is to solve the root problem,
rather than generate temporary
solutions to surface problems. This involves providing learning
opportunities as processes and
systems are changed. With change comes the need for
performance measurements that must
be communicated and evaluated at all levels. Functional
boundaries shouldn’t stop changes

in process. Looking at the big picture often requires that
processes change across silos or
departments, which requires that leadership in all functions be
aligned with the vision.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 124 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Future State
Finally, changes must be related to employees’ day-to-day
work. Leaders must show others
how all the pieces fit together and set both short- and long-term
goals. Companies should
change with purpose and support. Mulally, for example,
provided purpose and support
through good communication. He first aligned himself to the
vision and then led by example.
Processes and systems were changed—not arbitrarily, but
strategically—and the change pro-
cess was approached as a learning process.
These six habits encompass the importance of aligning culture
and people to the vision both
before and during the implementation of new processes and
systems. Leaders must see the
real problems and develop a well-communicated and well-
followed plan that adhere to the
vision, and set clear expectations at all levels.
Managing Change

The Specifics of Alignment
Suppose you are implementing change at a major
pharmaceutical company. You want to
veer the company away from having the stereotypical reputation
of a medicine factory
concerned mainly with profit margins and cost-cutting
measures. Instead, you want to steer
the corporation onto a path that concentrates on the customers.
Your vision: improving
customers’ health is paramount—set out to do good for society
and make it good business.
Getting leadership on board is one of the first steps. You set out
to integrate the three
main components of proposed change: intent, people, and
delivery. You recruit leadership
by communicating a clear vision and announcing your
commitment to protecting the
organization’s integrity and in an effort to foster buy-in from
managers and employees,
thereby aligning the culture to your vision. You work on
redesigning the infrastructure to
manage delivery, including resource allocation, governance
revisions, and metrics. Along
with your team, you begin to refocus activities of unit managers
to support the new vision.
It is important to integrate the three main components of the
proposed change (intent,
people, and delivery). However, as they are different
dimensions of organizational change,
you must try to spin several plates at once and keep your
attention focused on all corners
of the organization. You are determined to lead by example.

You see how the pieces of your
organization fit together to achieve your vision, you have a big-
picture view that you are
communicating to others, and you are approaching this change
as a learning process.
Discussion Questions
1. What role do values play and how do they affect the vision
and culture in a
transformational change?
2. What are the stages, in order, to take as you implement
change?
3. What are some specific ways to align the culture of the
organization with the change
initiative?
4. What are some of the pitfalls to be avoided?
(See the end of the chapter for possible answers.)
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 125 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Section 3.4 Plan-to-Action: Roles, Relationships, and
Interventions
1. What techniques did Bossidy use at AlliedSignal to align the
new vision, strategy, culture/

people, and processes? Explain.
2. If a manager asked you for tips on how to implement an
organizational change, what lessons
and knowledge from this section would you share?
3.4 Plan-to-Action: Roles, Relationships,
and Interventions
Whereas Mulally, Bossidy, and other top-level leaders generally
serve as the champions of
change in their organizations, assigned managers and teams
work with consultants to drive
the daily planning and implementation processes. Although
there is no one best way to orga-
nize change, most models refer to some form of top-down
structure to launch the process,
which cascades across all other organizational units. This
section discusses how the roles,
relationships, and planned activities are designed and
implemented.
Assigned Roles and Relationships
Having a comprehensive change road map and plan in hand—
like the one discussed in the
first section of this chapter—enables the CEO or top leader to
proceed with the help of human
resources professionals to recruit and assign others to transition
the organization. The fol-
lowing framework represents different roles and responsibilities
of different change leaders
and professionals in an organization described in Table 3.1.
Leading and managing the change transformation involves the
normal operating business

side of an organization to coordinate with the planned change
side. Human resources profes-
sionals are involved throughout the change process. Depending
on the size of the organiza-
tion and the scale of the change, assigned roles and
relationships can involve a number of
people and teams, as Table 3.1 shows.
Some of the roles in Table 3.1 involve integrating individuals’
and teams’ responsibilities into
the organization’s daily business functions and specific change
activities. For example, the
sponsor (who works for the organization) must interact with
representatives from all the
groups. Similarly, the change consultant and his or her team
(who are dedicated to the change
program and do not work as part of the business functions) must
interact with the leadership
change team and the executive team (members from teams who
do work for the organization).
Power, Authority, and Responsibilities of Change Leaders and
Teams
Notice in Table 3.1 that power and authority are based on a
number of sources, including
position, technical expertise and knowledge, strategic and
operational experience and know-
how, ability to motivate and serve as a positive role model,
interpersonal and organizational
communication skills, and the capability to execute the change
requirements.
Table 3.1: Assigned leadership roles and relationships
Roles Responsibilities Deliverables

Sponsor (highest line
authority)
“I give the ‘go-ahead’ to implement,
provide resources, clarify outcomes,
make course corrections, and spon-
sor the change.”
“I set the direction and expectations,
coordinate communication, sign off on
major decisions, inspire confidence, and
resolve significant disputes.”
Executive team
(organizational
senior managers)
“We manage the outcomes and
results, coordinate the business
with the change strategy and
outcomes, and balance priori-
ties between the change activities
and organizational business with
middle managers and frontline
supervisors.”
“We authorize and fund the change
requirements. We manage expectations,
maintain operations, model new behav-
iors and attitudes of the change and new
culture, and sign off on daily decisions
from the change team.”
Leadership change
team

“We are cross-functional, repre-
senting the entire organization; we
have been delegated the authority
to help create and implement the
change strategy with the execu-
tive team. We create conditions to
realize breakthrough outcomes. We
own the change methodology and
support its implementation in the
organization.”
“We develop the change strategy and
supporting process plan producing
results. We oversee the realignment
and resources of the change strategy to
ensure effective integration of all change
objectives. We also model behavior and
roles required to implement quality
results.”
Change consultant
and project team
“We lead and manage both the
process and technical sides of
the change. We coordinate with
the Leadership Change Team to
integrate the design and implemen-
tation of project change activities
throughout the organization.”
“We ensure the process and completion of
all the major stages/phases of the change
for each goal. We strategize, problem
solve, and coach the business side on all
steps and issues of change initiatives from

plan to implementation. We also model
change behaviors and mind-sets required
for success of the change.”
Source: Adapted from Ackerman, L. A., & Anderson, D. (2010).
The change leader’s roadmap. San Francisco: Pfeifer, an Imprint
of
Wiley, Chapter 1; and The Adkar model of change. Loveland,
CO: Prosci. Retrieved from http://www.change-
management.com
/tutorial-job-roles-mod2.htm
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 126 12/15/15 9:43 AM
http://www.change-management.com/tutorial-job-roles-
mod2.htm
mod2.htm
Interventions
1. What techniques did Bossidy use at AlliedSignal to align the
new vision, strategy, culture/
people, and processes? Explain.
2. If a manager asked you for tips on how to implement an
organizational change, what lessons
and knowledge from this section would you share?

3.4 Plan-to-Action: Roles, Relationships,
and Interventions
Whereas Mulally, Bossidy, and other top-level leaders generally
serve as the champions of
change in their organizations, assigned managers and teams
work with consultants to drive
the daily planning and implementation processes. Although
there is no one best way to orga-
nize change, most models refer to some form of top-down
structure to launch the process,
which cascades across all other organizational units. This
section discusses how the roles,
relationships, and planned activities are designed and
implemented.
Assigned Roles and Relationships
Having a comprehensive change road map and plan in hand—
like the one discussed in the
first section of this chapter—enables the CEO or top leader to
proceed with the help of human
resources professionals to recruit and assign others to transition
the organization. The fol-
lowing framework represents different roles and responsibilities
of different change leaders
and professionals in an organization described in Table 3.1.
Leading and managing the change transformation involves the
normal operating business
side of an organization to coordinate with the planned change
side. Human resources profes-
sionals are involved throughout the change process. Depending
on the size of the organiza-
tion and the scale of the change, assigned roles and
relationships can involve a number of

people and teams, as Table 3.1 shows.
Some of the roles in Table 3.1 involve integrating individuals’
and teams’ responsibilities into
the organization’s daily business functions and specific change
activities. For example, the
sponsor (who works for the organization) must interact with
representatives from all the
groups. Similarly, the change consultant and his or her team
(who are dedicated to the change
program and do not work as part of the business functions) must
interact with the leadership
change team and the executive team (members from teams who
do work for the organization).
Power, Authority, and Responsibilities of Change Leaders and
Teams
Notice in Table 3.1 that power and authority are based on a
number of sources, including
position, technical expertise and knowledge, strategic and
operational experience and know-
how, ability to motivate and serve as a positive role model,
interpersonal and organizational
communication skills, and the capability to execute the change
requirements.
Table 3.1: Assigned leadership roles and relationships
Roles Responsibilities Deliverables
Sponsor (highest line
authority)
“I give the ‘go-ahead’ to implement,
provide resources, clarify outcomes,
make course corrections, and spon-

sor the change.”
“I set the direction and expectations,
coordinate communication, sign off on
major decisions, inspire confidence, and
resolve significant disputes.”
Executive team
(organizational
senior managers)
“We manage the outcomes and
results, coordinate the business
with the change strategy and
outcomes, and balance priori-
ties between the change activities
and organizational business with
middle managers and frontline
supervisors.”
“We authorize and fund the change
requirements. We manage expectations,
maintain operations, model new behav-
iors and attitudes of the change and new
culture, and sign off on daily decisions
from the change team.”
Leadership change
team
“We are cross-functional, repre-
senting the entire organization; we
have been delegated the authority
to help create and implement the
change strategy with the execu-
tive team. We create conditions to

realize breakthrough outcomes. We
own the change methodology and
support its implementation in the
organization.”
“We develop the change strategy and
supporting process plan producing
results. We oversee the realignment
and resources of the change strategy to
ensure effective integration of all change
objectives. We also model behavior and
roles required to implement quality
results.”
Change consultant
and project team
“We lead and manage both the
process and technical sides of
the change. We coordinate with
the Leadership Change Team to
integrate the design and implemen-
tation of project change activities
throughout the organization.”
“We ensure the process and completion of
all the major stages/phases of the change
for each goal. We strategize, problem
solve, and coach the business side on all
steps and issues of change initiatives from
plan to implementation. We also model
change behaviors and mind-sets required
for success of the change.”
Source: Adapted from Ackerman, L. A., & Anderson, D. (2010).
The change leader’s roadmap. San Francisco: Pfeifer, an Imprint

of
Wiley, Chapter 1; and The Adkar model of change. Loveland,
CO: Prosci. Retrieved from http://www.change-
management.com
/tutorial-job-roles-mod2.htm
The sponsor is an executive from the organization’s line
operation. This executive has position
authority and power in the chain of command to direct
employees to perform tasks related to
their positions and to the organization’s goals. At the same
time, the sponsor must be able to
oversee the entire change process while inspiring others to
succeed.
The organization’s executive team members must be able to
balance priorities, workloads,
and the expectations of middle managers and frontline
supervisors who are meeting the
needs of the daily operations of the organization while
implementing new requirements of
the change. They must ensure that the change effort’s strategic
goals and objectives are being
implemented, and also model the behaviors and mind-set of the
new organizational state that
is still in transition.
The leadership change team consists of members from different
functional areas (for example,
marketing, finance, production, and research and development)
who must lead the change
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 127 12/15/15 9:43 AM

mod2.htm
mod2.htm
Interventions
strategy’s implementation. They create the conditions and own
the change methodology to
realize breakthrough outcomes. They are content experts in their
areas of specialization who
are charged with ensuring that the details of the plan are
integrated “on the ground.” Like
the other members responsible for the change, they too must be
the change that they are
effecting.
The change consultant and project team lead and manage the
technical sides of the change.
The change consultant coordinates with the leadership change
team to integrate the design
and implementation of specific change activities throughout the
organization. The power and
authority of change consultants and their team—all of whom are
usually hired externally—is
based on their knowledge and expertise, not on their
organizational status. Therefore, they
need the leaders and members who are organizational hires to
cooperate by performing their
work. As OD specialists, part of their expertise resides in their
human relations, communica-
tion, and execution skills.

Criteria of Change Leaders and Teams
Organizational members should be selected to help plan and
implement the change accord-
ing to certain criteria. These include being (a) highly competent
in the organization and
(b) best positioned to effectively lead the effort (Ackerman &
Anderson, 2010). In addition, we
would add the following criteria: (c) being well-respected and
well-liked by professionals in
the organization, (d) being trusted by others in positions of
authority and responsibility, and
(e) having a track record of accomplishments that are central to
the organization’s mission.
These are also characteristics, competencies, and experience
that CEOs like Mulally brought
to Ford and Bossidy to AlliedSignal/Honeywell. Although they
were not always liked by every-
one, they earned respect based on their competence, their
knowledge and experience, and
their ability to demonstrate productive results. This is important
for promoting collaboration,
which is a cornerstone of effectively implementing change
initiatives.
Implementing Interventions
A major task of change leaders and teams is to design and
implement change interven-
tions. With regard to organizational change, interventions are
specific planned activities
and events aimed at helping an organization increase its
effectiveness (Cummings & Worley,
2009). Based on diagnoses of problems organizations face
and/or opportunities that can be
taken advantage of, OD interventions are designed to put an

organization or one of its units
into a more effective state. From this perspective, an
intervention is effective if it meets three
criteria: (a) it fits the organization’s needs, (b) it has been
thoroughly examined and will pro-
duce the intended outcomes, and (c) it transfers management
competence to the organiza-
tion’s members (Cummings & Worley, 2009).
The type of intervention used depends on the type of
organizational change needed (trans-
formational, transitional, or developmental), as shown in Figure
2.4. The type of planned
intervention also depends on what particular dimension of the
organization (for example,
leadership, strategy, culture, structure, processes) is targeted to
change. Because we are pri-
marily discussing transformational or large-scale change, the
types of interventions required
affect all of the major organizational dimensions in some way.
Some changes within a
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 128 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Interventions
particular dimension may affect the other dimensions. For
example, a newly selected CEO has
ripple effects that extend to everyone. A major employee
evaluation system can affect differ-

ent employees across an organization, whereas an IT reporting
and control system that most
employees must use will affect different divisions, departments,
and units.
Before elaborating on the different types of change
interventions shown in Figure 2.4, we
summarize one of the most important transformational changes
experienced by the Avon
Products company. Examples from Avon’s story will
demonstrate the nature and types of
interventions that organizations use.
Avon and CEO Andrea Jung
Avon is one of the world’s leading direct sellers of beauty
products, including skin care,
makeup, and fragrances, as well as jewelry, lingerie, and
fashion accessories. The company
sells to customers in 145 countries (Cohen & Roussel, 2004).
Avon’s 2015 annual ranking as
a Fortune 500 firm was 322, with $8.85 billion in revenues
(Fortune, 2015a).
During the 1980s Avon Europe had branches in just six
countries, and each country had an inde-
pendently operated factory and warehouse with separate
information and distribution systems
that handled the local market. During the 1990s Avon’s robust
growth nearly overwhelmed its
supply chain organization (Cohen & Roussel, 2004). The firm
had focused almost exclusively
on marketing and sales to the exclusion of its supply chain and
operational logistics. When the
company planned on doubling sales revenue in Europe from
$500 million in 1996 to $1 billion

in 2001, executives realized that it would not work to replicate
its country-based supply chain
model in new and different markets. A decentralized supply
chain across international geogra-
phies and cultures would be cost prohibitive (Cohen & Roussel,
2004). Something had to change.
Andrea Jung had been CEO of Avon for 11 years when this
change loomed on the horizon. She
recalls how it felt to be faced with this situation:
As I was deciding back in 2005 to undertake the boldest-ever
restructuring of
the company, I had a frank conversation with a friend to whom I
turn for advice
from time to time. He reminded me that most people who
successfully orches-
trate significant corporate turnarounds come from outside,
because they have
no vested interest in the company or its people. It was 8 P.M. on
a Friday night,
and he challenged me. Could I, he asked, go home over the
weekend and fire
myself as the CEO who had presided over five years of
explosive growth, and
then rehire myself Monday morning as the turnaround specialist
who would
lead the company into the next era? It meant totally reinventing
myself from
the leader I had been to an entirely new type of leader who
would be right for
the next chapter in the company’s history. It was a very
humbling experience,
but ultimately very liberating. (as cited in Business Today,
2011, p. 34)

In 2005 Avon’s stock price—which increased more than 181%
during Jung’s first 5½ years as
CEO—dropped 45% between April and October (Kowitt, 2012).
That same year marked the
abrupt end of 6 consecutive years of more than 10% growth,
with earnings having tripled under
Jung’s leadership. In Avon’s European markets, a new sales
campaign began every 3 weeks, but it
took 12 weeks, on average, to cycle a product through the
supply chain. Manufacturing was
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 129 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Interventions
dependent entirely on forecasts, but about 50% of products
resulted in rush orders because the
company sold more than forecasted. Manufacturing incurred
large changeover costs to stop pro-
duction and meet rush orders. Preprinted containers were
ordered in the language of respective
country markets before sales were known. The company had
slow-selling inventory accumulat-
ing and significant, unpredictable costs dependent on sales
(Cohen & Roussel, 2004).
Significant resources were needed
to transform the supply chain. Avon
moved 45 of its best employees from
Europe to work on the transforma-

tion full time for 18 months. The
company was challenged to create
a centralized planning function to
handle reactions to demand and
inventory levels (Cohen & Roussel,
2004).
Accumulating Information
and Creating Systems
Avon’s first step was to create a com-
mon database for the organization to
record information about inventory,
manufacturing, and sales. Things
like product codes and descriptions
were developed for global visibility
and analysis. Management around the world had to evaluate
sales and inventory trends—
both supply and demand. Without accompanying systems, the
information in the database
could not be used effectively, so Avon also created a supply
chain and scheduling system. A
regional planning group was put in place to evaluate the entire
supply chain and make deci-
sions using this information (Cohen & Roussel, 2004).
The Redesign
When Jung and her senior team stepped back and reviewed their
supply chain as an end-to-
end process, rather than as isolated local systems, the real value
and benefit of this transfor-
mation became evident. If the supply chain was transformed, the
company could replace five
or six language-specific bottles for shampoo or lotion with one
plain bottle. This way, produc-
tion could run continuously without having to switch the bottle
stock, and customer service

could respond more quickly to changes in demand. Therefore,
when inventory was exhausted
in any market, the warehouse moved into action by labeling
products in the relevant language
and shipping them out on trucks. The savings and economic
gain was significant.
Avon embarked on the redesign of its physical supply chain.
Manufacturing operations were
consolidated around the company’s emerging market, allowing
for time and labor cost effi-
ciencies. A centralized inventory hub was created near two
manufacturing plants in Poland,
allowing products to be directed as demand was determined.
Containers were standardized
to reduce changeover costs. By purchasing inputs like
containers from suppliers close to the
AP Photo/Stephen Chernin
One of the first steps Andrea Jung took toward dou-
bling Avon’s sales revenue in Europe was to compose
a solid team and transform the supply chain.
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 130 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Interventions
manufacturing plants, transportation time and cost were
reduced. There were also fewer sup-

pliers that were more flexible and responsive.
The redesign was possible because Avon widened its view of
the company’s overall opera-
tions. The decentralized model—in which each country operated
independently—kept Avon
from working as a single, streamlined operation. By looking at
the supply chain as an end-to-
end process, Avon could make better strategic choices and adapt
to changing market demands
more quickly (Cohen & Roussel, 2004).
Communication and Realignment
Avon next changed its structure to match the redesign of its
supply chain processes. “Plan,
source, make, and deliver” became the new key process (Cohen
& Roussel, 2004, p. 3). The
simpler, centralized model was easier to manage. It also
changed the roles and responsibili-
ties of many employees. For example, general managers became
responsible primarily for
sales, rather than for inventory.
Jung made facts rather than intuition the main driver behind
managers’ decisions. This shift
removed much of the autonomy of country managers but
enabled them to perform their work
with more precision, increasing each operation’s overall
performance. These changes were
reflected in new performance metrics—a data-centric approach
(Bloomberg Businessweek,
2008). The company also infused collaboration in its changes. A
collaborative design work-
shop was held that involved suppliers, a design firm, and Avon
marketing and supply chain
personnel. Collaborating on ideas yielded designs that reduced

costs and improved efficiency.
The new processes and structure were communicated through
training; this helped upgrade
employee skills. Avon partnered with Cranfield University, a
supply chain business school in
Britain, to develop a new training program in both full and
accelerated durations (full for sup-
ply chain associates and accelerated for senior executives)
(Cohen & Roussel, 2004).
Avon successfully implemented a new and vastly more efficient
supply chain to respond to
its rapid growth of two or three new markets per year. This
change allowed the company
to increase efficiency, reduce costs, and save about $50 million
per year (Cohen & Roussel,
2004). The company went on to create a fully integrated IT
system to incorporate the changes
and track the new information collected (Cohen & Roussel,
2004).
The Transformation of Jung and Avon
Jung’s expertise and experience were grounded in building
brands, not in turning around
global logistics supply chains, structures, and systems. During
the company’s steep decline
in the early 2000s, she said, “My first reaction was: ‘I get it. I
see the numbers, but I just don’t
know if I, or we, have the stomach for it’” (as cited in Byrnes,
2007, “Painful Cuts,” para. 1).
She had to shift both her thinking and the thinking of her
managers regarding problem solv-
ing from intuition to a data-driven approach. She also had to
take much of the autonomy from
country managers, who were used to running plants their way.

They had to create a way to
install and mobilize a globalized manufacturing and marketing
system.
Jung also had to champion downsizing—a most painful task.
Seven layers of management
were let go, from 15 down to 8 management levels. During the
restructuring, she flew from
wei82650_03_c03_103_154.indd 131 12/15/15 9:43 AM
Interventions
country to country talking with her top 1,000 global managers.
Her basic message was that a
quarter of them would be let go by the end of the year. This was
a difficult time for Jung, as she
had hired many of them (Bloomberg Businessweek, 2008).
She also led the charge on launching the numbers-heavy, return-
on-investment analysis that
most of the larger, successful consumer products companies—
Gillette, Procter & Gamble,
PepsiCo, and Kraft—had been using for many years. The
analysis was run by an executive
team, most of whom were recruited from outside the company
and were centralized from the
New York headquarters.
At the end of her tenure as CEO, Jung had more pressures with

which to contend (Lublin &
Karp, 2011). In 2011 the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) inquiries and an SEC
subpoena investigated whether Avon was involved in bribes to
Chinese government officials
and improperly disclosed market-sensitive information to
financial analysts over the previ-
ous 2 years. In December 2014 Avon agreed to pay $135 million
to settle the SEC charges
(Wohl, 2011). As CEO of Avon, Jung made some bad decisions.
In April 2012 Avon replaced
Jung as CEO with Johnson & Johnson vice chair Sherilyn
McCoy.
Types of Interventions
We usually do not read about or see how the different
implementation roles explained ear-
lier in this section are carried out in notable organizational
transformations. What we do
read about is how visible CEOs and leaders either master or fail
at organizational changes.
Mulally at Ford and Bossidy of AlliedSignal, for example,
succeeded in their efforts. Jung suc-
ceeded but struggled in her attempt to learn and adopt the
necessary implementation roles
and expertise needed to turn Avon around.
Reinventing the Leader as Change Champion
Jung led the restructuring and centralization of Avon’s supply
chain, which required trans-
forming new logistics systems and business processes that, in
turn, changed employee roles
and the manufacturing and marketing processes. She succeeded
at leading these strategies
and systems (shown in Figure 2.4) by reinventing her role as an

3 Implementing Change hxdbzxyiStockThinkstockLearnin.docx

3 Implementing Change hxdbzxyiStockThinkstockLearnin.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 3 Implementing Change hxdbzxyiStockThinkstockLearnin.docx

Similar to 3 Implementing Change hxdbzxyiStockThinkstockLearnin.docx (20)

More from jesusamckone

More from jesusamckone (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

3 Implementing Change hxdbzxyiStockThinkstockLearnin.docx