Question

For this project and presentation you will be focusing on Organizational Change, which is discussed in Chapter 15. Organizational change can come about for a number of reasons, which include problems within the organization that decreases its reputation or product confidence, innovation, technological improvements, or simply staying ahead of the competition. Mergers and acquisitions, changes in leadership, ethical violations, and organizational mistakes may require changes to the organization.

For example, remember Tony Howard, the former chief executive of BP? He faced leadership and communication problems within his organization following the 2010 oil spill. BP's image and value plummeted, and the employees' motivation followed. BP needed to make external changes, and these changes needed to be accepted internally (by the employees) in order to be successful. BP and Howard would be in a lot better shape if they had consulted with us! We want to show this client we can take such an event, research its history, and apply organizational behavior concepts to recommend successful solutions. You will learn that change is very difficult to implement in an organization. “Out with the old, and in with the new” is not always welcome by the organization’s staff. Many employees like the old ways and may be not embrace the change. So, the question becomes – how to get everyone on the staff to support the change.

I need you to research and write a paper where you will review an organization that you find needs to implement a change. For this Week 6 your paper will analyze the organization, identify its problems that make it ripe for a change, and apply a change theory.

(In Week 8 you will present your paper to me by video. I will use the best video to present to a new client who could make or break our company. This is client is a multi-national, multi-million dollar company that is interested in hiring a full time consulting service to help their organization implement a large scale change.)

I want to be absolutely certain that you follow all directions to a “T”, so read the directions to the project below very carefully. Let’s get this deal! Good luck and let me know if you have questions.

1. Locate 3 peer reviewed journal articles that discuss organizational change and organizational change model. (Limit your change model discussion to the two change models identified in the text in Chapter 16: Lewin and Kotter). This will require research using library data bases. Note your text does not count toward the 3 peer reviewed articles. You can use Google Scholar or the Library resources to locate the 3 peer reviewed articles.

2. Topic: Start by locating an organization that has experienced a problem or event that has a significant effect on the organization. This problem MUST involve the internal organizational culture. Review news reports, newspapers or business periodicals such as National Public Radio, Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, Business Week or the New York Times. You will need to use 3 references for this part.

Answer 1

NASA -

The principle of ensemble as an organisational practice Organisations need to build systems that are not just optimally efficient in a specific set of circumstances, but capable of changing to meet new circumstances: in other words, organisations need internally generated resilience. In turn, that resilience is generated by creating shared terms of engagement–they cannot be imposed–that govern the relationships between different people and functions. It is the job of leaders to develop both organisational interconnectedness, and the capacity of individuals and departments to work together. Instead of attempting the now impossible task of micromanaging specialised, knowledgedriven functions, leaders must pay attention to developing the norms of responsibility, honesty and trust within the organisation that enable people to work together. Ensemble addresses exactly these questions of instilling behavioural norms through strong values, while reconciling the individual’s needs for creative expression, reward, and liberty, with the need to be part of a social system that is efficient, responsive and liberating rather than conformist, restricting and inefficient.

Distinctive lessons learned Emotions are important – acknowledge them A remarkable feature of the RSC’s leadership and management style has been the regular and explicit reference to emotions. Very few leaders in government or the corporate sector speak openly about the emotions that everyone knows are a major feature of organisational life.
Leaders are at the heart of a network, not at the top of a pyramid.
The realisation of creativity rests on collaboration
Conceptual simplicity is the best response to organisational and contextual complexity Every large-scale organisation is complex, and every organisation exists within a changing and multifaceted context. Difficult and demanding tasks need to be underpinned by clear and comprehensible concepts that everyone understands and can feel part of, both intellectually and emotionally. The RSC is a compelling example of a complex organisation with a simple message: when asked what was the purpose of the RSC, our interviewees repeatedly expressed the same aspiration: to be the best theatre company for Shakespeare in the world.


conscious interventions, including introducing external help to facilitate the change process · leadership in the form of leading by example, providing rhetoric that reflected the organisation’s emerging narrative back to itself, and decision-making · self-organisation in the form of organic change at individual, team and departmental level · experimentation that sometimes resulted in setbacks, failure and frustration.


The problem was not that NASA had changed from the Apollo era to the shuttle era. The problem was the opposite: NASA had not changed and was still doing business like Apollo 13. In fact, the right stuff era hangover continues to this day.

1. During the routine countdown rehearsals, oxygen tank #2 was filled with oxygen but could not be emptied. The ground crew thought a loose nozzle fitting was the source of the difficulty, but there was no thorough investigation. The loose fitting problem was not fixed since gaseous oxygen still passed through the nozzle as needed. Instead of thoroughly investigating the problem, they worked around the problem.
2. When the normal procedure to empty the tank failed to work, ground crews improvised a procedure and used heaters and fans to empty the tank. (Please notice a similarity of living with and working around an Apollo program unknown problem is similar to the Space Shuttle program accepting the unknown problem of foam strikes.)
3. The improvised detanking procedures had never been used before, and the tank had not been qualified for the conditions experienced. (Notice a similarity between this and the Challenger launching in cold temperatures for which the vehicle had not been qualified.)
4. In reviewing the improvised procedures, officials at NASA, North American, Beach, and even the flight crew did not recognize the hazard of overheating.
5. Many of the managers were not even aware of the extended heater operation.
6. Neither qualification nor acceptance testing required switch cycling under load as should have been done. This was a missed opportunity.
7. The problem could have gone completely unnoticed and the Apollo 13 flight completed without the anomaly if the special detanking improvised procedure had not been done, because the switch remained cool and closed during flight and could take a momentary or short 65 V DC charge and probably not fail. Imagine if the Columbia foam strike had just been slightly smaller; perhaps the incident never would have occurred and would have gone unnoticed.
8. The thermostatic switches failures probably would have been captured if the heater current readings had been checked during the detanking operation.
9. The oxygen #2 tank had been dropped during installation at North American Aviation, which caused the fitting to become loose, but there was no investigation.
10. The tank heaters were equipped with 28-volt thermostatic switches supplied by the spacecraft fuel cells. But during the countdown rehearsal they were powered by 65-volt ground power supply. The 65-volt load likely caused the switches to fail. The ground crew kept the heaters on assuming the thermostatic switch would trigger if the tank temperature exceeded 80° Fahrenheit, but the heaters did not shut off and temperatures reached 1000° F. This heat burned the Teflon insulation off the fan motor wiring, leaving bare wires that would short circuit during the mission. The ground crew should have noticed this high temperature or burning smell. Apparently nobody was aware the temperature had reached such a high reading, or else they just did not report the anomaly. Maybe they were in a hurry to complete the task. After all, the heaters had been on for six hours! The electrical parts were damaged and the stage set for potential disaster.
11. The thermostatic switch 28-volt specification, dating to 1962, was revised in 1965 to carry the 65-volt Kennedy Space Center ground supply. However, Beach Aircraft Corporation, which manufactured the switches, did not make the needed change to the switches. This opportunity was missed by Beach, either intentionally or as an oversight, and also missed by North American and NASA in all of the design, documentation, and flight review systems.
    
    P.S. This was covered everywhere radio, newspaper,etc.
    Hope this helps. If need more help let me know. The story is too big to write everything.