Course Project Report

Prepared for:

Professor Virg Setzer

Prepared by:

Project Team 9

Alex Frieler, Allen Merrell, Travis Ramp, Camille Reiker

University of Colorado Denver

Leading Organizational Change E01

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Introduction

Operating under the identity of OD practitioners, our team set out to enact an

organizational change initiative at Global Tech using the Experience Change Model. Our

objectives for this initiative were to achieve a minimum of 60% buy-in from organization

members, and as team, acquire a leadership score above 800. The following information will

provide a debrief and analysis of the change initiative we enacted. The topics to follow focus on:

the outcomes of our change initiative, an evaluation of the Experience Change Model, a

comparison between the Experience Change Model and John Kotter’s Eight Step Model, team

dynamics, knowledge gained, and real-world practicality.

Team Implementation Results

Exhibit 1

How did the results compare to the plan?

In general, our implementation plan was very similar to our original plan. There was no

deviation between plans in the first 7 actions (Reference Exhibit 2). However, of these first 7

actions our team implemented, Develop Training Infrastructure, and shortly thereafter, New

Product Development Team, were not well received. The failure of these actions made us

reevaluate our plan. Moving forward, we took a more simplistic approach, attempting to only

match an action with its stage rather than worrying about potential symbiosis between multiple

actions that spanned across different stages.

Looking at a side-by-side comparison of the original and actual implementation plan, you

can see that when a deviation did occur, the new action generally resembled the fundamental

nature of the originally intended action. For example, implementation number 16 shows that we

originally planned to use Professional Objectives, but we ended up implementing Core Change

Team Presentations (Reference Exhibit 2). Both of these actions involved

managerial/departmental meetings within the simulation to discuss organizational objectives and

other situational factors. The side-by-side comparison also shows that when a deviation did

occur, the originally intended action was rarely eliminated, but was instead used at a different

time during the simulation. Take for example the implementation of the Disaster Scenario Video.

The original plan had this action as implementation number 17 but we ended up implementing it

earlier at implementation number 15, both still occurring within Stage 5: Communicate

(Reference Exhibit 2).

Despite the overall analogous nature of our deviations, there were several glaring changes

that are of note. The most notable change from our original plan was the decision to not use the

Fire an Individual action. This deviation came from our team’s situational perceptions. We felt

this action would negatively impact morale and ultimately lower buy-in.  The ISO 9000

Certification was also removed. By nature, this action seemed redundant and non-value added. A

final major change occurred at implementation number 22. Originally we intended to follow

Restructure Company into Teams with Reengineer Company, but the flow of the simulation lead

us to implement Team Mentoring instead. Also, our original plan assumed that we would be able

to repeat actions multiple times during the actual simulation (Reference Exhibit 2). This

assumption proved false, and this led to further deviations

Team Change Plan: Side-by-Side Comparison

Exhibit 2

What worked well?

In terms of what went well, three fundamental actions stand out. First, Walking the Floor

worked very well for our team. This action was the first of our actual implementation plan, and

garnered 100% effectiveness. We attribute the success of this action to our teams collective

knowledge regarding the positive outcomes associated with engaging with “people in the

trenches.” Next during Stage 5: Communicate, our team elected to utilize the Disaster Scenario

Video tactic. Implementing this action was met with outstanding approval and was 100% in

terms of effectiveness. This effectiveness can be attributed to the actions focus on generating

urgency and momentum within the organization. A final positive action was Celebrate

Successes. The efficacious nature of this action was due to its timing. This action was

implemented in Stage 7: Consolidate, and is consistent with the refreezing step in Lewin’s Model

for Change. Celebrating successes acts as a form of instrumental conditioning and reinforces

positive change behaviors.

What did not work very well? Why?

Despite the overall success of simulation, there were some actions that grossly under

performed. Most notable among these poor performers was our choice to implement Suggestion

Program early on. Our initial thinking led us to believe that this action would positively increase

buy-in, empowerment, and morale. However, the opposite happened and the action was -100%

effective. The reason behind the negative outcome was that this action diluted the focus around

the vision of the company. Another underperforming action came from using Reassuring

Announcement. Our team assumed this action could only be met with positivity, but it actually

backfired, resulting in -70% effectiveness. The simulation flagged this action as being

counterproductive and likely to be a lie. The simulation system did not appear to have any

ambiguity protocols built into its algorithm; therefore most humanistic metrics were

unpredictable. The final poor performing action was our team’s choice to implement Develop

Training Infrastructure early on. This action resulted in 0% effectiveness. The lack of

effectiveness can be attributed to poor timing and this action would have been better suited in

Stage 6: Act.

Implementation Plan Outcomes:

Exhibit 3

What was the greatest challenge of this change project?

The greatest challenge of this change project was not with the simulation, but rather with

having to work as a collaborative team in virtual space. Everyone had very different and busy

schedules, making meeting difficult. Allen Merrell did an excellent job of addressing this

problem by using an online software called Doodle. Doodle allowed our team to display and sign

up for meeting times that met our schedules. Using this software we avoided the inefficient back

and forth bantering that is often associated with scheduling team meeting times. Another concern

often ascribed to virtual teams is lack of cohesion. Our team overcame this common pitfall by

using AT&T Connect, a virtual meeting software, provided by Camille Reiker. This software

allowed us to easily communicate, record information, and share screens. We also used some

more simplistic online tools to help assist our team. These included Google Docs and Google

Spreadsheets. Both programs allowed us to share, edit and comment on any content necessary for

this assignment. We were able to complete every pertinent function of this assignment with ease.

Virtual teams may hinder some teams, but our team responded positively the cybernetic

environment. We effectively addressed the challenges associated with being online students and

gained a greater appreciation for the efficiencies that operating as a virtual team can provide.

What was most effective about the Experience Change Model?

The most effective part of the Experience change model is its simplistic and logical

format. Each of the 7 stages are clearly laid out, and the intention of each stage is made clear by

the associated name (i.e. Stage 6: Act). Logical layout and non-formal language make this model

ideal for the layperson. A simplistic model, such as the Experience Change Model, lowers the

knowledge barrier necessary to accurately and effectively use the model. This is different than

other models, like the Burke-Litwin Model of Organizational Performance and Change, which

almost requires a background in Organizational Development to understand. The simplicity of

the Experience Change Model allows change agents to quickly formulate a change strategy,

lowers lead times and provides faster results.

What was least effective about the Experience Change Model?

The least effective part of the Experience Change Model was in its piercingly low

tolerance for ambiguity. This intolerance to ambiguity may be limited only to the model as it

pertains to the simulation. However, the model’s low tolerance for ambiguity prevented our team

from exploring more adventurous implementation strategies. Our initial plan attempted to build

up morale and empowerment early. These attempts were severely castigated by the Experience

Change Model.  The rigidity of the model promoted cookie-cutter implementation strategies and

thwarted any deviations from the 7 stages. Under this model we were unable to utilize hybrid

strategies intended to compliment actions that occurred in later stages. This was something that

really forced our team to deviate from our plan, and diminished the effectiveness of this model.

How does the Experience Change Model compare to Kotter’s Eight Step Model?

The Experience Change Models draws some interesting parallels from Kotter’s Eight

Step Model in “The Heart of Change.” Both change models place emphasis on establishing an

effective team, creating a vision, communicating the vision with the organization, and

finally implementing the change in successful iterations. However, there are notable differences

between the models that are worth discussing. First, the Experience Change Model focuses on

understanding the problem and “the need to change” before enlisting change agents, while

Kotter’s model initiates the transformation process by imposing a sense of urgency in the

workforce. For our simulation, we initially focused on understanding the problem, and then

addressed the "burning platform" with the rest of the organization during the "Motivate" phase.

        Secondly, the motivation and communication phases of the Experience Change Model

appear to occur in reverse order when compared to Kotter’s model. The Experience Change

Model encourages motivation prior to the communicating the change plan while Kotter’s model

focuses on communicating the vision prior to “empowering” the employee base to embrace the

transformation effort. Both of these strategies have benefits and detractions, but it’s an

interesting distinction that could perhaps be applied differently in varying situations.

        Finally, the Experience Change Model uses the concept of “Consolidate” as its final step

in the change process. This step is essentially a reiteration of some of the previous steps with the

goal of continuing to build, empower, and learn from the ongoing change effort. While this is

somewhat similar in nature to the final two steps of Kotter’s change model (“Don’t Let Up” and

“Make Change Stick”) it’s interesting that the Experience Change Model approaches change

almost as a never-ending process. This approach is particularly valuable as most organizations

are rarely undergoing simple or single change initiatives.

Are there elements of the Kotter Model that were or could have been more useful in this

change simulation than that of the Experience Point Change model?

        While the Experience Change Model is quite encompassing of all the activities and

behaviors that need to occur in any company transformation, there are a couple of items from

Kotter’s change model that might have been useful in our simulation. The emphasis on

empowering the workforce to embrace the change is a powerful step in any change initiative, and

it might have been helpful if, during our simulation, there were some more options to utilize an

empowerment action. Another aspect of Kotter’s change model that might have assisted in our

simulation was the idea of creating short-term wins to create momentum within the larger change

scope. There were few, if any, small or iterative steps in the simulation to help the workforce

start to see successes. It seemed as though the actions within the simulation had profound

implications while, in a lot of real world cases, incremental accomplishments provide the key to

successful transformation.

What are your most critical learning points from completion of the change simulation?

        As a team, there were a handful of critical learning points during the change simulation.

The first impressive juncture occurred early in the simulation, when our team effectively used

the Walk the Floor and Identify the Problem tactics to create a clear understanding of the issues

facing the simulation company. This strategy aligns with the Experience Change Model’s first

step of understanding and collecting data and ensuring future success in concentrating on

specific needs of the company. The second significant learning event, happened after a couple of

our actions did not have the results we were expecting when we drafted our initial plan. We

ended up moving away from a lot of our planned events to find actions to inhibit any further

degradation in performance. Although we ultimately were successful, this provided an

opportunity to understand the importance of developing a detailed and encompassing change

plan before any transformation effort as well as the key of being flexible throughout the entire

process.

        There were a few other learning junctures in our simulation. One that stuck out to us was

the use of simple tactics and in keeping the change effort moving forward one step at a time.

Often, it seemed as though our team would be too focused on future change actions and would

lose sight of the near term implications of each change. As we progressed, we learned that

keeping the momentum going forward within the simulation was far more important than

ensuring success five or six steps down the line. Finally, it was fairly eye opening for the team

how impactful celebrating successes and rewarding efforts can be during the change process. In a

way, it was very gratifying for us the change implementer to see celebrations and awards have

such a positive influence on the company as a whole.

Is a change simulation such as this an effective way to educate and prepare managers and

leaders within an organization to become effective in managing organizational change?

        This change simulation is absolutely an effective way to educate and prepare leaders to

implement their own transformation efforts. The tactics utilized throughout the simulation are

practical strategies that can be used in real world situations. The reactions from the simulation

characters seemed quite realistic and, given our team’s somewhat diverse background, resonated

with what we have seen in our respective experiences. Although we disagreed with some of the

results and in-game logic throughout the processes, each change tactic and subsequent reaction

could be incredibly useful for leaders to lean on in understanding change implementation.

        In addition and perhaps more so than the simulation, some of the intangible benefits from

this exercise could be of particular use to organizational leaders. Working as a team was

particularly educational in how we discussed, strategized, and ultimately decided on specific

tactics within the simulation. Our problem-solving and communication was tested throughout

this process and it was very rewarding for a team of individuals who had no real experience

working with each other to come together and be successful. This sort of team-building and

subsequent experience would be invaluable to leaders hoping to embody the OD spirit.

Discuss the overall effectiveness of your change team. Did your team dynamics enhance or

limit your team results? Explain.

        Our team was particularly effective both in planning for the simulation, executing the

simulation, and debriefing the results. As mentioned earlier, we used a diverse set of

technologies to communicate and interface with each other throughout the process. This allowed

us to work around conflicting schedules and the remote nature of this course. Our dynamics were

very respectful and focused on achieving the same goal, and this showed during the simulation

itself. We problem solved effectively and, as team, reached agreement on virtually every tactic

we implemented. During the de-brief process, we all took individual time to reflect on the

simulation efforts before dispositioning collectively. This led to a fair and successful divvying up

of the remaining tasks to complete the simulation report and submittal. Ultimately, our team

dynamics and leadership was one of our greatest strengths during this simulation and no doubt

resulted in our success.

Concluding Thoughts

The change simulation was an excellent exercise in managing transformation and allowed

our team the opportunity to test our collective knowledge base on Organizational Development.

We were not only successful in completing the simulation, but also finished with a score of 816

and over 60% buy-in, both very high marks. In addition, the simulation’s tactic logic and

employee reactions realistically replicated situations that are facing leaders in all industries.

Through the planning, implementation, and out brief phases of this project, our team

demonstrated excellence problem-solving, critical thinking, and collaboration. These skillsets as

well as the knowledge and experience gained from the simulation will certainly aid us through

our academic and professional careers.