DHR12
ORGANIZATION CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT
Assignment – I
Assignment Code: 2014DHR12A1 Last Date of Submission: 15th May 2014
Maximum Marks: 100
Section – A (Each question is of 25 marks)
1. “Kurt Lewin’s three stage model is a powerful tool for understanding change.”
Comment.
2. Write short notes on any two of the following:
a. Force Field Analysis
b. T‐Groups
c. Matrix Organization
Section – B Case Study (50 Marks)
The Five Phases of Resistance to Change in Action
Phase 1
In the 1970s the environmental movement began to grow. The first Earth Day was held in 1970. Wide
spread interest in environmental concerns subsided during the 1980s. Some political officials neglected
environmental concerns, and environmentalists were often portrayed as extremists and radicals. The
forces for change were small, but pressure for change persisted through court actions, elected officials
and group actions.
Phase 2
Environmental supporters and opponents became more identifiable in the 1980s. Secretary of the
Interior James Watt was perhaps the most vocal and visible opponent of environmental concerns and
served as a “lightning rod” for pro‐environmental forces like the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society. As
time passed, educational efforts by environmental groups increasingly delivered their message. The
public now had information and scientific data that enabled it to understand the problem.
Phase 3
The Clean Air Act passed by Congress in 1990 represented the culmination of years of confrontation
between pro and anti‐environmental forces. The bill was passed several months after national and
worldwide Earth day events. Corporations criticized for contributing to environmental problems took
out large newspaper and television ads to explain how they were reducing pollution and cleaning up the
environment. The “greening” of corporations became very popular.
Phase 4
One example is the confrontation between Green peace (an environmental group) and Shell Oil. The
Green peace group had been campaigning for weeks to block the Royall Dutch/Shell group from
disposing of the towering Brent Spar oil‐storage rig by sinking it deep in the Atlantic Ocean. As a small
helicopter sought to land Green peace protesters on the rig’s deck, Shell blasted high‐powered water
cannons to fend off the aircraft. This was all captured on film and shown on TV around the world. Four
days after the incident, Shell executives made a humiliating about‐face; they agreed to comply with
Greenpeace requests and dispose of the Brent Spar on land. This incident, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
shows how high‐profit cases can ignite worldwide public interest.
Phase 5
Much of the world now sees environmentally responsible behaviour as a necessity. Near‐zero
automobile emissions are moving closer to a reality. Recycling has become a natural part of everyday
life for many people. But new ways to be environmentally responsible are still being sought.
Case Questions:
a) Do you agree that the environmental movement has moved into the fifth phase?
b) Where do you see the environmental movement going? Stronger of weaker legislative action?
c) Will the environmental movement be worldwide or regional? Will developed nations have
different responsibilities than developing nations?
d) Will there be corporate support?
DHR12
ORGANIZATION CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT
Assignment – II
Assignment Code: 2014DHR12A2 Last Date of Submission: 15th May 2014
Maximum Marks: 100
Section – A (Each question is of 25 marks)
1. Explain the six phases/steps in the process of ‘Grid Organization Development’.
2. Discuss the roles, skills, and strategies of “change agents” in managing organizational
changes.
Section – B Case Study (50 Marks)
OD In Practice: Diagnosis for Kodak – The Digital Revolution
Eastman Kodak Co. recently announced plans to cut its workforce by as much as 21 percent by
the end of 2006. This amount to 12,000 to 15,000 jobs, on top of a reduction in its world‐wide
workforce by 30,000 jobs back in the late 1990s.
Kodak is betting heavily that it can transform itself from a slow‐changing company into
operating on the cutting edge of the digital revolution. The Kodak vision is to turn itself into the
leader of the electronic age. That could be a major challenge. In the film business, Kodak had
virtually no competition for about a century until Fuji came along in the 1980s. In the electronic
industry, however, there are a host of international companies like Sony, HP, Canon, Panasonic,
Fuji, Nikon, and Minolta ready to slug it out for the digital‐imaging market.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Kodak polled a widening corps of its managers and called in outside consultants. McKinsey &
Co. even conducted “trap teams,” where managers were invited to test out scenarios that
might cause problems. Finally, in the late 1990s Kodak’s core photo businesses were reshuffled
into 17 entrepreneurial units. Such a measured approach to change reflects the very essence of
Kodak, a company that has raised careful deliberation – some would say procrastination – to a
high art. But the restructuring was of little benefit. In the last several decades, Kodak dragged
its feet while competitors ran away with new markets like instant photography, 35 mm
cameras, video cameras, video recorders, and copying machines. And for over a decade Kodak
has struggled to transition to digital – disheartening, considering era technology.
Kodak faces several dilemmas: It must hold down prices on film or risk losing even more market
share to Fuji and private‐label brands. A t the same time, investors want improved returns now.
Competition is especially fierce in the color‐print film business, Kodak’s mainstay. Now it seems
that the long‐term future of photography is in digital imaging not film. Kodak has stopped
selling reload able film cameras in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Growth is slowing in
Kodak’s film products and Kodak says that film sales will drop at a 10 to 12 percent annual rate
over the next three years. Worldwide film sales are expected to start declining for all wide film
sales are expected to start declining for all manufacturers. Kodak is in the dubious position of
fiercely competing for a shrinking market.
DIAGNOSIS AND CHANGE
The job of making Kodak more effective will require changing a 100‐year‐old culture that
guaranteed employment but fostered complacency and resistance to change. In the past ,
Kodak was known to favour caution over risk‐taking, which was feasible strategy when Kodak
controlled the market. Kodak’s culture has been described as sclerotic.
What’s so tough about the job of remaking Kodak? First, it is a chemical company that must
transform itself, at least in part, into an electronics company. The chemical business, silver
halide photography, is mature and slow growing. The electronics business involves translating
images into the digital language of computing so that they can be manipulated on computer
screens and transported electronically. Until the mid‐1990s, chemists traditionally managed
Kodak. The two businesses are like an elephant and a mouse.
NEW PRODUCTS AND MARKETS
Managing its many new ventures will be one of Kodak’s greatest challenges, something it has
muffed in the past. The company has been moving away from consumer electronics to focus its
attention on non‐consumer applications of electronics. The business and medical communities
already see the need for digital imaging. Kodak’s digital laser writers and high‐end scanners
have been successful with banks and other business and government customers that move
large volumes of paper and Kodak’s radiography is experiencing strong sales growth.
Virtually every current top manager has a proven track record in bringing new products to
market. Now many young managers are being given authority over new product development.
A former HP executive who has worked with Kodak says, “They know more about the science of
imaging, photographs and what people want to do with them than any company in the world.
They have great technical capabilities, but they’ve lacked focus and application.” The problem
isn’t that Kodak has the wrong vision, but that it has waited until the sky was falling to embrace
it.
But don’t count Kodak out. Its digital camera business is profitable; in a recent year it was
number two of all manufacturers with over 17 percent market share. Kodak is taking
advantage of long‐standing ties with doctors and hospitals eager to replace X‐rays with digital
images. The health‐imaging business makes more money than photography. Kodak intends to
develop and buy companies in the health and commercial imaging and printing markets.
Will Kodak’s diagnosis of the problem and its vision bring about the desired changes, and will
Kodak’s managers, after years in the old culture, be able to break out of the former ineffective
patterns?
Case Questions:
a) What data or information would be necessary to develop a change program at Kodak?
b) What kind of performance gaps can you identify at Kodak?
c) Why is it so important to use diagnosis before implementing a change program?
ORGANIZATION CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT
Assignment – I
Assignment Code: 2014DHR12A1 Last Date of Submission: 15th May 2014
Maximum Marks: 100
Section – A (Each question is of 25 marks)
1. “Kurt Lewin’s three stage model is a powerful tool for understanding change.”
Comment.
2. Write short notes on any two of the following:
a. Force Field Analysis
b. T‐Groups
c. Matrix Organization
Section – B Case Study (50 Marks)
The Five Phases of Resistance to Change in Action
Phase 1
In the 1970s the environmental movement began to grow. The first Earth Day was held in 1970. Wide
spread interest in environmental concerns subsided during the 1980s. Some political officials neglected
environmental concerns, and environmentalists were often portrayed as extremists and radicals. The
forces for change were small, but pressure for change persisted through court actions, elected officials
and group actions.
Phase 2
Environmental supporters and opponents became more identifiable in the 1980s. Secretary of the
Interior James Watt was perhaps the most vocal and visible opponent of environmental concerns and
served as a “lightning rod” for pro‐environmental forces like the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society. As
time passed, educational efforts by environmental groups increasingly delivered their message. The
public now had information and scientific data that enabled it to understand the problem.
Phase 3
The Clean Air Act passed by Congress in 1990 represented the culmination of years of confrontation
between pro and anti‐environmental forces. The bill was passed several months after national and
worldwide Earth day events. Corporations criticized for contributing to environmental problems took
out large newspaper and television ads to explain how they were reducing pollution and cleaning up the
environment. The “greening” of corporations became very popular.
Phase 4
One example is the confrontation between Green peace (an environmental group) and Shell Oil. The
Green peace group had been campaigning for weeks to block the Royall Dutch/Shell group from
disposing of the towering Brent Spar oil‐storage rig by sinking it deep in the Atlantic Ocean. As a small
helicopter sought to land Green peace protesters on the rig’s deck, Shell blasted high‐powered water
cannons to fend off the aircraft. This was all captured on film and shown on TV around the world. Four
days after the incident, Shell executives made a humiliating about‐face; they agreed to comply with
Greenpeace requests and dispose of the Brent Spar on land. This incident, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill,
shows how high‐profit cases can ignite worldwide public interest.
Phase 5
Much of the world now sees environmentally responsible behaviour as a necessity. Near‐zero
automobile emissions are moving closer to a reality. Recycling has become a natural part of everyday
life for many people. But new ways to be environmentally responsible are still being sought.
Case Questions:
a) Do you agree that the environmental movement has moved into the fifth phase?
b) Where do you see the environmental movement going? Stronger of weaker legislative action?
c) Will the environmental movement be worldwide or regional? Will developed nations have
different responsibilities than developing nations?
d) Will there be corporate support?
DHR12
ORGANIZATION CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT
Assignment – II
Assignment Code: 2014DHR12A2 Last Date of Submission: 15th May 2014
Maximum Marks: 100
Section – A (Each question is of 25 marks)
1. Explain the six phases/steps in the process of ‘Grid Organization Development’.
2. Discuss the roles, skills, and strategies of “change agents” in managing organizational
changes.
Section – B Case Study (50 Marks)
OD In Practice: Diagnosis for Kodak – The Digital Revolution
Eastman Kodak Co. recently announced plans to cut its workforce by as much as 21 percent by
the end of 2006. This amount to 12,000 to 15,000 jobs, on top of a reduction in its world‐wide
workforce by 30,000 jobs back in the late 1990s.
Kodak is betting heavily that it can transform itself from a slow‐changing company into
operating on the cutting edge of the digital revolution. The Kodak vision is to turn itself into the
leader of the electronic age. That could be a major challenge. In the film business, Kodak had
virtually no competition for about a century until Fuji came along in the 1980s. In the electronic
industry, however, there are a host of international companies like Sony, HP, Canon, Panasonic,
Fuji, Nikon, and Minolta ready to slug it out for the digital‐imaging market.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Kodak polled a widening corps of its managers and called in outside consultants. McKinsey &
Co. even conducted “trap teams,” where managers were invited to test out scenarios that
might cause problems. Finally, in the late 1990s Kodak’s core photo businesses were reshuffled
into 17 entrepreneurial units. Such a measured approach to change reflects the very essence of
Kodak, a company that has raised careful deliberation – some would say procrastination – to a
high art. But the restructuring was of little benefit. In the last several decades, Kodak dragged
its feet while competitors ran away with new markets like instant photography, 35 mm
cameras, video cameras, video recorders, and copying machines. And for over a decade Kodak
has struggled to transition to digital – disheartening, considering era technology.
Kodak faces several dilemmas: It must hold down prices on film or risk losing even more market
share to Fuji and private‐label brands. A t the same time, investors want improved returns now.
Competition is especially fierce in the color‐print film business, Kodak’s mainstay. Now it seems
that the long‐term future of photography is in digital imaging not film. Kodak has stopped
selling reload able film cameras in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Growth is slowing in
Kodak’s film products and Kodak says that film sales will drop at a 10 to 12 percent annual rate
over the next three years. Worldwide film sales are expected to start declining for all wide film
sales are expected to start declining for all manufacturers. Kodak is in the dubious position of
fiercely competing for a shrinking market.
DIAGNOSIS AND CHANGE
The job of making Kodak more effective will require changing a 100‐year‐old culture that
guaranteed employment but fostered complacency and resistance to change. In the past ,
Kodak was known to favour caution over risk‐taking, which was feasible strategy when Kodak
controlled the market. Kodak’s culture has been described as sclerotic.
What’s so tough about the job of remaking Kodak? First, it is a chemical company that must
transform itself, at least in part, into an electronics company. The chemical business, silver
halide photography, is mature and slow growing. The electronics business involves translating
images into the digital language of computing so that they can be manipulated on computer
screens and transported electronically. Until the mid‐1990s, chemists traditionally managed
Kodak. The two businesses are like an elephant and a mouse.
NEW PRODUCTS AND MARKETS
Managing its many new ventures will be one of Kodak’s greatest challenges, something it has
muffed in the past. The company has been moving away from consumer electronics to focus its
attention on non‐consumer applications of electronics. The business and medical communities
already see the need for digital imaging. Kodak’s digital laser writers and high‐end scanners
have been successful with banks and other business and government customers that move
large volumes of paper and Kodak’s radiography is experiencing strong sales growth.
Virtually every current top manager has a proven track record in bringing new products to
market. Now many young managers are being given authority over new product development.
A former HP executive who has worked with Kodak says, “They know more about the science of
imaging, photographs and what people want to do with them than any company in the world.
They have great technical capabilities, but they’ve lacked focus and application.” The problem
isn’t that Kodak has the wrong vision, but that it has waited until the sky was falling to embrace
it.
But don’t count Kodak out. Its digital camera business is profitable; in a recent year it was
number two of all manufacturers with over 17 percent market share. Kodak is taking
advantage of long‐standing ties with doctors and hospitals eager to replace X‐rays with digital
images. The health‐imaging business makes more money than photography. Kodak intends to
develop and buy companies in the health and commercial imaging and printing markets.
Will Kodak’s diagnosis of the problem and its vision bring about the desired changes, and will
Kodak’s managers, after years in the old culture, be able to break out of the former ineffective
patterns?
Case Questions:
a) What data or information would be necessary to develop a change program at Kodak?
b) What kind of performance gaps can you identify at Kodak?
c) Why is it so important to use diagnosis before implementing a change program?
No comments:
Post a Comment