Article

Organizational Change Recipients' Beliefs ScaleDevelopment of an Assessment Instrument

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science (Impact Factor: 1.21). 12/2007; 43(4):481-505. DOI: 10.1177/0021886307303654

ABSTRACT Based on research conducted by organizational scientists dating to the 1940s, the authors identified five important precursors that determine the degree of buy-in by organizational change recipients. The authors assembled these independent precursors into a framework labeled organizational change recipients' beliefs and developed a psychometrically sound self-report questionnaire that can be used to gauge progress of organizational change efforts. The authors describe a series of four studies used to develop a 24-item assessment tool that can be administered at any stage of the change process. The information obtained can serve as (a) a barometer of the degree of buy-in among change recipients, (b) an assessment of deficiencies in specific beliefs that can adversely impact the success of an organizational change, and (c) a basis for planning and executing actions to enhance buy-in among organizational change recipients.

6 Followers
 · 
134 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although organizational change and person–environment fit are both well-studied topics, rarely is the interaction between the two researched. Using a longitudinal design and a major change for 800 nurses in a large hospital, this article provides empirical findings on the patterns of person–job (PJ) and person–organization (PO) fit across stages of change implementation, the influences of change readiness and general change self-efficacy (GCSE) on fit, and the influences of fit on change readiness. Results show that both fit facets decline early in change, with PO fit returning to pre-change levels, whereas PJ fit does not. Change readiness is found to relate with PO fitm, whereas GCSE relates more with PJ fit. Implications for practice and future research are provided.
    Journal of Change Management 12/2011; 11(4):401-419. DOI:10.1080/14697017.2011.590453
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The concept of lean manufacturing was developed for maximizing the resource utilization through minimization of waste, later on lean was formulated in response to the fluctuating and competitive business environment. Due to rapidly changing business environment the organizations are forced to face challenges and complexities. Any organization whether manufacturing or service oriented to survive may ultimately depend on its ability to systematically and continuously respond to these changes for enhancing the product value. Therefore value adding process is necessary to achieve this perfection; hence implementing a lean manufacturing system is becoming a core competency for any type of organizations to sustain. The majority of the study focuses on single aspect of lean element, only very few focuses on more than one aspect of lean elements, but for the successful implementation of lean the organisation had to focuses on all the aspects such as Value Stream Mapping (VSM),Cellular Manufacturing (CM), U-line system, Line Balancing, Inventory control, Single Minute Exchange of Dies (SMED), Pull System, Kanban, Production Levelling etc., In this paper, an attempt has been made to develop a lean route map for the organization to implement the lean manufacturing system. Analyses of the exploratory survey results are summarized in this paper to illustrate the implementation sequence of lean elements in volatile business environment and the finding of this review was synthesized to develop a unified theory for implementation of lean elements.
    Procedia Engineering 12/2014; 97. DOI:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.12.341
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Design Thinking is an approach to creating human-centered product or service innovations, based on a model of problem solving. Regularly, design thinking projects yield exciting visions for a better future. However, up to the present they often fail to impact the world at a larger-scale. In design thinking terminology, one can say the community is very good at “hunting big ideas” but less good at “bringing big ideas home”. In this paper, we build upon the Stages of Change model from healthcare to understand present-day strengths and weaknesses of design thinking methodology. The Stages of Change model systematizes tools, methods and techniques which promote big change. By way of example, in the field of healthcare such methods can be used to reduce disease rates in society. Against the background of the Stages of Change framework it becomes obvious that design thinkers use many methods and techniques which support early change processes. They help to create visions for change. However, design thinkers rarely use methods or techniques in support of later change processes, i.e. to initiate and maintain big changes in the world. Building on the Stages of Change model, a framework is suggested that systematizes design thinking tools, methods and techniques according to their (presumed) effects. This framework sheds light on strategic gaps in the present design thinking methodology. In order to realize more big design thinking ideas, we suggest design thinkers adopt tools, methods and techniques which have been found effective in the Stages of Change research as means to implement and consolidate big changes in the world.