Rajan & Ganesan (2017). Asian Journal of Research in Business Economics and Management,
Vol. 7, No. 7, pp. 181-203.
It has further reinforced the thought process of designing specific tool and check list for objective
evaluation of communication effectiveness.
The Mento‟s model in 2002 is the only one which includes a step for monitoring and measuring
change as it is implemented. Successful implementation of change involves discipline. Collins in
his book, Good to Great, indicates that the most successful organizations should have disciplined
people, disciplined thought and disciplined actions (Collins, 2001). People should be held
accountable for their actions and this cannot occur unless measurements are in place. Newcomb in
2005 suggested that leaders have to be accountable to the organization for the results of their plans
and the outcomes of the organization. However, this study finds that defining what to measure and
how to measure is not discussed in detail, leaving plethora of opportunities to undertake specific
research on this subject.
Employees in the organization can have a significant impact on how the organization is perceived
and can help build and maintain the organization‟s image (Helm, Liehr-Gobbers & Storck, 2011).
For Burgess and Connell in 2006, the pace of change is evident in the culture and environment of
the organization. The findings of this study elucidates employee recognition and reward schemes
must be integrated with Kotter‟s frame work as that can only ensure employees are retained. In
organization theory, a broad group of scholars (e.g. Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Ford, Ford, &
D‟Amelio, 2008; King & Anderson, 1995; Knowles & Linn, 2004; Symon, 2005; Bringselius,
2008) have suggested that the classic concept of resistance should be reassessed. Historically,
resistance has been understood as a reaction based on emotions and dysfunctional to the
organization. Craine (2007), for example, explains how resistance will hamper any organizational
change and he talks about how change always will start with reactions such as denial, shock,
frustration, and anger. Ford, D‟Amelio (2008) and Ford (2009) suggest that resistance should
instead be understood as an important source of employee feedback. They explain that in this way,
resistance “can be an important resource in improving the quality and clarity of the objectives and
strategies at the heart of a change proposal. And, properly used, it can enhance the prospects for
successful implementation.” (Ford & Ford, 2009:103).
Kotter model deals this effortlessly saying that resistance is due to fear of losing job. Every
individual would like to be a part of winning team and once a quick win is established in a change
initiative, all those who were initially resisting for the change would align with the team leading the
change. Regardless of which forces cause organizations to see the need for change, organizational
leaders continue to struggle to maintain or increase their companies‟ competitive advantage as rapid
changes occur both in the external and internal environments. Conclusions drawn by these
researchers are that the driving forces for organizational change are the result of the need to
constantly improve productivity and efficiency (Arnetz, 2005).The CEOs team opined that this
framework provides fundamental conceptual inputs on implementing a change successfully and
disseminating in to the culture of an organization.
However, the execution methods with suitable examples on the templates and tools required at
every stage are not illustrated. Hence this framework is considered to be a theoretical phenomenon
and not explicitly understood for further implementation of a change. The CEOs team also narrated
the need for this frame work to address components in identifying and implementing clear measure
for estimating the effectiveness of change implemented. It was also recommended by this group