Page 492 - leadership-experience-2008

CikguOnline
CikguOnline
CHAPTER 15: LEADING CHANGE 473
newsletters, memos, or electronic communication. For example, the CEO of
one information technology company embarking on a major restructuring
held a meeting with all employees to explain the changes, answer questions,
and reassure people that the changes were not going to result in job losses. 55
Employees frequently also need training to acquire skills for their role
in the change process or their new responsibilities. Good change leaders
make sure people get the training they need to feel comfortable with new
tasks, such as when Canadian Airlines International spent a year and
a half training employees in new procedures before changing its entire
reservations, airport, cargo, and financial systems. 56
• Participation and involvement. Participation involves followers in helping
to design the change. Although this approach is time-consuming, it pays
off by giving people a sense of control over the change activity. They come
to understand the change better and become committed to its successful
implementation. A study of the implementation and adoption of new
computer technology at two companies, for example, showed a much
smoother implementation process at the company that introduced the
change using a participatory approach. 57
• Coercion. As a last resort, leaders overcome resistance by threatening
employees with the loss of jobs or promotions or by firing or transferring
them. Coercion may be necessary in crisis situations when a rapid response
is needed. For example, a number of top managers at Coca-Cola had to
be reassigned or let go after they refused to go along with a new CEO’s
changes for revitalizing the sluggish corporation. Coercion may also be
58
needed for administrative changes that flow from the top down, such as
downsizing the workforce. However, as a general rule, this approach to
change is not advisable because it leaves people angry at leaders, and the
change may be sabotaged. Leaders at Raytheon Missile Systems faced an
urgent need for change, but they wisely realized that participation and
involvement, communication, and training would lead to far better results
than trying to force the changes on employees.

IN THE LEAD Raytheon Missile Systems
In the early 2000s, leaders at Raytheon Missile Systems (RMS) were reeling from
the challenges brought about by the merger of four different companies into one.
Employees were from different geographical areas; used different processes, meth-
ods, and tools; held different corporate cultural values and norms; and even used
different words for the same products or technologies.
Top leaders put together a core change team to write a clear vision for change
that would align the entire organization into one smoothly functioning manufacturing
operation. The team also created a powerful tool that provided bite-sized action steps
the factories could take to achieve manufacturing improvement goals. However, lead-
ers realized that imposing these changes from above might provoke strong resistance.
Instead, they set up three off-site workshops that involved people from all parts of the
organization and assigned subgroups to tackle the issue of describing steps needed
to achieve manufacturing excellence. With facilitation from core team members, the
employee groups developed descriptions that were parallel to those originally devel-
oped by the change team but which were also richer and more detailed.
Next, leaders actively involved factory managers in the changes by assigning
them to assess one another’s operations. Careful thought went into the assign-
ments so that managers who were particularly good in one area were assigned to