Project Management Question 5P Model (A-plus Writer)

CLASS…Concurrent with our discussion of lessons from the stories of change in Chapter 1, I want to introduce you to the change literature this week by asking you to review the attached case study involving the merger of two hotels at Disney World. One of the weaknesses in our textbook is that it does not focus enough, in my opinion, on the practical application of change concepts. My approach in teaching this course will be to put a strong emphasis on application so that when you complete the course, you will feel better prepared to take on any change project and be successful. 
Please review the attached. 
Share your thoughts and comments in this thread. 

 

This should be written in your own words 2 paragraphs (8 sentences per paragraph) APA style should be observed when using citiations

TEACHING NOTE1

Introduction to Change and Change Concepts Covered in HR587

Overview:

I want to begin our first week by setting the stage for what we will cover in this course. The Terminal Course
Objectives provide a good indication of the course outcomes. But more specifically, I want to set the stage for
our topical coverage by providing you with a concrete, real-world example of change in action.

Any effective change process must account for all aspects related to that change. The article (case study) I
request you all to review presents a “5-P” framework for implementing change [ We’ll review several more
models later in the course] and illustrates the application of the framework with a case situation in which the
operations at the Swan and Dolphin Hotels at Walt Disney World were consolidated. The five “P”s are as
follows: purpose, priorities, people, process, and proof. Briefly put, change should have a stated purpose;
specific targets of change should be identified and prioritized; people potentially affected by the change should
be identified and brought into the change process; the process should use appropriate levels of direction,
participation, and consultation; and the proof should demonstrate visibly and believably what the

change

accomplished. There is one major shortcoming in the 5-P framework I’ll comment on below.

Classroom Application:
The article helps set the stage for the change topics we’ll cover in the course.

Source: Ford, R., Heisler, W., & McCreary, W. (2008, May). Leading Change with the 5-P Model. Cornell
Hospitality Quarterly [Copy resides in document sharing]

Discussion:

One of the weaknesses in our textbook is that it does not focus enough, in my opinion, on the practical
application of change concepts. My approach in teaching this course will be to put a strong emphasis on
application so that when you complete the course, you will feel better prepared and confident in taking on any
change project and be successful at it.

What I like about this short case study is that it provides us with a concrete example of many of the change
concepts we will cover over the coming weeks. In fact, it really is a road map that highlights ALL the key
concepts we will and must cover.

The difference is that I shall endeavor to explore these topics in sufficient

1 This teaching note was prepared by Dr. Ron Stone, Senior Faculty, Keller Graduate School of Management, as the
basis for class discussion.

depth so that you more fully understand and can apply your understanding to future change initiatives you may
be involved in as a participant or change agent.

Note that the approach used in this example includes both a project management (we’ll say more about project
management as the course progresses) and change management framework.

Key change topics that surface in the article/case include:

� Change models—5Ps + 7S
� Leading vs Managing

Change
� Organizational culture
� Vision
� Implementing change
� Role of short-term wins
� Timing + Sequencing of

change

� Types of change—
transformational or
incremental

� Importance of short-term
wins

� Project Management +
PERT, CPM and importance
have a process

� The Change Curve

� Resistance
� Communicating change

strategy
� Change + turnover
� Change agents—internal vs

external
� Leadership styles
� Readiness for change
� Capacity for change

As the class weeks unfold, I will refer back to the 5P article to spotlight the change topic that was part of the
case study as we discuss and explore the concepts as they relate to building your change management
competencies.

For now…Your charge is to-�Share with the class the single most important idea or concept you got out of the
reading. Then help the class understand WHY this is important in leading and managing change.

Note:

A major weakness with the 5P framework is the absence of organizational culture. I will come back to this
important issue at the end of course (as well as a bit throughout), but for now, I want you all to appreciate and
recognize that CULTURE is an integral part of any change initiative. Change leaders need to shape and
develop organizational cultures so they are in alignment with, and supportive of, the desired changes. I depict
this relationship in the following graphic.

191

Leading Change with
the 5-P Model

“Complexing” the Swan and Dolphin
Hotels at Walt Disney World

by ROBERT FORD, WILLIAM HEISLER, and WILLIAM MCCREARY

© 2008 CORNELL UNIVERSITY
DOI: 10.1177/0010880407306361

Volume 49, Issue 2 191-205

An effective change process must account for all
aspects related to that change. This article presents a
“5-P” framework for implementing change and illus-
trates the application of the framework with a case
situation in which the operations at the Swan and
Dolphin Hotels at Walt Disney World were consoli-
dated. The five “P”s are as follows: purpose, priori-
ties, people, process, and proof. Briefly put, change
should have a stated purpose; specific targets of
change should be identified and prioritized; people
potentially affected by the change should be identi-
fied and brought into the change process; the
process should use appropriate levels of direction,
participation, and consultation; and the proof should
demonstrate visibly and believably what the change
accomplished. While the Swan-Dolphin complexing
was not without bumps along the way, the approach
resulted in a successful change implementation that
saved $4 million in annual expenses.

Keywords: change management; leading change;
hotel management

N
ewspapers and trade magazines are full of
accounts of organizations implementing new
and innovative strategies to meet changing

business conditions. Whether implementing a major
change such as installing an enterprise resource planning
(ERP) system within a global organization, or a rela-
tively minor one such as implementing a new procedure
within a single department, leadership of the change
process is an increasingly valued managerial skill
(Kouzes and Posner 1995). While some propose that
the management of change is a specialized competency
of people in organizational development or human
resources (Ulrich 1997), it is becoming increasingly
clear that change management is more than merely

http://cqx.sagepub.com

MAY 2008

CASE LEADING CHANGE WITH THE 5-P MODEL

managing the process of change; it involves
leading people who must themselves change
to make the process successful. As John
Kotter (1996, 30) suggested in his classic
work, Leading Change, “Managing change
is important. Without competent manage-
ment, the transformation process can get out
of control. But for most organizations, the
much bigger challenge is leading change.”
While there is a wealth of articles and books
that can help the manager trying to bring
about organizational change, these writings
tend to focus either on specific, but limited,
aspects of the change process or provide
advice that is long on prescriptive generali-
ties and short on specific examples that
illustrate the application of these change
principles (see, e.g., Beitler 2003; Burke
2002; Dawson 2003; Fernandez and Rainey
2006; Kanter, Stein, and Jick 1992; Nadler
1997; Quinn 2004).

In contrast, this article proposes a straight-
forward, comprehensive framework for lead-
ing change that both integrates and expands
on material typically found in the change lit-
erature. Moreover, the article relates this
framework to other change frameworks that
have been proposed by various authors.
Using a change situation in which two hotels
under separate management were merged
or “complexed” to form a single operating
entity under new ownership, we illustrate
how our model can be used to implement
effective change. In particular, we explain the
importance of attending to each aspect of the
change process, as well as demonstrating that
the change has achieved its purpose. We call
our framework the “5-P model”: purpose,
priorities, people, process, and proof.

The change began in February 1998 when
the Starwood Corporation bought the Westin
Hotels and Resorts Company, which man-
aged the 758-room Swan Hotel and, shortly
thereafter, the Sheraton Hotel Corporation,
which managed the 1,509-room Dolphin.
Since the hotels are adjacent to each other

and had been jointly marketed since 1996 by
a marketing group organized by one of their
joint owners, Tishman Hotel and Realty
Corporation, the logical next step was to seek
a way to merge the two hotels’ management
and operations. A complication associated
with this merger was that each hotel had its
own specific history and way of doing things,
as well as a distinct corporate culture.

The larger Dolphin’s Sheraton culture and
the smaller Swan’s Westin culture were
already overshadowed by the omnipresent
and dominant Disney culture. Nevertheless
most observers, and certainly those who
worked there, thought the relationship
between the two hotels involved tension,
since the smaller Westin deemed itself supe-
rior in status to the larger Sheraton. Merging
these cultures, along with the attendant
structural and staff changes, was going to
challenge the general manager’s change-
management skills.

The 5-P Model of Leading
Change

To provide managers with a simple but
logical and comprehensive approach to facil-
itating change, we have developed a change
approach that we term the 5-P model. As we
stated previously, the five “P”s represent the
five key aspects of leading a successful
change: purpose, priorities, people, process,
and proof. To bring about successful change,
change leaders must consider and effectively
address each of these five components.
While there are a number of books and
articles that discuss how to define the need
for change, deal with the people involved,
or detail the steps in the change process, few
sources put together all of these compo-
nents in a way that guides the entire change
process. More important, we find even
fewer writings that address our fifth “P,” the
proof that the change worked. We believe
that a complete change mechanism must
include proof that the change approach

actually brought about the results intended.
Without that proof, employees will be
demoralized after suffering through the
change process but having nothing to show
for their ordeal. To paraphrase Alice in
Wonderland, it does not matter how hard you
run if you do not know where you are going
or what it looks like when you get there.1 As
we explain next, the 5-P model ensures that
the change effort is properly directed, that
the right people are involved, and that the
process achieves results consistent with the
intended purpose of the change effort.

“P”—Purpose
The first “P” in the model is purpose.

Most scholars and writers agree that change
is something that should be done only with
a purpose (Kanter, Stein, and Jick 1992;
Love, Gunasekaran, and Li 1998; Kreigel
and Patler 1991). Effective change man-
agers identify a purpose, which is a goal,
vision, or compelling problem that needs to
be addressed in the course of a change
effort. These managers know that because
change is disruptive, it should not be
attempted without an intended outcome in
mind (Denning 2005). Managers not only
need to know what the final result should
look like after the change has been imple-
mented, but they need a compelling vision
of what the organization will look like when
the change is completed to guide them and
all those that are involved in the change
process along the way. The vision should
not only provide hope that the future will be
worth the pain of change, but it should be

inspiring and motivating to those that are
engaged in the change process as well.

Purpose can also be thought of as a gap
between the current state of affairs and what
is desired. Thus, purpose starts with having
a vision of “what ought to be.” Purpose
flows directly from vision, and the vision
can be used to communicate the purpose to
all those that will have a role to play in the
eventual change. To use Kotter’s (1996, 7)
terms, “Vision plays a key role in producing
useful change by helping to align and
inspire actions on the part of large numbers
of people.” He and many others have
asserted that nothing is more important in
successful change than a sensible, com-
pelling vision.

Without purpose, there can be no deci-
sion about what to change or the level of
change needed since the gap is unknown.
Without purpose, there can be no easily
communicated rationale for change. If you
cannot explain how a prospective change
will make something better (close the gap
between what you now have and what is
desired), it should not be attempted.

The purpose of the change that merged
the Dolphin with the Swan stemmed from
Starwood Corporation’s purchase of the
Westin and Sheraton companies. Having
two hotels operated side by side in two sep-
arate structures with different operating pro-
cedures, polices, and systems seemed
inefficient once the hotels were both owned
by the same company. The merger created a
“burning platform” situation in which
employees expected that something would

MAY 2008 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 193

LEADING CHANGE WITH THE 5-P MODEL CASE

1. “The Cat only grinned when it saw Alice. It looked good-natured, she thought: still it had very long claws
and a great many teeth, so she felt that it ought to be treated with respect.

“ ‘Cheshire Puss,’ she began, rather timidly, . . . ‘Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from
here?’

“ ‘That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,’ said the Cat.
“ ‘I don’t much care where—’ said Alice.
“ ‘Then it doesn’t matter which way you go,’ said the Cat.
“ ‘—so long as I get somewhere,’ Alice added as an explanation.
“ ‘Oh, you’re sure to do that,’ said the Cat, ‘if you only walk long enough.’ ” (Lewis Carroll, Alice’s Adventures

in Wonderland, chap. 6)

http://cqx.sagepub.com

happen. Management seized the moment
and created a vision to inspire hope and
show all concerned what the new combined
hotel would look like. The vision would also
create a sense of urgency that the complex-
ing was vital to everyone’s future.

A vision that is compelling means that
the change leader has to be sensitive to what
his or her stakeholders would see as com-
pelling. For a hotel, there are three primary
stakeholders. First is the ownership or man-
agement of the hotel, second are the employ-
ees, and third are the customers. For the
ownership and management of the hotel,
the complexing of the two hotels into a sin-
gle operational structure was seen as pro-
ducing enormous economies. The savings
were conservatively estimated at $1.8 mil-
lion, but the final result proved to be closer
to $4 million.

With regard to the hotel employees,
telling them that the merger is a great under-
taking because it will “make a lot of money
for Starwood” would not be a compelling
purpose, especially the housekeepers or the
front-desk supervisors. Instead, the com-
pelling vision that was presented to the staff
of the newly combined hotel was that this
complexing would allow the new hotel team
to produce a hotel experience for the cus-
tomers or guests that was so extraordinary
that the complexed hotel would become a
“trophy asset.” This vision was compelling
for several reasons. First, the central idea of
guest satisfaction is the key driver for hote-
liers. Second, the vision meant setting high
levels of customer-service standards to guide
the actions of the employees and change
leaders as they assessed and weighed the
various aspects of the change. Finally, a tro-
phy experience inspires people and suggests
milestones to keep track of how well the
change is working. As we discuss below,
identifying small victories is critical to keep-
ing the change process working, and having
a customer service metric to allow celebra-
tions of the progress that all were making in

achieving trophy hotel status was vital feed-
back that made sense for the entire staff.
Since the Swan and the Dolphin were pre-
dominantly convention hotels, there was the
potential to attain many public industry
awards and recognitions that would serve to
reinforce the higher service standards (and,
indeed, the hotel received such awards).

Setting a vision of becoming a trophy
hotel did not require a benchmark, nor was
identifying a benchmark viewed as help-
ful, for two reasons. First, management
did not want to be tied down to comparing
itself with any competitor in a way that the
competitor could use for marketing advan-
tage. Second, key staff members already
knew what it meant to be a trophy hotel, as
the more senior staff had a wide variety of
backgrounds in the hotel industry. Also,
guests who had never seen a trophy hotel
would not have seen anything inspiring
about a named competitor. Thus, the idea
of a trophy asset or trophy hotel became
an idealized perception of what the best
customer service experiences would be,
and customers’ service satisfaction scores
gave a running measure of how well the
organization was doing in reaching this
trophy hotel status. In essence, the hotel
benchmarked against itself.

Change can be either transformational or
incremental (Armenakis 1999; Weick and
Quinn 1999). The rationale for transforma-
tional change is that the situation that
currently exists is so unsatisfactory that rad-
ical alteration is required. We believe that
the automotive and airline industries, for
instance, are facing such a situation. In the
case of incremental change, the current situ-
ation is relatively good, but management
recognizes that success is never final and
gradual change or continuous improvement
is necessary to maintain or improve compet-
itive advantage. Organizations implementing
incremental change are typically involved in
an ongoing program such as total quality
management (TQM), quality circles, or zero

194 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly MAY 2008

CASE LEADING CHANGE WITH THE 5-P MODEL

http://cqx.sagepub.com

defects (Crosby 1980; Love, Gunasekaran,
and Li 1998). It is important to recognize the
type of change desired because the purpose
and process of change will be different in
each of these change situations.

The Swan-Dolphin complexing involved
both transformational and incremental
change. Recognizing that he should set a
finite period to merge two distinct organiza-
tions, as well as their strategies, cultures,
and operating systems, the general manager
(GM) publicly stated that the transformation
period was eighteen months. But the GM
also recognized that this eighteen-month
time frame would only be the beginning of
a long-term change that would unfold grad-
ually. With that recognition, he designed the
change strategy in two stages. He recog-
nized that, as is true for many major change
situations, the full extent of the change can-
not be presented until people are ready. In
many cases, such as a merger of this magni-
tude, an understanding of the full extent
of the change is limited to the top manager
or the senior management team. Seldom
does this discussion trickle down to the
lower levels in the initial stages of the
change effort. However, the GM also real-
ized that the merger would require continu-
ing, incremental change to bring about the
full effects desired.

Anyone observing the close proximity
of the Dolphin Hotel and the Swan Hotel
might well speculate that significant
economies and improved customer service
could be realized by merging the two
hotels into a single complex. Indeed, cus-
tomer dissatisfaction with the two hotels’
overlapping in convention sales had led
previously to the merger of the hotels’
sales teams. This consolidation eliminated
a significant customer service problem, as
customers saw the two hotels as a single
entity and did not care about the two dis-
tinct organizations that managed them
separately. Making sales seamless to the

customer made so much sense to the
owners of the two hotels that the seed
was planted to combine other overlapping
parts of these two operations.

In presenting the compelling vision of
creating a single complex, the GM focused
on customers’ satisfaction levels associ-
ated with a trophy hotel, while defining an
eighteen-month plan to achieve the most
significant features of the complexing. At
the hotel level, four employee-wide rallies
were held with different themes, such as
“The Wizard of Oz,” to focus on the positive
“Emerald City outcome” of the hotels’
“journey.” These rallies were designed to
create positive energy for the complexing.
They included food, T-shirts proclaiming
“We’re Complexing,” and an upbeat mes-
sage from the GM. The rallies were
repeated for each shift. Department and unit
heads were expected to duplicate the rallies
within their areas to reinforce the message
that the two hotels were to become one and,
more important, to pick up and report back
to the leadership team any problems that the
merger might be creating at the unit level.

The GM thought the full package of long-
term changes was too disruptive to explain at
the beginning of the process. Instead, he sub-
divided the long-run changes into those that
could be implemented during the eighteen-
month plan and those that would be under-
taken later. His logic of framing the initial
change as radical, but one that was time
limited, allowed him to subdivide this
change into specific events that could be cel-
ebrated as short-run victories. He felt that this
approach made it possible for the people
involved to deal with the disruptive nature of
the change because this plan defined an end
point when “the pain would stop.” As demon-
strated by this approach, every change leader
must assess how much change people can
take without becoming discouraged. High
goals are inspiring, but goals that are per-
ceived as impossible to attain are defeating.

MAY 2008 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 195

LEADING CHANGE WITH THE 5-P MODEL CASE

http://cqx.sagepub.com

The successful change leader needs to find
the correct balance between enough and too
much.

“P”—Priorities
The second “P” involves setting priori-

ties for change. This stage involves identi-
fying the targets of change and
establishing a sequence or schedule for
addressing each target. With regard to
selecting the targets of change, we draw
upon the earlier work of Pascale and Athos
(1981), who first proposed what has
become a popular framework incorporat-
ing seven interdependent organizational
components, each beginning with the
letter “S.” Subsequently, this framework
has become known as the McKinsey 7-S
model, following its adoption by the global
management consultancy firm McKinsey &
Company (Rasiel and Friga 2002). The
seven components of the 7-S model are
shown in Exhibit 1.

Briefly, the components are defined
as follows. Strategy is the plan of action
that an organization adopts to achieve its
primary mission or objectives. Structure is
the way in which an organization’s units
are arranged to accomplish its purpose.
Systems refer to the procedures, processes,
and measures that characterize how work
is carried out. Staff refers to the numbers
and types of people employed by the orga-
nization. Style refers to the way in which
management deals with employees in
achieving the organization’s goals. Skills
refer to the distinctive capabilities of per-
sonnel or of the organization as a whole.
Shared values (also referred to as superor-
dinate goals) refers to what the organiza-
tion stands for and what it believes in.

The Swan-Dolphin complexing targeted
all seven of the 7-S components. The pur-
pose of the change was the merger of the two
hotels into a single operating entity. Thus, a
primary target was the structure of the orga-
nizations. Since consolidation would result

in fewer management and staff members
than required by the separate hotels, a sec-
ondary target was the staff or people of the
organization (i.e., determining whom to
retain and whom to terminate). Staffing deci-
sions were based on several factors including
the skills, style, and shared values desired in
the resultant organization. Finally, the deci-
sion to position the Swan-Dolphin as a “tro-
phy hotel” dictated the strategy and systems
that would be put in place to ensure that the
policies, procedures, and processes of the new
organization supported the values embedded
in the change effort.

To ensure that change actions are carried
out in an appropriate sequence and time
frame, top management may consider use of
a program planning and control technique—
known by the acronym PERT (Program
Evaluation and Review Technique)—
developed for the nuclear submarine program
in the 1950s. The chart associated with this
approach serves both as a planning device
and a feedback mechanism to provide proof
that the desired change had occurred. The
chart also serves as the foundation for each
individual department to develop its own
planning chart.

196 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly MAY 2008

CASE LEADING CHANGE WITH THE 5-P MODEL

Exhibit 1:
Change Targets

Similar to the critical path method
(CPM), developed about the same time by
the Dupont Company for planning large-
scale projects, the essential elements of
PERT are the establishment of a time esti-
mate for each project activity and the delin-
eation of what activities have to precede other
activities, what things can be done simultane-
ously, and what events have to follow other
events (Lewis 1999; AMA Handbook 2006;
Kerzner 2005; Project-Management Institute
1998; Strebal 1996; Wiest and Levy 1990).
The result of this process is the creation of
a chart that shows all the events that have
to happen, the sequ- ences of those events,
and the time lines by which events have to
be completed. The “critical path” is the
path along the chart that denotes the event

sequences that must be accomplished on time
if the project is to meet its targeted comple-
tion date. Exhibit 2 shows a simplified ver-
sion of the role that PERT played in planning
the Swan-Dolphin complexing.

From the day of the merger announce-
ment, the PERT chart established that top
management would identify, within fourteen
days, employees who were to be retained
and those who would be terminated as a
result of the complexing. Since it was appar-
ent to all that some job losses would occur,
it seemed critical to ensure that all employ-
ees knew what was going to happen to them
as soon as possible. Therefore, a short time
line was established for this activity.
By highlighting this decision on the PERT
chart, employees could see a defined “end”

MAY 2008 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 197

LEADING CHANGE WITH THE 5-P MODEL CASE

Review
Current

Structure

(1 day)

Conduct “Best
Practice”
Review of

Current
Capabilities

(2 days)

Review Current
Culture / Shared

Values
(2 days)

Merger
“Go

Button”

Review
Current

Management
Capabilities

(2 days)

Identify
Change

Targets and
Establish

Timetable/
Build PERT

Chart

(1 week)

Finish

Identify Staff
to Retain/
Terminate
(2 days)

Develop
Outplacement

Strategy
(2 days)

Select Units to
Consolidate /
Reorganize

(3 days)

Execute
Reorganization

(2 weeks
)

Notify Staff to be
Retained
(1 day)

Develop Staff
Separation
Protocols
(1 week)

Conduct
Separation
Interviews
(2 days)

Develop Detailed
Division/Dept.
PERT charts to
Implement New

Systems, etc.

(2 weeks)

Publicly
Announce End

to Personnel
Separations

(1 day)

Conduct “Best
Practice” Review

Of Current
Capabilities

(1 week)

Identify and
Develop New

Systems, Policies
and Procedures
for New Org.

(1 month)

Conduct Training
in New Systems,

Policies, and
Procedures
(2 months)

Plan
Approval
(3 days)

Conduct Cultural
Training Events

to Reinforce
New Values
(18 months)

Identify New
Theme / Shared

Values
(3 days)

Develop Events,
Measures,

Symbols for New
Shared Values

(2 weeks)

Exhibit 2:
PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) Chart for Swan-Dolphin Change Process

http://cqx.sagepub.com

to this and other crucial aspects of the change
process.

The PERT chart listed and noted time
lines for the variety of tasks that had to be
completed to complete the transforma-
tional aspect of the change. A duration
of eighteen months was believed to be
long enough to effect the transformational
aspects of the change, yet short enough
that the people involved could see an end
to the process. Also, behavioral science lit-
erature suggests that this time frame
allows for performance to return to “nor-
mal” following the disruptions that typi-
cally accompany a major change effort.
The major tasks identified for implemen-
tation are indicated in Exhibit 3. Finally,
time lines were established for accom-
plishing major change tasks, and measure-
ments were established to identify when
milestones were hit and what successful
execution of the change would look like.

“P”—People
The third “P” represents “people.” Change

inevitably involves people. Once the purpose

and priorities for change have been estab-
lished, the people who will both imple-
ment the change and be affected by the
change need to be identified. This stage—
identifying the people who will be involved
in the change effort—serves as a transition
between purpose and process. Unless we
understand the needs, motives, personalities,
skills, and abilities of those involved in the
change effort, we will not be able to identify
the best process for implementing change to
achieve our purpose.

One useful approach for this phase is to
think of the impact of change in terms of a
series of concentric circles. Within the first
circle are those individuals who will be
directly involved in the change, including
the decision-making group. Change leaders
need to ensure that this group is fully aware
of the purpose for the change and the gap
that the organization needs to close.

The next circle includes those whose
input may be valuable in ensuring a success-
ful change effort. These individuals should
be consulted and asked for their opinions,
concerns, and questions concerning the

198 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly MAY 2008

CASE LEADING CHANGE WITH THE 5-P MODEL

Exhibit 3:
Major Change Tasks

Change Target Major Tasks

Structure Identify redundant positions, reorganization of
departments, reviews of organizational reporting
relationships

Strategy Determine how to become and operate as a “trophy
hotel”

Systems Assess and select organizational philosophies,
systems, and procedures that would be retained
(e.g., Dolphin, Westin, or something new)

Skills Identify skills needed by new position holders
Staff Match existing personnel with new position

requirements, identify staff to retain or terminate
based on performance

Shared values Define new cultural values, norms, customs, and
language

Style Identify management to retain or terminate based
on definition of shared values and performance

http://cqx.sagepub.com

change effort. At the outer levels are those
individuals who need to be informed of the
change and its purpose, so that they can pre-
pare for its effective implementation.

Some employees will be immediately
supportive of the change effort, while
others will resist. Although people resist
change for many reasons, resistance will
usually fall within one of the following
three categories: (1) people who perceive
that the change will diminish their ability
to accomplish what they perceive as their
job, (2) those who feel that they do not
have the skills needed to accomplish
the change, and (3) employees who feel
threatened personally by the change (e.g.,
loss of job, friendships, earning opportuni-
ties, career growth, power, status, prestige,
comfort with existing methods, habits, or
control; Strebal 1996).

Regardless of the level of involvement,
the crucial message that people at each level
must hear is the purpose of the change.
While it is widely held that people resist
change, the reality is that people resist
change that they believe will damage them
in some way, particularly if the change
means more difficulty in getting the job
done, significantly longer hours of work,
less prestige, or elimination of a friendship
group. Resistance from those sources can
be reduced when the overriding purpose of
the change is perceived to be beneficial in
some important way. The challenge for the
change leaders is to frame the change in
a way that conveys its importance to the
employee (i.e., creates an awareness of
the need for change) and relates to the
employee’s motivation for being a part of
the organization. However, since any change
effort inevitably will adversely affect some
people, it is important that the change
leader identify these situations and address
the issues involved directly and forthrightly.

Because of the special importance of
people to a service-oriented business like a

hotel, the GM spent considerable time
assessing how each employee would fare
in the change. In particular, it was impor-
tant to identify those who would be a part
of the new organization and those who
would not. The change leaders also knew
that the employees selected to remain
would watch closely what happened to
employees identified for termination to
see how this new organization would treat
its people.

The GM and his leadership team took a
stepwise approach in selecting who would
stay. First, they identified the people who
seemed to be candidates for the expanded
jobs that the merger would create. While
many of the jobs would not change at the
first level of supervision and below, many
would change at the second level and above
as redundancies from two hotels were
eliminated by the merger. Specifically, it is
a far different thing to be a division head
overseeing a team of twenty housekeeping
supervisors than it is to manage a team
of forty spread across two buildings that
are geographically separated. Because the
Swan-Dolphin is primarily a large conven-
tion hotel, its division heads must not
be intimidated by the scope of operations.
Thus, the ability to manage large spans of
control was a major factor in determining
the first cut.

The second cut was determined by per-
sonality or style. While size worked in
favor of the Dolphin managers for the first
cut, size worked against them in the second
cut. The feeling was that those managers
who had been working with large spans
of control would generally have less expe-
rience in managing with the level of empa-
thy that the changed organization would
require. Those who were considered to
be more people oriented and shared the
desired corporate values for the new orga-
nization were selected over those who were
less so.

MAY 2008 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 199

LEADING CHANGE WITH THE 5-P MODEL CASE

http://cqx.sagepub.com

Third, operational skills were consid-
ered. Taking as an example the two execu-
tive chefs, only one could remain after the
complexing. The team selected the chef
who seemed both more creative with the
menu and, because he had been a corpo-
rate chef, more able to supervise multiunit
operations. Finally, and perhaps implicit in
the other three criteria, the leadership team
assessed each individual’s potential for
future growth and development.

While the primary criterion for selec-
tion was assessed capability in managing
large units, these other factors entered into
the equation when that ability was judged
to be equal among candidates. This led to
an imbalance in the selection process such
that the Dolphin managers’ experience
with its larger size tended to give them the
edge. This made it even more imperative
to create a new organizational culture that
did not leave the Swan people with the
feeling that they had been relegated to
second-class citizenship.

The attempt to create a culture that
respected the heritages of both hotels was
not perfect. For example, the hotels had a
tradition of carving decorative pumpkins at
Halloween. The Swan engineers decided to
show their displeasure with the perception
of imbalance in the selection process by dis-
playing as their entry a dolphin swallowing
a swan. While this act demonstrated that the
Swan engineers were obviously upset and
wanted to make a statement, the expression
of their unhappiness in this public way pro-
vided the management team with the oppor-
tunity to schedule a meeting and address the
engineers’ concerns.

The next order of business was to make
sure that the people who would be part of
the final team were informed of their sta-
tus. This information was critically impor-
tant for relieving the stress of uncertainty
and removing the resistance of fear that
could impede the change effort. Those
who were not to be retained were also

informed of their situation, offered coun-
seling, and provided with an outplacement
service to transfer them to other hotels in
the Starwood brands if at all possible.

Orlando has more than one hundred
thousand hotel rooms, making it likely that
those who could not be placed in a Starwood
hotel could use company assistance to find
jobs elsewhere. The GM of the combined
hotel was a visible member of both the state
and local hotel associations, so this offer of
assistance to employees was not insignifi-
cant. If the displaced employees could not
find employment elsewhere, the company
would provide a generous severance pack-
age. The point here is that the change
leaders recognized the importance and value
of treating these employees with respect and
dignity and keeping them fully informed of
their options and actions being taken on
their behalf. This had a beneficial longer-
term consequence as those who departed
still felt somewhat positive about their expe-
rience at the Swan-Dolphin.

The Swan-Dolphin managers recognized
the importance of the organization’s treat-
ment of its employees to its reputation as an
employer and also to its reputation for cus-
tomer service. In other words, the extensive
thought that went into the treatment of all
employees affected by the change would
spill over into the way the hotel’s guests
would be treated by those employees. A
simple schematic using an upside down
pyramid was printed and published to
explain this servant-leader philosophy (see
Exhibit 4). As this graphic depicts, it was
recognized that the way top management
treated and supported its subordinates would
reverberate throughout the organization,
right down to the linkage between service
employees and customers. If top manage-
ment was taking the time to consider the
ramifications of the change on its own sub-
ordinates and was holding its subordinates
accountable for the way they handled the
change at lower levels of the organization, it

200 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly MAY 2008

CASE LEADING CHANGE WITH THE 5-P MODEL

http://cqx.sagepub.com

sent a powerful message that everyone
needed to pay attention to how people-
related issues were handled.

In keeping with the inverted-pyramid
schematic, three primary tactics were used
to address the people aspects of the Swan-
Dolphin complexing process. First, employ-
ees were given an overabundance of
information that communicated the reasons
for the change and what the result could look
like. Second, employees were treated with
respect and dignity so that they would have
positive feelings about the company whether
they stayed or left. Every effort was made to
keep everyone economically whole. Third, a
network of individuals who were part of the
management team was established to quickly
identify developing problems so that they
could be addressed before they became
major issues impeding the change. Even
though the GM had access to employee satis-
faction studies, the time lag associated with
these surveys made them of little use for stay-
ing on top of the issues as they developed.

One of the earliest decisions, the selec-
tion of a change agent, is another people
issue. Many companies use external change
agents to gain the necessary change manage-
ment skills (Buchanan and Boddy 1992). If

the change process is to be implemented
effectively, the change agent must have well-
developed change management skills. Often
these skills are not present within the orga-
nization. Also, external change agents can be
used to absorb some of the risk involved in
implementing change. However, external
change agents often do not have sufficient
understanding of the internal landscape
(e.g., organizational history and politics).
An experienced manager and a trained
leader in transactional processes, the GM
of the Swan-Dolphin was the logical
choice for change agent. Beyond his train-
ing, his managerial experiences with both
Westin and Sheraton gave him tremendous
creditability with the new Starwood own-
ership and the continuing Sheraton and
Westin managers. As change agent, he real-
ized that he had a specific window of
opportunity to execute the Swan-Dolphin
merger because Starwood’s executives were
involved in other merger events in New
York. Moreover, he knew it would be desir-
able to under promise and over deliver on
the savings, an approach that enhanced
Starwood’s willingness to allow him consid-
erable autonomy in managing the merger of
the two hotels. He also had the trust and
support of the Tishman ownership, which
would intervene in his behalf if the
Starwood managers sought to interfere. This
support was important to the change efforts,
as he could make decisions on the spot,
without clearing them with Starwood’s cor-
porate executives.

“P”—Process
Only after identifying the purpose and

priorities for the change, and the people
who will be involved, is one ready to iden-
tify the process to be used for implementing
the desired change. Process focuses on the
implementation strategy that will be used to
bring about the desired changes. As there
are many potential targets of change, there
are also different implementation strategies

MAY 2008 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 201

LEADING CHANGE WITH THE 5-P MODEL CASE

Customer Contact Employees

Unit Managers

Department Managers

General Manager

Customers

Exhibit 4:
Servant Leader Philosophy (Inverted
Pyramid)

http://cqx.sagepub.com

that can be adopted. These strategies can be
loosely categorized into three overlapping
types: decree, participation, and consensus.
Each approach has its distinct advantages
and disadvantages (Dunphy and Stace
1993).

The “decree” or “autocratic” style is
a strategy for implementing change that is
all too common. Here, managers simply
announce the change to be accomplished,
most often without identifying the purpose
of the change, leaving it up to those affected
to figure out the why and how. Power and
fear are typically the driving forces. Despite
its shortcomings, this strategy can be appro-
priate when the issue or target of change is
so important that the change leader cannot
risk the emergence of a lesser quality out-
come or debate that may thwart the change
effort; when there is little time to debate, dis-
cuss, or consider alternative ways of accom-
plishing the change; or when the change is
not particularly important to anyone. For
example, decree is likely to work well when
the desired change is to require use of 18-lb
bond paper instead of 20-lb bond in the
copier to save money on office supplies. It
can also be effective if a boat is sinking
quickly and the captain orders all hands into
the lifeboats. In the first case, the change is
unlikely to be of interest or concern to any-
one, and in the second, the life-or-death
immediacy of the situation means that there
is no time to discuss options. Similarly, if an
executive believes that there must be uncom-
promising attention to quality, a decree to
implement a Six Sigma, or other zero defects
program, may be appropriate.

Participation or consultation involves
multiple levels of employees in the change
process. In this approach, those to be
affected by the change are consulted and
asked for their ideas and input. Participation
thus gives voice to those affected by change,
increases the likelihood that those affected
by the change will feel fairly treated what-
ever the ultimate outcome, allows input by

all concerned to open up for consideration a
wider range of possible solutions to any
problem requiring change, and reduces fear
and apprehension about the future. As we
mentioned previously, resistance to change
comes in large part from the fear people have
that the change will diminish their personal,
social, or economic situation (Marjanovic
2000; Grimaud 1994). While one can tell
people that a coming change is good for
them, it is through the communication ema-
nating from the participatory process that
these fears can be addressed. Thus, this
implementation strategy is especially valu-
able for individuals who are likely to be
affected negatively by the decision. In most
cases, the individual is involved before the
decision is implemented (thereby eliminat-
ing surprises) and usually is appreciative of
the opportunity to be personally involved.
While the participatory approach tends to be
used more commonly during the implemen-
tation phase of change, the decree approach
is frequently used in establishing the targets
and priorities of the change effort.

In a consensus approach, decisions affect-
ing the change process are essentially dele-
gated to subordinates. The advantages of this
approach include group commitment and
responsibility for the outcome. Moreover,
consensus influences two key decision
dimensions: the quality of the decision (or
how well the decision will meet the organi-
zation’s needs) and acceptance of the deci-
sion by those affected by the change. With
consensus, everyone has a voice and a stake
in the success of the decision. Also, in theory,
a better decision can be made because many
ideas, perspectives, and skills are involved.

The difficulty with the consensus approach
is that it can be slow and time-consuming.
Moreover, it can be challenging to involve
everyone in the organization who is likely
to be affected by the decision. Further
work is involved in teaching groups how
to work together effectively. Finally,
using consensus can be a riskier strategy

202 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly MAY 2008

CASE LEADING CHANGE WITH THE 5-P MODEL

http://cqx.sagepub.com

for accomplishing the needed change, as it
may give a greater voice to those who
oppose the change effort. Consequently,
consensus is best used when the change
goals are widely shared and subordinates
are highly skilled and professionally
mature. It may also work effectively for
implementing small, relatively uncontrover-
sial pieces of the change process.

The principal implementation strategy
for the Swan-Dolphin change was a combi-
nation of decree and participation. For
example, the selection of change targets, the
overall duration of the change, and the disci-
pline of using the PERT chart were deter-
mined by decree. However, the detailed
events comprising the overall path and the
times associated with their accomplishment
were developed in a participatory manner
with the top management team. Furthermore,
managers then rolled out their own critical
paths using the same process by decreeing
their design and sequence while asking sub-
ordinates to participate in developing the
detailed action plans. A participation strat-
egy involving other section managers was
particularly useful in identifying staff to be
retained and to be terminated because the
managers were more knowledgeable regard-
ing employees and could make more accurate
assessments of employees’ competencies.

“P”—Proof
The critical proof stage of change man-

agement refers to the requirement that
managers seeking to implement change
should adduce evidence that the change
has achieved the desired results. While
many authors and practitioners propound
the desirability of evaluation, we find it
surprising how seldom change managers
actually take the time to analyze whether
the gap that they sought to close is actually
narrower as a result of their change efforts.
The requirements of proof are simple, but
the mechanics of its implementation can
be challenging.

To facilitate the establishment of proof,
change leaders must identify measures of the
key dimensions that existed at the beginning
of the change process and measures of those
same key dimensions that exist at the end of
the change process. For success, the results
should meet or exceed the change goals.
However, even if the goals are not fully
achieved, the change can achieve a measure
of success if the final state is better than the
original. In an era of continuous change,
measuring success may mean observing
milestones rather than setting clearly
defined end points, although this was not
the case in the transformational phase of
the Swan-Dolphin complexing. Regardless,
in any type of change, it is critical to develop
clear, objective measures of critical dimen-
sions both before and after the change
process is undertaken.

Proof requires clear change objectives and
relevant measures of success. Consequently,
assessing the results of change in large, com-
plex organizations is difficult because many
variables may be in flux concurrent with the
change itself. At a minimum, change man-
agers must obtain measures of the current
state before initiating change. For example, if
the change agent wants to improve collabora-
tion within the organization, he or she must
have a good measure of the current state of
collaboration. This may be obtained, for
example, by developing a questionnaire and
surveying key organizational employees to
assess organizational climate and levels of
cooperation, measuring the time it takes to
accomplish certain organizational processes,
or exploring grievance rates and resolution
times.

One challenge in establishing proof is
that even if the final conditions are better
than the original, and meet or exceed the
change goal, one cannot be certain that the
implemented change effort was responsi-
ble. It is possible that other critical fac-
tors were changing at the same time and
accounted for the change results. From a

MAY 2008 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 203

LEADING CHANGE WITH THE 5-P MODEL CASE

http://cqx.sagepub.com

practical perspective, it is generally impos-
sible to control for all such externalities.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to attempt to
identify and control for any concurrent fac-
tors to assess their potential effect on eventual
outcomes. For example, if an organization
decides to improve performance by reorga-
nizing from a functional structure to a
product-based structure, it would be diffi-
cult to determine the effectiveness of the
reorganization if, at the same time, the orga-
nization conducts a leadership development
program and implements a team-based
compensation program. Even with this
measurement complication, if the goal was to
improve performance, this distinction in the
attribution of success may be inconsequential.

The proof of the change for the Swan-
Dolphin was intentionally designed to
consist of two interrelated components.
First, the change management team knew
that it was crucial to have proof that was
both believable and visible to all. The team
also knew that there should be many
“wins” that all could see and celebrate.
For this purpose, spelling out the process
on the PERT chart provided an efficient
way to identify when events had occurred,
and the wins associated with hitting target
dates could be recognized. It was a visible
way to demonstrate the desired change
was happening.

The second interrelated component of
the proof was to provide believable evi-
dence that the change worked. The first
piece of believable evidence was financial,
in the form of reduced costs and improved
profits. Just reducing the staff from around
twenty-five hundred before the change to
approximately sixteen hundred after the
change resulted in considerable savings.
The second believable evidence was the
human measures of turnover and morale, as
well as quarterly employee satisfaction sur-
veys. For this purpose, the GM relied exten-
sively on the twelve-question model that
Buckingham and Coffman (1999) suggested

distinguishes the strongest departments of a
company in terms of employee engagement
(see also Meyer and Stensaker 2006). This
model includes questions such as the fol-
lowing: “Does my supervisor seem to care
about me as a person? At work, do my opin-
ions seem to count?” The third measure was
the monthly customer satisfaction scores
that would gauge progress toward becom-
ing a trophy hotel. All three components
were important, but the third was especially
vital in communicating the milestone proof
of the achievement of the vision of becom-
ing a trophy hotel. If customer satisfaction
scores were going up, then the vision was
being realized. That became not only an
opportunity to celebrate short-term wins but
gave hope to all that the change was a good
one and worth the pain.

A Holistic Framework
for Change

In both texts and articles about change,
the emphasis we have seen is on the process
and people, with less emphasis on purpose,
priorities, and proof. The 5-P model pro-
vides a comprehensive approach to ensure
that all critical components of successful
change are thoughtfully addressed. The use
of the Swan-Dolphin case study supports our
contention that all five “Ps” are important to
effecting successful organizational change.
The Swan-Dolphin case also shows the
value of paying close attention to a definition
of what the end of the change process should
look like. By using a PERT chart to guide the
change effort and including in that chart
milestone measures of when each change
outcome had been attained, the leadership of
this change effort was not only able to define
the purpose and priorities for the change, but
could also provide an indication of when the
change had been successfully completed.
The Swan-Dolphin leadership knew that the
pain of change had to end before the
employees could stop being afraid of what
might happen next and begin rebuilding the

204 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly MAY 2008

CASE LEADING CHANGE WITH THE 5-P MODEL

http://cqx.sagepub.com

new organization and culture. The use of
PERT made certain that this date was
acknowledged and publicly celebrated. Also,
by carefully measuring the financial and
human outcomes associated with the change,
this management team could prove to its cor-
porate leaders and its own employees that the
change worked.

Bringing about change is often difficult
and problematic. The 5-P model provides a
holistic framework for guiding an organiza-
tion’s change efforts. Purpose provides the
compelling vision that motivates employee
support and commitment. Priorities establish
the targets and sequence of change. People
carry out the process to achieve the purpose.
Process identifies the manner in which
decision making will be carried out. Proof
demonstrates the attainment of the intended
purpose of the change. The Swan-Dolphin
case illustrated the importance of addressing
all five aspects of the 5-P framework and the
special role of the often-overlooked “proof”
that shows those involved in, and affected by,
change that the gain was worth the pain.

References

The AMA handbook of project management. 2006. Edited
by P. C. Dinsmore and J. Cabanis-Brewin. New York:
AMACOM.

Armenakis, A. A. 1999. Organizational change: A review
of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of
Management 25 (3): 293–315.

Beitler, Michael. 2003. Strategic organizational change: A
practitioner’s guide for managers and consultants.
Greensboro, NC: Practitioner Press.

Buchanan, D. A., and D. Boddy. 1992. The expertise of the
change agent. London: Prentice Hall.

Buckingham, M., and C. Coffman. 1999. First, break all
the rules: What the world’s greatest managers do dif-
ferently. New York: Simon & Shuster.

Burke, W. Warner. 2002. Organizational change: Theory
and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Crosby, P. 1980. Quality is free. London: Penguin.
Dawson, Patrick. 2003. Understanding organizational

change: The contemporary experience of people at
work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denning, S. 2005. Tranformational innovation. Strategy &
Leadership 33 (3): 11–16.

Dunphy, D., and D. Stace. 1993. The strategic management
of corporate change. Human Relations 46 (8): 905.

Fernandez, Sergio, and H. G. Rainey. 2006. Managing
successful organizational change in the public sector.
Public Administration Review 66 (2): 168–76.

Grimaud, A. 1994. How to overcome resistance to change:
The 7M model. Canadian Banker 101 (4): 36.

Kanter, R. M., B. A. Stein, and T. D. Jick. 1992. The chal-
lenge of organizational change: How companies expe-
rience it and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.

Kerzner, H. 2005. Project management: A systems
approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling.
New York: John Wiley.

Kotter, John P. 1996. Leading change. Boston: Harvard
Business School.

Kouzes, J. M., and B. Z. Posner. 1995. The leadership
challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kreigel, R., and L. Patler. 1991. If it ain’t broke, break it.
New York: Warner Books.

Lewis, J. P. 1999. The project manager’s desk reference.
New York: McGraw-Hill.

Love, P. A., A. Gunasekaran, and H. Li. 1998. Improving the
competitiveness of manufacturing companies by contin-
uous incremental change. TQM Magazine 10 (3): 177.

Marjanovic, O. 2000. Supporting the “soft side” of business-
process reengineering. Business Process Management
Journal 6 (1): 43.

Meyer, C., and I. Stensaker. 2006. Developing capacity for
change. Journal of Change Management 6 (2): 217–30.

Nadler, David A. 1997. Champions of change: How CEOs
and their companies are mastering the skills of radi-
cal change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Pascale, Richard, and Anthony Athos. 1981. The art of
Japanese management. New York: Simon & Schuster.

The Project-Management Institute. 1998. Project manage-
ment handbook. Edited by J. K. Pinto. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Quinn, Robert E. 2004. Building the bridge as you walk on
it: A guide for leading change. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Rasiel, Ethan M., and Paul N. Friga. 2002. The McKinsey
mind: Understanding and implementing the problem-
solving tools and management techniques of the
world’s top strategic consulting firm. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Strebal, P. 1996. Why do employees resist change?
Harvard Business Review 74 (3): 86–92.

Ulrich, Dave. 1997. Human resource champions: The next
agenda for adding value and delivering results.
Boston: Harvard Business School.

Weick, K. E., and R. E. Quinn. 1999. Organizational
change and development. In Annual review of psy-
chology, vol. 50, ed. J. T. Spense, J. M. Darley, and
D. J. Foss, 361-86. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.

Wiest, Jerome, and Ferdinand Levy. 1990. Management
guide to PERT-CPM. New York: Prentice Hall.

MAY 2008 Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 205

LEADING CHANGE WITH THE 5-P MODEL CASE

Robert Ford, Ph.D., is a professor of management in the College of Business Administration at the
University of Central Florida (Robert.Ford@bus.ucf.edu). William Heisler, Ph.D., is an associate profes-
sor of human resources management at Troy University (wheisler@troy.edu). William McCreary, for-
merly president of Tishman Hotel Corporation, is general manager (GM) of the Sheraton New Orleans.
He was the GM responsible for the combination of operations at the Swan-Dolphin Hotel at Walt Disney
World (Bill.McCreary@sheraton.com).

http://cqx.sagepub.com

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.1000 /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true /ACaslon-Ornaments /AGaramond-BoldScaps /AGaramond-Italic /AGaramond-Regular /AGaramond-RomanScaps /AGaramond-Semibold /AGaramond-SemiboldItalic /AGar-Special /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Bold /AkzidenzGroteskBE-BoldIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-It /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Light /AkzidenzGroteskBE-LightOsF /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Md /AkzidenzGroteskBE-MdIt /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Regular /AkzidenzGroteskBE-Super /AlbertusMT /AlbertusMT-Italic /AlbertusMT-Light /Aldine401BT-BoldA /Aldine401BT-BoldItalicA /Aldine401BT-ItalicA /Aldine401BT-RomanA /Aldine401BTSPL-RomanA /Aldine721BT-Bold /Aldine721BT-BoldItalic /Aldine721BT-Italic /Aldine721BT-Light /Aldine721BT-LightItalic /Aldine721BT-Roman /Aldus-Italic /Aldus-Roman /AlternateGothicNo2BT-Regular /Anna /AntiqueOlive-Bold /AntiqueOlive-Compact /AntiqueOlive-Italic /AntiqueOlive-Roman /Arcadia /Arcadia-A /Arkona-Medium /Arkona-Regular /AssemblyLightSSK /AvantGarde-Book /AvantGarde-BookOblique /AvantGarde-Demi /AvantGarde-DemiOblique /BakerSignetBT-Roman /BaskervilleBE-Italic /BaskervilleBE-Medium /BaskervilleBE-MediumItalic /BaskervilleBE-Regular /BaskervilleBook-Italic /BaskervilleBook-MedItalic /BaskervilleBook-Medium /BaskervilleBook-Regular /BaskervilleBT-Bold /BaskervilleBT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleBT-Italic /BaskervilleBT-Roman /BaskervilleMT /BaskervilleMT-Bold /BaskervilleMT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleMT-Italic /BaskervilleMT-SemiBold /BaskervilleMT-SemiBoldItalic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Bold /BaskervilleNo2BT-BoldItalic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Italic /BaskervilleNo2BT-Roman /Bauhaus-Bold /Bauhaus-Demi /Bauhaus-Heavy /BauhausITCbyBT-Bold /BauhausITCbyBT-Medium /Bauhaus-Light /Bauhaus-Medium /BellCentennial-Address /BellGothic-Black /BellGothic-Bold /Bell-GothicBoldItalicBT /BellGothicBT-Bold /BellGothicBT-Roman /BellGothic-Light /Bembo /Bembo-Bold /Bembo-BoldExpert /Bembo-BoldItalic /Bembo-BoldItalicExpert /Bembo-Expert /Bembo-ExtraBoldItalic /Bembo-Italic /Bembo-ItalicExpert /Bembo-Semibold /Bembo-SemiboldItalic /Berkeley-Black /Berkeley-BlackItalic /Berkeley-Bold /Berkeley-BoldItalic /Berkeley-Book /Berkeley-BookItalic /Berkeley-Italic /Berkeley-Medium /Berling-Bold /Berling-BoldItalic /Berling-Italic /Berling-Roman /BernhardModernBT-Bold /BernhardModernBT-BoldItalic /BernhardModernBT-Italic /BernhardModernBT-Roman /Bodoni /Bodoni-Bold /Bodoni-BoldItalic /Bodoni-Italic /Bodoni-Poster /Bodoni-PosterCompressed /Bookman-Demi /Bookman-DemiItalic /Bookman-Light /Bookman-LightItalic /Boton-Italic /Boton-Medium /Boton-MediumItalic /Boton-Regular /Boulevard /BremenBT-Black /BremenBT-Bold /CaflischScript-Bold /CaflischScript-Regular /Carta /Caslon224ITCbyBT-Bold /Caslon224ITCbyBT-BoldItalic /Caslon224ITCbyBT-Book /Caslon224ITCbyBT-BookItalic /Caslon540BT-Italic /Caslon540BT-Roman /CaslonBT-Bold /CaslonBT-BoldItalic /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Black /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BlackIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Bold /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BoldIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Book /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-BookIt /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-Medium /CaslonTwoTwentyFour-MediumIt /CastleT-Bold /CastleT-Book /Caxton-Bold /Caxton-BoldItalic /Caxton-Book /Caxton-BookItalic /Caxton-Light /Caxton-LightItalic /CelestiaAntiqua-Ornaments /Centennial-BlackItalicOsF /Centennial-BlackOsF /Centennial-BoldItalicOsF /Centennial-BoldOsF /Centennial-ItalicOsF /Centennial-LightItalicOsF /Centennial-LightSC /Centennial-RomanSC /CenturyOldStyle-Bold /CenturyOldStyle-Italic /CenturyOldStyle-Regular /CheltenhamBT-Bold /CheltenhamBT-BoldItalic /CheltenhamBT-Italic /CheltenhamBT-Roman /Christiana-Bold /Christiana-BoldItalic /Christiana-Italic /Christiana-Medium /Christiana-MediumItalic /Christiana-Regular /Christiana-RegularExpert /Christiana-RegularSC /Clarendon /Clarendon-Bold /Clarendon-Light /ClassicalGaramondBT-Bold /ClassicalGaramondBT-BoldItalic /ClassicalGaramondBT-Italic /ClassicalGaramondBT-Roman /CMTI10 /CommonBullets /ConduitITC-Bold /ConduitITC-BoldItalic /ConduitITC-Light /ConduitITC-LightItalic /ConduitITC-Medium /ConduitITC-MediumItalic /CooperBlack /CooperBlack-Italic /CopperplateGothicBT-Bold /CopperplateGothicBT-BoldCond /CopperplateGothicBT-Heavy /CopperplateGothicBT-Roman /CopperplateGothicBT-RomanCond /Copperplate-ThirtyThreeBC /Copperplate-ThirtyTwoBC /Coronet-Regular /Courier /Courier-Bold /Courier-BoldOblique /Courier-Oblique /Critter /CS-Special-font /DextorD /DextorOutD /DidotLH-OrnamentsOne /DidotLH-OrnamentsTwo /DINEngschrift /DINEngschrift-Alternate /DINMittelschrift /DINMittelschrift-Alternate /DINNeuzeitGrotesk-BoldCond /DINNeuzeitGrotesk-Light /Dom-CasItalic /Dom-CasualBT /Ehrhard-Italic /Ehrhard-Regular /EhrhardSemi-Italic /EhrhardtMT /EhrhardtMT-Italic /EhrhardtMT-SemiBold /EhrhardtMT-SemiBoldItalic /EhrharSemi /ElectraLH-Bold /ElectraLH-BoldCursive /ElectraLH-Cursive /ElectraLH-Regular /EnglischeSchT-Bold /EnglischeSchT-Regu /ErasContour /ErasITCbyBT-Bold /ErasITCbyBT-Book /ErasITCbyBT-Demi /ErasITCbyBT-Light /ErasITCbyBT-Medium /ErasITCbyBT-Ultra /EUEX10 /EUFB10 /EUFB5 /EUFB7 /EUFM10 /EUFM5 /EUFM7 /EURB10 /EURB5 /EURB7 /EURM10 /EURM5 /EURM7 /EuropeanPi-Four /EuropeanPi-One /EuropeanPi-Three /EuropeanPi-Two /Eurostile /Eurostile-Bold /Eurostile-BoldExtendedTwo /Eurostile-ExtendedTwo /EUSB10 /EUSB5 /EUSB7 /EUSM10 /EUSM5 /EUSM7 /ExPonto-Regular /Fenice-Bold /Fenice-BoldOblique /FeniceITCbyBT-Bold /FeniceITCbyBT-BoldItalic /FeniceITCbyBT-Regular /FeniceITCbyBT-RegularItalic /Fenice-Light /Fenice-LightOblique /Fenice-Regular /Fenice-RegularOblique /Fenice-Ultra /Fenice-UltraOblique /FlashD-Ligh /Folio-Bold /Folio-BoldCondensed /Folio-ExtraBold /Folio-Light /Folio-Medium /FontanaNDEeOsF /FontanaNDEeOsF-Semibold /FormalScript421BT-Regular /Formata-Bold /Formata-MediumCondensed /FournierMT-Ornaments /FrakturBT-Regular /FranklinGothic-Book /FranklinGothic-BookItal /FranklinGothic-BookOblique /FranklinGothic-Condensed /FranklinGothic-Demi /FranklinGothic-DemiItal /FranklinGothic-DemiOblique /FranklinGothic-Heavy /FranklinGothic-HeavyItal /FranklinGothic-HeavyOblique /FranklinGothic-Medium /FranklinGothic-MediumItal /FranklinGothic-Roman /FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Bold /FrizQuadrataITCbyBT-Roman /Frutiger-Black /Frutiger-BlackCn /Frutiger-BlackItalic /Frutiger-Bold /Frutiger-BoldCn /Frutiger-BoldItalic /Frutiger-Cn /Frutiger-ExtraBlackCn /Frutiger-Italic /Frutiger-Light /Frutiger-LightCn /Frutiger-LightItalic /Frutiger-Roman /Frutiger-UltraBlack /Futura /FuturaBlackBT-Regular /Futura-Bold /Futura-BoldOblique /Futura-Book /Futura-BookOblique /FuturaBT-Bold /FuturaBT-BoldCondensed /FuturaBT-BoldCondensedItalic /FuturaBT-BoldItalic /FuturaBT-Book /FuturaBT-BookItalic /FuturaBT-ExtraBlack /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondensed /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackCondItalic /FuturaBT-ExtraBlackItalic /FuturaBT-Heavy /FuturaBT-HeavyItalic /FuturaBT-Light /FuturaBT-LightCondensed /FuturaBT-LightItalic /FuturaBT-Medium /FuturaBT-MediumCondensed /FuturaBT-MediumItalic /Futura-ExtraBold /Futura-ExtraBoldOblique /Futura-Heavy /Futura-HeavyOblique /Futura-Light /Futura-LightOblique /Futura-Oblique /GalliardITCbyBT-Italic /GalliardITCbyBT-Roman /Garamond-Antiqua /Garamond-BoldCondensed /Garamond-BoldCondensedItalic /Garamond-BookCondensed /Garamond-BookCondensedItalic /Garamond-Halbfett /GaramondITCbyBT-Bold /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-BoldNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Book /GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-BookCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-BookItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-Light /GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-LightCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-LightItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrow /GaramondITCbyBT-LightNarrowItal /GaramondITCbyBT-Ultra /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondensed /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraCondItalic /GaramondITCbyBT-UltraItalic /Garamond-Kursiv /Garamond-KursivHalbfett /Garamond-LightCondensed /Garamond-LightCondensedItalic /GaramondThree /GaramondThree-Bold /GaramondThree-BoldItalic /GaramondThree-Italic /GaramondThreeSMSspl /GaramondThreespl /GaramondThreeSpl-Bold /GaramondThreeSpl-Italic /GarthGraphic /GarthGraphic-Black /GarthGraphic-Bold /GarthGraphic-BoldCondensed /GarthGraphic-BoldItalic /GarthGraphic-Condensed /GarthGraphic-ExtraBold /GarthGraphic-Italic /Geometric231BT-HeavyC /GeometricSlab712BT-BoldA /GeometricSlab712BT-ExtraBoldA /GeometricSlab712BT-LightA /GeometricSlab712BT-LightItalicA /GeometricSlab712BT-MediumA /GeometricSlab712BT-MediumItalA /Giddyup /Giddyup-Thangs /GillSans /GillSans-Bold /GillSans-BoldCondensed /GillSans-BoldItalic /GillSans-Condensed /GillSans-ExtraBold /GillSans-Italic /GillSans-Light /GillSans-LightItalic /GillSans-UltraBold /GillSans-UltraBoldCondensed /Gill-Special /Giovanni-Bold /Giovanni-BoldItalic /Giovanni-Book /Giovanni-BookItalic /Glypha /Glypha-Bold /Glypha-BoldOblique /Glypha-Oblique /Goudy /Goudy-Bold /Goudy-BoldItalic /Goudy-ExtraBold /Goudy-Italic /GoudyOldStyleBT-Bold /GoudyOldStyleBT-BoldItalic /GoudyOldStyleBT-ExtraBold /GoudyOldStyleBT-Italic /GoudyOldStyleBT-Roman /GoudySans-Bold /GoudySans-BoldItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Bold /GoudySansITCbyBT-BoldItalic /GoudySansITCbyBT-Medium /GoudySansITCbyBT-MediumItalic /GoudySans-Medium /GoudySans-MediumItalic /Granjon /Granjon-Bold /Granjon-BoldOsF /Granjon-Italic /Granjon-ItalicOsF /Granjon-SC /GreymantleMVB-Ornaments /Helvetica /Helvetica-Black /Helvetica-BlackOblique /Helvetica-Black-SemiBold /Helvetica-Bold /Helvetica-BoldOblique /Helvetica-Condensed /Helvetica-Condensed-Black /Helvetica-Condensed-BlackObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Bold /Helvetica-Condensed-BoldObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Light /Helvetica-Condensed-LightObl /Helvetica-Condensed-Oblique /Helvetica-Light /Helvetica-LightOblique /Helvetica-Narrow /Helvetica-Narrow-Bold /Helvetica-Narrow-BoldOblique /Helvetica-Narrow-Oblique /HelveticaNeue-BlackCond /HelveticaNeue-BlackCondObl /HelveticaNeue-Bold /HelveticaNeue-BoldCond /HelveticaNeue-BoldCondObl /HelveticaNeue-BoldExt /HelveticaNeue-BoldExtObl /HelveticaNeue-BoldItalic /HelveticaNeue-Condensed /HelveticaNeue-CondensedObl /HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCond /HelveticaNeue-ExtBlackCondObl /HelveticaNeue-Extended /HelveticaNeue-ExtendedObl /HelveticaNeue-Heavy /HelveticaNeue-HeavyCond /HelveticaNeue-HeavyCondObl /HelveticaNeue-HeavyExt /HelveticaNeue-HeavyExtObl /HelveticaNeue-HeavyItalic /HelveticaNeue-Italic /HelveticaNeue-Light /HelveticaNeue-LightCond /HelveticaNeue-LightCondObl /HelveticaNeue-LightItalic /HelveticaNeueLTStd-Md /HelveticaNeueLTStd-MdIt /HelveticaNeue-Medium /HelveticaNeue-MediumCond /HelveticaNeue-MediumCondObl /HelveticaNeue-MediumExt /HelveticaNeue-MediumExtObl /HelveticaNeue-MediumItalic /HelveticaNeue-Roman /HelveticaNeue-ThinCond /HelveticaNeue-ThinCondObl /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCond /HelveticaNeue-UltraLigCondObl /Helvetica-Oblique /HelvLight /Humanist521BT-Bold /Humanist521BT-BoldCondensed /Humanist521BT-BoldItalic /Humanist521BT-ExtraBold /Humanist521BT-Italic /Humanist521BT-Light /Humanist521BT-LightItalic /Humanist521BT-Roman /Humanist521BT-RomanCondensed /Humanist521BT-UltraBold /Humanist521BT-XtraBoldCondensed /Humanist777BT-BlackB /Humanist777BT-BlackItalicB /Humanist777BT-BoldB /Humanist777BT-BoldItalicB /Humanist777BT-ItalicB /Humanist777BT-LightB /Humanist777BT-LightItalicB /Humanist777BT-RomanB /ICMEX10 /ICMMI8 /ICMSY8 /ICMTT8 /ILASY8 /ILCMSS8 /ILCMSSB8 /ILCMSSI8 /Imago-Book /Imago-BookItalic /Imago-ExtraBold /Imago-ExtraBoldItalic /Imago-Medium /Imago-MediumItalic /Industria-Inline /Industria-InlineA /Industria-Solid /Industria-SolidA /Insignia /Insignia-A /IPAExtras /IPAHighLow /IPAKiel /IPAKielSeven /IPAsans /JoannaMT /JoannaMT-Bold /JoannaMT-BoldItalic /JoannaMT-Italic /KlangMT /Kuenstler480BT-Black /Kuenstler480BT-Bold /Kuenstler480BT-BoldItalic /Kuenstler480BT-Italic /Kuenstler480BT-Roman /KunstlerschreibschD-Bold /KunstlerschreibschD-Medi /Lapidary333BT-Black /Lapidary333BT-Bold /Lapidary333BT-BoldItalic /Lapidary333BT-Italic /Lapidary333BT-Roman /LASY10 /LASY5 /LASY6 /LASY7 /LASY8 /LASY9 /LASYB10 /LatinMT-Condensed /LCIRCLE10 /LCIRCLEW10 /LCMSS8 /LCMSSB8 /LCMSSI8 /LDecorationPi-One /LDecorationPi-Two /Leawood-Black /Leawood-BlackItalic /Leawood-Bold /Leawood-BoldItalic /Leawood-Book /Leawood-BookItalic /Leawood-Medium /Leawood-MediumItalic /LegacySans-Bold /LegacySans-BoldItalic /LegacySans-Book /LegacySans-BookItalic /LegacySans-Medium /LegacySans-MediumItalic /LegacySans-Ultra /LegacySerif-Bold /LegacySerif-BoldItalic /LegacySerif-Book /LegacySerif-BookItalic /LegacySerif-Medium /LegacySerif-MediumItalic /LegacySerif-Ultra /LetterGothic /LetterGothic-Bold /LetterGothic-BoldSlanted /LetterGothic-Slanted /Life-Bold /Life-Italic /Life-Roman /LINE10 /LINEW10 /Lithos-Black /Lithos-Regular /LOGO10 /LOGO8 /LOGO9 /LOGOBF10 /LOGOSL10 /LOMD-Normal /LubalinGraph-Book /LubalinGraph-BookOblique /LubalinGraph-Demi /LubalinGraph-DemiOblique /LucidaMath-Symbol /LydianBT-Bold /LydianBT-BoldItalic /LydianBT-Italic /LydianBT-Roman /LydianCursiveBT-Regular /Marigold /MathematicalPi-Five /MathematicalPi-Four /MathematicalPi-One /MathematicalPi-Six /MathematicalPi-Three /MathematicalPi-Two /Melior /Melior-Bold /Melior-BoldItalic /Melior-Italic /MercuriusCT-Black /MercuriusCT-BlackItalic /MercuriusCT-Light /MercuriusCT-LightItalic /MercuriusCT-Medium /MercuriusCT-MediumItalic /MercuriusMT-BoldScript /Meridien-Medium /Meridien-MediumItalic /Meridien-Roman /Minion-Black /Minion-Bold /Minion-BoldCondensed /Minion-BoldCondensedItalic /Minion-BoldItalic /Minion-Condensed /Minion-CondensedItalic /MinionExp-Italic /MinionExp-Semibold /MinionExp-SemiboldItalic /Minion-Italic /Minion-Ornaments /Minion-Regular /Minion-Semibold /Minion-SemiboldItalic /MonaLisa-Recut /MSAM10 /MSAM10A /MSAM5 /MSAM6 /MSAM7 /MSAM8 /MSAM9 /MSBM10 /MSBM10A /MSBM5 /MSBM6 /MSBM7 /MSBM8 /MSBM9 /MTEX /MTEXB /MTEXH /MTGU /MTGUB /MTMI /MTMIB /MTMIH /MTMS /MTMSB /MTMUB /MTMUH /MTSY /MTSYB /MTSYH /MTSYN /MusicalSymbols-Normal /Myriad-Bold /Myriad-BoldItalic /Myriad-CnBold /Myriad-CnBoldItalic /Myriad-CnItalic /Myriad-CnSemibold /Myriad-CnSemiboldItalic /Myriad-Condensed /Myriad-Italic /Myriad-Roman /Myriad-Sketch /Myriad-Tilt /NeuzeitS-Book ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 150 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages true
/GrayImageMinResolution 150
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 300
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages true
/MonoImageMinResolution 1200
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 1200
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict << /K -1 >>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier ()
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
/PDFXTrapped /Unknown
/CreateJDFFile false
/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000
/Description << /FRA
/JPN
/DEU
/PTB
/DAN
/NLD
/ESP
/SUO
/ITA
/NOR
/SVE
/ENU
>>
>> setdistillerparams
<< /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice

MHRM587

Foundational Model of Change

Managing change is a complex process. Change does not occur in one great swoop. Few organizations manage the process as well as they would like. In order to make change work, organizations need to follow a process to enhance the probability of success versus just “winging it.” The following model of change provides one useful way to think about creating and implementing organization-wide change.

Basic Change Process Model
Consideration
Stimulus Driving Forces
Pre-Change
Validate Need
Preparation
Commit
Do –Check – Act
Implementation
RESULT
New Normal
Change
Active
Conscious
Culture
Passive
Unconscious

Pre-Change Paradigm
This is the first stage of the change journey.
Without a paradigm that encourages “active searching,” organizations can ignore important early warning signs and wait until a crisis highlights the need for change (i.e., scenario planning)
Make sure you know what is important?
Who is important?
What do they want?
How are you doing?
What could be improved?

Stimulus (Driving Forces) & Assessment
What are the driving forces or antecedents to change—internal and external.
How do these driving forces influence the organization’s business model and force new requirements for success?
Is change really necessary? Deciding the status quo is preferable is a productive learning activity.
Caution #1: What must be guarded against is any denial that any driving forces or stimuli for change exist.
Caution #2: Or when it’s recognized that change is required, the “disconfirming data” may induce anxiety which can obviate the change as necessary
Sound analysis of driving forces is a prerequisite to good change strategy

Validate Need
Establish compelling need for change.
Create a sense of urgency
Begin to create psychological safety
Begin to address the inertia of the existing status quo (resistance to change)
Transformation Leadership key framework in leading change

Preparation
Caution: Avoid premature action without first developing an effective plan for the change
What is the change vision?
What will success look like?
What are the criteria for success?
What resources + administrative support systems will be needed?
What is the timeline for this change?
What kind of change is required? Incremental? Transformational?

Commitment to Act
Is the planned action the most effective and efficient way to deliver the required change?
Begin the “unfreeze” process in the change cycle

Do-Check-Act
(Implementation)
Implementing change is the most challenging aspect of any change effort.
Once the momentum for change has been successfully launched, what is delivered must be effectively managed.
We will introduce several frameworks useful for this purpose during the course:
PDCA Cycle {Plan-Do-Act-Change}
Lewin’s 3-Phase Change Model
Kotter’s 8-Step Model
Nadler’s Congruence Model
McKinsey 7-S Framework + STAR Model
Others

New Normal
As organizational leadership recognizes, rewards, and models the new behavior in order to embed it in the fabric of the organization, the change becomes the new normal or the ‘the way we do business here.’
Of course, as soon as it is established, the new normal becomes the pre-change paradigm for whatever emerges next—otherwise we become trapped within existing mindsets.