Article Outline

Managing and leading organizations: an integrated approach

Pain

Process

Politics

Payoff

Money

Relationships

Opportunity and Development

Pride

Persistence

Conclusion

Selected bibliography

Acknowledgements

Vitae

Managing and leading organizations: an integrated approach

Change is ever present in society and its organizations. New technologies, globalization, mergers and acquisitions, reorganization, right-sizing, reengineering, centralization, decentralization, achieving six-sigma quality standards—the list of the changes we face on a daily basis goes on and on. Pressures are placed on leaders to improve quality, be more global, better utilize capital, maximize resources, improve shareholder wealth, and create new products and services.

In this article I will look at some ways to lead change. Successfully executing change initiatives, influencing others and moving the organization towards your point of view are clearly dependent on your ability to lead and manage. One of the keys to successful change is recognizing the different approaches that people and organizations go through when dealing with the reality that things will be different.

After looking at change from an internal perspective as an employee of several large organizations and working as a consultant with managers from a variety of companies, I began to develop an integrated approach to handling change. The focus of that approach is the Five P’s of Change. The Five P’s focus on different leverage points that, when used as an integrated approach, can help organizations and their members accept and cope with change. The Five P’s can work independently, but change is most effective when they are leveraged together. While utilizing these leverage points can make a significant difference in the successful execution of a change effort, many times they are overlooked and the opportunity to move an organization to a new sustainable competitive advantage is lost.

The Five P’s are as follows:

• Pain

• Process

• Politics

• Payoff

• Persistence

Pain

Pain is a fundamental driver of change. Many people and organizations change only when faced with a level of pain that leaves them without options. In order to use pain effectively in changing organizations, it is important to understand that pain can come in different forms, at different times, and manifest itself in different ways. Basically, there are three types of pain—bad, good, and imposed. The type of pain that is leveraged to impact change needs to be understood and capitalized on. Seize the moment when pain exists because when pain goes away, so does the motivation and energy for change associated with it.

When things are chaotic and the organization or individual is moving in the wrong direction, it is easy to focus organization and individual attention on why change is needed. An example on an individual basis is the workaholic who sees nothing but the value of working long hours, sacrificing whatever it takes to be successful. Eventually, workaholism causes severe stress and possibly even death. The individual will change—usually when faced with what psychologists call a significant emotional event. Significant emotional events (SEEs) are occurrences that reach out and get your attention. The SEE that gets the attention of most workaholics is a health emergency like a heart attack. Many times having a heart attack is the workaholic’s first indication that he or she may need to re-evaluate priorities.

For organizations, bad pain comes with red ink, and when the future is cast with almost certain doom and extinction. One example in point is the Chrysler Corporation, when it faced a financial disaster that was partially averted by federally guaranteed loans. When confronted with this organizational emergency, the employees of Chrysler, its union, its white collar employees and managers gave wage and benefit concessions in order to save their company. These concessions were a function of the dire circumstances and not the inspirational leadership of Lee Iacocca and other managers. This is not to take away from the management approach of Iacocca or other managers at Chrysler; rather it is to point out that effective change leaders use moments of bad change to make the real changes necessary for the long term benefit of companies. Employees earning good money and benefits who see them at risk are willing to give back a little now to avoid losing everything down the road. The same situation played out in the mid 1990s when J.C. Penney Company Inc. was mired in losses, and management used the bad pain to refocus the company on its current strategy—something that would not have been possible without the pain of facing bankruptcy. Bad pain is a very visible change force, based upon survival and keeping your job.

There are many organizations facing bad pain; unfortunately many of them don’t recognize it, or they deny it and hope it will go away. One of the more famous analogies of this phenomenon was Karl Weick’s, who in 1974 relayed the story of the boiling frog. Put a frog in a pan of water and it will probably stay put. When you turn the heat up one notch, the frog will not react because the water temperature change is not that different. Repeat this over and over and the frog will still stay put. Why? Because the incremental temperature increase is not noticed until it is too late—hence boiled frog.

Many organizations are facing constant upheaval, global competition, the need to replace outdated facilities, upstart competitors and other pressure points. They are in trouble because the changes have been incremental, and they did not recognize the pain because they have become accustomed to it—layoffs, reduced market share, constant restructuring, and consolidations. It’s just another lousy day in a lousy company with bad management. Unfortunately, many of these organizations are so numb to the pain that the organization is already dead; it just hasn’t been announced yet.

The second type of pain found in organizations is “good” pain. Good pain can occur when an organization experiences phenomenal growth, when opportunities are breaking, and business is booming. In good times people work overtime and are tapped out trying to meet demand. Resources aren’t the issue. The issue is time and energy. When faced with this type of pain, employees see change as a way to avoid excessive overtime, a way to shed load, and reduce the stress of constantly pushing the limits. They see little to lose and a lot of sanity and family/personal time to gain. An example of good pain can be seen in the months and weeks before an election, when TV and radio stations are inundated with advertising demands and revenues. Advertising agencies are working night and day to deliver the new commercials, and everyone is spending like crazy. It is during those crazy and busy times when change is more likely to be accepted because people see little to lose.

A common problem with both good and bad pain is that they can be very episodic, and the manager and leader who seize the moment have momentum. That much is good, but the momentum thus created may not be sustainable. The opposite is also true. If a leader delays acting, he or she can lose the opportunity and its potential momentum.

Another problem with these two types of pain is that once the pain has passed, many in the organization want to go back to the old ways of doing business. After September 11, we have seen what has happened in the airline industry—staggering losses resulting in significant wage concessions by unions. As the airline industry returns to profitability, these same employees expect to be compensated for past concessions. To be an effective leader, one must seize the moment and aggressively execute the necessary changes and then reinforce those changes, so that when normality returns the changes become part of the culture and fabric of the organization. To this point, the airlines have focused so much on wages that they have missed the opportunity to make changes that are sustainable when profitability returns.

A third type of pain is imposed pain. This type of pain can be the most effective type when it is used in a proactive manner. When using imposed pain, the manager makes the decision that he will not wait for other factors, good or bad, to be the catalyst for change. Imposed pain is an example of leadership providing a stimulus for motivation and requires a firm determination and focus by the person leading the change. Managers who impose pain take the risk associated with being the focal point for the change initiative. If the change is not large-scale or traumatic, then the risk exposure to the manager is light, because the perceived negatives of the change are outweighed by the positives seen by those affected. However, when the change initiative is dramatic and the risks outweigh the perceived rewards, the manager proposing and championing the change can become the target of resistance. Let’s use the example of the human body. When a foreign infection is sensed, the immune system attacks to bring the body back to normal. Likewise, when a manager or leader is imposing change in an organization, the “immune system” wants things to be normal. The easiest way to bring things back to normal in a changing organization is to attack and eliminate the driving force of that change—the leader becomes the target!

One of the best examples of imposed pain is the change of direction at General Electric Co. (GE) that Jack Welch started in 1979. When Jack started his tenure as chief executive officer (CEO) of GE, the company was one of the largest in the world, with diverse products, solid revenue lines and profitability. After assuming command of the GE organization Welch provided a new vision for the company, a simple statement about what they would become. That highly effective focus stated that GE would be number 1 or 2 in any business they were in—or they would fix it, sell it, or buy to become number 1 or 2. When first proposed to the organization, this rather simple focus caused quite a stir among the employees—why would he sell my division if we were number 3 in the industry and making a profit? The logic may have escaped many but was clear to Welch—in a global economy where competition and change are ever-present, organizations that are leaders in their sectors make the rules and drive the innovations. Everyone else is responding and reacting to the market leaders. GE was not going to be a follower; it was going to drive every industry it was in. Welch’s actions imposed an enormous amount of pain. The positive results for GE shareholders are well known. The amount of work, energy and stress on Welch to make it happen is perhaps less well known.

Process

Process is the essence of how one goes about changing the environment. The process used by many companies today to fix their organizational problems and drive change is referred to as “management by best seller (MBBS).” An executive reads a management book written by a guru listed on the New York Times Bestseller List and decides that the concepts presented therein represent the magic bullet. This bestseller’s concepts will solve the current problems of the organization and position her/him for greatness. Many times the manager sees the approach as working with minimal change and disruption, especially for her/him. Fired up and sure of the prognosis and treatment, the executive returns to the organization and orders a thousand copies of the book and calls a management meeting to announce the change. No diagnosis or assessment takes place to determine the real organizational problems. The executive buys off on a well-written book that captures the essence of problems in someone else’s company and applies the one-size-fits-all solution to the organization. The problem here is not the book, but the false assumption that because it worked someplace else it will work here. Authors like Blanchard, Higgins, Collins, Belasco, Covey, etc. have added greatly to the field of knowledge and understanding of leadership, and we are grateful to them. It is the unthinking application of those concepts in organizations that leads to MBBS.

Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS) is an example of an organization that has fallen victim to MBBS. Management embraced the work of Peter Senge’s The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization. Learning organizations tend to take more risks as they see opportunities as not only transactions, but also critical experiences. EDS’ Brown made several decisions based on the learning organization management concept, one of which was to push the “mega deal.” Mega deals lead to large experiences and therefore represent great learning opportunities, but these kinds of deals also represent significant risks. As a result of Brown’s risk taking, EDS saw a significant drop in their market capitalization when shares dropped 53 percent in September 2002 after Brown announced EDS would fall 80 percent short of projections (Park, 2003).

Most recently EDS is touting the virtues of a book by Steve Luengo Jones, titled All-To-One: The Winning Model for Marketing in the Post Internet Economy. True to the cyclical nature of their success, EDS is again following the latest management style. Sadly, EDS is moving down the same path, a path which addresses the issues of the “post dot-com” era, and not the future of the information-technology consulting business.

In many organizations this type of management fad reaction breeds an expectation that all programs are transitory. Employees develop immunity to these change efforts and basically give them lip service, knowing they will be replaced by the next MBBS. Employees and other managers attend training sessions and put charts on their walls and do whatever the program dictates to show that they are good corporate citizens. What are the results of these efforts? First the MBBS author makes a fortune on book and speaking royalties. Second, a consultant makes a lot of money helping implement the strategy. And finally, the organization spins its wheels again and again, with little or no benefit.

Real change occurs when a leader and manager understands the organization (its strategy, people, and culture), identifies the problems, and seeks solutions that will work. The ideas, management philosophies, management systems, and other variations that make corporations successful in MBBS books are not necessarily bad; it is just that they are not going to work in every organization. Tichy’s model outlined in The Leadership Engine: How Winning Companies Build Leaders at Every Level worked at GE; it was not successful at Pizza Hut because the management, goals, and structure were different.

The process that should be used to determine and implement change varies by organization and by the problems and opportunities they face. In their article on the psychology of change, Lawson and Price (2003) state that four conditions are required to impact change:

• employees must see the reason for change and concur with those reasons;

• organization structures must support the change;

• employees must have the skill sets needed to implement the change;

• and, they must see those around them in positions they respect actually supporting and modeling the change.

However, there are some common components of a sound process for change. These include:

1. Research problems and identify the causal problems or fundamental opportunities. Determine that the problem you are trying to solve is the real problem confronting the organization. What is the pain being caused by the problem? Or if this is a response to an opportunity, how does this opportunity fit the organization’s strategy and strategic execution factors? When identifying the problem, it is imperative to collect information from as many sources and people as feasible and possible. It is imperative to get to the root problem or opportunity and then understand it within the organizational context.

2. Identify possible solutions. Cast a broad net to generate a wide variety of possible courses of action, collect information and keep your options open. People know when they are being sold a bill of goods, so don’t put on a show for others—go for substance. Do not ask for ideas and suggestions if you are not going to consider them. One of my favorite axioms is “buy-in is a function of perception of input.” People buy into things they feel they have had input into, even if it was just the opportunity to express ideas or be involved in a fact-finding meeting or part of any data-collection process.

3. Communicate, communicate, and communicate. People want and need to know what is going on in the organization. During the initial phases of the process many managers try to keep things under wraps while they develop a comprehensive strategy. They try to keep everything a secret until all the answers are known. What happens when management stays quiet is that the rumor mill kicks in to supplement the information void. People in the organization hear conflicting reports of what is going on, good people start to look at options, and morale takes a nosedive. Management is naive if it thinks anything can be kept a secret, because the organizational grapevine will provide people with speculation and answers. Sometimes they get it right; other times they make it up. Spend as much time communicating as you can. Use management briefings, the company newsletter, inform supervisors and encourage them to have informational meetings. Informed is better than uninformed and misinformed. People are capable of handling a lot in today’s busy and ever-changing world, so give them the benefit of the doubt—inform them. You communicate, communicate, and communicate. And just when you think they’ve got it, they don’t. So you have to communicate again.

4. Select and announce the chosen course of action as soon as possible. It is important that people affected by the change hear about it from the source and with as much detail as possible. People need to know why and how the final action was selected, how the process has progressed, and what to expect in the days and months ahead. Explaining the logic and reasons why one action was chosen over others can help to defuse people who would undermine or provide lip service to the change. Explanation provides motivation to those who can help make the change happen.

5. Execute, execute, execute. As previously stated, people in organizations are continuously bombarded with new flavor-of-the-month programs. Successful execution of change initiatives requires the full attention of management and a dedication to doing it right. These managers and change leaders must model the new behavior and become the cheerleaders for the process. Phasing it in over a long period of time may seem like indecision to some people in the organization. Slow execution may fail to provide the energy necessary to change the culture and momentum of the company. Leaders must engage their employees, involve them, and provide them with the necessary resources and training. If a pilot test is used, keep people informed as to its progress, ask for their inputs, and learn from reported mistakes. Work out realistic timetables, put in a fudge factor, and remember to keep employees informed and engaged.

6. Follow-up, re-evaluate and modify. The best-laid plans can go bad. Plan on it and do not be afraid to be flexible when modifying the course of change. The implementation of a new idea requires flexibility, because there will always be unforeseen problems that require major and minor changes during the implementation process. Don’t cover up problems. Share information, expose the issues, and work through them with the people affected. This does not mean abdication of responsibility. It means taking the bull by the horns and managing and leading a complex activity. Leaders need to use all of their strategic resources, organizational position and muscle to help set the new course and make things happen.

Politics

Politics are ever present in society and in organizations of all types. Politics is, indeed, an important element of culture. It is important to understand that logic, truth, and rational process have little to do with the reality of politics. No matter how well laid out a change initiative is, or how organization-enhancing and value added it is, change can and often is laid to waste because someone’s turf had been invaded or a particular department felt slighted by the process they perceived was used. Politics can and does make a major impact on influencing change. The effective agent of change will factor politics into the equation and effectively leverage it into any change activity. One of the first areas to be probed in change is power bases, where they are, and what their objectives are. The model of political power focuses on the concept that the more you know the power bases of your friends and foes the more you can leverage change through focusing on their power biases.

Successful politicians never go into a debate or request for a legislative bill without identifying their allies, foes, and the undecided. Similarly, highly effective politicians never go into a new initiative without building a coalition that will support the new initiative and help to offset those who can be expected to resist or fight the change. Neither do highly effective managers. A successful leader must understand the politics of the organization; for example, who are their supporters and antagonists, and who are the undecided. This knowledge allows a leader to position the proposal to take advantage of its strengths, adapt it to address the perceived weaknesses of antagonists, and motivate the undecided. Building coalitions going into a change initiative helps to prevent the dreaded defeat or deadlock, or need to go back for further refinement or study.

Carly Fiorina, chairman and CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co., demonstrated the power of building coalitions during the recent merger of Compaq with Hewlett-Packard. Critics of the $19 billion deal denounced the merger as a bad idea that would cause both firms to fail. High level individuals in HP denounced the deal and started to work against its passage by the boards. Fiorina persisted by making numerous presentations to investor groups, board members and others to put together a coalition that resulted in a positive vote after a bitter proxy fight. Her ability to build the political coalition has resulted in a merger that came in ahead of schedule, resulted in billions of consolidation savings, and below budget.

Payoff

Payoff addresses the age-old question: “What’s in it for me?” Too often managers and executives implement sweeping changes in organizations, and never think about the payoff for people affected by the change. Sure, senior management receives bonuses, promotions, new opportunities, and the satisfaction of doing a challenging and exciting job. What do the people on the line see? Many times they feel no benefit, or worse are doing busy work for some project they don’t understand, agree with or see any need for. MBBS can become a game. “How long will this one last—three months, six months, maybe a year? I can wait it out.” For managers in charge of change, the change process can be challenging and rewarding. To others, questions regarding payoff go unanswered. Let’s examine some of the potential payoffs that managers can use while working towards change and trying to engage people in the organization change process.

Money

One of the fundamental rewards for being involved, changing your ways, and putting in the extra effort is financial reward. “If this change is successful, then we can all share in the fruits of our labors.” Unfortunately, managers cannot always provide financial incentives for change. In that case, it is important to be honest with people and find other incentives that can be utilized. Money works, but it is not the only reward.

Relationships

The key to relationships as a reward is to first understand that for many people the relationships they develop at work are very important. Employees spend a great deal of time with their coworkers; and when they sense changes that impact the work team, they can and often do resist. Change can cause a variety of responses, from the fear of losing contact or separation from a friend or team member to being forced into a new environment in which they will not “fit in.” The relationships factor has caused many a change initiative to fail, when people who enjoy working together feel that management doesn’t care for them, doesn’t understand how important on-the-job relationships are, and doesn’t respect their feelings on the matter.

To use relationships as a payoff, management has to first guard against disrupting the relations of the affected group and then explore how to engage those impacted to find ways of mitigating the impact. When those impacted by the change feel involved they will more likely see the change in a positive light and develop deeper relationships with coworkers, thus enhancing the work environment. By not understanding the power of relationships, management is more likely to use this payoff in a punitive way. To use relationships as a payoff, management could talk in terms of:

1. what the new relationships could mean to the person,

2. how relationships with management would be strengthened and what that might mean,

3. how the process of meeting new people helps a person grow emotionally, psychologically, socially, and

4. how the new relationships would be just as good as the old or maybe even better because of the change.

One individual who understands the benefits of relationships is Maurice Greenberg, chairman and chief executive officer at American International Group, Inc. (AIG). One international expansion criterion that he deems very valuable deals with AIG’s employees and how well they adjust to the cultural differences of the designated area. For example, in choosing the next location of AIG’s outsourcing office, Greenberg has a very intense evaluation process. He conducts a due diligence study to ensure that the cultural differences are not going to hinder the possibility of relationship building. Greenberg understands the value of relationships when change occurs and therefore tries to choose locations that will ease the relationship building process.

Opportunity and Development

Many managers and employees love challenges and seek new opportunities because they find them fulfilling, and sometimes downright fun. People should be excited and motivated by the challenges of their work. However, to some people, opportunity can also be spelled out as “MORE WORK.” In many organizations, people who work hard and perform well are rewarded with more work. We take the hardest workers and give them more, and we let those who may be more problematic get away with doing less. After a while, even the best workers begin to be disillusioned by the inequity. Don’t get me wrong; many people can be motivated and excited by new challenges and opportunities to shine. However, the problems arise when we tend to take advantage of those who work the hardest. Many times managers coming up with new challenges do not do a good job of transferring that same adrenalin rush they experience to others in the organization. To effectively use this payoff, you have to understand what others see as the inherent risks and rewards associated with your new project.

Pride

People will go to extraordinary lengths when the pride and respect of their organization is important, and such considerations are a major part of the culture. For pride to be effective as a payoff, management has to build off the company history, traditions, culture, brand or market recognition, and public perceptions to enhance employees’ motivation and help drive the organizational change. Management must leverage employees’ pride, so they see how the change will enhance and build on the internal goodwill, and thus make them feel better about actively engaging in new initiatives and seeing value. Management can appeal to employee pride by indicating how much better the organization will be because of the change.

One organization that comes to mind for instilling pride in the workforce is The Walt Disney Co., at its Disneyland and Disney World locations. New cast members (they are not called employees) spend the first few days of their tenure with Disney in a program called Traditions, and in cast member training. In this program, the history of Disney is reviewed and team building activities, facility tours and other techniques are used to ensure that new cast members start work excited about the organization and the service they are to provide to guests. If you have ever been to Disney World in Florida in July and August, you will get an idea of how effective pride and team spirit are in motivating people. It is amazing when you realize that over 52,000 people can provide such a unified front and provide such superior and innovative service, driven to a large extent by pride. Cast members’ pride in the company enhances the ability of management to get new ideas generated, projects accepted, and then implemented.

Persistence

The concept of persistence is similar to the old marketing adage—tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them. Persistence is critical because organizations are inherently resistant to change. Success is built upon creating momentum through persistent efforts to overcome resistance. Organizations are constantly formulating new ideas and initiatives for change, and this constant bombardment is often met with skepticism and a desire on the part of people for stability and sanity in their lives. Part of persistence relates to the fact that the first time a manager or leader of an organization does something that is different or in conflict with the new initiative, it provides the rationale and excuse for others not do it. Conflict between what I say (a new change initiative) and what I do (falling back into the old way) provides the easiest reason to resist the new process. People look very carefully at what is going on around them and seek indicators whether management really believes in this or whether it’s just another fad they can wait out. Leaders must be persistent in delivering the messages of change, and these deliveries need to be consistent.

Persistence starts at the top of the organization. No strategic change will occur if it is not constantly reinforced and monitored by the people at the top, and then repeated throughout the management chain of command. I remember having a client meeting with the CEO of a company who felt that leading change and the activities around making the organization different were the responsibility of those below him. He believed that he was the genius who came up with the idea, and it was someone else’s job to make it happen. In fact during a meeting with this CEO to discuss his role in the roll-out of a strategic change initiative he made the following comment: “You don’t understand. This isn’t for me, it’s for them. They are the ones who have to do things differently.” As he made this comment, his non-verbal gesture was one of pointing his fingers downward; at that point I knew this change effort was doomed, because he was too busy to take an active role in the process.

Andy Grove, CEO of Intel Corp., saw his company grow from a struggling startup without a clear vision of the future into the world’s leader in semiconductors. Persistence was the key to that growth and, as a result, Grove came to the conclusion that companies experience strategic inflection points. Each point represents a change or convergence of forces making sudden and rapid change inevitable. Using change to his advantage, Grove identified fear as one way of getting people in the organization out of a comfortable equilibrium and getting them to do the difficult tasks (Brevetti, 2003). He feels that individuals at the top of an organization must maintain the “highest consciousness” and persistence possible during every critical moment that occurs.

Change takes time and constant reinforcement by the management team. They have to be focused on the new culture and the way that the organization will do business in the future—they are the role models. Spending thousands of dollars on training, trade books, and motivational speakers is worthless if management is not ready to persist and address the many who are skeptical, have seen many changes before, or who may be the organizational terrorists working aggressively to prevent change from happening. Jack Welch is another example of a CEO who was persistent and stayed the course. During his three major strategic change efforts at GE he played an active role in modeling the change and in the training efforts the organization used to make the changes successful. At the end of many sessions at Croton on the Hudson (the GE Training Center, where executives were exposed to the new processes), Welch would show up for the last day of the executive course and spend time with the executives probing, asking and answering questions about the organization. Just think of the excuses he could use for not attending these sessions at Croton—the need to meet with Wall Street analysts, a pending acquisition, meetings with senior political leaders and so on. The fact of the matter was that Jack Welch spent a large percent of his time making cultural change happen at GE, and he made sure his senior team did the same. Welch believed in teaching his executives what the change was about, so they could teach their subordinates, who would teach their people and down the line until every person at GE had been exposed to the change and why it was important.

Meg Whitman, chief executive officer of eBay Inc., exemplified persistence when she transformed e-Bay into one of the most successful Internet companies. eBay, like most dot-coms, cannot survive without Whitman’s disciplined management style. She has avoided seemingly lucrative opportunities to keep eBay focused on developing its trading community, expanding its ranks, and increasing its product scope. Richard Perry, president of Perry Capital, can attest to Ms. Whitman’s ability to take a brilliant idea and grow that idea by executing, monitoring, and constantly improving the idea. Persistence is central to such leadership. Even now, as growth has slowed for the few survivors of the Internet crash, Whitman is committed to her goals: “Revenue in 2005 of $3 billion and profits of $600 million (Hansell, 2002).”

Conclusion

Change is constant. Change is a normal part of evolution. It is essential to survival. Yet many organizations take change lightly and don’t think about how to aggressively and strategically make change happen. The assumption the change is good, and therefore irresistible, is common in our society. The 5 P’s are integrated leverage points that can provide key insights into the way an organization can affect change to improve its success. Can change happen without the 5 P’s, or with just a few of them? Yes, but the odds are stacked against a successful change initiative.

The dynamic and successful organization that understands and then leverages the forces of the 5 P’s should have a higher success record. This integrated leverage approach can help to minimize failure and build the case to ensure success. Change is often painful and probably won’t be cheerfully embraced; but the more a leader does to proactively utilize the leverage that already exists in the organization, the greater the probability that the change will be successful.

Selected bibliography

The article by Brevetti is titled “Intel Celebrates Rise From Humble Origins,” and appeared in the Oakland, California Tribune, 23 July 2003, 1. Peter Senge’s book is The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of the Learning Organization (Doubleday, 1990). For a further analysis of change, see Lawson and Price’s article on “The Psychology of Change Management” in The McKinsey Quarterly (2003) No. 2. An overview of how change can go wrong is found in Park’s article on “EDS: What Went Wrong? Did CEO Brown Know the Extent of its Woes Months before Investors Were Warned?” in Business Week, 7 April 2003. Tichey and Cohen’s book The Leadership Engine: How Winning Companies Build Leaders at Every Level (New York: Harper Collins Publishers, 1997) provides insight on sustaining change strategies. An article by Hansel outlines eBay’s success strategy: “Meg Whitman and eBay, Net Survivors” (The New York Times Company, 2002).
Executive Summary
Change is one of the constants in all organizations today. For organizations to survive, change and stay competitive, they must find ways to effectively engage employees in the change process. The “five P’s” model identifies a set of leverage points managers can use to improve the effectiveness of their change actions and enhance the probability of success in making their organizations competitive and viable. The more effective a manager is in invoking all aspects of the model outlined, the higher the likelihood of success.

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the guidance and insights of James Higgins and John Slocum, my graduate research team, and the journal’s readers for their suggestions.

Vitae

Craig McAllaster is dean and professor of management at the Roy E. Crummer Graduate School of Business at Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida. Prior to moving to Florida, McAllaster was at Cornell University. Before completing his doctorate at Columbia University, he spent over a decade in the consumer services and electronics industry in management positions. Over the last 20 years he has been an active consultant with numerous companies throughout the world in the areas of leadership, change, and organizational effectiveness. Contact: Tel.: +1 407 646 2249; fax: +1 407 646 2402. (Craig.McAllaster@Rollins.edu)