2 pages using 3-4 references. due Thurs. • Compare and contrast RAND’s Six Steps (2005) and Leppitt’s Integrated Model (2006). Be sure to include an explanation of when an organization would prefer to use one model over the other and the disadvantages of using each model. • A vision is intended to provide direction to an organization. However, some organizations create vision statements but do not work to ensure that the vision statement is an integral component of the organization’s strategy. Explain how an organization can utilize its vision statement so that it becomes a central component of its strategic plan. References: Leppitt, N. (2006). Challenging the code of change: Part 1. Praxis does not make perfect. Journal of Change Management 6(2), 121–142. Light, P. C. (2005). The four pillars of high performance: How robust organizations achieve extraordinary results. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

 

M5A2: Critical Review – Organizational Change

Student’s Name

Instructor

Class

Date

 

Abstract

• Compare and contrast RAND’s Six Steps (2005) and Leppitt’s Integrated Model (2006). Be sure to include an explanation of when an organization would prefer to use one model over the other and the disadvantages of using each model.

  • A vision is intended to provide direction to an organization. However, some organizations create vision statements but do not work to ensure that the vision statement is an integral component of the organization’s strategy. Explain how an organization can utilize its vision statement so that it becomes a central component of its strategic plan.

 

M5A2: Critical Review – Organizational Change

RAND’s Six Steps (2005) and Leppit’s Integrated Model (2006)

Similarities

• Both are step-ordered approaches that are applied to impact change in an organization. It, therefore, means that they implement the use of steps which are necessary to highlight the process that will be applied towards change in a given organization.
• In both models, there is more focus that gets provided towards the urgency through which change is required so that change is realized at the requested time.
• The two models show how change is critical towards the overall development of an organization and how it is vital to ensure that there is effective management of the change element.

Differences

• The RAND’s approach is composed of six steps while the Leppit’s integrated model is made up of thirteen steps.
• While Leppit’s guide is keen towards the vision, strategy, planning and assessment, the RAND’s model emphasizes the change itself and the removal of possible barriers that may hinder the efforts towards making a change.
• Unlike RAND’s model that does not regard the various aspects that can facilitate change such as motivation, the Leppit’s model provides for the right motivation effect that can make a change in a firm.

The two models are both applicable in any business but they are used distinctively, and at any particular time, one might appear to be more relevant that the other. Therefore, an organization might adopt the use of one model and not the other.  For example, if an organization does not intend to initiate long-term focus towards the change that they plan to build up, then the RAND’s model would be more appropriate in comparison to the other approach (Light, 2005). It is because it is usually built to assume the perspective of the first-order change unlike in the other model that takes the second-order perspective. Also, there are specific points in time when a firm realizes that it needs a change element and the RAND’s model is the approach that they should integrate hence it will guarantee support all along.

Disadvantages of the RAND’s model

• The approach is characterized by high levels of uncertainty and vulnerability.

Disadvantages of the Leppit’s model

• It is slower and can, therefore, take a longer time to bring change (Leppit, 2006).
• The model created might fail to be compatible with the organizational culture, and this creates high levels of limitations towards the development of a firm.
• If the workforce is not well trained, it can be hard to implement change using the model.

Vision development in an organization

Every organization comes up with a vision strategy that is crucial in highlighting the direction that it needs to apply for change (Todnem, 2005). The change element in any given business needs to get aligned with the vision and the strategy that an organization has put in place so that there are smooth coordination and consistency at the same time. Therefore, it is important that before a firm gets to introduce change, they should first of all attempt to link change to the vision that they have and at the same time be certain that the vision is set in a clear and achievable manner. Vision is therefore configured to explain why the change is required and the processes that can likely be put in place to meet the change hence there should be actionability and articulation (Palmer et al., 2009). Strategy development comes in handy with the vision statement since many points may overlap and make it hard to meet the goals and objectives at hand. Therefore, a firm should not separate vision from the strategy and both should work together while appreciating the fact that successful strategy has its roots from the vision in place. They can, therefore, be termed as being interdepend and very essential processes in organizational change.

 

 

References

Leppitt, N. (2006). Challenging the code of change: Part 1. Praxis does not make perfect. Journal of change management, 6(2), 121-142.

Light, P. C. (2005). The four pillars of high performance: How robust organizations achieve extraordinary results. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2009). Managing organizational change: A multiple perspectives approach. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Todnem By, R. (2005). Organizational change management: A critical review. Journal of change management, 5(4), 369-380.