Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., Ingols, C. (2016). What to change. In: Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit (pp. 1-32). (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE.
Tupper Cawsey is Professor Emeritus of Business, Wilfrid Laurier University. Gene Deszca is Professor of Business Administration, Wilfrid Laurier University, and Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Cynthia Ingols is an Associate Professor, School of Management (SOM), Simmons College, and Boston. Sweeping technological advances, geopolitical shifts, demographic changes, and demands to be receptive to physical environment are adding to organizational governance and concerns for security to evolve substantial pressure for organizational change. Drawing from previous models, years of teaching, and decades of consulting work and discussing with executives and managers about change, the Change Path Model by the three authors combines prescription and process: The model contains less instruction than Kotter and more specifications and guidelines than Lewin.
Connecting recent theory with practical functionings, Organizational Change: the Change Path Model, the Third Edition adds conceptual models with tangible examples and valuable exercises to dramatically advance the skills, abilities, and knowledge of learners in making a functioning change. Learners study how to identify needs, communicate a strong vision, and involve others in the process. This exceptional toolkit by Tupper Cawsey, Gene Deszca, and Cynthia Ingols gives students practical insights and tools, measure, and monitor maintainable change initiatives to direct organizations to preferred outcomes. Therefore, the model is useful in achieving organizational development.
Caluwé, L. D., & Vermaak, H. (2004). Change paradigms: An overview. Organization Development Journal, 22(4), 9-
Léon de Caluwé, Ph.D. is a social psychologist and Hans Vermaak, MMC, Ph.D. is a partner with the Twynstra Group. There are perhaps as various views about how change happens as there are persons in the Universe. Léon de Caluwé and Hans Vermaak created a model which shows the difference between five basically dissimilar ways of thinking about change. Every one shows different convictions and belief systems about how change functions, the type of interventions that are operative, how to change persons, and so on. Diverse types of thinking about change are marked by color: blue, yellow, green, white and red.
De Caluwé and Vermaak also came up with an interactive test that assists learners in identifying beliefs about change. The check outcomes can be employed to assess what kind what you are good at, the type of change agent you are, and the kind of personal skills that could be advanced further. So as to endure and attain long-term success, multi-stakeholder partnerships require different participants with diverse values and insights. Every color of the change agent model is essential. This is a modern change model.
Erickson, M. (2009). God and change. Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 1, 38-51. http://www.sbts.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2010/02/sbjt_012_sum97_erickson.pdf
Millard Erickson is a Research Professor of Theology at Truett Theological Seminary in Waco, Texas. The correlation of God to change question has occupied on an important significance in the later portion of the twentieth century. The old Greek query of the one and the several have been allowed an extra impetus in the present day. One reason is basically that change, as a minimum in expressions of cultural change, has developed commonplace in our reasoning. As a minimum upon the superficial, orthodox theology has a lot at stake in this change issue, for it has conventionally upheld the teaching of divine immutability. By this, it means that even if everything else in the world seems to go through change, God never changes. He is the unchanging eternal one.
Ibarra, H. & Obodaru, O. (2009, January). Women and the vision thing. Harvard Business Review, 87(1), pp. 62-70. http://ezproxy.swu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=35819738&site=eds-live
Herminia IBARRA is The Cora Chaired Professor of Leadership & Learning.Otilia Obadaru is an Assistant Professor, Organizational Behavior Area in the Jones Graduate School of Business, Rice University.
According to an examination of hundreds of 360-degree evaluations gathered by Insead’s managerial education program, females are not ranked lower than men in assessments of their leadership abilities because of unending gender bias. That examination presented that women tend to outdo men in all parts but one: vision. Unluckily, that exemption is a big one. At the high tiers of administration, the capability to spot opportunities, create a strategy grounded on a wider view of the undertaking, and motivate others is a must-have. To examine the type of the shortage, and if it is a perception or reality, Insead professor Ibarra and doctoral candidate Obodaru interrogated women managers and analyzed the assessed data. They created three probable explanations. First, females may work just as much as males to shape the forthcoming but go about it in a dissimilar way; secondly women might believe they have smaller amounts of licenses to go out on a limb; and third, women might decide not to nurture reputations as big visionaries. These studies are geared towards understanding scientific management.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review,73(2),59-67.
John P. Kotter was the Konosuke Matsushita Professor of Leadership at Harvard Business School in Boston. He analyses eight reasons leading to failure of transformation efforts in organizations and a number of strategies for successful organizational transformation. As human nature is, essential change is often fought mightily by the persons it most affects: the people in the trenches of the undertaking. Thus, controlling change is both absolutely important and incredibly difficult to be accomplished. This book helps in developing knowledge towards the understanding of the seminal research of change management theory.
Nelson, A. (2008, May). What really moves people: How learning changes employees. Chief Learning Officer, 7(5), 34-64.
According to Nelson, there are three factors that move people positively. The first and most important factor that moves people is the ability to provide a highly engaging learning experience which affects the learner’s heart and mind positively. The second factor is the ability of the educator or influencer to help the learner through a continuous process of change. The change process should include continuous learning, practical reinforcement of knowledge learned as opposed to one-time learning. Lastly, the right technology should be employed. Technology plays a pivotal role in effective delivery and acceleration of the learning process. It allows large scale transfer of knowledge which allows organizations to reach many people and drive tangible business results.
Van de Ven, A.H., & Poole, M.S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510-540.
ANDREW H. VAN DE VEN University of Minnesota and MArshall Scott Poole of Texas A&M University in their review, they come up with four fundamental theories that help in building blocks for an explanation of processes of change in businesses: life cycle, dialectics, evolution, and teleology. These four theories describe various sequences of change happenings that are propelled by various conceptual motors and function at various organizational levels. This article recognizes the situations when every theory applies and suggests how interplay among the theories gives a wide diversity of more complicated theories of change and development in organizational life. This is a good study towards understanding modern change models.
References
Cawsey, T. F., Deszca, G., Ingols, C. (2016). What to change. In: Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit (pp. 1-32). (3rd Ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. http://ezproxy.swu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=15808984&site=e ds-live
Caluwé, L. D., & Vermaak, H. (2004). Change paradigms: An overview. Organization Development Journal, 22(4), 9-18. http://ezproxy.swu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=15808984&site=e ds-live
Erickson, M. (2009). God and change. Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 1, 38-51. http://www.sbts.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2010/02/sbjt_012_sum97_erickson.pdf
Ibarra, H. & Obodaru, O. (2009, January). Women and the vision thing. Harvard Business Review, 87(1), pp. 62-70. http://ezproxy.swu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=35819738&site=eds-live
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59-67. http://ezproxy.swu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=23363656&site=eds-live
Nelson, A. (2008, May). What really moves people: How learning changes employees. Chief Learning Officer, 7(5), 34-64. http://ezproxy.swu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=31781360&site=eds-live
Van de Ven, A.H., & Poole, M.S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 510-540. http://ezproxy.swu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=9508080329&site=eds-live Student Study Site:study.sagepub.com/cawsey3
