Management of change concerning downsizing in the Research and Development (R&D) Department

By | March 3, 2013

This Assignment Is Published With Permission From The Author For Online Review Only
All Rights Reserved @ ChinaAbout.Net

Concerning downsizing in the Research and Development (R&D) Department

 

1.        Does it make sense to expect your employees to have these fears? Why and why not?

 

The answer to the first question is a clear “Yes” with the explanation given below.

 

1.1    Rationalize fears by definition

 

Fears by definition can be referred as the symptom of mental disorder that prepares us to cope with the known dangers (Löker 2007, p.97). According to this definition, as when employees perceive that there will be a change which is the downsizing in the research and development (R&D) department, though such downsizing has not been confirmed by the top management of the company; in the perspective of the employees as when the rumors are spreading widely without any confirmation or clearance made, such downsizing seems to be has great possibility to happen so that it will be considered as a “known danger” and thus it will be normal to see and expect that the employees will have such fears because they are actually reacting with the “known danger” with a basic instinctive to have such symptom of mental disorder to prepare themselves to the dangers.

 

1.2    Importance of job security in Maslow (1943)’s Hierarchy of needs

 

Abraham Maslow (1943) categorized a person’s needs into five levels in a pyramid which is known as Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs. In this hierarchy of needs model from bottom to the top people will progress to seek to satisfy physiologic needs which are the most fundamental needs such as having food and drink, safety needs such physical safety, love and belongingness, self-esteem and self-actualization in the top of the pyramid. Once the lower level needs are satisfied, people will move the needs to the next higher class need. In a work environment, the model also applies as there is also hierarchy of needs in the work place. In the lowest level in term of satisfying the physiological needs in the work environment, most probably getting a job to afford the necessities could be the priority of the person. Soon after getting a job, safety needs in the work place could take the form of the need to be free of the fear of deprivation of the current work (McConnell 2004, p90).

 

Figure 1 Maslow (1943)’s Hierarchy of needs

 

As our case concerning downsizing in the Research and Development (R&D) Department, within the wide spreading rumors suggesting that there might be a large scale layoff happening soon, the security of the job has been under threat so that it would be reasonable that the employees would perceive the fears.

 

 

 

 

2.        Use models, approaches and techniques with steps to help allay these fears. How effective do you think these steps may be?

 

2.1    Step 1: Analysis of the source of resistances to change

 

As employees are made believe that there will be a large scale downsizing coming in due to the poor performance in the research and development (R&D) department which is the almost “confirmed” change in the eyes of the employees, and for such changes we will be able to see the source of such resistances. Below we will try to find out the sources of fears by using relative theories and also case analysis will be done regarding our case about downsizing before we can take actions to deal with the fears.

 

As suggested by Harvey and Broyles (2010, p.10) that the source of resistances to change could be from inside the organization or from external constituents. And Slack and Parent (1997, p.245) identify such internal and external source of resistance to changes by four major sources: Self-interest, Lack of trust and understanding about the implications of change, Differing assessments of change consequences and The cost of change.

 

2.1.1            Self-interest

 

Patti (1974) claimed that if goals relating to power, money, prestige, convenience, job security, or professional competence are threatened as a result of any potential change, the change will be resisted. So that though it could be reasonable from the management’s position to lay off some engineers especially those who are not performing, it is reasonable for the employees to feel the fears and resist the change (downsizing) because fundamentally everyone is pursuing their own interest and the fear would be reasonable because the downsize would cause a number of employees to lose their self-interests.

 

2.1.2            Lack of trust and understanding about the implications of change

 

Because the fact that the management has never explain their plan to deal with the poor performance of the R&D department, with the wide spreading fears about the possible action of downsizing as a solution to deal with the current issue of poor performance it is understandable that the employees would speculate their managers and thus begin to distrust the management team and such distrust could further lead to the distortion of the information and facts and the development of the distrust would make the fears more serious.

 

2.1.3            The cost of change

 

Both groups and individuals could resist the change because it is costly in term of time, effort and money especially in the short run (Slack and Parent 1997, p.245). In the group level, there may be resistance to the downsizing because it would break up the established interest groups; and in the individual level, different people may have different consideration but downsizing to most people would implicate a high monetary cost because the loss of income resource in a short run which could easily provoke fears.

 

2.2    Step 2: Force-field Analysis

 

Force-field analysis as a commonly used method to map a plan for goal achievement was originally developed by Kurt Lewin (1951) through listing out both driving and restraining forces that would either enhance or inhibit the progress toward a goal (Newton & Ender 2010, p.11).

 

Change:

 

Lay off a large proportion of the engineers and restructure the R&D dept with fresh blood

Top management wants performance (5)

Top engineers are leaving (3)

Good performance by new staffs (4)

Lay off compensation (1)

Training cost for new employees (1)

Resistance from individual employees (2)

Disruption or delay in the current jobs (2)

Resistance from labor unions (3)

Loss of staff morale (2)

New manager wants improvement (3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total: 15                                                       Total: 11

Forces for change                                     Forces against change

 

Figure 2 Force-field Analysis of downsizing in the case

 

As the force-field analysis shows, though there are a larger number of forces against the downsizing, but they are of much less importance than the forces for the change which are all from the management level. And consider that the top management and manger have the final decision to determine whether the downsizing will be carried out or not which give the driving forces larger rating in term of (5) (3) (4) (3) in the respective four forces listed above and results in the “Forces for change” scoring 15 more than the 11 of the “Forces against change”. This analysis suggests that the downsizing is viable though will attract a number of anti-change forces that could result in temporary disorder.

 

 

2.3    Step 3 Four frameworks model analysis

 

 

Table 1 Bolman and Deal Four Frames Model

Source: Designed by J.A.C. Noolan, based on theory in L. G. Bolman and T. Deal, 1989, Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

 

Bolman and Deal (1991) in their famous book, Reframing Organizations synthesizes thousands of studies regarding the organizational behavior and theories and proposed a Four Frameworks to look at the company’s behaviors in four “frames” or windows: Structural, Human resources, Political and symbolic. The theory suggests that every manager will have his or her own frame to get the job done. And Bolman and Deal (1989) held that managers who know their own frame well and can adeptly reply on more than one limited perspective are equipped to understand and manage the complicated job better. In our case about the downsizing issue, as the departmental head I will choose two frames out the model to indentify the role that I should play in this case.

 

 

 

 

2.3.1            Structured frame & Human Resources frame

 

Firstly, I will need to check with the structure frame by treating the organization as a system designed to achieve the strategic targets and organizational business goals. As mentioned in the case that the overall performance of the R&D department is very poor and in the regard the original structure needs to be re-examined in term of issues such as the allocation of the resources. Creating a flat and flexible structure that encourages technology innovation and constant learning for every employee will be focus of my job in the structured frame. And secondly in the human Resources frame, regardless of whether there will be a large scale of redundancy, it is the core of my job to retain those top engineer who are the fundamental source of our department and our company’s core competitiveness and in detail I will try to meet the needs of the development of the top engineers and at the same time try to recruit more top talents from outside the company.

 

2.4    Step 4: Use techniques to cope with fears

 

As mentioned above, fears by definition can be referred as the symptom of mental disorder that prepares us to cope with the known dangers (Löker 2007, p.97), so that there will be two different strategies that could be used to cope with the fears spreading around the research and development (R&D) department which caused a number of serious problems in two different scenario: the danger (large scale downsizing) is true which is under preparation and the second situation is that there is not such plan in the top management as they have other solutions. In these two different situations, two different sets of strategies, techniques and theories could be utilized allay the fears and return the work in the research and development (R&D) department back to normal. The first job that I will do is to get a confirmation from the top management that whether the change (downsizing) will be true or not, to check whether it is the company’s plan to have a large scale layoff. If there is no such thing, then an official declaration could remove the fears from the workplace, but if there should be a layoff, then two options could be used: tell them or lie to them.

 

2.4.1            Tell them

 

2.4.1.1      Education and communication

 

The technique of education and communication though is usually used more frequently in the promotion of the changes rather than the cure; it could be used also to communicate the changes to the involved parties in order to reduce the negative influence of the changes. The fundamental idea of this technique is to help the employees to apprehend the rationality of the changes in term of why the changes are needed (Vallabhaneni 2011, p.206). In our case concerning about the downsizing, as a manager of the R&D department, it would be necessary to communicate with our staffs the situation of our department and communicate the reasons why there would be a decision from the top management to reduce the number of the employees. It is believe that guessing creates more fear rather than confirmed risks as people would worry about the too much by guessing. On the other hand, as when everyone knows the necessity to lay off some of the employees, it is expected that some of them would voluntarily summit their resignation letter and this will help to retain more employees who are really in need of the jobs.

 

2.4.1.2      Participation and involvement

 

The introduction of the participation and involvement of the employees in the undergoing changes not only helps to make a diversion of the rational and irrational fears about the changes (Ewles & Simnett 2003, p.160) but also help to reach a better solution that could be accepted by more stakeholders. As in our case, it is certain that we cannot ask the employees to decide who will be unemployed but there are other ways that we can encourage the employee to take part in. For example, we can arrange employment interviews from other departments within the company or from other companies in the same industry to try to relocate some of the employees.

 

2.4.1.3      Participation and involvement

 

The introduction of the participation and involvement of the employees in the undergoing changes not only helps to make a diversion of the rational and irrational fears about the changes (Ewles & Simnett 2003, p.160) but also help to reach a better solution that could be accepted by more stakeholders. As in our case, it is certain that we cannot ask the employees to decide who will be unemployed but there are other ways that we can encourage the employee to take part in. For example, we can arrange employment interviews from other departments within the company or from other companies in the same industry to try to relocate some of the employees.

 

2.4.1.4      Facilitation and support

 

Facilitation and support refers to the assistance provided to the employees for them to better manage the changes, the facilitation and support could be most helpful whereas anxiety and fear is the core of the resistance (Kreitner 2007, p.477). Facilitation and support usually take the forms of coaching, mentoring and other facilitator schemes, and also the hiring of an external and professional counselor could increase the effectiveness of the facilitation and support efforts in reducing the resistances and fears. Also, as the departmental manager, I can also be the person to provide the mentoring to the employees in need.

 

 

 

 

2.4.2            Keep it secret

 

2.4.2.1      Manipulation and co-optation

 

Manipulation could be referred as the efforts aiming at converting influence attempts such as distorting facts to make them more attractive by withholding undesirable information and creating rumors to induce the employees to accept the change (Pathak 2011, p.111). On the other hand, co-optation which is the combination use of both manipulation and participation strategy that seeks to buy off the heads of the resistance group and provide them with key roles in the change process. These two options could all be used in our case to restore the order in a fast speed. We can send out rumors saying that the downsizing is actually not real and at the same time we can give out promises to those who either have excellent technical skills and are top engineers or those having influential roles in the internal politics to keep them secured if there should be any downsizing happen in the future.

 

2.4.2.2      Explicit and implicit coercion

 

Explicit and implicit coercion happens when managers cannot or will not spend the time necessary for the other strategies force employees to go along with a change by threatening them with termination, loss of pay raises or promotions, transfer and so on (Vallabhaneni 2009). In our case, firing someone who keeps spreading the rumours with some excuses could bring immediate effect to stop the rumors but it will on the other hand increase the fears perceived by the employees. And alternatively some other coercion methods could also be used to stop the rumors such as removing someone from the promotion lists.

 

 

 

2.5    Evaluation of effectiveness of these techniques

 

In comparison between the options of telling the truth or lying to the employees, in my personal view the latter option will be more effective in controlling the rumors and resume the normal work order within a certain period of time. The reasons are two-fold: firstly techniques involved in the option to tell the truth could be costly in term of both time and other resources consumption, for instance, hiring of an external and professional counselor could be costly and also take up a lot of time of the engineers; secondly, as the major cause of the fears is from the speculations and without support from the actual facts, the manipulation, co-optation explicit and implicit coercion could be very effective to control the panic situation.

 

3.        Assuming the confirmation of downsizing

 

3.1    Culture

 

3.1.1            Definition and theories of corporate culture

 

A widely accepted and used definition of corporate culture describes corporate culture as a “pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and therefore to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think and fell in relation to those problems (Schein 1997, p.12). And in the Bolman and Deal Four Frames Model, it is the manager’s symbolic frame to care about the corporate culture. As suggested by Helen Telford (1996, p.15) that the symbolic frame is founded in the social and cultural anthropology, concentrating on the values and beliefs of the people in an organization and the culture in which they reside. And among the organizational changes, it is necessary for a manager to monitor the changes of the organizational culture that are brought by the changes such as downsizing which involves a number of employees while others will also experiencing complex emotional struggling. Also, with the significant changes, it is also necessary for a manger to form the new cultural elements to cultivate the future traditions that shared by the new employees.

 

There are four types of culture though they are not mutually exclusive; it is believed that the corporate culture of a particular organization will tend to emphasize one of the four cultural value types (Lussier & Achua 2010, p.384). These four types of organizational cultures are: cooperative culture, adaptive culture, competitive and bureaucratic cultures. The introduction and definition of the four major culture types is given below:

 

Cooperative culture is considered by many managers as core to the superior performance. It represents a leadership belief is strong, mutually reinforcing exchanges and linkages between employees and departments. The cooperative culture believes that internal relationship is the core to the business success rather than the external relationship, and the cooperative culture need make every employee perceive that they are empowered with assistance and share responsibility to achieve the synergy which makes the business goals more easily to be achieved.

 

Adaptive culture could be referred as a leadership belief in active monitoring of the external environment for emerging opportunities and threats. The most known advantages of the adaptive culture are its flexibility and innovativeness through the company’s policy making and practices that are adaptive to the fast changes and encouragement of the employees to take risks to obtain better development chances. So that transformations and failure are accepted.

 

Competitive culture represents a leadership that encourages and values a highly competitive work environment. In a company that advocates a competitive culture, the policies, procedures, rules and other working practices are designed in such a manner that both internal and external competition would be encouraged to maximize the overall production and efficiency by motivating everyone in a highly competitive working environment.

 

Bureaucratic culture describes a leadership that values order, stability, status, and efficiency. Bureaucratic business culture focuses on rules, policies and procedures that could foster stability and structured environment. Though it seems that bureaucratic culture has not enough of flexibility and will incur high management cost, but many large MNEs bureaucratic culture would use the bureaucratic culture to ensure the consistence of a large business.

 

3.1.2            Impact of downsizing on the four organizational culture

 

The four types of organizational culture are constructed based on two different dimensions: the degree of environment stability and organizational strategic focus. Below we will see how these four types of organizational culture with different strategic focus and functioning in different industrial environment could use the downsizing decision and what impacts could the downsizing bring to the companies with these cultures.

 

In the cooperative culture which could usually be found in organizations that have their business running in dynamic environments though they are concentrating in the internal strategic focus. Companies with cooperative culture tend to use empowering, respecting, rewarding, and trusting employees to cope with the external dynamic environments. So in this type of culture, downsizing is not a recommending and often used tool because large scale of layoff will lead to distrust of employees to the management and also influence the existing established cooperation. In the adaptive culture which could usually been found in companies that are operating in dynamic environment and with external business focus. Strategies such as outsourcing, strategic alliances, and downsizing are often used to tailor the companies to the changed environments. So downsizing in companies with adaptive culture value is usual when it is necessary and employees are prepared to face downsizing and they could even perceive that the downsizing is coming when certain external conditions are met. And in the competitive culture which usually exists in firms that are operating in a stable environment with an external strategic focus. And because of the target of achieving certain business goals in term of market share and revenue growth using high internal and external competitive strategy, it is the need to use downsizing as one of the tools to increase the internal competitiveness especially in the departments which are not performing well. Lastly, in the bureaucratic culture which are associated with organizations that are operating in the relatively stable environments with an internal strategic orientation. And because of the bureaucratic culture’s strict adherence to set rules, procedures, and authority lines, changes are slow in such culture and so downsizing is not easy in bureaucratic culture due to its significant influences over the internal stability.

 

3.2    Organizational structure

 

3.2.1            Introduction of three organizational structures

 

There are three major types of organizational structures: functional, project (or product) and matrix. The functional structure is the most typical organizational structure that people could imagine about the structure of the organizations as illustrated in the figure below. In the hierarchy of functional organization, employees are divided into different functional departments such as human resource management, research and development, manufacturing according to the functions and roles of the employees. In organizations with functional structure, staffs have specialized skills in their respective disciplines. By specialization and division of labor the most obvious advantages of functional structure are efficiency and professionalism (Straub, Goodman & Baskerville 2008, p.49).

 

A project or product organizational structure divides the people by different projects or product lines. Many conglomerates such as GE will have different divisions for different product lines. In a single product division, there will be standalone R&D, manufacturing and other functioning components that are not directly linked to other product divisions.

A matrix organizational structure represents the middle position between the functional structures and the project structures. As the figure shows, a matrix organizational structure requires a complicated structure and for an individual employee, he or she will under a project manager and at the same time under a functional manager. And the matrix organizational structure can be strong, weak, or balanced depending on the degree of the control imposed by the project managers.

 

Figure 3 Functional, project and matrix organizational structures

Source: Schwalbe 2010, p.49

3.2.2            Impact of downsizing with different organizational structures

 

The extent of the impact of downsizing in a department to the whole company will be influenced by the different organization structure which designs the tie between the department and other departments and other functioning activities. Firstly in a functional structure, if the downsizing happens in the R&D department, because of the division of people based on the different specialties, the impact of the downsizing will be confined in the R&D department in the short run though in the long run it will also have influences over the other departments and the business operation of the company in a whole. Secondly, in a matrix organizational structure the downsizing of the R&D employees will have medium impact to the various projects and to the company. Thirdly, downsizing in the R&D division within a certain product line will have significant impact over the particular product line or project because of its closed tie to the project but this will also means that there will be relatively less impact on the company because only an individual product line has been influenced while the others are relatively independent from this downsizing.

 

3.3    Conflicts and issues of power politics and their relation to the problems

 

The political and structural frames suggest that within an organizational change, a manager needs to deal with the two tasks. In term of the structural frame, the manager needs to realize that change will certainly bring in confusion and even chaos, and it is manager’s job to realign and renegotiate the formal policies that could be applied in the working practices in the future. And in term of political frame, as known to us that change will create winners and losers and break up the existing balance of the leverage between the interest groups but it is important that the management should not too much involved in the internal political activities but should focus on the reconstruction of the arenas where the political dispute could be negotiated. Below we will check respectively how these two jobs could be done in relations to our case of downsizing in the R&D department with the help of the conclusion made from the analysis above.

 

3.3.1            Key assumptions

 

In order to discuss the case more specially, here we make some key assumptions that could smooth the following analysis regarding the political and structural frame topics: (a) The company is using a project organizational structure which means that the R&D department in the case is only in charge of the R&D process of a certain product line rather than the whole R&D practices of all the company products; (b) The company has a adaptive culture as the company is operating in a dynamic environment with external business focus; (c) One of the key reasons leading to the poor performance of the R&D department is that the fast changing and updating of technologies makes the R&D focus out of date.

 

3.3.2            Case analysis in the field of power politics

 

Based on the assumptions that we have made above, we can see that R&D department belongs to the certain product line and now the problem is that what the R&D department has been researching in has been out of date and can not catch up with the most innovative technologies. So as the departmental head, I will first have a careful examination of what are the most innovative technologies that are being researched by other competitors right now, and secondly laying off those can’t not adapt to such change and finally attract more professional talents from within (from other R&D departments of other product lines) or outside the company. When we can expect the power politics in term of who will be maintained and who will be fired, as mentioned above, what we need to do is to create the arena that could encourage the positive competition for the chances to survive the downsizing. And on one hand the widely accepted top engineers should be selected out and promised with the positions in the new restructured R&D department and while the rest should be given a chance to show their capability of learning the new skills which make them able to stay. The principle of selecting the survivors should be made known to everyone, and this reduces and controls the power politics in the controllable degree.

 

 

4.        Develop a change management methodology for planning and implementing the chosen change scenario

 

The idea of organization development (OD) was proposed by Cumming and Worley that is directed at bringing about planned change to increase an organization’s effectiveness and capability to change itself (Cumming & Worley, 2005 p.22). And according the idea of OD, leaders should positively embrace the change and manage the change process actively (Yaeger & Sorensen 2009, p.199). Considered as the father of OD, Lewin (1958) described three stages of the planned changes as showed below in the figure.

 

Figure 4 Lewin’s Stages of Planned Changes (Source: Lewin 1958)

 

Cumming and Worley (2001) had summarized the “action research” in eight steps which was considered as the foundation of most OD interventions. Below we will provide a comprehensive description of the action program using the eight-step model:

 

4.1    Problem identification

 

The problem on the paper as we can tell from the case and also based on the assumptions that had been made above about the case is that the overall performance of the R&D functioning department of a certain product line in the company is poor and there had been a lot of talks regarding the potential large scale of downsizing in the department which in return disrupts the productivity of the department and some top engineers are also leaving for the competitors. To speak from the fundamental of the problems with the assumptions made above the case we can conclude that the root problem behind these problems is that there is a lack of innovation in the R&D department or even in the company level.

 

4.2    Consultation with a behavioral science expert

 

In this step, our department will introduce an external OD practitioner, after communicating the department’s situation and challenges with the OD practitioner who is required to have similar OD experiences in the same industry; we will expect to receive preliminary evaluation and suggestion in this case from the external OD practitioner. Building up a collaborative atmosphere is important in this step (Swanson & Holton 2001, p.113).

 

4.3    Data gathering and preliminary diagnosis

 

This step is expected to be finished by the external OD practitioner and our department’s job will be to provide everything possible to assist him or her to get the job done well. We will allow the external OD practitioner to perform the methods such as observation, interviews, questionnaires to diagnose the department’s case and if necessary we will also make the engineer performance data available to the external OD practitioner for a better diagnosis to be done to find out the reasons behind the low performance.

 

4.4    Feedback to a key client or group

 

After the step of data gathering and preliminary diagnosis, the OD intervention progresses to the next step which is to check the feedback from the OD practitioner. The evaluation and assessment and findings from the OD practitioner should be discussed by the top management from within the R&D department and from top management of the project to see whether the idea and change direction provided by the OD practitioner is valuable and viable for the future development of the R&D department.

 

4.5    Joint diagnosis of the problem

 

The next step will be to diagnose the problem with the joint effort from both the departmental management and the OD practitioner by discussing the findings through the OD practitioner’s analysis of the case. The joint diagnosis effort has two benefits: firstly it helps the departmental management to understand further what the OD practitioner has found and what he or she will do in the coming days and months to perform the OD to get adapted to the changed external environment; secondly, the joint diagnosis on the other hand provide further assistance to further understand the problem from the perspective of the management because there is no one best solution to even the same problem for in different companies surrounded by different business environments.

 

4.6    Joint action planning

 

The joint action planning is the beginning step of the change in Lewin (1958)’s stages of planned changes, and the focus of this step will be taking specific actions depending on the culture, technology and internal and external environment of the R&D department and time and expenses of the intervention.

 

4.7    Action

 

The action step will implement the planned downsizing strategies as proposed by the external OD practitioner and agreed by the management of the department. The management needs to monitor the implementation with extra care and attention to ensure that the downsizing strategy is implemented within the control of the management.

 

4.8    Data gathering after action

 

This step is to check the effectiveness of the downsizing that has been performed. And because it takes time for the restructure of the R&D department to take effect, for example, it takes time for the new employees to get adapted to the company environment and accept the company’s culture. Also as suggested by Lewin (1958)’s stages of planned changes, it is necessary for the department to follow up and refreeze the new production procedures and other working practices that have been formed within the OD practice.

 

 

Reference list

 

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. 1991. Reframing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Bolman, L., & Deal, T. 1989, Modern approaches to understanding and managing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Cumming, T. G. & Worley, C. G. 2005. Organizational Development and Change, 8th edn. International Student Edition. Ohio: South-Western. p.22

 

Ewles, L. & Simnett, I. 2003, Promoting health: a practical guide, the 5 edition, London: Elsevier Limited, p.160

 

Harvey, T. R. & Broyles, E. A. 2010, Resistance to Change: A Guide to Harnessing Its Positive Power, Plamouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, p.10

 

Kreitner, R. 2007, Management, 10 edition, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, p.477

 

Lewin, K. 1958. Group decision and social change. In E. Maccoby (Ed.). Reading in social psychology (3rd edn.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

 

Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social sciences, New York: Harper Collins

 

Löker, A. 2007, Theory Construction and Testing in Physics and Psychology. Victoria: Trafford Publishing, p.97

 

Lussier, R. N. & Achua, C. F. 2010, Leadership: Theory, Application, & Skill Development, 4th edn, Mason: Cengage Learning, p.384

 

Maslow, A. H. 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50 (4): 370-396

 

Newton, F. B. & Ender, S. C. 2010, Students Helping Students: A Guide for Peer Educators on College Campuses. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p.11

 

Patti, R. J. 1974. Organizational resistance and change: the view from below. Social Service Review, 48, 367-383.

 

Pathak, H. 2011, Organizational Change, New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley (India) Pvt. Ltd, p.111

 

Schwalbe, K. 2010. Information Technology Project Management. 6th end, Mason: Cengage Learning. p.49

 

Schein, E. H. 1997, Organizational culture and leadership, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, p.12

 

Straub, D. W., Goodman, S. E., & Baskerville 2008, Information security: policy, processes, and practices. New York: M. E. Sharpe, Inc, p.49

 

Slack, T. & Parent, M. M.1997, Understanding sport organizations: the application of organization theory, 2nd edition, Windsor: Human Kinetics, p.245

 

Swanson, R. A. & Holton, E. F., 2001, Foundations of Human Resource Development: Easyread Edition. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. p.113

 

Telford, H. 1996. Transforming schools through collaborative leadership. London: Falmer Press. p.15

 

Vallabhaneni S. R. 2011, Wiley CIA Exam Review: Internal audit activity’s role in governance, risk, and control, 3 edition, New Jersey: Wiley & Sons, p.206

 

Vallabhaneni, D. 2009, What’s Your MBA IQ?: A Manager’s Career Development Tool. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons

 

Yaeger, T. F., & Sorensen, P. F. 2009, Strategic organization development: managing change for success. New York: Information Age Publishing, p.199

 

Appendix 2.0 Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs analysis survey sample

 

Question 1: If I have better a work environment in term of cleanness and tidiness for example, I will be motivated to work harder.

 

Question 2: I usually have discussion and chat with my colleagues, backup managers and the assistant manager.

 

Question 3: I have good relationships with others in the work place.

 

Question 4: I really enjoy my time at work because of the nice colleagues around me.

 

Question 5: I really enjoy the recognition by performing a good job.

 

Question 6: I usually have outgoing with my colleagues.

 

Question 7: I will be motivated if I can obtain more bonus.

 

Question 8: I always hold myself responsible to solve the customers’ difficulties..

 

Question 9: I have a strong desire to learn new things and skills to be more competent in the work.

 

Question 10: I will try my best to be the best agent to obtain the promotion opportunity.

 

Question 11: I will perform a quality job because of my financial needs.

 

Question 12: I want to be respected by other employees.

Question 13: I always feel like that I have contributed to the good job of our team.

 

Question 14: The backup managers and assistant manager is often very helpful.

 

Question 15: The company policy (such as the CF punishment system) excerpt great pressure for us to keep performing.

 

Question 16: I like being the focus among our team members.

 

Question 17: I have in-depth understanding of the customer service and am willing to contribute to this job.

 

Question 18: I really desire the compliments and recognition from our manager.

 

Question 19: The success of my work has very close relationship with my colleagues.

 

Question 20: I believe that I would achieve my personal value by doing an excellent job in the company.

 

Question 21: I will volunteer to solve my colleagues’ difficulties if I am able to do so.

 

Question 22: It is very important to keep ourselves updated to the newest skills and product knowledge.

 

Question 23: We need a better and more personalized work schedule for a healthier work life.

 

Question 24: Our manager really care of us.

 

 

Appendix 2.0 Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs analysis survey sample (continued)

 

 

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.