BUSI 335 Week 6 Discussion Board Forum 3 Replies Example

Discussion Board Forum 3 Replies: Responding to Classmates on Change Communication

BUSI 335 Leading Change, Discussion Board Forum 3 Replies

Thread by [Student Name]

The classmates and their threads are composites; the research cited is real, and the replies are written in the third person as the guide requires.

Reply to Jasmine

Jasmine's thread argued that the hospital's move to a new patient intake process failed because leaders announced the vision once and assumed staff understood. That diagnosis is persuasive, and research offers a way to make communication more complete.

Armenakis and Harris (2002) proposed that a change message should address five components. Discrepancy explains why change is needed. Appropriateness covers why this change, rather than some other, fits the problem. Efficacy builds confidence that the change can be accomplished. Principal support shows that leaders are committed. Personal valence answers what the change means for each employee. Messages that omit any component leave a gap that rumor or resistance tends to fill.

Applied to Jasmine's example, the hospital's announcement seems to have covered appropriateness, the new intake process itself, but not discrepancy, why the old process was failing, or personal valence, how nurses' and clerks' work would change. Repeating the message through several channels, with data on wait times and with honest discussion of workload, would have addressed those gaps.

The model also explains why one announcement is rarely enough. Each component may need a different messenger: data on discrepancy from managers, efficacy from staff who tried the process in a pilot unit and personal valence from supervisors who know each team's workload. A nurse who hears a respected colleague describe the pilot is more likely to believe the change can work than one who reads a memo.

Which of the five components does Jasmine think the hospital's staff most needed to hear?

Reply to Marcus

Marcus's thread recommended surveying employees to measure their readiness before the manufacturer introduced lean production, and measuring readiness before acting is wise. Research suggests the survey should look beyond individual attitudes.

Rafferty et al. (2013) reviewed research on change readiness and argued that readiness exists at multiple levels. Individuals can be ready or not, but so can work groups, which develop shared beliefs about a change, and whole organizations, whose structures and leadership affect their capacity to change. Readiness also has both a cognitive side, beliefs about the change, and an emotional side, feelings about it.

For the manufacturer, this means a plant might contain individually willing employees within a team whose norms discourage speaking up about problems, which lean production depends on. A readiness assessment could add questions about team norms and organizational capacity, such as whether supervisors have time to coach.

Rafferty et al. (2013) also noted that group readiness is shaped by shared experiences, such as how earlier changes were handled. If the plant's last improvement program was abandoned halfway, teams may doubt this one will last, whatever individuals say on a survey. Asking supervisors about the history of past changes would add that context to Marcus's assessment.

Would Marcus's survey capture the team-level beliefs that might make or break lean production on the plant floor?

References

Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810210423080

Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 110-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312457417