LingHe Simulation - INSEAD CALT
LingHe Simulation - INSEAD CALT
LingHe Simulation - INSEAD CALT
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Understanding Organizational Dynamics of Change in China:<br />
A Multimedia <strong>Simulation</strong> Approach<br />
Huifang Yang<br />
School of Business, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093, China<br />
Philippe Leliaert<br />
Maastricht School of Management, Maastricht, the Netherlands<br />
Shuming Zhao<br />
School of Business, Nanjing University, Nanjing, 210093, P.R. China<br />
and<br />
School of Graduate Studies, Macao University of Science and Technology, Avenida, Wailong,<br />
Taipa, Macao, P.R. China<br />
Albert A. Angehrn<br />
<strong>INSEAD</strong>, Fontainebleau, France<br />
Leo van Geffen<br />
Maastricht School of Management, Maastricht, the Netherlands<br />
*The authors would like to thank the EuropeAid Co-operation Office of European Commission<br />
for the financial support and National Natural Science Foundation of China (70372036) to this<br />
research. The authors would also like to thank Nanjing University “985 Second Phase<br />
Innovation Base” for its support of this research.<br />
Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Shuming Zhao, School of<br />
Business, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, P.R. China. E-mail: zhaosm@nju.edu.cn<br />
1
Abstract<br />
As organizational change, and in particular Information and Communication Technology<br />
(ICT) driven change, has become an important way to improve the efficiency of business<br />
processes, more and more organizations are paying increasing attention to helping their managers<br />
acquire the necessary knowledge and skills for better managing such change. This paper describes<br />
the design of a computer-based interactive multimedia simulation called <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong>,<br />
which models the dynamics of organizational change in a typical Chinese business environment.<br />
The simulation aims to stimulate and enhance managers’ understanding of organizational<br />
resistance to change and how to more effectively implement changes. Having tested the<br />
simulation among both Western and Chinese managers in a series of workshops, the paper<br />
further examines the effectiveness of the simulation as an innovative learning tool and technique<br />
for improving their understanding of the organizational dynamics and the corresponding<br />
knowledge and skill in managing organizational change in a Chinese environment.<br />
2
Introduction<br />
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) have over the last 25 or so years<br />
become an important vehicle for organizations to introduce improvements to their business<br />
performance---in the pursuit of either new business opportunities or operating efficiencies---with<br />
often also a profound indirect impact on both organizational structure and business processes.<br />
ICT-driven changes thus often have a similar impact as direct organizational changes initiated by<br />
for instance mergers, acquisitions, and corporate restructuring. Empirical evidence, however,<br />
shows that organizational changes only rarely achieve the desired results, and this is mostly<br />
attributed to a lack of understanding of, and skill in how to deal with organizational resistance to<br />
change. This phenomenon has been observed in organizations in both Western countries and<br />
Eastern countries (Wang, 1994; Boyce, 2002; Geller, 2002; Duck, 1998; Geng, 2003; Goltz,<br />
Hietapelto, 2002; Huse, Cummings, 1985; Koonce, 1991; Kotter, 1996; Kotter, Cohen, 2002; Liu,<br />
2003; Lou, 2001; Lewin, 1947; Levy, 1986; Dai, 1998, Hu, et al., 2003; Jin et al., 2003; Lin, 2001;<br />
Finstad, 1998; Wang, L.G., 2003; Zell, 2003), highlighting, moreover, that IT-driven change in<br />
particular takes people outside their comfort zone, fueling resistance. The reason for this typically<br />
lies in the uncertainty and risk that information technologies bring as they change the way people<br />
work and interact, even affecting life styles and behavioral habits as communication intensifies<br />
and transparency soars, with often significant impact on personal or team status.<br />
The opening of the Chinese market to foreign trade and investments, and the consequent<br />
increased collaboration between Chinese and foreign managers, brings an interesting new<br />
dimension to learning how to effectively introduce innovation in increasingly mixed cultural<br />
environments. This applies to both Western managers who need to adapt their management<br />
styles to better suit the significantly different Chinese context and environment---not blindly rely<br />
on best practices and behaviors from their own past experience---as well as the Chinese managers<br />
who face tremendous change on a scale and at a pace that is previously unseen and for which<br />
therefore there exists little or no relevant past experience to draw on.<br />
Especially in this context of a fast growing Chinese economy and its opening market it is<br />
important not only for Chinese managers but also for their Western business partners to gain<br />
such understanding and build the necessary skills and competences for more effectively<br />
introducing change and innovation in Chinese organizations. By extension, organizations should<br />
also focus on developing the appropriate learning or training tools that may help managers to<br />
more effectively acquire such skills (Zhao, 2001 & 2005; Zhao, Angehrn et al., 2005;Yu, 2000;<br />
Wang, X.B., 2003; Iskat, et al., 2003; Judson, 1991; Fox et al., 2001; Gavin, 2003; Seijts et al.,<br />
2003; Whelan-Berry, Gordon, 2000; Yang, 2001; Yu, 1989).<br />
3
In that respect, computer-based learning tools have already been developed in recent years<br />
as part of a growing family of so-called ‘business games’ for management education (Angehrn,<br />
Doz, Atherton, 1995; Angehrn, Manzoni, 1996; Angehrn, Nabeth, 1997; Manzoni, Angehrn,<br />
1997; Giffin, Angehrn, 1997). The EIS <strong>Simulation</strong> specifically addresses IT-driven organizational<br />
change where the introduction of an Executive Information System (EIS) among the top<br />
management of a simulated organization leads to different forms and levels of resistance<br />
(Manzoni, Angehrn, 1998). The participants face the challenge of choosing among a range of<br />
initiatives to convince and influence the organization’s managers to start using the EIS in the<br />
shortest possible time. In contrast with traditional learning tools and techniques such as reading<br />
books or listening to a lecture or even attending short role-playing exercises, computer<br />
simulations are capable of capturing a significantly higher level of complexity through the<br />
interaction of many factors, to create a life-like experience yet in a risk-free environment. The<br />
participants are primed to experiment and learn from their mistakes – something that is difficult<br />
to realize in real-life, on-the-job training.<br />
The EIS <strong>Simulation</strong> has already been used extensively as a learning tool in Master of<br />
Business Administration (MBA) and corporate management training programs in Western<br />
organizations. However, as the EIS <strong>Simulation</strong> was developed based on Western cultural<br />
contexts and dynamics, its relevance and usefulness to Eastern management training was<br />
potentially limited. Western best practices in managing organizational change were found to be<br />
ineffective and sometimes counter-effective when applied in a Chinese organizational<br />
environment (Zhao, Angehrn et al., 2005; Angehrn, Leliaert, et al., 2005). This explains the oftenheard<br />
frustration on the part of experienced Western managers with the perceived slow,<br />
convoluted and in transparent decision processes among Chinese counterparts - mirrored by<br />
frustration on the part of equally experienced Chinese managers with the perceived brash,<br />
impatient and impersonal management styles of their Western counterparts. A new set of best<br />
practices therefore had to be developed to more closely reflect the dynamics of organizational<br />
change in a Chinese business context.<br />
Another factor for consideration was whether the use of computer-based learning tools,<br />
which themselves appear to be an innovation to the Chinese educational system, would be<br />
accepted and effective among Chinese managers to acquire new management competences and<br />
skills.<br />
The present paper first describes the design of the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong>, which was based on<br />
the existing EIS <strong>Simulation</strong> but now rather put in the context of organizational change in a<br />
Chinese business environment. More specifically it describes the selection of a set of change<br />
tactics, and examines their reliability and validity in effectively achieving change. Finally, the<br />
4
paper evaluates the effectiveness of the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> in transferring new competences and<br />
skills regarding the management of changes in a Chinese business context, as measured among<br />
participants in a series of workshops carried out during 2004.<br />
Design of the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> Context<br />
The purpose of the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> was to offer an advanced multimedia learning tool<br />
for Chinese and foreign managers wanting to implement organizational change in a context that<br />
is typical of current business issues in China. But other than being recognizable and realistic, the<br />
context moreover had to be challenging so as to “force” managers to make mistakes (on the<br />
premise that one learns as much if not more from one’s mistakes than from one’s successes) and<br />
avoid “quick-fix” solutions including, for instance, replacing the entire top management layer and<br />
subsequently imposing the intended changes: such action, although often practiced especially in<br />
the wake of a takeover or restructuring, does not offer any insights in how to invoke rather than<br />
impose change nor is it anyway always an option especially when the management carries<br />
significant relational capital that needs safeguarding.<br />
Authors selected a fictitious company called <strong>LingHe</strong> Company, located in Changsha, capital<br />
of the Hunan Province. The name and context of <strong>LingHe</strong> Company were loosely based on the<br />
existing case of a state-owned textile company facing restructuring (Heling, van Geffen, 2004).<br />
The context was adapted to include the following boundary conditions, which were deemed to be<br />
the most relevant, typical and recognizable challenges in China:<br />
- On-going privatizations and alterations into joint-stock companies of state-owned<br />
companies, and with it the introduction of profitability targets and personal<br />
accountability;<br />
- The introduction of new (and sometimes ill-aligned) management culture and values in<br />
Joint Ventures with Western or Western-style companies;<br />
- The introduction of new information & communication technologies, but also of foreign<br />
management techniques, in hitherto traditionally-managed companies;<br />
- “Job hopping” (i.e. frequently moving from one employer to another) by younger<br />
generations of managers who are lured by better living standards and better career<br />
prospects in cities like Shanghai and Beijing.<br />
Authors wanted to convey a company that was still relatively remote from Western<br />
influences (which one might expect in the immediate hinterland of cities like Shanghai, Beijing,<br />
Guangzhou, etc.), based in a region with a moderate pace of economic change where therefore<br />
5
the need to change might not be felt as prominently. In addition the company was defined to be<br />
moderately profitable, further reducing any urgency to change.<br />
The choice of a (former) state-owned enterprise (SOE) is a reflection of business reality in<br />
China, whereby recent and on-going alterations of state-owned enterprises into joint-stock<br />
companies have as goal the reduction of bureaucracy and pursuit of cost efficiencies - targets that<br />
managers may not necessarily be very familiar with. This choice was made in spite of the fact that<br />
especially in SOE’s the organizational structure would likely be very hierarchical in nature with<br />
decisions being imposed from the top down, negating the need to “manage change” as resistance<br />
would not be deemed very credible. However, this was countered by initiating the change outside<br />
the company itself, namely from its new majority shareholder following its alteration into a jointstock<br />
company. Rather than immediately introducing foreign ownership, authors opted for<br />
<strong>LingHe</strong> Company’s major Chinese customer to become the new majority shareholder – reflecting<br />
the close relationship that is often found between suppliers and customers in China - avoiding<br />
any “obvious” resistance on the part of <strong>LingHe</strong> Company management.<br />
The choice of industry sector on the other hand was driven by authors’ concern with<br />
realism, as managers being interviewed during the course of research deemed for instance the<br />
textiles sector less likely to undergo significant structural changes or introduce sophisticated<br />
management information systems.<br />
In conclusion, the context was defined in such a way as to convey a realistic case for change<br />
(following alteration into joint-stock company) yet with local management (the ones undergoing<br />
and having to carry out the change) rather unconvinced of any need to change the way they have<br />
operated to date.<br />
The eventual context of the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> was defined as follows:<br />
a. The Context:<br />
Ling He Company (LHC) is a switching equipment manufacturer founded in 1975 and located near<br />
Changsha in the Hunan Province (southern China). LHC is a state-owned enterprise controlled by the<br />
Ministry of Information Industry, and a major supplier to the local telecoms industry.<br />
As with most state-owned enterprises LHC has no board of directors but operates essentially according to<br />
the decisions of its General Manager, Mr. An Cheng.<br />
The formal organization of LHC includes departments for Finance, Human Resources &<br />
Administration, Research & Development, and Sales, and three Production units. All have direct<br />
6
eporting lines to the General Manager. The five Deputy General Managers share a delegated<br />
responsibility over one or more of the departments.<br />
In spite of quite respectable financial performance the Ministry of Information Industry recently decided to<br />
sell a 60% stake in LHC to SinoCom, China’s largest national telecoms operator and internationally<br />
considered as one of the country’s best-managed enterprises. This move was to help introduce best<br />
management practices at LHC and to consolidate the national telecoms industry to better compete against<br />
foreign entrants.<br />
b. The Change Plan:<br />
SinoCom’s success was attributed to a combination of solid but lean management, and tight financial &<br />
operational performance measurement and reporting using an enterprise-wide, computer-based<br />
Performance Management System (PMS).<br />
The management team at LHC was left intact following the change in ownership, in no small measure<br />
due to Mr. An Cheng’s negotiating skills. However SinoCom insisted that the management structure<br />
should be simplified and LHC should start introducing best practices from its other operating units.<br />
As a result the Deputy General Managers have become Heads of Department with full and sole<br />
responsibility for the performance of their assigned departments, reporting directly to the General<br />
Manager. Initial actions included a significant reduction in the workforce.<br />
It was also seen as essential that each of the senior managers sets and adopts both personal and<br />
departmental goals, and should start using the corporate PMS to monitor and report on progress towards<br />
the achievement of those goals. Thus far no such performance management appears to have been<br />
introduced, much to the dismay of SinoCom.<br />
c. The Challenge:<br />
SinoCom has temporarily reassigned you from its Jiangsu division to help the LHC management<br />
introduce the PMS. Specifically, all senior managers at LHC are to comment on their department’s<br />
performance through the PMS.<br />
But for a company like LHC, adopting principles of profitability and personal objectives, as well as<br />
starting to use electronic tools for information gathering and communication, involves a major cultural<br />
change in how people think, behave and work. As you will experience, this is often a slow and difficult<br />
process.<br />
Your assignment has been limited to 6 months (120 days). During this time you will be able to:<br />
7
! Gather information about the management team of the company<br />
! Implement different change management initiatives<br />
! Continuously monitor your progress in helping the 24 members of the management team to move<br />
through the phases of awareness, interest, and trial and finally adoption of your Performance<br />
Management System.<br />
In short your challenge is to get as many adopters as possible! This is how SinoCom will evaluate your<br />
performance at the end of the 6 months.<br />
d. How to go about it:<br />
Changing the way people think and behave in organizations is not a simple task and often requires a<br />
combination of different tactics to be used at the right time with the right people. This simulation will<br />
make it possible for you to experiment with the implementation of different change management tactics<br />
(or initiatives), but it will be your task to decide when and with whom to implement a given tactic.<br />
First of all - before plunging into your first decision - we advise you to:<br />
(1) Try to understand the context in which you are going to work. Remember that Head Office has<br />
sent you. Initially you don’t know the people at LHC and they don't know you!<br />
(2) Review the different initiatives/tactics you may use to change people’s attitudes!<br />
(3) Develop a change strategy, which will guide you through the project<br />
(“top-down"; "bottom-up”; “impose it”; “selling”; etc.) and write it down!<br />
If necessary you may at any point during the simulation review and adapt your strategy.<br />
Dynamics of Change in the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong><br />
Authors designed the underlying dynamics in the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> according to existing<br />
theories of organizational change. Goodman and Dean (1982) pointed out that individuals accept<br />
organizational change through four sequential phases: first the phase of awareness, whereby<br />
individuals have become aware of the need to change; second is the phase of interest, whereby<br />
individuals show a willingness to further investigate and gain more relevant or appropriate knowledge<br />
regarding the impact of change; third is the phase of trial, where individuals want to test and<br />
compare possible alternatives, and get first-hand experience of the proposed change and its impact;<br />
finally the phase of adoption, where individuals have been convinced and actively engage in the<br />
new way of operating. These four phases of change are used to track progress in the <strong>LingHe</strong><br />
<strong>Simulation</strong>.<br />
8
Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) on the other hand classified how individuals may behave<br />
differently when faced with the organizational change process, affecting the time taken in<br />
accepting and adopting change. They argued that, relatively speaking, there are five distinct types<br />
each with different attitudes and behaviors relative to change: pioneers, early adopters, early majority,<br />
late majority and resisters. They also pointed out that most people are either early or late majority<br />
(together typically 80% of a population), fewer are early adopters and resisters (around 5-10%<br />
each), or the fewest are pioneers (around 2%). This typically normal distribution of profiles is<br />
maintained in the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> (see Figure 1).<br />
Percentage of<br />
population<br />
5-10% 40% 40% 5-8%<br />
Resisters<br />
Late<br />
Early<br />
Early<br />
Majority<br />
Majority<br />
Adopters<br />
Attitude to<br />
2%<br />
Change<br />
Pioneers<br />
Figure 1: Normal Distribution of Attitude to Change<br />
Underlying this distribution are three levels (kinds) of resistance to change according to<br />
various sources in literature: individual resistance (such as the need of seeking job safety and<br />
stabilization); group resistance (such as the need of maintaining existing relationships, power and<br />
interest, etc.); and organizational resistance (such as the culture factor).<br />
The combination of these phases of change, attitude profiles, and kinds of resistance reflect<br />
the complexity of any organizational change. It means that in the face of change each individual<br />
will expect and require a different approach in order to become convinced, depending on the<br />
individual’s attitude profile, the applicable kind(s) of resistance, and the phase of change the<br />
individual find him/herself in. A critical component in the design of the simulation therefore<br />
concerns the choice of influence tactics or initiatives that managers may take to convince people<br />
in an organization during the process of adopting proposed changes. The learning objective then<br />
becomes building awareness, understanding and proficiency about which tactic is likely to be<br />
most effective when applied to which individual at which stage of change.<br />
The complexity of change in an organization counting many individuals by definition means<br />
that the decision to use any tactic at any one time may be effective for some but will be<br />
ineffective but potentially also counter-effective for others. Organizational change management<br />
thus involves continuously running on a tightrope between doing the right thing for some while<br />
9
minimizing the negative effect on others. The <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> provides immediate (positive,<br />
neutral or negative) feedback following each decision taken, visually keeping track of how each<br />
individual in the simulated environment moves forward or backward in the process towards<br />
adoption.<br />
The objective of the simulation is to support learning about organizational change. The<br />
“game” dimension actually helps in providing participants an environment where making<br />
mistakes is permissible and even intended. Evidence from running the simulation among groups<br />
of managers and management students invariably demonstrates the highest levels of participation<br />
and enjoyment. But learning also comes from confronting the participants with their own<br />
unconscious behaviors and team dynamics during decision making about which tactic to use next,<br />
which brings home perhaps even more the limitations of coercive, top-down management styles<br />
in gaining broad support for one’s decisions.<br />
Developing a representative Scale of Change Tactics<br />
In order to collect change tactics, 59 top and middle level managers were randomly selected<br />
from companies in Shanghai and Nanjing and interviewed. Based on open-ended interviews with<br />
25 managers and completing an open questionnaire with 34 managers, authors drafted a shortlist<br />
of 30 influence tactics that Chinese business managers may typically use in organizational change<br />
projects, as well as their likely effect on others. By further comparative assessment, authors<br />
eliminated the 11 least popular tactics and remained 19 tactics as follows (for their full<br />
description, see Appendix A) 1 :<br />
a) Tactics that “Gather Information regarding individual or organizational dynamics” include Short<br />
Breaks (T2), Social Network (T17), Gather Information (T18), and Process Mapping (T20);<br />
they are essentially diagnostic in nature and do not impact people’s attitudes per se; they<br />
are aimed at understanding how the organization works and identifying benefits or fears<br />
that people may potentially have in respect of the proposed changes.<br />
b) Tactics that “Provide Information” include Email (T4), Bulletin Board (T12), Internal<br />
Magazine (T13), and Memorandum (T26); they aim to inform groups of people, without<br />
however allowing for feedback, discussion, explanation or negotiation.<br />
c) In contrast, “Communication tactics” do invite two-way discussion between either individuals<br />
(Face to Face Meeting – T11) or groups of people (External Speaker – T9; Top<br />
Management Meeting – T23, Staff Meeting Discussion – T25).<br />
1 A 20 th tactic “Invitation to Dinner” (or “Dinner Event”) was subsequently added to the list of tactics available in<br />
the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong>, but not included in the above factor analysis.<br />
10
d) “Compulsion/Enforcement tactics” in one way or another impose the changes upon groups or<br />
individuals through the use of one’s (formal) authority; they include Directive (T3), The<br />
“Sandwich” (T27), and Neutralize Resisters (T6).<br />
e) Finally, tactics that are about “Implementing Changes” include Task Force (T7), Workshop<br />
(T14), Management Training (T15) and Pilot Test (T19), where especially the latter three<br />
specifically focus on demonstrating the changes and getting people to implement these.<br />
In summary, some tactics are aimed at gaining information about individuals and the<br />
organization; some aim to influence one individual, others aim to influence groups of individuals;<br />
some apply emotional intelligence to influence, while others are more direct or even coercive in<br />
nature. Participants in the simulation are given a choice of tactics (or decisions) to select in order<br />
to influence one or more individuals. Although clearly managers may want to use other influence<br />
tactics in the course of real life projects, those eventually available in the simulation were to<br />
provide a sufficient range to influence any type of individual in any phase of change.<br />
To further assess the effectiveness of change tactics that were collected, 400 managers at<br />
different management levels in companies in Shanghai, Nanjing and Beijing were randomly<br />
selected as subjects, who were active in field’s management including human resources,<br />
marketing, production, finance, research and technology, and strategic management. The subjects<br />
were asked to rank the proposed influence tactics according to likelihood of usage by<br />
questionnaire. Out of the 400 subjects, 253 valid questionnaires were returned.<br />
Authors adopted factor analysis to examine the validity of the change tactic scale by using<br />
methods of Principal Component Analysis, and Varimax with Kaiser Normalization Rotation. It<br />
showed that the data were suitable for factor analysis (KMO=0.873; Bartlett’s test of sphericity:<br />
χ2 =1264.711, p
consistence coefficient (α) was 0.8541. So besides having good structure validity, the change tactic<br />
scale also had good reliability, namely the change tactics selected for the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> are<br />
valid and reliable, and may be considered representative of tactics Chinese managers use in<br />
organizational change. This guarantees a high level of consistency in change tactics between the<br />
simulated and actual organizational change situation in China.<br />
Component<br />
Table 1 Total variance explained in change tactic set<br />
Rotation sums of squared loadings<br />
Total Variance % Cumulative %<br />
Factor 1 3.145 16.552 16.552<br />
Factor 2 2.779 14.624 31.176<br />
Factor 3<br />
1.830 9.630 40.806<br />
Factor 4 1.522 8.010 48.816<br />
Factor 5 1.338 7.044 55.860<br />
Table 2<br />
Rotated component matrix in change tactic scale<br />
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5<br />
T19 0.749<br />
T18 0.727<br />
T17 0.637<br />
T20 0.613<br />
T25 0.604<br />
T27 0.498<br />
T14 0.731<br />
T9<br />
0.690<br />
T11<br />
0.644<br />
T23<br />
0.559<br />
T2 0.427<br />
T3 0.785<br />
T4<br />
0.559<br />
T6<br />
0.533<br />
T13<br />
0.775<br />
T7 0.497<br />
12
T12 0.427<br />
T16<br />
T15<br />
-0.723<br />
0.629<br />
No te: T2: short breaks; T3: directive; T4: electronic mail; T6: neutralize resisters; T7: task force; T9:<br />
external consultant; T11: face to face meeting; T12: bulletin board; T13: internal magazine;<br />
T14: workshop; T15: management training; T16: memorandum; T17: social network; T18:<br />
gather information; T19: pilot test; T20: process mapping; T23: top management meeting; T25:<br />
staff meeting discussion; T27: “sandwich”<br />
Although factor analysis did not result in the five groupings with the same tactics as initially<br />
formulated (see higher), the first two factors, together explaining 31.176 % of the variance,<br />
include all Diagnostic/Gather Information and Communication tactics, as well as two of the<br />
Implementation tactics (Workshop and Pilot Test) that are moreover ranked the highest in the<br />
factor groups. The remaining three factors, together explaining 24.684% of the variance, include<br />
all Provide Information tactics and two out of three Compulsion tactics (Directive, Neutralize<br />
Resisters).<br />
By and large, the first factor group may be called “collecting information regarding change attitudes”<br />
and includes Pilot Test, Gather Information, Social Networks, Process Mapping, Staff Meeting<br />
Discussion and The “Sandwich”. Authors conclude that managers tended to recognize the need<br />
to prepare and inform themselves about the organization, with attention given mainly to its<br />
formal structures.<br />
The second factor group includes most communication tactics plus the Workshop and<br />
Short Breaks tactics, and might therefore be called “Intensive Communication” tactics as they imply<br />
individual and top management communication, understanding informal influence channels,<br />
providing external expert opinion and interactive demonstration.<br />
The third factor group combined Directive and Neutralize Resisters, a clear use of compulsion<br />
(or formal authority), as well as Electronic Mail. It is interesting to note that the latter finds itself<br />
together with all other information-providing tactics in the bottom three factor groups with least<br />
explanatory power, an indication that one-way (mass) communication was not well regarded<br />
among participating managers as a way to influence people’s opinions, attitudes or behaviors.<br />
Management Training could possibly be regarded in a similar vein, as this tactic implies that the<br />
subjects are supposed to comply with what the trainer requires them to do. Overall, tactics that<br />
were impersonal if not authoritative appeared to score relatively poorly among participating<br />
managers.<br />
13
The fact that the Task Force tactic – often used in Western companies to engage selected<br />
individuals from the organization as champions for change – did not receive strong backing from<br />
participating managers could indicate their reluctance to nominate (or be nominated as)<br />
champions for change, as this could potentially lead to loss of “face”.<br />
Evaluation of Realism and Effectiveness as a Learning Tool<br />
The <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> incorporates both a context that is intended to be typical of current<br />
business challenges in China, and a set of influence tactics that was validated by managers as<br />
being representative, including the likely response of individuals to such tactics depending on<br />
their attitude to change and the stage of adoption they are in. Rather than validating the<br />
individual responses to individual influence tactics, authors decided to immediately test the<br />
realism of the simulation as a whole among groups of managers “playing” the business game. To<br />
that end a questionnaire was developed (see Appendix B) and put to participating managers at<br />
the end of a change management workshop based around the simulation. The questionnaire was<br />
designed to measure specifically<br />
(i)<br />
(ii)<br />
The effectiveness of the simulation in improving practical knowledge regarding change<br />
management (questions 1-4);<br />
The realism of the simulation (questions 5-9); and<br />
(iii) The effectiveness of the simulation as a learning tool compared to other ways of<br />
teaching (question 10). Participants were asked to rate questions on a 7-point Likert scale.<br />
Factor analysis (Principal Component Analysis, and Varimax with Kaiser Normalization<br />
Rotation) was again used to assess the structural validity of the evaluation scale (see table 3 and<br />
table 4). Three factors were extracted, together these three factors explained 57.101% of the<br />
variance, and it indicated a good structural validity of the evaluation scale. Factor 1 included<br />
questions Q5.1, Q5.2, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, all of which were relating to the realism of the simulation.<br />
Factor 2 contained questions Q1.1, Q2, Q3, Q10, by and large related to the effectiveness of the<br />
simulation in building awareness and understanding of change dynamics in China. Factor 3<br />
included questions Q1.2, Q1.3, Q4, Q5.3, the second and last of which specifically address the<br />
issue of “culture” in the success or failure of organizational change.<br />
Authors found that the three factor groups were high correlated with the overall evaluation<br />
scale, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.752 to 0.893. The correlation between factor<br />
groups ranged from 0.499 to 0.593. The internal consistence coefficient (α) was 0.8784. Therefore<br />
besides having good structural validity, the evaluation scale also had good reliability.<br />
14
Table3 Total variance explained in evaluation scale<br />
Component<br />
Rotation sums of squared loadings<br />
Total Variance % Cumulative %<br />
Factor 1 3.186 22.757 22.757<br />
Factor 2 2.419 17.279 40.036<br />
Factor 3 2.389 17.065 57.101<br />
Table 4<br />
Rotated component matrix of evaluation scale<br />
Factor 1 Factor2 Factor3<br />
Q9 0.733<br />
Q7 0.728<br />
Q6 0.681<br />
Q8<br />
0.649<br />
Q5.1 0.629<br />
Q5.2 0.619<br />
Q3 0.843<br />
Q2 0.714<br />
Q1.1<br />
0.648<br />
Q10 0. 583<br />
Q1.3<br />
Q5.3<br />
0.710<br />
0.692<br />
Q1.2<br />
Q4<br />
0.634<br />
0.630<br />
During the process of testing the realism and effectiveness of the simulation, authors<br />
released three version upgrades of the simulation aimed at putting right any major discrepancies<br />
that were consistently mentioned in participants’ feedback. The simulation was initially developed<br />
and tested three times in an English language version among participants both in China and in<br />
Europe. The Chinese language version was subsequently developed and tested among a group of<br />
Chinese managers. Samples were complete randomalized in statistics. Because the sample of<br />
European subjects was very small (11 managers), no further statistical analysis was made on their<br />
feedback, nor comparisons made with their Chinese counterparts.<br />
Through variance analysis authors found significant differences among the means of the<br />
remaining three tests on Item Q1.1 (F (3,120)=4.435, p
Table 5<br />
Mean (M) and standard deviation (SD) of four tests among Chinese managers<br />
First time Second time Third time Fourth time<br />
( n=39 ) ( n=32 ) ( n=11 ) ( n=42 )<br />
M SD M SD M SD M SD<br />
Q1.1 5.46 0.79 4.88 0.94 5.64 0.67 5.57 0.99<br />
Q1.2 4.77 1.06 4.94 0.91 5.27 0.90 5.48 0.83<br />
Q1.3 4.13 1.20 4.88 1.36 5.45 1.04 5.64 0.93<br />
Q2 5.08 0.98 5.31 0.90 5.73 0.90 5.40 0.91<br />
Q3 5.28 0.94 5.50 0.76 5.55 0.93 5.90 0.98<br />
Q4 4.44 1.10 5.25 0.95 5.55 0.82 5.81 0.86<br />
Q5.1 4.23 1.22 4.53 1.02 5.27 1.10 5.12 1.09<br />
Q5.2 4.64 1.25 4.59 0.91 5.27 1.27 5.31 1.07<br />
Q5.3 4.26 1.25 4.63 1.16 5.27 0.90 5.17 1.03<br />
Q6 4.46 1.17 4.66 1.00 4.82 0.87 5.05 1.01<br />
Q7 4.74 1.21 5.00 0.80 4.82 1.25 5.21 0.92<br />
Q8 4.28 1.21 4.94 1.13 5.00 0.89 4.98 1.18<br />
Q9 4.26 1.19 4.84 0.81 4.45 1.13 4.38 1.01<br />
Q10 5.23 1.01 5.75 0.76 5.64 0.67 5.43 1.04<br />
Authors used a multiple comparison method to further analyze the items where significant<br />
differences existed among the means between the subsequent tests.<br />
On item Q1.1 (understanding of the role and impact of individuals on the success or failure<br />
of a change process), the mean of the second test was significantly lower than that of the first and<br />
the fourth test (p
simulation reflects the role and impact of cultural factors on the success or failure of a change<br />
process in Chinese companies).<br />
On item Q8 (the extent the simulation reflects the different forms of resistance appearing in<br />
change processes in Chinese companies), the mean of the first test was significantly lower than<br />
those of the second and the fourth tests (respectively p
after having performed poorly in the simulation. Nevertheless, it remains a point that deserves<br />
on-going monitoring in future workshops.<br />
The feedback received from the limited test among European subjects (who mostly had<br />
significant experience in living and working in China) showed relatively higher scores on almost<br />
all questions, suggesting that the simulation was deemed very effective and realistic at capturing<br />
change dynamics in a Chinese environment. However, more substantive testing is required in<br />
order to further validate the use of the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> as a learning tool for Western<br />
managers wanting to introduce change in a Chinese environment.<br />
Conclusions<br />
The business environment in China is undergoing fast and significant changes, part of<br />
which are also driven by the introduction of information & communication technologies into<br />
business relationships. These changes to the business environment also force managers to more<br />
effectively implement change within their organizations. The <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> provides a new<br />
approach for managers to experience the complex dynamics of organizational change in a<br />
multimedia computer-simulated environment.<br />
The <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> is very different from traditional learning tools and methods,<br />
making use of advanced technology to offer an interactive learning environment. Authors’<br />
research has so far demonstrated that participants consistently rate the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> as<br />
highly effective at building awareness and understanding of the major factors (including people<br />
profiles, influence tactics, and the different phases of change) that impact the success and failure<br />
of organizational change projects. The use of computer simulation specifically lets participants<br />
experience the challenges and frustrations of having to deal with the complexity of these various<br />
factors interacting with each other in sometimes unpredictable ways – a reflection of the complex<br />
and seemingly unpredictable nature of how individuals and groups of people react to changes –<br />
which traditional teaching methods cannot achieve as effectively.<br />
Further substantive testing of the effectiveness of the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> is required among<br />
in particular Western managers to also validate its use to better prepare these for introducing<br />
change in Chinese business environments. Also, attention must be given to the fact that Chinese<br />
participants have sometimes pointed to an opportunity to further improve the correspondence<br />
between the simulated context and dynamics and those encountered in real life situations, a<br />
reflection of the fact that the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> is necessarily a simplified model of a very<br />
specific business situation. Authors may continue releasing new versions over time to further<br />
increase also the perceived realism of the simulation relative to the real-life situation.<br />
References<br />
18
Angehrn, A.A. & Nabeth, T. (1997). Leveraging Emerging Technologies in Management<br />
Education: Research and Experiences. European Management Journal, 15, 3, 1997, pp. 275-<br />
285.<br />
Angehrn, A.A. & Manzoni, J.-F. (1996). A High-Tech Spin on Organizational Learning. Chief<br />
Executive, April 1996, pp. 66-67.<br />
Angehrn, A.A., Doz Y. & Atherton, J. (1995). Business Navigator: The Next Generation of<br />
Management Development Tools. Focus, 1, 1995, pp. 24-31.<br />
Angehrn, A.A., Leliaert, P., et al. (2005). Changing Chinese firms: overcoming resistance.<br />
<strong>INSEAD</strong> Quarterly, Issue 11, July-September 2005.<br />
Boyce, T. E. (2002). The power is in Parsimony: Commentary on Goltz’s operant analysis of<br />
power interpretation of resistance to change. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management,<br />
22(3), 23-27.<br />
Dai, B. (1998). A Research upon the Organizational Change of Firms. Commercial Economy<br />
Research, No. 2<br />
Duck, D. (1998). Managing change: The art of balancing. Harvard Business Review on change,<br />
Harvard Business School Press.<br />
Finstad, N. (1998). The rhetoric of organizational change. Human Relation, 51(6), 717-740.<br />
Fox, S. & Amichai-Hamburger, Y. (2001). The power of emotional appeals in promoting<br />
organizational change programs. Academy of Management Executive, No.15.<br />
Gavin, B. (2003). Out of the chaos: progression and regression in the workplace. Psychodynamic<br />
Practice, 9(1), 43-60.<br />
Geller, E. S. (2002). Leadership to overcome resistance to change: It takes more than<br />
consequence control. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(3), 29-49.<br />
Geng, W. (2003). Study on malpractices of traditional business organization and measures for<br />
business organizational change. Inner Mongolia Statistics, 3, 12-14.<br />
Giffin, A. and A.A. Angehrn, “Interactive Digital Entertainment: Interactive Movies and<br />
beyond,” <strong>CALT</strong> Report, January 1997.<br />
Goltz, S. M., & Hietapelto, A. (2002). Using the operant and strategic contingencies models of<br />
power to understand resistance to change. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 22(3),<br />
3-21.<br />
Goodman, P.S. & Dean, J.W. Jr(1982). Creating long-term organizational change. In P.S.<br />
Goodman and Associates (Eds.), Change in organizations. San Francisco. (Jossey-Bass)<br />
Heling, G., Geffen, L.( 2004). Case study on a state-owned textile company in Changsha, Hunan<br />
Province, P.R. China.<br />
Hu, X.H., & Wan, D.F. (2003). Study of the organization culture change and innovation with the<br />
chaotic economic organization. China soft science, 104(10), 75-79.<br />
Huse, E.F. & Cummings, T.G. (1985). Organization development and change. (3 rd ed.). St. Paul, MN.:<br />
West.<br />
19
Iskat, G.. J., & Liebowitz, J. (2003). What to do when employees resist change. Supervision, August<br />
2003, 64(8),12-14.<br />
Jin, X.M., & Huang, Y.S. (2003). Study on business organizational change basing on knowledge<br />
management. Journal of Gansu Administrative Institute, 46(2), 91-93.<br />
Judson, A.S. (1991). Changing behavior in organizations: Minimizing resistance to change. Cambridge, MA:<br />
Blackwell.<br />
Koonce, R. (1991). The people side of organizational change. Credit Magazine, 17, 22-25.<br />
Kotter, J. (1996). In leading change. Harvard Business School Press.<br />
Kotter, J., & Cohen, D. (2002). The heart of change: real life stories of how people change their organizations.<br />
Harvard Business School Press.<br />
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics. Human relation, 1, 5-41.<br />
Levy, A. (1986). Second order planned change: Definition and conceptualization. Organizational<br />
Dynamics. Vol.15, 4-20.<br />
Lin, Q.R. (2001). Enterprise psychology. Anhui Renmin Press.<br />
Liu, S.Q. (2003). Business organizational change in the new economic era. Journal of ABC, Wuhan<br />
Training College, 97(1), 58-59.<br />
Lou, B.Y. (2001). Resistance to change and overcoming it of culture change in business<br />
organization. Rural Economy, 2, 32-33.<br />
Manzoni J.-F. & Angehrn, A.A. (1997). Understanding Organizational Implications of Change<br />
Processes: A Multimedia <strong>Simulation</strong> Approach. Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Hawaii<br />
International Conference on Systems Sciences, Vol. II, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997, pp. 655-<br />
664.<br />
Manzoni, J.F. & Angehrn, A.A.(1998). Understanding organizational dynamics of IT-enabled<br />
change: A multimedia simulation approach. Journal of Management Information Systems,<br />
Winter1997-1998, Vol,14,No3, 109-140<br />
Rogers, E.M. & Shoemaker, F.F. (1971). Communication of innovations: a cross-cultural approach<br />
(second ed.). New York: Free.<br />
Seijts, G.H., & O’Farrell, G.. (2003). Engage the heart: appealing to the emotions facilitates<br />
change. Ivey Business Journal, January/February.<br />
Wang, F.B. (1994). Theories and practices of transformation of business administrative organizations. China<br />
Renmin University Press.<br />
Wang, L.G. (2003). Analysis on the necessity and difficulty of the reformation of the state<br />
enterprises with the theory of organizational transformation. Water Conservancy & Electric<br />
Power Machinery, 25(6), 56-58.<br />
Wang, X.B. (2003). Skill for dealing with resistance to change in enterprises. Enterprise Economy, 1,<br />
73-74.<br />
20
Whelan-Berry, K., & Gordon, J. (2000). Effective organizational change: New insights from<br />
multi-level analysis of the organizational change process. Academy of Management Proceedings<br />
2000 ODC: D1-D6<br />
Yang, Y.X. (2001). Resistance to change and overcoming it in business organization. Factory<br />
Management, 7,11-12.<br />
Yu, W.Z. (1989). Improving individual’s psychological endurance in transformation. Journal of<br />
Science, 4, 1-2.<br />
Zell, D. ( 2003). Organizational change as a process of death, dying, and rebirth. Journal of Applied<br />
Behavioral Science, 39(1),73-96.<br />
Zhao, S.M. (2001). Research on human resource management. China Renmin University Press, 2001.<br />
Zhao, S.M., Angehrn, A.A, et al. (2005). Change process and resistance to Change in Business<br />
Organizations in China. European Journal of Scientific Research, Vol. 3, No. 2,2005.<br />
Zhao, S.M. (2005). International business: human resource management. (3 rd ed.) Najing<br />
University Press, 2005.<br />
21
Appendix A<br />
Description of Tactics in the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong><br />
T2 - SHORT BREAKS: Spend some time in and about the company in order to see which<br />
groups of managers meet regularly over short breaks such as lunch, in the smoking area, at<br />
the coffee machine. (3 days) NOTE These groups will not change, and the list will remain<br />
available throughout the simulation. This information is accessible by clicking on the button<br />
'Org. Networks'.<br />
T3 - DIRECTIVE: Try to convince the General Manager to send out a directive to all managers<br />
insisting that they start using the PMS in two weeks’ time. (5 days) NOTE - You spend<br />
several days writing a draft of this directive to give to the GM.<br />
T4 - ELECTRONIC MAIL: Send a brief electronic mail to everyone on the management team<br />
explaining your ideas on why the PMS makes sense for them. (1 day) NOTE - Each manager<br />
has an individual e-mail account.<br />
T6 - NEUTRALIZE RESISTERS: Suggest to the relevant Heads of Department and/or<br />
General Manager that some outspoken manager resisting and potentially slowing down the<br />
PMS project should be promoted to a sideways position away from the project. (3 days)<br />
NOTE - You only need to identify the appropriate manager to be promoted away. It is<br />
assumed you will be talking to the appropriate authority for such decision. You'll be able to<br />
use this tactic only once!<br />
T7 - TASK FORCE: Select up to five managers to join you in a Task Force of change<br />
facilitators or ‘champions’, who are to help develop and implement the proposed changes and<br />
eventually influence and train all staff. (5 days) NOTE - If successful (in case all the selected<br />
managers will join your Task Force) the team will be active until the end of the simulation.<br />
T9 - EXTERNAL CONSULTANT: Invite Professor Fan Qun, a partner in a well-known<br />
Shanghaiese management consulting firm, to come and talk about his nation-wide<br />
benchmarking study of "Performance Improvements through Performance Management",<br />
during which he will go into the experiences of other companies with similar Performance<br />
Management Systems. (5 days) NOTE - Every manager is invited by memo to this event, but<br />
attendance is optional.<br />
T11 - FACE-TO-FACE MEETING: Fix a meeting with one of the managers in order to<br />
persuade him/her that the PMS project would make sense to implement. (1 day) NOTE -<br />
The meeting will take place in the manager's office.<br />
T12 - BULLETIN BOARD: Ask Liu Bing, the GM's Assistant, to post a project progress<br />
report on the company Bulletin Board, which hangs on the wall opposite the main stairwell.<br />
You will prepare the project progress report. (2 days) NOTE - Only Liu Bing has the<br />
authority to post messages on the Bulletin Board on behalf of the GM. Messages like your<br />
project report will remain posted until superseded by a more recent report.<br />
22
T13 - INTERNAL MAGAZINE: Ask the editor of the company’s internal magazine to<br />
include a short article you write on the advantages that Performance Management Systems<br />
can bring to managers, to be published in the upcoming edition. (3 days) NOTE - Ths<br />
magazne is dstributed to all of the company staff including management. The article is about<br />
the generic advantages of PMS, and does not include any company specific information.<br />
T14 - WORKSHOP: Help one of the managers to organise and lead a demonstration &<br />
discussion session on PMS for all the managers interested in the topic. (5 days) NOTE - This<br />
will provide the opportunity for the workshop leader to share and gather views and<br />
experiences on PMS.<br />
T15 - MANAGEMENT TRAINING: Organise for up to five managers a three-day residential<br />
training programme at a nearby 4-star hotel on the potential benefits of an PMS and how to<br />
actually use such a system. (5 days) NOTE - You do not attend the programme, but it takes a<br />
considerable amount of your time to plan it. In addition, managers can only attend such<br />
programmes once a year.<br />
T17 - SOCIAL NETWORKS: Spend some time observing or finding out which managers<br />
regularly play MahJong, go together to the company Health Club, or are members of the<br />
Communist Party. (3 days) NOTE - These groups will not change, and the lists will remain<br />
available throughout the simulation. This information is accessible by clicking on the button<br />
'Org. Networks'.<br />
T18 - GATHER INFORMATION: Obtain more information about up to five members of<br />
the top management team based on their personnel records kept in the HR department at<br />
Ling He. (2 days) NOTE - Each person’s profile includes a qualitative description of the<br />
individual and will help you understanding how difficult it will be to help that individual move<br />
through the different change phases. The profiles, once gathered, will be available to you<br />
during the whole session.<br />
T19 - PILOT TEST: Try to get commitment from one of the top managers by asking him/her<br />
to organise a two-week-long pilot test of the PMS in his/her department using current<br />
company data. (4 days) NOTE - This will involve setting up the PMS on all the departments'<br />
computers and providing users with the appropriate training.<br />
T20 - PROCESS MAPPING: Interview and observe a large cross-section of staff to determine<br />
the way they interact with each other in the course of their day to day work. This results in a<br />
Process Map, a schematic that defines the main processes and who is active in these processes.<br />
(5 days) NOTE - Process membership will not change, and will remain available throughout<br />
the simulation. This information is accessible by clicking on the button 'Org. Networks'.<br />
T23 - TOP MGMT MEETING: Organise a special meeting with all Heads of Department and<br />
the GM to share and discuss thoughts, results and action plans for the PMS project. (3 days)<br />
NOTE - Heads of Department are informed that they can also bring along managers from<br />
23
their department.<br />
T25 - STAFF MEETING DISCUSSION: Develop a slide show on the PMS and the progress<br />
of the project, and present it during the regular weekly management staff meeting. (5 days)<br />
NOTE - The presentation includes potential applications of the PMS within the different<br />
processes. All members of the management team are in principle expected to attend these<br />
meetings.<br />
T26 - MEMORANDUM: Write a send to any five of the top managers a brief memo on how<br />
some of the specific features of the PMS will improve the transparency of information flows<br />
in the company. (1 day) NOTE - This is distributed in the company internal mail system.<br />
T27 - THE ‘SANDWICH’: Suggest to a group of selected managers who already show strong<br />
interest in the PMS but whose Heads of Department are still unconvinced, that they should<br />
lobby the General Manager to talk to the Heads. (4 days) NOTE - This initiative assumes<br />
that you have identified the appropriate managers to approach, and does not require you to<br />
specify them.<br />
24
Appendix B<br />
Evaluation Questions for <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong><br />
Questions relating to the effectiveness of the simulation to improve practical knowledge.<br />
1. To which extent does the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> improve your understanding of:<br />
1.1 The role and impact of individuals on the success or failure of a change process?<br />
1.2 The role and impact of relationship networks (formal and informal) on the success or<br />
failure of a change process?<br />
1.3 The role and impact of cultural factors on the success or failure of a change process?<br />
2. To which extent does the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> improve your understanding of the different<br />
phases of a change process?<br />
3. To which extent does the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> improve your understanding of the impact of<br />
different change tactics/initiatives that can be used in a change process?<br />
4. To which extent does the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> improve your understanding of the different<br />
forms of resistance appearing in change processes?<br />
Questions relating to the validity and realism of the simulation.<br />
5. To which extent does the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> reflect<br />
5.1 The profiles and behaviour of individuals in Chinese companies?<br />
5.2 the relationship of networks (formal and informal) in Chinese companies?<br />
5.3 The role and impact of cultural factors on the success or failure of a change process<br />
in Chinese companies?<br />
6. To which extent does the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> reflect the different phases of a change process<br />
in Chinese companies?<br />
7. To which extent does the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> reflect the different change tactics/initiatives, which<br />
can be used in a change process in Chinese companies?<br />
8. To which extent does the <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> reflect the different forms of resistance<br />
appearing in change processes in Chinese companies?<br />
9. How would you assess in general the correspondence between the situation and dynamics<br />
presented in the simulation and the real situations and dynamics in Chinese companies?<br />
Question relating to the relative effectiveness of the simulation as a learning tool.<br />
10. How would you assess the simulation as a learning/training tool for managers to better<br />
understand change management, in terms of effectiveness as compared to a lecture?<br />
25