LingHe Simulation - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The fact that the Task Force tactic – often used in Western companies to engage selected individuals from the organization as champions for change – did not receive strong backing from participating managers could indicate their reluctance to nominate (or be nominated as) champions for change, as this could potentially lead to loss of “face”. Evaluation of Realism and Effectiveness as a Learning Tool The <strong>LingHe</strong> <strong>Simulation</strong> incorporates both a context that is intended to be typical of current business challenges in China, and a set of influence tactics that was validated by managers as being representative, including the likely response of individuals to such tactics depending on their attitude to change and the stage of adoption they are in. Rather than validating the individual responses to individual influence tactics, authors decided to immediately test the realism of the simulation as a whole among groups of managers “playing” the business game. To that end a questionnaire was developed (see Appendix B) and put to participating managers at the end of a change management workshop based around the simulation. The questionnaire was designed to measure specifically (i) (ii) The effectiveness of the simulation in improving practical knowledge regarding change management (questions 1-4); The realism of the simulation (questions 5-9); and (iii) The effectiveness of the simulation as a learning tool compared to other ways of teaching (question 10). Participants were asked to rate questions on a 7-point Likert scale. Factor analysis (Principal Component Analysis, and Varimax with Kaiser Normalization Rotation) was again used to assess the structural validity of the evaluation scale (see table 3 and table 4). Three factors were extracted, together these three factors explained 57.101% of the variance, and it indicated a good structural validity of the evaluation scale. Factor 1 included questions Q5.1, Q5.2, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9, all of which were relating to the realism of the simulation. Factor 2 contained questions Q1.1, Q2, Q3, Q10, by and large related to the effectiveness of the simulation in building awareness and understanding of change dynamics in China. Factor 3 included questions Q1.2, Q1.3, Q4, Q5.3, the second and last of which specifically address the issue of “culture” in the success or failure of organizational change. Authors found that the three factor groups were high correlated with the overall evaluation scale, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.752 to 0.893. The correlation between factor groups ranged from 0.499 to 0.593. The internal consistence coefficient (α) was 0.8784. Therefore besides having good structural validity, the evaluation scale also had good reliability. 14
Table3 Total variance explained in evaluation scale Component Rotation sums of squared loadings Total Variance % Cumulative % Factor 1 3.186 22.757 22.757 Factor 2 2.419 17.279 40.036 Factor 3 2.389 17.065 57.101 Table 4 Rotated component matrix of evaluation scale Factor 1 Factor2 Factor3 Q9 0.733 Q7 0.728 Q6 0.681 Q8 0.649 Q5.1 0.629 Q5.2 0.619 Q3 0.843 Q2 0.714 Q1.1 0.648 Q10 0. 583 Q1.3 Q5.3 0.710 0.692 Q1.2 Q4 0.634 0.630 During the process of testing the realism and effectiveness of the simulation, authors released three version upgrades of the simulation aimed at putting right any major discrepancies that were consistently mentioned in participants’ feedback. The simulation was initially developed and tested three times in an English language version among participants both in China and in Europe. The Chinese language version was subsequently developed and tested among a group of Chinese managers. Samples were complete randomalized in statistics. Because the sample of European subjects was very small (11 managers), no further statistical analysis was made on their feedback, nor comparisons made with their Chinese counterparts. Through variance analysis authors found significant differences among the means of the remaining three tests on Item Q1.1 (F (3,120)=4.435, p
Page 1 and 2: Understanding Organizational Dynami
Page 3 and 4: Introduction Information and Commun
Page 5 and 6: paper evaluates the effectiveness o
Page 7 and 8: eporting lines to the General Manag
Page 9 and 10: Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) on the
Page 11 and 12: d) “Compulsion/Enforcement tactic
Page 13: T12 0.427 T16 T15 -0.723 0.629 No t
Page 17 and 18: simulation reflects the role and im
Page 19 and 20: Angehrn, A.A. & Nabeth, T. (1997).
Page 21 and 22: Whelan-Berry, K., & Gordon, J. (200
Page 23 and 24: T13 - INTERNAL MAGAZINE: Ask the ed
Page 25: Appendix B Evaluation Questions for

LingHe Simulation - INSEAD CALT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?