Individual Strategic Change Case Study Analysis (40% of module mark)

Due: 3pm on Monday 25th April 2016 (submit as personal journal entry) You are required to produce an analytical paper of c2,500 words (up to 3,000 words), based on the Rowlin" rel="nofollow">ing Energy plc case study and the 3 questions on the next page. Your paper should demonstrate your ability to apply a range of strategic change models to gain" rel="nofollow">in constructive in" rel="nofollow">insight about the change process. The case study: The case study is on weblearn and is 4 pages long. You must base your analysis on the case study; you are NOT required to do any additional research on the organisation or in" rel="nofollow">industry. The questions, the assessment criteria, report structure and some suggested readin" rel="nofollow">ing can be found on the next two pages of this briefin" rel="nofollow">ing. Use of tables: For each question you must apply one or more change models (as per the questions on the next page). You must create a table or diagram contain" rel="nofollow">inin" rel="nofollow">ing each element of the model and populate it with data from the case study usin" rel="nofollow">ing bullet poin" rel="nofollow">ints. The in" rel="nofollow">information in" rel="nofollow">in tables, diagrams or the end reference section will not be in" rel="nofollow">included in" rel="nofollow">in the word count. There are marks awarded for “application of key models usin" rel="nofollow">ing relevant data from the case”. Discussion of table content: It is not enough to just populate the tables. For each model you must also discuss your fin" rel="nofollow">indin" rel="nofollow">ings (in" rel="nofollow">in full sentences after the table). Do not mention everythin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">in the table. Tell the reader what the most important factors are based on your analysis. You can use the prompt notes in" rel="nofollow">in the questions to help e.g. focus your discussion on the most challengin" rel="nofollow">ing aspects of the change context for question 1. There are marks for “Discussion of fin" rel="nofollow">indin" rel="nofollow">ings demonstrates depth of understandin" rel="nofollow">ing of the case and the theory and some origin" rel="nofollow">inality in" rel="nofollow">in thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing.” So, if you just have the table and no discussion or discussion but no table then you will lose valuable marks. Evidence of academic readin" rel="nofollow">ing: for every question you must demonstrate some academic readin" rel="nofollow">ing about the model you are usin" rel="nofollow">ing (academic text books or academic journal articles rather than in" rel="nofollow">internet sources). However, you should not describe the models in" rel="nofollow">in detail e.g. you don’t need to explain" rel="nofollow">in what Johnson means by ‘stories’ or ‘symbols’; it will be clear from your analysis that you understand this. You should reference your academic readin" rel="nofollow">ing usin" rel="nofollow">ing the Harvard system (at least four different academic sources). An example could be to use the core text book and fin" rel="nofollow">ind a quote where the authors explain" rel="nofollow">in the purpose of the change kaleidoscope. Books and articles that will help with this are listed on the page 3 of this briefin" rel="nofollow">ing. There are marks awarded for “evidence of academic readin" rel="nofollow">ing. At least four different academic sources cited” so you will lose marks if you don’t do this. You must use in" rel="nofollow">in-text references (in" rel="nofollow">in the main" rel="nofollow">in body of your report) and an end reference list. You will lose valuable marks if you simply list four different books at the end of your paper. Conclusions: Marks are awarded for “evidence of critical reflection on the theory and the case”. The conclusion section (see ‘paper structure’ on next page) is an important part of the paper and provides an opportunity to reflect on the main" rel="nofollow">in poin" rel="nofollow">ints from each of the three questions and to reflect on how well the change was managed and the usefulness of the models e.g. any strengths or limitations. Questions 1) Apply Balogun and Hope Hailey’s Change Kaleidoscope model to the case and use this to discuss the strategic change context in" rel="nofollow">in January 2014, at the start of the change process in" rel="nofollow">initiated by the new CEO, Jay Jameson. Note: you should discuss what the most challengin" rel="nofollow">ing aspects of the change context were and what were the most enablin" rel="nofollow">ing or helpful aspects. 2) Apply Johnson’s Cultural Web model to the case and use this to compare and contrast the culture of Rowlin" rel="nofollow">ing Energy when Samson Steele was CEO (January 2014) and at the end of the case when Jay Jameson was CEO (March 2016). You must create a table so you can apply the cultural web model once for 2014 and once for 2016. Note: you should discuss the most significant similarities and differences between 2014 and 2016 and how the cultural changes were achieved. 3) Critically evaluate the change process that took place at Rowlin" rel="nofollow">ing Energy between January 2014 and March 2016, when Jay Jameson was CEO, by applyin" rel="nofollow">ing Kotter’s 8 Change Steps model. Note: you should discuss what seemed to work well or not so well, did the process follow Kotter’s change steps or was there somethin" rel="nofollow">ing more they might have done to ensure the success of the change? Paper Structure: the paper should in" rel="nofollow">include, Cover sheet - showin" rel="nofollow">ing your student ID and the name of your class tutor Contents page 1.0 Introduction – briefly in" rel="nofollow">introduce the purpose of your report (100 to 200 words) 2.0 Case Study Analysis – 3 sub-sections, one for each of the 3 main" rel="nofollow">in questions (approx. 700 words per question plus diagrams or tables) 3.0 Conclusions – summarise the main" rel="nofollow">in poin" rel="nofollow">ints from section 2.0 (approx. 300 words). 4.0 References – there should be at least four different academic references from text books and academic journal articles Assessment Criteria Criteria Report Presentation: follows recommended structure. Logical and persuasive writin" rel="nofollow">ing style. Well presented with good grammar and spellin" rel="nofollow">ing. Harvard referencin" rel="nofollow">ing style throughout. Submitted on time. Case Study Answers: all questions answered fully. Application of key models usin" rel="nofollow">ing relevant data from the case. Discussion of fin" rel="nofollow">indin" rel="nofollow">ings demonstrates depth of understandin" rel="nofollow">ing of the case and the theory and some origin" rel="nofollow">inality in" rel="nofollow">in thin" rel="nofollow">inkin" rel="nofollow">ing. Evidence of critical reflection on the theory and the case. Scholarship: evidence of academic readin" rel="nofollow">ing. At least four different academic sources cited. Recommended academic sources ALL THE MODELS REFERRED TO IN THE QUESTIONS CAN BE FOUND IN: Johnson, G. Whittin" rel="nofollow">ington, R. and Scholes, K. Angwin" rel="nofollow">in, D. and Regner, P. (2013) Explorin" rel="nofollow">ing Strategy, Edition 10, Pearson and in" rel="nofollow">in session 18, 19 and 20 of the module. However, Kotter’s Change Steps is not listed in" rel="nofollow">in full in" rel="nofollow">in the book so a better source for that is: Kotter, J. (1995) 'Leadin" rel="nofollow">ing Change: Why Transformation efforts fail' Harvard Busin" rel="nofollow">iness Review, March-April 96 Vol. 73(2) pp.59-67 (available onlin" rel="nofollow">ine through the library catalogue) Some further suggested sources of academic readin" rel="nofollow">ing in" rel="nofollow">include: Hailey, V. H., & Balogun, J. (2002). Devisin" rel="nofollow">ing Context Sensitive Approaches To Change: The Example of Glaxo Wellcome. Long Range Plannin" rel="nofollow">ing, 35(2), 153-178. (further readin" rel="nofollow">ing on the change kaleidoscope - available onlin" rel="nofollow">ine through the library catalogue) Balogun, J. , Hope Hailey, V. and Gustafsson, S. (2016) Explorin" rel="nofollow">ing Strategic Change, 4th edition, Prentice Hall (further readin" rel="nofollow">ing on the change kaleidoscope) Johnson, G. (1992). "Managin" rel="nofollow">ing strategic change— strategy, culture and action." Long Range Plannin" rel="nofollow">ing, 25(1), 28-36. (further readin" rel="nofollow">ing on the cultural web - available onlin" rel="nofollow">ine through the library catalogue) Johnson, G. (2000). "Strategy through a Cultural Lens." Management Learnin" rel="nofollow">ing, 31(4), 403-426. (further readin" rel="nofollow">ing on the cultural web - available onlin" rel="nofollow">ine through the library catalogue) Kotter, J. (2012) Leadin" rel="nofollow">ing Change, Harvard Busin" rel="nofollow">iness Review Press (further readin" rel="nofollow">ing on Kotter’s change steps)