Making strategic change happen

MAKING STRATEGIC CHANGE HAPPEN

Making Strategic Change Happen SANDRA VANDERMERWE, Professor of Marketing and Services, and ANDR& VANDERMERWE, Director of In-Company Programs, International Institute for Management Development (IMD), Lausanne

Based on a large survey of top-level executives worldwide, this paper presents a framework for introducing strategic change in the future: a process which is essential for many corporations.

Overcoming initial resistance is an obvious first step. Then, the authors describe four stages in the strategic change process which, when stimulated by four catalyst activities, produce the results. At the same time, the pace of change is affected by the business situation the company finds itself in.

Finally, personal characteristics of corporate leaders are examined for their effects on strategic change performance.

The exponential rate at which the international business scene is evolving means that many corporations will have little choice but to deal with a strategic change in the years ahead. This article explores the realities of making such change happen in contemporary organizations.

Change has always been a pervasive and engaging managerial issue. Fraught with uncertainty and ambiguity, strategic change is, however, a more complex activity. This is partly because conditions are tough and volatile. Moreover, successful implementation hinges on people, who may like the idea of change but often don’t want to change.

174 E UROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vol 9 No 2 June 1991

Tichy describes strategic change as ‘non-routine, non-incremental and discontinuous, altering the overall orientation of the organization and/or components of the organization’.’ It entails, as Handy put it, doing things differently, not simply making marginal improvements to old established ways.’

Our material is based on a survey among 60 top- level executives in a variety of industries worldwide, all of whom have been involved in strategic change within their companies. It also includes in-depth case work interviews with some select companies.

Obstacles to Making Strategic Change Happen Before delving into the factors which actually make strategic change happen, it may be worthwhile to consider some of the roadblocks organizations must first confront. The five obstacles mentioned by more than 60% of the sample are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Common Obstacles to Implementing Strategic Change

96 of respondents who

Obstacle

‘Fear factor’ and human resistance Complacency and low sense of

mentioned

92

urgency 82 Insufficient dedicated time set aside 75 Poor communication 73 Late systems and technology 62

The ‘Fear Factor’ and Human Resistance While generally executives find there is heightened awareness on the need for change, barriers set up by people continue to be the most daunting obstacle. People, paradoxically, have been singled out by managers as both the key and the most unyielding hinderance to successful change.

‘Fear’ was the word most frequently and explicitly used when describing obstacles. A side effect of radical


change, it stems primarily from uncertainty about new roles and relationships. This is not a new insight and has for decades been described in the literature.3*4V5*6 How- ever, since change tends to be more dramatic today, the persistence of the problem is not surprising. What is perhaps new is that managers are more diligently trying to anticipate these resistance points and manage them as an integral part of their implementation agenda.

A look at the literal meaning of change may provide a clue as to just how psychologically deep the issue can be. The word comes from the Latin cumbire meaning to barter. Any reputable dictionary will offer a variety of definitions for barter, all involving a trade-off, loss or sacrifice: ‘to give something up for another’, or ‘to alter or make different’, or ‘to pass from one state to another’.’ One European change manager who drove what amounted to a ‘minor revolution’ for his staid financial services company went this far in describing the consequences of the phenomenon; ‘when we began the change some of our senior people felt like part of the company they knew and loved was dying. They actually went through a kind of mourning period’.

Complacency and a Low Sense of Urgency For managers who have successfully undergone strategic change, ‘complacency’ comes in as a close second culprit. Related to fear, complacency is a kind of ‘passive resistance’ and thus more subtle to pinpoint and manage. The manager who agrees to change by saying ‘yes’ but doing nothing was a common example cited.

It happens when things are going too well, especially if the financial results are good, and can come from all levels in the organization. Wherever it is it has a ripple effect and can put up an invisible yet impenetrable barrier. People don’t see the need for change generally, nor why they should change in particular. Most people, in fact, are wary and hesitant to switch from the known which works to the unknown whose results remain to be seen.

Insufficient Dedicated Time set aside Third on the list of hurdles to be overcome is ‘insufficient dedicated time’. Although in theory everyone agrees that time must be set aside to allow change to happen, in reality routine activities continue to be prioritized, thereby sapping the energy which should go into the implementation. Often, during critical transition periods, managers are not only expected to continue with business as usual but are judged on old criteria.

By delegating day-to-day operations to others, some lead managers have found it easier to dedicate appro- priate attention to the agenda and thereby accelerate the process. Another tack, recently used by the GM of a Swiss pharmaceutical company, is to request a ‘grace period’ during which typical performance standards are suspended.

Poor Communication Poor communication can kill a strategic change, It is

EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vo19 No 2 June 1991

important for obvious reasons and yet clearly it continues to be a weak spot in change programmes. People on the front line complain that they ‘hear things via the grape- vine’, that they ‘don’t really understand what is going on’ and that ‘there is a clear gap between what top managers think they’re communicating and what actually gets through’.

Why? One theory is that an intermediary, rather than the responsible party, passes down the information, allowing it to become filtered, watered down, and even misinterpreted. Another is that the time required for truly effective communication is simply too much for top level managers to commit. Nevertheless, as one CEOobserved:

. in a major change you can never over-communicate. When you think you’ve talked enough and everyone understands you know you’ve only just begun ‘.

Late Systems and Technology Executives we spoke to admitted that, with hindsight, they would attend to the necessary systems and technology much earlier in the change process. In practice, these systems actually tend to be left to last, after everything else has been ‘perfected’. The results of such an oversight include lost momentum and serious impediments to thorough and efficient implementation. A typical example of this is when decision-making is pushed down through the lines, yet the people empowered to act do not have the right information and backup systems. This can lead to a derailment of the entire project.

A Four-step Change Process Strategic change is a process which consists of a set of specific managerial activities. These are overlapping and interconnected stages along a particular sequence, thereby ensuring that the success of one stage reinforces that of the next. Our research reveals four distinct stages as shown in Figure 1 and briefly described below.

Step 1: Scan Internal and External Environment Strategic change becomes necessary when internal or external trends present a corporation with a major opportunity or confront it with a major threat. Some- times an internal and external scan will easily detect such signals. At other times, the symptoms and details are more difficult to diagnose. Today, managers admit that relying solely on the hard facts is an outdated approach and that intuitive means must be increasingly used to assess and interpret anticipated trends.

Step 2: Formulate Vision of the Future The formulation of a vision is the next stage in the sequence, although it may run concurrently to the scan or in practice even precede it, in which case the scan would be more reinforcement than revelation.

The consensus regarding the meaning of vision could be summed up by one respondent’s phrase: ‘vision is a statement about a preferred future state’. Our research

175


Stage in Formal Process Activity

1

2

r 3

4

Scan Internal and External Environment

Formulate Vision of the Future

Develop and Activate Strategy

Monitor and Update Strategy

Figure 1 Four-step strategic change process

substantiates what the current literature describes as the key facets of vision in a strategic chahge.2*8*93’0 Clarity is of the utmost importance: vision must be relevant to the audience and so be as tangible as possible. It’s not enough for people to understand the vision: it must make business sense as well. Only then can they see the practical benefits. Equally important, according to our data, is that the vision be a new one, and not simply the same old stuff heard and recounted over and over again.

Step 3: Develop and Activate Strategy Once the vision is formulated and communicated, a strategy has to be developed and then activated. This includes building dedicated capacity through training, setting priorities along with a project agenda, and allocating people for key roles and projects with time- out from routine activities. ‘Transition’, ‘virtual’ or ‘ad hoc teams’, which may include outsiders, are formed at this stage for limited periods of time with power to implement project proposals.

Policies, systems and structure must be constructed, frequently before ideas, schemes or strategies can be perfected. Enabling and empowering people includes providing the right backup and infrastructure, which could include new performance criteria and reward systems to motivate and support desired behaviour.

Step 4: Monitor and Update Monitoring the process is an activity designed to keep the strategy on course. Radar should be built into the entire process as an early warning device. However, at this time a review should be done. What distinguishes this monitoring system from traditional ones? The emphasis: control is no longer the objective. Rather,

its aim is to provide the occasion for key people to gather, fine tune their adjustments, and ultimately share information from their collective learning and experiences.

Putting the Catalysts into Action While the four-step process is really the formal backbone of a strategic change, it is simply not enough to get, and keep, the change going. Certain other activities, which we call catalysts, must be introduced since they induce the actions and reactions that produce the results. These catalyst activities are shown in Figure 2. Although they are synchronized with the formal stages, in reality they are much more fluid, ongoing and endemic throughout the entire process.

Stage 1 In Process: Scan Internal and External Environment Catalyst Activity: Create Strategic Discomfort The results of an internal and external scan do not in themselves trigger change, yet without a trigger change just won’t happen. Hence the need to create ‘strategic discomfort’. ‘Strategic discomfort’, as the phrase suggests, is an activity designed to deliberately yet constructively make people apprehensive about the corporation’s current position. The goal is to make them think in terms of the future, and in particular to realize that without a major directional change the corporation will substantially lose out or deteriorate.

Managers talk about ‘galvanizing the change effort’, ‘releasing energy and power’, ‘keeping the excitement going’, ‘propelling the change process’. They add that

Stage in Formal Catalyst Process Activity Activity

1

2

3

4

Scan Internal and External Environment

Create Strategic Discomfort

Formulate Vision of the Future

Provide and Manags Focus

Develop and Energize and Activate Strategy Mobilize People

Monitor and Maintain Update Strategy Momentum

Figure 2 Four-step strategic change process - formal activities and catalyst activities

176 EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vol9 No 2 June 1991


in reality none of this can begin until people actually ‘see’ the need for change. And getting the right people to ‘see’ this need is part of the cumulative process of making the transformation happen.

To put it another way, the aim is to ‘unfreeze’ existing values and ways of doing things, a phrase coined by Nakajo and Kono in their article ‘Success through culture change in a Japanese brewery’.” Because only then, the authors contend, can changes realistically begin to be made and new values and behaviour redefined or, in their terminology, ‘refrozen’.

For strategic discomfort to occur, some threat or opportunity must be depicted and communicated that leaves no room for doubt in the minds of key people that strategic change is necessary. Sometimes dramatic gestures are required. Carlzon’s well known ‘little red book’ was no coincidence. He used it to shake up the public utility mentality of his staff and convince them that they were in danger. At an insurance company which recently underwent strategic change, a game called ‘Risk’ was distributed to all employees at the launch of its restructuring. This was done to instil them with a sense of urgency about winning the insurance war.

Stage 2 In Process: Formulate a Vision of the Future Catalyst Activity: Provide and Manage Focus Finding a vision that makes business sense is not neces- sarily enough to capture the imagination of key people, personnel, customers and other stakeholders. A vision which is a catalyst to action must be both practical and inspiring, and this is no easy task according to executives who have been able to do it.

To be an effective bridge between one individual’s dream and a force for transformation, vision must become the focus and direction for everything and everyone. People must use it to differentiate the activities and behaviour that are important from those which are not. The more volatile the environment, the anticipated resistance, the more important that the vision be creative and powerful enough to guide priorities, projects, performance criteria and people.

Not all resistance can be converted into positive support for the change. But as Ansoff remarks, ’ . when a charismatic leader fires everyone’s imagination by a vision of a “promised land” or “conquest of a mortal enemy”, resistance can be significantly reduced’,” as well as, we submit, induce the need for change.

Naturally, to become such a focal point, the vision must be ‘shared’ and ‘owned’ by key people. Only then does it become the glue that binds and animates individuals, energy and tasks. ‘Suddenly’, said one respondent, ‘we were all talking the same language and aiming for the same thing, moving in one direction. After that the details seemed obvious’.

Many managers agree that the earlier key people are involved in formulating the vision, the greater the chances of obtaining alignment. But whether vision emanates from the inspiration of one person or from the joint efforts of a team, it must be ‘sold’. This means it

UROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vol 9 No 2 June 1991

must be ‘packaged’ in an unambiguous idea and/or theme and then creatively presented to inform, educate, excite and unite people. Multi-media communication programmes and training with themes, symbols and new language help set the tone and consistency and meaningfully disseminate central ideas.

In the strategic changes where the vision does become the focal point, the change leader not only visibly supports it, but promotes it and is seen to actually ‘live’ it on a daily basis. The leader needs enormous bursts of energy and often assumes an almost evangelical passion, stamina and stance. As one CEO recalled, ‘To get my vision understood and my message across, I had to spend all my time at the beginning being a “preacher man” ‘. In another situation, by no means unusual, the GM spent the entire first year explaining and promoting his vision of offering customers ‘trouble free operations’ through value added services, rather than simply making and selling industrial products. He travelled the world visiting staff, their families, industrial customers, distri- butors and suppliers. By the time the strategy went into effect people were committed, even dedicated to making the transformation work.

Stage 3 In Process: Develop and Activate Strategy Catalyst Activity: Energize and Mobilize People The days of change strategies emanating from the top and being pushed down the line for implementation are over. Values are changing. People have a new sense of choice and freedom about their work. Although corporations have guidelines and procedures to abide by, the rigid structure, bureaucracy and ‘carrot and stick’ methods which once characterized corporations in fact aggravate resistance and stifle rather than drive change. One executive noted,

‘In our company things used to be ve y dtifferent. Before a decision could be made numerous studies were under- taken and proposals scrutinized. A kind of “bible” was then written stating exactly bow the change would take place, and what bad to be done by when and by whom. But the problem with thinking about the how first rather than the what and why is tbatpeople become besistant once they get bogged down in process details. This time though, people were encouraged to experiment, learn b?l doing in ad hoc teams and projects and get on with their own entrepreneurial ideas for implementation. This released energy andpower and made people want to be part of the change. ’

In a recent Harvard Business Review article entitled ‘Why change programs don’t produce change’, the authors contend that in the new approach to strategic change, while direction is still provided from the top, no specific solutions are insisted upon. This is paradoxical since senior managers have to ‘direct a non-directive process’. ‘j

Mobilizing people entails hand picking, for critical projects, key individuals who are both enthusiastic about

17


Provision for replacements is invariably made, as long as it doesn’t deflate the collective morale. Most respondents reported that disagreement is fine, tolerated while the strategy is still being worked out. Once it has been formalized, however, everyone is expected to pull in the same direction or leave. Retooling is an important facet of mobilizing people. At some of the companies we studied, it is a matter of principle to use existing staff and talent and build up a new portfolio of skills. Other firms prefer starting from scratch in new areas of , development, hiring new skills when needed.

The sooner tangible results can be demonstrated I the better, for it provides reinforcement and a platform I for celebrating and rewarding new behaviour and build- j ing new role models. Many executives suggest that I formal incentives are not what makes the difference. Rather, ‘people want to know that their contribution counts’. Some managers, however, find they must

I : deliberately choose highly visible and do-able projects at the beginning so as to demonstrate progress and 4 Encourage the late starters to jump on board.

! Stage 4 In Process: Monitor and Update ! Strategy 4 Catalyst Activity: Maintain Momentum 1 4t some point change must become institutionalized. 1 Vew ways of doing things are accepted and practised and t lecome the norm. The procedure is a cumulative one, ( zarefully synchronized and taking place at various points t :hroughout the process.

At Stage 4 this begins to occur rapidly. Momentum < :an begin to fade, and it is important that the enthusiasm t )e maintained by consistently introducing new ideas and I .ejuvenating projects. As suggested earlier, the aim is to c znsure that the change programme be kept on course, I .ather than controlled. This is a very different approach. ( Dne executive described this difference metaphorically:

the vision and change as well as being opinion leaders amongst their peers. These opinion leaders are the approximately 13 out of 100 employees within any given organization who are not only the first to accept new ideas, but also have the formal or informal authority to influence others.‘4*15

‘People get more excited by things they have been personally involved in. So basically it’s simple: you have to set the direction and the specific tasks that have to be performed and then let them find a way to do it. If you can ‘t do that you don ‘t trust your people and tfyou can ‘t trust your people then there’s no way you can get real change ‘.

By modifying titles and responsibilities, companies have successfully sent out strong signals about what is important. In one traditional, product-oriented company, when the sales managers were named managing directors and marketing directors, at the same level as the manufac- turing colleagues to whom they had previously reported, it sent a shock wave through the 30,000 people-strong culture. ‘It was then we really got the message loud and clear that marketing was what counted’.

‘You measure the temperature of the engine and keeJ it running. The velocity built up must be maintainea so that the project can be extended while keepingpeople receptive for any future change’.

An equally important challenge is to keep the stream of innovations flowing at an effective rate throughout the process. If everything is done at the beginning, the market and staff keep expecting more, which just isn’t possible. ‘In order to stimulate people, you’ve got to parcel out and rejuvenate the innovations in just the right amounts and at just the right times’.

Pacing a Strategic Change This research has reinforced the importance of using catalyst activities to overcome resistance and make change happen. Another facet to building momentum is speed, or pacing the change.

Our findings corroborate the theory that the pace of the strategic change is related to the situation.‘“,” The common denominator in all strategic change is that without it the corporate situation will deteriorate. In crisis change, however, the performance decline will be immediate and severe and so a rapid completion of the process is vital. In reactive change something has begun to cause a problem and so more time is usually available to get the needed results. Some future event is reckoned to be potentially problematic for the company under- going anticipatory change when there is even more time. This difference in the time frames is conceptually illustrated in Figure 3.

Many variations, depending on the corporate and managerial profile, revolve around the theme that the pace is determined by the circumstance. For instance, in one company the CEO detected a potential crisis and moved quickly, although on paper the company was doing quite well. In another, more traditional culture, even though the firm’s financials appeared to flatten, top management delayed making any major strategic moves.

Notwithstanding these nuances, most of the executives interviewed concurred that strategic change always takes longer to implement than originally anticipated. Given another chance most executives say they would have given themselves and their staff more time.

Why? Their main argument is that people need time to digest and adjust to new ideas, roles and relationships. Most importantly, time is essential to distinguish what succeeds and what doesn’t, and to learn new things and ways without the pressure reminiscent of days when people simply did as they were told.

One paradox of strategic change, particularly when in crisis gear, is that while the response must be immediate and complete, some aspects can only be successive. Not all projects, according to the executives, can be activated in parallel - some must be done sequentially. Experience and credibility are the only levers upon which to build the acceptance and momentum. On the other hand, taking more time must not be confused with complacency. A degree of urgency must be present in all situations without which the change becomes unto-ordinated and may even peter out.

Our findings substantiate that crisis change is in

178 EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vol 9 No 2 June 1991


fntegrity The person leading the change process must be perceived as doing it for the common good of the organization, and not simply for the sake of personal ego. Straightforward, upfront and truthful, even when the truth, or its consequences, are painful were expressions used. Ideas and ideals must be maintained even in the face of criticism, which may be frequent and harsh, especially at the beginning of the process. Strong, unwavering ‘moral principle’ was cited emphatically as an essential personal attribute.

Tichy, Noel M. i2fanaging Strategic Change: Technical, Political and Cultural Dlazamics; John Wiley & Sons. New York, 1983, p. 16. Handy, Charles. The Age of Unreason, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1989. Quinn, James Brian. Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism, Richard D. lrwin Inc., Homewood, Illinois, 1980.

4 Kotter, John P. and Schlesinger, Leonard. ‘Choosing strategies for change’, Harvard Busiwzss Rehw, January- February 1979. Lorsch, Jay. ‘Managing change’, Harvard Business School Note, 1974. Lawrence, Paul. ‘How to deal with resistance to change’, Harzvard Business Review, January-February 1969. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, W & R Chambers Ltd, London, 1972. Kotter, John P. A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management, The Free Press, New York, 1990.

Last Few Words Today’s corporations must be able to confront the challenges of strategic change. But more than that, they must be able to incorporate and utilize what they learn from the process in order to thrive in the years to come. No pat formula can be suggested that would be applicable fo all corporations operating as they do in such a multi- tude of environments. Nevertheless, among the companies we spoke to there was enough consistency to draw auf broad themes and hypotheses which can be used by executives as they wrestle with the challenges ahead.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 The common and well attested impediments to

Day, George S. Market Driven Strategy: Processes for Creating Value, The Free Press, New York, 1990. Bertodo, R. ‘Implementing a strategic vision’, Long Range Planning, vol. 23, no. 5, October 1990. Nakajo, Takanori and Kono, Toyohiro. ‘Success through culture change in a Japanese brewery’, Lo~zg Range Planning, December 1989, vol. 22, no. ti, p. 29. Ansoff, Igor. Implanting Strategic Management, Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1984. Beer, Michael, Eisenstat, R.A. and Spector, Bert. ‘Why change programs don’t producechange’, Harcvard Business Reoiew, November-December 1990, p. 159. Rodgers, Everett. Diffusion of hnor~ations, The Free Press, New York, 1962. Vandermerwe, Sandra. ‘Diffusing new ideas in-house’, Journal of Product Innor~ation Management, vol. 4, 1987. Killing, Peter. ‘Managing change: pace, targets and tactics’, IMEDE Perspecthes for Managers, no. 4. January 1986.

180 EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vol 9 No 2 June 1991

Table 3 Personal Atttlbutes Change Leaders Need

96 of respondents Ranked Attribute mentioning it

1st Persuasive 82

2nd Facilitating 75 3rd Consistent 72 4th Visible 72

5th Integrity 65

her way of thinking. ‘Winning people over’ was a frequently used expression. Apart from fundamental communication skills, the ability to inspire was the most common characteristic stated.

Facilitatirzg: Change leaders do not dictate: they direct. This means they must conduct, orchestrate and co- ordinate, not rule. Synergies between people are explored, found and mined. Infrastructures are provided to facilitate, not administrate.

Consistent: Consistency in the message and in behaviour is paramount. The change leader is thus seen as reliable, someone who makes consistent decisions which follow a pattern and so are predictable, coherent, reassuring and ‘make people feel safe’, a phrase used often.

VisibIe: One person or, in some instances, a team, must be identifiable as the rallying point for the change. The simple use of guidelines and directives is insufficient - people need the personal touch. Anonymity is fatal for

a change process. Those responsible must be personally involved, be seen to take risks and drive the process.

change must, of course, be anticipated and dealt with as early as possible in order to avoid a faltering in the process. Only then can the formal four-step process begin. The need for change must be felt and appreciated on a primary level by all who play a role in it, and who would be affected should it fail. But it is those managers who creatively employ catalyst activities to impress upon people the necessity of change, and involve them mentally and spiritually in it, who will find it easier to trigger a strategic change, and sustain it.

Strategic change is initiated in response to given internal or external factors. However, the increasingly competitive and turbulent features which characterize today’s and tomorrow’s business environment will require that corporations be ‘on the ready’ at all times if they are to survive. The change mentality, therefore, must not be localized to a specific situation at a given moment in time. Rather, the energy and ethos generated musf become a permanent, even if dormant, response mechanism within the corporation.

Only when people become attuned, even fine-tuned to the exigencies of strategic change, can the process be extended and sustained continuously.

References 1

2

3


--.._.* a... *... Scan Internal

*.-....

and External -... . . . . Environment -... -... *...

Scan Internal and External

-... --.. --.. Environment -...

Scan Internal ’ ‘I and External

Formulate Environment Visp;t;fethe Formulate I I

- Vision of the Formulate +

0 Future Visfo;ouqfethe

111 8 I I E t .f

Develop and i

2 _ Develop and Activate

8

Develop and Activate Strategy Activate Strategy

w 1 Strategy Monitor and Update

Strategy Monitor *...-*

_...*-

J

and Update Strategy

_...-- _...-- ..’

’ Monitor *,..a* and Update __..--

Strategy

. ..- _...--

. . ...*

Anticipatory Reactive Crisis

Change Modes

Figure 3 Time frames for different change modes

many ways the easiest to handle. This could account for the fact that some firms actually create or wait for a crisis

Personal Attributes that Change

to happen before embarking upon a strategic move. Leaders Need While this may seem an obvious choice for some managers under specific circumstances, others find that waiting for a crisis is potentially too dangerous for the corporation and too threatening for people. For reasons that are self-evident, reactionary change is more difficult, and anticipatory change the most problematic. This is directly related to the ease of implementing the catalyst activities. Table 2 demonstrates this.

When asked what their experiences had taught them about the personal attributes necessary for leaders to make change happen, the respondents provided a list which we have clustered under five headings presented in Table 3.

Persuasive: A point constantly made was that the lead person be capable of convincing people to accept his or

Table 2 Types of Change and Ease of Implementing Catalyst Activities

Create Strategic Provide and Energize and Discomfort Manage Focus Mobilize People Maintain Momentum

Crisis Easy to create and sustain

Perceived threat provides strong focus

Emotional alignment obtained more easily through threat

Energy level usually remains high

Reactive

Anticipatory

Less easy to create and sustain

Difficult to create and sustain

More difficult to Less easy, more provide, strong effort needed to get focus needed alignment

More difficult Difficult to win to provide, people and get powerful focus alignment, needs needed huge effort

Keeping energy levels requires more effort

Huge effort to sustain momentum

EUKOPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vo19 No 2 June 1991 179

b MAKING STRATEGIC CHANGE HAPPEN

International hstitute for Management Development (IMD), PO Box 915, CH-1001 Lausanne, Switzerland

At present Professor of Marketing and Services at the International Institute for Management

Development (iMD) Lausanne, Switzerland, Sandra Vandermerwe was previously at the Jnternational Management Institute (IMI) Geneva, where she was Director of the MBA programme 1988-1989. Her research interests are market- driven change, new consumer values and innovative services strategies. She bas presented various papers worldwide and publishes in journals such as Atlantic Economic Review, Business Horizons, Business Quarterly, Journal of Business Strategy, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Long Range Planning and Service Industries Journal. Sbe teaches on executive programmes worldwide and has clients in a variety of industries wbo are implementing customer-driven strategies. She started her career in Sociology folIowed by managerial and executive positions in industry and retailing, and then did an MBA and DBA. An Irish citizen, she is married, bas two children and lives in Merges, Switzerland.

for Management Devt?ic@merit (‘MD), PO Box 915; CH-fOO1 ‘_ Lausanne, Switzerland

Andre Vandermerwe is Professor, hater-national Management and Corporate Strategy,

and Director of In-Company Programs at tbe International Institute for Management Develop- ment @MD), Lausanne, Switzerland. Before joining academia, Professor Vandermerwe worked as a general manager in tbe insurance industry in charge of equity investments and new product development, and as marketing director of an international advertising agency developing international trade strategies. His formal education includes Masters Degrees in Chemistry and Business, a Doctorate in Business, and a postgraduate diploma in tertiary education. His special fields of interest include general management and the implementation of strategies

for international corporations.

EUROPEAN MANAGEMENT JOURNAL Vol9 No 2 June 1991 181

Documents

Making strategic change happen