Organizational Change and Development
Planning and Implementing Teams at AAL& IPS
Okneeka Roberts
March 10, 2015

This reading was different from all other assigned readings to date. The narrator, Jerome ( Jerry) Laubenstein, speaks from a very optimistic and favorable vantage point. The primary goal for the redesign of IPS was accomplished successfully. The transition from traditional “top down” management to sociotechnical management was achieved using the basic Organizational Development model of diagnosis, interventions and progress monitoring. It is important to note, it isn’t until the very end of the reading where true feedback is gathered and presented under, “Employee Success and Challenges”; perceived flaws in the organizational change were noted. I’ll be sure to mention, “Tough Spots” in my conclusion.
Jerry is clearly a very successful and learned former marketing director. The text mentioned his style was highly participative and every portion of the change was just that. The first theory applied throughout the reading was the initiation for change or the internal pressures proposed by AAL for change. For starters, seeds were planted during a successful product launch in 1982. The energizing effects the success had on the organization are coined under an important phenomenon: stickiness in aspirations. Aspiration-performance discrepancies or the gaps between employees and organizational goals spawned an internal pressure for change. According to the text, stickiness exists when individuals, units and organizations are slow to revise their aspirations even when they appear too high or too low. It is my understanding that the opposite of stickiness is at play. The performance of the product launch, which were above target levels it encouraged employees and aspirations were increased. Thus the “energizing effects” of the successful universal life product had employees believing a product introduction every two years would be appropriate. Another brief point to be noted, along the lines of internal pressure for change, was the change in top management, President Dick Gunderson. Gunderson, with the support of hand selected management teams, employee focus groups and Roy Walters & Associated enabled a virtually smooth transition process.
The IPS organization experienced life cycle forces for change. The varied offerings and widespread reach and large staffing structure of the AAL organization screamed a need for “Renewal and Transformation”. The reading walks through the model of life cycles. The need for additional people created a coordination of efforts to brainstorm AALs strengths and weaknesses. The next stage of collectivity focused on service development by way of “closing the gaps” within management, marketing and organizational structure as a hole. The creation of the varied teams originated here. The formalization and control stage created balance in the organization through the self-management team concept. Lastly, the elaboration stage refined the employees, customers and productivity success and challenges. This formal procedure indefinitely empowered lower level employees siting involvement on all levels.
The radical transformation of Novartis benchmarked an abrasive approach to organizational change. Gunderson, unlike CEO Dan Vasella, utilized “positive dissatisfaction”. Although AAL wasn’t in crisis, Gunderson utilized techniques that encouraged his organization to reach higher potentials. In the Novartis organization, there was a staunch resistance to change; specialist understood Vasella’s decisions yet shareholders and analysts wanted profits immediately. Vasella, despite strategizing for the long term, never incorporated the vision of the organization by identifying the needs of the employees, set parameters nor encouraged feedback or input from his employees. The style Gunderson and Jerry touted was highly participatory. The synthesis of meetings, retreats, teams and feedback created the