Think of a recent change that happened in your organization. Try to focus on a large change, not just a small change in artifacts, such as a form. It might be a policy change, a change in leadership, a change in organizational goals. Think about how it was implemented.
Based on Kotter’s 8 steps, describe the change. Did your organization follow each step? If so, describe how. If not, describe how “skipping” that step may have impacted the change and how employees responded to it. Use at least two class resources in your post. Remember to cite correctly.
Respond to two colleagues
Activity # 2
In chapter 16, Schein describes the three stages of change. How do they compare to Kotter’s 8 steps of change?
Dr Kotter’s made 8- step process observations Process for Leading Change was cultivated from over four decades of Dr. Kotter’s observations of countless leaders and organizations as they were trying to transform or execute their strategies. He identified and extracted the success factors and combined them into a methodology — 8-Step Process for Leading Change.Since the introduction of the 8 Steps, Dr. Kotter expanded his focus from research to impact with the founding of Kotter. Together with the firm, he evolved the 8-Step Process from its original version in Leading change to the version outlined in his 2014 book, Accelerate. Download the eBook below to learn more about this award-winning methodology.
The hunger strikes, however, were a turning point for the organization’s international image. The IRA, while not in support of at the beginning, actively used the hunger strikers collective victimhood to their advantage as a massive propaganda campaign for the cause. The death of ten prisoners sparked an jump in paramilitary recruitment and nationalist riots, enforcing the “victim of injustice” (Lynch and Joyce 2018, 188) narrative that was not as effective before the 1980s, and served to radicalize the community in a nonviolent way. The leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich, compared the conditions of the prisoners to those living in the slums of Calcutta and stated that “no one could look on them as criminals” (McKittrick and McVea 2002, 140). While no longer a solely religious struggle, the plight of the hunger strikers was being felt by Catholics across the globe, with reports from the Vatican talking about the “sacrifices” these brave men have made. Despite Unionist claims and general outrage, the cardinal’s visit was a win for the IRA. The images of the filth and poor lifestyles of the “freedom fighters” were displayed worldwide. Instead of hurting others with bombings and random attacks, the hunger strikes did not physically hurt anyone except for those who chose to starve. The change in tactics improved their image; just like on Bloody Sunday, nationalists were dying in protest of what they thought unfair, becoming true victims of injustice.
Specific strikers also were known worldwide. Bobby Sands became a public figure who eventually became a martyr for the cause. Since he had been jailed for weapon possession instead of murder, he had a friendly media image, looking “more like a drummer in a rock band than a ruthless terrorist” (McKittrick and McVea 2004, 143). Bobby Sands’s image being plastered on news stations across the world was effective propaganda, changing the IRA’s image to a more sympathetic, humanizing one. His election as an MP before his death furthered this, making a politician out of a supposed “terrorist.” Members weren’t just men with guns and balaclavas; instead, they were “rockstars” unfairly interned and killed just for possessing weapons. With this line of thought in mind, it’s easy to understand why the IRA ha