Change Image Director Navigator Caretaker Coach Interpreter Nurturer Basis of Image Application to Company #1 Application to Company #2 Pressures for Change Differs from others how? Unintended consequences from Image Change Image Basis of Image Application to Green Mountain situation Pressures for Change Differs from others how? Unintended consequences from Image Strategic pressures, new situations, new markets, May not solve the problem correcting internal problems (more efficiency) pressures are controllable. Created financial problem; fed the problem and made it worse. Manager has some control at times (internal This image is from the case - and Gunter and his changes) and little control at other times consultant are navigating the waters. (external.) Navigator is riding the waves with the rest of the employees. Strategic pressures are seen as necessary. Repackaged the problem but it is still there. Questions about how the org will respond and conflicting pressures must be taken into account when responding Created a "bad thing" of turnover into a good thing - revolving door is now a good thing. External and internal forces guide the change and the caretaker has little impact on how those changes occur...caretaker "protects" the employees from the change or assists through the change but doesn't control the change. In this case, they were being caretakers. We can't do anything about the problem, so we are going to help you by creating this credential in your background. Pressures to change are variable, and inexorable Created the benefit for people to come work Became mentor - good consequences. - little to no control available to maanger and can for the company. Working there was almost be overwhelming. "hug the employees and hold them steady as they are buffetted by change." Coach Coach creates a team environment which will successfully handle changes and assumes that change will occur and will be continuous and successful. Coach tries to shape the company - wants to fix Pressures are constant and needed to better the the organization to heal it. Hired the consultant. organization and create functioning teams. Pressures for change are contniual and shape all parts of the organizations capabilities Repackaging the situation into something else the Consultant interpreted the issue. Interpreter Interpreter creates meaning from the change, and helps explain meanings of the changes to employees. At times meanings conflict and interpreter resolves those conflicts. Management has control - change is strategic. (Somewhat dictatorial.) Director Navigator Caretaker Nurturer Set up guidelines for the employees; increase pay and offer benefits.Offer different titles for employees - create career paths. Small changes can have large impacts and the Consultant nurtured Gunter; Gunter nurtured his nurturer can't control these impacts but instead employees - was now happy to see them handles the outcomes of the change impacts improve. Employees nurtured Gunter? while the organization is shaped by the changes. Similar to caretaker except even less in control. The team is key and wants the "organization" New concept that Green Mountain is a to become continuous with the change. training organization. Consultant coached them into reshaped the issue into a good thing. Pressures for change are internal and external; Sensemaker - helps them interpret meaning staff is key demand on managers to explain what - Gunter needed the interpretation. "What's is going on. Must make sense of change to the in it for me?" staff constantly. Change pressures are varied and are large and small. Not always rational or able to be coodinated well - chaos theory where small changes create huge impact. Only companies with well defined ability to adapt will do well with the changes. Mentors get back from the mentees; He is happy to see them go - Gunter lets them move on and no longer worries about it. Organization's reputation has improved from the "lack of change." Gunter may be something back from some of these mentees in the future. JP Morgan Chase Bank and Bank of America Over the last few years JP Morgan Chase Bank and Bank of America have undergone similar changes in their operation and such changes have enabled them to become some of the top banks in United States. JP Morgan Chase Bank is one of the oldest institutions of finance in the United States. The bank has a long history dating back to over 200 years. Currently, it is the leading global financial services firm with assets of $2.4 trillion and it operates in more than sixty countries (Leedy, 1999). The company is leading in investment banking, financial services for consumers and a big business and it has more than 240, 000 employees. Similarly, the Bank of America is a multinational banking and financial services corporation. It is the second largest bank holding company in the United States by assets. In provision of its services and products, the Bank of America operates 5100 banking centers, 16300 ATMs and online and mobile banking platforms (Boffey and Nader, 1975). Both JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America have undergone almost similar changes in their operations to achieve their current global financial position. I have selected the two banks since they are the leading banking institutions in America and have grown almost at a similar pace regardless of the time in which they were started. The operation of the two banking systems is one and the same and it is quite fascinating that the challenges and changes that the two banking institutions undergo are almost similar. Over the last seven years, both JP Morgan Chase and Bank of America have been cautiously navigating their way through a transaction banking paradigm shift, emphasizing on the quality of their banking system as much as their size. Both banks have invested in building technology, expertise and global reach required to help corporations grow. They have both ventured into mobile banking, extended their banking system globally and currently are on the verge of moving towards greater integration of banking services. Underpinning this cooperative way of working is a revolution in technology. References Boffey, P. M., & Nader, R. (1975). The brain bank of America: An inquiry into the politics of science. New York: McGraw-Hill. Leedy Jr, M. J. (1999). U.S. Patent No. D408,054. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office