The implicit change model held by the agent is a mix of a Coach and Navigator.
The reasons for the change
The pressure for change arose from environmental pressures in the industry. There were slight fashion pressures facing the company. Many companies in the industry were implementing quality programs. There was also the reputation and credibility pressure present.
Internally, there were forces pushing the need for change. The company had been growing at a fast pace, both in terms of revenue, staff, and products. Revenue and profits were growing at a rate of 40% a year for the past three years. As the change program was in the developmental stage, it was documented that the company was incurring one or two problems a week that were due to poor processes or poor quality. The change agent's organization would sometimes not deliver the correct product to the customer, and this would cause the need for rework. Also, during the period when the quality program was in its beginning stages, the need for the program became even more evident when one of their products they supplied, portable drills, started in exploding in end user's faces. However, this reason did not ensure support or success of the program.
How the change agent diagnosed the need for change
No formal diagnostic change models were used when diagnosing the need for a quality control program. However, when looking at the list of models presented in class, the closest model that resembles the path of the agent's actions is the Gap Analysis method! During the change agent's initial job interview, the future-change agent asked about the organization's quality control program (Where are we now?). The interviewer communicated that there was no program and at that moment but that it sounded like a great idea that should be implemented (Where do we want to get to?) and then tasked the interviewee to come on board to create a quality control program (How can we get there?).
The type of change the agent was trying to implement was a first-order incremental change for the agent's organization. For their suppliers, it was a perceived transformational change. The suppliers had never done a program like this before and most were hesitant in opening themselves to the idea.
The degree of resistance to this change and the reasons for this resistance.
The degree of resistance to this change was extremely high. The change agent encountered resistance from within the organization as well as outside the organization. There were many active signs of resistance. The president of the main supplier was very critical to this new program. He tried to convince the members of the change agent's organization and even the owner of the company that the program was useless and not cost effective. He (the President of the supplier company) said that the program was an insult to himself and his company, implying that his company was not doing their jobs correctly. He complained that he didn't have enough resources to comply with the program. There was fault finding, ridiculing, using facts selectively, blaming or accusing, sabotaging, manipulation, distorting of facts. Rumors were also started-he said that the quality program was upsetting many other suppliers, when in reality, there was a small possibility that he could have had this contact with other suppliers. Personal attacks were also made on the change agent by the supplier. The supplier also spent a lot of time arguing with the change agent .
There were also passive signs of resistance from the suppliers. The particular supplier mentioned above would always agree via telephone or even via teleconference that he would do the things requested of him, but he never really did. The main supplier gave a lot of resistance the entire time. The agent and the main supplier met and the agent asked for some inspection procedures and a year later, the supplier still did not have...