Due Tuesday June 30, 2020 @ 11pm eastern time Al-Haddad & Kotnour (2015) describes the change models of Kotter and Lewin. In an essay, compare and contrast these change models or any other early resea

9 Volume 29 Number 3 Fall 2011 Abstract The nature of organizational change brings instabili- ty to the mental models we as leadership/managers in organizations have grown accustomed to “leaning on.” Considering the rapidly advancing nature of new technologies, slow to change mental models, the nuances of cultural diversity, and globalization of the workplace, the prospect of successful organizational change initiatives presents a daunting challenge. This paper addresses the background for these issues, and suggests a more measured and rational approach to dealing with these problems. Introduction Industry experts claim that organizational change initiatives continue to experience a failure rate approaching 70% ( Beer & Nohria 2000; IBM 2008; Raps 2004; Kotter 1998; Senge, 1999; Standish Group 2009; Strebel 1998). Among the most common of organizational change initiatives is technological change. Technological change, even if implemented at the organizational level, is uniquely received by all individuals. It is that inherently unique reception by the individual that results in the challenge and sub- sequent shift of the mental model. The potential repercussions of those shifts are often significant cost overruns, budget shortfalls, and missed deadlines--- exacerbated by distraught individuals whose per- formance as organizational employees can be drasti- cally impaired. Change implementation processes and procedures generally focus on cost/benefit of the “change” itself, instead of on the implications for the individuals experiencing the change. It is counterintuitive that Organizational Change, Mental Models And Stability:

Are They Mutually Exclusive Or Inextricably Linked? Victoria M. Grady Beverly Magda James D. Grady Dr. Victoria Gradycompleted her Doctoral Studies at the George Washington University in May 2005. Her dissertation focused on the inherent loss of stability suf- fered by organizations introducing and implementing organizational change initia- tives. The research resulted in a validated model explaining the tendency of individu- als, often subconsciously, to disrupt the organizational change initiative. She extended her original model to include a validat- ed index (LOE Index) that quantitatively measures the tenden- cy of individuals within the organization to embrace organiza- tional change initiatives. Contact Information Victoria M. Grady, DSc Assistant Professorial Lecturer The George Washington University Columbian College of Arts and Sciences Department of Organizational Science 600 21st Street, NW Washington D.C. 20052 703-577-2741 [email protected] generally, “change” initiatives are implemented without first benchmarking the potential response of the individuals experiencing the change. It is the challenge of a progressive organization to account for, provide proper support for, and allow sufficient time for the mental models of the individual employees to re-stabilize in the context of the integrated change initiative. When organizations embark on a change initia- tive, they must choose which management meth- ods, techniques and systems would be most effec- tive (Waldron, 2005). There are exciting new tools in the field of change management that help man- agement anticipate and adapt efficiently to orga- nizational change initiatives beginning with the individual (Grady, 2005). The effect of a techno- logical change can have a significant impact on the individuals in the organization – both positive and negative. Therefore, it is critical to integrate mitigation techniques throughout the process in order to increase the potential adoption rate of the new technology (Magda, 2009).

Background Today’s business environment requires that if organizations are to remain competitive in the global marketplace they must become more flexi- ble. A characteristic of this flexibility often involves the ability to make change rapidly in order to keep pace with evolving market condi- tions. There are many market techniques that are presently in use for the purpose of introducing “change” into business and industry. Many of these introductions prescribe an almost mechani- cal process and come at the expense of at least the short term mental/emotional well-being of the employees who are expected to embrace these adaptations. We believe this is especially true 10 Organization Development Journal Beverly Magda, Ph.D.,is the Associate Dean of Technology Management at Georgetown University. Prior to Georgetown, Dr. Magda spent nearly 20 years leading IT initiatives in education and non-profits. She also served on the faculty at Johns Hopkins and Hood College. Her research focuses on mitigat- ing the effects of technology change.

She holds a Ph.D. in Engineering Management from George Washington University, a M.S. in Telecommunications Management, and a B.S. in Computer & Information Science. Contact Information Beverly Magda, PhD Associate Dean, Technology Management Georgetown University 3307 M Street NW, Suite 202 Washington, DC 20007 202.687.4504 [email protected] Dr. James Gradyreceived his D.M.D. at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, in 1971 and his residency training and a Master of Science in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1974. In his prac- tice, he has been a keen observer and stu- dent of behavior. This prompted signifi- cant research regarding the various circles of cause and effect in chronic pain patients, and in employees and col- leagues, especially when under various types of stress.

Contact Information James D. Grady, III, DMD, MS Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery of East Alabama 121 North 20th St Building 20 B Opelika, Al 36801 Office 334-749-3436 Fax 334-749-3223 [email protected] with change in leadership, cultural change, and technology implementations.

Unfortunately, with the technology explosion over the past decade there is now an abundance of information regarding change projects that were never completed, were over budget, or continued beyond the original deadline (Magda, 2009). In a world where frequent change has become a way of life, failures to implement, or recurrent budget and time overruns, are as much a threat to the viability of the organization as the failure to rec- ognize the need to change in the first place.

Additional research highlights the implication of past behavior on future behavior and shows evi- dence of a direct relationship between the two ( Jasperson & Zmud, 2005; Nelson & Cheney, 1987). This suggests that if in an organization’s change initiatives have not done well in the past, the negative effects of the previous change attempts are often remembered and as a result, later attempted are likely to be met with increased apprehension and resistance (Magda, 2009). This “organizational memory” supports the contention that it is generally advisable to develop a plan using all available information in order to improve the chances of the project’s success. In this respect, this paper will introduce findings that will provide additional information to assist the organization in its effort to gain a tactical advantage in preparing for success in its change implementation processes.

Historical Accounts of Reactions to Changes in Technology Implementing a new technology is an area where the reaction to change has often proven to be a volatile factor in the organizational environment.History presents recurrent episodes of violent uprisings in response to the prospects of introduc- ing a new technology (Grady, 2005). "In the year 1812 Yorkshire was torn apart by a series of dis- turbances in which groups of skilled workers came together in a secret organization dedicated to smashing the new machines being introduced into the woolen industry" (Englander & Downing, 1988). In another example “The Luddite uprising took place in Regency England during the years 1811 to 1816, and is usually described as an out- break of violence directed against labor-saving machinery by disgruntled workers who felt that their employment and way of life were threatened by the Industrial Revolution” (Rybczynski, 1983).

And again "In the nineteenth century, Belgian weavers took to "accidentally" dropping their heavy wooden clogs (or sabots) into the delicate mechanism of the loom, giving rise to the expres- sion "sabotage" (Rybczynski, 1983). The behavior of the Belgian weavers was in direct response to the introduction of the automated loom which was perceived as a threat to the livelihood of the skilled labor force. This “threat” was significant enough to warrant a loss of stability resulting in the sabotageof the new technology (Grady, 2005).

When we consider how historically slow change confronted our species as we developed over the past tens of thousands of years with the velocity of change in the 21st Century, it is not surprising that we find the present pace to be unsettling.

The historical accounts listed above demonstrate the impact of change on existing mental models that have become established in individuals and even societies. When facing change, certainly in the present and the more recent past and perhaps even in the very distant past, many individuals and the groups and organizations that supported 11 Volume 29 Number 3 Fall 2011 them have felt a sense of loss when the “technolo- gy” they are accustomed to “leaning on” was phased out. All technological change, regardless of its potential eventual improvement to the qual- ity of life of its users and beneficiaries, needs to provide a period of transition to allow for an alteration of perceptions. The Removal of Leaned on Objects, LOE Model and LOE Index In 1946, Dr. René Spitz and his associate, Katherine Wolf, classified a condition termed ana- clitic depression, as a ‘loss of stability’ in individ- uals orphaned or removed from their primary ‘love object.’ Dr. Spitz found that when an infant’s primary caregiver was changed; pre- dictable symptoms developed, and the infant ceased, and often regressed from the natural developmental process. The word anaclitic comes from the Greek word anaklisis, which means, ‘to lean upon’. It has now been shown that those symptoms produced by a loss or change of a “leaned on” object in infants are also found in adults when they are exposed to a change in something with which they have become familiar (Grady, 2005). In the workplace, this change can be in organizational leadership, a familiar technology, merger of business units or a new workplace facility. However, it is not somuch the “object” as the implication—if individuals are deprived of a basic or primary relationship that they have become accustomed to “leaning on” they will suffer a loss of stability (Grady, et al., 2009).

Based on the findings of Spitz, and his description of anaclitic depression, the Model of an Organizational Loss of Effectiveness (LOE) hypothesizes that in an organization when an object (technology) changes that is “leaned on”, that change will cause employees to experience a loss of stability, and that, in turn, will cause the exhibition of symptoms that are predictable, measurable. The symptoms are: frustration, apprehension, rejection of environment, with- drawal, refusal to participate, retardation of development, loss of appetite, and insomnia (Grady & Grady, 2008). If unrecognized and unresolved, these symptoms will leave the organi- zation battling decreased productivity, decreased morale, decreased motivation, increased conflict, increased absenteeism and increased turnover.

When present in sufficient number or intensity, the presence of these symptoms is indicative of another organizational change initiative strug- gling to succeed, and furthermore, a possible loss of effectiveness or performance within that organ- ization—an Organizational (LOE). Figure 1 is a graphical representation of the model. 12 Organization Development Journal Organizational Change Loss of Stability Exhibition of Symptoms Organizational LOE Figure 1. Model of the Organizational LOE Organizational Change causes a loss of stability which results in the development of a predictable and measura- ble set of symptoms within an organization. When a significant number or intensity of these symptoms are present simultaneously, an organizational loss of effectiveness will occur (Grady, 2005). Utilization of the LOE model begins by evaluating each individual impacted by the change through the administration of the LOE Index. The LOE Index identifies behaviors, perceptions, and atti- tudes that emerge in organizations as a response to change and that ultimately impact overall effec- tiveness. The tool enables organizations to antici- pate symptoms and to plan and adapt efficiently to the impact of change (Grady et al, 2009).

Each organization is complicated and unique in its own way. In order to accurately assess the organization and the nuances that constitute its culture, a quantitative assessment of the individu- als that frame the organization is invaluable. This is compiled from the individuals’ results of the LOE Index into a collective report that provides a snapshot of the organization that then forms the baseline for evaluating the overall “change” health of the organization on the baseline date and into the future. The LOE Index can beadministered intermittently, at set intervals, or before-during-after each change initiative. The reiterative administration of the LOE Index pro- vides the organization with continuous informa- tion and flexibility to re-evaluate the success of the technology change initiative. The graphic representation of the data that fol- lows provides a more comprehensive illustration of the value of the LOE Index as a tool to increase the potential effectiveness of the organizational change initiative. Figure 2 below represents a For Profit Medical Facilitythat utilized the LOE Index to quantitatively summarize the individual reac- tion of the employees to the integration of a new leader into the organizational environment on two separate occasions. The LOE Index was administered 10 times over two and one half years. The sample size was 100% of the invited participants. The results of each of 13 Volume 29 Number 3 Fall 2011 Sep-07 Nov-07 Jan-08 Apr-08 Oct-08 Mar-09 Jun-09 Nov-09 Feb-10 May-10 2.20 2.25 2.10 2.05 2.00 1.95 1.90 1.85 Figure 2. For Profit Medical Facility. the 10 separate assessment collections were aver- aged and the combined symptom scores of the participants was averaged and located at a point in time. The significance of the test results is expressed in the curve created by connecting each respective point. The first testing (Sep ‘07) was administered just prior to the arrival of a newly hired office manager; the second, approximately six weeks into the change; the third administra- tion ( Jan 08) was approximately four months into the change. The chart shows an escalation of symptoms as a result of increasing tension between the new office manager and the staff— the employees were becoming increasingly disor- ganized and unfocused. The fourth administra- tion (Apr 08) was taken soon after the departure of the new manager who cited as her reason for leaving irreconcilable differences between her leadership style and the overall work environ- ment—these results reflected the subjective obser- vation that the atmosphere in the office was immediately more relaxed. Over the next year, there was general improve- ment in the test scores indicating a stable office environment—no attempt was made to hire a new manager during that period of time.

Between May 09 and June 09 it was announced that a facility had been sold and that the new owner would arrive on July 1, 2009. In late May 2009, an office coordinator was hired to assist in the transition. The LOE Index was administered for the seventh time on Jun 27, a period of high anxiety that was three days before the expected arrival of the new owner. At this time, the results show that the instability of the office was at an all time high. However, over the next year ( Jun 09- May10) there was a significant improvement in the stability of the office that can be attributed to increased efforts of communication, perceivedacceptance (buy-in) of the previous owner toward the new owner, and the gradual process of inte- grating the new owner into the cultural nuances of the practice. The “leaned on” object was inter- mittently available albeit in a slightly altered for- mat, and the fact that no other policy or personnel changes were expected.

The second data sample is a non-profit healthcare facility. The organizational change was the intro- duction of a new technology. The LOE Index was administered twice. The sample size was 95% of the invited participants. Again, there were no sta- tistically significant changes in LOE scores from the first test to the second test from a cumulative perspective. However, differences are apparent in the data specific to the employee positions. The introduction of the new technology to business, clinical, and corporate staff had been 3 months prior to the first administration and they were now beginning to come out of their adjustment period, which reflected improvements in their scores between the first and second administra- tion. On the other hand the “providers” did not begin using the new technology until after the first administration. The providers in this sample were the doctors who were now, for the first time, required to use electronic tablets instead of pen and paper to record all medical notes; their aver- age LOE score represented an overall 23% increase in “loss of stability” (See Figure 3 on page 15).

In the absence of collective data that provide an accurate “snapshot” of an organization’s overall health, creation of a mitigation plan that reacts to and anticipates potential organizational pitfalls during technological implementation might be difficult, if not impossible, to create and success- fully integrate. The LOE Index is designed to 14 Organization Development Journal provide insight into the “mind” of the organiza- tion at the level of the implementation, and the proper understanding and use of this instrument can increase the chances of success of a new implementation effort. Approaching a new change initiative with an implementation plan based on these data will be the first step in fol- lowing and intervening, if and when necessary, in the evolution of the individuals’ mental model from the current to the future.

Mitigating Technology Change In today’s world, large scale projects are conduct- ed in complex and dynamic organizational sys- tems. “Development occurs in a fragile matrix of applications, users, customer demands, laws, internal politics, budgets and organizational dependencies that change constantly” ( Johnson, 1999, p. 30). With this noted, it is important formanagement within organizations to consider the effects of a change initiative on its people. Much has been written about the organizational factors, but often too little consideration is given to indi- viduals affected by the new technology. The way in which an organization responds to the effects of a change can lead to the success or failure of a project (Bartholomew, 1997). Using the LOE Index to follow and intervene during the imple- mentation process in response to the nature and intensity of the symptoms that develop can be a powerful tool in steering a change initiative to a successful conclusion. Furthermore, preliminary research indicates that there are also processes that can be integrated into the organizational implementation plan to reduce the intensity and duration of the symptoms and, therefore, allow the emerging symptoms to be more readily modi- fied. Some of these techniques are discussion in the following sections. 15 Volume 29 Number 3 Fall 2011 Provider Corporate Staff Clinical Staff Business Staff AVG LOE: Baseline AVG LOE: Second 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 Figure 3.Not For Profit Medical Facility. Communication, Leadership, Involvement, Training in New Technology Implementation While blatant sabotage may not be obvious dur- ing the change process, further scrutiny may identify more subtle forms of resistance that will ultimately lead to implementation failures. It is the expectation of a shift in perception and mental models, both individually and organizationally, and planning in that regard that is the first step in the success of the project. This section will deal primarily with change initiatives requiring direct implementation by employees that may not be traditionally involved in the decision making process that resulted in the change. This research relates more specifically to the process of chang- ing mental models as these relate to the introduc- tion of a new technology, but it also has applica- tion in many similar efforts. While the concepts presented below are generally applicable to the introduction of new leadership, a new supervisor, or when moving to a new facility, as examples, inthese instances the process may require some modification.

Research substantiates the advisability of devel- oping a comprehensive plan prior to the imple- mentation of a new technology, and suggests one which incorporates leadership, communication, end-user involvement, as well as training/educa- tion can expect to have a faster rate of adoption (see Figure 4).

• Leadership. Executive level support for the change effort is critical, and must extend from conception until the completion of the project. In addition, leaders should be directly involved in critical phases throughout the project to reinforce their support of those most affected by the change. Finally, the leadership is also responsible for designating someone who will insure that the next three levels of involvement are carried out carefully and deliberately. 16 Organization Development Journal Figure 4.Mitigation Techniques (Magda 2009). • Communication.A comprehensive imple- mentation and communications plan should be developed by a committee consisting of employ- ees from every level in the organization that will be affected by the new technology. This should outline the steps of the implementation process, training dates, methods of communication, when meetings will be held, the purpose of the meeting, and important deadlines for various phases of the process. A bulletin board, either physically or electronically, should be created that allows all employees to remain current with necessary changes in the timelines, etc. Also, the names should be posted of those who will be responsible for each of the communication efforts and for insuring that dissemination of that information reaches all stakeholders. It is also important to provide the personnel who will be impacted by the change with consistent information regarding the need for the change and the selection process.

In order for the affected employees to buy-in to the process, they need to understand why the change is occurring and how it will affect their jobs.

• End-user involvement.Especially in a change process that will involve the work related process of employees involved, for example in the intro- duction of new technology, representatives of those who will be affected should be involved from the early stages of the planning process.

Those most affected by the change and those with direct knowledge of the systems to be changed may add valuable, even critical information to the planning, selection, and implementation process.

• Training & Education. Once the decision is made regarding the organizational change process, a training and/or education plan should be developed. In most cases, and since it is one ofthe key factors in a successful change, education and training classes should be mandatory.

Education provides the opportunity to promote an understanding of the reasons behind the change and a venue to reassure employees regarding any possible job-related concerns.

Training, where indicated, familiarizes the employees with the new product and where indi- cated, allows the employee to build skills and confidence prior to full implementation.

Recent research that involved the adoption of electronic medical records in emergency depart- ments demonstrated that there is a difference in the benefit achieved by utilizing the introductory techniques and a further difference based on the way in which these techniques were applied.

(Magda, 2009). The three techniques described include passive, reactive, or proactive and are defined below:

• Passive: There is no effort of the leadership to support, communication, end-user involvement, or training and education in response to an action, questions, or concerns about the change.

• Reactive:Leadership responds with communi- cation, leadership support, end-user involvement, and training and education only as needed, or when issues or questions arise from those involved in the implementation of the change.

•Proactive:There is an effort to apply tech- niques in advance and throughout the entire change process in order to gain and keep support for the change being implemented.

Additional findings of this research were consis- tent with prior research by Everett Rogers on technology adoption. Particularly when end- user 17 Volume 29 Number 3 Fall 2011 involvement was applied proactively, 84.0% of all respondents, equating out to Rogers’ categories (innovators, early adopters, early majority, and late majority) were able to adopt and fully utilize a new technology in less than one month. In fact, this group of respondents was able to fully utilize a new technology in less than half the time of a corresponding group of users for which mitiga- tion techniques were only passively applied. This results in a great benefit to organizations in terms of the success of and the time saved implement- ing new technology. In the following research protocol, the three groups were similar demographically and experi- enced a similar technological change, but in each group the application of the mitigation techniques (proactive, reactive or passive) varied. Data were collected by observation, recorded sessions, inter- views, collection of artifacts, and field notes for each of the mitigation techniques within each group.

The Technology Change: Implementation of Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) Because of a federal mandate for medical facilities to implement electronic medical records (EMRs) by 2014 and the importance of technology in an emergency department, this research was con- ducted at the emergency departments (EDs) of three hospitals located in the Washington DC metropolitan area, each with similar organization- al structures, employee demographics, and tech- nological changes. The only significant difference was that two of the EDs were converting from a paper-based charting system to electronic medical records and had little or no clinical experience in the use of electronic media, and one of the EDs had previously implemented electronic patienttracking software, and would now convert to new software that would provide a full electronic medical records interface.

Because of the nature of the research and the desire to avoid an intrusion into patient care, and because of the many basic similarities in the insti- tutions no attempt was made to separate the per- sonnel in each institution into three research groups. Instead, each hospital emergency depart- ment (ED) was treated as a single group. The ED with prior but very limited computer experience (patient tracking software) was designated ED1, and was assigned the task of implementing the new electronic medical records without any for- mal support (passive). ED2 was assigned a sup- port team to assist its personnel with questions as they began the use of the new system (reactive).

The third group was designated ED3 and would be given prior training in the new system, and support during the early implementation phase (proactive). Data were collected at one week, one month, and three months after the first day of software implementation.

The results are included in Figure 5 and are sum- marized as follows: In ED3, for which the soft- ware was introduced in a proactive manner, 69% were able to generally use the software without assistance within one week, and 91%did not require assistance after one month. In ED2, the reactively treated group,66% were using the soft- ware without assistance in one week, and 84%by the end of the first month. In ED1, which received a passive introduction, the correspon- ding numbers were 56%and 65%. In one striking difference, in the ED1 group,15%continued to require assistance more than 6 months after the date of implementation, whereas none still required assistance in the other two groups. 18 Organization Development Journal A surprising finding was that the group that received no support during the implementation of the new software did better than expected. By way of explanation, however, this group was the only one to have previous experience with the patient tracking software, and this, therefore, may have given them the confidence to progress more rapidly than if otherwise had been the case. The lack of any support during the learning phase may also explain why a large number continued to require assistance much longer than the employees in ED2 and ED3.

Additionally, when end-users were surveyed on their utilization of the new system, the results revealed that based on learning rates calculated from the data, the probability of individuals cor- rectly utilizing a new technology increases when a mitigation technique is proactively applied, i.e., more than with a reactive or passive application (Magda, 2009). ED3 results revealed that 99%error free utilization occurred within approxi- mately 750 utilizations. ED2 achieved a 99% error free utilization rate within approximately 900 uti- lizations, whereas ED1 did not achieve this error free level until they approached the number of 2000 level of utilizations. Therefore, proactive application of the mitigation techniques demon- strates that end-user learned the system at the faster rate than the end-users that were in the groups where the techniques were applied reac- tively or passively as represented in Figure 6.

Considering the implications of errors on medical records, this is a very significant finding and sup- ports the need for careful planning with the intro- duction of any new procedure or protocol into the health care armamentarium.

This research found that the proactive application of mitigation techniques is more effective than passive, and perhaps marginally more effective than reactive application. How fast and how 19 Volume 29 Number 3 Fall 2011 Figure 5.Percent Not Requiring Assistance at Each listed Time Period. error-free users learn to utilize new technology will depend on how the different mitigation tech- niques are applied, as well on the previous expe- rience of the user in the area of new technology being implemented. Although this study may need to be repeated with more consistent sample selection and controls, the initial conclusion is that the use of these mitigation techniques proac- tively applied is likely to have a positive impact on and is likely to produce a positive benefit to organizations during a technological change. Conclusion With the failure rate of new change initiatives approaching 70% and the critical importance of keeping up with rapidly changing technology advances, today’s organizational leaders are in a quandary. Research presented in this paper hasilluminated some of the present difficulties in the modern organization’s approach to change. In the hurry to make transition, leadership has either ignored or failed to comprehend the monumental and disruptive impact of change on the individ- ual. Just as important has been the neglect in cre- ating a careful plan that takes into consideration the process necessary to bring about a positive transition to the new technology. While much more research is necessary to fully understand and mitigate the negative effects of change on the individual, the research presented in this paper indicates that the structure of a more successful technology change experience may be built on a foundation using principles suggested here as a basis for further consideration. 20 Organization Development Journal Figure 6.Number of Utilizations Required Before Achieving 99% Error Free Utilization Rate. References Bartholomew, D. (1997). Taking charge: CEOs should take an active role in enterprise- wide IT projects. Industry Week, 246 (15), 122-128.

Bartoli, A., & Hermel, P. (2004). Managing change and innovation in IT implementation process. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management,416-425.

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the code of change.Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Englander, D., & Downing, T. (1988). The mystery of Luddism. History Today, 18-23. Goldschmidt, W. R. (1960). Exploring the ways of mankind. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Grady, V. (2005). Studying the Effect of Loss of Stability on Organizational Behavior: A Perspective on Technological Change (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The George Washington University, Washington DC. Grady, V.M. (2008). The LOE Index: A quantitative change measure for the individuals that are collectively the organization. Proceedings of the International Society for the Study of Organizations 25th Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.

Grady, V.M., Gleckel, E. A., & Grody, E. R., (2009).

The Organizational Loss Of Effectiveness (LOE) model and the LOE Index: A quantitative measurement tool for identifying individual symptomatic response to technological change.

Integration Journal, 97-106.Grady, V. & Grady, J. (2008). Winnicott’s potential space and transitional objects: Implications for the organizational change process and its previously defined relationship to an organizational loss of effectiveness (LOE).

Journal of Organisational and Social Dynamic, pp 278-297.

IBM. (2008). Making change work: Continuing the enterprise of the future conversation.

IBM Institute for Business Value. Retrieved November 2, 2009, from http://www- 935.ibm.com/ services/us/gbs/html/gbs-mak- ing-change-work.html. Jasperson, J., Carter, P., & Zmud, R. (2005). A comprehensive conceptualization of post- adoptive behaviors associated with information technology enabled work systems. MIS Quarterly, 525-557.

Johnson, J. (1999). Turning chaos into success.

Software Magazine, 19 (3), 30-34.

Kotter, J. P. (1998). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review on Change, 1-20.

Magda, B. (2009). Increasing the Efficacy of Emergency Departments through Systems Analysis of Enterprise Architecture: Mitigating the Impact of Technological Change.

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The George Washington University, Washington DC.

Nelson, R.R. & Cheney, P.H. (1987). Training end users: An exploratory study. MIS Quarterly, 547-559.

Raps, A. (2004). Implementing strategy. Strategic Finance49-53.

Rogers, E. M. (1995).Diffusion of innovations(4th ed.) New York: The Free Press.

Rybczynski, W. (1983). Taming the tiger: The struggle to control technology. New York:

Viking Press. 21 Volume 29 Number 3 Fall 2011 Senge, P. (1999).The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations.New York:

Doubleday. Spitz, R. A. & Wolf, K. (1946). Anaclitic depression: An inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood, II. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 2, 313-342.

Standish Group International, (2009) CHAOS Summary 2009. Retrieved November 1, 2009 from http://www.standishgroup.com/news- room/chaos_2009.php. Strebel, P. (1998). Why do employees resist change?

Harvard Business Review on Change.

139-157. Waldron, M. (2005). Overcoming barriers to change management in accounting systems.Journal of American Academy of Business, 6, 244-249. 22 Organization Development Journal