Name of Student

Institution affiliation

2. The six images of managing change in businesscan get categorized into 3, intended, partially planned andunintended, director and coach fall under intended while navigatorand interpreter fall under the subgroup of partially designed and thecaretaker and belongs to the subgroup of a fantastic image of changeoutcomes. The diagram bellow shows the components of business changemanagement.

Images of Managing

Controlling . . . (activities)

Shaping . . .


Images of Change Outcomes











The director is usually based on an image ofmanagement as control and of change outcomes as being achievable inany business it gets supported by the contingency theory. The effectof this picture in an organization is that it can get used as amotivator to both the employees and the manager as it might offerhope.

Coach tends to rely upon building in the right setof skills, values and “drills “that gets deemed as the best onesthat possess the potential of achieving the desired objectives of abusiness organization. They can affect an organization in a positivemanner through their usage as inspirational facts that get gearedtowards the enhancement of employee’s skills as well asfacilitation of employee job satisfaction (Remoussenard-Pourquier&amp Ansiau,&nbsp2014).

3. Navigator-control is the heart of managementaction although a variety of external factors depicts that managersmay reach some change intended outcomes, and others will occur overwhich they have little control, they get supported by thecontextualist and processualists theories of change. Its absence canimpact negatively to a business organization creating a state oflawlessness and lack of direction thus hindering an organization`sactivity.

Interpreter- The manager creates meaning for otherorganizational membersin a business, helping them to make sense ofvarious corporate events and actions. It gets supported by thesense-making theory of organizational change. It might affect abusiness enetrprise in case of a wrong interpretation of commandsthus interfering with the proper functioning of the bodies system.

Caretaker-The manager’s control poses as anextremely hindered by a variety of external and internal forces thatsupersede their scope (Baselice &amp Pascazio, 2013). The caretaker guides their business organizations along as best theycan. It gets supported by life-cycle, population ecology, andinstitutional theories. This image can affect the body in a negativeaspect in case the manager lack sufficient knowledge and expertise ofrunning the organization as well as carrying out other managementfunctions.

Nurturer-Even minor changes may have a vast impacton managers and business organizations lack the capacity to controlthe results of these changes but may nurture their teams, and thisfacilitates organizational qualities that enable positiveself-organizing to occur. It is usually related to chaos andConfucian/ Taoist theories. This image may affect the businessorganization in both a positive and a negative perspective, forinstance, is the manager has an excellent managerial expertise he orshe might employ the team`s weaknesses by using them as learning thematerial so as to avoid future havocs in their business ventures.

6. Managers tend to get faced with a variety ofenvironmental pressures within their business organizations, some ofthem include: decline market forces, this usually occurs when marketprices begin to fall, and this increases the urge of finding newerand more viable markets. Hyper-competition pressures are typicallycomposed of the highly intensified rate of business including aspectssuch as rapid responses to competitors and shortened product lifecycles ( Tagg, 2012).

Another environmental pressure that faces managersis that of reputation and credibility, it takes place in light ofrecent corporate governance scandal, the pressures that press themanager towards maintaining a good reputation as well a high level ofcredibility increases. Fashion pressures are usuallyNeo-institutionalism: mimetic isomorphism. Managers imitate practicesassociated with successful organizations.

Mandated pressures are Neo-institutionalism:coercive isomorphism. A team changes through formally or informallymandated requirements while the geopolitical forces comprise ofMacroeconomic changes (or crises) place pressure on organizations tomodify the way they operate.

Response to change varies from ready acceptance tofull-blown resistance resistance gets defined as anything that leadsto a delay or an additional cost to a change program and can resultin complete or no change.

There exist some reasons why people resist changein any business organization, some of them include fear of theunknown where people prefer to maintain their status quo other thanindulging in new activities or ventures. Another reason gets based onan assumption that people resists change when they fail to know whatget expected of them. Some people portray some aspects of parochialself-interests(Palmer &amp Akin, 2009). Dueto this factor, they might have an unwillingness to explore thechange. Lack of information about what the change entails, as well asthe implications of change, makes individuals develop fear andresilience towards change.

In today’s generation, mistrust is close tovirtue as people have engaged in numerous uncouth activities thathave led to the breaking of trust among individuals when a changeprocess gets initiated, members of a given society or a businessorganization fails to trust their leaders and at the end up assumingthat leaders have a hidden agenda.

People fear that when a change gets initiated in abusiness enterprise, they might lose control over what they had a sayon, change interferes with autonomy and can make people feel as ifthey have lost everything. When change gets introduced, individualslove their sense of self-determination.

Concerns about competence is another reason as towhy people resist change, they constantly doubt themselves by asking“can I do it?” when change makes people feel stupid, resistancerises, and this might express some skepticism and the introducedissues.

Some people, especially in a business organizationassociates, change to more work, and this makes them fear, the Kantarlaw states that everything can look like a failure in the middle andthe theorists suggest that for effective change to take place.Leaders should provide some leniency and allow some people to focusexclusively on the initiated change.

Managers can employ a variety of measures with anaim of dealing with resistance to change, communication withemployees in a business organization is usually essential. Leadersshould speak in person with them and privately with those who opposethe change so that they can get the cause of resistance and provideappropriate information. Education the employees and the people atlarge on the goals of change and how individual are going to benefitas well as clarify and provide appropriate feedback(Stringham, 2012).

Another strategy that leaders might employ is thatof facilitation this can get done through the provision of resourcesthat gets required for the change process the change agent shouldprovide a climate of supported confidence. The leader might want toinvolve the people being affected in the change process but beingopen to suggestions from this group but should remain focused on theoverall goal.


Baselice,&nbspF., Ferraioli,&nbspG., &amp Pascazio,&nbspV.(2013). A Markovian approach for urban change detection inmultitemporal complex SAR images. Joint Urban Remote SensingEvent 2013. doi:10.1109/jurse.2013.6550686

Palmer. I., Dunford, R., &amp Akin, G. (2009). ManagingOrganizational Change: A multiple perspectives approach. (2nd ED.).New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Remoussenard-Pourquier,&nbspC., &amp Ansiau,&nbspD. (2014).Managers in the process of change: how to deal with emotions. Revuede gestion des ressources humaines, 94(4), 26.doi:10.3917/grhu.094.0026

Stringham, S. (2012). Strategic leadership and strategicmanagement: Leading and managing change on the edge of chaos.

Tagg,&nbspJ. (2012). Why Does the Faculty Resist Change? Change:The Magazine of Higher Learning, 44(1), 6-15.doi:10.1080/00091383.2012.635987

Page 1