# data[].attributes.body
2) Why did this intervention fail? What factors do you think lead to a successful intervention?
Firstly, the intervention fail to achieve their objectives because one of it is the intervention tried to solve wrong problem. Stories abound of organizations that sent all managers to training only to realize too late that the real problem was an ineffective performance management process. From the case study, we can see that the main problem of the organizations at the first place is about the work on culture and team dynamics. The managers only opened up on the strategy discussions and were reluctant to talk about the other two issues. When the team does not cooperate in the total objectives of the intervention, it cannot be a success and hence it failed here too.
The intervention failed because the participants were not prepared to comply with the intervention's objectives. In the numerous interviews, they gave an incorrect image of all the concerns that contributed to the intervention, which concerned company policy, internal organizational culture and the growth of senior team competences.

Next, intervention failed because the organizations were not ready to change since the team do not focus on what they need to do for their organization to change. Not only that, the team not ready to engage in the emotional cost and consider it is too risky for their members.
Interventions should develop opportunities for learning so that can enhance the system competence. In other words, intervention not only to solve the problems but provide an organization member with the opportunity to increase their ability in problem solving skills.
The interventions should provide clear and explicit outcomes. Effective client relationship is founded on authenticity and trust of both client and change agent. The risks of participation should be known to participants and to the extent they can be predicted should be shared in advance of an intervention.

# data[].attributes.headline
3) This chapter lists a number of considerations in choosing the right intervention strategy. In your view, how might you prioritize these? What do you think are the most important considerations in choosing which interventions to implement first?

# data[].attributes.subject
3) This chapter lists a number of considerations in choosing the right intervention strategy. In your view, how might you prioritize these? What do you think are the most important considerations in choosing which interventions to implement first?

# data[].attributes.body
The considerations for selecting the method of intervention is by align the details with the intervention and the diagnosis, considering the transition customer initiative, assessing where to first interfere, consider the depth of intervention through the work content and last but not least by considering the sequence of activities where the agents should think about how

optimum rewards are sequenced for such cases.

In our point of view, the right intervention strategy should consider the client readiness for change as to make sure the clients or participants involve, willingness, energy, time, capability and motivation of the organization to change by persuasive communications, which leaders can emphasize urgency and need for change.

Interventions may be successful if the parties involved understand and cooperate without resistance to the objectives of the intervention. To identify the problem and their strategic solutions, they must be flexible and be able for open discussions.

The most important considerations in choosing which interventions to implement first is by creating opportunities for learning.  This intervention not only solves the immediate problem, but it also provides the organizational members with the opportunity to examine how the problem-solving process occurs so the activity enhances their ability to solve problems like this in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Mohd Khairin Asyraaf bin Zulkefli (2018437376)

2. Wan Rabiatul Asyila binti Ab Rahman (2018265334)

3. Nur Aliya Adilla binti Rusli (2018262142)

4. Sebastian Dampa ak Gerald James (2017146365)

5. Zamhira Hanna binti Ahmad Zuhairozi Muslim (2018657438)

# data[].attributes.body
1. Anis Najiha bt Suyurno 2018287668
2. Arie Adriana bt Muhammad Nizam 2018299926
3. Nurul Ainnatul Shahhirah bt Zulkefli 2018250016
4. Razzanah Nizam
5. Nurul Anis Nabilah bt Hussin 2018693894

# data[].attributes.body
1. Nur Izzatul Aina bt Abd Ghani (2018440202)
2. Ika Nurazimi binti Idris (2018440936)
3. Nur Suhaida Bt abdullah(2018674176)
4. Nur Athilah Bt Nor Azman (2018674002)
5. Nur Ain Sofea Binti Shamsudin (2018437526)

# data[].attributes.body
1) Was this team ready for change? Why or why not?

Based on the case study, the team is not ready for change because they had never discussed the workshop’s goals and objectives with the team together. The team members were reluctant to engage in conflict or confront with their two forceful teammates who refused to address the previously agreed upon topics of team-building and culture issues. While the company’s senior leader now monopolized the discussion and dictating the outcomes. The last reason why the team is not ready for change is that they resisted working on culture and team dynamics even the consultants again stressed the need to work on culture and team dynamics in addition to strategy.

NUR SUHAIDA BINTI ABDULLAH(2018674176)
IKA NURAZIMI BINTI IDRIS(2018440936)

# data[].attributes.headline
2.  Why did this intervention fail? What factors do you think lead to a successful intervention?

# data[].attributes.subject
2.  Why did this intervention fail? What factors do you think lead to a successful intervention?

# data[].attributes.body
The interventions fail because of inadequate planning, and the team members were not committed to the interventions. Interventions should always be conducted in a group setting with people and before the intervention occurs, the group should plan out each aspect of the event. When one or more of the following steps are ignored, the intervention might lack focus and effectiveness and therefore be more likely to fail. Furthermore, the members may not have been in agreement about the nature of the problem. Besides that, factors that can lead to successful intervention in the case study are by considering client readiness for change, deciding where to intervene first, and considering the depth of intervention. In doing so, it is necessary to conduct a systematic replication of the intervention, and also the assumptions and mechanisms that explain how and why the intervention might achieve improved working conditions should be clearly indicated. Consideration of these elements will improve the design, implementation, and evaluation of future interventions in the organizations.

Nur Izzatul Aina Bt Abd Ghani (2018440202)
Nur Athilah bt Nor Azman
(2018674002)

# data[].attributes.body
1) AMIRA ASFA BINTI MOHD PUAD (2018402522)
2) AMIRAH AINA SOLEHAH BINTI ZAINON
(2018262136)
3) FARAH SYAFIQAH BINTI ROSLAN
(2018441166)
4) MUHAMMAD DANIEAL BIN ANUAR
(2018224358)
5) NUR AQILAH BINTI AZNAM (2018265304)

# data[].attributes.headline
1) Was this team ready for change? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.subject
1) Was this team ready for change? Why or why not?

# data[].attributes.body
The team was not ready for change because the participants reacted unfavorably to the change because participants were not able to see the level of enthusiasm and energy they saw before the meeting. They became indifferent to discussing problems of business culture and building team skills. Two members had come together and declined to discuss these issues, and the other members of the team were unable to criticize these two members.  The team was certainly not prepared to fix cultural issues and team dynamics, which indicated that they were not prepared for any improvement in these two aspects. Besides, we can see that during consultant conduct an interview with senior team, they never discuss the objectives of each individual as a team.  Not only that consultant also realize that team members reluctant to engage and participate in the conflict between managing team and production team.  Moreover, engagement of the team for long-term objectives seem not to be achieve because the team was not ready for the change

# data[].attributes.headline
3) How might you prioritize these? What do you think are the most important considerations in choosing which interventions to implement first?

# data[].attributes.subject
3) How might you prioritize these? What do you think are the most important considerations in choosing which interventions to implement first?

# data[].attributes.body
In our opinion, the most important considerations in choosing which interventions to implement first is considering client readiness for change.  readiness refers to the involvement, willingness, energy, time, capability and motivation of the change.  if the client is not ready to willing to change, then the consulting engagement's goals tend to belong to the change agent, not the client, and any intervention is unlikely to be successful.  When readiness is a problem of motivation or willingness to change, Armenakiset al. (1993) write that change agents can increase the organization's readiness for change through three influence strategies;-

a. Persuasive communications, both orally and in writing, in which leaders can emphasize the urgency and need for change.

b. Participation in meetings or events related to the change, where organizational members can discover the reason for the changes themselves, such as examining customer complaint reports or market share data.

c. Sharing external information to back up the internal communication with other credible sources, such as news media, reports from consulting firms, or academic research.

In conclusion, the right intervention has been selected if the client, change agent, and organizational members are confident that the organization is ready and capable of implementing it to achieve change.

# data[].attributes.headline
1)	The team was not ready for change because we can see that they are not communicating without really engaging. They never discussed the objectives together with the team. It is not enough for leadership to put substantial time and attention into articulating and communicating the business case for change. They have to do it in ways that truly enlist employees in the change process. Too often, however, they fail to get them really onboard, even when there is a burning platform providing a clear and compelling rationale for change. This is because one-way communication, even with the best of supporting materials, is not enough to win employees over to being willing change agents. Secondly, the team was not ready for change because they failure to create and sustain the momentum as from the case study we can see that there is the decline in the enthusiasm and energy of the participants. A change is a journey not a trip or passage to a new way of life and even not a modified way of doing business. However, they choose to characterize it, all change share a handful of common denominators and consistency is one of the crucial part too. Lastly, they are not ready to change because there is insufficient focus on co-creation in design. There are two dominants members who refused to address the previously agreed issues and other team members reluctant to engage in confronting them. Such these things should be avoided in implementing for change. It is because they need to build for a maximum alignment through the process by providing the accurate and relevant data as the basis for critical discussion and reaching agreement by openly, collectively assessing the different options against a clear set of criteria for success.2)	The intervention was fail because they are reluctant to change. There may have been agreement about the nature problems, or organizational members perceive too much loss, risks or personal consequences to the intervention. They may have been too cynical about the likelihood for change or not motivated to participate. Additionally, there is lack of readiness for change will definitely lead to intervention failure. They may not be ready to engage in the emotional cost of confronting an authoritarian manager, or they may consider it too risky. Thus, there are several factors that may lead to a successful intervention such as by creating opportunities for learning. The intervention not only solves the immediate problem, but it also provides organizational members with the opportunity to examine how the problem solving process occurs so that the activity enhances their ability to solve problems like this in the future. Also by participating in such experiential and reflective activities, organizational members become more conscious of their choices and patterns. Lastly, intervention can be successful by providing clear and explicit outcomes. Change agents should be forthright about what the intervention activities are designed to accomplish and effective client relationships are founded on authenticity and trust of both client and change agent. 3)	In my view, the most important considerations are by considering the client readiness for change. The readiness refers to the involvement, willingness, energy, time, capability and motivation of the organization to change.  It is important for the client and consultants to be ready for the objectives.  If a client is willing to change in a certain direction and not another, or has a preference of one intervention over another (both choices being equal otherwise), many consultants suggest starting where the client has that energy. Thus, if readiness is a problem of motivation or willingness to change, change agents can increase the organization’s readiness for change through three influence strategies which are persuasive communication that means both orally and in writing, in which leaders can emphasize the urgency and need for change. Secondly, by participation in meetings or events related to the change, where organizational members can discover the reason for the change themselves, such as examining customer complaint reports or market share data. Lastly, by sharing external information to back up the internal communication with other credible sources, such as news media, reports from consulting firms, or academic research.

# data[].attributes.subject
1)	The team was not ready for change because we can see that they are not communicating without really engaging. They never discussed the objectives together with the team. It is not enough for leadership to put substantial time and attention into articulating and communicating the business case for change. They have to do it in ways that truly enlist employees in the change process. Too often, however, they fail to get them really onboard, even when there is a burning platform providing a clear and compelling rationale for change. This is because one-way communication, even with the best of supporting materials, is not enough to win employees over to being willing change agents. Secondly, the team was not ready for change because they failure to create and sustain the momentum as from the case study we can see that there is the decline in the enthusiasm and energy of the participants. A change is a journey not a trip or passage to a new way of life and even not a modified way of doing business. However, they choose to characterize it, all change share a handful of common denominators and consistency is one of the crucial part too. Lastly, they are not ready to change because there is insufficient focus on co-creation in design. There are two dominants members who refused to address the previously agreed issues and other team members reluctant to engage in confronting them. Such these things should be avoided in implementing for change. It is because they need to build for a maximum alignment through the process by providing the accurate and relevant data as the basis for critical discussion and reaching agreement by openly, collectively assessing the different options against a clear set of criteria for success.2)	The intervention was fail because they are reluctant to change. There may have been agreement about the nature problems, or organizational members perceive too much loss, risks or personal consequences to the intervention. They may have been too cynical about the likelihood for change or not motivated to participate. Additionally, there is lack of readiness for change will definitely lead to intervention failure. They may not be ready to engage in the emotional cost of confronting an authoritarian manager, or they may consider it too risky. Thus, there are several factors that may lead to a successful intervention such as by creating opportunities for learning. The intervention not only solves the immediate problem, but it also provides organizational members with the opportunity to examine how the problem solving process occurs so that the activity enhances their ability to solve problems like this in the future. Also by participating in such experiential and reflective activities, organizational members become more conscious of their choices and patterns. Lastly, intervention can be successful by providing clear and explicit outcomes. Change agents should be forthright about what the intervention activities are designed to accomplish and effective client relationships are founded on authenticity and trust of both client and change agent. 3)	In my view, the most important considerations are by considering the client readiness for change. The readiness refers to the involvement, willingness, energy, time, capability and motivation of the organization to change.  It is important for the client and consultants to be ready for the objectives.  If a client is willing to change in a certain direction and not another, or has a preference of one intervention over another (both choices being equal otherwise), many consultants suggest starting where the client has that energy. Thus, if readiness is a problem of motivation or willingness to change, change agents can increase the organization’s readiness for change through three influence strategies which are persuasive communication that means both orally and in writing, in which leaders can emphasize the urgency and need for change. Secondly, by participation in meetings or events related to the change, where organizational members can discover the reason for the change themselves, such as examining customer complaint reports or market share data. Lastly, by sharing external information to back up the internal communication with other credible sources, such as news media, reports from consulting firms, or academic research.

# data[].attributes.body
From the case study, intervention failed because of the intervention was poorly designed to reach the specified goals. According to the case study, we can see that the strategic planning workshop had not been done for the past 2 years and during the discussion of the objectives they never discussed them with the team together. This will definitely lead to failed intervention because the attendees did not include the right participants who had most knowledge or responsibility for making the change occur.

Next, intervention failed because of the responsibility for change was not transferred to the client. This can be seen in the case study where there are marked decline in the participants level of enthusiasm and energy of the team members this is because the team members are reluctant to engage in conflict or confront the forceful teammates. In addition, the company’s senior leader is monopolized the discussion and dictating the outcomes. All of these issues arise when the change agent fails to transfer ownership of the change to the participants therefore the change does not last beyond the current engagement.

Other than that, the intervention failed because of organizational members resisted or were not committed to the intervention. This can be seen in the case study where the consultants already stressed the need to work on culture and team dynamics however the team still resisted to change.

Lastly, the organization was not ready for change. This can be seen in the case study where they are surprised by the political environment experienced during the intervention that presented a major obstacle to change and realized that their long-term objectives had not been achieved due to the organizational members could not focus on or devote attention to change.

Factors that lead to successful intervention including everything from the invitation, the agenda, the participants to the room setup.

# data[].attributes.headline
3)This chapter lists a number of considerations in choosing the right intervention strategy. In your view, how might you priortize these? What do you think are the most important considerations in choosing which interventions to implement first?

# data[].attributes.subject
3)This chapter lists a number of considerations in choosing the right intervention strategy. In your view, how might you priortize these? What do you think are the most important considerations in choosing which interventions to implement first?

# data[].attributes.body
There are five intervention strategy can takes into considerations. Firstly, matching the intervention to the data and diagnosis that means the change activities must be align with the nature of the problems’ case as well as under the consideration with the nature of the organizational. It would be dangers on effective intervention if the company not carefully designed the match of intervention to solve the agreed-upon problem. Secondly, considering client readiness for change by overcoming the resistance of change as overall. This can be done within the organization by making sure the people clear the importance of change and let them consciously willing devote to the problem solving as directed. Thirdly, deciding where to intervene, even though there are no specific step on this matter but still taking action by asking questions about our company goals, culture, motivation and other consideration identified should help in narrowing the choice as well able to select an appropriate starting point. Fourthly, considering depth of intervention through the work content, overt group issues such as conflict, hidden group issues like power, the conscious together with values and beliefs. These levels of depth to groups believes that a change agents should intervene no deeper than necessary to achieve the client’s objective. Fifthly, considering sequence of activities are when the change agents should think about how those events are sequenced for maximum benefits. In this consideration, Beer (1980), list consideration on how different activities should be sequence which involves maximize diagnostic data to provide more data about organization, maximize effectiveness through build enthusiasm for a change, maximize efficiency on conserve time, energy and money. Next, maximize speed by should be structured to avoid interrupt organizations’ desire in pace change, maximize relevance by addressed primary problem first along with minimize psychological and organizational strain which early interventions should be safer and produce low anxiety. Therefore these five consideration as stated are the right intervention strategy and best practices to work closely as to determine what engagement that appropriate for the problem and the nature of organization.

NUR AIN SOFEA BT SHAMSUDIN (2018437526)_BA2435L

# data[].attributes.body
Group members:
Hamimi Atikah Bt Harun
2018694066

Nada Husna Bt Rosdi
(2018250152)

Nur Firzanah Bt Muhd Asmar
(2018437806)

Nurzahirah Izzati Bt Ramzan
(2018441616)

Siti Hajar Bt Mak Mon
(2019341933)

Question 1
Was this team ready for change? Why or why not?

Answer:
Based on the case, this team not ready for change because they discuss team objective and goal individually but never discuss together with team members. The team need to improve their enthusiasm and energy. Furthermore, two dominant members are refuse to agree and discuss about team-building and cultures issue which previously has been agreed. In addition, the team refuse to accept consultant recommendation to strengthen organization strategy.

# data[].attributes.body
1) add your answer with your name and matrix number under the group that you belong to.

# data[].attributes.body
The UK-based client was one of three leading companies in a specialized global market. The past several years had seen a great deal of change in the company’s structure and culture that had led to greater market share and faster cycle times to market. External organization development consultants were called in to help the senior management team through a strategic planning workshop, which had not been done for the past 2 years, and which was increasingly becoming necessary given the company’s expectations about future growth. A workshop was planned to discuss the company strategy, to assess implications for internal corporate culture, and to develop the skills and capabilities of the senior team. The consultants first conducted individual interviews with the senior team and believed that the team was entirely committed to the workshop’s goals and objectives. While they had discussed these objectives with each individual, however, they had never discussed them with the team together.

At the workshop, the consultants noticed a sudden, marked decline in the participants’ levels of enthusiasm and energy for the organizational culture and team issues they had agreed to address. Two dominant members refused to address the previously agreed upon topics of team-building and culture issues. A coalition of the managing director and production director had become evident, and the consultants realized that team members were reluctant to engage in conflict or confront these two forceful teammates. Not only was the strategic planning work the only remaining acceptable topic to the participants, but the company’s senior leader now monopolized the discussion, dictating the outcomes. A month after the workshop, the consultants again stressed the need to work on culture and team dynamics in addition to strategy, but the team resisted. The consultants, surprised by the political environment experienced during the intervention that presented a major obstacle to change, realized that the long-term objectives of the engagement had not been achieved (Beeby & Simpson, 1998).

# data[].attributes.body
1) Was this team ready for change? Why or why not?
2) Why did this intervention fail? What factors do you think lead to a successful intervention?

# data[].attributes.body
This chapter lists a number of considerations in choosing the right intervention strategy. In your view, how might you priortize these? What do you think are the most important considerations in choosing which interventions to implement first?

# data[].attributes.body
1) Was this team ready for change? Why or why not?

Based on our observation, the team are not ready to change because they’re lacking of communication and good relationship among each other which blocking them to develop the skills needed in order to adapt to changes. When the consultant are going to do the workshop, all team members are committed to reach towards the goals and its objectives. However, we can see that it’s hard for them to accept the change when everyone in the team are not working together as a team rather than individual.  We can also see that they lose trust in the organization and its leaders, which makes it harder to implement change. In this scenarios. it is important for everyone to give full commitment from what the consultant are trying to help especially the senior leader. In this case, those who responsible for leading change cannot assume that employees will agree and understand the reasoning behind their decision. They must spend some time to hear opinions from their subordinates and then explaining the changes why it is important. If the senior leader can clearly articulate this case, employees will also build a better relationship and understanding of the business strategy. This should serve as the foundation for how they communicate about the change to move forward.

2) Why did this intervention fail? What factors do you think to lead to a successful intervention?

I. Some company they start-up initiatives such as Total Quality Management, empowerment, or reengineering programs, only to see the result in little or no change, and then they give up on the program (Beer & Eisenstat, 1996; Hedge & Pulakos, 2002a). Such programs are begun and abandoned with relative frequency, which is why most people likely have more practice and experience with unsuccessful interventions than successful ones.  The reasons why intervention failed because of wrong problem, wrong intervention, unclear or overambitious goals, implementing an event rather than a program, not enough time devoted, poorly designed intervention, unskilled change agent, ownership not transferred to the client, resistance to change, and lastly is lack of readiness for change.

II. The factors that lead to a successful intervention are first, an empirical-rational approach, in which change is accomplished by persuading people that a change is necessary, providing data to support the argument, and justifying the need for change. The second approach they term normative-reeducative, which is based on the notion that changes will occur when people change their attitudes, values, skills, and relationships, and when group norms encourage new behaviors rather than old ones and lastly the third strategy they define as a power-coercive approach, based on policy, law, economic incentives or punishment, guilt, and embarrassment. OD interventions are primarily normative-reeducated approaches to change, and as such are constructed so that as participants accomplish the content work of the intervention, individuals and groups can also develop new attitudes, skills, beliefs, and values.  Chin and Benne (1976).

The three important principles on OD interventions are structure include creating opportunities for learning, the objective of OD is to improve organizational effectiveness, and learning and growth are central values. For interventions, this implies that they should be developed as opportunities for learning.  Next is, giving free choice by context implies that if the intervention is designed to develop a new process, and participants are told what the boundary conditions are for the process, the leader will not bring a predesigned process after a group has developed its own and dictate its implementation.  Lastly providing clear and explicit outcomes, if the meeting is designed to help a manager to better understand how her leadership style affects the group, then the change agent must not trick or manipulate the manager into attending by hiding or glossing over the meeting’s purpose. If the meeting will be a confrontation between two groups that do not work well together, then attendees should be informed about that as the target of the intervention. The risks of participation should be known to participants and, to the extent they can be predicted, should be shared in advance of an intervention

3)This chapter lists a number of considerations in choosing the right intervention strategy. In your view, how might you priortize these? What do you think are the most important considerations in choosing which interventions to implement first?

In my view, the first things that I think are the most important considerations in choosing which interventions to implement first is to decide where to intervene first.  The change agent should identify the employee problem with their senior management.  In this case, we can see that the senior management team have a conflict issue with their team members.  Most of the time, the company’s senior leader will monopolize the discussion among them, and the team keep resisted to join because the outcome not based on their mutual agreement.  The senior management never have the discussion together with other team members to discuss about the organization culture and dynamics.  For them, the subordinate’s opinion is not important. Then, find out which is easiest change to implement or most difficult? At the case study we can find that the group have issue to decline in participating and energy which they had agree to address. By doing the first thing first is we look in a smaller problem. In the point view of looking into smaller problem, we can identify the main issue. Usually a small thing leads to another. If we choose to start on the difficult issue, it might have a lot of process need to consult them. For example, the organization organize a team building. Obviously, the participation among employees will be less. When we found out this first issue, we would have built their relationship first. Then, we should tackle the task issues with begin the relationship issues because according to this case study they are having a problem with their relationship in the organization where the senior management do not help about to future growth. Also they are refused to address the previously agreed upon topics of team-building and culture issues. This would be a long-term effect in the organization.  So, the relationship among an organization is an important intervention strategy.