Q 1.

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence (EI) describes the ability, capacity, skill or, in the case of the trait EI model, a self-perceived grand ability to identify, assess, manage and control the emotions of one's self, of others, and of groups. Different models have been proposed for the definition of EI and disagreement exists as to how the term should be used. Despite these disagreements, which are often highly technical, the ability EI and trait EI models (but not the mixed models) enjoy support in the literature and have successful applications in different domains. The earliest roots of emotional intelligence can be traced to Darwin's work on the importance of emotional expression for survival and second adaptation. In the 1900s, even though traditional definitions of intelligence emphasized cognitive aspects such as memory and problem-solving, several influential researchers in the intelligence field of study had begun to recognize the importance of the non-cognitive aspects. For instance, as early as 1920, E.L. Thorndike used the term social intelligence to describe the skill of understanding and managing other people. Similarly, in 1940 David Wechsler described the influence of non-intellective factors on intelligent behavior, and further argued that our models of intelligence would not be complete until we can adequately describe these factors. In 1983, Howard Gardner's Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences introduced the idea of multiple intelligences which included both Interpersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people) and Intrapersonal intelligence (the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations). In Gardner's view, traditional types of intelligence, such as IQ, fail to fully explain cognitive ability. Thus, even though the names given to the concept varied, there was a common belief that traditional definitions of intelligence are lacking in ability to fully explain performance outcomes. The first use of the term "emotional intelligence" is usually attributed to Wayne Payne's doctoral thesis, A Study of Emotion: Developing Emotional Intelligence from 1985.However, prior to this, the term "emotional intelligence" had appeared in Leuner (1966). Greenspan (1989) also put forward an EI model, followed by Salovey and Mayer (1990), and Goleman (1995). The distinction between trait emotional intelligence and ability emotional intelligence was introduced in 2000. As a result of the growing acknowledgement by professionals of the importance and relevance of emotions to work outcomes, the research on the topic continued to gain momentum, but it wasn't until the publication of Daniel Goleman's best seller Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ that the term became widely

popularized. Nancy Gibbs' 1995 Time magazine article highlighted Goleman's book and was the first in a string of mainstream media interest in EI. Golemans Model of Emotional Intelligence Daniel Goleman and the Hay Group have identified a set of competencies that differentiate individuals with Emotional Intelligence. The competencies fall into four clusters: Self-Awareness:Capacity for understanding one's emotions, one's strengths, and one's weaknesses. Self-Management: Capacity for effectively managing one's motives and regulating one's behavior. Social Awareness: Capacity for understanding what others are saying and feeling and why they feel and act as they do. Relationship Management: Capacity for acting in such a way that one is able to get desired results from others and reach personal goals. The most popular and accepted mixed model of emotional intelligence is the one proposed by Goleman (1995). He viewed emotional intelligence as a total of personal and social competences. Personal competence determines how we manage ourselves, whereas social competence determines how we handle our interpersonal relationships. Personal competence It comprises of three dimensions of emotional intelligence, such as, selfawareness, self-regulation and motivation. Self-awareness is the ability of an individual to observe him/herself and to recognize 'a feeling as it happens' (Goleman, 1995). The hallmarks of this ability are self-confidence, self- assessment and openness to positive criticism. Self-regulation is the ability to control emotions and to redirect those emotions that can have negative impact. Trustworthiness, integrity, tolerance of ambiguity and attitude to accept change are some characteristics of this ability. Motivation is the ability to channelize emotion to achieve a goal through self-control and by moderating impulses as per the requirement of the situation. The people who have this ability are optimistic and committed towards organizational as well as individual goals. Social competence

It comprises of two dimensions namely, empathy and social skills. Empathyis the ability to feel and get concerned for others, take their perspective and to treat people according to their emotional reactions. People with this ability are experts in generating and motivating others. Social skills are the ability to build rapport and to manage relationships with people. People having this skill are very effective in persuasiveness and team management. Social skill is the culmination of all other components of emotional intelligence assuming that people can effectively manage social and work relationships only when they can understand and control their own emotion and can emphasize with the feelings of others. The Assessment of Emotional Intelligence and Competence Assuming that emotional intelligence is important, the question of assessment and measurement becomes particularly pressing. What does the research suggest about the measurement of emotional intelligence and competence? In a paper published in 1998, Davies, Stankov, & Roberts concluded that there was nothing empirically new in the idea of emotional intelligence. This conclusion was based solely on a review of existing measures purporting to measure emotional intelligence at the point in time when they wrote that paper.

Q.2

Five Stage Model of Group Development by Tuckman

Bruce Tuckman's classic description of the stages of group development is easy to understand and remember, but it helps to go back and look at what's behind each stage. Bruce W Tuckman is a respected educational psychologist who first described the (then) four stages of group development in 1965, soon after leaving Princeton. Looking at the behaviour of small groups in a variety of environments, he recognised the distinct phases they go through, and suggested they need to experience all four stages before they achieve maximum effectiveness. He refined and developed the model in 1977 (in conjunction with Mary Ann Jensen) with the addition of a fifth stage. Since then, others have attempted to adapt and extend the model - although sometimes with more of an eye on rhyme than reason. Tuckman described the four distinct stages that a group can as it comes together and starts to operate. This process can be subconscious, although an understanding of the stages can help a group reach effectiveness more quickly and less painfully. Stage 1: Forming

Individual behavior is driven by a desire to be accepted by the others, and avoid controversy or conflict. Serious issues and feelings are avoided, and people focus on being busy with routines, such as team organization, who does what, when to meet, etc. But individuals are also gathering information and impressions - about each other, and about the scope of the task and how to approach it. This is a comfortable stage to be in, but the avoidance of conflict and threat means that not much actually gets done.

Stage 2: Storming Individuals in the group can only remain nice to each other for so long, as important issues start to be addressed. Some people's patience will break early, and minor confrontations will arise that are quickly dealt with or glossed over. These may relate to the work of the group itself, or to roles and responsibilities within the group. Some will observe that it's good to be getting into the real issues, whilst others will wish to remain in the comfort and security of stage 1. Depending on the culture of the organisation and individuals, the conflict will be more or less suppressed, but it'll be there, under the surface. To deal with the conflict, individuals may feel they are winning or losing battles, and will look for structural clarity and rules to prevent the conflict persisting. Stage 3: Norming As Stage 2 evolves, the "rules of engagement" for the group become established, and the scope of the group's tasks or responsibilities are clear and agreed. Having had their arguments, they now understand each other better, and can appreciate each other's skills and experience. Individuals listen to each other, appreciate and support each other, and are prepared to change pre-conceived views: they feel they're part of a cohesive, effective group. However, individuals have had to work hard to attain this stage, and may resist any pressure to change - especially from the outside - for fear that the group will break up, or revert to a storm.

Stage 4: Performing Not all groups reach this stage, characterised by a state of interdependence and flexibility. Everyone knows each other well enough to be able to work together, and trusts each other enough to allow independent activity. Roles and responsibilities change according to need in an almost seamless way. Group identity, loyalty and morale are all high, and everyone is equally task-orientated and peopleorientated. This high degree of comfort means that all the energy of the group can be directed towards the task(s) in hand.

Stage 5: Adjourning This is about completion and disengagement, both from the tasks and the group members. Individuals will be proud of having achieved much and glad to have been part of such an enjoyable group. They need to recognise what they've done, and consciously move on. Some authors describe stage 5 as "Deforming and Mourning", recognising the sense of loss felt by group members.

Tuckman's original work simply described the way he had observed groups evolve, whether they were conscious of it or not. But for us the real value is in recognising where a group is in the process, and helping it to move to the Perform stage. In the real world, groups are often forming and changing, and each time that happens, they can move to a different Tuckman Stage. A group might be happily Norming or Performing, but a new member might force them back into Storming. Seasoned leaders will be ready for this, and will help the group get back to Performing as quickly as possible. Many work groups live in the comfort of Norming, and are fearful of moving back into Storming, or forward into Performing. This will govern their behaviour towards each other, and especially their reaction to change.

Q.3

Source of Organisational Conflict

Organizational conflict is a state of discord caused by the actual or perceived opposition of needs, values and interests between people working together. Conflict takes many forms in organizations. There is the inevitable clash between formal authority and power and those individuals and groups affected. There are disputes over how revenues should be divided, how the work should be done, and how long and hard people should work. There are jurisdictional disagreements among individuals, departments, and between unions and management. There are subtler forms of conflict involving rivalries, jealousies, personality clashes, role definitions, and struggles for power and favor. There is also conflict within individuals between competing needs and demands to which individuals respond in different ways

Organizational conflict theories Maturity-immaturity theory According to Maslow, Argyris, McGregor, Rogers, and other writers of the socalled growth schools, there is a basic tendency in the development of the human personality toward self-fulfillment, or self-actualization. This implies that as an individual matures, he wants to be given more responsibility, broader horizons, and the opportunity to develop his personal potential. This process is interrupted whenever a person's environment fails to encourage and nurture these desires. Formal organizations are rational structures that, based on their assumption of emotions, feelings, and irrationality as human weaknesses, try to replace individual control with institutional control. Thus the principle of task specialization is seen as a device that simplifies tasks for the sake of efficiency. As a consequence, however, it uses only a fraction of a person's capacity and ability. The principle of chain of command centralizes authority but makes the individual more dependent on his superiors. The principle of normal span of control, which assigns a maximum of six or seven subordinates to report to the chief executive, reduces the number of individuals reporting to the head of the organization or to the manager of any subunit. Although this simplifies the job of control for the manager, it also creates more intensive surveillance of the subordinate, and therefore permits him less freedom to control himself.[1] Under such conditions, subordinates are bound to find themselves in conflict with the formal organization, and sometimes with each other. They advance up the

narrowing hierarchy where jobs get fewer, and "fewer" implies competing with others for the decreasing number of openings. Task specialization tends to focus the subordinate's attention on his own narrow function and divert him from thinking about the organization as a whole. This effect increases the need for coordination and leads to a circular process of increasing the dependence on the leader.[1] They may respond to organizational pressures and threats by defensive reactions such as aggression against their supervisors and co-workers, fixated behavior or apathy, compromise and gamesmanship, or psychological withdrawal and daydreaming. All of these defense mechanisms reduce a person's potential for creative, constructive activity on the job. Finally, employees may organize unions or unsanctioned informal groups whose norms of behavior are opposed to many of the organization's goals. As a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, all of these reactions to the constraints of the formal organization merely serve to reinforce and strengthen them. The conflict between the formal organization and the individual will continue to exist wherever managers remain ignorant of its causes or wherever the organizational structure and the leadership style are allowed to become inconsistent with the legitimate needs of the psychologically healthy individual. Everyone recognizes the necessity for order and control in organizations. Those of us who enter management, however, must learn to recognize in addition that order and control can be achieved only at the expense of individual freedom.[1] Subordinates adapt to these conditions in the organization in several ways. In the extreme, they may find the situation intolerable and leave the organization. Or they may strive to advance to positions of higher authority, there to adopt the controlling style they are trying to escape.

Q.4

Environmental Stressors

Environmental stressor is a term used in the field of psychology. It refers to any force or event in the human or natural environment that may cause a person to experience stress. Some examples of environmental stressors include: noise, air pollution, crowding, traffic congestion, terrorism, natural disasters and extremes of temperature. Studies on the effect of different environmental stressors on people indicate that they can impact people's behavior, mood, cognitive function, physical health and/or psychological well-being.

Environmental stressors is a term also used in the field of biology. It refers to any physical or chemical change in the natural environment that impacts the growth, development, reproduction or physiology of organisms in that environment. Several studies have looked at the impact of environmental stressors in the work place. Relatively fewer studies have looked at the impact of environmental stressors in the classroom setting. Studies on environmental stressors in the classroom have focused on environmental stressors such as noise, crowding and temperature and have attempted to measure the impact of these environmental stressors on student learning. Noise Noise is defined as unwanted sound. In schools settings this may include: chatter in the classroom, sounds from the hallway, scraping sounds from chairs and tables, sounds from adjacent classrooms, ventilation, sounds from the schoolyard and traffic noise (Bowman & Enmarker, 2004). Various studies that have compared students in noisy schools or classrooms with students in quieter schools or classrooms have found a correlation between long-term exposure to noise and scholastic performance. Students in noisy environments scored lower on measures of reading skills, were less likely to complete a problem solving task and showed impaired auditory and visual discrimination (Cohen and Weinstein, 1982). While most studies have looked at noise in the schools caused by road traffic or air traffic, a survey conducted by Bowman and Enmarker looked at a variety of other noise sources such as chatter in the classroom to sounds from the schoolyard (2004). According to surveys completed by the students, classroom chatter was rated most annoying. Students also reported the noise in the classroom caused symptoms of stress; irritation, tension, headache, tiredness and energy loss. Crowding Crowding is a complex phenomenon. Stress associated with crowding is not due just to density of people or numbers of people in a space. Whether an environment seems crowded and elicits a stress response depends on the social setting, the physical setting, the goals of each individual in the space and whether the goals conflict, perceived threats to personal control, level of intimacy of people occupying a space, personal characteristics of each individual in the space and the coping assets of each individual in the space (Baum and Paulus, 1987, Epstein, 1982). In schools the notion of class size is related to the concept of crowding. It has has long been assumed that smaller class sizes would lead to greater student achievement. This

is based on the notion that a smaller class size will lead to more individualization of instruction, less teacher stress and fewer behavior problems in students (Weldon, et al., 1981). There have been numerous studies on class size and student achievement, but the results are often complicated and contradictory (Gump, 1987, p. 705). Different meta-analysis studies of the class size literature shows small positive gains in achievement in smaller classes. It was noted in a meta-analysis by Glass and his associates that class size seems to make less of difference in achievement in class sizes of 20 and up and class size made more of a difference in achievement when enrollments were around 15 or fewer. (Gump, 1987, p. 708). Temperature Extremes changes of temperature either too hot or too cold put physical demands on the body. Studies have found extremes of temperature can impact performance level. Studies have also found that as temperature increases aggression increases (Rathus and Nevid, 2002). A review of literature on temperature in the classroom by King and Marans (1979) found that "temperature, humidity and air movement all were determined to have an impact on academic achievement and task performance. As temperature and humidity increased, achievement and task performance deteriorated, attention spans decreased, and students reported greater discomfort. Cooler temperatures, whether created by mechanical means or not, were associated with increased comfort, activity and productivity. Results were based on studies of teachers perceptions as well as studies of students performance on assessments."

Evidence of effectiveness Studies have established a correlation between environmental stressors and academic performance. A few studies have attempted to also changed the environment to measure the impact on learning. These studies have also showed a correlation between learning and environmental stressors. For example, in one study students were compared after spending one year in noise-abated classrooms with students in nonabted classrooms. The study reported that the students in the noise-abted classrooms had better math scores than students in the nonabted classrooms. (Cohen and Wienstein, 1982).

Critics and their rationale The research on school environments is considered limited for several reasons (adapted from Ahrentsen, et. al., 1982). 1. Overemphasis on achievement as an outcome which ignores the impact the environment has on behavior and the effects of individual differences in student intelligence. 2. Tendency to ignore possible mediators of stress such as the perception that a stressor is annoying. 3. Sample biases due to small sample sizes (e.g. comparisons where only made between two classrooms or between two schools and the conclusions from such studies could be due to other differences between the classrooms).

Q.5

Bases of Power

Power can be categorized into two types: Formal and informal A. Formal Power: It is based on the position of an individual in an organization. Formal power is derived from either ones ability to coerce or reward others or is derived from the formal authority vested in the individual due to his/ her strategic position in the organizational hierarchy. For example, a manager may threaten to withhold a pay raise, or to transfer, demote, or even recommend the firing of a subordinate who does not act as desired. Such coercive administer punishments to control other people. The availability of coercive power also varies across organizations. The presence of unions and organizational policies on employee treatment can weaken this power base significantly. Formal power may be categorized into four types which are as follows: 1. Coercive Power: The coercive power base is being dependent on fear. It is based on the application, or the threat of application, of physical sanctions such as the infliction of pain, the generation of frustration through restriction of movement, or the controlling by force of basic physiological or safety needs. In an organization one can exercise power over another if they have the power to dismiss, suspend, demote another assuming that the job is valuable to the person on whom power is being unleashed.

2. Reward Power: The opposite of coercive power is reward power. Reward power is the extent to which a manager can use extrinsic and intrinsic rewards to control other people. Examples of such rewards include money, promotions, compliments, or enriched jobs. Although all managers have some access to rewards, success in accessing and utilizing rewards to achieve influence varies according to the skills of the manager. 3. Legitimate Power: The third base of position power is legitimate power, or formal authority .It stems from the extent to which a manager can use subordinates internalized values or beliefs that the boss has a right of command to control their behavior. For example, the boss may have the formal authority to approve or deny such employee requests as job transfers, equipment purchases, personal time off, or overtime work. Legitimate power represents a special kind of power a manager has because subordinates believe it is legitimate for a person occupying the managerial position to have the right to command. The lack of this is legitimacy will result in authority not being accepted by subordinates. Thus this type of power has the following elements: It represents the power a person receives as a result of his/her position in the formal hierarchy. Positions of authority include coercive and reward powers. Legitimate power, however, is not limited to the power to coerce and reward. It encompasses the acceptance of the authority of a position by members of an organization. 4. Information Power: This type of power is derived from access to and control over information. When people have needed information, others become dependant on them. (For example, managers have access to data that subordinates do not have). Normally the higher the level, the more information would be accessed by managers.

B. Personal Power Personal power resides in the individual and is independent of that individuals position. Three bases of personal power are expertise, rational persuasion, and reference. Expert power is the ability to control another persons behavior by virtue of possessing knowledge, experience, or judgment that the other person lacks, but needs. A subordinate obeys a supervisor possessing expert power because the boss ordinarily knows more about what is to be done or how it is to be done than does the subordinate. Expert power is relative, not absolute. However the table may turn in case the subordinate has superior knowledge or skills than his/ her boss. In this age of technology driven environments, the second proposition holds true in many occasions where the boss is dependent heavily on the juniors for technologically oriented support. Rational persuasion is the ability to control anothers behavior, since, through the individuals efforts, the person accepts the desirability of an offered goal and a viable way of achieving it. Rational persuasion involves both explaining the desirability of expected outcomes and showing how specific actions will achieve these outcomes. Referent power is the ability to control anothers behavior because the person wants to identify with the power source. In this case, a subordinate obeys the boss because he or she wants to behave, perceive, or believe as the boss does. This obedience may occur, for example, because the subordinate likes the boss personally and therefore tries to do things the way the boss wants them done. In a sense, the subordinate attempts to avoid doing anything that would interfere with the pleasing boss subordinate relationship. Followership is not based on what the subordinate will get for specific actions or specific levels of performance, but on what the individual represents a path toward lucrative future prospects. Charismatic Power is an extension of referent power stemming from an individuals personality and interpersonal style. Others follow because they can articulate attractive visions, take personal risks, demonstrate follower sensitivity, etc. Dependency: The Key to Power The General Dependency Equation is as follows: The greater Bs dependency on A, the greater the power A has over B. When an individual possess anything that others require but that which alone the individual

controls, he / she can make others dependent and, therefore, gain power over them. Dependency, then, is inversely proportional to the alternative sources of supply. This is one of the reasons why most organizations develop multiple suppliers rather using just one. It also explains why individuals in general aspire to financial independence. Three factors are responsible for dependency. They are as follows: Importance To create dependency, the thing(s) you control must be perceived as being important. Organizations actively seek to avoid uncertainty and hence, those individuals or groups who can absorb an organizations uncertainty will be perceived as controlling an important resource. Scarcity A resource needs to be perceived as scarce to create dependency. For example, lowranking members in an organization who have important knowledge unavailable to high-ranking members gain power over the high-ranking members. The scarcitydependency relationship is also important in the power of occupational categories. Individuals in occupations in which the supply of personnel is low relative to demand can negotiate compensation and benefit packages, which are far more attractive than can those in occupations where there is an abundance of candidates. Thus scarcity in supply of certain types of skilled people can give them power to bargain over compensations and other benefits. Non-substitutability The more that a resource has no viable substitutes, the more power that control over that resource provides.

Q.6

Organisational changes

Almost all people are nervous about change. Many will resist it - consciously or subconsciously. Sometimes those fears are well founded - the change really will have a

negative impact for them. In many cases, however, the target population for the change will come to realise that the change was for the better. There are two related aspects of organisational change that are often confused. In Organisational Change Management we are concerned with winning the hearts and minds of the participants and the target population to bring about changed behaviour and culture. The key skills required are founded in business psychology and require "people" people. Organisational Change Management issues are often under-estimated or ignored entirely. In fact, people issues collectively account for the majority of project failures. Organisational Change Management is a vital aspect of almost any project. It should be seen as a discrete and specialised workstream. Why then, you might ask, do we discuss it as part of the Project Management work. Unfortunately, it is common to find that the human component of the project is not recognised as a separate element of the work. The project management team frequently have to do their best to ensure that a technological change is successfully implanted into the business. In the worst-case scenario, the project leadership do not see this as part of their responsibility either and blame the organisation's line management when their superb new technical solution is not fully successful when put to use. Organisational Change Management at project start-up Many Organisational Change Management issues need to be clear at the start of the project so that appropriate activities can be included in the plans, and so that appropriate roles and responsibilities can be established. Here are some of the key issues:

Is there a compelling "Case for Change" that all participants will buy in to? Who are the owners and sponsors of this change? Will they actively promote the change and apply pressure as needed? What are the populations involved, eg the overall leadership of the organisation, project participants, sub-contractors, end-users, other departmental managers, other members of the workforce, suppliers, customers etc? For each population (or subset by role, function, etc) what will their attitude be? Will they resist the change? How can we encourage them to act in a way which will support the project's objectives? What style of participation will work best? Should we involve a broad section of the target population or keep everything secret until the change is forced upon them?

How can we communicate these messages to the target population?

Sponsorship The Project Sponsor is usually the person who saw a need for change and had the authority to make something happen. There may be several sponsors who collectively have this role. The precise ownership of the project is more a matter for the Project Definition work. What counts from an Organisational Change Management perspective is not the actual ownership and rationale for the project so much as the perceived sponsorship and purpose. For example, the project might exist because the Finance Director wants to cut costs, but it could be a better message that the Chief Executive wants to build a slick organisation that can beat the competition. The original Project Sponsor will often have the power and status to create and deliver the project and may be able to deliver the change messages to the areas of the organisation directly involved. In many cases, however, the change is broader than the immediate influence of the Project Sponsor. Other supporting sponsors may be required to promote the project in other areas of the organisation. Make a Sponsorship Map - initially to show who is involved and what support they are offering. Use this to identify who else needs to participate and what they need to do. In major change programmes many parts of the organisation will be involved, for example:

the line business unit that houses the changed process, other departments involved in the process chain, senior management and general management of the organisation who will be critical judges of this initiative's success, the IT department who build and operate the technology, the finance department where the financial implications will be seen, customer-facing staff who will reflect the changes when dealing with the clients.

Resistance to change By definition, people are affected by change. A few will comfortably accommodate any degree of change, but most people have a change journey to undertake. Part of the art of Organisational Change Management is to:

understand what journey you want which populations to take (it may not be the same for everyone), assess what their attitude is likely to be, and use that knowledge to guide them in the right direction.

Many people will hide their negative feelings. It is not wise to be openly critical of your bosses and their new ideas. Some people will not even be aware of their own resistance which, nevertheless, affects their behaviour sub-consciously. Understanding their position requires more than listening to what they say. Organisational Change Management specialists use an array of diagnostic tools to uncover the true characteristics and attitudes of the target populations. The most common response to impending change is a negative response where, initially at least, the target population sees the change as a bad or threatening thing. Psychologists have researched these "bad news" responses and found that there is a common emotional response. This chart shows how the individuals oscillate between inactivity and high emotion. Assuming the final outcome can represent a good thing from their perspective, the goal is to leave them in favour of the change and highly motivated to make it work. Resistance to change is normal. The Project Manager should expect to encounter it and deal with it. The worst time to encounter resistance is during the cutover to the new solution. Transition is usually a busy, critical, high-risk period when the last thing you need is a lack of co-operation from the target population. Try to surface issues and resistance earlier in the project so that there is time to get the target population engaged before any damage is caused. Some Organisational Change Management experts suggest that you should deliberately upset the target population early in the project so that you can guide them through the emotional curve and change their attitude. That may be taking the principle too far - but, if there is going to be resistance, try to deal with it early. Using the right change style The design of the project's approach should take into account the optimum style of addressing organisational change issues. In general, the target population will be more supportive of the changes if they have been part of the change process. The cynical view is that you should make them feel part of the process even if you prefer to ignore what they have to say. In fact, their active participation is likely to add to the quality of the

solution - it should be taken seriously. Conversely, if they feel their views were sought then ignored they are likely to become more resistant. Working with a broad selection of the target population adds time and cost to the project. The degree to which you involve them will depend on the magnitude of the change. A straightforward non-controversial change may require no previous contact. If, for example, you are simply introducing a new set of expense codes you can publish the message "with effect from 1st April, new codes must be used as per the attached book". Conversely, if you are making huge changes to the job and lifestyle of the target population you will need to work with them to gain their co-operation, for example, if you wish them to re-locate voluntarily and re-train for substantially altered jobs. Here are some change styles that may be appropriate:

Collaborative - The target population are engaged in the change process, typically through cascading workshops or meetings. They will be kept up to date on the issues. Their views will be actively sought and acted upon. Feedback will demonstrate how their input has been acted upon. Consultative - The target population is informed about the changes and their views are sought. Directive - The workforce is informed about the changes and why those changes are important. Coercive - The workforce is told that they must obey the new instructions.

Communication One of the main tools for promoting change is communication. Early in the project an initial approach to communication will be formulated. It has two main purposes:

to convey important information that the audience needs to know, and to promote organisational change.

Messages supporting the project's change objectives should be carefully constructed. The best media should be identified to convey the right messages to the right people at the right time. During the project, these messages and methods will be refined based upon achievements, feedback and the changing circumstances of the project.