Our Iceberg Is Melting Essay Example

strong resistance to change, which usually accompanies the early stages, emerged in the face of NoNo. In the second step, Alice and Fred pulled together a guiding team consisting of the most dedicated participants: Buddy, Jordan (Professor) and Louis. It is important to note that each of the participants has its own unique set of strengths, expertise and weaknesses. Louis is an experienced and intelligent leader enjoying high position within formal hierarchy. His weakness is a conservative and risk-averse personality and lack of attention to subordinates’ needs and concerns.

Alice is a somewhat similar type of leader, yet she demonstrates a more aggressive and practical approach to problem-solving. Alice is certainly a visionary of the organization and she pay more attention to penguins’ daily concerns. Her weaknesses are lack of technical expertise (especially, compared to Jordan) and inclination to interpret issues in the black-and-white terms. She’s also not interested in strategic long-term planning and fundamental research. Jordan’s strengths are definitely his strong academic expertise in multiple fields and rational, analytical decision-making process.

Jordan is also a self-motivated achiever; he does not need any special coaching or special directions. Professor’s weakness is a lack of social skills and limited interest in team work. Buddy, on the contrary, is a type of penguin who is completely different from Jordan in every aspect: sociable, empathetic and charismatic, yet possessing a very limited knowledge base. Fred represents a golden mean between Jordan and Buddy: he’s a creative and knowledgeable penguin with rather strong interpersonal and communication skills. I would say that my work style is very close to this protagonist.

I enjoy looking for complex and creative solutions to various organizational predicaments.

I am also fond of planning and execution of strategic decisions which are developed on a group basis. From my standpoint, Fred often seems to dislike the rigidity and strictness of traditional organizational structure that is why he is constantly looking for change. I tend to share his views: organizations must be more innovative, flexible and responsive to both internal and external stakeholders in order to stay competitive in the 21st century. However, I believe that there are several things that I could have done better.

First and foremost, I would not limit my communication just to the guiding team at the early stages of change, for it limits the overall appeal of the idea to the masses. In contrast to Fred, I would spread the drive for change to as many penguins on the iceberg as possible. Secondly, I would counteract the NoNo issue by building a strong informal network against this penguin. Thirdly, I would strive to obtain a higher formal status within penguins’ hierarchy, so that resistance to change could be minimized. The last but not least, Fred seems to be exclusively focused on his work in the guiding team.

I would simultaneously form a number of cross-functional teams, each of which will implement different change strategies, instead of just going through a step-by-step process. As a next step, the group focused on developing the change vision and strategy. An imitation of behavioral patterns of seagulls was very insightful, as it was a perfect example of mimetic isomorphism. As soon as such a vision was established, the group felt a need to communicate for understanding and buy in. First, strong inspirational speeches by Louis

as well as Buddy were made in order to influence the general public.

Then, Alice came up with an idea of ice posters which would serve as a promotional tool. Finally, the team placed special posters underwater, so that penguins can never ignore the idea of change. An analogue from a human world will be posters and slogans in production areas of ISO-certified manufacturing facilities. I find graphical promotional tools of this kind efficient: they’re employee-friendly and people tend to memorize them better compared to graphs and charts. The fifth step was to empower others to act by removing barriers. Obviously, the creation of small scout groups caused a number of disputes.

To begin with, the Leadership Council had a conflict over the role of President of Scouts. Second, scouts would have insufficient time to fish for food due to nature of their occupation, yet other penguins refused to provide them with free fish. Drawing a comparison to human nature, it is worth noting that many employees of organizations hesitate to participate in change projects because they fear inability to do their regular daily work due to extra workload. In instances of the kind, upper-level management should step in and encourage participation by allocating more resources (e. g. permanent full-time employees) to project teams.

Louis resolved power conflict in the Council and the Heroes Day fundraiser was established in order to gather fish for the scouts. The final steps of the team were oriented toward production of short-term wins, sustaining change and creation of new culture within an organization. All of those steps enabled the penguins to achieve a successful transformation of their society from a traditional rigid

structure to a more flexible nomadic system. As far as possible fallacies related to the book are concerned, I think that there’s only one aspect that could be criticized.

I believe that Kotter’s 8-Step Change Model could actually be reduced to a 6-Step Counterpart. I do not think that steps number 3, 4 and 5 should be strictly separated. In contrast, they should be combined in a single step in order to achieve a synergy. In other words, a group could communicate its emerging change vision to stakeholders, while such a strategy is in the process of development. I do not think that hiding the strategy of change could benefit anybody, especially people who are affected by it. The same is true of empowerment – there is barely any need to wait prior to letting employees fulfill goals of new strategy.