Managing Change: Attitudes, Targets, Problems,

and Strategies

GARY N. POWELL

BARRY Z. POSNER

Various conceptual approaches to successful organizational change are

reviewed and their relative merits discussed. A systematic situation-
based approach for selecting an appropriate change strategy is outlined.
This model focuses on initial attitudes toward change, identification of
relevant target groups or levels, and analyses of problem types. Several
examples and applications are presented.

When the Industrial Conference Board asked a number of promi-

speculate about the important management issues in
nent authorities to
the decades ahead, one of the most prominent themes was a concern
about managers and their organizations’ abilities to respond to change
(Bower & Walton, 1973). More and more managers are forced to deal
with burgeoning government regulations, increasing competition, de-
clining productivity, rising inflation, new products, growing organiza-
tional or structural complexities, mushrooming informational proc-
esses and demands, technological developments, and a changing work
force with ever-shifting values, characteristics, and preferences. Many
companies (or divisions of major corporations) find that they must
undertake moderate organizational changes every year and major
changes every four or five years (Allen, 1978).
Behavioral scientists have been trying for over fifty years to satisfy
managers’ desires to plan and implement change expeditiously and
effectively. However, they have been largely unsuccessful in provid-
ing answers to the most important questions: &dquo;How should I diagnose
my organization (or area of the organization under my control) and
determine how much change, if any, is necessary?&dquo;, &dquo;What methods
Group & Organization Studies, September 1980, 5(3), 310-323.
310 Copyright 0 1980 by International Authors, B.V.
should I use in planning and implementing change?&dquo;, &dquo;How much
change should I attempt at one time?&dquo;, &dquo;What consideration should I
give my employees in proposing change?&dquo;, and &dquo;How can I anticipate
what their needs for change will be?&dquo;
Part of the problem has been a tendency for managers and be-
havioral scientists to be overly enthusiastic about a particular approach
or technique (the &dquo;one best way&dquo;) to bring about change. This has
generally been self-defeating, because most leaders in government and
industry already know that no way of doing anything will always be
best. Characteristics of work settings and the people in them have an
enormous degree of variety, and these differences influence the ulti-
mate effect of any managerial action. On the other hand, the tendency
for some managers to herald each newly proposed change technique as
a godsend has also contributed to the problem. Switching from
technique to technique without ever fully implementing one does not
lead to successful organizational change. It may lead to the rise and
replacement of so-called &dquo;sure-fire&dquo; cures for all management prob-
lems. Examples include scientific management (Taylor, 1911), automa-
tion (Mann & Hoffman, 1960; Walker, 1957), management of objectives,
(Drucker, 1964), sensitivity training (Bradford, Gibb, & Benne, 1964),
Grid* management (Blake & Mouton, 1968), and now organization
development (to be replaced by ?). Some elements of these techniques
have some value in some settings. However, in their search for the
&dquo;best&dquo; technique, many managers and behavioral scientists have lost
sight of the situations they are trying to address.
This article examines various approaches to change that have been
proposed in the past and evaluates their relative merits. A systematic,
situation-based approach for selecting an appropriate change strategy
is also outlined. The described methods are based on a review of the
literature and analyses of numerous successful (and unsuccessful) or-
ganizational change efforts.
PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED APPROACHES
TO ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Change has been investigated in a number of ways in management
literature (Beer & Driscoll, 1977; Bennis, 1969; Griener, 1967). One of
the most useful schemes classifies change efforts according to the
principal focus of change (Leavitt, 1965):
1. Structural Variables: systems of communication, authority,
rules, and work flow in the organization;
2. Technological Variables: problem-solving inventions such as
work measurement techniques, computer programs, or auto-
mated machinery; or
3. People Variables: attitudes, values, norms, motivations, and
behaviors of organizational members.
Although the distinction between these types of variables is not
311
always clear-cut and many planned change interventions are directed
at more than one type, this classification scheme may be conveniently
used in examining approaches to change.
’

Structural Approaches
Structural approaches to organizational change suggest that per-
formance of tasks is best facilitated by (1) clearly defining the jobs of
people and the relationship among the jobs and (2) finding the best
people to fill the jobs. They originated with classical management
theorists’ exclusive concern with the formal organization (Fayol, 1949;
Urwick, 1943) and have more recently been advanced by organiza-
tional sociologists (Hage & Aiken, 1970; Perrow, 1970).
Structural change has the advantage of being relatively easy to
execute, at least on paper. All it takes is one top-management edict to
give any number of employees new jobs (or no jobs) overnight. In
addition, there is a certain appeal to designing an organization as if it
could be built again from &dquo;scratch&dquo; and implementing that design. It is
not unusual for new chief executive officers to shift responsibilities
among their upper-management staff positions or to bring in new faces
to fill the positions soon after they begin their own jobs. This allows
them to put their own stamps on the organization and often to achieve
positive results in performance as well.
However, structural changes do not always bring the efficiencies
they promise. For example, President Carter was criticized in some
circles for having combined dozens of structurally remote, ineffective
federal energy programs into a &dquo;structurally centralized, but still inef-
fective&dquo; Department of Energy. Although the change has not necessar-
ily contributed to higher prices and long gas lines, it has not alleviated
these problems. Whether Carter’s replacement of five cabinet mem-
bers in a week has had any better effect is still being debated.

Technological Approaches
Technological approaches to organizational change advocate so-
phisticated technology as the road to improved performance. They
originated with Taylor’s (1911) theory of scientific management, which
proposed that productivity could be revised by (1) time and motion
studies to determine the best way to perform each production task and
(2) a financial incentive to elicit work at a good pace. Operations
research and computerized management information systems have
represented comparable approaches to management problem solving.
Supposedly, all that a manager would have to do to obtain unsurpassed
awareness and control of the production process would be to use the
right algorithms or computer reports. Realistically, each of these
techniques can be used to advantage or disadvantage.

312
 The basic production technology of an organization has received
considerable attention as a critical factor. Several researchers found job
satisfaction among blue-collar employees significantly increased by
automation (Mann & Hoffman, 1960; Walker, 1957; Woodward, 1965).
Others (Blauner, 1964; Shepard, 1971) found that worker alienation
was highest when a mechanized technology was used and lower when
either craft (less sophisticated) or automated (more sophisticated)
technology was installed. These studies suggest that the key to success-
ful organizational change is to employ the right production technology.
However, the choice of technology is often constrained by the type of
industry and market conditions. Breweries or oil refineries, in which
products are standard and can be produced in high volumes with little
human intervention, lend themselves more to an automated technology
than automotive assembly lines, in which basic models are subject to
numerous production options best implemented by human interven-
tion. Examples include the reported difficulties of such large-scale
attempts at automation as the Lordstown Vega plant and the success of a
return to craft-like assembly conditions at Volvo (Gyllenhammar, 1977;
Kremen, 1973).

People Approaches
The &dquo;people&dquo; approaches to organizational change have received
the greatest attention in the management literature. One approach has
been described as a &dquo;manipulative&dquo; approach (Leavitt, 1965). Other
major approaches include sensitivity training and organization
development.

Manipulative Approaches
Proponents of manipulative approaches claim that successful or-
ganizational change can be achieved by overcoming employees’ natu-
ral resistance to it (Coch & French, 1948; Lawrence, 1954). Major
attention is directed at methods for dealing with negative responses to
change. The capability of employees to actively desire and feel a
readiness for change is seldom considered. A variety of techniques
have been proposed, including (1) management-initiated discussions
with work groups or worker representatives concerning the need for
change (rather than formal announcements or notices on bulletin
boards), (2) participation of workers in planning and/or implementing
change, (3) a slow rate of change to allow better adjustment, and (4)
special counseling and placement services for the affected workers
(Powell & Posner, 1978). The common denominator of these
techniques is that they seek to gain acceptance from people who did not
initiate the change.
Resistance to change can be expected in many situations. For

313
example, change is more likely to be opposed-all other factors being
equal-by workers who are older, less educated, less competent, less
secure, or lower in tolerance for ambiguity, by those at lower levels in
the organization, or by those who would lose more than they would gain
from the proposed change (Powell, 1976). In such situations, making
sure that employees feel that they are being treated like people-not
machines-during the unpopular but necessary organizational change
may be the best way for managers to respond.
However, manipulative approaches have two disadvantages:
1. Anticipation of resistance to change may lead to a development
of resistance that would not occur otherwise, a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If the employees do not trust the management, they are likely to hesi-
tate to accept any proposed organizational changes and to be skeptical
and cynical even if the planned changes appear to benefit them.
2. The same approach will lead to different results in different
situations. For example, in a &dquo;classic&dquo; study of resistance to change, the
full participation of production workers in designing a change to as-
sembly lines in an American factory was most effective in offsetting
resistance (Coch & French, 1948). However, these same outcomes did
not emerge in a replication of the study in a Norwegian factory (French,
Israel, & As, 1960). The researchers concluded that different expecta-
tions and ideology in the Norwegian plant led to &dquo;unusual&dquo; results, still
assuming that full participation was best. In so doing, they ignored the
possibilities that the &dquo;unusual&dquo; results appeared in the American
factory or that none of the results were unusual, given the different
situations.
Sensitivity-Training Approaches
Sensitivity-training approaches to organizational change have led
to mixed results. The original core tool of these approaches, the T-group
(T for &dquo;training&dquo;), is typically an off-site experience for people who are
strangers prior to the training. Its purpose is to encourage participants
to define and solve their own problems, set their own goals, and initiate
changes upon returning to their individual organizations. Unlike the
manipulative approaches, internally generated and evolutionary
change is valued over the shaping of behavior in accordance with
change goals set by others (Bradford, Gibb, & Benne, 1964).
Such groups invariably lead to heightened personal awareness.
However, they are less successful at inspiring sustained change in
behavior in the work setting. The support from others in the T-group is
often lacking on the job. Also, people in work relationships with the
T-group member may be less willing or able to change their own
behavior. Although T-groups, as such, are no longer in vogue, their
basic principles and limitations are included in executive-
development programs sponsored by the Menninger Foundation, the
National Training Laboratories, and others.

314
 Organization Development Approaches
Organization development (OD) approaches to change were origi-
nally developed to satisfy the need for on-site work on human variables
in organizations that off-site sensitivity training failed to satisfy. They
are mostoften conducted by external consultants versed in the be-
havioral services or internal change agents specializing in OD inter-
ventions and less often by the managers themselves. Organization
development techniques include survey feedback, interpersonal-
process consultation, task-process consultation, and sensitivity training
adapted to the organizational setting. They may be directed at one or
more of several levels or targets-individual, interpersonal, intra-
group,intergroup, or organizational (French & Bell, 1973).
Most of the OD management literature consists of anecdotal evi-
dence concerning the results from single interventions. Relatively few
research studies systematically examine the comparative effects of
change strategies in different organizational settings. Bowers (1973)
compares the association of the four OD techniques listed above with
improved functioning in twenty-three organizations. Only survey
feedback was associated with substantial improvement, with &dquo;organi-
zational climate&dquo; (the ways in which other groups are perceived to
operate) slightly affecting the association. Franklin (1976) extended the
previous study to examine in greater detail the effect of characteristics
of the organization on success of the OD effort. Organizations with
more successful OD projects (1) were already more open to and in-
volved with changes, (2) demonstrated greater interest in and commit-
ment to the project, and (3) used internal change agents who were more
carefully selected and had greater skills at managing the change effort.
In their review of published OD studies, Porras and Berg (1978) offer a
rather dismal and discouraging evaluation of the effectiveness of OD.
However, their analysis suggests that OD impacts task-oriented vari-
ables as often as it impacts people-oriented process variables and that
OD affects individuals and individual-level change more than it affects
overall organizational processes.
These studies demonstrate that-with the other approaches to
organizational change-the success of OD depends, at least in part, on
the situation to which it is applied.

A MODEL FOR SELECTING

THE APPROPRIATE CHANGE STRATEGY

As the above review demonstrates, managers need to tailor the

change process to the situation rather than applying one universal
process to all situations. For example, a manager should not auto-
matically use group-participation methods because they worked for
someone else; instead, group-participation methods should be re-

315
garded as one possible way-among many others-of implementing
change. A manager should not prefer a structural, technological, or
people approach to change but should consider each or a blend of all for
a specific situation.

The most common mistakes managers make in planning and man-

aging change efforts are (1) to use only one approach regardless of the
situation and (2) to approach change in a disjointed and incremental
way that is not part of a clearly considered strategy (Howes & Quinn,
1978; Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). As Griener (1967, p. 119) argues,
&dquo;There is an initial need at this time to understand better this complex
(change) process, especially in terms of which approaches lead to
successful changes and which actions fail to achieve desired results.&dquo;

Critical Situational Factors

The following factors seem to most affect the choice of change
strategy: (1) the appropriate target group, (2) employees’ attitudes
toward change, and (3) the type of problem. Successful change efforts
result from an internally consistent strategic assessment of a situation
along these dimensions.
Target Group
All other things being equal, the greater the number of people
involved (and hence the greater the interdependencies), the more
time-consuming and complex change-management strategies will be
appropriate. Target groups may vary from the total organization to
specific divisions of the organization, work groups or teams, co-
workers, or individuals.
Attitudes Toward Change
Employees’ attitudes toward change will crucially affect the
choice of change strategy and the eventual success of any subsequent
change effort. Attitudes toward change are the result of learned be-
havior (Mealiea, 1978). These attitudes may vary from strongly nega-
tive (resistant) to strongly positive (supportive). When attitudes are
unfavorable, managers will generally need to move slowly, first laying
the necessary groundwork for the proposed change and planning for
the involvement of others. When attitudes are more favorable or when
the manager has substantive power and control over employees’ be-
havior, change can be introduced more rapidly.
Type of Problem
Problems can be classified along a continuum ranging from &dquo;task&dquo;
to &dquo;process.&dquo; &dquo;Task&dquo; refers to what the target group is working on (i.e.,
stated agenda items), and &dquo;process&dquo; refers to how the group is working

316
and what else is happening as the task is being performed. For exam-
ple, a task problem may be poor-quality workmanship on one of the
company’s products, whereas a process problem may be the inability of
the shop operations and quality-control departments to resolve differ-
ences over basic issues, such as quality. As will be explained, task
problems lend themselves more to structural types of change strategies.
Behavioral strategies are generally more appropriate for managing
process issues.

Strategic Change Options

It is helpful to picture the manager’s change options as existing on a
continuum with behavioral and structural strategies at the extremes. As
Figure 1 illustrates, the choice of one or the other type of strategy (or
some mixture of the two) depends on the manager’s perceptions of the
situation. The choice is influenced by the selection of a target group
and by the assessment of (or assumptions about) the nature of the
problem and employees’ likely reaction to change efforts.
At the behavioral end of the continuum, the change strategy ad-
dresses feelings and emotional reactions in a minimally structured
environment, with considerable involvement of others in decisions
about the change effort. Specific interventions such as sensitivity train-
ing, team building, survey feedback, or process consultation could be
utilized.
At the structural (or technical) end of the continuum, the change
strategy focuses on the hierarchical structure, individual roles, au-
thority and reward systems, task design, work flow, technological sys-
tems, and functional policies and procedures. A more directive, less
participative management style is employed in utilizing techniques

Figure 1. Relationship Between Representative Change Strategies

and Critical Situational Factors

317
such asjob redesign, development of measurable performance objec-
tives, personnel audits, or industrial engineering to bring about a
desired change.
The classification scheme in Figure 1 indicates that effective
change management requires an appreciation and understanding of the
role of key situational factors in selecting a change strategy. A partial list
of change techniques that may be applied to particular situations ap-
pears in Figure 2. (These techniques are not mutually exclusive and

Figure 2. Applications of Situational Assessments

to Selection of Change Strategies

318
may be used in conjunction with each other.) The following examples
(with fictitious names) illustrate how situational assessments prior to
choices of change techniques led to more positive results:
1. Sharon Frazier was a relatively new manager of business services
at major industrial firm and was constantly confronted with conflicts
a
between her subordinates. After informally discussing the situation indi-
vidually with a number of subordinates, she determined that almost all of
them were ready for something to be done about this matter (positive

Figure 2 (continued).

319
 attitude toward change). Further investigation revealed that the conflicts
were largely due to personality differences rather than technical issues
(process problem), and she individually counseled those involved (indi-
vidual target, behavioral strategy). In one instance, she provided funds to
send an employee to a management-development workshop (behavioral
strategy). In addition, she called the conflicting parties together and in-
itiated collaborative problem solving (co-worker targets, behavioral strat-
egy). This led to several changes in job responsibilities and modifications
in work flow, which were promptly implemented (structural strategies).
Within nine months, her unit’s productivity jumped 22 percent (task
improvement).
2. The West-Coast plant of a large pharmaceutical concern resembled
disaster area. Productivity had steadily declined over the past few years
a
(task problem). Turnover and absenteeism were 15 percent over the local
industry averages. Morale was not very positive, although not extremely
dismal. As one employee phrased it, &dquo;It’s an O.K. place to work ... until
something better comes along&dquo; (process problem). Peter Fleming, the
successful general manager of a similar Midwestern facility, was selected
to replace the outgoing West-Coast general manager, who had abruptly
retired due, supposedly, to health problems. Before formally assuming
his new responsibilities, Peter made several visits to the plant to discuss
the situation with a wide variety of supervisory and hourly employees,
who seemed cooperative but skeptical (negative attitude toward change).
Then he arrived unannounced at the plant on a Monday morning with a
procession of six black limousines. He called a general meeting of all
officials, promptly replacing four vice presidents with specialists he had
brought from the Midwestern plant (individual targets, structural strate-
gy). He outlined what had to happen to save the plant, what he was
prepared to do, and what their new job responsibilities would be (organi-
zational/individual targets, structural strategy). Those who could not or
would not change were advised to seek other employment.
This scenario was repeated throughout the day at several other levels
in the organization. Within a week, several long-standing production
bottlenecks were resolved. Workers showed a new excitement for their
jobs as they faced the challenge of rebuilding the plant’s profitability. Two
years later the West-Coast operation had not only stabilized, but plans
were being made for an expansion of facilities and personnel to accommo-
date new business (task and process improvements).
3. A work group of employees had been assembling complex com-
puterized guidance equipment according to the industrial engineering
department’s specifications. Several members of the group had previously
been rewarded for their work-improvement ideas through the firm’s
suggestion system (positive attitude toward change). One day they ap-
proached their supervisor, Ken Mobery, with the idea of taking on more
responsibility for their own equipment, scheduling, quality control, etc.
After several discussions, Ken agreed to give the group this opportunity for
a trial period (work group target, behavioral strategy). He also provided
them full access to cost information and assigned them specialized staff
assistance upon request (structural strategy). After the group introduced
its own work systems, the assembly time per unit dropped from 122 to

320
 seventy hours (task improvement). The group was then given extended
permission to make any other changes it deemed necessary (behavioral
strategy). The group’s unit assembly time was eventually reduced to
forty-six hours. The assemblers’ enthusiasm about their work sharply
increased when they were given the greater responsibilities, and the
higher morale was sustained over time (process improvement).
These examples and the conceptualization in Figure 2 underscore
the following general principles:
1. Behavioral interventions are more appropriate for process prob-
lems, whereas structural interventions are better suited for task issues.
2. Behavioral interventions work more effectively than structural
interventions when attitudes toward change are positive (supportive).
When attitudes toward change are negative (resistant), structural inter-
ventions are likely to be more effective than behavioral interventions.
3. As the size of the target group increases, structural interventions
are more expedient and feasible than behavioral solutions.

4. Although behavioral solutions are generally more difficult to

achieve, their results are likely to be more permanent and lasting.
5. The success of behavioral interventions will be enhanced if
followed by reinforcing structural interventions, and vice versa.

CONCLUSION

The inconsistent track records of various approaches to organiza-

tional change indicate that no one change technique works well in all
situations. The examination of situational contingencies and interven-
tion alternatives demonstrates the importance of a comprehensive and
integrated change strategy. Managers need to be skilled at diagnosing
the demands of a situation and flexible in selecting and implementing a
change strategy tailored to the demands. Because change has become a
&dquo;way of life&dquo; for today’s organizations, a movement toward manage-
ment training is needed, as well as literature, that focuses less on the
current month’s &dquo;sure-fire&dquo; technique for solving all ills and more on
the need to maintain a critical sensitivity and awareness.

REFERENCES

Allen, S. A. Organizational choice and general influence networks for diversi-

fied companies. Academy of Management journal, 1978, 3, 341-365.
Beer, M., & Driscoll, J. W. Strategies for Change. In J. R. Hackman & J. L.
Suttle (Eds.), Improving life at work: Behavioral science approaches to
organizational change. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear, 1977.
Bennis, W. G. Organization development: Its nature, origins, and prospects.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1969.

321
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. Corporate excellence through Grid
® organization
development. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Co., 1968.
Blauner, R. Alienation and freedom: The factory worker and his industry.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964.
Bower, M., & Walton, C. L., Jr. Gearing a business to the future. In Challenge
and Leadership. New York: The Conference Board, 1973.
Bowers, D. G. OD techniques and their results in 23 organizations: The Michi-
gan ICL study. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1973, 9, 21-43.
Bradford, L. P., Gibb, J. R., & Benne, K. D. (Eds.). T-group theory and labora-
tory method. New York: John Wiley, 1964.
Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr. Overcoming resistance to change. Human
Relations, 1948, 1
, 512-532.
Drucker, P. F. Managing for results. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.
Fayol, H. [General and industrial management] (C. Stours, Trans.). London:
Pitnam & Sons, 1949.
Franklin, J. L. Characteristics of successful and unsuccessful organization de-
velopment. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1976, 12, 471-492.
French, J. R. P., Israel, J., & As, D. An experiment on participation in a Norwe-
gian factory. Human Relations, 1960,13,3-19.
French, W. L., & Bell, C. H., Jr. Organization development. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
Griener, L. E. Patterns of organizational change. Harvard Business Review,
1967,45,119-130.
Gyllenhammar, P. G. How Volvo adapts work to people. Harvard Business
Review, 1977, 55, 102-113.
Hage, J., & Aiken, M. Social change in complex organizations. New York:
Random House, 1970.
Howes, N. J., & Quinn, R. E. Implementing change: From research to a
prescriptive framework. Group & Organization Studies, 1978, 3, 71-84.
Kotter, J. P., & Schlesinger, L. A. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard
Business Review, 1979, 57, 106-114.
Kremen, B. Lordstown—Searching for a better way of work. New York Times,
September 9, 1973, pp. E 1-2.
Lawrence, P. R. How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Business
Review, 1954,32,49-57.
Leavitt, H. J. Applied organizational change in industry: Structural, technolog-
ical, and humanistic approaches. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of organ-
izations. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1965.
Mann, F. C., & Hoffman, L. R. Automation and the worker. New York: Henry
Holt, 1960.
Mealiea, L. Learned behavior: The key to understanding and preventing em-
ployee resistance to change. Group & Organization Studies, 1978, 3,
211-223.
Perrow, C. Organizational analysis: A sociological view. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, 1970.
Porras, J. I., & Berg, P. O. The impact of organization development. Academy
of Management Review, 1978, 3, 249-266.

322
Powell, G. N. Attitude toward work-related change and organizational cli-
mate. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts,
1976.
Powell, G. N., & Posner, B. Z. Resistance to change reconsidered: Implications
for managers. Human Resource Management, 1978, 17, 29-34.
Shepard, J. M. Automation and alienation: A study of office and factory
workers. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press,
1971.
Taylor, F. W. Scientific management. New York: Harper Brothers, 1911.
Urwick, L. F. The elements of administration. New York: Harper Brothers,
1943.
Walker, C. R. Toward the automatic factory. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 1957.
Woodward, J. Industrial organization: Theory and practice. London: Oxford
University Press, 1965.

Gary N. Powell, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of man-

agement and administrative sciences at the University
of Connecticut. He received his doctorate in organi-
zational behavior and business administration at the
University of Massachusetts. He has published twelve
articles in the areas of sex-role stereotyping in man-
agement, organizational change, and organizational
climate and has presented over twenty papers at pro-
fessional meetings. He is also active in the area of expe-
riential learning and is co-editor of an upcoming vol-
ume of experiential exercises for management training.

Barry Z. Posner, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of or-

ganizational behavior at the University of Santa Clara.
He holds a master’s degree in public administration
from Ohio State University and a doctorate in admin-
istrative theory and organizational behavior from the
University of Massachusetts. He is the author or co-
author of a number of articles in the areas of values,
role stress, and power and influence. Dr. Posner is an
active consultant and has participated in a wide variety
of executive-development programs.

323