Week 12 Discussion Question
Leave your response as a comment on this post by the beginning of class next week. Remember, it only needs to be a few sentences. For these weekly questions, I’m mainly interested in your opinions, not so much particular “facts” from the class!
Answer one of the questions below:
- Since we didn’t have enough time to discuss it in class, look back at question 2 of this week’s exercise: for your example, which of your stakeholders do you think would be the most difficult to get on board? Why? Can you draw any general conclusions from this about getting people to buy into change?
- Netflix had a highly publicized “change management” disaster last year with their Qwikster initiative. Take a look at this article about the debacle, and then use the rider/elephant/path analogy to explain what they did wrong in dealing with the customers.
David Schuff
Jeffrey M Pearce
Stavros Hadjitheocharou
Christopher W Crawford
Jim Menkevich
Eric L. Warner
Stanley R. Horwitz
Mamta Amin
Steven Borland
Shivani B. Darji
Rachel L. Gifford
Dong Hwan Lee
Tara N. Lott
Tisha M. McKinney
Karen Padula
Geoffrey R
Martin Schryver
Jerrin C. Varghese
Amy L. Virus
Adam Ford
Albert J. Foster
Steven Jacob
John V. Nguyen
yinka
Olabamigbe Olubajo
Salin Thomas
Michele Moses
Dory V. Bearden-Edwards
Elizabeth G Brown
Mouniratou Yanda-Amedutite
Netflix had a lot of customers who were elephants. I am a Netflix customer, but I am subscribed only to their streaming video service, so this change would not have effected me. I agree with Netflix’s view that the DVD mail order rental business won’t last, but it still has a few years of life left in it. When Netflix first announced Qwikster, it was in a position of not being able to provide a satisfactory response to the elephants who reasonably became upset at the price increase and the reduced level of service (having to access two web sites where they only had to deal with one web site before Qwikster. Netflix had to assuage the elephant customers, but with the way they went about structuring the Qwikster offering, they left themselves with no way to quell their unhappy elephant customers other than to ditch the Qwikster idea and remain status quo. Hindsight is always 20-20, but Netflix’s management might have avoided this problem by surveying its customers first about the idea and perhaps roll out Qwikster to a pilot group of customers first in order to see how they liked it before going full tilt with it. I suspect Netflix will eventually implement Qwiskter, but not by rolling it out in such a poorly thought out way as they originally did.
Stan, I agree with your comment totally. I was a Netflix customer, I cancelled my account with them when the company announced that the DVD mail part of Netflix will be separated from the streaming video. Ever since then, I have received tons of emails from Netflix asking me to come back. Some of the emails contain discount for signing up but that did not convince me to return. Like you mentioned, as part of the elephant group, I could not be persuaded to return because I was not given a good picture of the path, that is, where the company was going initially with the changes they are making. Neflix’s CEO, I think, did not do a good job before the first announcement last summer. I also believe that the rider too will be affected due to lost of customers that will lead to lost in revenue and ultimately lead to downsizing in the company.I also agree with you that the company will eventually implement Qwikster and we need to wait and see how it goes.
In the CVS case scenario I felt that the techs would be the hardest to gather support from to carry the change initiative. The pharmacists and the customers both had quite a bit to gain from this scenario. For the pharmacists greater accuracy and efficiency were the incentive and for the customer they would have a better overall experience due to greater accuracy and fewer issues when dropping off and picking up medications. From the rider perspective, the techs were not likely to see what was in it for them without guidance and training. The process seemed to be more seamless for the other stakeholders and required much more adaptability on the part of the tech group. The changes proposed could cause the techs to perform more tasks and have more responsibilities.
In the CVS case, I feel that the technicians would be the hardest to get on board with a process change. The reason for this is simply due to the fact that the technicians do the bulk of the work in a prescription filling process and if they are required to change this process, they may feel as if the challenge is too daunting. This is an example of a challenge that may be faced when implementing a new process or system because the people who have the most amount of work will be the ones greatest affected by the change. Due to this, they may be either very resistant (as I imagine the techs would be in this example) or very accepting.
Rachel,
I agree with you that technicians will be the hardest to convince about work flow changes, even though they are the ones who are recipients of customers’ yelling. Changes are always hard at the lower level of jobs because the low level jobs are the easiest work force to replace, and convincing these workers that changes will be good for them is the hardest part. On the other hand, most of the low level workers won’t be in the most resistant group because even if they don’t like the changes, the changes are inevitable, and these workers would not want to be fired from their jobs.
I also think CVS technicians would be the most difficult stakeholder to get on board with their workflow changes. Often changes are forced upon the people who work at the lower end of the company. Their opinions carries less weight in the decision of making any changes to their workflow, and they lack clear-cut understanding of what initiated to make this change and how it going to help solve the problem.
I have to disagree with you all and I am going to pick customers will be the hardest one to convince.
I am not saying that all customers will be hard to convince but as question suggested, there are always some ‘difficult’ customers who make things much harder than it is without any justification.
Technicians are employees and it will be either comply or loose your job – yes I am an extremist – but we really cannot have same level of ‘control’ over customers.
I’m not a Netflix customer, but I remember the brouhaha in the news when it happened. I don’t see how they addressed the Rider, Elephant or Path at the time. The video does provide bullet points for the Rider, made a slap at addressing the Elephant and told the Path that it’s already done. The Elephant isn’t going to feel better because the problems of having to access two sites and at a higher cost is not going away. Even the addition of games to Qwikster comes at an additional cost.
You should watch the video. Using the the CEOs was a good idea, but they should have rehearsed more. I wonder if the folks making the film noticed the two trash cans in the background. One for each CEO – Yea, now I feel better.
In the Wawa case I think the Store Managers would be the most difficult to get on board. They were responsible for their store and the revenues it produced. Part of driving revenue is knowing your customers, especially locally, and the products they want. Wawa was taking power away from the Store Manager and the Store Manager would see it this way. The general conclusion I draw from this is you need to tell stakeholders what’s in it for them when you make a change such as this. You also need to show them how they will be measured in the new world if you want the change to be effective.
I also feel the the Wawa store managers would be the most difficult to get on board with the new processes, and for the same reasons. I think the store managers would feel threatened and in fear of losing their jobs or at least their responsibilities and therefore control over thier stores. In this case it is important that store managers have a clear understanding of their roles and responsibilities after this change is implemented. Letting them know what is expected of them and that they will be just as important, however in a different way, can help gain their buy-in and support of the new process.
I also believe that in the WaWa case, the store manager is the stakeholder that would be most difficult to get on board. This is because it is a transfer of power away from the manager to a new process. One of the key ways to manage the change is to make sure that the managers have a new clearly defined role and they are assured of their worth to the business even with the new process. Otherwise, WaWa may experienced the loss of managers to competitors or to other industries during the change process.
I agree as well. Store managers would be trading control over purchasing at the local store for… what? Properly communicating what the benefits would help ease the stress of not having a clear path. Staffing and working directly on customer satisfaction would be the new role for the manager. Being clear allows people to opt in or out of the new direction of Wawa, My general conclusion is that buy-in allows for a reality check at a personal level. It’s critical to determining if you are comfortable with the path you may be taking.
Rider- Explain to them why the changes were taking place- Netflix CEO Reed Hastings admits in his open letter to customers that they were negligent in explaining why they were breaking off the mail order DVD portion of their company. He recognized the anger and frustration that this error created. Some refer to his open letter as a “bad break up letter” as customers felt forced to choose between the on-line service and receiving a DVD’s in the mail.
Elephant-Create a message that would get them on board with the change- Hasting’s open letter and admitting of the problem was step one. He also created a video with the new CEO of quickstir Andy Rendich to help explain the changes.
Path- Explain the changes to their environment and processes- Again, Hasting’s open letter and video are tools to explain the changes to the new service they are essentially forcing their customers who want DVD’s or Games to subscribe to. Hasting’s also promised that other innovations would be coming but a timeline hadn’t been revealed to the public.
Since we chose pharmacy as our scenario, the hardest stakeholder to get on board was pharmacy technicians because either process they have in place, the pharmacy technician has the most work. The change of the process would only change the order in which they are done. If they change the verification process to before the customer leaves then they have possibly it of building up the line in the drop off section and/or having to deal with customers who just want to drop off their prescriptions without having conversations with the staff. If the verification stays as it is currently, then the technicians run into the problem of having to call the patient and leaving voicemails to get hold of the patient. Conclusions that can be drawn from this are the ability to take into consideration the diversity of opinions and work habits. If you are able to incorporate that into an effective system thinking methodology for bringing change it will help you steer your change initiative.
which of your stakeholders do you think would be the most difficult to get on board? Why? Can you draw any general conclusions from this about getting people to buy into change?
I also agree that pharmacy technicians would be the most difficult to get on board, most likely because they are affected most by the changes. Just as previously stated, the order of pharmacy prescription filling had changed. This created more time during the drop-off period for the customers to interact with the technicians, which then could cause more stress during that time, even though it alleviated the stress during the pick-up phase (were customers may be even more angry if their prescription could not be processed).
If the change proved to be less stressful than the previous method, I can see how people might easily buy into this change. If that wasn’t the case, maybe some sort of incentive program may be required (praise or monetary reward for accepting the change or processing a certain amount of prescription in a period of time).
Netflix CEO Reed Hastings had to apologize to customers for splitting the DVD and streaming video services. In doing so, he used the “Elephant” analogy to explain the need for change. Essentially, he was back pedaling based on the enormous and quick response from the consumers. Based on the statement he made, ‘I see that given the huge changes we have been recently making, I should have personally given a full justification to our members of why we are separating DVD and streaming, and charging for both,” he realized his poor judgment call to publically make the change before giving a warning and explanation. The consumers used the “Rider” analogy as they analyzed the announcement and decided they would cancel their Netflix accounts. Once Hastings realized the effect of the change, and took responsibility for the way it was introduced to the consumers, he followed the “Path” analogy to explain how the future would look for Netflix.
Netflix did not approach their business change with the customer in mind to adequately satisfy the Rider, Elephant or Path. Netflix did not educate customers properly to address the Rider needs for change management. The same is true for the Elephant. Customers were left feeling angry about the change and some (including myself) responded by cancelling their service. While the industry is moving towards streaming, Netflix needed to realize that not all customers consume their product that way today and that many prefer titles only currently available in DVD format. For those reasons they missed the Path perspective as well. Overall it comes down to “doing the right thing”. Netflix had the opportunity to make the change a resounding success by involving and educating their customers through the change management process.
In respect to the Wawa case study, I believe that getting each individual store owner’s buy-in would be the most difficult. It is on their shoulders to make sure their stores are stocked with fresh products and that they arrive on time. They have the most to lose if centralizing distribution does not go as planned. I would say that the hardest people to buy into change would be the people who have the most to lose.
Last week, my group did the assignment from the WAWA case study. I think the stakeholders that would be the hardest to get on board would be the store managers. When changing over to a more stream lined process, the manager themselves will face two very large problems. One, when customers first realize a lot of the variety of products were taken off the shelves, most of them will complain. Managers will have the burden of trying to make the customers understand that by taking off products, they are essentially helping the customer get in and out quicker. I honestly can’t imagine that process going over very smoothly. Also, store managers are going to lose a lot of individual power when transferring over to the new ordering process. When anyone tried to take power away from an individual, that is usually a very difficult process as well.
My group chose CVS Pharmacy and I think all stakeholders would easily get on board with the changes, but if I had to choose one stakeholder group, I would probably think the customers would be most hesitant only because they won’t be used to taking a longer time at drop off. This could cause lines to be longer during drop off and they would get upset at that, but in then end, everybody would benefit.
IN MY GROUP WE THOUGH EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY WITH THE CHANGES AS LONG WE EXPLAINED THEM THE BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. IT WAS EASY TO COME UP WITH A REASON FOR THE PHARCISTS. HOWEVER WE HAD A HARD TIME COMING UP WITH GOOD REASONS FOR THE PHARMACY TECHS. I GUESS AS PREVIOUS CLASSMATES MENTION, SINCE THE PROCESS IS CHANGING FOR THE PHARMACY TECHS, THEY WILL BE UPSET FOR A MOMENT BUT ONCE THEY ARE USED TO IT, IT BECOMES SECOND NATURE AGAIN. WHATEVER REASONS WE GIVE, SOME WILL BUYIN TO THAT AND SOME WILL NOT, BUT IF IT IS TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER SERVICE PARMACY TECHS WILL MOST LIKELY ACCEPT THE CHANGE.
An apology had to be made to the Netflix Consumers when Netflix decided they would split the DVD and streaming video service and in doing this did not properly inform their members the reason for doing this. In the apology that was made by the CEO Reed Hasting, he focused on the need for change and explained why the change occurred and apologies for the way the customers were notified. The rider analogies is used when realized the effect on customer, took the blame for it and clear things up. But then he used the Elephant analogy to help them realize that the change had to be made and that things are constantly changing. And the Path approach was used to tie in everything and give meaning to what happen and what is there to come for Netflix customers
Netflix did not seem to address any of the elements relating to the rider, the elephant, or the path metaphors of change management until after the company had already altered their business model. For the rider, the company did not provide any justification for the change that would explain to the customers ahead of time why it would be occurring. For the elephant, they did not appeal to the emotional side of their customers who may have had strong opinions or anxiety about change. Finally, for the path, they did not express up front how this change would take place and what it would look like for the customers.
Ultimately, all of these missteps stemmed from a general lack of communication between Netflix and their customers. Information about the change was not properly conveyed to the consumers (i.e. stakeholders) until after the fact, thus resulting in an uprising of sorts when the official announcement was made. Netflix’s negligence provides a perfect example of how NOT to manage change.
Netflix decision to split the DVD and streaming businesses was obviously poorly managed. He addressed the rider analogy by announcing the change. The major part that he missed was in the elephant analogy. He obviously did not explain well enough to their customers as to why this change was needed and that it would be good for them. And then subsequently in following up announcements, still did not appease the concerns of the elephants, which has caused netflix to lose over one million customers.
I think that Netflix tried to hand the Path and the Rider with the letter they sent out. They said it was for the best in the future (rider) and here’s what there decision was going to do for the future (path). They were both vaguely, informally phrased and there was no real attempt at addressing the elephant. As such, that made the other two seem like a brush off of the elephants and created an almost violent reaction. People don’t like to be told what to do, especially when they are paying for something. A key aspect in leadership is not telling people what to do, but giving them information and leading them to make up their own minds that this is the right direction to go in.
It also seems that if they had thought more about the elephant, they would have had more of a check and balance system in place to see all the cons of this plan.
I am a fervent user of Netflix, and they only reason I didn’t flip my lid, is because it was put out too casually to be the final word. They just needed some backlash.
Direct the Rider. What looks like resistance is usually a lack of clarity. If the Rider doesn’t know where to go, they spin the Elephant in circles. To direct the rider, create a crystal clear vision of the outcome. This includes when or how much, along with a specific set of actions and tactics to get there.
The rider was the email that was sent out to the customers regarding the transferring of the DVD services to a new company called Qwikster and that the prices for the services would go up. Customers then wondered how much the game service would cost them and how many movie titles would be available to them.
Motivate the Elephant. What looks like laziness is often exhaustion. Make your audience feel the need for change. Analytical appeals don’t cut it. Knowing is not enough. Get beyond the knowing and make it possible for people to feel the impact. Win the heart and the mind follows.
The elephant in this scenario would be that Qwikster would offer video game rentals along with the DVD rentals.
Shape the Path. What looks like a people problem is often a situation problem. Make it easy to embrace the change. Make instructions simple with step-by-step guidance. Provide support groups. Create training. Pair people up with mentors. Create peer pressure and social proof. Behavior is contagious.
Hastings wanted the Netflix customers to believe that the DVDs going to Qwikster would be a good thing because by moving the DVDs to Qwikster, this would expand the service and would include videogame rentals for all of the gaming consoles.
In the CVS case, the most difficult stakeholder to get on board would be the customers. Customers most especially don’t like a change to anything they are already used to. The new process would be viewed by most customers as an added task with no obvious benefit. People are mostly resistant to change when they don’t perceive any added value to it.
Netflix did the following steps incorrectly: made changes without informing their customers to receive their feedback. When questioned by their customers they tried to justify the need for change. (Elephant) This change resulted in a price increase to their customers, in which many did not accept the company’s apology, and as a result withdrew their account. (rider). The CEO realized his mistake, and than identified his need to explain to the customers the plan for the two services. (Path).
Using the rider, elephant, path analogy, first Netflix didn’t explain to customers why it was splitting off it’s dvd business. I think the announcement would have went over easier with customers if Netflix explained their position. Customers (the riders) feelings (the elephant) may have not been so negative, it may have even been positive. Netflix could have even given customers the option of streaming service or dvd (as it does now) which would have positively effected customers feelings. The announcement of the Qwikster and separate charges then fueled the negative emotions (the elephant) of its customers, who responded by cancelling their 800,00 to 1 million memberships which stuck a major roadblock to Netflix’s path to success (with its separate dvd business). Netflix quickly announced the cancellation of Qwister shortly after.
In the case of Netflix, poor branding was one of the things that brought confusion for the Rider since there are so many ways to misspell what you’re looking for, Qwikster, and the name seem to have nothing to do with the product. It was unclear if the DVD queue would port over to Qwikster intact or if the user interface would look the same which affected the Path. The lack of transparent communication for the underlying reasons of this change and a clear explanation of what is changing to what using means like an FAQ, or a method to respond to customers directly affected the Elephant.