Organizational Diagnosis Position Paper

Person A -Opener. Provides detailed, metrics based discussion of elements of the matter to date. Clearly depicts what has been done so far, and what is yet to occur. Person B- Provides theoretical support for actions Person C- A thorough organizational scan is conducted to systematically evaluate organizational factors influencing the need for change. Person D- Compelling evidence is provided, with research support, on the need for change. Person E- Generates a strong action plan that is clearly informed by relevant analysis and use of appropriate methods, tools, and techniques. Person F- Each possible alternative is critically assessed and recommendations for implementation have a strong and persuasive rationale with connection to project management. Conclusion. Outline PART E Integrated Structural and Cultural Realignment Action Plan I. Purpose and Rationale The organizational diagnosis identified misalignment between structure, systems, leadership behaviors, and employee morale Research supports structured, evidence-based change rather than reactive decisions (Burns, 2017). Therefore, the recommended action is a coordinated realignment initiative addressing both operational systems and organizational culture. This approach reflects principles from the Congruence Model, Lewins Force Field Analysis, and Kotters framework already discussed in the paper II. Phase 1: Structural and Systems Alignment Reassess reporting relationships, workflow processes, and performance metrics to ensure alignment with strategy (Burns, 2017). Clearly redefine roles and accountability to reduce ambiguity and resistance. Conduct stakeholder impact analysis to identify affected groups. Implement changes in phased stages to minimize disruption. Establish measurable KPIs such as productivity levels, turnover rates, and engagement scores to track progress. III. Phase 2: Leadership Communication and Behavioral Reinforcement Communicate diagnostic findings transparently to create urgency and shared understanding (Kotter, 2012). Form a guiding coalition of formal and informal leaders to support implementation. Train managers to model desired behaviors and reinforce new expectations through performance evaluations. Identify and communicate short-term wins to sustain momentum (Kotter, 2012). Integrate communication milestones into the project schedule. IV. Phase 3: Institutionalization and Continuous Monitoring Update job descriptions, evaluation systems, and incentive structures to reflect the new direction (Kotter, 2012). Conduct a post-implementation review comparing results to baseline metrics identified in the diagnosis. Use lessons learned to support continuous improvement (Burns, 2017). V. Project Management Integration Define scope, timeline, stakeholder roles, and success metrics at the outset. Incorporate risk assessment and mitigation strategies during phased rollout. Align change milestones with measurable performance outcomes. References Burns, B. (2017). Managing change (7th ed.). Pearson. Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press. Do Part E only