Reference no: EM132205310

This question does not address your Team Course Project. This change scenario is envisioned, instead, for this question. First, the scenario, and then the question. Scenario: You have been asked to lead a project changing the company from the use of a performance management system/appraisal method where supervisors get to decide the ratings and rankings of their particular direct reports and each person’s subsequent raise amount to a new method where forced ranking is implemented. This means that department heads get copies of all of the ratings of their entire department members from the supervisors, they rank each employee to other employees in the department, and then each employee is ranked throughout the company overall. The person who ultimately determines the final rating/ranking and raise for each employee is typically two to three levels above. The head of HR feels this will cut down on the amount of lawsuits over unfair ratings as well because it will assist them in ensuring parity of raises across the system. In the past, raises were all over the board—supervisors got a pot of money and divided it as they saw fit. Now, they will be 1–4%, based on the final rankings done by the top management. Supervisors will have little to no input into their team’s raises going forward. The question: This term, we studied organizational development theory versus the more systematic nStep method of conducting a change process. What would be the pros/cons of using OD theory for this change project? What would be the pros/cons of using nStep? Which nStep method would you choose if you used one? Of the two methods (OD or nStep), which would you recommend we use for this particular change program? Why?