According to the chapter, why does a centralized management approach fail when juggling many change projects?
Explanation
This question delves deeper into the 'why' behind the failure of traditional management in complex change. It requires understanding the specific mechanism of failure—bottlenecks and coordination chaos—as explained by Kotter.
Other questions
According to Chapter 9, what was the implicit message the CEO sent at the annual management meeting by praising accomplishments and having a celebratory banquet?
What does Kotter identify as the 'cardinal rule' after watching dozens of major change efforts in the past decade?
In the context of Chapter 9, what is the 'problem of interdependence'?
What analogy does Kotter use to illustrate the difficulty of creating change in a highly interdependent system?
In a major transformation, when does the first major performance improvement typically occur?
How should executives handle the management of numerous (e.g., twenty) change projects simultaneously in a successful transformation?
What is a key benefit of questioning and eliminating unnecessary interdependencies during a major transformation?
How do resisters often interpret a premature celebration of success during a change effort?
According to the chapter, why can progress slip so quickly after a premature declaration of victory?
What is the key difference in managing change in a 'benign oligopolistic world' versus today's environment, according to Chapter 9?
In the successful approach to running twenty projects simultaneously, what is the primary role of senior executives?
What does the chapter suggest as the initial step when faced with the task of changing a highly interdependent office space?
What is the consequence of having insufficient leadership from above when multiple change projects are running?
During which stage of a major transformation do questions about the need for existing interdependencies typically arise?
What is the danger of managers thinking in short time frames (e.g., this week, a few months) during a deep transformation?
In the opening anecdote, how many speakers at the awards banquet identified recent achievements and saluted the audience?
What happened to a dozen change initiatives during the year following the celebratory annual meeting described in Chapter 9?
The chapter states that 'three years of work can come undone with remarkable speed.' What makes the new, changed practices so fragile?
In the analogy of the interdependent office, moving the chair a few inches causes what to happen?
What is the primary reason that running many change projects simultaneously is possible with good senior leadership?
What historical artifact does the chapter cite as a source of unnecessary interdependence that can be cleaned up?
According to the chapter, which two factors allow progress to slip quickly after a premature celebration?
What is the danger of having zealous but all-change zealots leading a transformation?
In the interconnected office analogy, what does straining harder to move the chair represent in an organizational context?
What does the chapter say is often the real reason people want to quit a transformation effort well before it's over?
What is the author's answer to the question, 'How can executives manage twenty change projects all at once?'
In a failing transformation with multiple projects, what do project leaders end up spending endless hours doing?
What is the typical result of the old, centralized management approach when applied to twenty complex change projects today?
Why might an exhausted organization dislike the 'purging of unnecessary interconnections'?
At the opening banquet, how many toasts did the CEO give to the 110 executives?
What is the consequence of letting up before the job is done, according to the 'human capacity to rationalize'?
What protected manufacturing from actions in the sales department in the less interdependent organizations of the past?
In the highly interconnected office analogy, after moving the chair, what does the person trying to make the change do next?
What is the risk of using the credibility from short-term wins to push for more change?
The chapter suggests that if you find yourself having to move dozens or hundreds of elements to make a change, what is a likely consequence?
What is the key difference between the two situations imagined on page 148, one with incompetent leadership and one with competent leadership?
What is the reason that firms trying to juggle many change projects using old methods 'always seem to fail'?
In the final paragraph, the author states that without sufficient leadership, what becomes problematic?
What is the typical reaction of 'all but change zealots' when faced with having to roll a huge boulder back up a hill after regression?
Why do firms struggle to move from a system of independent parts to one of high interdependence?
What is the result when you ask 'Mary to do something in a new way' in a highly interconnected organization?
To make progress on the interdependent office project, what is one of the first things you will discover you need to do?
In a successful, large transformation, how are the twenty change projects coordinated?
What is an example of an 'unnecessary interdependence' questioned on page 149?
The feeling that a change project is 'trivial' compared to the effort required can occur in which situation?
How do shrewd and cynical resisters sometimes use celebrations of short-term wins?
In the successful scenario with twenty simultaneous projects, why are lower-level managers committed to the overall transformation?
What is the net effect of a successful office rearrangement project as described in the chapter?
What is the ultimate risk of a manager's tendency to think in short time frames, such as believing a change is done after twenty-four months?