Case study 5.1: Failure to convince others of the need for change at AT&T
Case debrief
In the AT&T case, what could senior managers have done to
persuade engineers, managers and assemblers to support the
required change?
1. Senior managers could have undertaken a diagnosis to
understand why the engineers, managers and assemblers are
unwilling to support the proposed change and identify what
could be done to secure their commitment.
They could have used Lewin’s force-field theory (discussed in
Chapter 2 on pages 20-1 and Chapter 8 in change tool 8.2 on
pages 153-55) to analyse the situation and to identify the driving
and restraining forces.
Driving forces for change (examples):
 Deregulation that permitted new competition from low cost phones that were flooding the
market.
 Senior managers’ push to regain market share by switching from manufacturing high cost,
highly reliable phones to low cost, lower quality phones.
Restraining forces (examples):
 Failure of engineers, managers and assemblers to recognize the full impact of deregulation
on market share and the profitability of their part of the business.
 Ideological commitment to continuing the production of high quality phones.
 Fears that the proposed low cost strategy will require the engineers, managers and
assemblers to adopt new work practices.
 Fears that the proposed low cost strategy could adversely affect their pay or require them to
work harder for the same money.
2. Use force-field analysis to identify what could be done to secure their commitment.
Reduce the strength of some of the restraining forces
 Provide more information about the effect of deregulation to help the effected engineers,
managers and assemblers understand the impact of the change. This could take the form of
a ‘burning platform’ intervention similar to that adopted by Stephen Elop at Nokia (see
Example 1.3 on page 10).
 Help representative engineers, managers and assemblers to undertake their own diagnostic
study of the impact of deregulation. There is evidence (see page 328) that when groups are
presented with ‘facts’ by outsiders (e.g. by senior managers), the facts may not be accepted
by the group, even if they ‘prove’ the case for change. Group members often reject the facts
because they do not own them. However, when groups collect and test their own facts, they
are more likely to accept the evidence.
 Highlight the consequences of not changing and the benefits of adopting the proposed new
strategy.
© John Hayes 2018
GETTY

Invite the effected staff to be involved in planning the new manufacturing process. When
change is imposed, those affected are likely to experience a lack of control and feel ‘victim’
to change. The more people are involved, the more likely they are to feel that the change is
something they are helping to create. In addition to increasing motivation, participation and
involvement can also produce better decisions because of the wider input and can help to
sustain the change once implemented because of a greater sense of ownership (see
Research Report 14.1 on pages 252-3 which reports the classic study by Coch and French
that demonstrated that workers are much more accepting of a change in work practices
when they are involved in the planning of the change).
© John Hayes 2018