lue is the only legitimate measure of corporate success’ (2000, p. 134), but propose that a combination of Theory E and Theory O is the most effective option (The Open University 2018). As shown in Figure 2, the till replacement OCM model now involves focusing on Economic and human aspects which was missing in the Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) model. The till replacement change, via this model, now looks at the goal from top level and enables one to weigh the Economic benefit i.e. shareholder return Vs Operational capability pursuit. This shows the range of results for the decision makers and the directors to decide and find the “right” balance to deliver the result for which the whole change has been started from the onset. The same also applies to leadership category where a store manager would be expected to lead and deliver it single handedly the project but there are only a finite number of hours a store manager can work through so there is a clear need for identifying key colleagues in team and empowering them be part of the change at each store level. Sturdy and Grey (2003), in their article, also critique this model. I agree with the authors’ view that this model does try to move away from the pro-change bias to a certain extent as it shows the range and extent for organisation to gauge Shareholder Vs Stakeholder concerns. However, in adopting this model it promotes managerialism and the power and politics both shifts towards the decision makers. To avoid or atleast demonstrate the how much biased the combined E/O Theory is probably a modification to the model with addition of a 4th column with option to highlight which side the combined E/O Theory is more biased as highlighted in Figure 3. If the information is presented in such a format then it will ensure that in case of biased combined approach, the result is clearly visible. Dimension of Change Theory E (Hard) Theory O (Soft) Combined E & O Final Action more E or O (suggested modification) Goals Maximise Shareholder Value Develop organisational capabilities Embrace the paradox of the two E Leadership Manage Change from top to down Encourage participation from all colleagues Initiate from top and engage O Focus Emphasise system and service routine Improve employees’ behavior/attitude Focus simultaneously on both E Process Establish clear timelines and checkpoints Trial and Error – see what works best Pan for spontaneity E Reward System Motivate through financial incentive Motivate through commitment Incentive to reinforce Vs Drive E/O Use of Consultants Consultants analyse data regularly/solutions Consultant support management with reactive problems Use as empowering experts E Figure 3: Modification suggestion to Beer & Nohria’s Theory E and Theory (2000) Being part of a PLC organisation, I feel that the shareholder return needs to be factored in whilst pursuing an organisational change as it remains a key in this fast and volatile market with the uncertainty around Brexit leading to failure of even multiple giant high store brands such as Toys R Us, HMV, BHS etc. Hence, understanding the range and risks involved is key before making a balanced decision to act upon. Summary and Reflection Organisational change management, being so frequent in the present highly competitive and continuously evolving business environment, has become so critical to get right that it can shape the future any organisation and hence it’s success is key even though as per Sturdy and Grey (2003) nearly 66% of the changes fail to deliver the desired outcome. The essay has talked about my view on the Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) model utilising the critique by Sturdy and Grey (2003). Mapping this with my organisational change example it further emphasised the need to critically evaluate the OCM models as the Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) model didn’t cover all required aspects for OCM and had weaknesses within which prompted to approach and utilise another model that of Beer and Nohria (2000). However, once again even though the latter addresses weaknesses of the first model it still doesn’t provide the solution in it’s entirety and there is still a need for further review and tweaks to ensure right approach and action is taken rather than fixing the organisation change reactively. Having gone through the history of management theories and Organisational change, it is fascinating to see the amount of work that has been put into this key style. Yet, there are no “perfect” models or even “chosen few” methods which can be cascaded and followed through. This re-emphasises the need for diversity in management approach as organisations and individuals vary and the industry has evolved from not just a manufacturing one but also service including virtual organisations (Franks, 1998). Having also reviewed the recent change within the organisation that I’ve discussed in this essay using multiple OCM models has been revolutionary in itself too as it has enabled me to think wider and look at the change not just as another task or another routine change but one that delivers sustain>