Management Help


Need help within the next 24hrs.

Rethinking and reinventing
Michael Porters five forces model
Tony Grundy
Cranfield School of Management, UK

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Management Help
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Michael Porters five competitive forces model has been a most influential model within
business schools but has perhaps had less appeal to the practising manager outside of
an MBA and certain short business school courses. In this article it is argued that whilst
there are a number of reasons why the model has not achieved greater currency, most
importantly it can be developed a lot further.

The paper looks at a number of important opportunities for using Porters model in an
even more practical way, including: mapping the competitive forces, which can vary sig-
nificantly over market and competitive terrain and within the same industry; under-
standing its dynamics; prioritizing the forces; doing macro analysis of the sub-drivers of
each of the five forces; exploring key interdependencies, both between and within each

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ested in taking his concepts to an even more
macro level, particularly to the competitive
advantage of countries, rather than to micro
economics. Porters model, whilst it has done
extremely well in occupying textbook space,
does not seem to have captured the imagina-
tion of other theorists. In contrast with the
resource-based theory of competitive advan-
tage, which has spawned a considerable liter-
ature, it seems to have become, as it were,
frozen in time.

The five competitive forces
model propelled strategic

management to the
very heart of the

management agenda

Strat. Change 15: 213229 (2006)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
( DOI: 10.1002/jsc.764 Strategic Change

* Correspondence to: Tony Grundy, Cranfield School of
Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedford
E-mail: [emailprotected]


When Michael Porter conceived the five com-
petitive forces model, it propelled strategic
management to the very heart of the manage-
ment agenda.The framework became a centre-
piece of texts on business strategy and
strategic management, and essential examina-
tion material on MBA and similar courses glob-
ally. But what has become of his original five
competitive forces? It would appear to be the
case that not a great deal has occurred to
develop this thinking since the early 1980s
(except, perhaps, for Hamel and Prahalad,
1994). Porter appears to have been more inter-

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Strategic Change, August 2006

214 Tony Grundy

Today, and well over 20 years since Porters
original, major publication, there is still rela-
tively little real awareness amongst main-
stream managers, both at senior and middle
levels of Porters original concept. If one were
to take a sample based on attendees at strate-
gic management courses at a particular busi-
ness school, for example, it could be estimated
that between 15% and 20% were familiar with
these early Porter concepts and perhaps only
5% had actively used this at an explicit, ana-
lytical level. Interestingly, if this is compared
with the awareness level of basic SWOT analy-
sis, a crude estimate is of 9095% awareness
and at least 50% active use. Whilst Porter was
propelled to fame on the back of this and
other intellectual advances, it seems an odd, if
not disappointing, phenomenon that this orig-
inal breakthrough has had somewhat little cur-
rency amongst practising managers. Why is
this the case? Some possible reasons for this
are that:

Porters framework is relatively abstract and
highly analytical.

Whilst Porters original framework
explained the criteria for assessing each of
the five competitive forces, he did so in the
language of micro-economic theory, rather
than in terms of its practicalities.

His model was highly prescriptive and
somewhat rigid, leaving managers, and
indeed teachers in business schools, gener-
ally inhibited from being playful, flexible
and innovative in how they applied this
powerful framework.

Whilst the framework does help to simplify
micro economics, its visual structure is rel-
atively difficult to assimilate and its logic is
somewhat implicit. Managers tend to like
analytical concepts spelt out in very simple
terms, otherwise they find it difficult to
adapt to their default, fluid strategic man-
agement style [sometimes characterized as
logical incrementalism (Quinn, 1980) or as
emergent strategy (Mintzberg, 1994)].

In this paper, it is argued that Porters five com-
petitive forces model is a vitally important

concept and one that certainly merits the
attention of all practising senior managers. It
is also argued that to operationalize it more
effectively requires significant further devel-
opment. This is demonstrated with a practical
example taken from the health club market,
which has grown significantly in many coun-
tries over the past 10 years, but has been
heavily impacted by shifts in competitive pres-
sure. However, it is first necessary to examine
how Porters model could be developed
further by studying the existing literature to
see to what extent it has been developed, if at

The literature has it moved on?

Academics do not seem to have been minded
to explore and expand Porters framework,
with very few attempts to develop Porters
model having been made. Whilst there are ref-
erences to Porters model in many research
papers, the principal contribution of this
paper is to expand Porters model into a far
richer system of analysis, which managers can
then operationalize and subsequent changes
in their practices can then be studied in future

A critique of the model:
value and limitations

Porters five competitive forces are depicted in
Figure 1. Porters starting point was that he
wanted to account for long-term variances in
the economic returns of one industry versus
another. His genius resided in distilling the
complex micro-economic literature into five
explanatory or causal variables to explain
superior and inferior performance, through:

1. The bargaining power of the buyers.
2. Entry barriers.
3. Rivalry.
4. Substitutes.
5. The bargaining power of the suppliers.

The value of Porters model was thus that it
appeared to offer the following attributes:

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, August 2006
DOI: 10.1002/jsc

It simplified micro-economic theory into
just five major influences.

It effectively and before its time applied
systems thinking.

It showed how competitive rivalry the
central box of the model is very much a
function of the other four forces.

It helped to predict the long-run rate of
returns in a particular industry.

It went beyond a more simplistic focus on
relative market growth rates in determining
industry attractiveness.

It helped combine inputoutput analysis of
a specific industry with industry boundaries
via entry barriers and substitutes.

It emphasized the importance of searching
for imperfect markets, which offer more
national opportunities for superior returns.

It emphasized the importance of negotiat-
ing power and bargaining arrangements in
determining relative market attractiveness.

It focused managers on the external envi-
ronment for more than traditional SWOT

There are, however, several limitations to
Porters framework, such as:

It tends to over-stress macro analysis, i.e.
at the industry level, as opposed to the
analysis of more specific product-market
segments at a micro level.

It oversimplifies industry value chains: for
example, invariably buyers may need to be
both segmented and also differentiated
between channels, intermediate buyers and
end consumers.

It fails to link directly to possible manage-
ment action: for example, where companies
have apparently low influence over any of
the five forces, how can they set about
dealing with them?

It tends to encourage the mind-set of an
industry as a specific entity with ongoing
boundaries. This is perhaps less appropriate
now where industry boundaries appear to
be far more fluid.

It appears to be self-contained, thus not
being specifically related, for example, to
PEST factors, or the dynamics of growth in
a particular market.

It is couched in economic terminology, which
may be perceived to be too much jargon from
a practising managers perspective and indeed,
it could be argued that it is over-branded.

Porters model was thus a valuable and work-
able concept but one that had some significant
practical drawbacks, unless of course the
model was developed further. This paper now
argues that Porters concept merely scratches
the surface of its full potential.

Perhaps the very success of Porters origi-
nal model led to it not being adequately

Porters five forces model 215

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, August 2006
DOI: 10.1002/jsc


Suppliers Buyers


Threat of substitute
products or service

Threat of
new entrant

Bargaining power

of suppliers

Bargaining power

of buyers

Source: Competitive Strategy, Porter

Rivalry among
existing firms


Figure 1. These forces determine industry profitability.

216 Tony Grundy

challenged or developed further, and indeed it
could be claimed that this process is now well
overdue. The five competitive forces are inter-
dependent with other strategic analysis tools,
which deal with the external environment and
with each other, and this can be developed
into a more comprehensive and coherent
system. Suggestions for further analysis

1. The model can be prioritized within a force
field analysis format.

2. The individual forces can be broken down
at a micro level.

3. The framework can be transformed into a
more dynamic model, both at the industry
level and at a more micro, transactional

4. The five forces analysis needs to be applied,
segment by segment, across the business.

The following subsections seek to develop
Porters model, both to improve its analytical
power and to increase its range of applica-
tions. This is illustrated in the context of a fast-
changing market the health club industry.

Interdependencies of the model

The influences on the five competitive forces
are examined first. Conventional strategy lit-
erature highlights the need to think about
factors outside the industry. Indeed, PEST (or
political, economic, social and technological
factors) is possibly the second most widely-

known strategy technique after SWOT analy-
sis. However, there is a profound gap between
PEST and SWOT analysis, and this is only partly
met by Porters five forces. A linking technique
is that of Grundys growth drivers (Grundy,

Figure 2 gives an example of growth driver
analysis, helping us to represent the forces
that, directly or indirectly, cause or inhibit
market growth over a particular time period.
Space precludes an in-depth development of
this model here, but this will be used in con-
junction with the five competitive forces later
in the paper in the analysis of the health club
industry. However, an important feature to
note here is that it is part of a system (see
Figure 3 below).

Figure 3 captures, in an onion model
format, the key domains that need to be
thought through, within the overall competi-
tive climate, beginning with:

PEST factors
growth drivers
Porters five competitive forces
competitive position.

These layers of the onion are highly interde-
pendent, which might be a very useful phe-
nomenon for managers to learn about and to
apply. For example, where the PEST factors
are generally hospitable, growth is encouraged
and the full impact of the five competitive
forces may not be felt and may thus be latent.
However, where the PEST factors become

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, August 2006
DOI: 10.1002/jsc

takes off

bubble bursts


about the



brakesDot com


Figure 2. Growth drivers: market for shares, 2000.

inhospitable, this will clearly dampen the
growth drivers, and if the growth drivers
within a particular market are themselves
tightening, for example due to life-cycle
effects, then this will put a disproportionate
and adverse pressure on Porters five forces,
particularly in the bargaining power of buyers,
and also upon rivalry. Furthermore, a high-
growth environment may encourage entrants
and a low one will discourage these.The result
can lead to a collapse in confidence and in
prices unless there are lots of exits, for
example, in the health club market in the UK
in 20023, as will be seen later.

Indeed, it may be helpful not to call it
Porters five forces model, particularly when
introducing it to a team or wider organization.
An alternative is to call it competitive pres-
sures, which is less jargon-laden but includes
the five forces more as a checklist. This rela-
belling of the model has many attractions,
especially as it may seem strange and foreign
to everyday management discourse. This may
mean that early adopters will feel self-con-
scious using it with their colleagues. As prob-
ably most intellectual contact with the
technique is typically via a management text,
an MBA or on a public strategy programme
rather than on an in-company event, individ-

ual managers may feel reluctant to use it with
their more novice peers. Besides these exter-
nal interdependencies, Porters five competi-
tive forces are themselves highly
interdependent with each other again
something only implicit in Porters and other
texts. Figure 4 now plots their main interde-

Porters five competitive forces are therefore
both highly interdependent with the other
subsystems in the external environment,
rather than being relatively stand-alone. This
figure plots the interdependencies internal to
the five competitive forces:

Porters five competitive
forces are highly

Between bargaining power of buyers and
entry barriers: buyers may actively en-
courage new entrants, thus reducing entry

Between bargaining power of buyers and
substitutes: buyers may actively search for

Porters five forces model 217

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, August 2006
DOI: 10.1002/jsc












Company &

– Some Generic Systems

Figure 3. The competitive climate.

218 Tony Grundy

substitutes, thereby encouraging them in a
similar fashion.

Between entry barriers and bargaining
power of suppliers: new entrants may seek
to enter the market by backward integra-
tion, either by acquiring suppliers or via

Between substitutes and bargaining power
of suppliers: suppliers may seek to leap-
frog over existing industry competitors by
marketing and selling substitutes.

The refined model in Figure 4 thus illustrates
the extent to which each of Porters five forces
needs to be understood as a wider, interacting
system as in systems thinking rather than as a
self-contained unit. Whilst Porters original
concept explains some of these system inter-
dependencies, these are underdeveloped and
implicit. Indeed, the conventional input
output industry boundaries model, which
appears to have been the starting point for the
five forces, can be put to one side. Indeed,
some new and quite interesting opportunities
can be developed.

The five forces do need to be prioritized.
Porters teaching methodology (as per his
Harvard Business School video cases) involves
ticking each force for whether it is favourable,
neutral or unfavourable. The scores are:


Unfortunately, because of the original compo-
sition of the model, it is defined as being
mainly about negative strategic characteristics
like buyer power, supplier power, rivalry and
substitutes it is quite difficult to apply the
above scoring method. For instance, where
buyer power is high, the models user is
encouraged to think this is a bad thing,
therefore the score is one tick, or plainly
unfavourable. In many instances, especially on
initial learning, the models scores can come
out incorrectly. Porters model, as it is cur-
rently framed, thus presents an immediate
barrier to its assimilation. Furthermore, the
above scoring does not take into account the
relative importance and weighting of each
score. Whilst two-dimensional grids can do
this trade-off, the approach is still a little cum-
bersome. An alternative approach is to borrow
from the vector format, originally applied in
force field analysis, for enablers and con-
straints of organizational change. Not only
does this model easily separate out whether a
force is favourable or unfavourable, but the
length of the arrows can also be used to
illustrate its incidence or severity and its

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, August 2006
DOI: 10.1002/jsc











Figure 4. Porters five competitive forces: key internal interdependencies.

importance. Also, where a force can be split
into sub-forces (discussed in the next subsec-
tion) it can depict these sub-forces easily.

Figure 5 gives an example of this format
within the funeral industry. Here the funeral
business is depicted as being relatively attrac-
tive, particularly through the low bargaining
power of buyers and less threat of substitutes.
Immediately, using this visual picture, one can
challenge the judgements supporting these
outputs. Most importantly, its overall visual
balance gives immediate interpretation of the
industrys overall attractiveness more effec-
tively than by simply adding together the ticks
as in Porters approach. Figure 5 thus enables
the user to choose which of the five forces is
most important, both in isolation and also in
terms of its effects on the system. The forces
here are depicted as vector lines, whose

length depends on perceived importance and

How each force relates to the others can now
be examined, as explored in Figure 6.The first
permutation looks at the bargaining power of
the buyers in the centre of the framework.

In Figure 6 the bargaining power of the
buyers at the centre is increased by competi-
tive rivalry, the availability of substitutes, low
entry barriers and low supplier power. The
bargaining power of the buyers is thus not a
separate element to consider when using the
five forces, but needs thinking through in rela-
tion to the others.

In Figure 7, the threat of substitutes (at the
centre) is now increased by buyers keen
to shop around and by low rivalry amongst
existing competitors. Entrants may choose to
enter via offering substitutes and once again

Porters five forces model 219

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, August 2006
DOI: 10.1002/jsc



Very Low
Power Psychological

entry barriers





Low real
entry barriers

Figure 5. Funerals case: sample outputs (3); five competitive forces.






Figure 6. Porters five competitive forces: bargaining






Figure 7. Porters five competitive forces: substitutes.

220 Tony Grundy

suppliers might seek to leap-frog existing
competitors via the route of substitutes.

In Figure 8, with entry barriers at the
centre, buyers may reduce entry barriers or
encourage substitutes by their search for
better value. Rivalry will of course discourage
entrants and supplier power may do the same.
Besides being novel in structure (the five
forces model is always presented in the stan-
dard Porter format), Figures 68 give managers
far greater flexibility in their use of the model
and hopefully more insights. In short, there
are many interdependencies both external and
internal to Porters five competitive forces, and
these are unlikely to be taught at the present
time to practising managers, let alone used by
them. This means that they are likely to strug-
gle to get deep insights about the structure
and dynamics of their external environment
purely by using the conventional model and its
associated analysis.

The next subsection attempts to examine
the forces within forces. This is more helpful
and easier to remember for managers than the
relatively ad-hoc qualitative considerations in
the conventional texts.

The micro competitive forces

Whilst Porter does give some narrative help for
assessing the five forces, this is not presented
in the very powerfully distilled and visual
format of his original model. For example, for
competitive rivalry, Porter asks us to think

about things like the relative concentration of
rivals, such as how many are in the market-
place and with what mass, together with the
number of different strategic groups of similar
competitors. By extracting from Porters text
and by observation of the main considerations
which managers actually make, a pilot frame-
work can be developed to move the five forces
down to another level. Additionally, Porter
merely lists these considerations and managers
appear often inclined to consider them as addi-
tive. However, the next set of figures show
how the effects may be additional amplified
by each set of micro forces. Each one of the
five forces may therefore have some sub-ingre-
dients, which are worthwhile exploring. The
following models are potentially viable frame-
works put forward for further experimentation
and research to test their resilience and to
learn from their application more generally. A
particularly interesting application would be
to use these to explore how the five forces
work at a micro level even for individual busi-
ness transactions. Figures 913 can be used
either literally to think through each force visu-
ally, or as a convenient way of thinking of their
underlying drivers.

Taking the bargaining power of buyers
(Figure 9) first, this appears to be a function of:

Importance in terms of value added.
Urgency in terms of lead times to con-

Discretion and emotion.

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, August 2006
DOI: 10.1002/jsc






Figure 8. Porters five competitive forces: entry





Figure 9. Buyer power: micro forces.

The choice of these criteria is quite interest-
ing. Importance and urgency we derive from
prioritization. Urgency can be measured
according to the lead times required to satisfy
the need. Discretion is defined as being the
extent to which customers have to fulfil a
need or not. For example, in most European
countries a funeral is perceived to be essential
and non-discretionary. Finally, emotion is a
very often neglected force in management,
albeit one that is of relatively obvious signifi-
cance to customers. Taking an everyday prac-
tical example of this: in the case of a
toothache, which comes on very suddenly, an
individual might be advised by a dentist who
reports that he believes the root is nearly dead
and advises root canal treatment. This treat-
ment is both urgent and important, and is also
not discretionary. It is also highly emotional.
Should you shop around for the cheapest price
for a treatment? Probably not, indeed as a cus-
tomer you would be very price-indifferent and
may choose to pay some 300 for it to be
fixed, even if this involved borrowing the

These micro forces are interdependent. For
example, to some extent discretion may go
down if the purchase is highly emotional.Also,
importance may tend to reduce the degree of
discretion. Turning now to theory and to the
next set of micro forces or entry barriers,
Figure 10 can be examined.

These entry barriers can be usefully broken
down into the following ingredients:

Physical: is it possible to get access to cus-
tomers or to resources?

Information: to what extent is it possible to
acquire knowledge not only about the
what of the industry, but also about its
how? (The latter being bound up in tacit

Economic: what will it actually cost to enter
the market?

Psychological: is this a market where it is
comfortable to be?

To illustrate the final point, the funeral busi-
ness appears, using Porters five forces, to be
a highly attractive market. However, for the
vast majority it would not seem to be a psy-
chologically attractive industry to enter.

In Figure 11 competitive rivalry is also a
function of the following:

Commitment to the market.
The number of players.
Their strategy and disposition.
Their similarity to or difference from one


The number of competitors refers here to the
sheer quantity of players in the market. The
more similar they are, the more likely that
competition will be head-on. Also, the more
deeply committed they are, the more severe
the rivalry will be. Finally, their mind-set will
influence the manner of their competition
with one another. Clearly, these micro forces

Porters five forces model 221

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, August 2006
DOI: 10.1002/jsc





Figure 10. Entry barriers: micro forces.



Porters Micro Forces -Rivalry



Figure 11. Porters micro forces: rivalry.

222 Tony Grundy

are also interdependent as, for example, the
existence of a small or large number of rivals
might shape their mind-set. Also, their com-
mitment and more general mind-set are also
clearly interlinked.

Turning next to the force of substitutes,
Figure 12 displays its more micro-level forces.
The figure reveals the following:

Do it yourself in-sourcing the activity, for
example by making an expensive, sourced-
out consultancy service an internal one.

Other technologies looking at other ways
of achieving the same value, for example e-
learning has substituted many technical
training areas.

Emotional the extent to which the pur-
chase is emotional or not.

Bundling or unbundling the customers
ability to do something either as part of
something else, or to take a packaged offer-
ing and to capture value it by breaking up
the value-added activity into its smaller

Again, the micro forces may be interdepen-
dent and other technologies may facilitate
bundling and unbundling.

The final analysis is Figure 13, which exam-
ines supplier power. These four micro forces
can be summarized as follows:

Unique knowledge if the supplier(s) has
some unique capability this will obviously
enhance their power.

Size and number where there are a very
small number of very large suppliers this
will obviously increase their power.

Resource scarcity where resources are
scarce and preferably permanently, this
again will help promote supplier power.

Forward integration the suppliers
capacity to integrate forward in the industry
chain will improve their competitive power.

Clearly, aspects of this force and of the others
too suggest linkages and overlaps with the
resource-based theory of competitive advan-
tage. Again, these micro forces are interde-
pendent. For instance, where there are few
suppliers and high resource scarcity, this will
multiply supplier power.Also, where suppliers
have unique knowledge, this might facilitate
towards integration, perhaps through strategic
alliances. Whilst there may be other ways of
grouping the various sub-forces within the
framework, these models do seem to be both
plausible and practical, and go beyond the
fragmentary and narrative approaches found
in the literature. Also, it has been demon-
strated here that each one contains some rich
and insightful interdependencies. One princi-
pal benefit is that they encourage managers to
think in more depth about each force rather
than at a superficial level. Secondly, they will
help managers to understand how these sub-
forces interact with each other.

For example, just as the interdependencies
were drawn for Figure 4, the original five
forces, the same could be done for these

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, August 2006
DOI: 10.1002/jsc






Figure 12. Porters micro forces: substitutes.






Figure 13. Porters micro forces: supplier power.

figures. For instance in Figure 9, the impor-
tance of a purchase is linked with its emo-
tional content, discretion is partly linked to
urgency, and urgency needs to be traded off
with importance.

Competitive dynamics

Porters five competitive forces is traditionally
a very static model, which diminishes its use-
fulness, but it can be given a more dynamic
perspective and quite easily. Competitive
dynamics can be explored at a macro and a
micro level.At a macro level, these can be seen
impacting dynamically over the industry cycle,
for example for the bargaining power of the
buyers and entry barriers (Figure 14). As an
industry reaches maturity, entry barriers often
increase (favourable) but the bargaining
power of the buyers also increases
(unfavourable). Each one of the five competi-
tive forces can be plotted individually in a
similar way.

The benefit of the model in Figure 14 is that
it encourages managers to think about how
industry structure is likely or liable to change
in the future. It also helps them to reflect on
why the industry has changed in recent times.
Besides modelling competitive pressure over
time, this can also be overlaid by, for example,
growth drivers over time (high versus low).
The competitive forces may also vary over
time at the level of an individual business
transaction (at a micro level). For instance,

where a large management consultancy gets
involved with a blue-chip client, during the
tendering stage the customers bargaining
power might be high. However, once the con-
sultants start to do work it often becomes
increasingly difficult for the client to control
variations and the total cost of further stages
of work. Another typical example is that of
going into a restaurant where bargaining
power of the buyer diminishes in stages: (a)
when they go into the restaurant, (b) when
they sit down, (c) when they order and (d)
when they have courses 1, 2 and 3. Of course
it is possible to walk out or pay for the meal
so far, but this is psychologically difficult,
especially where the buyer is a group of

The relevance of Figure 15 is that it allows
managers to use the five forces at an everyday
level and to track the impact of these forces,
especially of bargaining power over a typical
transaction lifecycle. Besides plotting these
dynamics at both a macro and a micro level, it
is also important to examine their underlying
drivers. Not only are these a function of the
industry lifecycle effects and of the cumulative
learning of key players, but also of a particu-
lar mind-set. Mind-set is emphasized by at
least some writers on strategy, yet primarily in
the company-specific rather than industry
context. The industry mind-set has been
defined as: The perceptions, expectations and
assumptions about the industry now and

Porters five forces model 223

Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, August 2006
DOI: 10.1002/jsc



TIME Industry cycle

Entry barriers

Bargaining of

Figure 14. Macro-level competitive dynamics.

224 Tony Grundy

The significance of this concept is that:

Managers should beware thinking that the
structural properties of Porters five forces
are a given. In part, these forces are a reflec-
tion of a softer mind-set of the industry. This
mind-set is often shared between players
within the industry and can be disrupted by
players who can and will think differently.

The strength and homogeneity of an indus-
try mind-set will reduce the responsiveness
of the industry to disruptive change and to
facilitate rapid market share build-up by a
new entrant. For example, in the UK Dyson
Appliances built a dominant market share of
the carpet cleaner market with a bagless
model in just two and a half


Change Implementation and Management Plan

Create a 5- or 6-slide narrated PowerPoint that presents a comprehensive plan to implement changes you propose.
Your narrated presentation should be 56 minutes in length.
Your Change Implementation and Management Plan should include the following:

An executive summary of the issues that are currently affecting your organization/workplace (This can include the work you completed in your Workplace Environment Assessment previously submitted, if relevant.)
A description of the change being proposed
Justifications for the change, including why addressing it will have a positive impact on your organization/workplace
Details about the type and scope of the proposed change
Identification of the stakeholders impacted by the change
Identification of a change management team (by title/role)
A plan for communicating the change you propose
A description of risk mitigation plans you would recommend to address the risks anticipated by the change you propose

3 x References total to include:
Broome, M., & Marshall, E. S. (2021). Transformational leadership in nursing: From expert clinician to influential leader (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.

Chapter 4, Practice Model Design, Implementation, and Evaluation (pp. 99154)

Work Environment Assessment Template

Work Environment Assessment


Use this document to complete the Module 4

Workplace Environment Assessment

Summary of Results –
Clark Healthy Workplace Inventory

According to the evaluation of the workplace environment, my firm scored 63 out of 100. Clark’s healthy workplace Inventory indicates a minimally healthy work environment (Clark, 2015). The evaluation was conducted using data from actual practice sessions and general organizational management and resource allocations. The outcomes are not wholly surprising to me because we regularly discuss them and keep hoping that something will change. On the other hand, assessments with great grades keep some of us employed.

Identify two things that surprised you about the results. Also identify one idea that you believed prior to conducting the Assessment that was confirmed.

Score: I was astonished by the final score of 63. However, to the best of my knowledge, the assessment is true, but the final score startled me. Concern for my employees’ well-being and professional development is increased by the knowledge that my environment is hardly healthy.
Professional and Development: My company has few or no resources available for employees to advance their careers. It becomes much more intimidating to stay on staff there when you realize this after receiving a numbers score during the exam. Growth and development are ongoing processes in today’s society to keep up with the ever-evolving and changing technology activity. It is not indicative of a good outcome to spend a long time in a place where development and growth are not encouraged. Making sure employees regularly engage in planning, acting, and analyzing their progress is the greatest method to manage development. While looking past daily dissatisfaction, individuals will be clear about how they could enhance their performance.

The evaluation supported my belief that we frequently recognize and reward professional accomplishments. Given that the company does not support employee growth and development showing appreciation for the workforce is a good deed. Employees with outstanding knowledge and abilities should be commended for their professionalism and self-motivation.

What do the results of the Assessment suggest about the health and civility of your workplace?

According to the findings, work environments are just marginally safe and civil. The results are accurate; we frequently have call-outs and substantial employee turnover. The work does not care about me, so I’ll take care of myself first, are commonplace phrases. Instead of a transformative leadership style, a more transactional style is more prevalent (Broome & Marshall, 2021). Through incentive contingencies, such as those found in recognizing performance accomplishments, leadership develops positive associations with task performance. Their top priority is getting the job done. Because of the unhealthy and hostile work climate and the inadequate understanding and response to worker issues, there is less dedication at work and a lack of trust in leadership.

Briefly describe the theory or concept presented in the article(s) you selected.
Explain how the theory or concept presented in the article(s) relates to the results of your Work Environment Assessment.

According to Clark, in her essay, discusses inspiring and encouraging a more civil workplace; she discusses the necessity to successfully manage our emotions and stressful workplaces and learn to communicate concerning supporting the delivery of safe and effective patient care. The provision of secure, patient-centered care is required by nursing practice (Clark, 2015). It is crucial to pinpoint components that will improve a secure, healthy, and civil workplace atmosphere to support better patient outcomes in today’s hectic healthcare situations.
The idea of addressing workplace rudeness with evidence-based strategies like cognitive rehearsal is a terrific tool. Once more, promoting a respectful workplace is a major management duty in guaranteeing patient safety. Creating simulated training scenarios that teach non-violent handling of unruly working situations would improve workplace conditions and lessen risks to patient safety.

My workplace falls short when it comes to policies to handle workplace incivility. I once worked with a junior staff member who did not prioritise patient safety. Due to a lack of desire to perform more labour to resolve incorrect values, this staff will leave a patient during therapy sessions without documenting abnormal or fabricating vital signs. Patients did not like her as their care provider because of the staff’s unpleasant behaviour and terrible attitudes. Everyone voiced their complaints, and management is aware and appears to be doing nothing because there has been no change in conduct; eventually, additional staff threatened to depart because they could not operate in such a setting. After then, this employee was fired. Here, having a body to perform the job was more important than safety, decency, and a healthy workplace.

Explain how your organization could apply the theory highlighted in your selected article(s) to improve organizational health and/or create stronger work teams. Be specific and provide examples.

Effective Communication: Managers must be proficient communicators with their team members, clients, and suppliers. Particularly, employees must believe that the manager is speaking the truth, is not hiding anything, and is willing to listen. If the manager successfully does this, staff members will not need to look elsewhere for information. Therefore, my company might enhance communication to create a supportive and dependable working environment. This will encourage self-respect, translating to interpersonal respect at work and making it easier to manage personal emotions and tough workdays. Communication that is polite and effective enhances patient outcomes.
Training: By providing resources for employee training, employers may ensure workplace decorum since employees will be prepared to handle uncivil situations. Training and knowledge the acquisition makes sure people are capable and prepared to deal with dangers or undesirable actions at work. It is bad for a workplace to have leaders who are solely concerned with getting things done today rather than transforming their team members to develop commitments to their jobs. Without completing clinical practice training, one of our managers was promoted from office manager to regional manager. We are still attempting to comprehend this change in leadership. However, this management lacks clinical knowledge and is unable to see the value of putting patient safety first. She is committed to finishing the task in any manner necessary. Because of this, our workplace assessment gave it a minimally healthy environment rating.

General Notes/Comments

My organization’s workplace civility and health could use some improvement, according to this assessment. Some of the actions that could support such improvements include arguing for altered leadership philosophies and enhanced communication methods. Our company is expanding, and expansion brings variety, which fosters shifts in viewpoints and regulations. Even though things don’t seem good right now, I am hanging in there because I think that we should all be looking forward and cooperating for better times to come.

2018 Laureate Education Inc. 1



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Related Post

Open chat
💬 Need help?
Hello 👋
Can we help you?