500 words MAX– answer or discuss each topic. Easy

500 words MAX– answer or discuss each topic. Answer can be 75-100 words each. This is for participation points. Does not have to be formatted at all. Easy breezy. 1) The Difference Between an Organizational Vision and a Change Vision 2) Factors That Block People From Recognizing the Need for Change (In a business). 3) Readying an Organization for Change 4) Seek Out and Make Sense of Internal Data (in regards to making a business change) 5) Reversing the Death Spiral at Hewlett-Packard: ****In regards to this article*** Hewlett-Packard had demonstrated commitment over the years to the belief that long-term success was grounded in the “‘HP Way”—a cultural perspective that celebrated technical expertise, flexibility, and innovation; placed high value on their collegial, teamwork-based environment; saw employees as their most important resource; and had a strong customer orientation and commitment to act with integrity at all times. However in 1999, following a period of lackluster performance, HP hired Carly Fiorina as their CEO. Fiorina’s top-down leadership style put results as the number one priority and arguably devalued employees. Her autocratic and aggressive style left her workforce demoralized. The ill- conceived merger with Compaq and a number of other major actions such as the restructuring of the enterprise into a much more hierarchical one, generated sustained, deepening disappointment on the performance front. It could be argued that Fiorina suffered from tunnel vision concerning how to act on the need for change and manage the path forward. This blocked her from realizing how to value what was there, respond constructively to the challenges they faced, and modify her management style to facilitate needed changes. The results of her actions demoralized members of the firm, generated significant turnover, and adversely affected the entire organization. Following Fiorina’s dismissal in 2005 and subsequent flawed efforts to get things back on track, the board appointed Meg Whitman as CEO in 2011. At that point, many believed HP was operating on borrowed time. A number of the members of the existing senior management team were reported to have been very unhappy with her appointment. Whitman was an outsider, and some of them had been jockeying for the top job. Whitman knew that hard choices were needed. These included making major changes to her senior management team, to get rid of infighting and promote much-needed cooperation and constructive engagement. Major job cuts (34,000) had to be made to address cash flow and market realities. However, she also clearly signaled a return to the organization’s roots, by restoring funding and executive support for what was then a gutted and demoralized R&D function, symbolizing their commitment to innovation. She made the need for change salient to organizational members and created a sense of urgency. The enterprise was restructured to better align it with the emergent strategy, and she reinforced the importance of having a clear customer focus rather than one driven solely by cost-cutting pressures. Further, she created a vision for the future that offered employees reasons for hope and regenerated shared commitment through the focus on teamwork, collaboration, excellence in execution, and shared celebrations of success. Changes of this magnitude do not happen overnight. HP’s impressive return to cultural and financial health by 2014 (stock price up 300% since 2011; being recognized as one of the 100 top employers in Canada in 2014) show that they appear to be well on their way.63