| Course | HRM 552 Organizational Training and Development (HRM/552) |
|---|---|
| Week | 4 |
| Paper type | Change management plan |
| Length | about 1,201 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | MBA |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HRM 552 Week 4
A New Bonus, Restored Authority and a Catastrophe Team: Planning Change and Working With Resistance in Bayou Coastal's Claims Division
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
HRM/552: Organizational Training and Development
Week 4 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Bayou Coastal Insurance and all people and events are composites written for a model paper.
The claims division at Bayou Coastal Insurance, our composite Louisiana carrier, is about to change in four ways. The adjuster bonus will move from claims closed to cycle time and accuracy. Payment authority that was cut after the platform launch will be restored, with audit sampling replacing supervisor approvals. Hurricane claims will move to a dedicated catastrophe team. And the training program from Week 3 will ask adjusters to replace familiar workarounds with platform features. Four changes arriving together can feel to employees like one large disruption, even when each is an improvement, unless the plan explains how they fit and lets people shape them. This paper plans the change process.
The Rationale
The changes respond to the Week 1 finding that the extra nine days came from approval queues, caseloads, incentives and skill gaps. Together they are expected to return cycle time to 14 days within a year. The rationale must be shared in terms adjusters care about: fewer frustrated policyholders, fewer follow-up calls and less time chasing approvals.
Assessing Readiness
Armenakis and Harris (2002) identify five beliefs behind readiness. Discrepancy asks whether people see a gap worth closing. Appropriateness asks whether this particular fix suits the gap. Efficacy asks whether staff feel able to succeed, principal support whether senior leaders truly back it and valence whether employees personally gain. A pulse survey of 120 adjusters and supervisors measured each belief.
Readiness Results
Discrepancy was high: 84 percent agreed cycle times were a serious problem. Appropriateness was mixed: adjusters welcomed restored authority but doubted the new bonus. Efficacy was low among veterans uneasy with the platform. Principal support was doubted because the last change, the platform launch, was announced with little consultation. Valence was mixed, especially for adjusters who earned more under the old bonus.
Stakeholder Map
Field adjusters gain authority and lighter caseloads but face a new bonus and new habits. Desk adjusters gain from the catastrophe team taking hurricane claims. Supervisors lose the approval role that gave them control and must become coaches. Payments specialists lose routine approvals and gain audit work. Claims managers are accountable for results. Policyholders benefit if the changes work.
Expected Resistance
Three groups are likely to resist. Veteran adjusters who closed many easy claims earned higher bonuses under the old formula, and some will lose pay. Supervisors may feel their role is diminished. Adjusters assigned to the catastrophe team may worry about irregular hours and travel after storms.
Research on Change Reactions
Oreg et al. (2011) reviewed 79 quantitative studies of how employees react to organizational change and found that reactions depended heavily on the change process, including participation, communication and trust in management, and on the change's perceived personal impact. Characteristics of the employees themselves mattered less than how the change was carried out. That finding places responsibility on the plan rather than on employees.
Resistance as Information
Ford et al. (2008) argued that resistance is often produced partly by change agents, for example when promises are not kept, when messages are confusing or when real worries are brushed aside, and that resistance can contribute useful information. Veteran adjusters' worries about the bonus may reveal flaws in the formula, such as penalizing adjusters assigned the hardest claims. Listening could improve the design.
Participation in Design
A design team of eight adjusters, including three veterans who questioned the bonus, two supervisors and a payments specialist, will review and adjust the bonus formula, the audit sampling rules and the catastrophe team's rotation before launch. Their recommendations will be published along with leadership's response.
Addressing the Bonus Concern
Modeling showed that 22 percent of adjusters would earn less under the proposed formula. The design team proposed weighting cycle time by claim complexity, so adjusters handling complex claims are not penalized, and leadership agreed to a two-quarter transition in which no adjuster earns less than under the old formula. Honesty about losses and a fair transition build trust.
Redefining the Supervisor Role
Supervisors will move from approving payments to coaching. They will receive coaching training, new performance measures based on team cycle time and development and a clear statement that their role is expanding rather than shrinking. Two supervisors from the design team will help shape the new role.
The Catastrophe Team
The catastrophe team will be staffed by volunteers first, with a pay premium for storm deployments, guaranteed recovery days after deployments and rotation back to regular claims after two years. Making the assignment attractive reduces the need to assign people against their wishes.
Sequencing the Changes
Introducing all four changes at once would overwhelm the division. Restored authority comes first, since it is popular and quickly reduces delays, building credibility. The catastrophe team follows before the next hurricane season. Training runs over three months. The new bonus begins the next quarter, after the transition protection is in place.
Building Efficacy
Veterans' low confidence with the platform is a readiness problem the training addresses, but efficacy also grows from early success. Each adjuster will be paired with a peer coach for the first month after training, and teams will share short stories of claims closed faster with the new features. Small wins, visible to peers, persuade people that the change is achievable in a way that announcements cannot. Supervisors will recognize first successes publicly in team meetings.
Learning From the Platform Launch
The platform launch damaged trust because adjusters learned of it late and had no voice in how it was configured. This plan reverses that pattern on purpose. Leaders will say openly that the launch was handled poorly and explain what is different now: a design team with real influence, a transition protection on pay and a schedule that does not stack every change at once. Owning past mistakes in public does more to restore belief in leaders than any slogan.
Communication Plan
The chief claims officer will explain the changes in person at each office, presenting the Week 1 data and the design team's role. Supervisors will hold team discussions. A weekly update will report progress, problems and responses. Questions submitted anonymously will be answered publicly. Communication will acknowledge what was handled poorly in the platform launch.
Leadership Roles
Claims managers will hold monthly listening sessions and act visibly on problems raised. Leaders will use the platform features themselves in reviewing claims. Employees judge principal support by what leaders do, not what they say.
Reinforcement and Milestones
Milestones include approval queue time below one day within 60 days, the catastrophe team staffed within 120 days, platform feature use above 80 percent within six months and cycle time at 16 days within six months. A second readiness survey at three months will check each belief, and the design team will meet monthly to recommend adjustments.
Conclusion
The claims division's readiness is strong on the need for change but weak on trust, efficacy and personal benefit. Research shows reactions depend on how change is handled, so the plan relies on participation, honest treatment of losses, a redesigned supervisor role, careful sequencing, leadership visibility and milestones. Resistance is treated as information that can improve the changes.
References
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15(2), 169-183. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810210423080
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 362-377. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2008.31193235
Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients' reactions to organizational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310396550
What the HRM 552 Week 4 instructions ask
The fourth HRM 552 assignment generally asks students to plan for organizational change and the resistance it may meet. Typical elements include describing the change and its rationale, assessing readiness, identifying stakeholders and their likely reactions, analyzing sources of resistance, choosing a change model, planning communication and participation, addressing leadership roles and setting milestones for monitoring. Many prompts ask students to treat resistance constructively. Apply change research to the specific groups involved, explain why each tactic fits, plan for reinforcement after the launch and back the plan with research cited in APA format. State plainly what each group stands to lose as well as gain.
How this HRM 552 Week 4 example is built
A claims division facing four changes at once, a new bonus formula, restored payment authority, a separate catastrophe team and new platform habits, will meet resistance, and the paper plans for it. It assesses readiness using five beliefs: that change is needed, that this change is right, that people can do it, that leaders support it and that it benefits them. It maps stakeholders, including veteran adjusters who earned more under the old bonus and supervisors who lose approval control. Research shows that reactions depend heavily on how change is carried out. The plan uses participation, honest communication, transition support for those who lose bonus income, a redefined supervisor role, careful sequencing of the four changes and milestones over six months.
HRM 552 Week 4 grading rubric: where the points go
Successful change plans show that the writer understands why people react as they do and designs the process accordingly. Faculty reward a readiness assessment based on research, a stakeholder analysis that identifies what each group gains and loses, a balanced treatment of resistance that recognizes legitimate concerns and specific participation and communication tactics. Using research on change recipients' reactions strengthens the plan. Milestones, reinforcement after launch and leadership roles show implementation sense. Plans that remain realistic about what can change at once earn extra credit. APA citations support the discussion. Faculty also look for evidence that the writer has thought about pay and status losses honestly, since a plan that claims every group benefits will not be believed by employees or by readers, and for a feedback loop that lets the plan change as reactions emerge.
HRM 552 Week 4 help: mistakes to avoid
Students frequently treat resistance as a character flaw to overcome. Research suggests that resistance often reflects real losses or poor communication. Ask what each group loses. Another gap is announcing change rather than involving people in designing it. Plan participation. Students also stop the plan at launch; reinforcement afterward is where change sticks. Include it. Avoid generic models applied without adapting them to the case. Address the sequence when several changes happen at once. Consider leaders' roles, since employees watch what leaders do. Finally, set milestones that will show early whether the change is working or needs adjustment.
Related HRM 552 sample papers
Other HRM 552 week samples
- HRM 552 Week 1: Performance Analysis
- HRM 552 Week 2: Learning and OD Theories
- HRM 552 Week 3: Designing Training Interventions
- HRM 552 Week 5: Employee Relations
- HRM 552 Week 6: Evaluating Organizational Development
More MBA sample papers
- HRM 546 Week 4: Compensation and Benefits Law
- HRM 548 Week 4: Offers, Negotiation and Relocation
- HRM 595 Week 4: Change Management
- MGT 521 Week 4: Strategy and Ethics Analysis for Leadership
HRM 552 Week 4 questions, answered
What does HRM 552 Week 4 usually cover?
It usually covers planning organizational change: readiness assessment, stakeholder analysis, sources of resistance, change models, communication and participation, leadership roles and monitoring after launch.
Where can I find a free HRM 552 Week 4 sample paper?
The complete change plan for an insurer's claims division appears on this page, with a margin note at each step. With your prompt, we can prepare a free first draft of your change plan.
What are the five beliefs of change readiness?
Armenakis and Harris describe discrepancy (change is needed), appropriateness (this change is right), efficacy (we can do it), principal support (leaders back it) and valence (it benefits me).
Is resistance to change always negative?
No. Research argues that resistance often reflects legitimate concerns, broken promises or poor communication, and that listening to it can improve the change and strengthen commitment.
Why do change efforts fail?
Common reasons include weak readiness, poor communication, little participation by those affected, too many changes at once, leaders who do not model the change and lack of reinforcement after launch.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All HRM 552 week samples · All courses