Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth

The 'change curve' (based on Kübler-Ross’s model) describes emotional stages individuals experience

during change: shock, denial, frustration, depression, experiment, decision, and integration. The

APMG Change Management Foundation stresses proactive support to guide people through these

stages effectively. Option A ("Actively involve line managers in listening and providing support") is

recommended because line managers are well-positioned to offer personalized support, listen to

concerns, and help staff navigate emotions—key to moving through the curve. Option B

misinterprets negative emotions as a management failure rather than a natural response, Option C

isolates individuals, and Option D is passive and unsupported by the framework.

Reference: APMG Change Management Foundation, Chapter 3 – Individual Change, The Change

Curve section.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth

The APMG Change Management Foundation draws on French and Raven’s Five Bases of Power to

explain influence in change contexts. Referent power (Option D) arises from admiration, respect, and

identification with an individual, often because they are seen as a role model. A manager who is

admired and respected fits this description, as their influence stems from personal charisma and

positive relationships rather than formal authority. Legitimate power (A) comes from a formal

position, Reward power (B) from the ability to give benefits, and Coercive power (C) from

punishment—none of which rely on admiration or role-model status.

Reference: APMG Change Management Foundation, Chapter 6 – People and Change, Power and

Influence section.

When assessing the severity of change impacts during a stakeholder impact assessment, one of the

criteria that can be used is the coverage of impact. The coverage of impact refers to the proportion of

a given stakeholder group that are impacted by a change. For example, if a change affects 80% of the

employees in a department, the coverage of impact is high. The other options are not criteria for

assessing the severity of change impacts, but rather factors or outcomes of other processes or

activities in the change process

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation:

The Cynefin framework by Dave Snowden, integrated into the APMG Change Management

Foundation, categorizes decision-making contexts to guide change approaches. The question

describes a scenario with stability and clear cause-and-effect, so let’s explore this with exhaustive

depth, covering the framework’s domains, their characteristics, practical applications, and

theoretical grounding:

•

Cynefin Overview: Cynefin (pronounced "kuh-nev-in") offers five domains—Simple,

Complicated, Complex, Chaotic, and Disorder—to classify situations based on predictability and

complexity. Each dictates a change strategy (e.g., best practice, analysis, experimentation). The

APMG uses this to match interventions to context.

•

Option A: Simple

o

Definition: Previously called “Obvious,” this domain features stable, predictable

environments where cause-and-effect is clear and universally understood. Problems have known

solutions (e.g., “if X, then Y”).

o

Characteristics: Rules-based, repeatable processes; minimal uncertainty.

o

Change Example: Updating a payroll system with a standard software patch—installing it

reliably fixes issues because the process is well-documented and stable.

o

Fit with Question : “Stable and well understood” matches perfectly, as does “clear cause-and-

effect.” The APMG cites Simple contexts as requiring straightforward “sense-categorize-respond”

approaches (e.g., follow a checklist).

o

Conclusion: Correct answer.

•

Option B: Multifaceted

o

Clarification: Likely intended as “Complicated” (a typo, as Multifaceted isn’t a Cynefin term).

Complicated involves multiple variables, but cause-and-effect is still discernible with expertise (e.g.,

engineering a bridge).

o

Analysis: Less stable than Simple due to analysis needs; not “well understood” by all—only

experts grasp it. APMG notes “sense-analyze-respond” here, not immediate clarity, so it’s incorrect.

•

Option C: Complex

o

Definition: Unpredictable, with emergent patterns; cause-and-effect is only clear in hindsight

(e.g., organizational culture change).

o

Analysis: Far from stable—requires experimentation (“probe-sense-respond”). The

question’s clarity and stability rule this out. Example: Rolling out a new strategy with unknown

outcomes.

•

Option D: Chaotic

o

Definition: High turbulence; no clear cause-and-effect (e.g., crisis response).

o

Analysis: Opposite of stable—demands immediate action (“act-sense-respond”). Irrelevant

here.

•

Deep Reasoning: Simple contexts are linear and transparent, like fixing a printer jam (push

button, paper releases). APMG contrasts this with Complex (e.g., market shifts), where stability is

absent. The question’s descriptors exclude all but Simple.

•

Practical Implication: In a Simple change, managers apply best practices without

overcomplicating, per APMG guidance.

Reference: APMG Change Management Foundation, Chapter 2 – Change and the Organization,

Cynefin Framework section.

According to Morgan, machines is a metaphor that applies to an organization that has structured and

tightly-controlled processes. This metaphor views organizations as rational, efficient, and predictable

systems that operate according to predefined rules and procedures. This metaphor emphasizes

order, stability, hierarchy, and control.

Reference:

https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newSTR_90.htm

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228163085_Images_of_Organization

Bridges’ model of human transition describes three phases that people go through when they

experience change: ending, losing, and letting go; the neutral zone; and the new beginning. The

neutral zone is a period of uncertainty, confusion, and anxiety, but also creativity, innovation, and

learning. To help people through this phase, change leaders should describe this period as an

opportunity to learn new skills, explore new possibilities, and experiment with new solutions. The

other options would not help people through this phase, as they would either maintain the status

quo, increase gossip and rumors, or limit feedback channels. Reference: https://apmginternational.com/sites/default/files/Change%20Management%20Foundation%20Sample%20Paper

%2010%20-%20v1.0.pdf (page 11)

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth

The APMG Change Management Foundation identifies four key principles for engagement:

Inclusivity, Connectivity, Transparency, and Dialogue. The scenario describes open communication

("talk about anything"), trust, and achieving positive outcomes, which directly aligns with the

principle of Dialogue. Dialogue emphasizes two-way, trust-based communication that fosters

understanding and collaboration, enabling stakeholders to discuss concerns openly and work toward

solutions. Inclusivity focuses on involving everyone, Connectivity on linking people and ideas, and

Transparency on sharing information—none of which fully encapsulate the trust and conversational

outcome described here.

Reference: APMG Change Management Foundation, Chapter 4 – Engaging Stakeholders, Principles of

Engagement section.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth

Change management’s role in benefits realization is a critical theme in the APMG Change

Management Foundation, focusing on enabling people to adopt and optimize change. Let’s explore

each option in depth:

•

Option A: "Encourages users to make the best use of the new situation" – This is correct.

Change management ensures benefits by preparing, supporting, and motivating people to embrace

and maximize the change. For example, training staff on a new CRM system ensures they use its

features effectively, driving benefits like increased sales. The framework defines this as change

management’s primary contribution: aligning human behavior with intended outcomes.

•

Option B: "Ensures dis-benefits are avoided" – While change management mitigates risks

(e.g., resistance), avoiding dis-benefits entirely is not its core focus or guarantee. This is more a

project management responsibility, making this incorrect.

•

Option C: "Provides ultimate accountability for the benefits of a change" – Accountability lies

with sponsors or business owners, not change management, which supports rather than owns

benefits realization. This is false per the APMG roles delineation.

•

Option D: "Produces all of the outcomes required to deliver benefits" – Change management

influences adoption but doesn’t produce all outcomes (e.g., technical delivery), which involves other

disciplines. This overstates its scope.

Option A aligns with the APMG emphasis on adoption and utilization as the bridge between change

delivery and benefits, making it the most accurate answer.

Reference: APMG Change Management Foundation, Chapter 8 – Measuring and Sustaining Change

Outcomes, Benefits Realization section.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth

Patrick Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team model, referenced in the APMG Change Management

Foundation, outlines characteristics of effective teams by identifying dysfunctions to avoid: Absence

of Trust, Fear of Conflict, Lack of Commitment, Avoidance of Accountability, and Inattention to

Results. Let’s analyze each statement against Lencioni’s positive traits:

•

Statement 1: "Members should be encouraged to draw attention to colleagues’ failures to

meet commitments" – This relates to accountability, a positive trait in Lencioni’s model. Effective

teams hold each other accountable, addressing underperformance constructively to maintain

standards. However, the phrasing "draw attention to failures" suggests blame rather than Lencioni’s

emphasis on supportive, team-focused accountability (e.g., “How can we help you meet this?”). In

practice, effective teams discuss commitments openly but not punitively, making this statement

misleadingly negative and thus false in the strict context of Lencioni’s intent.

•

Statement 2: "Conflict should be avoided to maintain good relationships" – This is false.

Lencioni argues that avoiding conflict (Fear of Conflict) prevents healthy debate and resolution,

weakening team performance. Effective change teams embrace constructive conflict to challenge

ideas and reach better decisions. For example, debating a change strategy’s risks ensures a robust

plan, whereas avoiding conflict might preserve harmony at the expense of quality.

Since Statement 1 misrepresents accountability’s tone and Statement 2 contradicts Lencioni’s

advocacy for conflict, neither is true. Option D reflects the APMG interpretation of Lencioni’s model,

where trust, constructive conflict, and mutual accountability define effective teams.

Reference: APMG Change Management Foundation, Chapter 6 – People and Change, Lencioni’s Five

Dysfunctions section.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth

Measuring change progress is a critical responsibility in the APMG Change Management Foundation,

ensuring alignment with objectives. The question seeks a term for outcome-focused measures. Let’s

dive deeply into each option:

•

Context: Change Managers need metrics to demonstrate success, not just activity

completion. These measures must be defined collaboratively (e.g., with sponsors) and tied to desired

outcomes (e.g., improved efficiency, customer satisfaction), providing evidence that the change is

delivering value.

•

Option A: Islands of Stability – This term, sometimes used in change literature, refers to fixed

points (e.g., unchanged processes) providing comfort during upheaval. It’s about emotional

anchoring, not measurement. For example, retaining a familiar reporting structure during a tech

rollout isn’t a metric but a stabilizing factor, making this irrelevant here.

•

Option B: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) – Correct answer. KPIs are quantifiable measures

reflecting success against goals, widely used in change management. The APMG framework defines

them as tools to track outcomes like sales growth post-training or error rates after a system upgrade.

For instance, if a change aims to boost productivity, a KPI might be “average tasks completed per

hour.” Agreed upon with stakeholders, KPIs show whether the change is on track, making them the

standard term in this context.

•

Option C: Incremental Milestones – Milestones mark progress (e.g., “training completed by

Q2”), but they’re time-based checkpoints, not outcome measures. While useful, they don’t

inherently reflect success (e.g., training might finish but not improve skills), so they’re less precise

than KPIs for the question’s focus.

•

Option D: Transition Tranches – This refers to phased delivery segments (e.g., rolling out

software by department). It’s a strategy, not a measurement tool, and doesn’t assess outcomes,

ruling it out.

•

Deep Reasoning: KPIs bridge outputs (what’s done) and outcomes (what’s achieved). The

APMG emphasizes their role in the Balanced Scorecard or benefits realization, distinguishing them

from milestones (process-focused) or tranches (delivery-focused). For example, a KPI like “customer

retention rate” directly ties to a change’s purpose, unlike a milestone like “system installed.”

•

Example Application: In a retail change to improve service, KPIs might include “average

customer wait time” or “Net Promoter Score,” agreed with managers to track progress, proving

Option B’s fit.

Reference: APMG Change Management Foundation, Chapter 8 – Measuring and Sustaining Change

Outcomes, Key Performance Indicators section.