MGMT 8425M Week 8 Change Response Case Example

Full Compliance and a Paper Log in the Shift Office: A Change Response Case Reading What an Acquired Bus Depot's Handwritten Book Does for the People Who Keep It, Before Any Cultural Explanation Is Tried

Student Name

Walden University

MGMT 8425M: Responding to Behavior and Change as a Multicultural Leader

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Full Compliance and a Paper Log in the Shift Office: A Change Response Case Reading What an Acquired Bus Depot's Handwritten Book Does for the People Who Keep It, Before Any Cultural Explanation Is Tried

Part One: The Change as It Was Designed

In January 2026 Copperline Transit Services, a composite contractor that operates bus fleets for public transit agencies, took over operations at a maintenance depot in Spokane that had previously been run by a smaller regional contractor. Copperline's operations manager for the region introduced the company's standard digital work-order system at the depot in March, replacing the clipboards and whiteboard the depot's 34 mechanics and three shift supervisors had used. Training ran over two weeks. The compliance target, every repair entered as a work order before the bus returns to service, was met in the first month and has held since. On the measures head office tracks, the change succeeded.

Part Two: The Response as the Depot Lived It

During a site visit in late April, the operations manager noticed a hardbound log on the shelf in the shift office. Over the next two weeks, her notes and conversations with the day and night supervisors established what it contains. Every work order is entered in the system, as required. The log records three other things. It lists informal repairs, such as a loose mirror tightened during a fuel stop, that take a few minutes and that mechanics consider too small for a work order. It records parts borrowed between crews, so that a night mechanic who takes a brake sensor from the day crew's stock leaves a note saying where it went. And it records the night supervisor's reasons for reordering the repair queue, for example moving a bus with a minor defect ahead of one with a bigger defect because the first bus is scheduled for a school route at 6 a.m.

Part Three: What the Log Does Locally

Orlikowski (2000) argued that technologies do not determine how they are used; people enact structures through their ongoing use of a technology, and the same system can be used in different ways in different settings. Read that way, the depot has not rejected the work-order system. It has enacted it alongside another structure that does three jobs the system, as configured, does not. The log captures small repairs that would otherwise go unrecorded, preserving a fuller picture of each bus's condition for the next shift. It coordinates the informal sharing of parts between crews, which the system's inventory module does not allow without a supervisor's approval. And it records the judgment behind queue changes, which the system shows only as a change in order, without reasons.

None of these functions conflicts with the system's purpose. Each fills a gap in it. The night supervisor told the operations manager that without the log, the day crew would have no way to know why buses had been reordered and would assume the night crew had simply skipped work.

Part Four: The Head Office Reading, Examined

In an email in May, a head office director wrote that the log showed the depot's "culture resists transparency" and asked the operations manager to have it removed. The case examines that reading. Ford et al. (2008) argued that the usual account of resistance places it entirely in the recipients of change, as an irrational reaction, and overlooks how change agents contribute to it and how resistance can serve as a resource for improving a change. The head office reading follows the usual account: it treats a parallel record as resistance and attributes it to the depot's culture. But the log makes more information visible, not less, and its contents are open to anyone who walks into the shift office. What it resists is not transparency but a system that has no place for small repairs, borrowed parts and the reasons behind judgment calls.

The Manager's Response

The operations manager should not remove the log. She should treat it as a specification. Two of its three functions can be built into the system: a quick-entry field for repairs under fifteen minutes and a free-text reason field on queue changes. The third, parts sharing between crews, requires a policy change that she will raise with inventory control. Once those changes are in place, she will ask the supervisors whether the log is still needed, and let them decide. She will reply to head office with this plan and the reasons.

Culture, for the Remainder

The case does not claim culture plays no role. Depot crews often share norms of mutual help and pride in keeping buses running, and those norms may explain why the log matters to them. Orr (1996), studying photocopier repair technicians, showed how much working knowledge lives in informal practices that official systems do not record. But explanations by culture should come after the practice's function has been understood, not before.

References

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

Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11(4), 404-428. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.4.404.14600

Orr, J. E. (1996). Talking about machines: An ethnography of a modern job. ILR Press.