| Course | WMBA 6882 Initiating and Managing Change |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 4 |
| Paper type | Resistance analysis |
| Length | About 1,200 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Business Administration (MBA) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for WMBA 6882 Week 4
Eight Objections in Three Weeks: A Resistance Register for Computer-Generated Ordering at Prairie Line Farm & Home, Grouped by What Each Objection Protects and Read for the Design Flaws It Exposes
Student Name
Walden University
WMBA 6882: Initiating and Managing Change
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Eight Objections in Three Weeks: A Resistance Register for Computer-Generated Ordering at Prairie Line Farm & Home, Grouped by What Each Objection Protects and Read for the Design Flaws It Exposes
The Change and When People Heard
On May 15, 2028, Prairie Line Farm & Home, the composite plains retailer used throughout this course, announced that computer-generated ordering for hardgoods would be piloted in three stores from July 10 and extended chainwide by October 30. Department leads would review system-calculated orders instead of walking their departments each week and writing orders by hand. The announcement reached store managers at a regional meeting on May 15, department leads in the three pilot stores on May 16 and every other store's leads through their managers over the following ten days.
As director of store operations, I recorded every objection that reached me, the district managers or the pilot store managers in the three weeks after May 15. Each was written down in the words used, with the role of the person, the week it surfaced and the store. Eight distinct objections came in; several were raised by more than one person.
The Register
Table 1
Objections to Computer-Generated Ordering, May 15 to June 5, 2028
| No. | Objection as raised | Role | Week | What it protects | Design implication | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | "The system doesn't know the co-op buys forty rolls of barbed wire every April." | Hardware lead, Hutchinson | 1 | Knowledge of large local buyers | Let leads enter known demand events that carry forward each year | |
| 2 | "Half my sales are special orders at the counter. Those aren't on the shelf." | Farm counter lead, Kearney | 1 | Counter orders outside shelf history | Feed special-order history into the demand calculation | |
| 3 | "So now a computer tells me what my department needs?" | Hardware lead, nineteen years' service | 1 | Professional standing | Lead reviews and edits every order; edits are tracked as skill, not error | |
| 4 | "When we run out of T-posts in planting season, who gets blamed?" | Store manager, Salina | 2 | Clear accountability | Written rule on who owns an out-of-stock | |
| 5 | "The order walk is the only time I see my whole department." | Paint and hardware lead, Hays | 2 | Time to inspect the shelves | Keep a one-hour weekly department walk without the counting | |
| 6 | "Once the computer orders, they'll cut our hours." | Part-time lead, Norfolk | 3 | Paid hours | Written commitment on hours for twelve months | |
| 7 | "The power equipment rep sets my order every other Tuesday." | Outdoor power lead, Grand Island | 2 | Relationship with a vendor-managed line | Leave vendor-managed lines out of phase one | |
| 8 | "Why did Grand Island hear before us?" | Store manager, North Platte | 3 | Standing among peers | None; a sequencing problem | |
Prairie Line Farm & Home, its staff and stores are composite; quotations are as recorded.
Reading the Register by What Is Protected
Grouping the rows by what each objection protects, rather than by store or role, puts people side by side who are defending the same thing.
Objections 1 and 2 protect knowledge the system does not have. The Hutchinson lead and the Kearney counter lead work in different departments two hundred miles apart, but both are pointing at demand that never appears in shelf sales: a co-op's annual order and special orders placed at the counter. Both claims are testable, and both turned out to be true. When we checked the Hutchinson store's barbed wire history, the April spike was there in sales, but the system's default calculation smoothed it into a monthly average. These are not complaints about technology. They are accurate descriptions of a gap in the design.
Objections 3 and 5 protect the lead's role. The nineteen-year lead's question is partly about standing, but it also names a real loss: the order walk is when leads exercise judgment that the company has never written down. The Hays lead's objection makes the same point practically. Walking the department is how leads find damaged goods, empty pegs and misplaced stock. Removing the walk entirely would remove the inspection along with the counting. Piderit (2000) proposed that people can hold mixed attitudes toward a change at once, welcoming parts of it while worrying about others, and these two leads illustrate that. Neither said the old process was better; each named one thing the new one would take away.
Objections 4 and 6 protect security. The Salina manager wants to know who is accountable when a key item runs out at the worst time, and the Norfolk lead wants to know whether time saved will become hours cut. Both questions were left unanswered in the announcement, and both are fair. The study by Rafferty and Griffin (2006) linked uncertainty to two perceptions, how well planned a change seemed and how much it touched people's own work, and that this uncertainty relates to lower job satisfaction and higher intentions to leave. With eleven lead positions already open, the company cannot afford the second.
Objection 7 protects a working relationship with a vendor who manages a product line on the store's behalf. It exposes a design gap no one at the head office had noticed: three vendors already set their own replenishment at most stores, and the system would have generated duplicate orders for their lines.
An Objection About Sequence, Not Design
Objection 8 is different. The North Platte manager did not object to computer-generated ordering at all; she objected to hearing about it after a neighboring store. Grand Island's leads were told on May 16 because it is a pilot store, and its leads called friends at North Platte the same evening. Recording when each objection surfaced is what makes this visible. People told first objected to the plan; people told later objected to being told later. Ford et al. (2008) held that those running a change often provoke part of the opposition themselves, by commission or by neglect. The communication sequence produced this objection, and the fix belongs in the communication plan rather than the system design.
Design Changes Adopted
Six of the eight objections led to changes before the pilot. Leads can now enter recurring demand events, such as a co-op's April order, that the system carries forward each year. Special orders from the counter feed the demand calculation. Every system order goes to the lead for review and editing, and a monthly report shows where lead edits improved in-stock rates, which treats the lead's judgment as a skill to be measured. A one-hour weekly walk without counting stays on the schedule. Out-of-stocks on items the lead did not edit belong to the inventory analyst; those the lead edited belong to the lead. Vendor-managed lines are excluded from phase one. On hours, the company has committed in writing that no lead's scheduled hours will fall because of the change before July 2029.
What the Register Does Not Show
The register only contains objections that reached a manager. Leads who disliked the change but said nothing are not in it, and silence in the first three weeks is not consent. The pilot stores will be asked for objections again in August, after leads have used the review screen, when the objections will be about the system as it actually works rather than as described.
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
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783-794. https://doi.org/10.2307/259206
Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. (2006). Perceptions of organizational change: A stress and coping perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 1154-1162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1154
WMBA 6882 Week 4 instructions, in plain terms
By Week 4 the change in your case has been announced, and objections are coming in. The assignment asks you to record them one at a time as a register: the objection in the words it was raised, the role of the person, when it surfaced, what it protects and what it implies for the design. Group the rows by what they protect rather than by department, so people defending the same interest sit together. The prose around the table should explain the groups, separate objections about the design from objections about how or when people were told, and say which design changes follow. Readings on resistance or ambivalence should support the interpretation. Most papers are built around one substantial table, with a page or two of analysis before and after it.
Inside the WMBA 6882 Week 4 example
The paper opens with the announcement dates for managers, pilot leads and other stores. An eight-row table quotes objections such as a co-op's barbed wire order the system does not know about and a lead asking whether a computer now tells her what her department needs. The analysis groups objections 1 and 2 as knowledge gaps, confirmed by sales data; 3 and 5 as the lead's role, citing Piderit on ambivalence; 4 and 6 as security, citing Rafferty and Griffin; and 7 as a vendor-managed line that would have produced duplicate orders. Objection 8, from a store manager told after a neighboring store, is treated as a sequencing failure, citing Ford and colleagues. A section lists six design changes, and the close notes that silence is not consent.
Reading the WMBA 6882 Week 4 rubric
Marks follow the quality of the register. Quoted objections with dates and roles earn more than paraphrased categories, because paraphrase has already interpreted the evidence. The "what it protects" column is central; rows left without an interest read as complaints rather than analysis. Grouping by interest, not by department, shows the writer has looked for common ground. Separating design problems from sequence problems, using the dates objections surfaced, is a distinguishing move. Design implications should be specific enough to act on, and the strongest papers show which were adopted. Readings should help interpret objections as information rather than obstruction. Acknowledging the limits of the register, such as people who objected silently, adds credibility.
WMBA 6882 Week 4 help from the desk
Keep a log from the day of the announcement: who said what, when and where. Copy objections exactly. For each one, ask what the person stands to lose: time, standing, income, a relationship, knowledge. Write that in a column, then add what the objection suggests should change in the plan. Group rows by the interest protected. Look at the dates: objections that came from people told late often concern the telling, not the change. Weak papers paraphrase everything into "fear of change," list objections without interests or treat every objection as something to overcome. Others ignore the sequence. If you want a model resistance register for a change in your organization, share the objections you have heard and when.
Get a WMBA 6882 Week 4 example written to your instructions
The Week 4 assignment page and its rubric are the inputs, along with a note on whether the section expects a table, since they split on that; a drafted analysis with a populated register comes back in 24-48h, free the first time. Objections overheard at an employer belong to that employer, so leave them out and a constructed register stands in.
More WMBA 6882 papers and MBA samples
- WMBA 6882 Week 1: Abandoned Initiative Post
- WMBA 6882 Week 2: Failed Change Case Reconstruction
- WMBA 6882 Week 3: Change Readiness Assessment Memo
- WMBA 6882 Week 5: Contrarian Peer Replies
- WMBA 6882 Week 6: Kotter Model Application
- WMBA 6882 Week 7: Timed Change Announcement Sequence
- WMBA 6882 Week 8: Change Implementation Plan
- WMBA 6882 Week 9: District Manager Change Brief
- WMBA 6882 Week 10: Change Sustainment Plan
- WMBA 6882 Week 11: Change Proposal With Rebuttal
- WMBA 6695 Week 4: Bad News Letter to a Customer
- WMBA 6633 Week 4: Coaching Agreement and Rationale
- WMBA 6627 Week 4: Stakeholder Grid Peer Replies
- WMBA 6623 Week 4: Qualitative Risk Scoring Matrix
WMBA 6882 Week 4 questions, answered
Where can I find a free WMBA 6882 Week 4 sample paper?
Below the facts table is the complete resistance register with all eight objections and the analysis, open to read for free.
How many objections does the WMBA 6882 Week 4 register record?
Eight distinct objections raised in the three weeks after the announcement of computer-generated ordering.
Why are rows grouped by what they protect?
Because people in different stores and roles defending the same interest belong together, which shows patterns a department grouping hides.
Which objection is about sequence rather than design?
A store manager's question about why another store heard first, which arose from the order of announcement, not from the ordering system.
What design changes followed?
Carried-forward demand events, special orders fed into the calculation, tracked lead edits, a shorter weekly walk, an out-of-stock ownership rule, excluded vendor lines and a promise on hours.