google-site-verification=-CxNBF1tY1OFq-FxGj905sLa3tg462Giw6WbFn0gZDA

Apurva: Personally I didn’t read the lever descriptions in great detail, so didn’t realize that some of them could be harmful rather than helpful. From personal experience I felt it was important to walk the talk and spread the word so to start I attempted to walk the talk and build a coalition of support, both of which were premature since the company wasn’t fully aware of the change initiative.  Once I got consultant’s support and conducted private interviews, I started to gain credibility. I continued to try various levers, but always came back to the consultants’ support, private interviews and started to build-in walk the talk. Once my credibility had stabilized I was able to hold a town hall meeting and conduct a pilot project.  At the end of 96 weeks I was not able to reach critical mass of 18 but close at 15.
Maya: I dont think that we all have faced similar missteps. Everyone has their decisions and success rate according to it. Some of the members have done well with the decisions that they made that I have not done well. The issue we all have faced is understanding all levers. It took almost 30 minutes to start and diagnose. For the change management and awareness of sustainability, I conducted interviews; in the start, I got sufficient credibility and properly timed to lever this pull.   As I needed to push the change thus, I revised the reward system, as the reward system is the most important and attractive way to convince the employees towards the change. This created a positive impact on the decisions. In week 46, I have sufficient credibility and have properly timed this lever pull to both increase  credit rating and influence all change targets before the trial stage. All those levers proved efficient for the simulation.
Amira 
Per the team discussion it seems most of us have a similar problem. Some of us did not study the levers carefully prior to implementing. This led to using levers at the wrong time which decreased credibility.
Before attempting the simulation, I reviewed the module content and video posted by the professor. Also, I read the information in the simulation.I didnt have prior experience with the simulation, nor do i have a lot of experience driving change of this magnitude in an organization. I believe if I took longer to study the levers and when to implement them I would have been more successful.
I used the Tell a Success story first which decreased my credibility since I did not introduce the change to the organization first.
I used the Walk the Talk lever a few times and it was effective to recruit members and raise my credibility. I used to confront the resistor twice since I had 2 resistors. The lever allowed me to recruit the resistors friends and network into the adopter stage. Even though the resistor did not always change his/her mind.
Ryleigh was the most successful. I completed the simulation after 81 weeks with a critical mass of 20 and credibility of 8. My final CER was .25. I could have ended the simulation with a critical mass of 19 at 79 weeks and CER .26 but I chose to keep going.
Ryleigh
I read the foreground and intro as well as familiarized myself with the lever definitions but all in all did not spend that much time before I began making decisions. In between I would analyze the impact and reference my levers again mbut usually quick to decide again.
I first chose to announce to everyone as I felt it was best for them to know change was coming before acting. I then walked the talk so as to demonstrate my values aligned before asking anything of my team. This was extremely effective and helped gain much awareness as well as interest early on. 
Which levers did you find yourselves using later? Why? What was the overall effectiveness? Why? Discuss this in the paper from a group perspective
In the latter half I found that clarifying goals, recognizing adopters and continuing to walk the talk helped move people into the adoption phase.