Summary
Theories and Approaches to Change Management
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen – Faculty of Economics and Business
Content:
#1 – Burnes (2009), Ch.1; From trial and error to the science of management
#2 – Smith & Sutherland/Graetz (2011), Ch. 1; Philosophies of organizational change: ‘changing
context’
#3 – Smith & Sutherland/Graetz (2011), Ch. 2; Theories about theories: ‘changing theories’
#4 – Burnes (2009), Ch.2; Developments in organization theory
#5 – Burnes (2009), Ch.3; In search of new paradigms
#6 – Burnes (2009), Ch.4; Critical perspectives on organization theory
#7 – Smith & Sutherland/Graetz (2011), Ch. 10; The critical philosophy: ‘changing reality’
#8 – Burnes (2009), Ch.5; Culture, power, politics and choice
#9 – Burnes (2009), Ch.6; Approaches to strategy
#10 – Burnes (2009), Ch.7; Applying strategy
#11 – Burnes (2009), Ch.8; Approaches to change management
#12 – Burnes (2009), Ch.9; Developments in change management
#13 – Burnes (2009), Ch.10; A framework for change
#14 – Burnes (2009), Ch.11; Organisational change and managerial choice
#15 – Burnes (2009), Ch.12; Management – roles and responsibilities
#16 – Smith & Sutherland/Graetz (2011), Ch. 11; Conclusion. The dualities philosophy: ‘changing
tensions’
#1 – Burnes (2009), Ch.1; From trial and error to the science of management
Introduction
This chapter sets out to explore and discuss the origins of organizations, from the Industrial
Revolution to the early years of the twentieth century. Two of the overarching and complementary
characteristics of this period were the conflict between workers and managers, and the search for a
systematic, scientific, and above all efficient approach to running and changing organizations.
The rise of commerce and the birth of the factory
The birth of the factory system in the UK gave the impetus to and created the model for all that was
to follow. The way the entrepreneur organized and centralized elements of production distinguished
it from what went on before. This was done in order to take full advantage of expanding market
opportunities to reap even greater rewards and to dodge the complex intermediary system from
before. With few capital investments, wages and raw materials formed the bulk of manufacturing
costs. It is this, and the original motive for moving to the factory system in the first place (to have
greater control over labour) which explains the prevailing attitude of employers towards labour in
the nineteenth century.
The relationship between employers and employees
The attitude of British employers towards employees is based on two basic propositions; (1) labour is
unreliable, lazy and will only work when tightly controlled, and (2) the main controllable business
cost is labour. This hostility was reciprocated by the labour force in its hostility towards the factory
system for 3 reasons; (1) it involved a wholesale change of culture and environment they were used
to, (2) the discipline of the factory was harsh and unremitting, and (3) employers often modeled
factories like workhouses or prisons. This clash of interests echoed through the industrial world ever
since, although it must be said that entrepreneurs had no text book cases that they could copy.
Industrialization and the organization of work
The system of organizing work that came to characterize life in Britain and continental Europe was
based on the hierarchical and horizontal division of labour based on the principles of Adam Smith
(experience on one task, no loss of time moving persons, concentration of attention leads to
invention of machines). Change tended to be managed by imposition and force rather than
negotiation and agreement. Resistance to new changes was met with physical violence, manifesting
in high labour turnover.
Europe: The self-generating and autonomous nature of British industrialization became an example
for the rest of Europe to follow. For Germany and France, this was a matter of maintaining their
position in the world. Though countries used Britain as a benchmark, the actual process of
industrialization in each depended upon the unique political, social and economic circumstances that
prevailed there.
Germany: The formation of a unified empire made Germany driven forward by a rapidly expanding,
technologically-centered industrial base. The two key factors that were responsible for this rapid
pace were the geographical and political conditions of the country (cooperation with other states),
and the fact that German industrialization was state-promoted rather than market driven (stimulated
by nobility). This was aided by the dominant role of Prussia and the creation of the customs union
(Zollverein). The state saw German industry as an extension os government, bolstering managerial
authority and restricting workers rights. Based on the governmental and banking encouragement,
Germany took over the British position by moving to vertical integration. All in all, the influence of
the Prussian autocratic tradition, the development of a strong bureaucratic approach within both
private- and public-sector organizations, and the close relationship between industry and state
meant that industrial and political resistance was met by a unified and implacable alliance between
employers and government.
France: The French industry developed rather late, which seem to have been caused by two key
factors: political change and agrarian stagnation, both of which are linked with the French Revolution
of 1789. A twin-track approach was instituted. On the one hand, state aid was poured into industry,
whilst on the other hand, there was the suppression of every obstacle to individual
entrepreneurship. However, the progress was reversed by the revolution which seems strange, as
those dominating the revolution were men of property and substance who believed in upholding
property rights and placed employees in an inferior legal position. However, this was outweighed by
the loss of most of France’s colonial empire and its isolation imposed by the British naval blockade.
Only after the 1850s, with the upsurge in economic activity across Europe and the coming to power
of Napoleon does the French economy really seem to have taken of. The other main factor which
held back industrialization was the backward state of agriculture. The agricultural sector, with a
strong position after the revolution, remained self-sufficient and inefficient. Second, by depressing
the rate of population growth, it prevented mass supply of labour for the industry. Finally, import
barriers produced a strong bond of self-interest between peasants and factory owners, both of
whom saw free trade as a threat to their way of life.
Scandinavia: In the nineteenth century, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark had weak domestic
economies, depending heavily on exporting the products of their agricultural, mining, and forestry
industries. However, the so-called compromise between capital and labour, which extended
cooperation between employers and social democratic governments lead to a Nordic model of
industrial relations. The close ties between these three countries meant that political and industrial
developments in one affected the other two.
For Sweden, the nineteenth century brought a rapidly rising population and a strong export market
in grain and timber. Sweden’s progress was significant. First, changes in the 18th century had
removed barriers to social mobility and created the conditions for the emergence of entrepreneurs.
Second, these entrepreneurs showed an unrivalled ability to exploit Sweden’s natural resources.
Finally, the high quality of the education system provided a workforce able to adapt to changing
industries.
For Denmark, it was changes in agricultural production that gave a large boost to the economy in the
19th century. With many fragmented producers, Denmark started working with cooperatives for the
export, hereby making small-scale farming compatible with large-scale international demand.
Remarkable is the degree to which Denmark preserved peasant and craft traditions. It could claim to
have avoided the clash of cultures and the rise of industrial conflict.
For Norway, the exports were more service-based than product-based, as shipping was its chief
earner. Just before WW1, an influx of foreign capital wishing to take advantage of Norway’s potential
for cheap hydroelectricity enabled the industry to flourish. Uniquely, merchants and gentlemenfarmers formed the top layers of society. All in all, its dependency on foreign capital without any local
impact lead to Norway remaining a relatively poor country, though far ahead in terms of democracy
and educational provision.
USA: In the USA, the need for a workable, overall approach to organizational design was perhaps
more acute than everywhere else, as it had industrialized far more rapidly than any other nation.
Huge conglomerates dominated the entire industry. The American approach, characterized by high
pressure and harsh conditions, owed little to government aid or encouragement, and much more to
individual entrepreneurship. There was great pressure to find an organizational arrangement that
would allow employers to control and organize their employees in a way that reduced conflict, was
cost-effective, and applicable to the American philosophy. Though similar development were taking
place in Europe, they lacked the intensity, commitment and scale of events in the USA.
Organization theory: The Classical approach
All over the industrialized world, groups of managers and specialists were forming their own learned
societies to exchange experiences, and to seek out in a scientific and rational fashion the solution to
all organization ills: to discover the ‘one best way’. Out of these endeavors emerged the Classical
approach, portraying organizations as machines, and those in them as mere parts which respond to
the correct stimulus and whose actions are based on scientific principles. Organizations were seen as
closed and changeless entities unaffected by the outside world. This approach is characterized by
three propositions: (1) organizations are rational entities, (2) the design of organizations is a science,
and (3) people are economic beings.
Frederick Taylor’s Scientific Management: Taylor created a general ideology of efficiency. His focus
was on the design and analysis of individual tasks; this process inevitably led to changes in the overall
structure of organizations. He believed that it is possible and desirable to establish, through
methodological study and scientific principle, the one best way of carrying out any job. Furthermore,
human being are predisposed to seek the maximum reward for minimum effort (soldiering). To
overcome this, managers must lay down in detail what each worker should do, step by step, ensured
through close supervision, and to give positive motivation by linking pay to performance. His
precepts for Scientific management comprised three core elements: (1) the systematic collection of
knowledge about the work process by managers, (2) the removal or reduction of worker’s discretion
and control over what they do, and (3) the laying down of standard procedures and times for
carrying out each job. Doing so removes the last bargaining counter of labour; scarcity of skill. Taylor
met high levels of managerial acceptance as he believed in the need to reform managerial authority
to be based on competence rather than the power to hire and fire.
The Gilbreths and motion study: Motion studies were thought to cut down production costs and
increase the efficiency and wages of the workman. To be successful, a mechanic must know his
trade, must be quick motioned, and he must use the fewest possible motions to accomplish the
desired results. Breaking down work into constituent components, the Gilbreths used flow process
charts to split human motion into five basic elements: operations, transportation inspection, storage,
and delay. Through a microanalysis, they established what was done, but also to whether a better
method of performing the task could be developed. They viewed organizations and workers very
much as machines. They were devoted to discovering the best method of doing any job.
Henri Fayol and the principles of organization: Fayol’s focus was on the organizational level rather
than the task level: top-down rather than bottom-up. However, similar to Taylor, he advocated the
need for professionally educated managers who would follow the rule rather than acting in an
arbitrary or ad hoc fashion. Fayol described 14 principles of organization (Division of work, authority
and responsibility, discipline, unity of command, unity of direction, subordination of individual or
group interest, remuneration of personnel, centralization, scalar chain, order, equity, stability of
tenure of personnel, initiative, and esprit de corps. In order to achieve this, he prescribed the main
duties of management as follows: forecasting and planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating,
controlling.
Max Weber on bureaucracy: Weber his work on bureaucracy is related to that of Fayol in that it is
focusing on the overall structure of organizations and the principles which guide senior managers in
this task. He argued that for a ruling elite to sustain its power and dominance, it is essential for them
both to gain legitimacy and to develop and administrative apparatus to enforce and support their
authority. Weber identified ‘three pure types of legitimate authority’, being (1) rational-legal, (2)
traditional, and (3) charismatic. In the context of the rational-legal authority systems which prevailed
in the West, the bureaucratic approach was the most appropriate and efficient. Here, laws, rules,
procedures and predefined routines are dominant and not subject to the vagaries and preferences of
individuals. Following this would eliminate emotions from decision making. Bureaucracy is
characterized by the division of labour, a clear hierarchical authority structure, formal and unbiased
selection procedures, employment decisions based on merit, career tracks for employees, detailed
rules and regulations, impersonal relationships, and a distinct separation of members organizational
and personal lives.
Conclusions
The rise of capitalism in Britain and other countries created new opportunities and new problems
that could not be accommodated under the old order. The result was a move away from selfsufficient autonomous individual units to collective units of production controlled by an
entrepreneur. The central features of this factory system were autocratic control, division of labour,
and antagonistic relations between management and labour. However, the process and
implementation style of this new system differed per country. One clear image however stands out:
the factory did not emerge because it was a more efficient means of production per se; it emerged
because it offered entrepreneurs a more effective means of controlling labor.
The Classical approach had many merits: not least in its attempt to replace arbitrary and capricious
management with rules and procedures that apply equally to everyone in the organization.
Summarized, the classical approach proclaims that there is one best way, founded on the rule of law
and legitimate managerial authority. Furthermore, organizations are ration entities and people are
motivated to work solely by financial reward. Human fallibility and emotions should be eliminated
and as a result, the most appropriate form of job design is achieved through the use of the
hierarchical and horizontal division of labor.
Taylor and his adherents have been criticized for their lack of scientific rigor and their one-dimension
view of human motivation. Taylor was also attacked for over-emphasizing the merits of the division
of labor, as the creation of jobs which have little intrinsic satisfaction leads to poor morale, low
motivation and alienation. Fayol has been attacked on three fronts; first, that his principles are mere
truisms; second, that they are based on questionable premises; and third, that the principles occur in
pairs or clusters of contradictory statements. Weber also received criticism; bureaucracies may not
be completely rational and Weber his statements sometimes poses contradictory arguments.
Furthermore, rules become ends in themselves rather than means to the ends they were designed to
be. Specialization and differentiation result in sub-units with different goals. Rules and regulation set
minimum standards but do not govern behavior. Finally, standard rules can lead to them being
applied in inappropriate situations.
One of the main criticisms of the classical approach as a whole is that its view on people is negative.
It seems impossible to remove the element of human variability from the running of organizations
and that attempts to do so are counter-productive. The classical approach restricts growth of
individuals and causes feelings of failure, frustration and conflict.
#2 – Smith & Sutherland/Graetz (2011), Ch. 1; Philosophies of organizational change: ‘changing
context’
Introduction
Leaders´ approaches to change are based on assumptions about how change works, often based on
prominent management concepts or experience. Most change leaders wield numerous philosophies
at once, use different approaches depending on the situation, or change their preferred approach
over time. The authors argue that whether conscious or tacit, success depends upon understanding
the distinctive but intersecting philosophies of organizational change. The term philosophy of
organizational change is used to describe the set of assumptions, tacit beliefs, conscious theories and
implementation approaches that govern a change agents´ way of looking at the organizational world
and the best approach to introducing change.
In the classical, linear approach to change, leaders rely on predictable, reducible steps to establish a
new work order and routines. However, change is rarely linear, infrequently predictable and only
sometimes successful. The authors advocate a multi/philosophy approach because continuity
depends on change as much as change depends on continuity. Both must be present for
organizational growth and survival
The Traditional Change Agenda
Traditional n-step models imply a formulaic approach which characterizes change as a controlled and
orderly affair, a simple case of unfreezing-moving-refreezing, with a magic leader at the centre of
implementation. There are several flaws to this approach; (1) little evidence supports the supposition
that organizations are as amenable to control as a block of ice, (2) there is limited attention for the
human factor. Regardless of these flaws, the n-step model appeals to leaders as it gives a model for
success and ensures top-down control of the change process.
Many articles mention that organizational leaders should try to challenge the status quo, increase
risk-taking and creativity, and transcend boundaries through information-sharing and teamwork. In
doing so, a paradox lurks in the traditional mode of thinking because teamwork cannot be mandated
through strategy any more than freedom can be enforced at the risk of penalties. Hence,
organizations muddle through the simultaneous existence of two inconsistent states.
All in all, however dominant and popular the logic of a leader-centric approach to change may be, it
is only one view of how to manage the troublesome continuity-change conundrum. Progress requires
combining and recombining multiple lenses of theoretical changes to improve integration and avoid
more fragmentation.
Change Philosophies
Philosophies describe a way of looking at organizational change: a paradigm incorporating structured
assumptions, premises and beliefs presupposing the way change works in organizations. Philosophies
generate numerous different theories, all based on similar assumptions and premises. However, they
may also evolve or adapt and may be revised or replaced over time.
Metaphors may be used to communicate the theory. They can illuminate the way organizational
change works by offering abstract but accessible explanations, liberating thinking from entrenched
habits, encouraging creativity with new interpretations of old events, stimulating emotional
engagement and fuelling action by probing unconscious archetypes. However, they translate poorly
into practice. Philosophies are superior to metaphors as they go beyond the abstract to provide both
description and prescription. They are the motors of change, incorporating metaphors, paradigms,
and theories. This book introduces nine philosophies:
-
-
-
-
-
-
The rational philosophy: Also referred to as a strategic approach, this philosophy pursues an
alignment between an organization’s structure, its competencies and the environment. It
assumes that a purposeful and adaptive logic motivates organizational change, initiated by
senior managers in a linear way in which performance is checked by set objectives. (e.g.,
Kanter). Change can be introduced at any pace and on any scale deemed suitable. However,
the rational philosophy tends to overestimate the power of leaders and expectations.
The biological philosophy: This approach is an evolutionary approach to change and focuses
on incremental change within industries rather than individual organizations. Change comes
through natural selection where industries gradually evolve to match the constraints of their
environmental context. They assume that there is a best fit with the environment that is an
ideal configuration. An example of this approach is the life-cycle model. However, this
philosophy is hard to translate into practice.
The institutional philosophy: This philosophy focuses on the way organizations change as a
consequence of environmental pressures. Here, it is expected that organizations are
becoming homogeneous over time. The key difference of this philosophy with the biological
one is that pressures for change do not only come from the market but also from for example
institutional bodies which regulate and intervene such as the government. In the institutional
philosophy, there is limited power for change leaders to determine the change. Hence,
success is more about acquiring scarce resources and results from sensitivity to institutions.
The resource philosophy: The pursuit of resources drives change as the critical activity for
survival and prosperity. The resource philosophy hereby explains deviance from industryspecific pressures. The stimulus for change arrives from within, as organizations seek the
resources they require to compete and win. However, this philosophy can give the false
impression that change only needs the right inputs.
The psychological philosophy: In this philosophy, personal responses to change govern
organizational success. Here, the focus is on individual experiences as organizations attempt
change and hence, individual employees constitute the most important unit of analyses in
studying change. Examples are change transitions, OD, and OL. In the first, the focus is on the
psychological status of organizational members (e.g. stages of mourning). OD takes an
individual perspective to change but uses a more data-driven action research approach
where managers must first collect the right information to change and second, remove them
by assuaging organizational members fear and uncertainties. However, psychological
adjustment to change cannot be enforced or accelerated, no matter how vigilant the change
agent and as a result, this philosophy exposes resistance to change better than it prescribes a
solution.
The systems philosophy: This philosophy developed on the basis of treating organizations
holistically. Organizations are the sum of their parts and any change instigates numerous
effects across the whole organization. Organizations operate rationally and in absence of
political pressure. Every system requires differentiation to identify its subparts, and
-
-
-
integration to ensure that the systems do not break down into separate elements. In this
approach, planned rational change surrenders to chaos and complexity, as change involves
an unmanageable tension between control and chaos.
The cultural philosophy: This philosophy prepares managers to see change as a normal
response to the environment. Most employees construct set ways of thinking about how
things should be done. As a result, imposing change means fighting entrenched sets of values
and beliefs shared by organizational members. The cultural philosophy recognizes
individual’s choice and is focused more at shared values in comparison to the psychological
philosophy. Thus, in order to introduce change, managers must diagnose the values within an
organization and change them without undermining tacit behavioral fabric holding the
organization together. Change will be long and agonizing and internally driven and hence,
difficult to implement.
The critical philosophy: This post modernistic approach to change views change as the clash
of ideologies or belief systems. Based on conflict, change revolves around activities such as
bargaining, consciousness-raising, persuasion, influence and power, and social movement.
Change transpires when power transfers from one coalition to another and a new
combination of ideologies and values gains ascendancy. However, the political philosophy
overlooks pressures for change from external factors.
Postmodernism introduces a second theory within the critical philosophy. Here, reality is
perceived as a socially constructed phenomenon. Postmodern change takes reality as
multiplicitous, fragmented and contradictory. They see language as a creator of social worlds.
The dualities philosophy: At one end of the spectrum, formal, rational logic articulates action
and maps structure and process against strategy. At the other end, the critical philosophy
gives preference to power. Both have flaws and hence, a combination of philosophies may
lead to an interesting new philosophy of change (dualities).
Conclusion
Managing change necessitates different modes of engagement and a rich understanding of context.
Philosophies bring into focus the complementary and competing forces that organizations face in
managing the tension between continuity and change, and how to deal with perennial issues such as
certainty/uncertainty, tight/loose control, large/small-scale change, slow-/fast change and
external/internal stimuli. A combination of these philosophies may function in a complementary
sense and may reinforce one another.
Tip: Study table 1.1 (Philosophies of organizational change – summary)
#3 – Smith & Sutherland/Graetz (2011), Ch. 2; Theories about theories: ‘changing theories’
Introduction
The term theories are used as a sweeping label for the inferences about the most effective way to
introduce change that the previously introduced philosophies hold. Theories refer to statements
that express relationships among concepts, whereas statements represent a theory to the extent
that it offers law-like statements or hypotheses that make measurable predictions. In general, all
philosophies possess at least one major theory. The term theoretical or theoretic relations is used to
describe the relationship between theories from the same philosophy.
Theoretic Relations: Theoretic context and theoretic continuity
In examining theoretic relations, the principles of theoretic context and continuity are utilized.
Theoretic context refers to the level at which a theory operates: either at a single analytical level
(intra-level) or at multiple levels (inter-level). In general, the more levels of analysis a theory relates
to, the greater its explanatory power. However, this also significantly increases the complexity of the
theory. The concept of theoretic continuity refers to how a new theory relates to existing theories.
Low continuity between theories leads to revolutionary theory change and a more radical outcome.
The paradigm problem
A paradigm may be understood as the established or commonly accepted perspective of a discipline.
Over time, evidence against the paradigm may grow and a paradigm may be considered obsolete.
Competing paradigms – and in our case change philosophies – suffer from fatal incompatibilities.
Hence, following the incommensurability thesis, the content of competing paradigms cannot be
compared due to the absence of common ground. Every paradigm employs a unique language and
labeling system that cannot be translated. This does not mean that using a multi-paradigm approach
to change management is negative sense: it may yield some advantages, including numerous
avenues for theoretical exploration. However, it may also increase the confusion around change and
it does not provide guidance to managers.
The reductionism-unification problem
The lower the level of theoretic reduction, the more powerful the theory. The level of the theory
reflects the target of analyses where measurements and generalizations occur. Level defines the
properties of a theory’s construct and the relationships between the constructs.
Reductionists assume that despite the diversity of organizations and their change circumstances, all
change looks the same when examined at its lowest level. However, the opposing view of bottom-up
theory development, or emergentism, counters the legitimacy of the reductionist approaches. They
contend that the whole is different to the sum of its parts and establishing connections remains less
problematic than making complete reductions.
As reductionism shows, the more levels of explanation a theory offers, the more complex it must
become. Multi-level theories present compelling solutions because they incorporate previously
unrelated explanations. Multi-level theories are those spanning numerous levels of organizational
behavior and performance. They bridge the micro-macro divide by integrating the micro focus on
individuals and groups with the macro focus on organization and industries, providing a richer, more
comprehensive portrait of organizational life. Reductionists see this theory unification as inevitable,
but it also means overcoming a number of substantial barriers; (1) in the end, one philosophy tends
to take a parent role, (2) the agendas and preferences of researchers present contradictions and
tensions, (3) the chasm between theoretical complexity and practical oversimplification can seem
unbridgeable, (4) researchers can be discouraged by a lack of peer appreciation as multi-level change
theories cannot please any faction, and (5) multi-level change research suffers from the collection
and analysis complications of multi-level data.
Unification also has some negative implications. First of all, organizations cannot be depicted as
theory hierarchies emanating from basic, general principle that can reduce higher-level theories.
Moreover, some branches of knowledge employ concepts that cannot be reduced (e.g., cultural
philosophy). Finally, the derivation from the original theory would not necessarily prove explanatory.
A typology of inter-theoretic perspectives
On the basis of inter-theoretic context and inter-theoretic continuity, the following typology can be
constructed.
Theoretic context
Theory continuity
Low
Intra-level theory
Theoretic revolution
Inter-level theory
Theoretic pluralism
High
Theoretic evolution
Theoretic connections
-
Theoretic pluralism: With low continuity and low context, this assumes that a new theory
offers little connection to its predecessor. Rather, they replace, subvert and compete. No
relationship can exist between theories operating at different levels. Adopting this means
assuming the presence of a complex heterogeneous world that requires a complex
description and is irreducible, primarily as a result of human factors. This approach also
implies that no one best way to secure knowledge about change exists.
Theoretic connections: Here, it is assumed that intersections can be found between adjacent
theories. Reductions and unifications can occur to a certain extent. Theories may become
connected in one of three ways: (1) heuristic dependence (theory of one philosophy may be
used to guide the generation of new hypotheses in another), (2) conformational dependence
(methods from one field confirm hypotheses in another field), and (3) methodological
integration (methods cohere to assess common hypotheses and data).
Theoretic revolution: This quadrant proposes that theories get exchanged wholesale at the
same analytical level. New is always better and replaced old under different assumptions or
paradigms.
Theoretic evolution: Here, the best theories get better, becoming more comprehensive
through incremental and evolutionary updating (e.g., replicating important findings from
other studies)
Conclusion
Theoretical unification is an illusion for some and merely troublesome in practice for others.
However, the nexus between multiple philosophical perspectives presents the best opportunities.
Different lenses lead to a richer understanding of change situations.
#4 – Burnes (2009), Ch.2; Developments in organization theory
Introduction
Despite its growing dominance, the Classical approach began to encounter both intellectual and
practical opposition in the 1930s. Three assertions strike at the heart of this: (1) organizations are not
machines but cooperative systems, (2) people are motivated by a range of rewards, not just
monetary ones, and (3) motivating factors change over time. As a result, two new approaches
emerged: the human relations approach and the contingency approach.
The Human Relations approach
In the 1930s there as the emergence of a more collectivist ethos than ever before. Based on this, the
human relations approach emerged that is a distinct break from the ideas of the classical school.
However, in two important ways, similarities exist. The first is their shared belief in organizations as
closed, changeless entities. Second, both claim to have discovered the ‘one best way’ to running
organizations, regardless of the type.
The human relations approach assumes that people are emotional rather than economic-rational
beings. Hence, people’s emotional and social needs can have more influence on their behavior at
work than financial incentives. Furthermore, organizations are cooperative, social systems rather
than mechanical ones. People seek to meet their emotional needs through the formation of informal
but influential workplace social groups. Finally, organizations are composed of informal structures,
rules and norms as well as formal practices and procedures.
Elton Mayo and the Hawthorne experiments
Elton Mayo is considered by many to be the founder and leading light of the Human Relations
movement. Though his involvement within the Hawthorne experiments is disputed, he did gain his
fame by this research. The Hawthorne experiments were designed to investigate the influence of
different working variables on the productivity of employees. The results showed that it was not the
changes in working conditions that affected output, but the fact that those workers involved had
been singled out for special attention. Mayo and his colleagues put forward two major propositions.
First, work processes should be seen as a collective, cooperative activity as opposed to an individual,
isolated one. Second, humans have a deep need for recognition, security, and belonging. Workers
performance attitudes could be influenced more by their need for recognition and security. Hence,
the crucial issue became one of social relationships – human relation – in the workplace.
Chester Barnard and cooperative systems
Barnard put forward the idea of organizations as cooperative systems. He was the first to treat
organizations as systems rather than machines. An organization is a closed systems because without
the willingness of its members to make contributions to and to pursue its goals, it cannot operate
effectively. Cooperation could not be achieved by monetary incentives, but should be a mixture of
both moentary and non-monetary inducements. Cooperation would not be effective unless an
organization possed a common purpose, the responsibility of which lies at the top of the
organization, although achieving it requires the cooperation organization wide. He also asserted that
the flow of authority is not from the top down but from the bottom up. To avoid a negative response
from workers, Barnard advocated systematic and purposeful communication, which is the product of
effective leadership.
Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs
Maslow was one of the first to differentiate between and classify different types of human needs. He
distinguished five different needs in a hierarchical order: psychological needs, safety needs, social
needs, esteem needs, and self-actualization needs. A person has to satisfy substantially the need at
one level before they could move up the hierarchy and concentrate on higher-order needs. However,
personal experiences or cultural differences may cause differences in the hierarchy of needs. For the
Human Relations approach, this theory explained why in some situations Tayloristic incentives were
effective, whilst in others, they were not. However, clearly, Maslow’s work cannot be transferred
fully into the organizational setting, given that the constraints on freedom of action imposed by most
jobs do not allow individuals to approach self-actualisation.
Douglas McGregor and Theory X – Theory Y
McGregor argues that decision taken by top managers on the best way to manage people were
based on their assumptions about human nature. He maintained that there are basically two
commonly held views of human nature: a negative view (theory X: people dislike work, employees
must be coerced, people avoid responsibility, and security is most important in employment) and a
positive view (theory Y: people see work as a natural thing, workers are capable of self-direction and
control, responsibility is accepted, imagination and creativity are dispersed through the population).
He believed that mangers’ behavior towards their subordinates was based upon one or other of
these views, both of which consist of a certain grouping of assumptions about human behavior.
Managers adhering to theory X will use a combination of stick and carrot methods to control their
subordinates and will construct organizations that restrict the individual’s ability to exercise skill,
discretion and control over their work. Those adhering to theory y will adopt a more open and
flexible style of management, creating jobs that encourage workers to contribute towards
organizational goals and allowing them to exercise skills and responsibility, with an emphasis on nonmaterial incentives. Although this indicates managerial choice, McGregor believes that changes in the
nature of modern societies meant that organizations were moving, and should move, in the
direction of theory Y.
Warren Bennis and the death of bureaucracy
In the 1960s, there was a widely held view that bureaucracy was dying and being replaced by more
flexible, people-centered organizations. Bennis termed this the ‘death of bureaucracy’, arguing that
every age develops an organizational form that is appropriate to its time. Bureaucracy was the
antidote for the personal subjugation, cruelty, nepotism and capriciousness that passed for
management in the Industrial Revolution. However, new conditions emerged which made
bureaucracy unsuited for current times. This is due to the increasingly rapid and unexpected
changes, growth in sizes of organizations, increasing diversity of the workforce, and a change in
managerial behavior
Job Design: operationalising Human Relations
The Human Relations school lacks a clear set of operational definitions and guidelines that allow
organizations to understand implement it. However, job design, or work humanization, has become a
powerful technique for rolling back the worst excesses of the Classical school. Davis and Canter
(1955) argued that jobs could be designed to satisfy both human and organizational needs, arguing
that job satisfaction leads to increased organizational performance. Job design can come in three
main variants: job enlargement, job enrichment, and socio-technical systems theory. The concept of
job design attracted so much attention as workers have become better educated with a focus on the
higher-order needs, organizations had to become more responsive to the needs of their customers
due to increased competitions, and low unemployment led to high rates of turnover. The popularity
of Job Design fluctuated with the employment levels.
The Human Relation approach: summary and criticisms
The most obvious overlap between all of the above is their almost total rejection o the classical
movement‘s mechanistic-rational approach. Second, the human relations proponents create a model
that possesses both coherence and plausibility through three core elements: leadership and
communication, intrinsic job motivation as well as extrinsic rewards, and organization structures and
practices which facilitate flexibility and involvement. These are underpinned by two central
propositions: organizations are complex social systems with both formal and informal social
structures, and human beings have emotional as well as economic needs.
However, there is also criticism against this approach. Economists rejected the argument that nonmaterial incentives have a potentially stronger influence than material incentives. The emphasized
need for togetherness and belonging was seen by some as a denial of individualism or as belittling
workers and portraying them as irrational beings. Sociologists criticize it for attempting a sociological
analysis of organizations without taking into account the larger society within which each
organization exists. Final criticism concern its claims for the ‘one best way’. What is needed, instead,
is an approach that links approaches to work design to the particular context to which they are best
suited.
The Contingency Theory approach
This theory has proved to be more influential than the ones described above. It rejects the ‘one best
way’ idea from the human relations and classical approach. In its place it substituted the view that
the structure and operation of an organization is dependent (contingent) on the situational variables
it faces – the main ones being environment, technology, and size. Since every organization faces a
different situation, the one best way for all organizations is replaced by the one best way for each
organization. Contingency theorist such as Simon base their approach on systems theory, adopting
the premise that organizations are open systems whose internal operation and effectiveness are
dependent upon the particular situation variables they face at any one time. Here, any part of an
organisation’s activities influences all other parts. In addition, organizations are not in complete
control of their own fate: they can be, and often are, affected by the environment in which they
operate, and this can and does vary from organization to organization.
Tom Burns and George Macpherson Stalker: the importance of environment
Burns and Stalkes identified five different types of environment that influenced a company, ranging
from stable to least predictable. They also identified two basic forms of structure: mechanistic and
organic. Mechanistic structures were more effective in stable environments, whereas organic ones
were suited better to less stable, less predictable environments. Mechanistic structures are
characterized by specialization of tasks, closely defined duties, hierarchical structures, instruction
and information from the top to the bottom, obedience to the organization, and prestige that is
determined by hierarchy, and is closely connected to the classical approach. Organic structures,
resembling the human relations approach, are characterized by job and task flexibility, adjustment
and continual redefinition of tasks, a network structure, consultation rather than instructions,
commitment to the work group, and importance determined by contribution.
Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch: the case for environment continued
Lawrence and Lorsch focused on how individual departments within companies responded to, and
organized themselves to cope with, aspects of the external environment that were of particular
significance to them. In their study, the structure of each firm was analysed in terms of its degree of
differentiation (the degree to which departments are distinct from each other) and integration (the
degree to which they have common structures. The degree of integration was found to be critical to
a firm’s overall performance. The most effective organizations had an appropriate fit between the
design and coordination of departments and the amount of environmental uncertainty they faced.
James Thompson: environmental uncertainty and dependence
Thompson’s work took the environmental perspective forward in three ways. The first was to argue
that although organizations are not rational entities, they strive to be so because it is in the interests
of those who design and manage the organization that its work be carried out as effectively and
efficiently as possible. Secondly, different levels of an organization may exhibit and need different
structures and operate on a more rational or less rational basis. Third, he recognized that
organizational effectiveness was contingent not only on the external environmental uncertainty, but
also on the degree of internal dependence present. He formulated a three-type classification in
relation to internal dependence; pooled interdependence (autonomous parts enabling the whole to
function effectively), sequential interdependence (output of one part is input of other part), and
reciprocal interdependence (direct interaction between parts). He went on to argue that the type of
interdependence could be related to the degree of complexity present: simple organizations rely on
pooled interdependence whereas the most complex organizations showed all three forms of
interdependence. In a nutshell, he argues that different sections of an organsiation have different
complexity, rationality, and formalization. The higher both the overall level of uncertainty and that
faced by other parts of the organization, the greater will be the dependence. As this
interdependence increases, coordination through standardization becomes less effective. Finally, the
more coordination is achieved through mutual reciprocity, the less rational will be the operation of
the organization.
Joan Woodward: the case for technology
Woodward found that more successful companies adopted an organizational form that varied
according to their main production technology, being the machinery used, but also the way it is
organized, operated, and integrated. She identified three types of production technology: small
batches, large batches, and process production. The most complex technology, process production,
was related to mechanistic structures, whereas the least complex ones, small batch, was related to
an organic structure. However, a major drawback is that this approach cannot be applied to nonmanufacturing companies.
Charles Perrow: the case for technology continued
Perrow drew attention to two major dimensions of technology: the extent to which the work being
carried out is variable of predictable, and the extent to which the technology can be analyzed and
categorized. He constructed a continuum ranging from routine to non-routine. With the latter, the
high quantity of exceptional occurrences require difficult and varied problem-solving techniques
(organic). Routine technology can be dealt with by recourse or standard, simple techniques
(mechanistic).
The Aston group: the case for size
The Aston group found that size was the most powerful predictor of specialization, use of procedures
and reliance on paperwork. The larger the organization, the more likely it was to adopt a mechanistic
structure and vice versa. This struck a blow against Bennis who saw bureaucracy as dysfunctional and
dying. There are two explanation for the link between size and bureaucracy. First, to deal with the
greater opportunities for specialization that come with size, managers have to impose a new system
that can control the new system. Second, the difficulty of directing even larger numbers of staff
makes it highly ineffective to continue using a personalized style of management.
Contingency Theory: summary and criticisms
There are three unifying themes to the contingency approach: organizations are open systems,
structure is dependent upon the circumstances a firm faces, and there is no one best way for all
organizations but there is a one best way for each organization.
Structure
Environment
Technology
Size
Mechanistic
Organic
Stable
Process
Large
Good performance
Poor performance
Dynamic
Unit
Small
Poor performance
Good performance
The attraction of this theory is obvious. First, it was in tune with the times in which it emerged, a
period of rapid economic and technological change. Second, it was simpler to understand and apply
than the human relations approach. Finally, contingency theory seeks to apply rationality to
organization design.
However, there are also a number of criticisms to this approach. First, there is difficulty in relating
structure to performance, as there is no agreed definition of good performance. Second, there is no
agreed or unchallenged definition of the three key situational variables. Third, The relationship
between size and structure has shown to be difficult to relate to performance. Fourth, the approach
looks to the formal structure, but informal may also play a very important role. Fifth, structure and
associated practices may be strongly influenced by external forces (e.g., regulation). Sixth, rather
than managers being the prisoners of contingencies, they may have a significant degree of choice
and influence over their situational variables. Seventh, it is assumed that organizations pursue clearcut well thought-out stable and compatible objectives. However, there is a high presence of
conflicting objectives and objectives are often unclear. Finally, contingency theory is sometimes seen
as too mechanistic and deterministic, ignoring the complexity of organizational life.
Conclusions
The human relations movement offers pertinent advice with regard to having clear objectives, good
communication, and leadership, but is less forthcoming on how change objectives should be set, and
the changes planned and implemented. Contingency theory on the other hand, gives a procedure for
setting objectives and stresses the need to identify and analyze the situational variables. However, it
is also silent on the issues of planning and implementation. Thus, neither of the approaches
discussed here appears to be the solution to all known organizational ills. Specifically, the issue of
culture barely gets a mention. Nor do they appear to take account of national differences and
preferences or wider societal factors.
#5 – Burnes (2009), Ch.3; In search of new paradigms
Introduction
Business is changing and consumers dictate to organizations that they should meet their everchanging tastes. Such has been the change in attitudes towards customers that many now speak of
organizations having gone through a paradigm shift. Paradigms are universally recognized scientific
achievements that over a period of time provide model problems and solutions to a community of
practitioners. Applying it to organizations, a paradigm can be defined as a way of looking at and
interpreting the world: a framework of basic assumptions, theories and models that are commonly
and strongly accepted and shared within a particular field of activity at a particular point in time.
The rise of corporate Japan forced American business to question what they did and how they did it.
The 1970s also saw the return of unemployment and inflation, both assumed to have been
eliminated, and two oil shocks which highlighted the reliance on imported energy. The key words for
the future became variety, flexibility, and customization. Perez and Freeman argued that a new
techno-economic rational was emerging with a shift towards information intensive products, a
change towards flexible production systems, and a move towards integration of processes and
systems. Increasingly, the term postmodernism was usd to describe the changes taking place.
The Culture-Excellence approach
Culture is at the heart of competitive advantages. More than 80 percent believe that an organization
that lacks a high-performance culture is doomed to mediocrity.
Tom Peters and Robert Waterman’s search for excellence
Peters and Waterman studied the determinants of organizational excellence, using the 7 S
framework. They found that the four soft Ss (staf, style, shared values, and skills)held the key to
business success. They argued that the rational approach is flawed, as it leads to wrong-headed
analysis (too complex to analyse), paralysis through analysis (action stops and planning runs riot),
and irrational rationality (the ‘right’ answer is found irrespective of its applicability). In contrast, they
believe that freedom given to managers and employees challenges the orthodox and enables
experiments with different solutions. There are eight key attributes that organizations need to
demonstrate if they are to achieve excellence:
1. A bias for action: Excellent companies favour methods that encourage rapid and appropriate
response. One method devised for doing so is chunking. Chunking is an approach whereby a
problem is first made manageable and broken into chunks, and then tackled by a small group
of staff. Therefore, excellent companies are characterized by small, ad hoc teams applied to
solving designated problems which have been reduced to manageable proportions.
2. Closeness to the customer: The best organizations are alleged to go to extreme lengths to
achieve quality, service, and reliability. They seem to focus more on the revenue generation
side of their services.
3. Autonomy and entrepreneurship: Perhaps the most important element is their ability to be
big and yet to act small. Here, product champions are allowed to come forward, grow, and
flourish. This championing system comprises three elements: the product champion, a
successful executing champion, and the godfather. Autonomy and entrepreneurship are
encouraged by the communications procedures adopted by excellent companies, in which
communication is informal, the communication system is given both physical and material
support, and communication is intensive.
4. Productivity through people: Workers are treated with respect and dignity. People, rather
than systems and machines, are the primary source of quality and productivity gains.
5. Hands-on, value-driven: Excellent companies are value driven: they are clear about what
they stand for and take the process of value-shaping seriously. Everyone in the organization
should be driven by these values.
6. Stick to the knitting: These companies do what they know bests, rather than acquiring or
diversifying away. Acquisitions are always in field of their core activities.
7. Simple form, lean staff: Keep things simple and small. Basic structures are left in place, while
all other things revolve and change around it, giving the company great flexibility. Such
structures only require a small, lean staff at the corporate and middle management levels.
8. Simultaneous loose-tight properties: This allows excellent companies to control everything,
whilst on the other hand allowing and encouraging individual innovation, autonomy and
entrepreneurship.
Thus, main attributes of excellent companies are that they are flay, anti-hierarchical, innovation and
entrepreneurship, small corporate and middle management, reward based on contribution, brain
power over muscle power, and strong, flexile cultures.
Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s post-entrepreneurial model
Kanter argues that companies need to be speedy in order to survive. She produce the postentrepreneurial model of how the organization of the future should operate. She sees them s
pursuing three main strategies:
1. Restructuring to find synergies: all non-core activities should be eliminated and companies
should ensure that the essential tasks are still undertaken. The result is to create flatter,
more responsive and less complex organizations that have a greater degree of focus than in
the past.
2. Opening boundaries to form strategic alliances: There is a need to pool resources with other
organizations and to band together to explot opportunities and to share ideas and
information. These alliances take three forms: service alliances (cross-company to undertake
a specific project), opportunistic alliances (JV aimed at taking advantage of a particular
opportunity), and stakeholder alliances (permanent alliance with stakeholders).
3. Creating new ventures from within – encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship: Here,
innovation will move from the specialized domains such as R&D to the central stage. As a
result, the innovative potential of employees is being tapped, and a proliferation of new
ideas, products and ways of working are emerging.
The consequences of the post-entrepreneurial model
Applying the post-entrepreneurial model will have impact on three major areas: reward systems,
career paths and job security, and lifestyle.
Employers and employees will increasingly come to look for new and more appropriate ways of
rewarding and being rewarded. Changes in reward systems are driven by four main concerns: cost,
equity, productivity, and entrepreneurial pressure. These are approached through applying three
different payment methods: profit sharing, individual performance bonuses, and venture returns
methods. However, the results of these approaches could be minimal in terms of motivation or could
even be demotivating and drive out the most experienced people in the organization.
As organizations become slimmer and more tasks are contracted out, structures are becoming flatter
and entire layers or hierarchy are dispensed with. It is no longer sufficient just to be skilled, as jobs
may change over time or disappear. Two main dilemmas for the organization are how to reconcile
with their stated objectives of treating employees as long-term partners, and how to motivate
employees to work in the organisation’s interest rather than their own.
Finally, with stronger financial rewards and greater freedom, people are expected to work more
hours and centre their life around work.
All in all, Kanter shares Peters and Waterman’s view that traditional organizations stifle creativity and
agrees with their call for radical change. They share much common ground on the issues of
innovation, entrepreneurship, culture, flexibility, structures and jobs. However, Kanter looks also to
the downside of these changes. When looking at approaches to change, Kanter distinguished
between Bold Strokes (major strategic or economic change, rapid and short term, stimulated by
senior managers) and Long Marches (Behavior/cultural change, slow and long term, involves whole
organization). These approaches can be complementary rather than alternatives.
In addition, Kanter came up with the 10 commandments for executing change: (1) analyze the
organization and its need for change, (2) create a shared vision, (3) separate from the past, (4) create
a sense of urgency, (5) support a strong leader role, (6) line up political sponsorship, (7) craft an
implementation plan, (8) develop enabling structures, (9) communicate and involve people, (10
)reinforce and institutionalize the change.
Charles Handy’s emerging future organizations
Handy also believes that the emerging future organizations will be smaller, more flexible and less
hierarchical. Rather than established the ‘one best way’, he identifies three generic types of
organizations that he thinks will dominate the future:
1. Shamrock organization: This form is composed of three distinct groups who are treated
differently and have different expectations: a small groups of specialist core workers, a
contractual fringe, and a flexible labour force. The core workers are essential, have wellrewarded jobs, and are expected to be loyal. The contractual fringe is the result of an
attempt to use machines to replace people and the contracting-out to individuals and other
organizations of services and tasks previously done in-house. Thus, the people from the
contractual fringe may not work exclusively for this company. This is cheaper, makes
management easier, and enables workload balancing. The flexible labour force are temps.
Follwing this structure allows companies to be big in terms of output, whilst being small in
terms of layers and bureaucracy.
2. Federal organization: Handy defines this type as a collection or networks of individual
organizations allied together under a common flag with some shaped identify. This
organization arises for two reasons: as organizations grow bigger, the core workers find the
volume of information to difficult to handle. Second, this allows the smaller parts of the
organizations to be flexible and competitive. Federalism implies grating autonomy to
Shamrocks.
3. Triple I organization: This comprises a set of principles rather than a structural model. The
equation for organization success will be : intelligence, information & ideas = added value.
For this to occur, organizations must become a learning organization. Everyone will be
expected to think and learn as well as do.
Handy departs from Kanter and P&W’s perspective in two aspects. First, he acknowledges that not all
organizations will adopt the same form. Second, he states what is only hinted at by other writers,
that new organizations will have a system where some a more equal than others and have different
rewards.
Culture-Excellence: summary and criticisms
This approach has gained its success mainly as it offered a recipe for success that was in tune with
the free market liberalism. However, there is also much criticism to this approach. First, there are
concerns on the role and behavior of people in the new organizations. It pits individuals against
individual and parts of an organization against the other. Second, the recommendations of this
school would stimulate political behavior. Third, they advocate a one best way approach, irrespective
of size, environment and other circumstances. Finally, the background of the different authors also
lead to many inconsistencies within the approach itself.
The Japanese approach to management
With economic and technical assistance, Japan overcame its many industrial relations and quality
problems of the 1950s and created a distinctive and highly successful approach to management.
What is the Japanese approach to management?
Many factors can be found for this success, which can be grouped within one figure:
Personnel Issues
Business Practices
Lifetime employment
Long-term planning
Internal labour markets
Seniory-based promotion and
Timeliness
Japanese
Management
reward systems
Teamwork and bonding
Enterprise unions
Quality
Training and education
Company welfarism
Important was the nature of the Japanese society and its impact on individuals and companies that
gave Japan its competitive edge. For this reason, western countries were unable to replicate
Japanese practices.
The future of the Japanese approach
Government support plans have played a strong role in the development of Japan’s science and
technological base and created a strong, competitive and world-class industrial Japan. However, this
does create a dependency on the government to support the industries. Japan seems to be declining
nowadays. One of the most persuasive explanations for this is that Japan failed to develop the rest of
its economy to similar standards. The service sector is only half as productive as its US counterpart.
Personnel practices are also changing, especially those relating to lifetime employment, senioritybased promotion and the treatment of female workers.
The Japanese approach: summary and criticisms
The Japanese approach has delivered impressive economic results, but there are those who question
the social cost involved. Japanese workers are expected to work much longer hours than their
Western counterparts and partcipiate in many work-related social events. There are also other
criticisms to this approach: most companies operate a two-tier labour market, where a minority has
good conditions and the rest does not. Furthermore, even those with lifetime employment are little
more than slaves to the corporation as they cannot change jobs. Moreover, the merits of teamwork
are only gained thank to the high peer group pressure. Finally, the lack of independent trade union
leaves workers defenseless in the face of managerial pressure to work even harder.
Organisational learning
To cope with the growing complexity, organizations are recognizing the need to acquire and utilize
increasing amounts of knowledge. The second factor that generated interest in organizational
learning was the rise of corporate Japan.
What is organizational learning?
Organizational learning describes attempts by organizations to become learning organizations by
promoting learning in a conscious, systematic, and synergetic fashion that involves everyone in the
organization. Though there are many, many different definitions and authors on learning, there
seems to be an agreement in that learning is directed increasingly at transformational change. The
potential of organizational learning to enable organizations to reinvent themselves is making it such
an attractive proposition for many managers.
Senge identified five disciples that organizations need to foster amongst individuals and groups in
order to promote learning and success: (1) personal mastery, (2) mental models, (3) shared visions,
(4), team learning, and (5) systems thinking. In terms of organizational learning, Argyris and Schon’s
triple-loop learning seems to be the most influential. Cummings and Worley also identified five
organizational characteristics that promote organizational learning: structure, information systems,
human resource practices, organizational culture, and leadership. Finally, Probst and Buchel take a
very different view and claim that organizational learning is unique to an institution. Each
organization can and should find its own way to become a learning organization. They argue that
there are at least four different generic approaches: learning by developing a strategy, learning by
developing a structure, learning by developing a culture, and learning by developing human
resources.
Organisational learning: summary and criticisms
For every positive statement about organizational learning, one can also find a negative one. Though
it is difficult to summarize such a dispersed field, in general, most writers would agree that an
organisation’s survival depends on its ability to learn at the same pace or faster than the
environment, learning must become a collective process, there must be a shift towards systems (3 rd
loop) learning, organizational learning can lead to transformational change, and an organization can
adapt to and influence its environment. However, there are also six major criticisms to this approach:
(1) there is no agreed definition of organizational learning, (2) there is scarce empirical research, (3)
people learn, not the organization, (4) managers view knowledge and control as synonymous and
attempt to reduce workers knowledge and increase their own, (5) most theory on this comes from
the west, and (6) the general adoption of organizational learning is based on the assumption that all
organization operate in a fast-moving and unpredictable environment: this doesn’t have to be the
case.
Conclusions
The Japanese approach has similarties to Taylor, whereas cultural excellence looks like the HR
movement. There is some contact between the three approaches mentioned here: OL draws on
Japanese methods to gather information and stresses the importance of individuals in promoting
innovation. However, advocates of OL argue that you can change the environment, which the
cultural excellence does not agree with. Furthermore, lifetime employment and loyalty of the
Japanese contrasts with the stress on the transient nature of jobs of the CE approach. On balance,
these three approaches conflict with each other.
There are five points of criticism to these three approaches. First, all three approaches claim to have
the one best way. Second, the social cost of achieving excellence is high. Third, the issue of power
and politics is barely touched within these approaches. Fourth, in neither approach is there any real
discussion or acknowledgement of the difficulties in defining or changing culture, despite much
evidence to the contrary. Fifth, the approaches say little about how change should be achieved,
although the Japanese approach is more specific (Kaizen).
#6 – Burnes (2009), Ch.4; Critical perspectives on organization theory
Introduction
The world is changing more and more, going into what some call the postmodern age. This chapter
examines three critical perspectives on organization theory with a view to understanding how they
view reality and the implications of their differing view for organizations.
The Postmodern perspective – From modernism to postmodernism?
Postmodernism concentrates on the ways in which human beings attempt to shape reality and
invent their world. Reality is socially constructed and for this reason, there is not one reality but
multiple realities.
The changing nature of work and competition forced organization theorists to question existing and
entrenched assumptions about the world. This debate created a receptivity amongst a wider
audience for the work of the postmodernists, who provide a more substantial and complex
explanation for the changes taking place in the world around us. In order to understand
postmodernism, we first have to look at its departure from modernism. Modernism is a term used to
describe the values, rationale, and institutions that have dominated western societies since the age
of enlightenment in the 18th century. Modernists assume that the world and its structuring principles
are accessible through the correct scientific methods of observation and analysis. Organizations are
characterized by mechanistic and hierarchical structures based on the extreme division of labour and
control systems that suppress people’s emotions and minimize their scope for independent action.
Postmodernism opposes the emphasis on reason, logic and rationality and challenges the claim of
science to establish authoritative or absolute knowledge. It argues that knowledge is a social
construction and that new paradigms are brought about by changes in the community of scientists
rather than discoveries per se. A crucial distinction is how view the nature of language. For the
modernist, language is a tool for the logical representation of the real. For postmodernists, language
gains its meaning through its placement within social interchange. They use deconstruction to reveal
and overturn the assumptions underlying an argument. Postmodernists also assume self-reflexivity: a
critical suspicion of one’s own suppositions. If reality and language are socially constructed,
postmodernists must constantly question and be suspicious of their own assumptions, statements,
and actions, which is related to triple-loop learning. In organizations, there are clear distinctions
between modernists and postmodernist organizational forms:
Modernist organization
Postmodernist organization
Structure
Rigid bureaucracies
Flexible networks
Consumptions
Mass markets
Niche markets
Technology
Technological determinism
Technological choice
Jobs
Differentiated,
demarcated, Highly de-differentiated, deand deskilled
demarcated and multi-skilled
Employment relation
Centralized and standardized
Complex and fragmentary
There are two key areas of organizational life to which postmodernist pay particular attention:
culture and power. The postmodern approach to organizational culture rejects the integrationist and
differentiation perspective. Instead, it takes a fragmentation perspective, believing the organizational
cultures are inconsistent, ambiguous, multiplicities and in a constant state of flux. Where power is
concerned, postmodernists believe that power resides in the combination of linguistic distinctions,
ways of reasoning and material practices which make up the body o taken-for-granted knowledge
that exists in society and organizations. Foucalt argues that power and knowledge depend on each
other, so that an extension of a group’s power is dependent upon and accompanied by an extension
of its knowledge and vice versa. The perspective on power has important implications for how reality
comes to force. Reality is seen as the product of power and politics in an organization. A coalition of
groups may be able to wield power and use political processes to achieve a dominant position in an
organization. When this occurs, it is their view of reality which takes shape and comes to be
accepted.
The implications for organizations
Though CE is more comfortable with postmodernism, the classical and HR approaches fall within the
modernist approach. Organizational learning is also very much related to postmodernism, whereas
the Japanese approach touches concepts of both sides. In summary, despite the somewhat
impenetrable and contradictory nature of the literature, the core of postmodernism concerns the
nature of reason and reality. Seen is this light, postmodernism has three important implications for
the organization theories and practices on culture (changing is unpredictable and sometimes
undesirable due to multiplicity of meanings), reality (power and politics), and choice (managers have
choice).
Postmodernism – some reservations
The main drawback of postmodernism is the difficulty in defining the concept. The term has acquired
a wide range of definitions. Furthermore, it is uncertain whether there ever was a modern era, so
there cannot be a post modern one. In addition, there are those who maintain that the current
developments are merely an extension of what has gone before rather than a significant break with
the past. Finally, there are those who accept that the world is entering a new age, but believe
globalization and not postmodernism is its defining characteristics.
The realist perspective – What is realism?
Realists also believe that reality is socially constructed, but they reject the notion of multiple realities.
There is only one reality and it exists even if we have not discovered it yet. Events and patterns of
events are generated or caused by mechanisms and power that exist independently of the events
they generate. Realism offers support for a non-modernist and non-postmodernist approach to
organizations and management.
Realism and organization
Realists seek to identify generative structure and to identify their capabilities. However, though these
causal mechanisms possess certain capabilities, causal powers, the actual outcome of their operation
will be dependent on circumstances. In terms of organizations and management, a central issue is
the extent to which organizations and their practices are produced by human beings but still exist
externally to them and shape their behavior. Realists argue that whilst the social world is a product
of human actions, it is not necessarily a product of human design but exists independently of human
beings. They also argue that social phenomena can exist without those involved having any
knowledge of them. Thus, they acknowledge the socially constructed nature of the world but, unlike
postmodernists, do not see the world as being merely a social construction. When studying
organizations, realists stress the need to give due weight to both people and structure and the
complex interplay between them. Human action is shaped simultaneously by the constraining and
enabling nature of an organization’s structure, which tends to favor certain kinds of outcome, but
that any actual outcome is contingent on the prevailing circumstances.
Realism – some reservations
Realism is a riposte to both modernism and postmodernism. It attacks the former for placing too
much reliance on science, rationality and logic, whilst critiquing the latter for rejecting reality in favor
of multiple and competing realities. The modernists object to the social construction side of the
realists reality, while the postmodernists object to realists claim of one reality and that it can be
discovered.
The complexity perspective – What is complexity?
Complexity theorists maintain that successful organizations need to operate at the edge of chaos and
can only maintain this position by the presence of appropriate order-generating rules. There are
three central concepts that lie at the heart of complexity theories – the nature of chaos and order,
the edge of chaos, and order-generating rules
Chaos and order: Chaos is often portrayed as pure randomness, but it can also be argued that chaos
and order are twin attributes of dynamic, non-linear systems and within chaos, a hidden order may
be concealed beneath what looks completely random. For complexity theorists, chaos describes a
complex, unpredictable and orderly disorder in which patterns of behavior unfold in irregular but
similar forms. Stacey identifies three types of order-disorder: stable equilibrium (so stable that it
dies), explosive instability (too unstable and destroy themselves), and bounded instability (complex
system between stability and instability).
Edge of chaos: Under conditions of bounded instability, systems are on the brick between order and
chaos. Creativity and growth are at their optimal when a complex system operates at the edge of
chos, although order generating rules are needed to permit self-organisation to take place and to
remain at the edge without falling off.
Order generating rules: The operation of simple order-generating rules permit limited chaos whilst
providing relative order. The concept of order-generating rules explains how complex, non-linear,
self-organizing systems manage to maintain themselves at the edge of chaos even under changing
environmental conditions. Under certain conditions, complex systems can even generate new, more
appropriate order generating rules when the old ones can no long cope with the environment.
The implications for organizations
Within organizations, semi structures may be the flexible structures that are sufficiently rigid so that
change can be organized, but not so rigid that it cannot occur. In order for self-organization to apply,
three implications must be upheld. First, there will be a need for much greater democracy and power
equalization in all aspects of organizational life. Second, small-scale incremental change and largescale radical transformational change will need to be rejected in favor of a third kind which lies
between the two. Third, in achieving effective change, order-generating rules have the potential to
overcome the limitations of rational, linear, top-down, strategy-driven approaches to change.
Complexity – some reservations
There are three significant reservations to complexity theory. First, the complexity approach requires
a shift towards greater organizational democracy and power equalization. It seems rather difficult for
organizations to achieve this profound internal realignment necessary to implement his concept.
Second, one should be careful not to treat complexity theories as though they are established,
unitary, unquestioned and uncontroversial. Finally, there appears to be a lack of clarity or
explicitness regarding how writer are apply complexity theories to organizations.
Conclusions
This chapter shows the need to set and understand approaches to running and designing
organizations into a wider theoretical frame. None of the three perspectives reviewed here was
developed for organizations. However, all three have significant implications for structuring and
managing organizations. Postmodernism offers enormous scope for the emergence of alternative
strategies and choices, but also stresses the importance of culture, power and politics. Realists see a
more limited room for choice, limited by structures. In complexity theory, choice moves from the few
to the many, depending on the situation. The main implication of all three is that organizations do
have a wide range of options and choices open to them as to how they are structured and operated.
#7 – Smith & Sutherland/Graetz (2011), Ch. 10; The critical philosophy: ‘changing reality’
Introduction
During the 1970s, the western capitalist world underwent a transformation in cultural mood and
economic expectations. The rules governing the ways things had always been done loosened almost
to the point of chaos. At the same time, business organizations started to soften their management
philosophies and learned to capitalize on changing patterns of consumption. The postmodern
organization emerged, which established an emphasis on more fluid and customized ways of doing
business. The postmodern view rejects singular or grand theories and sees change functions as a
socially constructed view of reality. In principle, the critical philosophy is another term for
postmodernism; the critics of modernism.
Change management in a changing world
Postmodernism doesn’t make sense unless viewed with reference to its departure from modernism.
As a result of industrialization and increased competition, the need for more efficiency and
specialization emerged; thus was born the modern organization. Organizational change revolved
around the maximization of productivity (Taylorism) and held no place for human irrationality,
imposed by top-management. However, especially after the oil crisis of 1973, it became clear that
the environmental stability characterizing modernism was replaced by a new turbulent context and
leaders were faced with the imperative to change.
Business began to experiment with new structures and systems and most importantly, started to
recognize that satisfied employees were productive and creative. Specialization and custom-built
products emerged and required a flexible and talented workforce. The growth of consumerism had
three implications for organizational change, all of which proved pivotal to the postmodern
approach: (1) the substitution of essential standardized products for a pluralistic array of products
and services meant that organizations purveyed personal identity as much as daily needs, (2) the
perceptions of high and low culture reduced in terms of distance as the traditional cultural priorities
were undermined by the denial of universal value and a preference for cultural relativism, and (3) the
world became a fluid combination of reality, simulation and fantasy.
The postmodern change agent
The postmodern approach to change is less concerned with overarching, grand theories describing
social behavior, and more interested in the intedeterminacy, ambuigity and contradiction of
organizational life. This perspective provides little guidance about the best way to introduce change
and introduces a range of challenges for change agents. To begin with, a postmodern change
manager does not seek to standardize the workforce or throw slogans at underperforming
employees until they perform or leave. The postmodern view accepts novel ways of change and is
reticent to declare one approach more valuable than another. Part of the mostmodern way of
thinking about change can be encapsulated in the concept of pastische.
Practicing pastiche requires the fusion of opposites into a new form, for example, connecting
clashing ideas or symbols until they took a novel life of their own as something new and original,
rather than a compromise or something in the middle. For change managers, pastiche means
experimenting with a unique combination of products, structures and values. The problem with
pastiche – and all principles of postmodernism – comes in its commitment that no rules guide change
because change itself functions simultaneously as the journey and the destination. Postmodern
change theory takes a different approach where the chaotic current of change represent the only
certainty. Rather than trying to find better metaphors or countering change, postmodernism tries to
look for new ways of dealing with change itself and change is embraced. All in all, though there may
be some useful lessons in creating an environment of experimentation and innovation, inevitably
some modernist thoughts about getting things done will surface.
Politics, power and change
For political theorists, change management means pursuing power through political means.
Sometimes referred to as the dialectical model, political explanations on change describe clashing
ideologies or belief systems, where conflict signifies the most important variable driving change. As a
result, introducing a political dimensions means assuming that clashing political forces will lead to
change as the status quo is likely to be challenged. Change processes revolve around activities such
as bargaining, consciousness-raising, persuasion, influence and power, and social movements.
Victory goes to the most powerful group.
Known as discursive analysis, change arrives through discourse with organizations. Discourse analysis
concerns the way language helps to reveal social phenomena and fits as a subset of the critical
philosophy due to the importance it places on the analysis of organizations and their members as
social units that compete for power and priority. Similar to the postmodern outlook, it has plenty to
say about change but less to say about how change should be introduced in practice. Reality itself is a
social construction laid down by the discourses in operation, as any individual has a different
interpretation.
The foucauldian view
Michel Foucault explored the relationship between power, knowledge, and discourse and claimed
that power and knowledge intertwine, but are mediated by discourse. Change theorists adopting the
Foucauldian style of interpretation claim that each organization uniquely produces and reproduces
knowledge through what is written, spoken, heard and read. The key to change lies in written
documents and verbal interaction that represent an organization truth or reality influencing is
acquired and discharged. The exercise of power through the control of discourse underpins the
ability to introduce change. For the discourse change theorist, organizational members are players
on stage, reading scripts that they did not write, and being directed by managers who do not permit
anyone else to interpret scenes. Discourse analysis takes a more liberal view, where power manifests
as an ever-present script-prompter hovering in the stage wings. Organizational leaders and change
agents do not own or possess power, rather, they apply it.
This has a substantial effect on change management approaches. Change agents and leaders do not
automatically possess power, they must acquire or assume it. Positional authority is not the same as
wielding the power to make things happen. This contrasts with Marxists assertions that power can
only be held by those with the ownership of productive means. Rather than power residing with the
control of resources, Foucault saw power as existing in the relationships between people.
To the discourse change theorist, the relationship between people in organization legitimize an
imbalance of power, supported tangibly through systems that facilitate the subordination of one
over another. Where Marx saw power as repressive, Foucault thought it could also be permissive and
productive, encouraging people to behave in novel ways.
Discourse and change
Discourse change theorist assume that reality is socially constructed. Thus, if individual sense-making
changes, so does their reality. As a result, organization change transpires when members change
their sense of the organizational situation. Sense-making involves three dimensions: history, power
and imagination. History refers to the way the rules for interpreting meaning were established in the
past and have been maintained through tradition. On power, traditions persevere through
reinforcement, reproduction and practice, which require the application of power through choices
about communication content and delivery. Third, imagination refers to the capacity to envisage a
difference which provides direction. It reflects less about a change leader’s vision and more about
how a member can see a positive result from a change programme. Thus, successful change comes
about when history, power and imagination line up with an organization’s contextual circumstances.
Planned change occurs when the capacity to conceive a difference (imagination) meets the capacity
to make a difference (power). Unplanned change occurs when context meets imagination.
Resistance is not found within individuals, but within their constructed realities which have been
challenged. The change agents need only determine the source of resistance and remove it in order
to proceed with the change programme.
Conclusion
Postmodernism juxtaposes the old and new, characterized by a change management approach
emphasizing diffusion, empowerment, flexibility, trust and market responsiveness. The practical
implementation of postmodern change ideas involves refocusing the social boundaries established in
modernism. Postmodernism rejects universal management truths which makes practical
recommendations problematic. Postmodern is notoriously fragmented. For this reason, it tends to
fall short as a popular tool for change.
Discursive models of organization change similarly discard the conventional pursuit of universal
patterns of change management and focus on the individual social construction of reality. Ongoing
conversations in organizations need to be made transparent so that power relations can be
examined. Like all theories that fall under the critical philosophy, discourse analysis offers the critical
contribution that change, power, conflict and imagination intersect.
#8 – Burnes (2009), Ch.5; Culture, power, politics and choice
Introduction
Since the previous approaches claimed to have the one best way, the result of innovations ought to
be the reduction or elimination of managerial choice and discretion. The importance of managerial
choice was noted in the conclusion of the previous chapter, initiating that rather than being the
prisoners of circumstances, managers have a surprisingly wide degree of choice and discretions.
The cultural perspective – What is organizational culture?
The work of managers is governed, directed and tempered by an organization’s culture – the
particular set of values, beliefs, customs and systems that are unique to that organization. There are
many different definitions towards culture. However, in general, we can say that culture defines how
those in the organization should behave in a given set of circumstances, all members are affected by
it, ensure that the actions of a member of an organization are judged by themselves and others in
relation to expected norms of behavior, and legitimizes certain forms of action and prescribes other
forms.
Much attention has been paid to the roles of ceremonies, rites and rituals in reinforcing behavior.
Trice and Beyer found that these include the rites of passage, rites of questioning, an d rites of
renewal. Another important theme is the role of heroes, the importance of which was emphasized by
Peters and Waterman. However, leadership is just one aspect of culture.
Cummings and Huse define four major layers of culture, ranging from basic assumptions to values, to
norms, and finally to artifacts. In fact, culture represent an onion, which multiple layers that have to
be pealed off. Furthermore, where there are cultures, there are also subcultures. In particular, there
can be significant differences between espoused culture and culture in practice.
Handy’s typology of culture is the most prominent one, dividing culture into four types: power, role,
task and person. A power culture is associated with a web structure with one or more powerful
figures at the centre. A role culture is appropriate to bureaucracies, stressing the importance of
procedures and rules, hierarchy and security. A task culture is job- or project-orientated, where
speed of reaction and creativity are more important than structure. Finally, a person culture is,
though rare, a cluster or galaxy of individual starts. Thus, role cultures are mechanistic whereas task
cultures are organic.
Profound implications of the cultural approach are four-folded. First, behavior is shaped by shared
values, beliefs and assumptions. Second, if organizations have their own identities, are there
particular types of cultural attributes that are peculiar to top-performing organizations? Third,
culture guides the actions of an organization’s member without the need for instructions. Fourth, it is
possible to change or manage a culture.
Changing organizational culture?
No organization’s culture is static: it tends to evolve in a slow and unplanned fashion as a result of
the turnover of group members, changes in the environment, and changes in society. Based on the
CE approach, a succesfule culture is one based on values and assumptions appropriate to the
environment and its structure. Given that the environment may change rapidly, situations may arise
where an organisation’s culture and structure may be out of line with its environment. In response,
an organization may try and attempt to change its culture. Thus, the answer to why organizations
wish to change its culture is because its existing culture is no longer fit for purpose and is having a
detrimental effect on its competitive performance.
Whether one can deliberately change culture is open to debate. For the optimists, culture can be
learnt. For the pessimists, management is seen as being incapable of controlling culture. The realist
take a position in the middle, stating that culture as a whole cannot be changed but several elements
can be influenced by management. So the answer to this question is yes, culture can be changed.
If that is the case, than how should one do it? Dobson found a four-step approach to culture change
involving shaping the beliefs, values and attitudes of employees. It start by changing recruitment
policies, reorganizing the workforce, effectively communicating the new values, and changing
systems, procedures and policies. All approach to cultural change seem to focus on the two upper
elements of cuclture: artefacts and norms of behavior. There are two final and very important issues
that need to be recognized when looking at approaches to cultural change. First, it is a brutal
process. The second issue relates to the extent that changes to artefacts and norms will lead to
changes in values and thus to an overall change in an organization’s culture.
Changing organizational culture: some reservations
Fewer than 10% of organizations may successfully change their cultures. There seems to be a
tendency to assume culture being the cause of a problem, when in fact they may arise from
inapproprirate organizational structures. Any attempt to change a culture is inevitably going to meet
with some resistance.
Changing organizational culture: conflicts and choices
The CE approach argues that there is only one form of culture that matters: strong and flexible. This
is supported to a large extent by the Japanese approach and the OL approach. However, strong
cultures may have a negative effect by stifling diversity and preventing alternative ideas arising. The
postmodernist are skeptical of attempts to manipulate and change culture, believing that the
outcomes of such attempts are unpredictable and can alienate rather than motivate employees.
There are 3 main conclusions we can draw from the literature: first, managers must make their own
choices based on their own circumstances and perceived options. Second, directive and coercive
approaches to culture change may be successful, but may alienate a number of staff. Finally, in the
absence of strong cultures that bind members together, managers may find it difficult to agree
amongst themselves, resulting in power battles.
The power-politics perspective – political behavior in organizations
The power-politics perspective proclaims that organizations often act irrationally, their goals and
objectives emerge through a process of negotiation and influence, and they are composed of
competing and shifting coalitions of groups and individuals. Under such circumstances, managers
satisfice. That is, rather than searching for the best solution, they select one that is satisfactory and
sufficient. Furthermore, there is the tendency for individuals and groups to pursue courses of action
that promote their interest, regardless of the organization’s formal goals and objectives. In
organizations, there is a scarcity of resources. These resources becomes the focus for comparisons
and the basis for self-esteem and, ultimately, the source of power.
Power and politics: towards a definition
Power is the possession of position and/or resources, whereas politics is the deployment of influence
and leverage. Authority is the right to act, or command others to act, toward the attainment of
organizational goals. Authority is in the position, it goes with the job, whereas power can be an
individuals’ capability to influence decisions without authority per se. Poltiics may be exercised
through reason, friendliness, coalition, bargaining, assertiveness, higher authority, and sanctions. The
decision which one to use depends on the manager’s relative power, his objectives in seeking to
influence other, his expectations of the target person, and the organisation’s culture.
Power, politics and legitimacy
Organizational politics is often seen as existing in a grey area between prescribed and illegal
behavior. Porter differentiates between 3 types of behavior: prescribed, discretionary and illegal. The
use of politics within organizations can best be described as non-sanctioned or informal or
discretionary behavior, rather than behavior that is prohibited or illegal. Politics may be seen as going
against on organizational goal, although the establishment of that goal can also be perceived as a
political process.
There are three types of power: coercive power, remunerative power, and normative power. A
fourth one got added to this: knowledge power. The degree to which they are will be effective
depends upon the source from which they spring. However, favorite strategies for influencing up and
down are the use of reasons, whereas for influencing across, to co-workers, friendliness works best.
The most detrimental outcome from the deployment of power arise when people feel they are being
coerced into a particular course of action that goes against their beliefs or self interest. Many
examples of other power tools showed the negative image that power and politics have. However,
power and politics can also be seen as a necessary component in the toolkit of those responsible for
managing change in organization and have a positive effect on improving the working of
organizations by enabling them to manage change more effectively. All in all, a person’s or group’s
position in the structure will determine factors as their influence on planning, their choice of
technology, the criteria by which they will be evaluated, etc. Though postmodernist would not
disagree with this analysis per se, their view of power in organizations is a much broader one. For
them, power is the mechanism by which groups in organizations create and reinforce their view of
reality. It is this shaping and construction of reality that allow dominant groups in organizations to
impose their will on others rather than the use of sanctions and other control mechanisms.
Managing and changing organizations: bringing back choice
The view that choice and use of structure, and other key decisions, is the outcome of a political
process rather than the application of rational analysis and decision-making has significant
implications for organizations theory. Managers do have significant scope for the exercise of choice
with regard to structure and other organizational characteristics. For rationality to prevail, an
organizations must have either a single goal or agreement over the multiple goals. Since neither exist
in most organizations, structural decisions are not rational and arise from a power struggle. Strategy,
size, technology and environment act as a constraint on the freedom of action of groups and
individuals.
All in all, two interesting points arise. First, culture and structure need to be mutually supportive if an
organization is to operate efficiently and effectively. Second, organizational culture is the product of
long-term social learning in which dominant coalitions play a key role.
Conclusions
It was shown that the degree to which culture influences behavior is dependent upon the presence
of clear and consistent organizational goals. If these are not present, conflict and disagreement
emerge. The review of the power-politics literature showed organizations as shifting coalitions of
groups and individuals seeking to promote policies and decision that enhanced or maintained their
position in the organization. All in all, what is clear from this chapter is that managers, despite the
constraints they face, have a far wider scope for shaping decisions than most organization theories
acknowledge, and that the scope for choice and the deployment of political influence is likely to be
most pronounced when change, particularly major change, is on the managerial agenda.
#9 – Burnes (2009), Ch.6; Approaches to strategy
Introduction
Where business used to be short-term oriented, more structured and consistent approaches came to
the fore later on. With the advent of the Classical and HR approaches, the emphasis moved to the
effectiveness and efficiency of the entire organizations. Based on either rationality or personal
considerations, the new wisdom is that for organizations to succeed, there must be a consistency and
coherence to the decisions taken. That is, they must have a strategy.
Understanding strategy: origins, definitions and approaches – the origins of strategy
Strategy comes from the Greek work stratego, meaning to plan the destruction of one’s enemies
through the effective use of resources. Chandler put forward the view that the emergence of
strategy in civilian organizational life resulted from an awareness of the opportunities and needs –
created by changing population, income and technology – to employ existing or expanding resources
more profitably.
The rise and fall of long-range planning
In order to deal with changing conditions, American organizations began to adopt long-range
planning techniques, necessitating finding the organization’s objectives and implementing a plan to
attain these objectives. Long-range planning was a mechanism for plotting trends and planning the
actions required to achieve the growth targets. In the end, it failed for a variety of internal and
external reasons. Internally, many planning systems involved little more than an extrapolation of past
sales trend and little attention was paid to changing circumstances. Externally, the relatively
comfortable conditions of high market growth gave way to lower levels of growth, which led to
increased competition as companies tried to maintain their market share. Long-range planning could
not deal with environmental turbulence which limits forecasting accuracy. The slow growth and
increased competition led to large single-business firms being replaced by multinational
conglomerates. In response to the emergence of these conglomerates and the failure of long-range
planning, the concept of strategic management began to emerge. Strategic management focuses on
the environmental assumptions that underlie market trends and incorporates the possibility that
changes in trends can and do take place, and is not based on the assumptions of steady growth. It
sought to take a broader view of the environment than long-term planning (e.g. Porter’s five-forces
or BCGs GSM). This approach portrays strategy as a rational process where managers gather
quantitative data on their firms and from this information come to rational decisions. However, this
received criticism, especially from Mintzberg. He argues that hard data are no more reliable than
qualitative data, that organizations and managers are not rational entities, and that an organization’s
strategy is as likely to emerge from unplanned actions as from any deliberate process.
Defining strategy
There are different perspectives on what strategy actually is, two main ones being the Planning and
the Design school. The Planning school was based on formal procedures, training, analysis, and a
large dose of quantification. The Design school proposed a model of strategy that emphasizes the
need to achieve a fit between the internal capabilities of an organization and the external
possibilities it faces (Chandler). Chandler suggested three important precepts for running
organizations. First, an organization’s structure should flow from it strategy rather than being
determined some universal one best way. Second, the visible hand og management was more
important that the invisible hand of the market. Finally, large organizations need to decentralize and
divisionalize in order to remain competitive.
Mintzberg argued that there are five main and interrelated definitions of strategy: plan, ploy,
pattern, position, and perspective. Johnson also distinguishes between different views, seeing
strategy from the rationalistic view, the adaptive/incremental view, or the interpretive view.
All in all, most writers would agree with Johnson and Scholes who described strategy as: concerning
the full scope of an organization’s activities, the process of matching the organization’s activities to
its environment, the process of matching its activities to its resource capability, having major
resource implications, affecting operational decision, being affected by the values and beliefs of
those who have power in an organization, and affecting the long-term direction of an organization.
Approaches to strategy: the Prescriptive versus the Analytical stream
Two issues are important in defining strategy: is it a process or the outcome of a process, and is
strategy an economic-rational phenomenon or is it an organizational-social phenomenon? On these
questions, there are two parallel, competing and to an extent, interacting streams of ideas. First, the
Prescriptive stream that sees strategy as a controlled, intentional, prescriptive process, based on a
rational model of decision-making, which produces complete deliberate strategies. Second, the
Analytical stream, is more interested in understanding how organizations actually formulate strategy
rather than prescribing how they should formulate it and argues that it is the outcome of the
complex social and political processes involved in organization decision-making. The prescriptive
stream was dominant in the 60s and 70s, but is was competing with a new variant, the positioning
school of Porter. The main difference was that the planning and design schools put no limit on
strategies, whereas the positioning school argued that only a few strategies are desirable in a given
industry. The reason why these 3 schools have dominated strategy is threefold: first, the proponents
set out deliberately to address the needs of industry and commerce by providing them with a
blueprint for strategy formulation and implementation. Second, they interacted closely with a
number of leading consultants and business school that promoted their works. Thirdly, as all three
groups in this alliance were engaged in a business activity, selling strategy as a product, they were
able to invest in promoting and developing their product in a way that others were not.
The analytical streams sees strategy more as an outcome of a process. They argue that it is the dayto-day stream of decisions that determines an organization’s strategic direction, rather than the
reverse. Organizations may start out with an intended strategy but due to unforeseen circumstances,
many of these fall by the wayside. Rather, existing capabilities influence the decisions which are
taken and from these decisions emerge new strategies that combine with the surviving elements of
the original intended strategy. Thus, following Mintzberg, strategies emerge over time from the
pattern of decisions companies take on key aspects of their activities.
Weick views the world as an essentially ambiguous place in which it is unrealistic to make detailed
plans. Child’s concept of equifinality takes this challenge even further. This concept simply means
that different sorts of internal arrangements are perfectly compatible with identical contextual or
environmental states. Mintzberg notes in relation to this that managers need to recognize that
achieving a successful outcome is more important than imposing the method of achieving it.
Understanding strategy: choices and constraints
So is there a one best way for strategy? Following the equifinality concept, multiple approaches to
strategy formulation may be compatible with positive outcomes. Especially since firms possess the
ability to manipulate and influence these circumstances to their own benefit. The question then
becomes not whether there exists strategic choice, but how much. Whitington attempted to make
sense of the many definitions and categories of strategy by identifying four generic approaches to
strategy: the classical approach (rational process), the evolutionary approach (reply to environment),
the processual approach ( a fit is not required, compromise between market and goals), and the
systemic approach (strategy is linked to social system and can be a deliberate process). The Classical
and Evolutionary approach see profit maximization as the natural outcome, where the others believe
other outcomes are possible and acceptable. The first three are one-best-way approaches whereas
the last is a contingency approach.
Choice, preference and judgment, for all but the classicists, do have a role to play in determining not
just an organization’s strategy, but also the approach to strategy it adopts. However, choice is
constrained by the national characteristics, organization characteristics, industry/sector, and the
business environment. The case for country-specific constraints sees the operation of organizations
as strongly influenced by the social system in which they operate. The culture of a country is
reflected in the organization. The industry and sector norms may also influence choice, especially
where the sector is highly competitive. Firms must stick to the rules of engagement in a sector or
they will perish. An alternative would be to diversify and to avoid sector constraints. Third, on the
business environment, this can provide constraints as well. An example could be governmental
regulation. However, as was shown, there is evidence that shows that it is possible to change, control
or manipulate the environment in which an organization operates. Finally, many organization
characteristics may constrain or facilitate managerial choice. Particular importance are structure,
culture, politics, and managerial style. Burns identified two basic organizational states
(convergent/divergent)
which
both
have
an
appropriate
management
style
(transactional/transformational).
Choices and constraints: summary
The mix of the constraints presented above differ per company and may both conflict and
complement each other. Successful firms are likely to be the ones whose managers are aware of and
can balance the various constraints they face. Thus, it should be obtained that the type of strategic
approach is a matter of choice, but that choice is constrained. However, even if this is the case, many
firms still apply the classical model and managers still tend to satisfice. This is similar to Choen’s
comment that decisions are often not taken but happen. They suggest that decision occur when four
independent streams meet: problems, solutions, participants and choice opportunities – the socalled garbage can model of decision-making.
Conclusions
The move towards a new, more emergent, perspective on strategy has been brought about by the
mounting criticisms against the Classical approach. The main criticisms are that it is mechanistic,
inflexible, and reliant on quantitative tools and techniques of dubious validity, leading to a paralysis
through analysis and irrational rationality. The alternative view is that organizations should move
away from the reliance on mathematical models with human creativity being brought into play.
Senior managers should create a vision of the future and establish its strategic intent.
However, though we can identify two major perspective on strategy, within and between them there
are a great number of variants which serve to confuse managers rather than help them. As a result,
managers tend to choose one tool, regardless of the drawbacks. This chapter suggested a third
approach, one which sides with neither the quantitative nor the qualitative schools of thought but
which instead seeks to promote managerial choice. The strategy that organizations adopt is or can be
the outcome of managerial choice and preference, although the degree of choice is constrained by
societal, sectoral, environmental, and organizational factors.
#10 – Burnes (2009), Ch.7; Applying strategy
Introduction
The Analytical and Prescriptive stream on strategy building represent markedly different perspectives
on strategy formulation. However, this may be changing as a result of an increased number of
strategic planning tools.
Types of Strategy
There is a wide range of approaches to strategy development that organizations can adopt. The same
can be said to the types of strategy that organizations adopt. However, in the main, there are only
three basic types or models of strategy.
The Competitive Forces model: This approach stems from the positioning school and has become the
dominant approach to strategy. Its central tenet is the need to align the organization with its
environment and its direct industry, following porter’s five forces model. He argues that it is these
five industry-level forces, the bargaining power of buyers and seller, threat of substitutes and new
entrants, and rivalry amongst existing competition that determines the inherent profit potential of
an industry. Porters maintains that there are only three basic generic strategies a firm can adopt in
order to outperform competition: cost leadership, product differentiation and secpialisation by
focus. Critics to this approach think that the choice of forces in the model appears to be arbitrary and
without justification; nor is there any indiciation as how to assess the relative power of the forces or
how they interact. In addition, it is too narrow and inflexible which leaves the organization
vulnerable if environmental developments lead to rapid changes in the marketplace. Finally, it
focuses to o much on a single variable, ignores political nature, is biased toward big business, and
impedes learning and creativity.
The Resource-Based model: The focus of the RB model is on the relation between an organization’s
resources and its performance. No two firms possess the same combination of resources and the one
with the best resources outperformes the other. The influence of this view has grown considerably
over the last two years, it now being wisdom that organizations should (in Peters & Waterman’s
terms) stick to the knitting and discard activities that are not part of their core business and which do
not build on their core competences. This view challenges Porter and maintains that the possession
of valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutiable resources may result in sustained superior
performance. Criticism includes its lack of empirical support, complex and ambiguous definitions of
resources, and that it is merely a rehash of the SWOT analysis. Furthermore, as competences take so
long to develop, any beneficial match is likely to be accidental rather than the result of deliberate
actions.
The Strategic Conflict model: This model portrays competition as war between rival firms. A firm can
influence profits by influencing the actions and behavior of its rivals and manipulate the market
environment. Furthermore, these maneuvers are dependent on what one firm think another firm will
do in a particular situation. Thus, strategic signaling is an important mechanism for influencing or
intimidating rivals. This approach draw on game theory to understand the nature of competitive
interaction between firms. Its emphasis on quick-wittedness, gut instinct and emotional elements of
decision-making means it sits better with the Analytical stream. However, conflict-based strategies
do not take account of the range of external and internal factors which could contribute to an
organization’s competitivesness. Hence, strategic conflict is likely to be more appropriate in
situations where there is an even balance between rivals in an industry.
The three types of strategy are all fashionable, but very different in their emphasis and timescales.
The strategic conflict model is outward-facing and short-term focuses. The competitive forces model
is also outward-facing but is concerned with identifying and occupying a defensible market position,
this tend to be medium-term focused. Finally, the RBV has an internal focus, but also a much longerterm focus than the other approaches. However, there are multiple other approaches to strategy and
one could also combine strategies. The key points to remember are that all types of strategies have
weaknesses and strengths and may be applicable in certain situations, but not in others.
Levels of strategy
There are three levels of strategic decision-making in organizations: corporate, business and
functional. Each has its own strategic concerns and a different battery of strategic tools. Although
there are strategies at the corporate level that have their counterparts at the business and the
functional levels, it would be wrong to assume that this is always a product of a top-down rather
than a bottom up approach. When running a diversified enterprise, there is a tendency for senior
managers to focus on corporate-level strategy, referred to as the corporate ‘game plan’, and to
neglect lower level strategies.
Corporate-level strategy: Strategy at this level concerns the direction, composition and coordination
of the various businesses and activities that comprise a large and diversified organization. Broadly
speaking, there are six forms of strategy that organizations pursue at the corporate level: stability
strategy (keep organizations quiet and stable), growth strategy (dominating one industry, most
popular for managers as they are evaluated on turnover), portfolio extension (M&As, JVs etc.),
retrenchment strategy (downsizing in order to match expenditure to projected income), harvesting
strategy (reducing investment in a business to reduce costs, improve cash flow, and capitalize on the
residual competences), and the combination strategy (combination of strategies above). However,
the tide has been turning against corporate strategy, as anything other than a minimal corporate
centre can only be justified in the centre adds more value than it costs and subtracts from the
business. Most corporate centers destroy more values than they add (P&W).
Business-level strategy: Strategy at this level relates to the operation and direction of each of the
individual businesses within a group. These are developed within the framework of an overall
corporate strategy, though the degree of freedom allowed to business units will vary from
organization to organization. Strategic concerns of managers at this level tend to be the mission of
the business, the attractiveness of the industry in which it belongs, and the competitive position of
the business units within the industry. In doing so, Porter argues that there are only two basic types
of competitive advantages a firm can possess: low cost or differentiation.
Industry-wide scope
Narrow industry scope
Low-cost advantage
Cost-leadership
Differntiation advantage
Product differentiation
Specialization by focus
Porter asserts that these three strategies cannot be mixed, as each requires different organizational
arrangements in order to be successful. Also, if a firm does not achieve either strategy, it is bound to
low profitability and below-average performance: being stuck in the middle. However, this view is
criticized by multiple authors.
Function-level strategies: Strategy at this level concerns individual business functions and processes
such as finance, marketing, etc. These have a crucial role in achieving and maintaining competitive
advantage, although it is the most neglected level of strategy. This is as the concentration of both the
corporate and business level at the external world led to a lack of interest in the internal operation of
organizations. Moreover, key-elements of functional-level strategy were determined and constrained
by corporate strategist. Finally, interest in function-level strategy tended to be one-sided, stressing
soft, personnel-type issues.
All in all, there are only a limited number of forms of strategy that organizations tend to adopt based
on the three approaches above. The appropriateness of any of these is related to the nature of the
societal, sector, environmental and organizational constraints it faces. These include the stage of
product-market evolution, the competitive position the firm has and the position it seeks, the
strategies of rivals, internal resources and competences, market threats and opportunities, etc.
Generic strategies will give rise to a host of variants and the choice of the most suitable one will be a
highly complex task. Whatever form of strategy is adopted, it will require the organization to achieve
a fit between its external environment and internal structures, culture and practices. It should also
be born in mind that the possibility does exist for organizations to shape their external environment
to fit with their internal arrangements.
Types of organization
Rather than attempting to classify types or levels of strategies, Miles and Snow classified
organizations themselves as strategic types. They argue that successful firms pursue one of two basic
types of strategy – innovative or stability. They classify firms as defenders (internal stability),
prospectors (internal flexibility), analyzers (internal stability and flexibility), and reactors (residual
strategy: unstable and inconsistent). Organizations pursuing innovative strategies (porter’s product
differentiations and M&Ss prospectors) seek to achieve success though reducing price competition
by offering products considered unique. Organizations pursuing stability strategies (Porter’s cost
leaders and M&Ss defenders) seek to achieve success by locating and maintaining secured niches in
stable product areas. For Covin, the selection and pursuit of strategy is driven by managerial style
and organizational culture. However, for Waldersee and Sheather, different types of strategy may
predispose managers to act in different ways (i.e. managerial style follows strategy), though Burnes
thinks they take a too narrow and deterministic view.
Strategic Planning tools
Strategic tools tend to have either a quantitative or qualitative bias, although this differs highly per
country and background. The ones that have attracted most attention are, in chronological order, the
Profit Impact on Marketing Strategy model (PIMS), the Growth-Share Matrix, and the Scenario-or
Vision-Building approach.
PIMS: This programme was launced in 1972 by Sidney Schoeffler. The rationale underlying this model
is that certain characteristics of a business and its makers determine profitability. Consequently,
understanding these and acting upon them will add a company to become more profitable. There are
three major which determine performance: strategy, competitive position, and the market
characteristics. Underpinning this model are two assumptions: all business situations are basically
alike, and the future will resemble the past. Main criticisms are as follows: it uses historical data
without consideration for future changes, it is highly analytical but very limited in solving problems as
it provides a lot of data that managers just accept, it asserts that profitability is linked to market
share which does not have to be true, most of the factors that govern the forecasts are beyond the
control of individual companies so managers cannot do anything with it, it assumes that a set of
quantitative variables are sufficient to capture the state of a business, and it is based on the premise
that business problems are orderly and well-structured. In summary, it is too mechanistic, overly
complex, based on unreliable data, and cannot cope with dynamic and unpredictable environments.
The Growth-Share Matrix: BCG found that as the cumulative production of a product doubles, the
cost of producing it decrease by a constant percentage. From this, they concluded that if costs fall in
relation to production volume, then cost must also be a function of market share. Therefore, the
company with the largest market share should also have the greatest competitive advantage. Based
on the assumption that all except the smallest and simplest organizations are composed of more
than one business, they developed the Growth-share matrix that posits that businesses in an
organization’s portfolio can be classified into starts, cash-cows, dogs, and problem children. Stars are
business units with high growth and market share for which the best strategy is to make the
necessary investments to maintain or improve their position. Cash-cows are former starts whose
market growth is in decline. Because they are entrenched in the market, they have lower costs and
make higher profits, therefore, the appropriate strategy for such business is to milk them in order to
develop the rest of the organization’s portfolio. Dogs are business with low market share and low
growth potential and need to be sold off. Finally, problem children or question marks have a high
growth rate and low market share. They have high requirements to keep them on course, but their
profitability s low because of their low market share. The appropriate strategy is not clear, as it may
be possible to turn them into start but could also become dogs. The matrix was widely and rapidly
adopted by American corporations, due to its simplicity and ease of construction, and because most
large corporations were busy splitting their organizations into SBUs focusing on particular industries
and products. However, the matrix has also received its fair share of criticism: the labels are seen as a
vulgar and destructive vocabulary, the uniqueness of a firm may not be captured by a classification
scheme, the major variables are difficult to define and measure, most component business were
classed as dogs even though they were highly profitable. The key and most common criticism relates
to how the matrix has been used: it takes strategic thinking away from managers and the final
message is dubious at best.
The scenario building approach: The use of scenarios is based on the assumption that, in a rapidly
changing and uncertain world, if you cannot predict the future, then by considering a range of
possible futures, an organization’s strategic horizon can be broadened, managers can be opened up
to new ideas and, perhaps, the right future can even be identified. Scenarios allow organizations to
exercise strategic choice in terms of whether to try shaping the future, adapting to the future, or
keeping their options open by investing in a range of products, technologies, and markets. A scenario
is a detailed and plausible view of how the business environment of an organization may develops in
the future based on grouping of key environmental influences. Following this approach allows an
organization to carry out an intensive examination of its own unique and complex circumstances and
needs. The two main scenario-building approaches that have become well-established are the Delphi
method and the Cross Impact method, although a third approach has become increasingly
influential: vision-building. Scenario building overlaps with the post modernistic view that there are
multiple realities and organizations have the ability to create their own reality. One of the main
functions of this approach is that it enables organizations to question the very foundation of their
existence, examine the usefulness of their values and norms. The Delphi method uses a panel of
experts, who are interrogated about a number of future issues. The Cross Impact method is a
variation to this and uses the same interrogation with as a differences that here, panel of experts are
asked to assign subjective probabilities and time priorities to a list of potential future events and
developments. The emphasis is on identifying reinforcing or inhibiting events and trends and to
uncover relationship and to indicate the importance of specific events. Finally, vision building is
influenced more by Japanese management practices. Compelling visions have two components: a
core ideology and a strong and bold vision of the organization’s future which identifies specific goals
changes. Major elements of vision building are the conception by senior management of an ideal
future, the identification of the firm’s mission, its rational for existence, and a clear statement of
desired outcomes and conditions needed to achieve these. However, scenario/vision-building
approaches have many criticisms: they are prone to subjectivity and bias, they can encourage
retrospection, participants are influenced by their preference of scenario, the process cannot be
carried out by novices and can be time-consuming and expensive in terms of senior management
time and outside experts, there is much debate about how many scenarios to construct and how
they should be used, the more radical the vision, the more difficult it will be to get managers to
commit to it, and visions require strong visionary leaders, which are in short supply.
Conclusions
What the above examination has shown is that, in the west, the Prescriptive stream of strategy tends
to be in favor, especially due to popularity of porters 5 forces. However, the RBV and Strategic
conflict model have been growing in importance, both drawing support from the analytical stream of
strategy. However, neither approach is right or wrong. Both may offer much to organizations,
depending on their circumstances or constraints. Organizations have a choice; they can seek to
influence or mould the constraints they face in order to make them more amenable to the type or
model of strategy they wish to pursue. Nevertheless, choosing the type or model of strategy is one
thing, implementing it is an entirely different matter.
#11 – Burnes (2009), Ch.8; Approaches to change management
Introduction
For both the Analytical and Prescriptie stream, change management is vitally important, whether it
be for strategy implementation or development. This will be developed further in this chapter.
Theoretical foundations
Change management is not a distinct discipline with rigid and defined boundaries. The theory and
practice of it draw on a number of social science disciplines and tradition. Thigh is one of its
strengths, but does make the task of tracing its origins more difficult. In order to find a balance
between capturing theoretical foundations without straying so far into its related disciplines, this
examination will focus on three schools of thought that form the centre on which change
management theory stands.
The Individual Perspective school: The supporters of this school are split into two camps: the
Behaviourists and the Gestalt-Field psychologists. The former views behavior as resulting from an
individual’s interaction with their environment, whereas the latter believe that this is only partially
an explanation and that an individual’s behavior is the product of environment and reason. In
beahaviourist theory, all behavior is learned; the individual is the passive recipient of external and
objective data. Human actions are conditioned by their expected consequences where behavior that
is rewarded is repeated, and behavior that is ignored is not. Therefore, in order to change behavior,
it is necessary to change the conditions that cause it. This reflects many aspects of the Classical
schools, with human beings as cogs in a machine that respond solely to external stimuli. For GestaltField theorists, learning is a process of gaining or changing insights, outlooks, expectations or thought
patterns. It takes into account the interpretation the individual places on external stimuli.
Consequently, the Gestalt-Field proponents seek to help individual members of an organizational
change their understanding of themselves and the situation in question, which in turn will lead to
changes in behavior. Some writers, such as advocates of the CE school, recommend using both
approaches, though this can also be found back in the HR movement and the Group Dynamics
school.
The Group Dynamics school: This school originated with the work of Lewin and emphasizes on
bringing about organizational change through teams or work groups, rather than individuals. The
rationale is that because people in organizations work in groups, individual behavior must be seen,
modified, or changed in the light of groups’ prevailing practices and norms. Group behavior is an
intricate set of symbolic interactions and forces that not only affect group structures, but also modify
individual behavior (Lewin). As a a result, he argues that it is useless to focus on changing behavior of
individuals, as the individual in isolation is constrained by group pressures to conform. Hence, the
focus should be on a group level and should concentrate on influencing and changing the group’s
norms, roles and values.
The Open Systems school: The open systems school sees organizations as composed of a number of
interconnected sub-systems. Any change to one part of the system will have an impact on other
parts of the system and in turn, on its overall performance. Organisations are seen as open in two
respects. First, they are open to, and interact with, the external evnrionment. Second, they are open
internally, the various sub-systems interact with each other. The objective of this approach is to
structure the functions of a business in such a manner that that overall business objectives are
collectively pursued. The emphasis is on achieving overall synergy rather than optimizing individual
performance. Miller argues that there are four principal organizational sub-systems: the
organizational goals and values sub-system, the technical syb-system, the psychosocial sub-system,
and the managerial sub-system. The open systems school is concerned with understanding
organization in their entirety; therefore, it attempts to take a holistic rather than a particularistic
perspective. This if informed by three factors: sub-systems are interdependent, training is unlikely to
succeed on its own, and in order to be successful, organizations have to tap and direct the energy
and talent of their workforce. However, this approach also alleged shortcomings. For example, social
systems are extremely dynamic and complex entities that often defy descriptions and analysis. In a
similar vein, open systems theory does not comprise a consistent, articulated, coherent theory as
much of it constitutes a high level of abstraction.
Summary: Four major points stand out when looking at these three schools of change management.
First, they stand in sharp contrast to the mechanic approach of the Classical school and form a link to
the emerging organizational paradigms discussed in Ch.3. It may be possible to go further and say
that these schools provide many core concepts of the new paradigms, especially in respect to
teamwork and organizational learning. Second, the perspectives on change focus on different aspects
of organizational life and has different implications for what type of change takes place. Third, these
three schools are no in conflict with each other per se. The key task is to identify the circumstances in
which each is appropriate. Finally, the open systems perspective has a valid point in claiming that
change at one level or in one area should take into account the effect it will have elsewhere in the
organization.
The Panned approach: from Lewin to Organization Development (OD)
The magnitude and frequency of change is now greater than ever before. Planned change is a term
first coined by Lewin to distinguish conscious change from unintended changes. Planned does not
mean that someone sits down in advance and writes a plan detailing what will take place, rather, it
means that the organization identifies an area where it believes change is required and undertakes a
process to evaluate and, if necessary, bring about the change. The planned approach to change is
closely associated with the practice of Organization Development (OD). OD is a unique organizational
improvement strategy and is about people and organizations and people in organizations and how
they function. OD is about getting individuals, teams and organizations to function better and
involves common sense, hard work, and a systematic, goal-oriented approach. Underpinning OD is a
set of values, assumptions, and ethics that emphasize its humanistic orientation and its commitment
to organizational effectiveness. In a survey of OD practitioners, five main approaches were used:
empowering employees to act, creating openness in communication, facilitating ownership of the
change process and its outcomes, the promotion of a culture of collaboration, and the promotion of
continuous learning. OD shares some concepts with the HR movement
Kurt Lewin and Planned Change
Lewin believed that the key to resolving social conflict was to facilitate learning and so enable
individuals to understand and restructure their perceptions of the world around them. A central
theme of much of his work is the view that the group to which an individual belongs is the ground for
his perceptions, his feeling and his actions. Though planned change has four individual elements –
field theory, group dynamics, action research, and the tree-step model – and though they are often
treated as separate themes, Lewin saw them as a unified whole.
Lewin believed that for group behavior to change, it was necessary to unfreeze the forces restraining
change such as personal defenses or group norms. Field theory is an approach to understanding
group behavior by identify and mapping the totality and complexity of the field in which the behavior
takes place. It is necessary to challenge the status quo, the balance of driving and restraining forces,
in order to change to come about. He believed that a group was never stable and always in a state of
adaptation. He used the term quaisstationary equilibrium to indicate that, whilst there might a
rhythm and pattern to the behavior and process of a group, these tended to fluctuate constantly
owing to changes in the forces or circumstances. Once one understand the forces, it may be possible
to change them.
Lewin was the first to write about group dynamics and defined a group as the interdependence of
fates between individuals. In order to find out what it is about the nature of a group that causes it to
respond as it does and how these forces can be changed, Lewin began to develop the concept of
Group dynamics, which implies that individual behavior should always be investigated in the context
of a group.
Lewin conceived of Action Research as a two-pronged process. First, it emphasizes that change
requires action. Second, it recognizes that successful action is based on analyzing the situation
correctly, identifying all the possible alternative solutions. To be successful though, there has to be a
felt-need, which is an individual’s inner realization that change is necessary. The foundation of this lie
in Gestalt psychology, stressing that change can only be successful by helping individuals to reflect on
and gain new insights into the totality of their situation. Action research is an iterative process
whereby research leads to action, and action leads to evaluation and further research. Action
research stresses that for change to be effective, it must take place at the group level and must be a
participative and collaborative process which involves all those concerned.
The 3-step model is often cited as Lewin’s key contribution. A successful change project, Lewin
argued, involved three steps: Unfreezing -> Moving -> Refreezing. Lewin argued that the equilibrium
needs to be destabilized (unfrozen) before old behavior can be discarded and new behavior adopted.
Schein describes three processes necessary to achieve this: disconfirmation of the validity of the
status quo, the induction of guilt or survival anxiety, and creating psychological safety. When this is
done, the group can move to a more acceptable set of behavior through the iterative approach of
research, action and more research. Finally, refreezing seeks to stabilize the group at a new quasistationary equilibrium. New behavior must be congruent with the rest of the behavior. In
organizational terms, refreezing often requires changes to organizational culture, norms, policies,
and practices.
Carnall draws on these various models of change to develop the coping cycle, which shows how
people react and adjust when faced with change. It comprises five stages: denial, defense, discarding,
adaptation, and internalization. The first three steps is similar to the first step of Lewin, with
adaptation representing moving, and internalization being similar to refreezing.
In summary, Lewin identified two requirements for success: one should analyze and understand how
social groupings are formed, motivated, and maintained (Field theory & Group dynamics) and
understand how to change the behavior of social groups (Action research & 3 step model). However,
as a stand-alone model, the three-step model is rather underdeveloped, so OD practitioners have
sought to develop it further.
Phases of Planned change
The concept of planned change implies that an organization exists in different states at different
times that planned movement can occur from one state to another. Bullock and Batten developed an
integrated, four-phase model of planned change based on a review and synthesis of over 30 models:
exploration, planning, action, integration. Their model describes planned change in terms of two
major dimensions: change phases and change processes. The focus of their model is change at
individual and group level, just as Lewin’s. However, OD practitioners have recognized that
organizations are being reinvented; work tasks are being reengineered, the rules are rewritten, and
the fundamental nature of organizations is changing. OD has had to adapt to these new conditions
and broaden its focus out beyond individual and group behavior.
The changing nature of Organization Development
OD is a process that applies behavioural science knowledge and practices to help organizations
achieve greater effectiveness. The original focus was on work group, though this changed to a more
organization-wide approach. Three developments in particular caused it to broaden out its
perspective: the rise of the job design movement, increased interest in culture and organizational
learning, and the increasing use of organization-wide approaches to change. However, the more OD
becomes focused on macro issues, the less it can keep in touch with and involve all the individuals
affected by its change programmes and the less able it is to promote its core humanist and
democratic values.
Planned change: summary and criticisms
Planned change, as developed by Lewin, compises four elements: field theory, group dynamics,
action research, and the three-step model. The original purpose of it was to resolve social conflict in
society, including conflict with organizations. In organizational terms, its purpose was to improve the
effectiveness of the human side of the organization. With the change from OD towards
organizational transformation, two fundamental dilemmas have arisen. First, while OD practitioners
are well equipped to bring about change in group behavior, there are less well equipped to achieve
the same in terms of organizational transformation. Second, as OD moved to large-scale
transformation, though the emphasis on organizational effectiveness has remained, a difference has
emerged with regard to the participatory and democratic nature of its approach. Lewin stresses
solving problems through dialogue, but now executives have a slash and burns mentality.
Bullock and Batten’s model gives the consultant a more directive and less developmental role, in
comparison to Lewin’s earlier idea. Those involved are now more dependent on the change agent,
not just dor his or her skills of analysis but also for providing solutions and helping to implement
them. This tendency for consultants to have a more directive role and for employees to have a less
participatory one, has become even more pronounces as OD shifted from individuals and groups to
organizations in their entirety. In addition B&B are moving towards the bhaviourist direction. The
danger in this situation is that the learner becomes a passive recipient of external objective data.
The main criticisms against the planned approach are as follows. Much of the existing OD technology
was developed specifically for top-down organizations in stable environments. In the turbulent
world, such assumptions are tenuous and organizational change is more a continuous and openended process than a set of discrete and self-contained events. Second, a number of writers have
criticsed the planned approach for its emphasis on incremental and isolated change and its inability
to incorporate radical, transformational change. Third, the planned approach is seen as being based
on the assumption that common agreement can be reached, ignoring organizational conflicts and
politics. Fourth, it assumes that one type of approach to change is suitable for all organizations, all
situations, and all times. Thus, planned change is certainly applicable to the individual and group
contexts, but seems less appropriate for system-wide change. However, in all of these critics, there is
a need to draw a distinction between Lewin’s original approach and the more prescriptive and
practitioner-orientated variants. For example, Lewin did not ignore power and politics or fail to
recognize that change could be transformational.
The frequency and magnitude of organizational change
An appreciation of whether organizational change is to be a continuing feature or a one-off event,
whether it is on a small or large scale, and whether change is fast or slow, plays a key role in judging
the appropriateness of particular approaches to managing change. It is important to examine the
main models that are not being promoted and to recognize that there are strong disagreements
about the nature and pace of change.
The incremental model of change
Advocates of the incremental model of change see change as being a process whereby individual
parts of an organization deal incrementally and separately with one problem and one goal at a time.
The received wisdom therefore is that change will take place through successive, limited, and
negotiated shifts. Main exemplars of incremental change have been Japanese companies.
The punctuated equilibrium model of organizational transformation
However, there can also be short periods of rapid and reviolutionary change in between the
incremental changes. The punctuated equilibrium model assumes that whilst most organizations do
appear to fit the incrementalist model of change for a period of time, there comes a point where
they go through a period of rapid and fundamental change. However, little research has explored the
empirical validity of the model’s basic arguments. Both the incremental and the punctuated
equilibrium model assume that stability is the natural or preferred state for organizations.
The continuous transformation model of change
The arguments put forward for the continuous transformation model is that in order to survive,
organizations must develop the ability to change themselves continuously in a fundamental manner.
Change is a pattern of endless modification in work processes and social practice, driven by
organizational instability and reactions to daily contingencies. The underpinning rationale is that the
environment in which organizations operate is changing rapidly, radically, and unpredictably. Only by
continuous change can one remain aligned with the environment. This is very much in line with the
CE school and complexity theories.
Conclusions
The focus of Planned change has moved from conflict resolution to performance enhancement, as
OD has grown into a consultancy industry aimed at resolving problems with client organizations.
#12 – Burnes (2009), Ch.9; Developments in change management
Introduction
Organizations see themselves less and less as stable and more and more as work in progress subject
to continuing and continuous change. Since the 1980s, the Emergent approach has taken over the
planned approach to dominate theory and practice of change management. This approach starts
from the assumption that change is not a linear process or a one-off isolated event but is a
continuous, open-ended, cumulative and unpredictable process of aligning and re-aligning an
organization to its changing environment. This is more suitable to continually changing environments
in which firms now operate.
From Planned to Emergent change
The rise of corporate Japan precipitated the questioning of existing approaches to structuring,
managing and changing organizations. Weick sees the drawbacks of planned change as: a high
probability of relapse, uneven diffusion, large short-term losses, less suitability for opportunitydriven than for threat-driven alterations, unanticipated consequences due to limited foresight,
hypocrisy, adoption of best practices from different context, ignorance regarding key contingencies,
and lags in implementation which make the change outdated before it is finished. The main criticism
of Planned change is the attempt to impose an order and a linear sequence to processes that are in
reality messy and untidy. The CE approach argues that organizations are fluid entities with many
personality and cannot be seen as frozen. In addition, the stages overlap and interpenetrate one
another. Overall, there are two points that many scholars agree on: first, change is an emerging and
ongoing process and second, they adopt an open systems perspective.
The Emergent approach to change
Change is a continuous, dynamic, and contested process that emerges in an unpredictable and
unplanned fashion. For Weick, the advantages of this approach include: sensitivity to local
contingencies, suitability for on-line real-time experimentation, learning, and sensemaking;
comprehensibility and manageability; likelihood of satisfying needs for autonomy, control, and
expression; proneness to swift implementation; resistance to unraveling; ability to exploit existing
tacit knowledge; and tightened and shortened feedback loops from result to action.
One of the main strands of the Emergent approach come from Processualists, who conduct process
research in organizations. A process is a sequence of individual and collective events, actions, and
activities unfolding over time in context. They recognize the importance of planning for change and
the presence of processes of continuity, but they also see that these are constrained and influenced
by the complex untidy and messy nature of change. Pettigrew states that processualists pursue their
work through five internally consistent guiding principles: (1) embeddedness, studying processes
across a number of levels of analysis, (2) temporal interconnectedness, studying processes in past,
present and future time, (3) a role in explanation for context and action, (4) a search for holistic
rather than linear explanations of process; and (5) a need to link process analysis to the location and
explanation of the outcomes. Thus, advocates of Emergent change stress the developing and
unpredictable nature of change and view change as a process that unfolds through the interplay of
multiple variables within an organization, especially context, consultation and political behavior.
Power and politics: In managing these transitions practitioners need to be aware of the importance
of power politics. The political dimension of change is further emphasizes by the postmodernists, for
whom the struggle for power is the central feature of change in an organization. However, for the
processualists, the political nature of change tends to close off options, whereas for the
postmodernists, the presence of conflicting interests give people a range of new possibilities and
ideas to choose from. This view is in line with Pugh’s four principles for understanding change:
Organizations are organisms, are political and occupational systems, all member operate
simultaneously in the rational, occupational ad and political system, and change is most likely to be
acceptable in departments where people experience tensions or failure.
The change process: The emergent perspective rejects both simple taxonomies of change and
approaches such as TQM and BPR, which promise success through following a series of laid-down
steps and stages. However, it does not seem to provide a further explanation of what it does like.
The role of managers: Carnall proposes four core managerial competences that are essential in
effective management of change: decision making, coalition building, achieving action, and
maintaining momentum and effort. Stace and Dunphy take a more contextual view. Their Change
matrix identifies a spectrum o change situations and matches those to styles of management,
ranging from collaborative to consultative to directive to coercive. The scales of change range from
fine-tuning to incremental adjustment to modular transformation to corporate transformation.
Contingency: To be effective in creating sustainable change, managers need an extensive and
systemic understanding of their environment. Thus, advocates of Emergent change tend to adopt a
contingency perspective, arguing that approaches to change need to be tailored to the specific
situation of a company. For advocates of Emergent change, it is the uncertainty of the environment
that makes planned change inappropriate. However, there is a reciprocal relationship between an
organization and its environment which has implications for how organizations conceptualize and
manage change. To maintain with the complications and uncertainties of constantly scanning the
environment Pettigrew and Whipp maintain that organizations need to become open learning
systems, with strategy development and change emerging from the way the company acquires and
interprets information about its environment.
Bottom-up, not top-down: Consequently, organizations have to make decisions over how and when
to respond. In doing so, it is best to take a bottom-up approach, as there is little point in encouraging
staff to identify change opportunities unless they are also encouraged to implemented them. In
many ways, this is the crux of the Emergent argument – top-down, senior-management-imposed
change does not waork. Employees have to have the authority to be able to shape and reshpe their
part of the organization to deal with threats and opportunities. Thus, rather than to control people,
managers have to empower their employees.
The complexity approach: The concept of self-organization is very similar to the concept of emergent
change, especially in terms of the link between the need for greater organizational democracy.
The Emergent approach to successful change
Though the proponents of the Emergent approach reject the concept of universally applicable rules
for change, the guidance they do provide tends to stress five features of organizations that either
promote or obstruct success.
Organisational structure: This is seen as playing a crucial role in determining where power lies, in
defining how people relate to each other and in influencing the momentum for change. Morgan
notes that there are only four basic forms of structure which range from very rigid to the very
flexible: bureaucracy, matrix, project, and loosely coupled organic network. Dynamic environments
require organizations to adopt more flexible, less hierarchical structures. An organization with more
delegation, which means a flat hierarchy, is superior. Brown and Eisenahrdt call for semistructures
that are sufficiently rigid for change to be organized and not so rigid that it cannot occur. Another
option is using network organizations that manage the diverse, complex and dynamic relationships
among multiple organizations or units, each specializing in a particular business function or task. A
major benefit is that the semi/autonomous nature of each part of a network reduces the need for
and erodes the power of centrally managed bureaucracies, which leads to change being driven from
the bottom up rather than top-down. A final point which needs to be recognized is that structures do
not stand in isolation from the other elements of an organization, it should be matched with an
appropriate culture for it to be effective.
Organizational culture: Johnson argued that the strategic management of change is essentially a
cultural and cognitive phenomenon. The essence of sustainable change is to understand the culture
of the organization that is to be changed. Both Peters and Senior argue that the most effective way
to promote change is by placing people in a new organizational context which imposes new roles and
to break down existing hierarchical structures.
Organizational learning: For the emergent approach, learning plays a key role in preparing people for
and allowing them cope with change. Whatever the spur for change, staff is unlikely to recognize the
need for change unless managers create mechanisms which allow them to become familiar with the
current situation and the need to change. Collective learning ensures that the full implications of an
organization’s view of its environment can then inform subsequent actions over the long term and
the way in which future shift in the environment are tackled. Clarke and Nadler suggest that both
individual and collective learning stem from effective top-down communication and the promotion
of self-development and confidence. People need to be involved in the diagnosis and development of
solutions.
Managerial behavior: Emergent change requires a radical change in the role of managements.
Managers are expected to operate as facilitators and coaches who can bring together and empower
teams and groups to identify the need for, and achieve, change. Crucial, according to Kotter, is for
managers to develop leadership skills. Key here is managers own behavior. If they are to gain
commitment of other s to change, they must be prepared to challenge their own assumptions,
attitudes and mindsets. All in all, an organization’s ability to gather, disseminate, analyze and discuss
information is crucial for successful change from the perspective of the Emergent approach.
However, proponents of complexity take a different view. They reject both small and large scale
changes and argue there is an in-between.
Power and politics: A wide range of authors claim that power and politics is important in Emergent
change, although they do so from different perspectives.
Recipes for Emergent change
There are no universal rules with regard to leading change; rather it involves linking action by people
at all levels of the business. However, this has not prevented most of the advocates of Emergent
change from suggesting sequences of actions which organizations should follow. For example,
Pettigrew and Whipp suggested a model that involves five interrelated factors for successfully
managing change: environmental assessment, leading change, linking strategic and operational
change, human resources as assets and liability, and coherence of purpose. Though more authors
come up with steps, the problem with much of the advice is that it tends to be too general or cursory
in nature and thus difficult to apply. Examples of this are Kanter’s ten commandments and Kotter’s 8
errors (allowing too much complacency, failing to create a powerful coalition, underestimating the
power of vision, under communicating the vision, permitting obstacles to block the vision, failing to
create short-term wins, declaring victory too soon, and neglecting to anchor changes in the culture).
In exchange, Kotter presented eight steps to successful change: establishing a sense of urgency,
creating a guiding coalition, developing a vision and strategy, communicating the change vision,
empowering broad-based action, generating short-term wins, consolidating and producing more
change, and anchoring new approaches n the culture. Kotter stresses that his stages are a process
and that one should go through all stages. However, both Kanter and Kotter neglect the role of the
change agent.
The role of the change agent
Change has to be managed, regardless on your perspective. There is usually one person who bears
the responsibility of being the agent. However, views of the role of the change agent differ. One of
the strengths of the planned approach is that is gives a blueprint for the behavior and attributes of
change agents. The emergent approach takes the view that change is not a specialist activity driven
by an expert, by an increasingly important part of every managers role. Buchanan and Boddy suggest
a model of the exerptice of the change agent and picture the change agent as a highly skilled and
well-trained political operator who has not only an in-depth knowledge of change processes and
tools, but also the personal qualities and experience to use them both in the open and behind the
scenes. The planned approach sees the change agent more as a public performance activitiy. Under
the emergent approach, the change agent is not a neutral facilitator but an active manager of the
change process with his or her own agenda which they seek to promote or impose. The argument of
many in the Emergent school is that the multifaceted and multi-level nature of change mean that it
cannot be left to a few experts or a few managers but is the responsibility of everyone in the
organization. Even so, the more complex the change process, the more difficult it is to achieve, the
greater the need to utilize the skills and experience of a specialist change agent. The conclusion they
draw from this is that there is a one best type of change agent. However, Caldwell calls for a
contingency model of change agency which recognizes that different change situations require
different types of change agents.
Emergent change: summary and criticism
Proponents of Emergent change seem more united by their skepticism regarding Planned change
than a focus on an alternative. Even so, there are some central tenets of Emergent change:
organizational change is not a linear process or an isolated event, but is continuous, open-ended,
cumulative, and unpredictable; change is best achieved through an interwoven pattern of small to
medium scale continual changes; change is a multi-level cross-roganization process that unfolds in an
iterative process; change is not an analytical-rational process; managers should shape the long-term
process of change by creating an organizational structure and climate which encourages and sustains
experimentation, learning, and risk-taking; managers have the responsibility for developing a
collective vision; and the key organizational activities that allow these elements to operate
successfully are information gathering, communication, and learning.
However, when looking at the history, there have been many disruptive events which required rapid,
major responses by organizations which could not be coped with or anticipated by the emergent
approach. Thus, although one may accept that the preferred environmental state for Emergent
change is one that is amenable to being dealt with by Emergent change, it is difficult to accept that
this is necessarily the natural state of affairs. Different organizations experience different degrees of
turbulence. Thus, for some, emergent change may be appropriate, for others, the planned approach
may be more appropriate.
Furthermore, the emergent change approach is prone to similar criticism as the CE approach, as a
great deal of emphasis is placed on the need for appropriate cultures. In addition, whilst managers
generally start out by attempting to learn all they can, over time, they gain experience which limits
their search for new information and knowledge. As such, experience may actually be a barrier to
learning. There are three further criticisms that are equally serious. First, when looking at Dawson,
Kotter, and Pettigrew, they do speak of change as a transition process with a beginning, middle and
end. Second, the management of change has become overfocused on the political aspects of change.
Third, the Emergent approach does not appear to be universally applicable as its advocates imply.
Conclusion
Thus, the emergent approach has some significant shortcoming and even when combined with the
planned approach, may not cover or be applicable to all change situations.
#13 – Burnes (2009), Ch.10; A framework for change
Introduction
Over the last decade or so, the public sector has put much effort into developing its own approaches
to innovation and change which suit the particular circumstances and many challenges it faces.
Therefore, the notion that the private sector is always the leader and the other sectors always the
followers when it comes to managing and changing organizations is something of a misconception.
The lesson here is that whilst different sectors and different organizations can learn from each other,
they can also face widely differing challenges and consequently, a one-size-fits-all approach is
unlikely to work. The past two chapters showed that even taken together neither the planned nor
emergent approach covers the spectrum of change events that organizations encounter. The
dominance of these two approaches neglected other approaches, which will be the focus of this
chapter.
Varieties of change
Types of change can be categorized as to whether their primary focus applies to individuals, groups,
or systems and sub-systems. As far as models of change are concerns, the three main ones are the
incremental model, the punctuated equilibrium model, and the continuous transformation model.
However, there are other types such as smooth incremental (slow systematic evolutionary change),
bumpy incremental (period where change accelerates), and discontinuous change (similar to
punctuated equilibrium model). The contributions of many change authors is discussed next.
-
-
-
-
-
In addressing the issue of transformational change, it can be achieved by either a bold stroke
approach (rapid overall change) or a long march approach (incremental change over a long
period)(Kanter).
In a similar vein, Beer and Nohria identify the archetypes of theory E (bold stroke) and theory
). Theory E can achieve short-term financial gains at the cost of denuding an organization of
human capabilities necessary for long-term survival, whereas theory O focuses on people and
culture, hereby not concentrating on core activities.
Cummings and Worley identify a continuum ranging from incremental change to quantum
changes.
In a similar vein, Stace and Dunphy identify a four-stage continuum comprising
developmental transitions, task-focused transitions, charismatic transformations, and
turnarounds.
For Peters, rapid disruptive and continues change is the only appropriate form of change,
while Quinn differentiates between incremental (slow death) and radical change.
Pettigrew looks at the scale and importance of change, going from operational change to
strategic change.
Buchanan and Boddy’s classification is almost the same, using incremental change to radical
change and changes that are of central importance to the organization to those that are
peripheral to its purpose. (Boils down to issue of project size, all small projects are
peripheral)
Kotter argues that organizations need to be continuously transforming themselves through a
series of large and small interlinked change projects.
Regardless of differences in perceiving change, the overall view is that change can be seen as running
along a continuum from small-scale incremental change to large-scale transformational change.
Implicit is the view that planned change stands at the left-hand end of this spectrum and emergent
change at the right-hand, and what separates them is the nature of the environment.
Following Lewin, planned change is more appropriate for changing the behavior of groups, whereas
emergent change is better suited to more turbulent organization-wide organizations. Stace and
Dunphy identify four approaches to change based on the involvement of employees: collaborative,
consultative, directive, and coercive (covers most of the managerial approaches). Kotter takes a
different view, seeing the overall direction of change as being decided by senior managers.
Davenport expands on these issues by constructing a list of five principal factors that influence how a
project will be managed: the scale, level of uncertainty, breadth of change, magnitude of change, and
timescale for implementation (most useful in categorizing change).
Story takes a different view and begins by identifying two key dimensions: the degree of
collaboration between the parties and the form that change takes. From these two dimensions,
storey constructs a fourfold typology of change: (1) top-down systemic change, (2) piecemeal
initiatives, (3) bargaining for change, and (4) systemic jointism.
A framework for change
When summarizing the above, another continuum is created with slow change (behavioral and
cultural) on one side and rapid change (major changes in structures and processes) on the other.
The top half represents situations where organizations need to make large-scale organization-wide
changes to either their culture or structure as their current status is inappropriate for the turbulent
environment in which it finds itself operating. The bottom half represents situations where
organizations need to make small-scale adjustments and as these changes must be sustained, it is
crucial to ensure that the post-change environment is stable. In addition, the-hand side is focused on
the human side of the organization which need a slow, participative approach.. The right-hand side
represents situations where the primary focus is on achieving changes to the ‘hard’ side of the
organization. Finally, it has to be noted that there is a strong relationship between organizational
structures and cultures , and changes in one may require corresponding change in the other. Burnes
concludes that when considering major change projects, one should not see them as being managed
solely in a cooperative fashion or solely in a coercive fashion, instead, they may have elements of
both but at different levels, at different times and managed by different people.
A framework for employee involvement
Employee involvement is crucial to successful change, especially in situations that require attitudinal
and cultural change. The implication of this is that rapid organizational transformations can only be
successful if they focus on structural as opposed to cultural change. However, sometimes, cultural
change can be relatively swift and employee involvement relatively low. To understand this, it is
necessary to examine the three theories underpinning arguments for employee involvement.
-
-
-
#1: The Depth of Intervention: Schmuck and Miles argue that the level of involvement
required in any change project is dependent on the impact of the change on the people
concerned. Huse continued on this work, creating a continuum ranging from the shallow
level to the deepest level.
#2: Cognitive Dissonance: Burnes and James states that people try to be consistent in both
their attitudes and behavior. When they sense an inconsistency, people experience
dissonance: that is, they feel frustrated and uncomfortable with the situation, sometimes
extremely so. Therefore, individuals will seek a stable state where there is minimum
dissonance. Where the issues involved are perceived to be significant, the presence of
dissonance will motivate the person concerned to try to reduce it by changing either their
attitudes or behavior to bring them into line. In addition, people will actively avoid situations
and information that would be likely to increase the dissonance. Connecting this to change, a
project that is out of step with the attitudes of those concerned will meet resistance unless
those concerned change their attitudes. Therefore, the level and type of involvement should
be geared to the level of dissonance that any proposed changes may provoke. However,
change can reduce dissonance as people are aware of a crisis or potential crisis.
#3: The Psychological Contract: The notion of a psychological contract implies that there is an
unwritten set of expectations operating at all times between members of the organization
and the various managers and others in that organization. This concept is focused on the
implicit expectations that an individual may have.
All in all, it is concluded that approaches to change, including the level of employee involvement,
have to be tailored to the change context rather than being applied in an unthinking fashion.
A framework for choice
The model above implies a contingency model, but what about choice? This question revolves
around two issues. The first issue concerns the extent to which an organization can influence the
forces driving it to change in one direction or another. Choice will relate to the extent that
organization can influence, manipulate or recreate their environment to suit their preferred way of
working (do they have time to do this?). The second issues concerns the extent and for how long an
organization can operate with structures, practices and cultures that are out of line with its
environment. Related to this, the concept of equifinality means that different sorts of internal
arrangements are perfectly compatible with identical environmental states. Thus, alignment is not
always necessary and the duration for which this non-alignment is sustainable will vary with the
circumstance of the specific organization.
In summary, the debate between planned and emergent change is too narrow as other approaches
may also be applicable. In particular, it tends to ignore the more coercive and directive approaches
and assumes that change is unidirectional (driven by environment). Organizations do have the
opportunity to make choices about what to change, how to change, and when to change.
Conclusions
The model proposed in this chapter is an contingency model and hence open to the same criticism as
contingency theory. However, when the environment is seen as open to manipulation, many of these
criticisms can be answered. It is important to recognize that there is a dispute between the realists
and postmodernists as to what can be manipulated and the extent to which choice exists, though
both acknowledge the existence of choice.
#14 – Burnes (2009), Ch.11; Organisational change and managerial choice
Introduction
Central to the change process is the choice process – what to change, when to change, how to
change. The need to match types of change with appropriate approaches to managing change is not
as prominent in the literature as one might expect. Many of those arguing for their own favoured
approach to strategy and change do so either explicitly or implicitly on the basis of their perception
of the nature of the environment in which organizations operate. Furthermore, most authers seem
to assume that the key role of managers and the objective of strategy and change is to align or
realign an organization with its environment. However, rather than accepting this view, managers
can and do exercise a considerable degree of choice. The scope and nature of the choices managers
face are constrained by a range of external factors and internal organizational characteristics.
However, despite what postmodernists may claim, there are some constraints that appear beyond
the scope of individual organizations to change. All in all, change management need not be seen as a
mechanism for achieving a specified and predicted outcome, nor need it be conceived of as
continuing process of aligning and realining. Instead, orgasniations can open up a much wider
spectrum of options.
The Choice Management-Change Management model
Organisational change can be viewed as the product of three interdependent organizational
processes:
The choice process, which is concerned with the nature, scope and focus of organizational
decision making. The choice process comprises three elements: organizational context, focus of
choice, and organizational trajectory.
The trajectory process, which relates to an organization’s past and future direction and is
seen as the outcome of its vision, purpose and future objectives. The trajectory process comprises
the elements of organizational vision, organizational strategy, and organizational change.
The change process, which covers approaches to, mechanisms for achieving, and outcomes
of change. The change process comprises objectives and outcomes, planning the change, and people.
Within each of these processes there are a group elements, or forces, which interact, clash with and
influence each other in subtle and complex way. It is this interaction of elements or forces which
prevents decision-making and change management from being a rational process.
The Choice process: Organizational context: Many organizations only start to investigate their own
strengths and weaknesses, their customers’ needs, and the nature of the environment in which they
operate when they are in trouble. Although not easy, many simple tools for benchmarking or datagathering exists, such as the SWOT and PESTEL frameworks. These tool can promote openness and
reduce political behavior and conflict. However, despite those rather rational tools, managers will
rarely adopt changes which adversely affect them. When faced with a mismatch, some will seek to
achieve realignment by influencing the environment rather than pursuing an internal upheaval that
may involve changes in management style and personnel. However, despite extensive data collection
and analysis, there will always be an element of subjectivity in the process, which is where
sensemaking comes in.
Focus of choice: One of the characteristics of successful sensemaking is that it limits the alternatives
available and focuses managers’ attention on a narrow range of short, medium, and long-term
issues. The company may decide upon which issues to focus and whether this is done in a concerted
way or in a way that allows groups and individuals to pursue their own agenda.
Organisational trajectory: An organization’s trajectory or direction is shaped by its past actions and
future objectives and strategies. As such, it provides a guide or framework within which to judge the
acceptability, relevance or urgency of issues, concerns and proposed actions. This trajectory process
encompasses the interplay between an organisation’s vision, strategies, and approach to change. It
can be seen as a blend of, or clash between, the deliberate and emergent elements of its strategy.
The outcome depends on the quality of its sensemaking and partly on the degree of control it can
exert over events. It is the interplay between interpretation of past actions and future intent coupled
to the ability of organizations to shape developing events to their advantage that makes decisionmaking so complex.
The three elements of the choice process, context, focus and trajectory interact with each other in an
intricate and unpredictable way. The trajectory can influence both the focus of its decision-making
and the context within which the organization operates. Likewise, the context provides a framework
within which the trajectory is developed. Furthermore, the focus of choice will influence which
aspect of the organizations context its trajectory will be directed towards.
Rollison maintains that decisions can be classed on a spectrum running from bounded to unbounded.
Bounded decisions are usually small, have easily defined parameters, and tend to be separable from
the environment or context in which they arise. Unbounded decisions usually concern large and
important issues with difficult-to-define parameters. They are ambiguous and intertwined with other
issues and factors in the environment or context in which they arise (e.g., strategic decisions)
Only by an exhaustive analysis of the issue concerned and the options available is the most
appropriate decision likely to be arrived at. Following the ringi system, a strong corporate vision
makes it easier to identify which decisions and actions are appropriate. The result is that Japanese
companies do not have to explore all possibilities when taking decisions, which reduces the
uncertainty in their environment. All in all, this shows that whilst the choice process is uncertain,
complex, and time-consuming, there are approaches that do reduce these factors and can make the
process more transparent and effective.
The Trajectory process:
Organisational vision: Many organizations use scenario-building and visioning techniques in order to
generate different organizational futures or realities, in order to select the one that seems most
appropriate. Though not all visions prove successful, the concept of organizations driving themselves
forward by creating an ambitious vision of where they wish to be in the long term has become
increasingly influential over the last 20 years, though it also generated increasing cynicism. Visions
comprise four elements: mission, valued outcomes, valued conditions, and mid-point goals. The
creation of visions should be an iterative process whereby options are identified, an initial vision is
created, and the gap between this and the present circumstance is identified.
Organizational Strategy: Strategy can be defined as a coherent or consistent stream of actions which
an organization takes or has taken to move towards its vision. This stream of actions can be centrally
planned and driven, can be delegated and distributed through the organization, and can be conscious
or emergent. An organization’s strategy tends to be a combination of a mixture of formal and
informal plans and planned and unplanned actions. In pursuit of its vision, an organization can have a
central strategy and a number of sub-strategies. From this perspective, one way of viewing strategy
is to see it as a series of links in a chain which stretch from the present to the indeterminate future
where the vision lies. The links are continually having to be forged and reforged over time as events
develop and circumstance change. The conclusion is that organizations do not need to be able to see
all the links in the strategic chain; merely those that will guide them over the next few years. They
need to establish a climate of understanding and a general willingness to pursue certain courses of
action.
Organizational Change: Though visions and strategies can be crucial in shaping the life of
organizations, it is only when some facet of the organization is changed or changes that visions and
strategies advance from being mere possibilities to become reality. On the one hand, visions and
strategies shape and direct change. They indicate what needs to change and where and create the
conditions and climate within which the change takes place. On the other hand, it is these changes,
these actions, which shape visions and strategies.
The trajectory process, whilst playing a key role in shaping choice, is also itself a complex process
comprising vision, strategy and change. The extent to which they are held in common or are
consistent with each other is related to the circumstances of the situation.
The Change process
Change can be viewed as a one-off event, but can also be seen as a continuous process that forms
part of the day-to-day activities. When seen as exception, organizations tend to have difficulty in
choosing the most appropriate approach and there tends to be no structured procedure to learn
from the change project, which is the norm when change is perceived as continuous.
Objectives and outcomes: Change often affects the distribution of power and resources in an
organization and is an inherently political process which can be undermined by sectional interests
rather than driven by organizational needs. Hence, Burnes (1988) suggested an approach to assessing
the need for and type of change that attempts to make the process of establishing objectives and
outcomes more rigorous and open, an approach with four elements:
The trigger: Organisations should only investigate change for one of the following reasons:
(1) current strategy highlights the need for change, (2) current performance indicates problems, or
(3) suggestions or opportunities arise that may offer benefits to the organization.
The remit: the remit should clearly state the reasons for the assessment, its objectives and
timescale, and who should be involved and consulted. Organisations should be clear in who draws up
this remit. There must be clarity and agreement about who has the responsibility and authority to
initiate change before an assessment begins.
The assessment team: this is the body that will assess the need for change. This should be a
multi-disciplinary team consisting of representatives from the area affected and where appropriate,
a change specialist.
The assessment: The first task of the assessment team is to review and if necessary clarify or
amend its remit. Assessment comprises four steps: (1) Clarification of the problem or opportunity, (2)
investigate alternative solutions. A wide range of possible solutions should be examined and tested
against an agreed list of criteria covering costs and benefits. However, it should be recognized that
not all changes can be assessed on financial criteria. Thus, companies should find ways to assess nonmonetary benefits. (3) Feedback. The definition of the problem or opportunity and the range of
possible solutions should be discussed with interested or affected parties, particularly those from
whom information was collected in the first place. This helps countering the tendency to fit solutions
to problems and helps to prepare the people for any changes that do take place. In addition, this can
provide an important source of information on the advantages and disadvantages of the possible
solutions on offer. (4) Recommendations and decision. The team should present their
recommendations in a form that clearly defines the problem or opportunity, identifies the range of
solutions, establishes the criteria for selection and makes recommendations.
Planning: Once it is necessary that change should take place, it is then necessary to plan how this will
be achieved and then to implement the plan. The following six interrelated activities make up the
planning and change process:
1. Establishing a change management team. To maintain continuity, the team should include
some of those responsible for the original assessment of the need for change. Change
specialists should be involved whose primary input is their experience in managerial change
(backstaging). It is necessary to have the right blend of skills for the change being
undertaken, including the ability to deal with the unexpected.
2. Management structures: In larger projects, existing control and reporting systems are
unlikely to be adequate for managing them. Hence, effective reporting and management
structures need to be put in place in advance in order to provide direction, support,
resources, and where necessary decisive interventions.
3. Activity planning. ‘Getting from here to there’, the activity plan is the road map for the
change effort. It involves constructing a schedule for the change programme, citing the main
activities and events that must occur. However, not all programmes can be planned in detail
in advance.
4. Commitment planning: This activity involves identifying key people and groups whose
commitment is needed and deciding how to gain their support. There are three types of
commitment, being let it happen ( do not obstruct), help it happen (participate), and make it
happen (drive the change).
5. Audits and post-audits: It is important to monitor progress and see to what extent objectives
are being met, as this allows plans to be modified in the light of experience and for
opportunities to improve on the original objective to be identified or created. A post-audit
should be carried out to establish that the objectives have really been met and to ascertain
what lessons can be learned for future projects.
6. Training and development: New skills and competences may be necessary. Training may aim
to give staff the skills to undertake change themselves. Training can also contribute to other
objectives, such as cultural change. A training programme should be started before
implementation that shows who needs training, the form of the training, and when it will
take place.
Thus, although change is often seen as a technical exercise involved with time tabling and resource
allocation, it is also very much a people issue. The success of any change effort is always likely to
hinge on an organisation’s ability to involve and motivate the people concerned and those whose
support is necessary.
People: Increasingly, the objective of change is to modify the attitudes and behaviors of individuals
and groups, sometimes radically so. There are three people related activities that need to be
undertaken for change to be successful:
Creating a willingness for change: Even where change is purely of a technical or structural
form, there has to be willingness amongst those concerned to change to accept the new
arrangements. Stressing the positive aspects of any change may have much less impact than
companies may imagine. The status quo needs to be destabilized before old behavior can be
discarded. Making proposed changes seem attractive has less effect than making the current
situation less attractive. Increasing urgency thus is crucial to gaining needed cooperation. To do so,
four steps need to be taken:
1. Make people aware of the pressures for change. The organization should inform
employees on a continuous basis of its plans for the future, the competitive and market pressures it
faces, customer requirements and the performance of its key competitors.
2. Give regular feedback on the performance of individual processes and areas of activity
within the organization. This draws attention to discrepancies between actual performance desired
performance. The feedback has to be in a form that people can relate to and act on and in a timely
fashion.
3. Understand people’s fears and concerns. One of the major mistakes companies make is to
fail to recognize and deal with the real and legitimate fears of the managers and staff.
4. Publicize successful change. In order to reduce fears and create a positive attitude towards
change, companies should publicise the projects that are seen as models of how to undertake change
and the positive effects change can have for employees.
involving people: The more a change challenges a person or group’s existing norms of
behavior, beliefs or assumptions, the more resistance it is likely to meet. Following Beckhard & Harris
(1987), the critical mass of people necessary to bring about the change should be gained for support.
There are two main activities that help secure and maintain a high level of involvement, being
communication and getting people involved. The purpose of communication is not just to inform
staff that change is being considered, but by drawing them into discussions and debates.
Communication should be a regular rather than a one-off exercise, nor should it be pursued through
one or two channels. Anything from management has to be stated at least six times in six different
ways before people start giving it credence. Getting people involved is imperative. It is important to
identify those who are essential to making the change happen and select these people to be
involved.
Sustaining the momentum. It sometimes happens that initial enthusiasm and momentum for
change wanes and progress becomes slower and can grind to a halt. Thus, organizations need to
consider how to build and sustain momentum. Organizations should provide resources for the
change, give support to the change agents, develop new competences and skills, and reinforce
desired behavior.
Finally, both in planning a project and evaluating its outcomes, it is necessary to identify the openendedness of it, and the degree to which the final outcome will require a continuous improvement
approach or a continuing change approach.
Conclusions
One of the fundamental differences of the planned/emergent approaches and the choice
management-change management model asserted here is that this model recognizes that managers
are active players rather than passive spectators in the development of their own organizations. Not
only can managers choose to align their organization with the external conditions and constraints it
faces, but they can also do the reverse and align these external conditions and constraints to their
preferred way of structuring and running their organization.
The choice management – change management mode, in conjunction with the framework for change
presented in ch. 10, potentially at least, resolves the dispute between proponents of Ploanned and
Emergent approaches to strategy development and change. It also raises fundamental questions
about what managers can do and what they do do in terms of running and shaping their
organizations.
#15 – Burnes (2009), Ch.12; Management – roles and responsibilities
Introduction
Managers will need to recognize that in the future, as in the past, regardless of the particular issues
involved, the environment in which their companies operate will continue to change and that their
decisions will be judged by a wider set of criteria and a wider range o stakeholders tan in the past.
Managers play a crucial role in determining whether the outcome of change is success or failure.
Therefore, it is only right that we look at how well or not managers are equipped or can be equipped
for the task.
Globalization and the challenge of change
Arguably, the biggest challenging managers today is globalization. Allied to this are three other
challenges: how to achieve sustainability in a world with limited natural resources, how to manage
an increasingly diverse workforce, and how to manage ethically? Reich identifies four main
definitions of globalization: an historical epoch, a confluence of economic phenomena, the
hegemony of American values, and a technological and social revolution. Drivers for globalization are
the intensification of international competition, the fall of communism, economic liberalization, the
removal of trade barriers, and the advent of new communication technologies.
Sustainability
The result of economic growth and consumption is the dwindling and depredation of natural
resources, increasing levels of pollution and rapid global warming. Governments are unable to reach
an agreement over action and even if they can, we know that organizations, driven by market forces,
will have a major influence on how such actions are formulated and will have the major responsibility
for their implementation. Therefore, managers cannot divorce their action from the wider impact
they have on society, which present a major challenge to managers. They will have to change either
incrementally or transformational to deal with this challenge.
Workforce diversity
Globalization is intensifying workforce diversity in three ways. The first is that the growth of the
transnational organization means that companies are being owned and managed by people from
different countries and cultures. The second effect concerns the migration and recruitment of
workers from other countries. The third effect has been to increase the participation of woman and
minority groups in the workforce. Managers should be aware that approaches to manage workers
from a certain background may differ in its outcome from workers with another background. Only by
attracting, retaining, and motivating workers effectively, including recognizing and promoting the
benefits of diversity, can organizations expect to prosper or even survive in an increasingly
competitive global economy. This means that managers have to achieve the difficult but essential
task of treating workers differently because of their diversity but treating them all fairly.
Business ethics
In an increasingly complex, diverse and competitive world, applying an ethical approach to business
is not straightforward. This is why many companies and governments have difficulty bridging the gap
between rhetoric and reality. In public, there are two aspects of business ethics that business leaders
agree upon: all business should have them, and all business have difficulty abiding by them. The real
challenge for organizations it to change managerial behavior so that business ethics become business
practices.
The manager’s role
The first attempt to define the role of managers became by Fayol, who stated that the key functions
of managers were: forecasting and planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling.
Peter Drucker argued that the manager’s role is the task of creating a true whole that is larger than
the sum of its parts. Duncan argues that the manager is mainly concerned with the effects of the
actions and reactions of other individuals and groups within the wider economic and social context
within which the organization is set.
Position in the hierarchy, formally at least, is likely to exert the greatest influence on the role given to
and expected of a manager. Three main hierarchical levels are top management, middle
management, and first-level or supervisory management. These level seems to mirror Duncan’s three
levels of management activities, being philosophical (goal formation), scientific (goal accomplishment
and evaluation) and art (implementation of decisions). However, every hierarchical level of
management can encompass all of his activities, though not necessarily to the same extent.
Mintzberg concluded as follows: although much managerial work is unprogrammed, managers do
have regular, ordinary duties to perform. Moreover, rather than being systematic, reflective thinkers
and planners, managers simply respond to the pressure or demands of their jobs. Finally, managerial
activities are characterized by brevity, variety and discontinuity.
Yukl confirms Mintzberg’s findings that managers’ jobs are remarkably similar and that their work
can best be described in terms of ten very important roles that could be categorized under three
headings: interpersonal (figurehead, liaison, and leader), informational (monitor, disseminator,
spokesperson), and decision-making (entrepreneur, disturbance-handler, resource-allocator, and
negotiatior). Thought these roles are common to most managerial jobs, the emphasis and
importance of the roles varies between managers and organizational characteristics.
However, all in all, there appears to be a discrepancy between what the literature says managers
should to and what the managers actually do.
Management and leadership
There is a controversy about the difference between leadership and management. Managers are
people who do things right and leaders are people who do the right thing.
Managers
Leaders
Focus on the present
Focus on the future
Maintain status quo and stability
Create change
Implements policies and procedures
Create a culture based on shared values
Remain aloof to maintain objectivity
Establish an emotional link with followers
Use the power of their position
Use personal power
However, managers can and do possess both managerial and leadership skills, which they swap
between depending on the situation.
The trait approach to leadership maintains that leaders are effective or ineffective owing to their
personal characteristics. Some people are natural or born leaders who possess unique personal
qualities or personality traits. Fleishman identified two separate classes of behavior as important in
determining effective leadership: consideration and initiating structure. Another dimension that
received a lot of attention was participation – whether it was democratic (HR/Planned change) or
autocratic. Literature showed that democratic leadership provided the best results, due to its
empowerment, facilitating group decision-making, and its potential for maximizing participation and
involvement in group members.
Perhaps the best known of universal theories on leadership is Blake and Mouton’s managerial grid.
The grid has two dimensions: concern for people and concern for production. By examining how
these two dimension interact, B&M identified five different styles of management: team
management, country club management, middle-of-the-road management, task management, and
impoverished management.
In response to the inability to make a case for a one best way approach to leadership, attention
began to focus on when leaders were effective. In particular, researchers began to examine
subordinates behavior and how a leader’s behavior varies from subordinate to subordinate: the
leader-follower approach. The basic premise is that a leader develops a different relationship with
each subordinate and that this will be based on the behavior of each party. Three variables influence
the kind of relationship: subordinate considerations, superior considerations, and task
considerations. The most influential situational theory of leadership has been Fiedler Least Preferred
Co-worker model. He argued that leaders have stable personal characteristics. Instead of changing
behavior, both managers and their subordinates have to learn to live the leader’s behavior. Fiedler
found three aspects of a work situation that together determine the effectiveness of particular
leadership: the leader-follower relationship, the task structure, and the leader’s formal position and
power. However, his theory lacks empirical support, fails to explain how leadership behavior affects
subordinates performance, and its measures are arbitrary and lack empirical rationale.
The contextual approach to effective leadership claims that a good manager in one organization does
not have to be a good manager in another. Leaders can and do change their behavior from situation
to situation. Vroom and Jago identified five styles of leader decision-making, ranging from autocratic
to democratic. One of the most influential authors was James Burns. He identifies two basic
organization states – convergent and divergent – and two matching management-leadership style,
being transactional management (maintaining status quo) and transformational leadership
(changing). A convergent state occurs when an organization is operating under stable conditions and
the most appropriate style here is transactional. On the other hand, a divergent state occurs when
environmental changes challenge the efficiency and appropriateness of an organization’s established
goals. Here, a transformational leadership is more applicable. This compatibility between
organizational state and leadership style is seen as essential for successful leadership. However,
rather than being mutually exclusive, leaders may also need both transformational and transactional
tools in their armories. Kanter also maintains that good leaders need to incorporate both
transactional and transformational characteristics. Kanter argues that there are seven skills and
sensibilities that a heroic type of leader needs to possess, arguing that all effective leaders need to
possess these skills and that they can be applied in every situation. The skills are: (1) learn to operate
without the might of the hierarchy, (2) compete in a way that enhances rather than undercuts
cooperation, () operate with the highest ethical standards, (4) have a dose of humility, (5) develop a
process focus, (6) be multifaceted and ambidextrous, and (7) gain satisfaction from results. This is
based on his argument that all organizations operate in the same turbulent context and face the
same challenges.
One major factors needs to be rememberd when considering approaches to management: most
research and writing on leadership is Western and based on male managers. Davies, for example,
found significant differences between masculine and feminine approaches to management. The
masculine approach valued self-esteem, abstract thinking, control and loyalty to supervisors,
whereas the feminine approach valued selflessness, contextual thinking, experience and
accommodation. This could imply that women prefer to use a more transformational style whilst
men are more transactionally oriented. These preferences however, may differ per country.
Management Development
The arguments put forward here imply that managers can and do adopt both the planned and
emergent approaches to change management either alternatively or simultaneously as the situation
requires. One of the main findings from the contextual perspective on leadership is the need for
managers not only to adapt their style to the particular situation, but also to adopt transactional and
transformational approaches at the same time. However, this runs counter to literature on
managerial learning that argued that as maangers gain experiences, they form quite definite opinion
of what works and why. However, under certain conditions, managers are capable of changing their
mental models.
Management development programmes are increasingly seeking to change managerial behavior,
especially to promote leadership and creativity and to align managers’ behavior with the longer-term
strategic objectives of their organizations and with society’s wider social and ethical considerations.
As a result, management education and development are taken seriously in most advanced countries
and entry into a managerial job requires formal, university-level qualifications. These programs are
initiated by the company and hence, the content differs per company.
In terms of challenging and changing managerial attitudes and behaviors, the use of Action Learning
is interesting. This is based on small groups of managers tackling a set problem or case study. The
aim is not only that managers learn how to approach problems together, but also that they learn
about themselves and challenge the appropriateness of their own attitudes and behaviors. This can
be seen as a derivation of Lewin’s action research.
All in all, seven factors can be discerned as important in the ability of managers to operate
effectively: (1) the manager’s past experience and whether this has reinforced their beliefs or led
them to question their appropriateness, (2) the level of creativity, (3) his cognitive style: are they
adopters or innovators? (4) the manager’s ability to perceive the whole picture, (5) the organizational
context, (6) the organization’s management team, and (7) the organization’s management
development process.
Management, leadership and change
This attempt to make sense of management and the literature on management has shown the
following: the incredible variety and complexity of the role of people who hold the title manager; the
wide range of factors that impinge on managerial effectiveness, including managers’ own
personalities, those of their followers, superiors and peers, and the wider organizational context and
objectives in which they operate; the ability or potential of managers to increase their level of
creativity and change their style of management from transactional to transformational and vice
versa, as the situation requires; and the recognition that management development has a key role to
play not only in developing individual creativity but also in changing the ethical behavior of
management as a group in organizations. Furthermore, there does seem to be some agreement as to
the differences between management and leadership. In addition, management and leadership focus
on different types of change with management focusing on small-scale localized changes and
leadership on more radical, organization-wide changes. These can be added to the framework for
change.
Summary and conclusions
The way an organization is managed and led can have profound implications not only for the
organization and its members but for society as a whole. Most managers have to rely on their
business knowledge, skills, creativity, and experience rather than their personality.
Furthermore, despite the view of some writers, there can never be any general recipes or formulas
for organizational success as the vast variety of organizations, each with its own differing constraints
and pressures, makes that impossible. Organizations face many challenges and choices and the room
for maneuver may be constrained. It is the role of managers and leaders to ensure that all options
are identified and that they take into account the wishes of all their stakeholders. The worst
managers may not be those who make poor choices, they may be those who fail to recognize that
there are choices to be made.
#16 – Smith & Sutherland/Graetz (2011), Ch. 11; Conclusion. The dualities philosophy: ‘changing
tensions’
Introduction
This is pretty much a summary of the whole book so far
Connecting philosophies of organizational change
Evidence from case after case of failed change implementations indicate that rather than change
involving a series of predictable steps, reality defies simple, planned responses. Managing change
demands balancing and conciliating what often appear as conflicting dilemmas, That is, merging (1)
rational strategic planning with adaptive strategic thinking, (2) cultural renewal in the form of
surfacing and challenging the core values, beliefs and assumptions, (3) empowerment with strong
leadership, (4) continual incremental adaptation with radical transformation, and (5) social goals with
economic goals.
The stability-change dilemma
The intersection of stability and change, what complexity theory advocates refer to as the edge of
chaos, reveals where opportunities for organizational development lie. One should come to terms
with simultaneous change and stability. Duality theory proposes that the tension or ‘dynamic
synthesis’ between contradictory forces within organizations provides a catalyst for self-renewal.
Exploring the links between opposing dimensions and exploiting the tensions that arise from paradox
provides scope for rich insights into the complexities, ambiguities and nuances of the change
management process. The resulting shift in focus from organization similarity to plurality may
introduce a more nuanced understanding of institutional dynamics.
Change managers benefit when they find comfort with paradox management, entailing ‘exploring
rather than suppressing’ the dual tensions that exist. The first step is to recognize merits in opposing
elements. Change managers have to find a balance between order and disorder. All in all, drawing on
diverse philosophical perspectives offers different, albeit partial, interpretations, enabling
researchers and managers to accommodate the contradictory nature of change.
Change dualities
Traditional approaches see change management as an exception, a passing irritation to be overcome
quickly before returning to stability. While stability bolsters organizational effectiveness, the irony
remains that performance can be paradoxical because it demands the presence of dual attributes
that appear to be simultaneously contradictory, including, stability-change, control-flexibility, and
efficiency-creativity. To be effective means appreciating how such dualistic forces shape change.
Duality theory suggests that what appear to be opposing dimensions should be seen as essential
complements that must co-exist in order to account for the nuanced and textured management of
change. Thus, theorists who employ duality theory ‘can maintain conceptual distinctions without
being committed to a rigid antagonism or separation of the two elements being distinguished’. But
how can they do both change and continuity at the same time?
Understanding dualities: a dualities aware perspective
Part of answering this question lies in allowing a state of tension to emerge. However, dualities are
not simply alternatives. The problem arises when an organization chooses to focus on one of the
poles at the expense of the other, thus making it difficult to enact both ends of the continuum
simultaneously.
A paradox represents a range of contradictory yet interrelated elements such as perspectives,
feelings, messages, identities, interests or practices. As constructed entities, they explain the efforts
made by change managers to simplify and make sense of the complexities and uncertainties in the
work environment; attempting to resolve rather than embrace contradictory elements.
Dualities characteristics
The term characteristic is used to describe a prominent aspect or a definable, differentiating and
universal feature, trait or property. Understanding the characteristics of dualities reveals the
implications of change management interventions and subsequent choices in support systems. It
helps to perceive duality characteristics as escalating. Thresholds change with contextual pressure, so
for dualities to endure they must also possess a dynamic property. Hinging on the importance of
considering duality characteristics as a unit that operates in collaboration, the following discussion
identifies and describes five duality characteristics±
Simultaneity: the foundation duality characteristic is simultaneity. Dualities represent the
simultaneous presence of what conventionally have been considered contradictory if not mutually
exclusive elements. The tension or dynamic synthesis between contradictory opposites provides the
catalyst for long-term organizational effectiveness and self-renewal.
Relational: The bi-modal nature of dualities, integral to simultaneity, also manifests in its
relational, interdependent nature. Bi-directional relationships involve not only simultaneous, but also
mutual feedback: when these relationships are symmetrical, we are in the presence of a synthesis – a
synthesis that emerges in the relationship between the two opposite poles. This relationship
becomes most important when considering the fundamentally different logics of exploration and
exploitation that create tensions between the simultaneous need to explore new possibilities while
exploiting old certainties. The relational characteristic illustrates that organizations are not
independent of the other practices they house. A change to one can affect all of the others as well.
Minimal threshold: Dualities need a minimal threshold. A certain level at each pole creates
the tension necessary to stimulate a duality. A minimal consensus ensures that the status quo is not
implacable and unchallenged. A degree of ambiguity, contradiction and incoherence provides the
catalyst for organizational learning, diversity, and renewal.
Dynamism: The duality characteristic of dynamism underlines the bi-modal interactive nature
of dualities relationships. Energy and feedback are pivotal to competing but simultaneous criteria. In
essence, organizations never reach a state of balanced equilibrium, primarily because the
simultaneous need for freedom and order within social systems means that these two poles often act
against each other. The tension between the two opposing poles needs to be managed on a
continuous basis to ensure an ongoing interaction between constraining and enabling forces. The
dynamism characteristic works with its counterparts – simultaneity, relation and minimal threshold –
to maintain a constructive tension. That is, a state where there is sufficient tension to mobilize
change and action, but not so much as to engender politicization or perverse, unintended
consequences.
Improvisation: The dynamic and symbiotic properties of dualities suggest the centrality of
improvisation, representing a fusion of intended and emergent action that manifests as a mix of
control with innovation, exploitation with exploration, and routine with non-routine. Improvisation
illustrates the value of a bi-directional relationship between two opposing poles by encouraging
activities that alter, revise, create and discover rather than simply shift, switch or add.
Continuity and change: competing and complementary forces
Taking action enabling the five characteristics requires an almost paradigmatic mind-shift. However,
the characteristics do suggest boundary principles that can be placed around management activity
which encourage dualities. For example, simple heuristics can work effectively as guidelines around
which minimal thresholds can be safely established. When a CEO deliberately fails to provide senior
management with any plans other than a broad vision in the hope that it would stimulate their own
strategic imagination, he is providing a boundary heuristic. Boundary heuristics can amplify the
properties of a duality.
Conclusion
While organizations may view stability as the antidote to risk, it really presents an Achilles heel,
which may lead to blindness when new insights and opportunities arise because they contradict or
threaten to destabilize the existing steady state. The potential for self-renewal and long-term
sustainability lies in responding positively and constructively to the dynamic tension between
opposites.
The dualities philosophy represents a paradox management means of dealing with change. The
management of continuity and change intricately aligns with finding a balance between order and
disorder. All in all, paradox and ambiguity are revealed as healthy sites for innovation and change.