Introduction to organization change – Rocco Palumbo
Lecture 01:
“This unique book provides a novel and challenging framework for understanding and
influencing organizational change. It reimagines managing and leading change as the mindful
mobilization of maps, masks, and mirrors.
The book challenges overly rational views of change management and leadership.
Addressing the gaps, paradoxes, and ironies of organizational change, it exposes how deep the
faults of traditional change management lie. The authors successfully bridge the divide between
scholarly treatises and textbooks on leading change. Summarizing and integrating the diverse
literatures on change, this dynamic book is an invaluable resource for change researchers and
specialists.
Abundant with popular imagery, stories, case studies and reflective activities, Ironies of
Organizational change is the perfect companion and guide for lecturers and advanced students
of business and organization studies. It also serves as a research based pragmatic handbook
for practitioners looking to manage change more effectively.”
Handbook: Ironies of Organizational Change by Richard J. Badham
o Resilience – what does it mean to be resilient as an organization: The ability of an
organization to anticipate, prepare for, respond, and adapt to incremental change and
sudden disruptions in order to survive and prosper.
o Covid-19 pandemic -> in that case we are victims of change
Main textbook that the course is based on: Organizational Change, fifth edition, by Barbara
Senior & Stephen Swailes; Pearson, 2016
Textbook: Organoizational Change, Cawsey, T.F., Deszca, G. & Ingols, C. 2016: An actionoriented toolkit; London: Sage
Chapter 7, 8 and 10 from the textbook
The exam will consist of 5 open questions, whose rating will range between 0 and 6.
1) At the end of teaching activities, you will undertake an exam, that will focus on the
topics dealt with in the two modules of the course. The score will range between a
minimum of 0 to a maximum of 30.
2) A maximum of 1 point will be acknowledged based on students’ involvement in
teaching activities.
3) A maximum of 3 points will be acknowledged based on students’ ability to perform
case analysis, active learning sessions and class discussion.
Lecture 02:
Can you try to define what is meant by ‘organizational change’?
è Reshaping the organizations due to the evolution of the stakeholders; is an attempt to
reshape something in the organization based on the evolving expectations means the
ans that came from the stakeholders; undergoing the process of change what could be
the components: we can modify the procedures of the organization, the structure and
how it is designed, how the power is distributed, the strategies or mainly configurations;
we can also shape people of the organizations we can intervene in this in order to make
people more fit
è Intervene in the strategies in order to increase our expected results.
è In management we have 3 E’s: Efficiency, Effectiveness, Economy (sustainability: Are
the appropriate quantity and quality of inputs bought at the lowest cost possible?)
*Efficiency means doing more with less (or the same) financial, physical, and human resources.
It is maximizing output. Effectiveness is the quality that those resources deliver. When a
business leader hits the sweet spot between the two, magic can happen*
What are the reasons lying behind organizational change?
è Can increase the reliability of the organization based on the technological strategies in
a technology company, e.g. we can increase the artificial intelligence.
è Technological advancements: rapid developments in technology can require
organizations to adapt and integrate new tools and system to stay current, improve
efficiency, and meet customer expectations.
è Market forces: changes in the external environment, such as shifts in market conditions,
new competitors, or changes in customer preferences, can necessitate organizational
adjustments to remain competitive.
è Internal Performance issues: poor financial performance, declining productivity, or
inefficiencies within the organization may prompt the need for changes to improve
overall effectiveness and sustainability.
What is the relationship between strategy making, planning, and organizational change?
è Strategy making is the first step, then we try to determine the planning of the
organization with satisfaction and then we try to implement the processes of change
and adapt it to the structures of the organization. This is the rational way. However, the
relationship can also be reversed. It is also possible that organizational change
determinate the necessity of planning the change.
è The relationship between these three aspects is directional. However, it can also be
reversed.
è In general, strategy making involves formulating decisions to achieve goals. Planning,
a key part of strategy making, details actions and resource allocation. Organizational
change is the practical implementation of new strategies and plans, often requiring
adjustments in structure and processes. The three concepts are interrelated, with
planning essential for managing change and achieving strategic obejctives.
Making sense of organizational change:
Lets try to formulate a “workable” definition of organizational change.
“…Organizational change refers to substantial shifts in direction, structure or process
that shape how an organization works… Change is organizational when it involves
substantial portions of an organization.”
è Substantial shifts: the term “substantial shifts” indicates that organizational change is
not about minor adjustments but rather involves significant alterations. This could
include changes in strategy, structure, culture, processes, or other fundamental aspects
of the organization.
è Direction, structure, or process: The definition recognizes that change can manifest in
various ways, such as shifts in the overall strategic direction, adjustments to the
organizational structure, or modifications to existing processes. This broad perspective
acknowledges that change can occur at different levels and dimensions within an
organization.
è Involvement of substantial portions: Highlighting that organizational change involves
“substantial portions” of an organization underscores the idea these changes are not
isolated or confined to specific departments or individuals. Instead, they have a broadreaching impact, affecting multiple facets of the organization and potentially
influencing its entire ecosystem.
è In summary, this definition provides a comprehensive understanding of organizational
change by emphasizing that change is a multifaceted process that goes beyond surfacelevel adjustments, affecting the core elements that define how an organization operates.
Are organizations able to control any “determinants” of organizational change?
è Organizations can control internal determinants of change, such as leadership and
culture. They have partial influence over external factors like market conditions and
regulations. Some determinants, like global economic trends and crises, are largely
uncontrollable. Adaptability, strategic planning, and workforce development are key for
navigating change effectively.
Who should be involved in designing and implementing organizational change initiatives?
What does it take to realize organizational change?
Is there an organizational change ongoing here?
Who are the main actors involved in framing change?
Do they have the same narrative of change?
What are the implications on change management?
Summarizing our main insights:
Drawing on what we have said until now, change can be conceived as a “…coping process of
moving from a unsatisfactory present state to a desired state” (Hunsaker, 2005).
Organizations consciously implement “organizational development paths”, which are variously
driven by technological improvements, conceptual advancements, scientific research
discoveries or changes of environmental dynamics.
Formally, managers legitimize processes of change, whilst change management is informally
driven by leaders.
The key problem is to understand “who” is going to perceive such unsatisfaction and “what”
intends to do in order to enact a transformation!
It is not easy to acknowledge the drive of change, since many different factors can coexist.
What does happen when leader and manager are not the same person and disagree on the
contents of change?
Disagreements and change perspectives:
When we do not have a perfect match between manager(s) and leader(s), disagreement(s) on
the perspectives for change might emerge, which are expected to compromise the functioning
of the organization.
The main concern of our course: Our focus is on “change” happening in a particular context,
that is to say an organization.
To better understand how we can manage “organizational change”, we should firstly get a
consensus of what we do mean by “organization”.
What are distinctive traits of an organization?
The 5 components of an organization:
1. A “social collectivity”
People within an organization establish a “social identity”, against which a “social collectivity”
is established. How “strong” social identities are going to shape change processes?
Is communication embedded in these 5 components?
2. Clear (explicit and tacit) individual and organizational goals
Organizations have formalized goals, which inspire organizational dynamics. Change
processes should be read in light of their alignment with organizational aims and scope.
Is communication embedded in these 5 components?
3. Organizational structures
Structures allow us to identify the distribution (delegation) of power. Besides, it identifies
people who are responsible for achieving specific organization goals.
Is communication embedded in these 5 components?
4. Coordinating mechanisms
Routines, standards, and procedures pave the way for the formalization of behaviors. However,
formalization is not enough to achieve coordination between members of the organization.
Is communication embedded in these 5 components?
5. Inclusion in an environment composed of other organizations.
Organizations enact multiple inter-organizational relationships, which are affected by the
degree of friendliness/hostility of the environment.
A process view of organizational change:
Input -> Transformation -> Output
è Responsiveness opens the analysis (“1st” Pressure for Change)
è We have to be able to respond to this pressure of change; based on the pressure for
change we can change our plans or do modifications, and of course these changes of
plans/change attempts are going to reduce the reliability of performance. This is a very
important aspect, because organizational change means that you are committing
resources, time and knowledge to change, and these resources cannot be allocated. So
in any kind of change initiative, you are going to experience lower performances,
therefore the more you attempt for changes, the lower your performance reliability will
be.
è The more people experience this unstable und decreasing reliability of performance
after attempts of change within an organization, they get demotivated. The more
unreliable the performances get; the more people will react against the processes of
organizational change => Inertia: inertia refers to the tendency of an organization to
resist change and maintain its current state. It’s the natural resistance within an
organization that makes it hesitant to alter its established routines, processes, structures,
or strategies. Inertia can manifest at various levels, including individual, team, and
organizational levels.
è The more inertia there is, the more probable it is that the organizational change will fail.
So that there is a negative relation to success of change, which in turn lowers the
exposure of pressure for change in an unnatural way.
è This tells a complete story behind the process of change.
Lecture 03:
The Action Research Model Kurt Lewin’s:
The Action Research Model by Kurt Lewin is a cyclic process commonly used in educational
and organizational settings to bring about change. The model typically involves the following
steps:
1. Identifying a problem or area for improvement:
a. Recognize and define a specific use or challenge within the organization or
community that requires attention.
2. Collecting data:
a. Gather relevant data through methods such as surveys, interviews, or
observations to understand the current situation and factors contributing to the
identified problem.
3. Implementing the Plan:
a. Put the planned interventions into action. This phase involves executing the
strategies designed in the planning stage.
4. Evaluating results:
a. Assess the impact of the implemented changes. Collect data to measure progress
and determine whether the desired outcomes are achieved.
5. Reflecting on the process:
a. Reflect in the entire action research process, considering what worked well,
what could be improved, and any unexpected outcomes. This reflection informs
future cycles of the model.
6. Repeating the cycle:
a. Based on the reflection, adjust the plan and repeat the cycle if further
improvements or changes are needed. The action research model is iterative,
allowing for ongoing refinement and adaption.
Lewin’s model emphasizes collaboration and participation, involving stakeholders in each
phase of the process. This approach aims to create a sense of ownership and engagement,
increasing the likelihood of successful and sustainable change within organization or
community.
The Appreciative Inquiry Model:
Appreciative Inquiry is a model and approach to organizational development and change that
focuses on identifying and amplifying an organization’s strengths, successes, and positive
aspects rather than dwelling on problems or deficiencies. The Appreciative Inquiry Model,
often represented by a 4-D cycle, guides the process:
1. Discovery:
a. Purpose: Identify and explore the organization’s positive core, strengths, and
past successes.
b. Process: Engage in interviews, surveys, and other methods to discover stories
and examples that highlight what has worked well in the past.
2. Dream:
a. Purpose: Imagine an envision the organization’s desired future based on the
positive aspects identified in the discovery phase.
b. Process: Facilitate collaborative sessions where stakeholders share their
aspirations and co-create a shared vision of the organization’s ideal state.
3. Design:
a. Purpose: develop concrete plans and strategies to realize the envisioned future.
b. Process: bring together stakeholders to design initiatives, projects, and
interventions aligned with the positive aspects identified in the Discovery and
Dream phases.
4. Deliver/Deploy:
a. Purpose: implement and sustain the designed initiatives.
b. Process: execute the plans, monitor progress, and continually assess and refine
strategies. Focus on creating a positive feedback loop that reinforces success
and contributes to a culture of continuous improvement.
Key principles and concepts of Appreciative Inquiry include:
Positive Framing: AI emphasizes framing questions and discussions in a positive light,
focusing on what is working well and what can be built upon.
Collaboration: The process involves the active participation of a diverse group of stakeholders,
fostering collaboration and collective ownership of the change process.
Social Constructionist Philosophy: AI based on the idea that language and conversation shape
organizational reality. By engaging in positive conversations, organizations can co-create a
positive and desirable future.
Appreciative Inquiry is often used in organizational change, team development, and leadership
development. Its strength lies in fostering a positive organizational culture, enhancing
engagement, and aligning individuals towards a common vision of success.
Which methods can you use to dream new futures?
Managers can use different strategies and techniques to collect insights about steps or future
development.
What comes in your mind about approaches for generating ideas for change? Do you have any
cues?
Although it is not possible to identify a one-size-fits-all approach, there are some typical tols
which can be used for ideas generation.
Alongside generating ideas, appropriate tools should be used to give a visualization of the
generated ideas.
Conceive ideas -> Visualize ideas.
Focus Group:
The focus group coordinated by a moderator, who stimulates an open and in-depth discussion
about a relevant topic. The moderator can decide to be either directive or non-directive. The
focus group is usually composed of 8-14 participants and is stimulated by comments from each
other. It is intended to creatively conceptualize and develop a new idea to enhance the
functioning of the organization. The main issue is identifying who should be the member
participating in the focus group.
Brainstorming:
The brainstorming stimulates to be creative by meeting with others and participating in a cocreating experience.
Whilst many ideas generated by the group might have no basis for further development,
sometimes a good idea emerges.
Some rules should be followed to have a profitable brainstorming:
1. The focus should be put on a specific topic.
2. No criticism should be allowed.
3. Freewheeling and wildness should be encouraged.
4. Quantity is assumed to be conducive to usefulness.
5. Combinations and improvements of ideas should be encouraged.
Brainwriting:
Brainwriting is a creativity technique where participants silently write down their ideas in
response to a prompt. The written ideas are then passed around and expanded upon by other
participants in a collaborative and iterative process. It promotes inclusivity, equal participation,
and idea expansion. In most cases, 6 members are enough to implement a profitable
brainwriting session. Each group member generates and writes down three ideas during a fiveminute period. The form is passed on to the adjacent person who writes down three new ideas,
and so on, until each form has passed all participants.
The visualization of ideas:
Once ideas have been conceived, they should be visualized.
Different techniques can be used to give a shape to change management initiatives.
The most valuable techniques to visualize ideas (and the obstacles which can prevent their
implementation) are:
The “fishbone” (drawn on the Ishikawa model)
The bowtie model.
The casual mapping
Visualizing the idea permit the entrepreneur to better navigate the arrangement of the business
plan.
The fishbone model: It has been conceived in the field of quality management by the “guru”
Kaoru Ishikawa. Although it is a model which is conventionally used to frame and deal with
problems, it can be adapted to the visualization of change management perspectives.
The bowtie model: It is quite similar to the fishbone model. However, it also has some
distinctive features, which make it a more detailed tool as compared with the Ishikawa model.
Casual Mapping:
Casual mapping creates logical connections among events and phenomena, giving senses to
change management ideas and consolidating the backbone against which an organizational
action can be conceived and accomplished.
Lecture 04:
What do we mean by organizations? Have you ever reflected about what does organization
mean?
è Social collectivity, common goals (there’s at least one common goal), structures
(structuring the responsibilities, the roles, the tasks, …), agreement.
è We can modify the social dimension/culture, we can also reframe the goals and the
targets of the organization, we can modify beliefs and values, we can also change the
managerial system, we can form/modify the structure, …
è Refer to social entities that are formed to achieve common goals through coordinated
efforts, structured activities, and the allocation of resources. These entities can take
various forms, including businesses, non-profit groups, government agencies,
educational institutions, and more. Organizations typically have defined structures,
roles, and processes to facilitate the pursuit of their objectives. They exist to accomplish
tasks efficiently and effectively, provide goods and services, or fulfill a specific mission
within a given context. Organizations can vary widely in size, purpose, and structure,
but they all involve the collaboration of individuals working together to achieve
common goals.
What conceptualizations fit more with the idea that organizations need to change?
1. As machine
a. Good and sorted out structure, processes that all flow into each other; composed
of a lot of different resources, procedures, and steps that interrelate and all
depend in each other.
b. Emphasizes a structured design, standardized processes, predictability,
specialization, and the role of leadership in guiding and controlling its
operations. It highlights efficiency, consistency, and the pursuit of defined
objectives, drawing parallels between the systematic nature of machines and
organizational structures.
2. As organism
a. Good and pure connections
b. Emphasizes adaptability, growth, and responsiveness to the environment. Both
are dynamic entities with interconnected components, highlighting the need for
organizations to evolve in response to changing conditions.
3. As brain
a. Comparing organizations to a brain underscores the importance of information
processing, communication, and decision-making. Both entities involve
complex networks, adaptability, and the need for coordinated functions to
achieve their goals.
4. As culture
a. Emphasizes shared values, norms, and behaviors. Like culture, organizations
develop a collective identity that influences interactions, decision-making, and
overall functioning. Working on the informal system more than the formal one.
5. As political system
a. Highlights power dynamics, decision-making structures, and the distribution of
authority. Both involve complex interactions, negotiations, and the pursuit of
common goals through various channels and processes. Compromises.
Managerial power => Manage a system of power.
6. As psychic prison
a. Underscores the idea that organizational structures and cultures can sometimes
constrain individual creativity and freedom. Like a psychic prison,
organizations may inadvertently limit innovation and individual expression due
to rigid norms, policies, or hierarchical structures. Engage people. Employees
must simply follow the rules given by the authorities.
7. As change flux
a. Shows that both are inherently dynamic; like change, organizations constantly
evolve, adapt, and respond to internal and external forces. The comparison
highlights the importance of agility and flexibility in navigating shifting
circumstances.
8. As instrument of domination
a. This comparison suggests that, in certain contexts, organizational structures and
power dynamics can be used to control and exert influence over individuals or
groups. This analogy highlights the potential for organizations to enforce
authority and shape behavior within a hierarchical framework.
Towards a conceptualization of organization
An organization can be conceived of as the set of approaches ad methodologies which steer,
on the one hand, the division of a complex activity in specific tasks and jobs and, on the other
hand, regulate the coordination between the individual tasks and jobs.
ð An organization is seen as a system that employs various approaches and
methodologies. It effectively manages complex tasks by breaking them down in to
specific jobs, promoting specialization and efficiency. Simultaneously, it establishes
coordination mechanism to ensure seamless collaboration between tasks, preventing
conflicts and aligning efforts towards common goals. (It is a system that divides
complex tasks into specific jobs for efficiency while implementing coordination
mechanisms to ensure seamless collaboration and goal alignment.)
The focus is on achieving efficiency: reducing the number of resources used to produce e
certain amount of output or increasing the quantity of output produced given the resources
available.
Organization and specialization
ð Specialization:
o Definition: Specialization refers to the degree wo which tasks or activities are
divided into separate jobs withing an organization.
o Link: Specialization us linked to the concept of division of labor, where
individuals or groups focus on specific tasks that match their skills or expertise.
o Differences: Specialization is more about the division of labor based on
expertise and skill sets, allowing individuals to become proficient in a particular
area.
ð Standardization:
o Definition: Standardization involves establishing uniform processes,
procedures, or products to ensure consistency and efficiency.
o Link: Standardization is often linked to the desire for efficiency, quality control,
and the reduction of variation in processes or products.
o Differences: While specialization focuses on the division of labor,
standardization emphasizes the uniformity and consistency of processes,
procedures, or products across the organization.
ð Formalization:
o Definition: Formalization refers to the extent to which ruler, procedures, and
structures are established and followed within an organization.
o Link: Formalization is related to the level of bureaucracy and the degree to
which an organization relies on rules and regulations to guide behavior and
decision-making.
o Differences: Formalization can be seen as a broader concept that includes the
establishment of rules and structure, whereas specialization and standardization
focus on specific aspects of organizational design.
o
Link between Specialization, Standardization, and Formalization:
• Organizations often use a combination of these concepts in their design and
management strategies.
• For example, a highly specialized organization may also implement standardized
processes to ensure consistent quality in the specialized tasks.
• Formalization can support both specialization and standardization by providing a
structured framework for how tasks are performed and how decisions are made.
In summary, while specialization deals with the division of labor based on skills,
standardization emphasizes uniformity in processes or products, and formalization involves the
establishment of rules and strictures within an organization. These concepts are interrelated and
can be implemented together to achieve specific organizational goals.
We can identify two “dimensions” of specialization.
ð A “horizontal” dimension
o Variety and heterogeneity of tasks assigned to an individual member of the
organization.
o Horizontal Specialization
“Horizontal Specialization”, also known as horizontal division of labor, refers to the
organization of tasks and activities within a company based in specific functions or processes.
In horizontal specialization, the division of labor occur at the same hierarchical level across
different functions or departments. This contrasts with vertical specialization, where the
division of labor occurs at different hierarchical levels (e.g., top management, middle
management, and frontline employees).
Key characteristics:
o Functional departments: the organization is divided into various functional
departments or units, each responsible for a specific set of tasks or activities.
Common functional departments include marketing, finance, human resources,
operations, and research and development.
o Expertise in functions: Employees within each functional department typically
possess specialized knowledge and skills related to their specific area of work.
This specialization allows for a high level of expertise and efficiency within
each function.
o Coordination across functions: While horizontal specialization enhances
expertise within functions, it also requires effective coordination and
communication across different departments. Collaboration becomes crucial to
ensure that the various functions work together seamlessly to achieve
organizational goals.
o Decentralized Decision-making: In some cases, horizontal specialization may
involve decentralized decision-making, where each functional department has a
degree of autonomy in managing its tasks and making decisions within its area
of expertise.
o Flexibility and adaptability: Horizontal specialization can provide
organizational flexibility and adaptability as each functional area can respond
independently to changes or challenges within its domain. This can be beneficial
in dynamic and rapidly changing environments.
For example, in a manufacturing company, horizontal specialization might involve separate
departments for production, quality control, marketing, and finance. Each department is
responsible for its specific functions, and employees within each department specialize in tasks
related to their functional expertise.
Overall, horizontal specialization aims to optimize efficiency, expertise, and coordination
within each functional area of an organization while promoting collaboration across
departments to achieve overall organizational objectives.
“Horizontal Despecialization”, also known as job rotation or cross-functional training,
involves breaking down the barriers between different specialized functions or departments
within an organization. Instead of employees focusing exclusively on one specialized task or
function, they are encouraged to gain experience and skills across a variety of functions. This
approach aims to create a more versatile and flexible workforce.
Key characteristics:
o Cross-functional Training: Employees are trained to perform tasks and
take on responsibilities that span multiple functions or departments. This
may involve rotating employees through different job roles to broaden their
skill sets.
o Reduced Functional Silos: Traditional organizational structures often lead
to functional silos, where each department operates independently.
Horizontal despecialization seeks to break down these silos, fostering better
communication and collaboration between different functions.
o Versatility and Adaptability: Employees become more versatile and
adaptable as they acquire a broader range of skills. This can be particularly
beneficial in dynamic and rapidly changing business environments where
organizations need employees who can easily transition between different
tasks.
o Enhanced Collaboration: Breaking down barriers between functions
promotes better understanding and collaboration among employees from
different areas of expertise. This can lead to more innovative solutions and
a holistic view of organizational goals.
o Increased Employee Engagement: Employees often appreciate the
opportunity to learn and grow in their roles. Horizontal despecialization can
contribute to increased job satisfaction and engagement as employees take
on diverse challenges.
For example, in a horizontally despecialized organization, employees in a technology company
might have opportunities to work not only on coding (their primary expertise) but also on
aspects of project management, customer support, or marketing. This can create a more wellrounded and adaptable workforce.
In summary, horizontal despecialization involves breaking down the boundaries between
specialized functions or departments, encouraging employees to develop a broader skill set and
fostering collaboration across different areas of expertise within an organization.
ð A “vertical” dimension
o Degree of control available in performing individual tasks.
“Vertical Specialization” refers to the division of labor and differentiation of tasks within an
organization based on hierarchical levels or vertical layers of the organizational structure. In a
vertically specialized organization, different levels of management or employees are assigned
distinct roles and responsibilities, creating a clear hierarchy.
Key characteristics:
o Hierarchical structure: The organization is structured with distinct levels
of authority, typically ranging from top management to middle management
to frontline employees. Each level has specific responsibilities and duties.
o Clear chain of command: Vertical specialization establishes a clear chain
of command, indicating the reporting relationships and lines of authority
within the organization. Decisions typically flow from higher levels of
management down to lower levels.
o Specialized Roles: Each level within the organization is assigned specific
tasks and functions. Higher levels of management are often responsible for
strategic decision-making, while lower levels handle more operational and
task-specific activities.
o Efficiency through specialization: The specialization of tasks at each level
is intended to enhance efficiency. Employees at different levels can become
experts in their specific roles, contributing to a smooth and organized
workflow.
o Standardized of procedures: Vertical specialization may involve
standardizing procedures and processes within each level to ensure
consistency and conformity to organizational goals and standards.
For example, in a vertically specialized manufacturing company, top management may focus
on strategic planning and decision-making, middle management on coordinating and
implementing these strategies, and frontline employees on the day-to-day operational tasks
related to production.
While vertical specialization can enhance efficiency and clarity in roles, it can also lead to
challenges such as communication barriers between different levels, slower decision-making
processes, and potential resistance to change. The effectiveness of vertical specialization
depends on the organization's goals, industry, and overall management approach.
“Vertical Despecialization” also known as delayering or flattening of the organizational
hierarchy, is a concept that involves reducing the number of hierarchical levels within an
organization. This restructuring aims to streamline decision-making, enhance communication,
and increase flexibility by eliminating unnecessary layers of management.
Key characteristics:
o Flatter organizational structure: Vertical despecialization results in a
flatter organizational structure with fewer hierarchical levels. This means
there are fewer layers of management between top leadership and frontline
employees.
o Decentralized decision-making: With fewer levels of management,
decision-making authority may be distributed more broadly throughout the
organization. This can lead to quicker responses to changes and increased
autonomy for employees.
o Increased Communication flow: The reduction in hierarchical levels
facilitates better communication flow across the organization. Information
can move more freely between different levels, fostering collaboration and
a more transparent work environment.
o Broadened Job Roles: Employees may experience a broadening of their job
roles as the elimination of middle management layers may require
individuals to take on additional responsibilities. This can contribute to a
more dynamic and engaged workforce.
o Cost Reduction: Vertical despecialization is often associated with efforts to
reduce costs by eliminating redundant layers of management. This can result
in a more efficient allocation of resources.
For example, in a traditionally structured organization with multiple layers of management, a
move towards vertical despecialization might involve combining or eliminating certain
managerial positions, creating a structure with a smaller number of management tiers.
It's essential to note that while vertical despecialization can offer benefits such as improved
communication and cost reduction, it may also pose challenges, including the need for careful
management of increased workloads for remaining employees and potential resistance to
change. The success of vertical despecialization depends on factors such as the organization's
size, industry, and specific goals.
What are other organizational parameters?
Alongside determining the degree of specialization, organizations should take decisions about:
è The level of formalization of individual tasks and jobs
è The span of control attached to each individual position.
§ The extent of decentralization of power
o The professionalism of individual positions
è The personnel ratios characterizing the organization.
Lecture 05:
Towards a conceptualization of organization
Organizing allows us to accomplish a rational coordination of the tasks assigned to a certain
group in order to achieve a common goal. This happens due to division of labour and a clear
hierarchy of authority and responsibilities.
The focus is on achieving effectiveness: reaching the targets planned or meeting the
expectations of the managing bodies.
“Selves “and organizations
Every organizational process is imbued with a plurality of “selves”, whose (tacit and explicit)
manifestation affects the contents and the process of organizational change. *
Inter alia, we can identify the following selves:
1. Individual self (career, self-esteem, reputation, power, influence, authority, …)
a. Definition: the individual self refers to the unique identity, beliefs, values, and
perspectives of each person within an organization.
b. Manifestation: both tacit and explicit aspects of an individual’s identity come
into play. Tacit manifestations might include personal beliefs ´, attitudes, and
assumptions that shape how an individual perceives and responds to
organizational change. Explicit manifestations could include openly stated
opinions, preferences, ir reactions to the proposed changes.
2. Relational self (affiliation, collective, influence, bargaining, social identity, …)
a. Definition: The relational self encompasses the identity and perspectives that
individuals bring to their relationships and interactions within the organization.
It considers how individuals perceive themselves in relation to others.
b. Manifestations: The relational self is evident in how individuals collaborate,
communicate, and form connections with colleagues. This can include team
dynamics, interpersonal relationships, and the influence of social networks
within the organization. Tacit manifestations might involve unspoken norms or
expectations within these relationships.
3. Organizational self (organizational commitment, identity, engagement, participation,
…)
a. Definition: The organizational self represents the collective identity and shared
perspectives that emerge at the organizational level. It involves the culture,
values, and overarching identity of the organization as a whole.
b. Manifestations: Tacit aspects of the organizational self could include cultural
norms, implicit values, and the unwritten rules that guide behavior. Explicit
manifestations might involve the organization's stated mission, vision, and
official policies. The organizational self shapes the overarching identity and
goals of the organization.
In summary, the individual self, relational self, and organizational self together
contribute to the plurality of "selves" within an organization, influencing the content
and process of organizational change. Recognizing and understanding these different
dimensions of identity and perspective is essential for effective change management, as
it allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the diverse factors at play in the
organizational environment.
Explanation of statements*: this statement suggests that within any organizational process,
there are multiple perspectives, attitudes, and identities at play. These various “selves”
encompass both implicit (tacit) and explicit aspects, influencing both the content and the
dynamics of organizational change initiatives.
ð Let’s break down the key components:
Plurality of “Selves”: this refers to the idea that individuals within an organization bring
their own unique perspectives, experiences, and identities to the table. Each person
involved in the organizational process contributes their own "self" to the collective
whole.
Tacit and Explicit manifestations: The term "tacit" suggests that some aspects of these
individual perspectives are unspoken or implicit. These could be underlying beliefs,
assumptions, or cultural norms that influence behavior without being explicitly
expressed. On the other hand, "explicit" manifestations are the more overt, clear, and
openly communicated aspects of an individual's perspective.
Affecting contents and process of organizational change: The various "selves" have an
impact on both the content (what is being changed or addressed) and the process (how
the change is being implemented) of organizational change. The diversity of
perspectives can shape the goals of change initiatives, the strategies employed, and how
individuals within the organization respond to and engage with the change process.
è In essence, the statement highlights the complex and multifaceted nature of
organizational dynamics during periods of change. It emphasizes that organizational
change is not a uniform or one-dimensional process but is, instead, influenced by the
interplay of diverse and often unspoken individual perspectives. Recognizing and
understanding these varied "selves" within an organization is crucial for effective
change management, as it allows for a more nuanced and inclusive approach that
considers the diverse factors influencing the organizational environment.
Organizational change
Organization change can be understood as a voluntary and (more or less) planned alteration
of organizational components which is aimed at improving the effectiveness and/or the
efficiency of the organization.
These alterations do not happen in the void!
Remember that organizations operate in an environment (macro-system) which is composed
of other organization (systems) and of special and cultural norms. Organizations establish
reciprocal relationships, which may affect both the contents and the process of change!
The system view of organizations:
In system view of organizations, formal subsystems, informal subsystems, inputs, and outputs
are integral components that contribute to the understanding of how organizations function as
complex and interconnected systems.
1. Formal subsystems:
a. Definition: formal subsystems refer to the structured and officially recognized
components within an organization that have specific roles, responsibilities, and
tasks. These are the parts of the organization that are explicitly designed and
sanctioned.
b. Example: Departments, divisions, teams, hierarchical levels are examples of
formal subsystems. These have defined structures, reporting relationships, and
functions.
2. Informal subsystems:
a. Definition: informal subsystems are the less structured und unofficial aspects of
an organization. These emerge organically and are based on social interactions,
relationships, and informal networks among individuals.
b. Example: informal communication networks, friendships, and social groups
within the organization are examples of informal subsystems. They often
influence communication, decision-making, and the organizational culture.
3. Inputs:
a. Definition: inputs are the resources, information, and energy that enter the
organizational system form the external environment. Inputs are necessary for
the organization to function and achieve its goals.
b. Examples: human resources, financial capital, raw materials, information from
the external environment, and technology are examples of inputs. These inputs
are transformed through organizational processes.
4. Outputs:
a. Definition: Outputs are the results, products, or outcomes generated by the
organization as a result of its processes. These represent the tangible or
intangible products of the organizational system.
b. Examples: Finished goods, services provided, financial reports, and innovations
are examples of outputs. Outputs are often assessed against organizational goals
and objectives.
In summary, the system view of organizations considers both formal and informal
subsystems as integral parts of the organization, acknowledging their roles in
influencing organizational dynamics. Inputs, processes, and outputs are crucial
elements in understanding how organizations interact with their external environment,
transform resources, and achieve their objectives. This holistic perspective helps in
analyzing the complexity and interconnectedness of organizational systems.
The eco-system view of organizations
Organizations and their environment
The characteristics of the (perceived) environment
Lecture 06:
The City National Bank case:
What is the most relevant management challenge faced by the branch which is analyzed in
the case study?
Is the organization experiencing a significant process of change?
Is there a decoupling between the formal and informal organization?
What are the (perceived) attributes of the external environment?
The mechanistic/organismic continuum
A “stakeholder-based” view of the organization
o Economic environment:
§ Shareholders: Their interests are often tied to financial performance, profitability,
and returns in investment
§ Suppliers: economic factors, such as market conditions and pricing, can impact
supplier relationships
o Technological environment:
§ Employees: technology affects the nature of work, tools, and systems used by
employees
§ Suppliers: suppliers may be influenced by technological advancements affecting
production processes.
o Civic and social environment:
§ Employees: social and cultural preferences impact buying behavior
§ Government: regulatory policies and social responsibility expectations
o Political environment:
§ Government: regulatory and political decisions impact organizational operations.
§ Board: involved in strategic decision-making that may be influenced by political
considerations
§ Other stakeholders: various stakeholders may be influenced by political factors.
This categorization helps demonstrate how different stakeholders are influenced by and
contribute to various environmental contexts, emphasizing the complexity of organizational
interactions within the broader economic, technological, civic, social, and political
environments.
The eco-system view of organizations
Organizational change cannot be implemented by using a “inward” oriented perspective.
Sticking to an eco-system view of organization, both internal and external challenges should
be analyzed to design organizational change initiatives.
The P.E.S.T.L.E. Analysis, sometimes also known as PESTEL analysis, is a strategic
management tool used to analyze and evaluate the external macro-environmental factors that
can impact an organization. The acronym PESTLE stands for Political, Economic, Social,
Technological, Legal, and Environmental factors. Each of these factors represents a category
of external influences that can affect the business environment.
1. Political Factors:
a. National and international bodies, elected and unelected, influence
organizational life to a greater or lesser degree. The political scene, and its
effects in organizations, public, private, and voluntary, are uncertain and, to
some extent, unpredictable.
b. These refer to the influence of government policies, regulations, and political
stability on the business environment. Political factors can include government
stability, tax policies, trade tariffs, labor laws, and political ideologies.
2. Economic Factors:
a. It implies an in-depth investigation of the state if the economy, including its
growth pace, the inflation rate, the availability, and the price of key resources.
The state of the economy affects the way organizational decisions are taken!
b. Economic factors focus on the impact of the economy on the organization. This
includes factors such as inflation rates, exchange rates, interest rates, economic
growth or recession, and overall economic stability.
3. Social Factors:
a. It includes a wide examination of the social dynamics, including lifestyles,
cultural attitudes, ethical beliefs, education levels and – more in general –
demographics of the community. These factors have a (direct and indirect)
influence on many organizational decisions, inducing human resource
management.
b. Social factors encompass the societal and cultural influences on the business.
Demographic trends, cultural attitudes, lifestyle changes, and social values all
fall under this category. Understanding these factors helps businesses adapt to
changing consumer preferences and behaviors.
4. Technological Factors:
a. It includes the analysis of the changes in technology that are likely to alter the
firm’s competitive position. Innovation in management processes and practices
are part of the technology scanning implemented by organizations to inspire
managerial decision making.
b. Technological factors involve the impact of technology on the industry and
business processes. This includes innovation, automation, research and
development, and the rate of technological change. Organizations need to stay
abreast of technological advancements to remain competitive.
5. Legal Factors:
a. It includes the examination of the legal context in which the organization is
going to implement its own activities. Antitrust laws, employment laws, and
copyright laws are especially relevant in this context. Consider also the
importance of legal aspects related to human resource management!
b. Legal factors relate to the laws and regulations governing the business
environment. This includes employment laws, health and safety regulations,
industry-specific regulations, and compliance requirements. Organizations need
to operate within the legal framework to avoid legal issues and penalties.
6. Environmental Factors:
a. Environmental analysis involves the investigation of the environmental
dynamics, such as weather and climate changes, pressures from NGOs and other
relevant stakeholders, and political impacts of the organizational activities on
sustainability-related issues.
b. Environmental factors refer to considerations related to the impact of business
activities on the environment. This includes sustainability, climate change,
environmental regulations, and corporate responsibility initiatives.
Organizations are increasingly expected to operate in an environmentally
conscious manner.
The PESTLE analysis is a valuable tool for organizations to identify and understand the
external factors that may impact their operations. By analyzing these factors, businesses
can develop strategies to navigate challenges, leverage opportunities, and adapt to
changes in the external environment. It is often used as part of the strategic planning
process to inform decision-making and risk management.
The P.E.S.T. Analysis:
It is a strategic management tool used to assess and evaluate the external macroenvironmental factors that can affect an organization. The acronym PEST stands for
Political, Economic, Social, and Technological factors. This analysis helps businesses
and organizations understand the broader external influences that may impact their
operations, strategies, and decision-making.
1. Political Factors: this involves assessing the influence of government and political
factors on the business environment. Considerations include government stability,
regulatory frameworks, political ideologies, trade policies, and the impact of
geopolitical events.
2. Economic Factors: focus on the economic conditions that can affect the
organization. Key considerations include inflation rates, exchange rates, interest
rates, economic growth or recession, and overall economic stability. These factors
can impact consumer purchasing power and market demand.
3. Social Factors: Social factors involve examination fi societal and cultural influences
on the business. This includes demographic trends, cultural attitudes, lifestyle
changes, and social values. Understanding these factors is crucial for adapting
products, services, and marketing strategies to meet consumer expectations.
4. Technological Factors: assess the impact of technology on the industry and business
processes. Considerations include innovation, research and development,
automation, and the pace of technological change. Organizations need to stay
current with technological advancements to remain competitive.
The PEST analysis is often expanded to include additional factor resulting in the
PESTLE analysis. The PEST analysis is a valuable tool in strategic planning and
decision-making. It helps organizations anticipate and respond to changes in the
external environment, identify opportunities and threats, and develop strategies that
align with the prevailing conditions in the market or industry.
When to use which analysis?
The choice between PEST and PESTLE analysis depends on the specific needs and
objectives of the analysis, as well as the level of detail required. Both analyses serve as
valuable tools for understanding the external macro-environmental factors influencing
an organization, but they differ in terms of factors considered.
Use PEST Analysis when:
Use PESTLE Analysis when:
1. Simplicity is Sufficient: PEST is
1. Comprehensive Understanding is
simpler and quicker as it focuses
Required: PESTLE analysis
on four key factors. It may be
provides a more comprehensive
more suitable when a broad
view by including Legal and
overview is sufficient, and a more
Environmental factors in addition
detailed examination of legal and
to the other factors. This is
environmental factors is not
beneficial when a more thorough
immediately necessary.
understanding of the external
environment is needed.
2. Time Constraints: in situations
where time is a critical factor,
such as during a rapid decisionmaking process or in a fast-paced
industry, PEST analysis can
provide a quick snapshot of the
key external factors.
3. Industry-Specific focus: Some
industries may find that the
primary influencers on their
operations are captured by the
four factors in PEST analysis. For
example,
technology-focused
industries
may
prioritize
technological factors over legal
or environmental considerations.
2. Regulatory and Environmental
Impact is significant: industries
heavily regulated by laws and
environmental standards, such as
pharmaceuticals or energy, may
benefit from a PESTLE analysis
to thoroughly examine legal and
environmental factors that can
have a substantial impact.
3. Strategic planning and risk
management: for long-term
strategic
planning,
risk
management, and when making
decisions with potential legal or
environmental
implications,
PESTLE analysis offers a more
robust framework.
In practice, many organizations may start with a PEST analysis and, if needed, later
expand it into a PESTLE analysis to incorporate a more detailed examination. The
choice between the two methods should align with the specific goals and the level of
detail required for informed decision-making.
Stakeholder and the enacted environment
As we have already said, stakeholders largely involve all those entities which are part of the
environment and who are interested in and/or can influence the value creation processes
which are accomplished by the organization. Such entities may have a strong voice in
addressing the transition processes that are ongoing within the organization.
The whole set of stakeholders who are considered relevant for the organization constitutes the
enacted environment, or the part of the environment where the organization looks for “triggers
to change”.
Stakeholders’ influence and salience
We can use an “equation” to evaluate the degree of influence that a stakeholder is able to
express towards the organization:
Where:
- Sinf = stakeholder “influence”/” salience”
- P = stakeholder “power”
- U = stakeholder “urgency”
- L = stakeholder “legitimacy”
Stakeholders’ salience and OC
A grid to assess SHs’ pressures
The external triggers of organizational change
The phenomena and factors than can be retrieved in the PESTLE areas can be understood of
as “external” triggers of change. They stimulate an organization to undertake a change process,
in order to enhance its ability to achieve a “fitness” with the external environment!
Remember that the main aim of each organization is to stay alive as long as possible!
If organizations are unable to meet the evolving expectations that arises in the external
environment and in the internal environment, they will lose their viability, due to lack of
support from relevant stakeholders.
What is a trigger to change?
Organizational change is an uncertain, challenging, and unpredictable process for both
managers and employees.
It involves the disruption of rooted equilibria within an organization, altering the distribution
of power and increasing the asymmetries amongst the organizational members.
Therefore, organizations need some “pushes” to undertake the change effort!
Lecture 07:
The triggers of change
What do we mean by triggers of change?
A “trigger” to organizational change can be generally conceived of as an “input” component of
organizational transition processes. In sum, triggers to change can be retrieved at the starting
point of organizational change processes.
We are used to conceive “triggers” as “pushes” to change. This involves a “passive”
interpretation of organizational reactions to the pressures delivered by triggers to change.
However, it is possible to hold a “pull” interpretation of triggers to change: in this case,
organizations (pro)actively anticipate the determinants of change.
The external and internal “trigger” to change:
There are “external” and “internal” triggers to organizational change. They can be “perceived”
by an organization through a process which can be called “environmental scanning”.
Generally speaking, the environmental scanning consists of a systematic activity which is
intended to obtain, collect, and interpret relevant data and information about factors, which
are external to the organization, but which are able to influence organizational decisions and
dynamics.
(Environmental scanning in organizational change refers to the process of systematically
gathering, analyzing, and interpreting information about the external environment to identify
opportunities, threats, and trends that may impact the organization. The goal of environmental
scanning is to provide the organization with insights into the dynamic external factors that
could influence its strategic decision, operations, and overall performance.)
The organization scans all the PESTLE factors and collect information from this scanning
process -> with this information we perceived our environment and give it to out perceived
department and put it in a perceived context -> and then we conceive what are the changes that
we should implement (Organizational dynamics and practices) -> changes (structure,
processes, …) -> and this gets the “new/improved” perceived context.
Internal Triggers
Identity Shifts: Organizations may undergo
identity shifts due to rebranding, changes in
mission or values, or shifts in the perception
of the organization by internal and external
stakeholders. These shifts often require
changes in communication strategies,
marketing, and internal culture.
Strategy-Making: Changes in strategymaking involve shifts in how the
organization plans, sets goals, and makes
decisions. This trigger can be driven by shifts
in the competitive landscape, emerging
opportunities, or changes in leadership.
Structural Changes: Structural changes
involve adjustments to the organization's
hierarchy, reporting lines, and overall
organizational design. These changes may be
prompted by a need for increased efficiency,
changes in the business environment, or
shifts in the organization's focus.
Management
Shifts:
Changes
in
management
involve
alterations
in
leadership styles, management philosophies,
and executive roles. A change in leadership
can impact the organization's culture,
decision-making processes, and overall
direction.
Process
Reengineering:
Process
reengineering entails a fundamental review
and redesign of organizational processes to
improve efficiency, effectiveness, or
adaptability. This trigger is often driven by
advancements in technology, changes in
market conditions, or a need for innovation.
People Development: People development
triggers involve initiatives related to talent
management, employee development, and
workforce planning. Changes in the
External Triggers
Political Forces: Political forces can impact
organizations
through
changes
in
government policies, regulations, and
political stability. Organizations may need to
adapt to new legal requirements, navigate
political uncertainties, or respond to changes
in political ideologies that affect business
operations.
Economic Pressures: Economic pressures,
such as recessions, inflation, or changes in
consumer
spending,
can
prompt
organizations to reevaluate their strategies,
cost structures, and market positioning.
Economic fluctuations can influence pricing
strategies, demand for products or services,
and overall financial stability.
Technological Factors: Advances in
technology can trigger organizational
changes by creating opportunities for
innovation, automation, and improvements
in operational efficiency. Organizations may
need to adopt new technologies, upgrade
systems, or invest in research and
development to stay competitive.
Socio-Cultural Dynamics: Socio-cultural
dynamics encompass shifts in societal
values, cultural norms, and consumer
behaviors. Organizations may need to adjust
their products, services, or marketing
strategies to align with changing societal
expectations and preferences.
Environmental Issues: Environmental issues
focus on sustainability and corporate
responsibility. Organizations may undergo
changes to reduce their environmental
impact, comply with environmental
regulations, or capitalize on opportunities
related to sustainable practices.
Legal Constraints: Legal constraints involve
changes in laws, regulations, and legal
standards that affect business operations.
Organizations may need to adapt their
workforce, including skills development and policies, practices, and structures to ensure
succession planning, can be driven by shifts compliance
with
evolving
legal
in organizational strategy or external labor requirements.
market conditions.
ð Interrelation:
o Strategic Alignment: Internal triggers like identity shifts, strategy-making, and
structural changes need to align with external triggers. For example, a change
in strategy should consider the impact of economic pressures and technological
advancements.
o Adaptability: Organizations need to be adaptable to external triggers,
responding strategically to changes in political, economic, technological, sociocultural, environmental, and legal factors. Internal triggers, such as process
reengineering and people development, play a critical role in building
organizational adaptability.
o Risk Mitigation: Internal triggers like people development and process
reengineering can also serve as risk mitigation startegies in response to external
triggers. For instance, investing in employee development enhances the
organization’s ability to cope with changing economic conditions.
o Innovation and Technology Adoption: Internal triggers related to technology
adoption and process reengineering are often influenced by external
technological factors. Organizations may need to innovate internally to harness
the benefits of external technological advancements.
Understanding the interrelation of these triggers is crucial for organizations to navigate change
successfully. A holistic approach that considers both internal and external factors enables
organizations to adapt strategically, align with their environment, and build resilience in the
face of continuous change.
A framework to interpret triggers to change:
ACCRE “Association for Change and Release Management”. Contingency analysis is a
strategic management approach that involves assessing and planning for various potential
scenarios or contingencies that may impact an organization. This analysis helps organizations
anticipate potential challenges, uncertainties, and changes in the business environment,
allowing them to develop flexible strategies and responses.
The Swot/Svor analysis
Environmental scanning allows an organization to “position” itself in the competitive
environment and to identify the internal sources of competitive advantage!
Some internal “trigger” to change
Different internal triggers to change can be identified. It is interesting to note that “internal”
triggers are more or less intertwined with external triggers!
Some examples:
A new chief executive or other senior manager(s); falling organizational performances; a new
vision/mission statement; high employee turnover, low employee morale; relocation and/or
redesign of a factory or office layout.
Key types of organizational change
Nadler and Tushman (1989) identified two dimensions to illustrate different types of
organizational change.
1. Tuning Change:
a. Description: Tuning change involves fine-tuning or adjusting existing
processes, systems, or structures to enhance or performance. It is often a
continuous improvement effort aimed at refining existing practices.
b. Classification:
i. Anticipative: Organizations proactively identify areas for improvement.
ii. Incremental: Changes are typically small and incremental
2. Adaptive Change:
a. Description: Adaptive change is about making adjustments in response to
environmental shifts. It involves modifying existing practices to align with
changes in the external environment or to address emerging challenges.
b. Classification:
i. Reactive: Organizations respond to external pressures or changing
circumstances.
ii. Incremental: Changes are typically incremental and iterative.
3. Redirecting Change:
a. Description: Redirecting change involves altering the strategic direction or
focus of the organization. It may include changes to goals, objectives, or market
positioning to adapt to new opportunities or challenges.
b. Classification:
i. Anticipative: Organizations proactively reassess their strategic
direction.
ii. Radical: Changes can be significant and may involve rethinking core
aspects of the business.
4. Overhauling Change:
a. Description: Overhauling change, also known as transformational change, is a
comprehensive and fundamental restructuring of the organization. It often
involves radical shifts in strategy, culture, processes, and structures.
b. Classification:
i. Reactive: Often triggered by crisis or significant external pressures.
ii. Radical: Involves substantial and transformative changes.
Summary:
Anticipative vs. Reactive: Anticipative changes are proactively initiated by the
organization to prepare for the future, while reactive changes are responses to external
pressures or crises.
Incremental vs. Radical: Incremental changes involve small, gradual adjustments,
while radical changes are substantial and transformative.
By understanding these classifications, organizations can better align their change efforts with
their strategic goals and the nature of the challenges they face. It’s also important to note that
organizations may experience a combination of these change types based on their unique
circumstance and objectives.
What can we do to foster radical changes?
To foster radical change, organizations must have committed leadership, articulate a
compelling vision, create a sense of urgency, empower change champions, invest in talent
development, nurture an innovation culture, align systems with change goals, maintain
transparent communication, remove barriers, celebrate successes, allocate resources, and
continuously measure and adjust strategies for optimal effectiveness.
Lecture 08
Who are the agents involved in organizational change?
They are 5 key roles involved in organizational change:
Change leader: The change leader drives and addresses the process of organizational change.
Usually, she/he covers also other roles. However, the main characteristic of this role is that the
leader formally coordinates the process of change. Nevertheless, this does not mean that other
(informal) leaders cannot appear during the organizational transition.
Change Initiator: (Leadership Team) Change leaders and change initiators usually overlap. The
initiator is the one who perceive the need for change (i.e., is aware of the external/internal
triggers of change) and defines the vision of change. Also, he/she performs as the change
champion. (Senior executives and leaders who initiate, guide, and drive the change process.
They provide vision, direction, and support for the change initiative.)
Change Implementer: (Change Management Team) The implementer is generally a subordinate
of the change leader/initiator. She/he may either have a managerial role or not. His/her main
responsibility is to make the change happen. For this purpose, he/she defines the change
process, seeks support, and tackles resistance to change.
Change Facilitators: (Change Champions) The facilitator assists the other agents involved in
the process of change. More specifically, he/she intervenes in the change management process
and deals with the issues and challenges which may affect the proper implementation of the
organizational transition. (The dedicated team responsible for planning, coordinating, and
executing the change. This team includes change managers, communication specialists, and
project managers who facilitate the change process.)
Change Recipients: (Employees) Even though they may have no specific responsibilities in the
accomplishment of the change process. Other change agents have to engage change recipients
and should ensure their commitment to change. (Frontline employees who directly impacted by
the change. Their engagement, understanding, and willingness to adapt are crucial for the
successful implementation of the change.)
è These four roles the key agents involved in organizational change, each playing a
distinct but interconnected role in the change process. Leadership initiates and supports
change, the change management team facilitates the process, change champions
advocate for it, and employees are the recipients who implement and adapt to the
change.
What does a change leader usually do?
Taking a longer-term view on people, in other words when one sees something not being done
right, the first reaction is to go fix it. Building a team -> going to do great stuff for the next
decades, not just next year and so what does one need to do to help so that the person that’s
screwing up learns versus how do I fix the problem. That is painful sometimes, because the
first instinct is to go there oneself and fix the problem, but that is taking a longer-term view on
people.
Management style/how to resolve conflicts: the best way is to get everybody in a room and talk
it through until you all agree. Now that’s not everybody in the company, but that’s everybody
that’s really involved in that decision, that needs to execute it. Because you pay people to get
their opinion and then you try to force them into buying your opinion, when the leader/the
management team just decides something, you don’t agree on and you have to buy it. The really
important decision should be worked on until all people in the team agree.
What are the challenges which affect the process of change?
Whatever the type and the process of change, which is taken into consideration, change agents
will experience several issues, which should be duly contemplated to identify the challenges
that are related to organizational change.
Change leaders are usually action-oriented and are likely to assume that other change agents
will rationally see the wisdom which is included in the proposed change and will learn the new
behaviors which are needed to accomplish change. In several cases, they also assume to be able
to quickly replace recalcitrant employees.
Change leaders and change initiators assume that they have the power to influence other and
to enact desired changes within the organization. In other words, those who lead change
underestimate the power of other relevant stakeholders.
Change leaders are used to not appreciate the transition period. They perceive it as a cost, rather
than as an investment to train people to the changed way of doing things and to mitigate risks
related to the accomplishment of change.
Change is a multifaceted process: it involves systems adaption, structures’ change and
technological renewal. Alongside “hard” transition, change also requires soft interventions,
including the integration of the human dimension with the hard side of change.
Change agents prefer to focus on managing the hard side of change, whilst they overlook the
soft and human processes which are related to the transition process. The soft side of change
involves the management of emotions and the need to predict and quantify unforeseeable
human reactions.
Change management requires specific skills, attitudes, and abilities, which can be acquired
through a long and comprehensive training process. In particular, organizational change
requires tailored HRM skills, which are especially relevant to address the defensive mindset of
change recipients.
In most of the cases, the management ability of change leaders and change initiators is affected
by factors related to over-confidence and group thinking!
Change and organizational structure:
Manifold definition of organization. Key components of an organization:
1. A “social collectivity”
2. Clear (explicit) organizational goals
3. Organizational structures
4. Coordinating mechanisms
5. Inclusion in an environment composed of other organizations.
Organizational structures and design
Generally speaking, an organizational structure describes the way an organization is
articulated into work groups and pinpoints the reporting and authority relationships that
connect individuals and groups together.
It is designed and implemented by (top-level) managers to enable efficient/effective
production and delivery of an organization’s outputs.
We can propose a distinction between “organizational structure” and “organizational design.”
Organizational design
è It formalizes the organizational structure in an organization chart: it is a managerialistic
response to environmental contingencies.
è Organization design is a broader concept that involves aligning an organization’s
structure, processes, people, and strategy to achieve its goals. It encompasses various
elements, including structure, culture, systems, and workflows.
è It focuses on optimizing the entire organizational system for effectiveness, efficiency,
and adaptability. It looks at how different components work together to achieve overall
objectives.
è Considerations go beyond just the formal reporting relationships and extend to how
work is organized, how decisions are made, and how various functions and teams
collaborate.
Organizational structure
è It is the actual operating structure, i.e., the incarnation of a design with ‘patterned
regularity’ being a dominant feature of structure.
è Organizational structure specifically addresses the hierarchy and relationships within
an organization. It outlines the framework that determines how individuals and interact
and report to one another.
è Focuses on addressing the hierarchy and relationships within an organization. It
outlines the framework that determines how individuals and teams interact and report
to one another.
è The key components of organizational structure include divisions, departments, teams,
reporting relationships, and the overall layout of the organization.
Changing organizational structures
Organizational structures:
Henry Mintzberg proposed that every organization has five basic parts:
1. The technical core includes those who do the basic work of the organization. It performs
the production subsystem function and produces the product and service outputs of the
organization.
2. Technical support includes engineers and researchers, who scan the environment
looking for new opportunities. Technical support is responsible for creating innovations
in the technical core, helping the organization change and adapt.
3. Administrative support function is responsible for the smooth operation und upkeep of
the organization including its physical and human elements.
4. Top management provides direction, strategy, goals, and policies for the entire
organization or major divisions.
5. Middle management is responsible for implementation and coordination at the
department level.
Lecture 09
Organizational structures
What are dimensions that should be taken into consideration in investigating the organizational
structure implemented by an organization?
Literature proposed different conceptual tools to shed light into the organizational structure of
a firm. Inter alia, 6 key dimensions* of organizational structure can be identified:
Specialization: Specialization involves the extent to which there are different specialist roles
and how they are distributed across the organization.
Standardization: Standardization delas with the extent to which an organization uses regularly
occurring procedures that are supported by formal (bureaucratic) procedures of (temporarily)
invariable rules and processes.
Formalization: Formalization concerns the extent to which written rules, procedures,
instructions, and communications are set out for employees.
Centralization: Centralization focuses on the extent to which authority to make decisions lies
with the apex (top) of the organization. Decentralization pushes decision making down to lower
levels in the hierarchy.
Configuration: Configuration defines shape and pattern of authority relationships within the
organizations (how many layers there are and the number of people who typically report to a
supervisor).
Traditionalism: Traditionalism (the way things are done) accounts for the informality of the
organization and defines how many procedures are ‘understood’ in contrast to being written.
Acknowledging these components, it is possible to identify four main areas of concern to
analyze the organizational structure.
1. Structuring of activities: the degree to which there is formal regulation of employees’
behaviors through the process of specialization, standardization, and formalization.
2. Concentration of authority: The concentration of the decisional power in the hand of
a single or few members of the organization, which depends on the level of
centralization and the type of configuration.
3. Line control of workflow: The degree to which the control of the work is exercised
directly by line management, rather than through more impersonal procedures. It
depends on extent of formalization and the type of configuration.
4. The support component: The size of the administrative and other non-workflow
personnel, performing activities auxiliary to the main workflows. It relies on degree of
standardization and the type of configuration.
Organizational structure is a multidimensional concept that organizations can be structured in
many different ways according to how they fit these dimensions.
Using the six attributes* depicted earlier, it is possible to identify main types of organizational
structures that can be implemented in practice.
1) Bureaucratic structures
a. It is based on the idea of; 1) rational legal authority; 2) ‘office’; and 3)
‘impersonal order.’
Specialization Strong horizontal specialization, usually associated with vertical specialization.
Standardization Huge reliance on standardization as a coordinating mechanism.
Formalization Activities are highly formalized and made explicit.
Centralization The structure is centralized, and managerial power is in the hand of few people.
Configuration The configuration is based on hierarchal/vertical growth.
Traditionalism There is little space for traditionalism, as activities are highly formalized.
Texas State university -organizational chart.
Strengths:
- Allows economies of scale within functional departments
- Enables in-depth knowledge and skill development
- Enables organization to accomplish functional goals
- Is best with only one or few products
Weaknesses:
- Slow response time to environmental changes
- May cause decisions to pile on to, hierarchy overload
- Leads to poor horizontal coordination among departments
- Results in less innovation
- Involves restricted view of organizational goals
2) Flat structures
a. They search for better organizational responsiveness and aims at reducing
operating costs.
Specialization Horizontal specialization is preserved, but vertical specialization is avoided.
Standardization focuses on the outputs, rather than on the processes.
Formalization There is a limited degree of top-down formalization.
Centralization The structure is decentralized, and power is assigned to middle managers.
Configuration The configuration is based on horizontal growth.
Traditionalism There is some space for traditionalism, especially at the local level.
Divisional structures.
Strengths:
- Suited to fast change in unstable environment
- Leads to customer satisfaction because product responsibility and contact points are
clear
- Involves high coordination across functions
- Allows units to adapt to differences in products, regions, customers
- Best in large organizations with several products
- Decentralizes decision-making
Weaknesses
- Eliminates economies of scale in functional departments
- Leads to poor coordination across product departments
- Eliminates in-depth competence and technical specialization
- Makes integration and standardization across product lines difficult
Lecture 10:
3) Matrix structures
a. In the matrix a typical vertical hierarchy is overlaid with a horizontal structure
commonly designed around big projects.
Specialization Both horizontal and vertical specialization is exploited; however, several
roles are nonspecialized.
Standardization Input and output standardization are implemented.
Formalization Activities are somewhat formalized, but formalization does not prevent
internal equilibria.
Centralization The structure is decentralized and power struggles are frequent.
Configuration The configuration is based on mutual adjustment between managers.
Traditionalism There is relevant space for traditionalism.
Strengths:
- achieves coordination necessary to meet dual demands from customers
- Flexible sharing of human resources across products
- Suited to complex decisions and frequent changes in unstable environment
- Provides opportunity for both functional and product skill development
- Best medium-sized organizations with multiple products
Weaknesses:
- Causes participants to experience dual authority, which can be frustrating and confusing
- Means participants need good interpersonal skills and extensive training
- Is time consuming; involves frequent meetings and conflict resolution sessions
- Will not work unless participants understand it and adopt collegial rather than vertical
type relationships
- Requires great effort to maintain power balance
The life cycle of organizational structures
A traditional and highly structures organizational model characterized by a strict hierarchy,
clear lines of authority, and standardized procedures.
Similar to a rigid bureaucracy, but with a more empowered senior management team that has
decision-making authority.
Combines a traditional hierarchy with temporary project teams and task forces to address
specific challenges or opportunities.
Employees report to both functional managers and project managers, allowing for dual lines of
authority.
A temporary organization created for a specific project, often with a dedicated project manager
and team.
A flexible and decentralized model with interconnected teams and a focus on collaboration and
adaptability.
Characteristics of Greiner’s phases of growth
4) New organizational forms
a. The network organization
i. The network organization tries to concomitantly exploit specialization
and flexibility, allowing organizational units to have a significant
autonomy and entitling a coordinating power to a central unit.
ii. Different kinds of networks can be envisaged
1. Internal network
2. Vertical network
3. Dynamic, loosely coupled network
b. Virtual organizations
i. Virtual organizations do not rely on conventional organizational
boundaries and locations. Rather, they use information and
communication technology to link people, assets and ideas to create and
distribute things.
ii. A virtual organization is a “flattened” organization which is vertically
disintegrated. People interact virtually within imaginary boundaries.
iii. Virtual organizations use “mental” and “technological” constructs to
verify material aspects of organizations.
iv. It is possible that traditional (bureaucratic, flat, or matrix) organizations
implement an overlapping of virtual structures with form al
structures.
v. What are the benefits of virtual organizations as compared with “formal”
organizations?
1. Timeless coordination
a.
2. Cost reduction
a. Can reduce costs associated with physical office space,
utilities, and other infrastructure, whereas formal
organizations may have higher overhead costs due to
maintaining physical offices and facilities.
3. Flexibility
a. Can quickly adapt to changes in the external
environment, market demands, or emerging, whereas
formal organizations often have rigid structures that may
impede quick adjustments or responses to changes.
vi. Why shifting to a virtual organization?
1. Environmental pressures
a. Organizations are increasingly recognizing the
importance of environmental sustainability and reducing
their carbon footprint. Shifting to a virtual organization
aligns with sustainability goals by minimizing the need
for physical office spaces and reducing commutingrelated emissions.
b. Benefits: Reducing Commuting (virtual work reduces the
need for employees to commute to a central office daily,
leading to a decrease in traffic congestion and lower
emissions form transportation.), Energy Savings
(organizations can contribute to energy conservation by
reducing the demand for large office spaces and
associated utilities.)
2. Enabling ICTs
a. Advances in ICTs have significantly improved the ability
of organizations to facilitate remote work, collaboration,
and communication. Virtual organizations leverage these
technologies to enable seamless operations and
collaboration among geographically dispersed teams.
b. Benefits: Real-time Communication (ICTs provide tools
for real-time communication, including video
conferencing regardless of their locations.); Cloud
Computing (Cloud-based technologies support virtual
organizations by providing scalable and accessible
computing resources and storage.)
3. Radical outsourcing
a. Virtual organizations often engage in radical
outsourcing, where various business functions are
outsourced to external partners or freelancers. This
allows organizations to focus on core competencies
while leveraging external expertise for non-core
functions.
b. Benefits: Cost Efficiency (Outsourcing certain functions
can lead to cost savings, as organizations can assess
specialized skills without the overhead costs associated
with hiring and maintaining in-house teams.
vii. What do you need to establish a successful virtual organization?
1. A reliable and tick web-based interconnecting system
2. Good relationships with relevant partners which many sustain
the organizational activities.
3. A trusted “brand” or “identity”, which creates cohesion amongst
members
viii. Strengths:
1. Enables even small organizations to obtain talent and resources
worldwide
2. Gives a company immediate scale and reach without huge
investments in factories, equipment or distribution facilities
3. Enables the organization to be highly flexible and responsive to
changing needs
4. Reduces administrative overhead costs
ix. Weaknesses:
1. Managers do not have hands-on control over many activities and
employees
2. Requires a great deal of time to manage relationships and
potential conflicts with contract partners
3. There is a risk of organizational failure if a partner fails to deliver
or goes out of business
4. Employee loyalty and corporate culture might be weak because
employees feel they can be replaced by contact services
Lecture 11:
Selecting organizational structures
Organizations should pay particular attention to the “fitness” of their organizational
structure/design. Fitness means that there is not a “one best way”. Rather, a “one best fit”
with contingencies should be sought for.
Organizational structures and change
It is possible that changes to formal structures and design have no impact on social structures
that overlay them and through which things are get done.
This paves the way for “Empty restructuring” (or hollow change), which is typical when
managers change organizational designs, but disregard the underground social interactions
which are rooted within the organization.
Of course, the other way round is possible!
Change may occur also when there are not organizational attempts intended to foster
organizational transitions.
Change and organizational structures:
Now, we have to understand (and analyze) what kind of forces affect how organizations strive
for and act to change their structures.
For this purpose, we can embrace different conceptual lenses, that allow us to collect some
insights about the challenges and difficulties that are met by organizations in reshaping their
structures and in modifying the “rules of the game” for employees.
1. Structuration theory
2. Actor-network theory
3. Institutional theory
Structuration theory:
Are structures composed of a tangible side exclusively, which is embedded in the
organizational structure and represented in the organizational design?
Structures are “patterned regularities” (routines), they inevitably emerge from the “behaviors”
of people!
Organizational structures allow us to do some things but not others. Although they lay down
boundaries, they also give certain freedoms.
Structuration theory (Giddens, 1984; 1991), focuses on the reciprocal nature of interactions
between structures and the actors within them.
Actors are creations of social systems and, concomitantly, they (re)create the social systems in
which they work.
The “organizational boundaries” of job
A job description defines the boundaries of the individual contribution to the activities that are
implemented within the organization. It is composed of 5 elements:
1. Job identification: the label that is attached to the job within the organization.
2. Job summary: An overview of the contents of the job.
Under immediate control: limited control over the contents and mode of the job
Under control: Job is regulated by more or less general instructions
Under direction: Job confers a certain freedom to the employee
Under administrative direction: Job confers a large freedom to employee
Under policy guidelines: Only general policies inspire behaviors of incumbents
3. Job definition: The clear identification of the activities that should be performed.
4. Accountabilities: The organizational responsibility which is attached to the job.
5. Job specification: The distinguishing (desired) traits of the job incumbent.
The “position” boundaries
The job crafting idea
As argued by Tims&Bakker (2010), job crafting is an employee-initiated approach which
enables employees to shape their own work environment such that it fits their individual needs
by adjusting the prevailing job demands and resources. It is possible to identify 3 main
dimensions of job crafting.
Task crafting: Employee try to reshape or modify their own role within the organization, by
adding or dropping responsibilities.
Relational crafting: It entails a modification of the way interactions are established with others
in order to effectively perform individual tasks.
Cognitive crafting: It involves the modification of personal mindsets and perspectives about
job.
Lecture 12:
Structuration theory
According to structuration theory, structures exist only in the sense that actors/agents continue
to reinforce them. They do not exist in and by themselves. They exist in so far agents continue
to reinforce them.
Structures can be understood as social construction: they are shaped by individual and
collective consciousness.
Structuration theory assumes a duality of structures: social action presumes the existence of
structures; at the same time, structure presumes actions, because “structure” depends on the
regularities of human behaviors.
Structuration theory and change
Structuration theory provides us with some interesting insights about the processes and the
implications of organizational change.
It is the actor’s pattern and depth of understanding that explain why different organizational
paths are followed and why different outcomes are reached!
The idea of organizational identity can be used to explain why organizations differ in their
patterns and why organizational change process may take different directions within an
organization.
The structuration cycle:
What are the issues that affect change?
Structural/organizational issues:
o Bureaucracy – organizational rules and red tape (Pinchot&Pinchot, 1996)
o Organizational structure – rigid boundaries between stakeholders, functions and
disciplines (Ashkenas et al, 1995)
o Lack of required competencies and capabilities (Sanchez&Heine, 1997)
o Lack of adequate resources and rewards (Christensen, 1997)
Behavioral issues:
o Organizational mindsets” – diverse value systems and conflicting beliefs and values
(Reger et al, 1994)
o Organizational politics (Fountain, 1995)
o Lack of effective problem solving, decision making and conflict resolution (Iansiti,
1998)
o Lack of participation in organization design (Emery, 1993)
To understand how behavioral factors may emerge and affect change, we can collect insights
from the Actor-Network Theory and from the Institutional Theory.
The Actor-Network Theory:
The Actor-Network (AN) concept recognizes that actors build networks involving other actors
which can be human or non-human (individuals, groups, and even tools and management
systems).
Networks are established to deal with problems that individuals – alone – would be unable to
solve.
Actors create networks and, thus, re-create themselves as members of the networks. These
networks are undergoing constant transformation and renewal as issues and problems faced in
the organizational domain continuously change.
The whole social entity (remember that organizations can be conceived as social entities) is
made up of interconnecting networks. Therefore, the social entity is affected by endless
attempts of ordering through the formation and stabilization of networks.
Ordering attempts are realized through “translations”, or interventions aimed at involving
actors in joining a network. The translation process is composed of 4 steps:
1. Problematization: The participation to the network is ‘sold’ to actors as a way of
tackling their problems if they sign up to it.
2. Interessement/Profit sharing: The main rationale for the network and the concerns
that go with it are translated into others which are either directly or indirectly related
with the former, in order to stabilize the network.
3. Enrolment: If interessement is successful, the behavior of actors involved is geared to
achieving the outcomes desired by the enrolling actors.
4. Mobilization: After successful enrollment, the network is established, and it works
towards outcomes and solutions that for the initial rationale.
In sum, translation is a process according to which actors define common definitions and
meanings, define representatives, and build alliance, and co-opt each other in the pursuit of
individual and collective objectives.
Strategic Apex
o Board of directors
o President
o Executive committee
o CEO
Middle Line
o Supply Chain VP
o “Operations” VP
o “Marketing” VP
o Plant Managers
o Foremen coordinators
o Sales Managers
Operating core
o Purchasing agents
o Machine operators
o Assemblers
o Salespersons
Technostructure
o Strategic Planning
o Controller
o Personnel training
o Operations research
o Production scheduling
o Work study
Support Staff
o Legal affairs
o Public relations
o R&D
o HR services
o Cafeteria and catering
The Actor-Network Theory
Actor-network theory envisions the organizational structure as the process of organizing
people, technology, knowledge and other things into a more or less stable network.
Whilst organizational structures/designs identify one larger AN and some functional or
divisional sub-Ans, social translation processes enacted in different areas of the organization
pave the way for the creation of manifold informal Ans, which may significantly influence both
the implementation of change initiatives and their successful accomplishment.
Some tenets characterize the Actor-Network Theory (Gougen, 2000):
è The emphasis is put on networks and links connecting the actors within the network.
Individual “geniuses” are relevant, but less important than the network.
è The nodes of the network are primarily interested in maintaining the stability and
integrity of the network.
è In general, groups (and individuals) in the network have different value systems:
translation (or negotiation and compromise) among these entities is necessary for a
network to succeed.
è Aligned interests are created by enrolling allies and by translating their interests,
so that their participation will lead to convergence, growth and continuance of the
network.
The institutional theory
Cultural influences are able to significantly affect decisions about organizational design and
structure.
A web of values, norms, rules and beliefs and taken for granted assumptions, that are at least
partially of their own making, shapes the organizational choices of decision makers.
Institutional theory assumes that organizations are captives of the institutional environment in
which they exist, and this does not allow then to operate as rational actors.
Does institutional theory refer to organizations or to institutions? Is there a difference between
organizations and institutions?
Institutions are shared rules and typifications that identify categories of social actors and their
appropriate activities or relationships. In sum, they constitute socially constructed templates
for action, generated and maintained through ongoing interactions.
Organizations operate in institutional fields. Organizations reflect the institutions that build
their institutional field.
Institutional theory allows to explain how the principles of organizing are accepted and
perpetuated. Also, it shows how conformity to norms leads to particular outcomes. In sum,
explain why things exist as they do, and stay as they are.
Isomorphism, i.e. the tendency of organizations is the same field to adopt the same or similar
structures and ways of thinking and doing, is one of the key idea in institutional theory. Three
form of isomorphism can be identified:
1. Coercive Isomorphism: It is the result of institutionalized pressure from another
organization or entity to which the firm is dependent on, to act in a certain manner.
a. Definition: coercive isomorphism occurs when organizations adopt similar
structures and practices in response to external pressures or mandates. These
pressures may come from powerful entities such as regulatory bodies,
governmental agencies, or other authorities.
b. Example: If a government agency introduces new regulations for data security,
organizations in a particular industry might adopt similar information security
measures to comply with these regulations.
2. Normative Isomorphism: It is a consequence of professionalism within organizational
fields: members within a particular occupation collectively defining the appropriate
ways in which to act.
a. Definition: Normative isomorphism involves organizations adopting similar
structures and practices because they believe it is the socially accepted or
normatively appropriate way to operate. This type of isomorphism is driven by
professionalization and the desire for legitimacy.
b. Example: Professional associations may establish standards and best practices
for a specific industry. Organizations within that industry may then adopt these
practices to gain legitimacy and recognition from peers and stakeholders.
3. Mimetic Isomorphism: It derives from the natural tendency of firms to model
themselves on other organizations within their environment, which they deem to be
successful and legitimate.
a. Mimetic isomorphism occurs when organizations imitate the structures and
practices of their successful or prestigious organizations, especially when faced
with uncertainty. In situations where there is ambiguity or lack of clear
solutions, organizations may emulate others they perceive as successful.
b. Example: During periods of economic uncertainty, organizations may mimic the
strategies of industry leaders or competitors, assuming that successful
organizations have figured out effective approaches to challenges.
Lecture 13:
The Institutional Theory:
Institutional (and Neo-Institutional) Theory provide some guidance in investing why and how
change happens.
Three phenomena should be taken into considerations:
Generally speaking, two dimensions can be used to investigate institutional contexts:
Tight Coupling: the institutional context exerts a high level of influence and control over the
structural templates that organizations in the sector use.
Sectoral Permeability: It describes how much a sector is insulated from others. A sector with
low permeability experiences a low influx of people from other sectors and, therefore, the
transfer of ideas is within the sector. Where permeability is high, there is a greater import of
ideas and, thus, higher rates of radical change are expected.
If we take stock of the insights provided by structuration theory, ANT, and institutional theory,
we can argue that organizations are not completely free to design their organizational
change initiatives.
Both internal and external constraints influence the ability of organizations to design
strategies and practices intended to change organizational dynamics and structures.
Unawareness of these constraints prevents the effectiveness of organizational change and paves
the way for change failure.
Problems produced by organizational unfitness:
Lack of organizational fitness may trigger some major troubles for organizations, including:
1. Limited ability to respond innovatively to changing circumstance, due to:
a. Lack of specialized jobs concerned with forecasting and scanning the
environment;
b. Limited attention paid to innovation and planning of change;
c. Inadequate coordination between the people responsible for identifying
changing environmental conditions and those supervising organizational
operations.
2. Unsustainable organizational (and administration) costs, due to:
a. Hierarchical/vertical development of organizations increases the number of
employees and boost the managers/employees ratio;
b. Increases size involves a large number of procedures and paperwork, which
distract the attention from productive work;
c. There are struggles within the organization to get (local) political power
3. Conflict and lack of coordination may arise, due to:
a. Organizational units have conflicting goals that have not been structured into a
single set of objectives and priorities;
b. Organization is not effective in bringing employees together into teams or
liaison mechanisms are poor;
c. There is a breakdown between planning and operations: people who carry out
operational work and are in touch with changing contingencies are excluded
from participating in work planning.
4. Decision making is delayed and lacks in quality, because:
a. Necessary information is not transmitted on time;
b. Decision makers are too segmented into separate units and inadequately
coordinated;
c. There is an information overload for middle/senior managers;
d. There are no adequate procedures for evaluating the results of similar decisions
made in the past
5. Motivation and morale are depressed, because:
a. Decisions seem to be inconsistent and arbitrary, due to the absence of formalized
rules;
b. People perceive that they have little responsibility, opportunity for achievement,
and recognition of their worth, because there is insufficient delegation of
decision making;
c. There is a lack of charity as to what is expected of people and how their
performance is assessed;
d. People are subject to competing pressures from different parts of the
organization;
e. People are overloaded because their support systems are not adequate.
Structure-strategy fit
The strategy is the long-term direction of an organization. Strategies are formulated at three
organizational levels: 1) corporate, 2) business, and 3) operational.
An organization’s structure should be in tune with its strategy to function effectively. Hence,
changes in strategies are nearly always linked to changes in its structure. Also, structural
changes may be ineffective if not supported by a change in the organizational strategy.
How are strategy and structure linked?
Chandler (1962) argues that “structures follow strategies”. In other words, it is assumed that
organizations craft their long-term directions, and then they design appropriate structures
to achieve these directions.
However, Amburgey and Dacin (1994) quarrelled this assumption, maintaining that although
there is a strategy-structure relationship, it is not a simple, one-way path. The strategy has
a stronger influence on structure than structure has on strategy.
Strategies as forces and structures as forms
The relationship between strategy and structure is multifaced. Inter alia, Mintzberg claimed
that it is worth talking of forces, rather than strategies, and of forms, rather than structures.
It is possible to identify 7 major forces within organizations, which encompasses different
strategic insights and pave the way for alternative organizational structures.
1. The force for direction (strategic apex): It embodies the strategic slant of the
organization and gives a sense of where the organization must go as an integrated entity.
2. The force for efficiency (technostructure): it looks at balancing the costs and benefits:
the lower the ratio of costs to benefits, the higher the efficiency tends to encourage
standardization and formalization, focusing on rationalization.
3. The force for proficiency (support staff): tasks should be carried out with high levels of
knowledge and skills. Attention should be paid at achieving distinguishing skills and
capabilities.
4. The force for concentration (middle line): organizational units should focus their
attention and efforts on serving particular local needs/markets. This is necessary in
organizations that are diversified.
5. The force for innovation (operative core): in encourages the search for new products or
services or for different ways of delivering them.
6. The force for cooperation (betw. Middle line and operative core): it involves the pulling
together of ideology that is, the culture of norms, beliefs, and values that create
organizational cohesiveness.
7. The force for competition (betw. Middle line and operative core): it includes the pulling
apart of politics, in the sense of politics as the non-legitimate, technically nonsanctioned organizational behavior.
Is there a relationship between size and organizational structures?
Generally speaking, size (which can be measured by the number of employees) has been found
to be positively correlated to overall role specialization and formalization of procedures.
Indeed, it has been argued that large organizations are likely to perform better when
bureaucratically structured (and vice versa for small organizations).
However, the relationship between size and structures is tenuous.
Size is a relative concept!
Usually, when we talk of “size” of structures, we are naturally oriented at looking at the
“whole” organization.
However, to assess the implications of size on organizational structures, we have to look at
“relative” organizational dimension!
Technology and organizational structures
What about the relationship between technology and organizational structures? Firstly, we have
to define “technology”.
Joan Woodward (1965) focuses on the production process and identified 11 different
production technologies, which were grouped in 3 clusters: 1) Unit/Small batch; 2) Large
batch/Mass; and 3) Process.
Charles Perrow understands technology as the combination of two variables: ‘task
variability’ and ‘problem analyzability’. Crossing these two variables in a matrix, four
different technology frameworks appear.
Task variability refers to the number of exceptional or unpredictable cases which have to be
dealt with.
Problem analyzability refers to the extent to which problems are clearly defined and can be
solved by using recognized routines and procedures.
Both Woodward and Perrow argue that a fit between technology and structures should be
sought for. Each type of technology would produce the best organizational performance if
linked to an appropriate structure.
Lecture 14:
Do ICTs affect the way organizations are structured?
The increasing pervasive use of ICTs paves the way for ‘boundaryless’ organizations, where
both internal and external boundaries are eliminated.
More specifically, ICTs contribute in:
Decentralization, enabling distance communication and control; (De)Routinization;
Flattening hierarchies; Softening the boundaries between divisions; sustaining interorganizational relationships; revolutionizing business models.
Environment and organizational structures
Burns and Stalker (1961) affirmed that the structure of an organization depends on whether
they operate in stable environments that change little over time, or in dynamic, changeable
environments.
The socio-cultural influences on change:
Regardless of the size of organizations and type of technology used, some socio-cultural
influences may concur in modifying decisions concerning organizational structures and
design.
The desire of employees for more flexible ways of organizing their home/leisure/work
relationships, may force organizational structures into newer structural forms.
Companies should strive for designing organizational structures that satisfy the needs of
those working in and associated with them. However, this is not a straightforward affair.
Designing organizational structures for change, while at the same time ensuring that the needs
of the market and of employees are met, is as much an art as a science.
The soft side of organizational change
Organizations consist of the formal, tangible components, e.g. structure, systems, technology,
goals, and financial resources. These components are susceptible to the process of “planned
change”We have said many times that organizations are not just bricks and mortar!
There are two contrasting aspects of organizational life which can be effectively depicted
through the “iceberg” metaphor. The visible part contains the formal and easily seen
aspects of organizations. The invisible part contains the more covert aspects.
The soft components of organizations may constrain the degree of change, even though
such change may be highly desirable for meeting the challenges and demands of the wider
environment and are fitting with the contingency variables faced by the firm.
Regardless of how well change might be planned focusing on the formal organizational
characteristics, the hidden (and informal aspects of organizational life will ultimately help
or hinder the success of organizational transitions.
Culture and organizational culture(s)
Providing a unanimous and consistent definition of “culture” (and, therefore, of organizational
culture) is a challenging task.
As argued by Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952), culture consists in patterned ways of thinking,
feeling and reacting, acquired and transmitted mainly by symbols, constituting the distinctive
achievements of human groups, including their embodiment in artifacts. The core of culture
consists of traditional (i.e. historically derived and selected) ideas and, especially, their
attached values.
Hofstede (1981) pays attention to differences in the culture assumptions of distinct social
groups.
Culture is the collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes the members of
one human group from those of another. Culture, in this sense, is a system of collectively
held values.
Organizations are a “web” of co-existing cultures: alongside organizational culture,
national/ethnic/religious cultures blur our understanding of social dynamics within
organization.
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions:
Lecture 15:
Organizational culture(s):
The culture of the factory is its customary and traditional way of thinking and of doing
things, which is shared to a greater or lesser degree by all its members, and which new
members must learn, and – at least partially – accept, in order to be accepted into service
in the firm.
Culture covers a wide range of behavior: the methods of production; job skills and technical
knowledge; attitudes towards discipline and punishment; the customs and habits of
managerial behavior; the objectives of the firm; its way of doing business; the methods of
payment; the values placed on different types of work; beliefs in democratic living and
joint consultation; and the less conscious conventions and taboos.
In sum, it is possible to assume that:
Culture is ‘how things are done around here’. It is what is typical of the organization, the
habits, the prevailing attitudes, the grown-up pattern of accepted and expected behavior
(Drennan, 1992).
Organizational culture is a set of understandings or meanings shared by a group of people.
The meanings are largely tacit among members, are clearly relevant to the group, and are
distinctive for it. Meanings are passed on to new group members (Louis, 1980).
Organizational culture is a manifold phenomenon. It is composed of:
Since culture is primarily composed of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by
members of an organization, that operate unconsciously and define, in a basic ‘taken for
granted’ fashion, an organization’s view of its ‘self’ and the environment, it is deep-seated and
is likely to be resistant to change.
Three different perspectives have been adopted to analyze the interplay between organizational
culture and change:
Nevertheless, most of the literature argue that organizational culture can be shaped (or, at least,
that it is implicitly/unconsciously changing all the time).
How to conceive organizational culture?
In sum, it is possible to retrieve two different interpretations of organizational culture in
literature and practice:
1. Objectivist or functional view:
a. Organizational culture is understood as a critical variable that partly explains
why organizations differ in the ways that they operate. It is assumed that
organizations “have” cultures and that culture itself sits alongside structure,
technology, and the environment (for instance) as one of the variables that
influence organizational life and performance.
è It is possible to enact change processes in order to modify the culture.
2. Interpretive view:
a. Culture is a metaphor for the concept of organization itself. Organizations do
not “have” culture; they “are” cultures, if an organization’s culture is to be
understood, it is necessary to look at the everyday life, since culture just not
occur: it is a recurrence!
è Culture is not easy to be identified and, therefore, change initiatives require careful
interventions.
How can organizational culture be steered?
Even though it is impossible to provide a recipe to guide change processes target to the
transformation of organizational culture, it is possible to identify several steps which should be
followed in the attempt to change an organizational culture.
1. Assess the current situation
2. Have a good idea of what the “aimed-for” situation looks like
3. Work out the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of moving the organization, or part of it, away from its
current culture to a more desirable one
4. Intervene to bring about cultural change
5. Monitor outcomes and adjust as needed
Delving into organizational culture:
To investigate how it is possible to change an organizational culture, the components of culture
should be elicited (both in their autonomy and in their reciprocal relations).
Browns (1995) identifies 10 constitutive elements of organizational culture:
1. Artefacts; Language (jokes, metaphors, myths, and legends); patterns (rites, rituals,
ceremonies, and celebrations); norms of behaviors; heroes (past and present); symbols
and symbolic action; ethical codes; basic assumptions about what is important;
histories.
Task assignment:
Assessing organizational gaps:
Delving into organizational culture
Schein (2004) synthesizes in three components the piers on which organizational culture
is established.
Dyer (1985) advances a lightly different version of the model, which is based on four-levels:
1) Tacit assumptions
2) Values
3) Perspectives
4) Artifacts
The cultural compass
The cultural compass looks at the relationships established by the firm and within it, rather than
at the inner essence of organizations.
It looks at two attributes of the organizational “cultural” behavior:
o Assertiveness
o The degree to which a company’s behavior is seen by others as being forceful
or directive.
o Responsiveness
o The extent to which an organization’s behavior is seen by others as being
emotionally expressed.
Delving into organizational culture
Robbins and Judge (2013) propose a different interpretation of organizational culture,
suggesting that seven characteristics should be analyzed to determine the culture of an
organization:
1. Propensity to Innovation and risk: The extent to which employees are encouraged to be
innovative and take risks.
2. Attention to detail: The degree to which employees are expected to exhibit precision,
analysis and attention to detail.
3. Outcome orientation: The degree to which management focuses on results or outcomes
rather than on the techniques and processes used to achieve those outcomes.
4. People orientation: the degree to which management decisions take into consideration
the effect of outcomes on people within the organization.
5. Team orientation: the degree to which work activities are organized around groups
rather than individuals.
6. Aggression: The degree to which people are aggressive and competitive rather than
easy-going.
7. Stability: The degree to which organizational activities emphasize maintaining the
status quo in contrast to growth.
Competing values framework
The competing values framework looks at two dimensions, in light of which is possible to
provide a “cultural” representation of the organization.
Lecture 16:
Power and organizations
Topics related to organizational power and politics have been seen with suspicion by both
scholars and practitioners.
It has been argued that “power” and “politics” should be contextualized in the “dirty” world
of organizing:
People who have power usually deny it!
People who want power try not to look like they are seeking it!
People who are good at getting power are secretive about how they do so!
Some definitions:
According to Huczynski and Buchanan (2013, p. 797), organizational power involves the
ability of individuals to overcome resistance on the part of others, to exert their will, and to
produce results consistent with their peculiar interests and objectives.
Besides, as stated by Robbins and Judge (2013 p. 424), political behaviors consist of legitimate
and illegitimate activities that are nor required as part of an individual’s formal role, but that
influence, or attempt to influence, the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within
the organization.
What do we mean by “organizational power”?
Power can be about “…exercising strength”.
Power can be about “expressing creativity”.
Power can be about “generating energy”.
Simplifying the concept, it can be argued that power is a property of individuals, which is
owned and exercised through social and interpersonal skills.
Power is part of every relationship and every social interaction that we have. In interacting
with others, we are victim of the “power paradox”.
Power is usually gained by showing empathy, openness, fairness, and by collaborating with
others. Nevertheless, those who achieve power often change, becoming rude, selfish, and
unethical.
This transition is necessary to build (and maintain) a “power base”.
Pfeffer (2010) argues that there are three main barriers preventing people from using power
effectively within an organization:
1) The belief in a “just world” where, if you do a good job, you will be rewarded.
2) Overlooking the “power plays” which enable people to get “top jobs”, which go
beyond authenticity, honesty, and humility.
3) The desire for preserving self-esteem and integrity, encouraging us to maintain a
positive self-image which is not affected by the ugliness of power.
What are your needs at work? -> People assume to perceive three main needs throughout their
organizational life.
nACH
(Need for Achievement)
HIGH
Must win at any cost
Must be on top and receive
credit
LOW
Fears failure
Avoids responsibility
nAFF
(Need for Affiliation)
HIGH
Demands blind loyalty and
harmony
Does
not
tolerate
disagreements
LOW
Remains aloof
Maintain social distance
nPOW
(Need for Power)
HIGH
Desires control of everyone
and everything
Exaggerates own position
and resources
LOW
Dependent/subordinate
Minimizes own position and
resources
Summarizing, organizational power shows three attributes:
1) It is enacted in a relationship,
2) It is based on dependency
3) It involves the use of sanctions
From this standpoint, organizational power can be defined as: “…the probability that one actor
within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance,
regardless of the basis on which this probability rests” (Weber(1947)2012, 152).
It implies that “…A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B
would not otherwise do”.
Modes of power
Taking stocks from previous topics, “…Power is about having (a) discretion (agency) to act
and (b) the means (innate, position) to (c) enforce one’s will”(Sturm and Antonakis, 2015:
p.139).
Four main “modes” of power can be retrieved within an organization:
Power “over” => Coercive power
Power “to” => Empowerment
Power “from” => Defensive power
Power “with” => Collaborative power
Understanding power
Power is a function of relationships.
Power is not something a person has regardless of what other people are thinking or doing: it
only manifest when one person has something that the other values. Moreover, power, to some
extent is bestowed upon people by others.
Two concepts are key about organizational power:
Power Elasticity & Power Relativity
Power Elasticity: Availability of scarce and desired resources confer a prestige in influencing
organizational dynamics.
Power Relativity: One person or group perceives another to have power while a second
personal group may believe otherwise.
Sources of organizational power
French and Raven (1959) identified 5 main sources of power within organizations:
Positional (legitimate) power (Formal power)
Expert power (Personal power)
Referent power (Personal power)
Reward power (Formal power)
Coercive power (Formal power)
Power Tactics
People within an organization may use manifold tactics to handle power relations. In particular,
we will analyze 8 tactics:
Lecture 17:
Organization power and conflicts
Alongside position, the structure of tasks within the organization may have a role in nurturing
organizational power of powerlessness. In turn, the power position perceived by members
within the organization may entail organizational conflict.
How many types of conflicts?
Interpersonal conflict, Intra-group conflict, Intrapersonal conflict, and Inter-group conflict.
Two different views of the organization can be proposed:
As argued by Robbins and Judge (2013, p4469, Conflict is a process that begins when one
party perceives that another party has or is about to affect something that the first party cares
about.
It begins when an individual or group perceives differences and opposition between him/herself
and another individual or group about interests, beliefs, or values that matter to him or her.
There are three preconditions to organizational conflict:
Interaction; Perception of conflict, Opposition.
There are manifold interpretations of conflict. On the one hand, it can be considered as
something that disrupts the normal and desirable states of stability and harmony within an
organization. On the other hand, it is an inevitable feature of human interaction and, perhaps,
something that, if managed constructively, offers positive value in ensuring an effective
performance within the organization.
Since being without conflict is unrealistic and conflict itself is inevitable, the best thing to do
is manage it and use conflict constructively for change. That is not to say that conflict should
be encouraged, as resolving it takes times and causes stress, but it does suggest that good
conflict resolution systems should be used by organizations.
Different source of organizational conflict can be identified:
Managing organizational conflict
Once again, it is not possible to identify a one-best way of managing conflicts within the
organization and to boost their contribution to organizational change. Those who are assigned
with the responsibility of managing a conflict within the organization should firstly recognize
at which step the conflict is currently located. Once the “stage” of the conflict is pinpointed,
managers should decide if and how to act and handle the conflicting dynamic within the
organization.
Needless to say, personality traits affect the way conflict is managed within the organization.
The stages of organizational conflict
Types of “concern” and conflict management
Thomas (1976) focused on the concerns that are embraced by managers in order to handle
organizational conflicts. Two dimensions are taken into consideration:
1. Concern for self
a. Assertiveness: Those who are involved in managing the conflict are primarily
interested in stressing and satisfying selfish/personal needs
2. Concern for others
a. Cooperativeness: The concern is not focused on the self, but on the willingness
to detect and satisfy others’ needs
Avoidance: When an issue is trivial or more important issues are pressing. When you perceive
no chance of satisfying your concerns. When potential disruption outweighs the benefits of
resolution. To let people cool down and regain perspective. When gathering information is
more important than finding a quick fix. When others can resolve the conflict more effectively.
When issues seem tangential or symptomatic of other issues.
Collaboration: When quick, decisive action is vital – e.g. emergencies. On important issues
where unpopular actions need implementation – e.g. cost cutting or to restore discipline. On
issues vital to company welfare when you think you are right. Against people who take
advantage of non-competitive behavior.
Collaboration: To find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too important to
be compromised. When your objective is to learn, for example about complex situations. To
merge insights from people with different perspectives. To gain commitment by incorporating
concerns into a consensus. To work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship.
Accommodation: When you find you are wrong – to allow a better position to be heard, to learn
and to show your reasonableness. When issues are more important to others than to yourself –
to satisfy others and maintain cooperation. To build social credits for later issues. To minimize
lose when you are outmatched and losing. When harmony and stability are especially
important. To allow subordinates to develop by learning from their mistakes.
Compromise: When goals are important, but the effort that would go with confrontational
approaches is not worth making. When opponents worth equal power are committed to
mutually exclusive goals. To achieve temporary settlements of complex issues. To arrive at
expedient solutions to complex issues. As a back-up when collaboration or competition is
unsuccessful.
Conflict during change
When processes of organizational change are implemented, organizational change managers
have to take into consideration what is the orientation towards organizational change of
relevant internal stakeholders.
To do that, they should focus their attention on to dimensions:
The power to block change: The ability of organizational members to exercise an
organizational power which may (directly or indirectly) influence the process of change.
The motivation to block change: The willingness of organizational members to undertake
actions aimed at undermining the process of organizational change.
Strategies to manager organizational conflict
Several strategies can be implemented in an attempt to manage organizational conflict and to
maximize its positive effects on organizational performances.
Build a container: The first action that should be done is to “give voice” to the conflict. For
this purpose, a “space” for discussing the triggers of conflict should be established.
Leverage dissident voices: Those who manager change should be open-minded, trying to
emphasize the voice of those who do not support change, understanding the content of their
points.
Let others resolve the conflict: Managers should empower organizational members to resolve
their organizational conflicts.
Raise the heat: Managers should stimulate fresh thinking within the organization, fostering
the process of organizational change through engagement.
Leadership and organizational change
Recalling some of the most renowned definitions of leadership may help us to better
contextualize what is meant by this construct:
Generally speaking, leadership can be understood as a process:
… whereby an individual influences a group so as to achieve a common goal.
…which generates influence leading to the achievement of desired purposes. It involves
inspiring and supporting others towards the achievement of a vision based on their personal
and professional values.
…whereby international influence is exerted by one person (or group) over other people (or
groups) to structure the activities and relationships in a group or organization.
…involving the ability to build and maintain a group that performs well relative to its
competition.
…which is aimed at solving the problem of how to organize collective effort; consequently, it
is the key to organizational effectiveness.
… which is about results, but it is not only about performance. It is about meaning: leaders at
all levels make a difference to performance. They do so by making performance meaningful.
Management = Leadership ?
What does a manager do?
Planning
Organizing
Commanding
Coordinating
Controlling
What does a leader do?
- Interpersonal role (figurehead, leader, liaison)
- Informational role (monitor, disseminator, spokesman)
- Decision-making role (entrepreneur, disturbance handler, resource allocator,
negotiator)
The specificity of leadership
As compared with managers, leaders perform some specific organizational activities.
More specifically, they play a role of addressing, orienting and sustaining individual action.
They are especially concerned with:
o Motivating followers to act;
o Establishing an esprit de corpe (commitment) amongst followers;
o Supporting followers to undertake a process of personal and professional growth
within the organization;
o Creating a high level of engagement, involvement, and participation to organizational
activities.
Managers vs Leaders
Lecture 18:
The evolution of leadership theories
Different theories of leadership have been proposed in literature to shed light into the
“attributes” that underpin individual leadership capabilities.
The “great man” approach
This stream relies on the assumption that “Leaders are born, not made”
It follows that not everyone can be a leader, and those people who can be leaders are genetically
pre-disposed to greatness.
Leaders are viewed as heroic and charismatic: they generate loyalty in their followers,
because of the strength of their personality and their mission.
The great man approach:
From where “great man” draw their leadership capability?
Charisma is about people leading not by virtue of sets of rules and procedures but through the
force of their personality and the ability to create grand visions about the future.
Charisma is an instable source of power within organizations. Pure charisma recognizes no
‘legitimacy’, other tan that conferred by personal power, which must be constantly reconfirmed.
Charismatic leaders provide their power in everyday life within the organizations: their act and
their behaviors underpin their leadership influence.
The “trait” approach:
The trait approach shares some characteristics with the “great man” perspective: it also assumes
that leaders are born, not made.
However, it identifies some “distinguishing characteristics”, that can be considered “salient”
to achieve a leadership role within organizations.
It tries to answer the following question: what one should be like or which traits he/she should
process to become a leader?
It tries to answer the following question: what one should be like or which traits he/she should
posses to become a leader?
Among others, Lord, De Vader and Alliger (1986) identified six traits of successful leaders:
Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991) later identified some different traits, confirming that literature is
not consistent in depicting leadership attributes.
Traits of leaders depend on the social context that is taken into consideration!
Translating traits into capabilities:
The “behaviorist” approach:
Attention is paid to the styles that leaders use in order to manager their relationship with
followers. The main assumption is that, aside from traits, behaviors determine effective
leadership.
Researchers from these two universities identified two different constructs to classify leaders’
behaviors.
The leadership grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964)
The leaders’ behaviors
Scholars have variously tried to address the challenges related to the identification of the
“effective” leaders’ behaviors.
Inter alia, Useem (1996) pointed out some leading behaviors, which should be displayed by
excellent leaders in order to preserve their organizational power:
o Being visionary
o Showing strong confidence in self and others
o Communicating high-performance expectations
o Personally exemplifying the organizational vision
o Demonstrating sacrifice, determination, persistence
The “situational” approach:
The contingency approach assumes that successful leadership is “contingent” upon situational
variables. Identification of such contingent variables permits to shed light on the leadership
style which is more consistent with the situation faced.
The continuum of leadership:
The Fiedler’s leadership model
The Hersey and Blanchard leadership model
Models of organizational change
Your textbook identifies a multiplicity of organizational change models, dividing them in
“hard” and “soft” model of change. We can provide here a synthesis of such models,
attaching them to different “metaphors” of the organization.
The “three-step” model
This model has been proposed by Kurt Lewin (1951).
It is based on the assumption that, when we are going to undertake a process of organizational
change, we have to deal with some conflicting and diverging forces and pressures. To
acknowledge such issues, it is necessary to implement a careful “field analysis”, which is
aimed at identifying/understanding how such forces and pressures will affect the process
of change:
Simplifying, it is possible to identify two forces:
To enhance the effectiveness of the process of organizational change, the change agent, i.e. the
one into the organization who is driving the process of change, should undertake a continuous
effort aimed at stressing driving forces and overcoming resisting forces.
The three step model is aimed at achieving this aim:
Step 1: Unfreeze
Step 2: Move
Step 3: Refreeze
The “Planned Change” Model
Scholars have variously tried to identify a “key” to unbox the “organizational change”
process. This key has usually taken the shape of a planned approach, which relies on the
assumption that the organizational change process can be controlled by top/senior managemtn.
One of the most known approaches of “planned change” is the model proposed by Bullock &
Batten (1985)
Organizational change is conceived as a sequential process, which progresses through different
steps.
The “Transformational” model
The planned model of change seems to be consistent with the interpretation of organizations as
“machine”. A revised version of the model, which has been proposed in 90s by John Kotter
(1996), attempts an “expansion” of the planned model.
The transformational model proposed by Kotter is an “empirically-grounded” approach rather
than a theory-based proposition. It derives from the observation of the real challenges face
by organizations which, during their existence, have encountered more or less challenging
processes of organizational change.
From this point of view, this model embeds both hard/structural dynamics and soft/behavioral
issues, attempting to manage them in an integrated and balanced way.
The transformational model is based on 8 steps which are considered to be sequential.
However, further developments of the model have pointed out that these steps should be
conceived as reciprocally intertwined. This leads to a “cyclical” model of change.
Adopting the cyclic view which is embedded in the transformational model of change
engenders the involvement of relevant stakeholders in the process of change. The larger the
stakeholders’ involvement, the greater the organizational ability to anticipate their evolving
expectations and to enact proactive processes of organizational change.
Any attempt of organizational change bring with itself some costs, which should be carefully
assessed at the individuaal, collective, and organizational level. Clearly, the largest are the
costs generated by organizational change, the harder will be the path which will bring to
the accomplishment of the organizational transition.
Unfortunately, it is uneasy to identify the costs whoch are related to organiaztional change:
they are both direct and indirect, monetary and non-monetary. A focused analysis should
be implemented to assess the costs of change.
Whatever their nature, the costs of change (X), should be confronted with other factors, which
can be “quantified”, representing the drivers of organizational change.
The “congruence” model
The congruence model has been proposed at the end of 90s by Nadler e Tushman (1997). It
emphasizes the dynamic and cyclical nature of organizational change, which aims at creating
a congruence between the different sub-systems on which the organization is established.
The more organizational change is effective in accomplishing a situation of congruence
between the different parts/components of the organization, the greater is the
performativity of the organization. In sum, to achieve good performances, organizational
change should be intended to achieve an alignment amongst its components, either through
radical or incremental change processes.
In the original conceptualization of the model, the organization is understood as the result of a
continuous and evolving interaction of 4 sub-systems. Sticking to a process view, the 4 subsystems collect and process the input which are provided by internal and external stakeholders,
enacting the value chain which brings to the output realization.
The model does not propose a “perspective” view of change: rather, it identifies the main
dimensions that hsould be taken into consideration to address the ongoing process of
organizational transformation.
The “management of transitions” model
Bridges (1991) stresses the conceptual gap that exist between the ideas of “organizational
change” and “organizational transition”: whilst change involves the “explicit” and “planned”
attributed of modification into the organizational structures and dynamics, transitions concern
the “tacit” and “informal” dynamics triggered by change, which are difficult to be
conceived and analyzed.
Reporting Bridge’s own words:
Transition is about letting go of the past and taking up new behaviors or ways of thinking.
Planned change is about physically moving office, or installing new equipment, or restructuring. Transition lags behind planned change because it is more complex and harder
to achieve. Change is situational and can be planned, whereas transitions is psychological
and less easy to manage.
In sum, transitions set the conditions, on both the social and relational levels, for creating
cohesiveness and engagement of employees to the organizational change event.
The “change management” model:
Rather than looking at phases or steps which articulate a process of organizational change,
Carnell (1991) focuses on the consequences that a manager should possess in order to
effectively manage a modification of structures and/or workflows within the organization.
To identify such skills, Carnall consider both the process nature of organizational change (i.e.:
the need to ensure efficiency and effectiveness throughout the transition from the status quo to
the new model) and the soft implications of change, i.e.: implications on organizational conflict
and organizational power or effects on organizational culture.
Simplifying, Carnall identifies three key competencies for the effective management of
organizational change processes:
The “systematic” model
Peter Senge et al (1999) adopt a systematic approach to analyze the process of change within
organizations: it is assumed that – since organizations are “complex systems which are
selectively open to the external environment”, change itself should be analyzed sticking to
a systematic view.
If we overlook a systematic interpretation of organizational action, it is impossible to identify
where resistance to change take root and thrive. The systematic approach enables to steer the
process of organizational change, avoiding that inertia and resistance to change may imperil
the organizational change process.
Adopting a systematic view does not mean having the intention of exclusively looking at
the “big picture” of organizational change. Rather, the systematic model encourage to take
into consideration what happens in local subsystems, where we can retrieve both the driving
forces and the inertias to organizational change.
To effectively analyze the process of organizational change, attention should be paid to the
local dynamics which affect the processes of organizational change. This should happen
throughout the steps of organizational transitions, which, according to Senge et al, are :
1. Establishing the aims and purpose of change (strategy and purpose)
2. Implementing the process of change (initiating)
3. Continuous support to the change process (sustaining)
4. Reconfiguration of current structures and practices (re-design and re-thinking)
The “systemic” model
In light of evidence collected from practical experiences of organizational change,
Senge et al provide some “practical guidelines”, which should support the managers
involved in steering the processes of organizational transition:
1) Regardless of the breadth of organizational change, you should “start from
addressing small things”, establishing a positive climate and a spirit of selfeffectiveness amongst organizational members
2) The transition from “small things” to issues which have a greater relevance for te
organization should be gradual, but continuous, in order to avoid that fear and
anxiety my arise, blocking the process of change
3) You should avoid a careful and precise planning of all the steps of change: It can be
constraining and useless, if not harmful
4) You should develop a shared sense of openness to challenges and uncertainty