09-02-2013, 04:47 PM
Understanding change
Understanding change.pdf (Size: 664.99 KB / Downloads: 40)
Introduction
This chapter lays the framework for this book by arguing that organizational change
is developed within models and frameworks that inform our understanding of the
subject. In this chapter we will learn that knowledge and practice of organizational
change are infl uenced by assumptions derived from the models or perspectives we
use. For example, if we regard change as a matter of systemic structural arrangements
we can make in an organization, then we can see how the analogy of organism or biological
system helps to inform our judgements. Because perspectives off er ways of seeing,
they will inevitably organize our perception in line with the dominant analogy used.
However, analogies are only partial knowledge claims. Four perspectives on change
are cited in this chapter: why four perspectives in particular? The answer to that question
is straightforward but you need to understand at this point that a perspective is an
overarching approach that contains a variety of theories that have become associated
with it. You will see why these are the dominant perspectives once you have read the
remainder of this section.
First, the structural-functional perspective is the oldest approach to organizational
design and therefore change. Like each perspective, it contains a variety
of theories that attempted to resolve some of its diffi culties as it developed. These
theories include the hard systems, systems dynamics, cybernetics, soft systems, criticalsystems
heuristics, and postmodern systems thinking (Jackson, 2003). The structuralfunctional
perspective encourages us to think about structural arrangements and
functional interrelationships within organizations. The development of the opensystems
model in the 1950s assisted our understanding further by focusing on how
inputs to an organization are transformed into outputs. This is useful for thinking
about how we might change tasks and relationships in a production process. The
value of the structural-functional perspective lies in its ability to change the arrangement
of tasks and procedures in relation to the customer or client specifi cation. The advantage
of the perspective lies in its ability to look at an organization as a control mechanism:
that is, to understand the important structural components and to articulate the functional
interrelationships between the parts. Inevitably, structural redesign will therefore
infl uence the functions that each part produces for the whole. But the perspective
has disadvantages also. Because it is a model for controlling operations, it is therefore
mechanistic. It tends to ignore how motivations, behaviours, attitudes, and values
contribute to eff ective performance.
The multiple constituencies perspective emerged from dissatisfaction with the
structural-functional perspective. Although it was initially associated with the work
of Cyert and March (1963), it increasingly came to adopt a range of theories associated
with the action and motives of individual actors rather than with the action of
systems per se. The multiple constituencies perspective refers to the way that complex
organizations have to negotiate objectives with diff erent groups of stakeholders who
have overlapping and often confl icting needs. When we consider hospitals, health
PERSPECTIVES ON CHANGE
trusts, postal services, public bodies, local government, and transnational companies,
then we come to recognize that the organization’s needs are inextricably linked to
various stakeholder groups. This aff ects how resources are managed and distributed,
as well as how change might be facilitated to maximize effi ciency and eff ectiveness.
An investigation of how multiple constituencies bring their own interests and motivations
into the organizational arena will help us to provide an informed approach to
managing change by recognizing the various resource needs of diff erent groups. We
can recognize the advantage of this perspective in drawing attention to the various
stakeholder needs but we can also recognize that it is limited to a partial analysis.
It is less concerned with developing people. It also has a limited view of power.
Consequently this reduces organizational change to consensual negotiation between
pluralities of groups.
Those academics and practitioners that adopt the Organizational Development
perspective would share much with the two previous perspectives because it embraces
both a systems approach and a focus on stakeholders and governance. However,
it is distinguished by its methodology of action research as much as it is by its ethical
approach to developing organizations through people. For the fi rst time we begin
to see people as resources to be developed rather than as simply costs on a balance
sheet. This perspective emerged from the human relations approach, which focused
on personal and group development. However, unlike the two previous perspectives,
it argues that maximum effi ciency and eff ectiveness cannot be achieved by dealing
with tasks, procedures, and customers’ or clients’ needs without looking at the quality
of management, leadership, communication, culture, motivation, and values. Because
the Organizational Development (OD) perspective on change emerged out of
human resource theory, it became a synthesis of structural functionalism and behavioural
research. The two main contributions of this approach are the focus on social
chara cteristics and its methodology dedicated to a humanistic approach to change
and development. OD is also associated with the idea of planned change and the need
to clearly diagnose clients’ needs before making an intervention. These provide major
advantages in thinking about change but they are also partial and limited to conceptualizing
change as a matter of consensus, as does each perspective mentioned so far.
The fi nal perspective—Creativity and Volition: a Critical Theory of Change—
refl ects the challenges and assumptions of Critical Theory. It cannot be regarded as
a unifi ed perspective, as the others can, because it does not seek to off er solutions to
change problems. But it does go further than any of the other perspectives in demonstrating
that people, rather than systems, are the main element of analysis in any
change theory. Each of the other perspectives tends to reify human action. By contrast,
this perspective seeks to redress the balance by arguing that people are active agents
of change. It also brings another important element under scrutiny. That is, each of
the other perspectives focuses on rational change. This has implications for designing
and planning change as a linear sequence of events. However, if change programmes
ignore emergent processes that result more from confl ict, fl ux, and uncertainty than
from consensus and stability, then intervention strategies will have a limited and often
UNDERSTANDING CHANGE
unintended eff ect. Because this perspective is derived from Critical Theory we should
not assume that it is immune to criticism. The main criticism is that it does not off er
solutions. It does not provide useful intervention strategies. It does, however, make us
stop and think before we act.
You should now be clear that each perspective contains a range of theories that
share assumptions, methods, and approaches. These can be stated simply as:
1. A focus on systems and structures (the structural-functional perspective).
2. A focus on governance (the multiple constituencies perspective).
3. A focus on behavioural improvement through personal and Organizational
Development (the OD perspective).
4. A focus on constant critique (Creativity and Volition: a Critical Theory of
Change).
A simple reminder of the focus is: systems, governance, behaviour, and critique. The
argument throughout the book is that to manage change you need to understand these
interweaving debates.
In this chapter we will:
• Explain the benefi ts and limitations of change contained within the structural-
functional perspective.
• Examine how a multiple constituencies perspective provides arguments for
involving stakeholders in complex change initiatives.
• Explore the value of human resource and organization development interventions
as well as their limitations in planned change initiatives.
• Appreciate why organizational change may be characterized better by confl
ict, fl ux, and uncertainty.
• Consider the source of creativity.
• Appreciate the role of Critical Theory in understanding organizational
change.
Perspectives on c hange
1.2.1 Modernity, progress, and change
It is important to contextualize the four perspectives of this chapter by illustrating
that each emerged from, or in reaction to, the process of modernism. The term
‘modernism’ was originally used to describe the new machine age of the early twentieth
century, which refl ected progress through the application of scientifi c principles, order,
and control. Scientifi c principles emerged from the pursuit of rationality embedded
in the philosophy of the Enlightenment. The twentieth century was infl uenced
PERSPECTIVES ON CHANGE 7
by progressive movements in art and architecture, but the new age was eventually
associated with negative qualities that, paradoxically, were linked to its greatest
triumph—the machine age. The new machine age was characterized by large-scale
movements, revolutions, and world wars which all proclaimed progress through the
application of machine technology or through the metaphor of the machine as the
embodiment of effi ciency and eff ectiveness. This was no more apparent than in business
and management, where modernity refl ected the task of controlling large-scale
organizations. Techniques or processes such as bureaucracy, Taylorism, and Fordism
came to refl ect the new managerialism of the machine age in which the principles of
measurement and calculation came to dominate thinking. This emphasis on rational
calculation had advantages in the form of mass production of cheap goods but, to
achieve this, the human cogs in the machine were alienated by a technology that largely
ignored social practices.
You should therefore be aware that the structural-functional perspective emerged
at the time when modernism suggested progress through the application of rational
principles. It should be no surprise, then, that it tended to focus on task and throughput
by using the metaphor of organism as machine. The perspective referred to as
multiple constituencies emerged in the 1960s. It was the fi rst to challenge the naive
rationalism of the structural-functional perspective by arguing that an organization
is not equivalent to a biological entity and that therefore the organic model was not
appropriate to organizations. An organization was better conceived as a ‘legal fi ction’
(Shafritz and Ott, 1991). This had the advantage of persuading us that progress is
simply a result of social processes and that all organizations are no more than devices
to achieve certain objectives. The perspective helped to establish the idea of change
through governance. Organizational Development has been the main tradition of
organizational change and has much to recommend it, such as a declared humanistic
commitment to change. It has also developed useful techniques and methods, but its
use of the biological model limits its critique. The perspective we call ‘Creativity and
Volition: a Critical Theory of Change’ is united only by its objection to modernism.
It therefore provides a useful counterbalance to the other perspectives by off ering
cri ticism of the conventional wisdom. But it also suggests that human volition and
creativity are a long way from the modernist assumptions of progress.
1.2.2 Pathways to change
Each perspective contains theories that lead to a change intervention. The phrase
‘change intervention’ refers to change actions taken at a strategic level to help an
organization become more eff ective. A perspective can therefore be regarded as a
model for understanding how a subject can be understood.
Advocates of a perspective develop theories to inform their views and they construct
methodologies to test the accuracy of their various theories within a perspective.
However, each perspective is open to criticism precisely because it contains
assumptions about organizational reality. Each is therefore valuable as a framework
8 UNDERSTANDING CHANGE
for change, but in the interest of validity we need to be cautious about the claims to
certainty that each makes. We would be wise, therefore, to view these perspectives as
pathways to understand organizational change. We can take the analogy further and
suggest that each perspective represents a pathway through a minefi eld of conceptual
diffi culties. Each perspective is illustrated in Figure 1.1.
1.3 Structural-functional change: changing
structures and functions
Structural-functional change is the oldest perspective on organizational change. This
perspective is also known as structural-functional analysis. It is eff ectively a social-systems
Figure 1.1 Pathways to change
STRUCTURAL-FUNCTIONAL
CHANGE
Change occurs for dysfunctional reasons when
internal functions fail or when structures do
not reflect the rational design of the best
system
INTERVENTIONS
focus on the alignment of
functional relationships and the structural
re-design of the system to accommodate
changing external environmental conditions
MULTIPLE CONSTITUENCIES
Change is a negotiated order and
organizations are arenas in which
internal groups and external stakeholders
seek to exert influence
INTERVENTIONS
focus on contractual
relationships. A distinction is made between a
formal contract and an informal or psychological
contract
ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Change is planned once needs are
diagnosed
INTERVENTIONS are replaced by critical analysis
PERSPECTIVES ON CHANGE
view of organizations as opposed to the mechanistic or closed-systems perspective of
physics. Henry Fayol was one of the fi rst writers to make the link between structure
and function. In his 1916 book General and Industrial Management, he describes the
relationship between organizations and biology in terms of an analogy. Thus he points
out that, just as organisms evolve and become more sophisticated in their structural
properties, so do organizations. We can see why the organic analogy is important to
organizations when we consider Fayol’s description of specialization and diff erentiation.
For example,