Deze samenvatting is gebaseerd op het studiejaar 2013-2014.

Hoorcollege 1

Today: Chapters of Senior & Swailes
 

In short, S & S state that organizational change is influenced by…

1. Internal system
2. External environment
3. History

Organization as an open system: internal factors

Zie bijlage 1.1

Environmental triggers for change

PESTLE Analysis

• Political factors
• Economic factors
• Socio-cultural factors
• Technological factors
• (Legal factors)
• (Ecological factors)

That influence each other reciprocally

Historical determinacy

Not that many degrees of freedom?

            A circus will not turn into a taxation office…

Determines change (what and how) over time

• starting position: identity, interwovenness
• but also change style and ability

Degrees of freedom restricted

• by societal and sectoral developments
• by own ‘focused intelligence’

Finally

At such a diagnosis of the change situation it really matters if you are on rippling waters or in severe turbulence

Environmental turbulence

Level 1 – Predictable – stability of markets

Level 2 – Forecastable by extrapolation – complexity of the environment increases

Level 3 – Predictable threats and opportunities – The organization’s ability to respond becomes more problematic

Level 4 – Partially predictable opportunities – Addition of global and socio-political changes

Level 5 – Unpredictable surprises – Turbulence increases with unexpected events and situations occurring more quickly than the organization can respond to

Two underlying issues:

• Predictability
• Available time for change

Exam question example - Ch.1, Ch.2

Short case description

Analyse the level of turbulence that the organization has to cope with, and explain what this means for the choice of the general kind of change strategy.

The many faces of change

• Outsourcing to low-wage countries
• Buying areas with potential in Africa
• Decreased demand, e.g. standard flights by ‘low cost airlines’
• Different legislation, e.g. market forces in Healthcare
• New possibilities, e.g. fiber glass
• Conflicting visions

And so on: merger, moving, alliance, new service, better market approach, dysfunctional manager, obsolete system, supplier who terminates…

There is no best way.

Thus, types of change models in Ch.2:

• Grundy’s three varieties of change (1993)
• Balogun and Hope-Hailey (2004)
• Tushman et al. (1988)
• Plowman (2007)
• Dunphy and Stace (1988; 1993)
• Planned versus emergent change
• Quinn’s Logical incrementalism
• Soft versus hard complexity

Nature of organizational change: important dimensions

Scope            – convergent or radical

Pace              – continuous or discontinuous

Scale/size      – subsystem or whole system

How               – planned or emergent

– collaborative or coercive

Leads to typologies in book and in art. A

First of all: evaluate these models critically

Our models are:

1. Often two-dimensional (‘paper is flat’)

2. Assume orthogonality

3. Discontinuous scale, just two or more values?

3. Incidence of types?

Reality is:

1. Multi-dimensional, multi layered, multi phases

2. Interwoven: correlations

3. Not that black & white?

4. Maybe not every quadrant is filled?

One model highlighted:

Dunphy and Stace (1988, tested and refined in 1993)

Organizational approaches to change, based on characteristics

Zie bijlage 1.2

When which approach to change?

Bijlage 1.3

Refinement after empirical study (see also S&S, p. 261-62)

Dunphy and Stace’s (1993) typology   

Bijlage 1.4

Relation between types of change

Tushman et al. (1988)

Bijlage 1.5 en bijlage 1.6

Convergent: example of optimizing bijlage 1.7

Convergent change

• Converging change = maintaining fit
  • Fine-tuning of ‘what is’
  • Incremental adjustment to ‘developments’
• Organizations get stronger in what they are and in adapting and building on that

Disadvantages:

à forces for stability & mechanisms that lead to conservatism (e.g. Child, Pfeffer)

à hinders change of direction, 2^nd order learning, building up to ‘revolution’

Hard vs soft complexity (E.g.‘Tropics’)

• Clear timeframe
• Resources known
• SMART goals
• Shared problem perception
• Limited, known interests
• Management in control
• Origin of problem within the organization
• Ill-defined time horizon, lasting
• Unclear, contradictory
• Ambiguous, subjective
• No consensus, conflict of interests
• Scattered, unclear
• Power scattered
• Outside of organization

Diagnosing change situation

What are all those models used for?

• ‘Grip’ on change situation to determine a suitable change strategy/approach
• Predicting of / anticipating on change

Core issue:

• Hard (difficult) and soft (messy) problems call for different approaches
• Pure ‘planned change’ is only suitable for hard complexity

Exam question examples, Ch. 2

• What are reasons that Tushman et al.’s ‘framebreaking change’, in which existing developments are broken through, are often quickly used? (big changes aimed at several sub-systems at once) (See Ch.2, ill. 2.1)
• How does ‘hard complexity’ differ from ‘soft complexity’? Discuss 2 fundamental differences. (See Ch. 2)

Concluding

Contingency theory posits:

Use scanning tools and typologies

• Identify ‘causes and triggers’, also over time
• Interpret ∆ system & ∆ surroundings
• Analyse change situation àWhich change strategy is most suitable

Complexity theory posits:

Change is complex in nature

• Multi-dimensional, -layered, -interpretable
• Always (also) unintended effects

à Possibilities for ‘planned change’ rather limited

Synthesis chapters 1 and 2

• Table 2.3: summary of the models
• That’s nice, right?
• Beware:
  • Check the extent to which it is correct!

  (cliff hanger for the next lecture by C. Reezigt)

Hoorcollege 2

Influence of structure on change capacity.

• Repetition of content from other courses.
• Read through with new focus:

Change capacity?

• E.g. mechanistic versus organic structures

Bijlage 2.1

Change capacity, weakness?

• Functional structure à risk of narrow thinking, less general managers, limited market focus (illustration 3.4)
• Matrix structureà complex, administratively expensive, confusion authority and responsibility, dependent on information and communication (illustration 3.6)
• Network organization à difficult integration and motivation autonomous parts, fear spill-over technology and knowledge (illustration 3.7)

Change capacity, forces?

• Do this yourself while reading through…  (p. 72-93)
• NB. Is it possible that a certain structural type has both advantages (+) and disadvantages (-) for the organization’s change capacity?

Fundamental assumptions about structural flexibility

Bijlage 2.2

Change: so what do they explain?

Bijlage 2.3

Institutionalisation Theory I

• Explanation for minimal change
• E.g. in sectors / regions / eras where organizations are very alike, or where one after the other implements the same managerial concept
• Institution = accepted typology of, and norms and rules for, a category organizations or people and for their behaviour and mutual connections
• Provides legitimacy, ease, predictability

Institutionalisation Theory II

• Mimetic behaviour      
  • E.g. Flexible Working …
• Templates, scripts-in-action
  • E.g. Even in an upcoming business?
• Isomorphism of performance
  • E.g. Benchmarking, very educational on the one hand

Structuration Theory (Anthony Giddens)

How do structures change?

• When actors (agents) stop using existing structures

 ( = to reinforce)

• Difficult: you can only act socially through existing structure (provides meaning, resources, legitimacy)

But not impossible:

Two factors that give room to move – agency = human action

Two factors offering room for human action/agency

1. ambiguity of structure

• Manager says:          
  ‘I have an open-door policy’, but the door is always closed.
• Employee decides how to handle it – room for interpretation and moving

2. Overlapping systems

• Insurers, Home Care, and Telecom want to connect home care clients to telecare
• Recruiting clients through care teams does not take off
• Use of telecom methods - Use another system

Actor-Network Theory (Bruno Latour)

Succesvol innovation calls for:  ‘translation’ = explaining things in ways that persuade actors to fit with what a network is trying to achieve.

4 phases in translation

1. Problematization – selling concepts, getting attention
2. Interessement – connecting interests, translation of initial rationale to interests of others
3. Enrolment – actors and behaviour, getting actors to behave to achieve the desired outcomes
4. Mobilization à ‘Collectif’, achieving something that could not have been achieved before through the ‘collectif’

Consultancy Model (analogue Kotter)

Bijlage 2.4

Fundamental theories: Structural flexibility#

• Low level of institutionalization 
• High permeability sector, high import of new ideas
• Loosely-coupled templates, low level of influence of the sector on templates organizations in the sector use
• Risks and errors allowed
• Dare to use ambiguity
• Organization consists of, or operates in, overlapping systems
• Invest in ‘translation’
• Stakes can be coupled and translated into each other

Culture and change capacity bijlage 2.5

Chapter 9 Model Change Capacity, p. 376

Bijlage 2.6

Exam question example

‘Framebreaking change’ will have a higher chance of success in certain types of structures.

Elaborate on this by a. through d.:

1. Name a type of structure in which this will be relatively easier compared to other types?
2. Name three structure dimensions (variables) that (co-)determine this?
3. What value do these dimensions take in the type of structure under a.?
4. Why do these values facilitate the change capacity?

Where to find the answers?

Essential knowledge:

• P. 114, 160-162

Contributional knowledge:

• P. 74 -92, 107-109
• P. 118-120, 137-146

Change direction and goals

• Fitting: Adjusting with contingencies, mainly external environment

                                   àreactive or proactive

• Aligning: Internal adjusting to each other of the organization’s aspect systems and subsystems; consistency

Practical examples:

Illustrations 3.5; 3.8; 3.11; 3.16; 3.17; 3.19, 4.9, 4.16, case examples (case examples are not exam material)

Change of structure

What is it about?

• ‘Designed’ vs. ‘Socially Constructed’ structure
• Paul Bate:
•             ‘Empty restructuring’ = changing design with disregarding the social interactions that are overlaying it.
• The viewpoint of ‘socially constructed’ means a strong interplay between structure and culture.

Cultural change

“Culture is more than behaviour.‘Washing off the employees´ is not an option.

Collectively training new behaviour has a very limited effect. All elements have to be addressed systematically ”

Competing values framework.

Bijlage 2.7

Artikel Burnes and Jackson (2011)

• Change initiatives often fail: some research reports up to 80 procent.
• Often mentioned reasons: bad planning and bad execution, lack of competences and commitment
• Burnes and Jackson propose value alignment and misalignment as one of the causes.

• Design of alignment method using Graves’ Emergent Cyclical Levels of Existence Theory
• Study of two cases
• Some cautious conclusions:
  • Alignment of value systems may play a significant role in whether change interventions are accepted by members of an organization and in the intention of those members to respond and implement the change.
  • The ECLET-based method is a potentially useful tool.
• Limitations
  • Other factors also have influence
  • Limited research
  • ECLET is not meant to be a tool to design change interventions

• Other Issues:
  • How is aligning values related to change, when change can also mean changing values?
  • Objective measures of successful implementation?
• Example of exam questions:
  • Below you can find two statements. Are the true or not and why?
    • Statement 1: the different levels of human value systems in Graves’ ECLET exclude each other.
    • Statement 2: the term ‘Value systems’ in the article by Burnes and Jackson refers to the added value different change initiatives have for improving the organization.

Bijlage 2.8

Hoorcollege 3

Kotters onderscheid tussen management en leiderschap

• Managen: plannen, budgetteren, benoemen, organiseren, problemen oplossen en controleren
• Leiderschap: richting vaststellen, mensen op een lijn brengen, motiveren en inspireren
• Kotter: we hebben vooral leiders nodig voor verandering

Opvattingen over ‘goed’ leiderschap

• Traits: eigenschappen (aangeboren?Murray & Schmitz, 2011)
•  Stijlen (aan te leren gedrag):
  •  taak- of mensgericht
  •  directief of participatief
•  Managerial Grid (Blake & Mouton, 1964): ‘one best way’

Leadership Grid

Zie bijlage 3.1

Voorbij de ‘one best way’: Situational Leadership Theory

Bijlage 3.2

Bijlage 3.3

Dunphy and Stace geavanceerd

Bijlage 3.4

Bijlage 3.5

Transformationeel leiderschap (Burns, 1978;  Bass, 1985)

• Het gaat om het transformeren en motiveren van medewerkers, zodat zij gaan presteren ‘beyond expectations’:
  • Gericht op het vergroten van de betrokkenheid van medewerkers bij organisatiedoelen (i.p.v. eigenbelang)
  • Charismatisch en inspirerend
  • Duidelijke visie
  • Uitdagende doelen stellen
• Dus: STERK gerelateerd aan beweging en verandering.
• Onderzoek wijst uit: sterke relatie tussen transformationeel leiderschap en effectiviteit van de verandering.
• Maar er is ook zoiets als specifiek ‘change leadership’: Kotter.

Verandering volgens Kotter (1995)

• Veel organisatieveranderingstrajecten mislukken.
• Elk veranderingstraject doorloopt een aantal opeenvolgende fasen.
• Fouten in deze fasen hebben grote gevolgen.
• Er zijn tenminste acht fouten die veel voorkomen bij verandering, zoals:
  • toestaan dat obstakels in de weg komen te staan.
  • nalaten korte-termijn successen te creëren.
  • te vroeg juichen.
  • te weinig en onduidelijk communiceren van de visie (zie Klaus Kleinfeld).

Kotters achtfase proces voor verandering

1.         Urgentiebesef vestigen.

2.         De leidende coalitie vormen.

3.         Een visie en strategie ontwikkelen.

4.         De veranderingsvisie communiceren.

5.         Door “empowerment” een breed draagvlak voor actie creëren.

6.          Korte termijnsuccessen creëren.

7.         Verbeteringen consolideren en meer verandering tot stand     brengen.

8.         Nieuwe benaderingen in de organisatiecultuur verankeren.

Artikel Herold, Fedor, Caldwell & Liu (2008)

• Er is een verschil tussen:
  • Transformational leadership over situaties heen: mensen in beweging brengen, inspireren met visie, aandacht geven, etc.
  • Specifiekere change leadership activiteiten á la Kotter, zoals ‘sense of urgency’ creëren, leidende coalitie bouwen, een plan communiceren, etc.
  • Maar let op: er is ook overlap (verschil misschien wel vooral abstract – concreet)
• Vraag in artikel: wat zijn de effecten van beide vormen van leiderschap op ‘change commitment’ van medewerkers?

Conclusie Herold et al. (2008)

• Onderzoek onder 343 medewerkers uit 30 organisaties
• In elke organisatie specifiek verandertraject met impact
• Variabelen: TFL, change-leadership, change commitment, job-level impact
• Belangrijkste conclusies:

1. Transformationeel leiderschap echt iets anders dan change-leadership.
2. Transformationeel leiderschap is belangrijker voor  change commitment dan change-leadership, vooral als impact van verandering groot is.

Macht heeft verschillende kanten

The Good

• Actie
• Abstract Denken
• Doelgericht gedrag
• Optimisme

The Bad

• Risico’s nemen
• Overmoedig (en overspelig!)
• Perspectief nemen

Power en politics volgens Senior and Swailes

• Onderscheid tussen power & politics:
  • Power = je hebt de mogelijkheid om je wil op te leggen
  • Politics = ‘power in action’, d.m.v. beïnvloedingstactieken

Belangrijk model: 5  ‘sources of power’, French & Raven (‘59

Bijlage 3.6

Meer modellen

• Morgan (‘97) met 14 machtsbronnen (vergelijk ze maar eens…)
• Robbins (‘05): formele en persoonlijke macht (idem)
• Twee kenmerken gemeenschappelijk:
  1. Macht hangt samen met positie
  2. Macht is de mogelijkheid om te beschikken over middelen/resources
  3. Let op: verschil in benaderingen….

Unitary versus pluralist: verschillend perspectief

Bijlage 3.7

Wat heeft dit alles met verandering te maken?

• Macht, politiek, conflict: inherent aan verandering.
• Als je organisaties wilt veranderen, moet je er dus constructief mee om zien te gaan.
• Volgens Nadler (1988) brengt het proces van verandering drie problemen met zich mee:
  1. Weerstand
  2. Organizational control (wie monitort wat en hoe)
  3. Macht: ‘power is won and lost’

De relatie tussen change, power, politics en conflict

Bijlage 3.8

Is weerstand altijd te beheersen?

Weerstand kan te maken hebben met:

• Gebrek aan overtuiging: is het echt nodig?
• Niet leuk vinden: people don’t like to be changed
• Angst voor het onbekende, voor eigen falen (ik kan het niet)
• Frustratie: moeten we alweer veranderen?
• Geen vertrouwen

Participatie kan dan helpen

Maar het kan ook zijn dat:

• Mensen tegenovergestelde belangen hebben
• Mensen overtuigd zijn dat het niet zinvol is

Dus:

• Weerstand kun je niet altijd overkomen door te communiceren of te informeren
• Weerstand is niet per definitie slecht (weerstand is energie)

Weerstand heeft soms ‘hardere’ acties nodig, zoals verandering van systemen of resources

Hoe kun je er dan wel ‘goed’ mee omgaan?

• “Change always throws up conflict, so it is a healthy sign: a journey is underway” (Lehman & Linsky, 2008)
• Nadler (1988) 4 activiteiten om met politics om te gaan:
  1. Ontwikkel support van ‘key power groups’
  2. Zet leiderschapsgedrag in
  3. Gebruik symbolen en taal om energie te creëren
  4.  Bouw stabiliteit in als ankers (niet alles hoeft te veranderen)

Conflict hantering

Bijlage 3.9

Voorbeeld tentamenvraag

            Herold et al. (2008) beschrijven twee soorten leiderschap.

1. Noem en beschrijf deze twee soorten.
2. Noem een verschil en een overeenkomst tussen beide soorten leiderschap. 

Hoorcollege 4

Hoofdstuk 7 en 8: de centrale overeenkomst

• S&S zetten Hoofdstuk 7 en 8 scherp tegenover elkaar
  • Hard systems versus soft systems
• Sterke overeenkomst?
  • Beide gaan uit van ‘planned change’
• Wat is daarbij ook al weer het vertrekpunt volgens Dunphy en Stace (zie ook vorige college)?
  • Tegenover het type ‘incremental change’ staat ‘transformative change’: abrupt radicale, grootschalige verandering - die misschien wel niet gepland kan!

Dunphy and Stace geavanceerd

Bijlage 4.1

Dunphy and Stace, approaches to change.

Bijlage 4.2

Want wat zegt start van H 7…

• De keuze voor een veranderaanpak hangt af van de waargenomen complexiteit:
  • harde complexiteit kan makkelijk en snel
  • zachte complexiteit (ook wel ‘messy situations’ genoemd) vereist tijd en andere aanpak
  • Ook wel: simple system versus complex system (Flood & Jackson)
• Plus er is een relatie met ideologisch perspectief!

Relatieaanpak met perspectief

Bijlage 4.3

H 7: hard systems approach

• Uitgangspunten vrij simpel:
  • Mensen denken logisch en rationeel
  • Er is dus een basis systematische manier om verandering te plannen en implementeren
  • Die gaat uit van duidelijke veranderdoelen:
    • Kwantificeerbaar
    • Meetbaar
• Dit leidt tot drie fasen in een veranderingsproces
• Sterke link met systems engineering, operations research, en project management (= ingenieursbenadering)

Hard systems model of change (HSMC)

Bijlage 4.4

Fase 1, stadium 2
bijlage 4.5

Fase 1, stadium 3

• Sterke nadruk op harde, meetbare indicatoren door: kosten, besparingen, tijd, hoeveelheid werk, volume, etc.
• Voorbeeld 7.2: bijlage 4.6

Fase 2: opties centraal

• Daar waar fase 1 vooral over het ‘wat’ gaat, gaat fase 2 over het ‘hoe’, oftewel de route er naar toe.
• Bijlage 4.7

Eind fase 2: koppelen opties aan doelen

• Hoe worden juiste opties gekozen?
  Evaluatie (analyse dus weer) – zie figuur 7.5:

Bijlage 4.8

En dan fase 3: implementatie

“In problems of a definite ‘hard’ nature, implementation will never be a problem” (S&S, pag 294)

• Drie simpele alternatieven:
  • Pilot studies
  • Parallel laten lopen oud en nieuw systeem
  • Big bang
• Daarna consolideren (stadium 8), maar ook dat hoeft niet ingewikkeld te zijn.
• Maar….. werkt het ook zo in de praktijk?

Conclusie over hard systems model

• Het klinkt praktisch, gestructureerd en makkelijk, maar…
• … Aantal assumpties over menselijk gedrag naïef?
• Uitgangspunt = HARMONIE-MODEL
• En let op: de passendheid van de benadering is afhankelijk van
  • context
  • type verandering

Planned change: een belangrijk concept

• Organisatieverandering is heel lang alleen maar ‘planned change’ geweest.
• Lewin (1951):

Maar ook kritiek op Lewin

• Kun je wel ‘refreezen’ in deze huidige turbulente tijden?
• Is verandering niet een continu proces?
• Is participatie altijd goed? Het is weer ‘one best way’…
• Wat nou als er bijvoorbeeld geen tijd beschikbaar is? (Denk aan Dunphy & Stace)
• Dus weer: de passendheid van de benadering is afhankelijk van context en type verandering
• Lewin is basis voor belangrijke/belangrijkste? stroming in veranderkunde: Organization Development (OD) = soft system approach

OD belangrijkste kenmerken

OD is a systemwide application and transfer of behavioral science knowledge to the planned development, improvement and reinforcement of strategies, structures and processes that lead to organizational effectiveness (Cummings & Worley)

1. Procesbenadering:
   • duidelijk herkenbare fasen
   • van huidige staat naar gewenste staat
2. OD bestaat uit activiteiten die tijdens deze fasen ingezet worden, met een sterke focus op mensen en participatieve benadering

Action-research cyclus als basis: principes

1. Management en staf delen perceptie van probleem
2. Data verzamelen, eerste diagnose
3. Feedback naar alle betrokkenen
4. Gedeelde overeenkomst over probleem
5. Gezamenlijke planning van activiteiten
6. Implementatie
7. Bekrachtigen en beoordelen van verandering

DUS:

DIAGNOSE-PLANNING-ACTIE-EVALUATIE

            Op basis van Action Research kent OD volgende fasen:

Bijlage 4.10

Vijf fasen binnen OD: toelichting

1. a en b: diagnose huidige situatie en
   ontwikkelen visie op gewenste situatie
2. Betrokkenheid voor nieuwe visie verkrijgen
3. Actieplan ontwikkelen
4. Implementeren verandering
5. Versterken en beoordelen verandering

Nadruk op betrekken van mensen = “employee involvement”! (versus Kotter’s no-no’s?)

Bijlage 4.11

Fase 2: betrokkenheid verkrijgen

Weerstand tegen verandering:

• ‘For many employees, including middle managers, change is neither sought after nor welcomed. It is disruptive and intrusive. It upsets the balance’ (Strebel, HBR, 2000)
• OD heeft  - optimistische - strategieën om weerstand om te buigen naar betrokkenheid:
  • Empathie en ondersteuning (active listening)
  • communicatie
  • participatie
• Dus: als mensen meedoen, dan krijg je betrokkenheid = harmonie model
• Maar ….. ging soft systems niet uit van… conflict model

Fase 3: Vaststellen benodigde interventies

Op basis van uitkomsten fase 1 en 2, bepaal je:

• Welk type interventie (gedrag, structuur of context)
• Op welk niveau

Zie bijvoorbeeld Pugh OD matrix

Conclusies over OD

• OD gaat uit van positief beeld over weerstand tegen verandering, en negeert power & politics
•  Soms is er geen tijd voor lang ‘unfreezen’
• Soms zijn er beperkingen aan het begin, en kun je niet komen tot gedeelde visie
• OD claimt ‘one best way’, maar misschien wel minder geschikt in sommige typen organisaties en culturen

Artikel Battilana et al. (2010)

• Battilana et al. maken onderscheid tussen harde en zachte leiderschapskwaliteiten - zie vorige college
  •  initiating structure – taakgericht ‘hard’
  • consideration – mensgericht ‘zacht’
• Ze onderscheiden ook 3 veranderfasen:
  • Communicating need for change
  • Mobilizing others
  • Evaluating implementation
• Zij veronderstellen dat elke fase link heeft met bepaald leiderschap:
  • Communicating need for change – zacht
  • Mobilizing others – zacht en hard
  • Evaluating implementation – hard
• Dus drie fasen eigenlijk combinatie van hard systems & soft systems models?

Conclusies

• Onderzoek onder 89 managers in National Health Service
• In elke organisatie specifiek verandertraject met impact
• Variabelen:
  • Leiderschapsstijlen (person-oriented en task-oriented)
  • Nadruk op activiteiten uit 1 van de 3 fasen
• Belangrijkste conclusie is dat inderdaad onderscheid te maken is tussen leiders en wat ze doen:

1. leiders die effectiever zijn in task-oriented activiteiten, richten zich meer op mobiliseren en evalueren
2. leiders die effectiever zijn in person-oriented activiteiten, richten zich meer op communiceren

• Heeft dit conclusies voor hard en soft system models? 

Voorbeeld tentamenvraag

Beschrijf het ‘Hard system model of change’.

Beschrijf het ‘Soft system model of change’.

Noem twee verschillen tussen beide benaderingen.

Hoorcollege 5 – Gastcollege

Goal of this lecture:

To develop new insights regarding

• the ways change comes about. What is needed for organisational change?
• how to lead organizational change effectively. What is the relation between organizational change en servant leadership?

A civil society requires a change at three levels:

• Leadership   -  survant behaviour
• Organization -  structure through the eyes of the clients
• Information   -  transparency

Change with servant focus: ‘outside in’ thinking

Bijlage 5.1

A guru in information engineering

James Martin (19 October 1933 – 24 June 2013) a British Information Technology consultant and author.

• ‘Give me the data model and I know everything of te organization”
• ‘Information and processes: a stable basis’

Data Groups diagram bijlage 5.2

Waarde creërend proces

Bijlage 5.3

Bijlage 5.4

The science of servant leadership

• Focus of the leader
• Multiple forms of leadership
• Origin of servant leadership ‘Robert Greenleaf’

“Good leaders must first become good servants.”

Robert Greenleaf, 1904

"It starts with the natural feeling that one actually is willing to serve in the first place. Then one makes the conscious choice to lead. The difference with other forms of leadership is in the care that a servant firstly devotes to meet the main interests of others ...

…The best assessment, which is hard to analyze, is whether 'those who served, do they grow as human beings? Are they, while they are served, healthier, wiser, freer, more autonomous and more able to lead themselves?"

Robert Greenleaf, 1970

Research university Groningen bijlage 5.5

Two research issues

1. Implementation of a customer service centre of a municipality

2.    How to become a serving municipality?

   (Dimensions servant leadership, change readiness and communication)

Bijlage 5.6

Bijlage 5.7

Quality of communication

Definition

The quality of communication is a concept from a single dimension. It is about the perception of employees on the communication concerning changes in the organization.

Statements / questions from the research to the employees:

• I get regular information about the expire of the change.
• The policy of the organization regarding the change is well
  communicated between project leaders and staff.
• Information about the change is clear.
• As employees we are sufficiently informed on the progress
  of the change.

Interesting extra outcome

Executives gave their own leadership style significantly higher scores than their own employees did. It turns out that managers may hold a too optimistic picture of themselves.

Bijlage 5.8

Case histories interventions

Servant leadership – change readiness

Humility: daring to set itself in a vulnerable position creates confidence. E.g. to share his or her strengths and weaknesses with others.

Stewardship: the leader should be willing to take responsibility of the larger institution, and go for service, instead of control and self-interest.

Tweede deel college

Exam material

• Senior, Barbara and Swailes, Stephen (2010) Organizational Change, 4th edition. Essex, UK: Financial Times Prentice Hall (Pearson)
  • Theory and models
  • This includes those in the ‘illustrations’
• The 5 papers (in terms of concepts, models, theories, findings, contributions)
• Lecture materials (on Nestor)

Exam content

• 7 questions and a bonus question
• with sub questions
• distributed over exam material
• emphasis on knowledge & understanding

   à complementary to the tutorials

       the latter focused on application

• concepts, models, theories, relating, or comparing research findings

Article Batillana et. al

• Battilana et al. distinguish hard and soft leadership qualities
  1.  initiating structure – task-oriented ‘hard’
  2.  consideration – human-oriented ‘soft’
• They also  distinguish 3 change phases:
  1. Communicating need for change
  2. Mobilizing others
  3. Evaluating implementation
  4. They propose the two are related
  5. Communicating need for change – B. soft
  6. Mobilizing others – B. soft and  A. hard
  7. Evaluating implementation – A. hard
• So these 3 phases are actually a combination of hard systems & soft systems models?

Composition of exam questions

1. What are reasons that Tushman et al.’s ‘framebreaking change’, which breaks off existing developments, is often quickly applied? (big steps aimed at several aspect-systems at once)
2. How does ‘hard complexity’ differ from ‘soft complexity’? Discuss 2 fundamental differences.
3. To what extent do you see a connection between ‘framebreaking change’ and the type of complexity characterising the change? Explain.

Model and theories indicated by authors

• Grundy’s three varieties of change (1993)
• Tushman et al.‘s model of organizational life (1988)
• Lewin’s (1951) 3-phase model of change
• Quinn’s Logical incrementalism
• Latour’s Actor-network theory
• The Open University’s HSMC

Understand the meaning of basic terms

• Type à a class of entities
• Variable à a characteristic on which entities (may) vary
• Dimension à defines the potential range in this variation for ‘quantitative’ variables
• Thus, a specific score pattern on a number of dimensions measuring a set of variables makes up a type

The nature of organizational change: important dimensions

• Scope                        – convergent or radical
• Pace              – continuous or discontinuous
• Scale/size     – subsystem or entire system
• How               – planned or emergent

– collaborative or coercive

Two ways of thinking:

• Contingency theory
• Complexity theory

Dunphy and Stace (1988): Organizational approaches to change

Ralph Stacey’s Complexity Graph

Hard complexity

• Clear timeframe
• Resources known
• SMART goals
• Shared problem perception
• Limited, known interests
• Management in control
• Origin of problem within the organization

Soft complexity

• Ill-defined time horizon, longer
• Unclear, contradictory
• Ambiguous, subjective
• No consensus, conflict of interests
• Scattered, unclear
• Power scattered
• Outside of organization

Tabel 2.3: Summary of the models (p.64)

bijlage_voor_de_onlineversie_hoorcollege_organisatie_verandering.pdf