Summary with the 5th edition of Organizational Change by Senior and Swailes

What is the definition of an organization? And what is the influence of its environment? - Chapter 1

An organization is defined by Senior and Swailes (2016) as a: ‘system that consists of formal aspects of operations and management which are massively covered by informal aspects in the organization that is derived from the relation between people'. An organization operates and interacts with three sorts of environment: temporal, external and internal.

What are common factors of an organization?

According to Tony Watson (2006) a common factor of organizations is the idea that organizations have goals which act as an adhesive holding together the various systems used to produce things. In this sense, organizations can be seen as people interacting to achieve some defined purpose. Watson (2006) talks about organizational goals, but these goals are often defined by top management. A typical working definition of an organization might say that an organization is a social entity that has a purpose, has a boundary and patterns the activities of participants into a recognizable structure (Daft, 1989). The organization as a system consists of input, subsystems and output. Inputs in the organization are materials and resources. Output consists of achievement of organizational goals and employee satisfaction.
Input --> the organization (formal and informal subsystems) --> output.

So, an organization can be seen as a system of interacting subsystems and components set within wider systems and environment that provide inputs to the systems and receive its outputs. This can be divided into two subsystems: an informal and a forma subsystem. These subsystems identify the main elements of an organization:

• Informal: culture, politics and leadership.
• Formal: management, strategy, goals, structure, operations, technology.

Nadler and Tushman (1988) included the informal organization in their system of organizational behaviour. This informal organization exists of patterns of communications, power and influence, values and norms. Next to that, ‘legitimate themes’ are used to explain conversations that people are comfortable having in an open discussion and ‘shadow themes’ to explain that people are not able to have these conversations openly (Stacey, 2007). The informal subsystem is called a shadow system in which the informal subsystems encapsulated the more hidden elements.

According to Silverman (1970) the ‘social action approach’ is known as a contrasting view of organizations being composed of individuals and groups with multiple different interests.

An organization is a complex system incorporates the aspect of unpredictability by highlighting the interactions in and between individuals in different domains. It is important to recognize an organizational system as an open system.

What is the historical context for change in an organization?

The Industrial Revolution and the industrial age was characterized by a series of inventions and innovations that reduced the number of people needed to work and provided the means of mass productions. Since demand and supply of products and services were predictable, companies were able to structure their organizations. Burns and Stalker (1966) described this as the mechanistic lines. These mechanistic lines are a systems of structure hierarchical structures and lines of control.

Organizations focused on efficiency and effectiveness during the Industrial age and produced as many products (task-oriented/fordism). At the same time, organizations faced increasing international competition and there was a shift from manufacturing to services. In the neo-industrial age, the emphasis has moved towards adding value to goods and services. Goodman (1995) called this the value-oriented time. Adding value means identifying potential customer expectations and them exceeding them. Since economies of the West could no longer rely on mass productions, the knowledge has become increasingly important and through intelligence and creative thinking organizations will improve competitiveness.

In short, the market factors that impacts the operations of Western organizations. It shows the differences between the Industrial age and the Neo-industrial age in the table below.

Is the future becoming more uncertain?

Most commentators on organizations argue that business is becoming ever more uncertain as the pace of change quickens and the future become more unpredictable (Furnham, 2000). Next to that, business conditions are extremely complex. Drucker (1988) claimed that future organizations would be almost completely information-based and that they would resemble more a symphony orchestra than the command and control, managed structures prevalent in the past. Dawson (2003) states that managers should be leaders of change. If they are not, the organization will cease to exist is an increasingly competitive environment.

What are the environmental triggers of change?

There were several financial scandals such as the Leman Brothers, the bankruptcy of The Times and other financial communities fell out or were baled-out. In the business community, the confidence decreased, and fear increased. Next to the macro-economic events, change is triggered by events that have an impact on the lines of an individual such as education or healthcare. It seems that a change in organizations is triggered by large and momentous events and by events. Organizational change is influenced by the external environment besides the internal systems (input, conversion, output) and history. An organization consists of several elements which are interrelated and operate in a multi-dimensional environment. Brooks (2011) explains the environments as a general concept which take into account the totality of external environmental forces which may influence any aspect of organizational activity. A common way of grouping different environmental factors uses the PEST mnemonic. PEST stands for:

• Political
• Economic
• Socio-cultural
• Technological

Political trigger

A political trigger may influence economic environment like government legislation, international law, wars, local regulations, universal rights, trade union activities and taxation. The most important goal for governments is to enhance economic prosperity.

Economic triggers

Economic triggers are factors as competitors, suppliers, employment rates, wage rates, government economic policies, currency exchange rates, other countries’ economic policies, leading policies of financial institutions and changes from public to private ownership. Economic and political environments are closely related since political decisions shape economic fortunes and economic changes influence political decisions. Governments in developed countries work to keep four key economic indicators in balance (Cook, 2011):

• Economic growth
• A healty balance of payments
• Low inflation
• Low unemployment

Social-cultural triggers

Social-cultural triggers influence the way in which an organisation is set up, run and managed. It is also about their capacity to attract people within their company. Examples of the socio-cultural triggers are:

• Changes within existing norms, values and culture.
• Factors include demographic changes such as the age of people, mobility of labor.
• Changes in family structure and the roles of man and women can influence the preferences for working hours and the provisions of child care.

Other influences are: trends, lifestyle changes, skills availability, gender issues, concern for the environment, willingness and ability to move, attitude to work, employment and minority groups and business ethics.

Technological triggers

Examples of technological triggers include information technology, internet, new production processes, new ways to generate energy, waste management and recycling, computerization of processes and changes in transport technology.
An organization can 1) adopt and use technology to assist in production and delivery of goods and services and 2) exist through the creation of technology itself such as Microsoft or a telecom company.

What are the organizational responses to change?

The authors suggest that organizations operate in three types of environments:

1. Historical developments. These developments bring changes over time. An important category is the temporal environment. This category can influence an organization through 1) cycles of industry-based innovations and 2) life cycle of the organization itself.
2. PEST framework
3. Internal environment of the organization. This includes changes in the organizations that are responses to changes in the external and the temporal environment.

In short, the organizational system operates in a multi-dimensional environment. The external environment is influenced by four factors (economic, technological, socio-cultural and political-legal). The internal environment is the organization with its formal and informal subsystem.

Environmental turbulence

The dynamics of an organization’s environment have also been described in terms of the degree of environmental turbulence. Ansoff and McDonnel (1990) explain that the performance of a company is optimized when its aggressiveness and responsiveness match its environment. They propose five levels of environmental turbulence:

1. Predictable
2. Forecast able by extrapolation
3. Predictable threats and opportunities
4. Partially predictable opportunities
5. Unpredictable surprises

These five levels can be compared to three different kinds of change situation proposed by Stacey (1996) namely closed change, contained change and open-ended change. Stacey’s named two related concepts ‘close to certainty’ and ‘far from certainty. It is important to notice that from level three the time to responds get less. Next to that, the strength of the forces for change can be related to the degree of turbulence. The stronger the force, the more likely that the environment is moving to level 5. If this level increases, managing change becomes more difficult.

What are the conclusions?

Since organization operate in multiple environments, the key task is to work and try to manage the external adaptations and internal integration. They need to be quick on their feet to anticipate to opportunities and threats and the unpredictable surprises.

What is the nature of organizational change? - Chapter 2

Within this chapter, different models of organizational change will be discussed. The explanation of some terms within this chapters are summarized below:

1. Convergent: fine-tuning of an existing configuration. The organizational configuration or template is not itself changed.
2. Radical: also known as frame-bending breaking away from a position such that a very different position is reached.
3. Planned: discrete beginning and end points. Change is seen as something that managers can control.
4. Evolutionary: also known as continuous change, slow adaptation of existing systems or structures.
5. Revolutionary: Fast paced, which affect all or most of an organization at the same time.
6. Emergent: change is seen as something that managers create the right climate for. Organization is seen as an evolving system then change arises out of experimentation and adaptation.

What are the different types of change?

Change is not homogeneous but exists and comes in many different forms. A starting point for considering the nature of organizational change is Grundy’s (1993) three varieties of change:

1. Smooth incremental change: This type of change emerges slowly in a systematic and predictable way. It is constant.
2. Bumby incremental change: This type of change is characterized by periods of relative tranquillity punctuated by acceleration in the pace of change.
3. Discontinuous change: This type of change shows rapid shifts in strategy, structure or culture, or in all three of them. An example is the privatication of earlier publicly owned services.

Grundy’s major types of change can be visualized in a graph. The horizontal axis represents the time and the vertical axis represents the rate of change. Smooth incremental change happens at a constant level, so it shows a horizontal straight line. Bumpy incremental change goes up and down in the graph. Discontinuous change is first constant and after a certain period it increases.

Pace and scope of change

The types of change from Grundy (1993) are simplistic. Therefore, Balogun and Hope (2008) go a step further by suggesting four types of change.

1. Evolution
2. Adaptation
3. Revolution
4. Reconstruction

These four types of change are categorized in two dimensions:

1. Scope (incremental or big-bang)
2. The scale (realignments or transformation): The scale is the end result and the scope can be seen as the nature of change.

Transformation Realignment

Tushman, Newman and Romanelli (1988) proposed a model of organizational life that consists of ‘periods of incremental change, or convergence, punctuated by discontinuous changes’. They mention two types of change: fine-tuning and incremental adaptations. Fine-tuning is about doing better what is already done good. Incremental adaption is about little changes as a reaction to small shifts in the environment. Both types of changes focus on performing better and optimize the fit between structure, strategy, people and processes.
A major change in the organization is a frame breaking change (revolutionary, reorganization, new executives, altered power and status, reformed mission and core values).

Organizational change can be mapped in terms of its pace (continuous or episodic) and its scope (convergent or radical) according to Plowman et al. (2007). Each type of change differs on the following dimensions:

• The driver (namely instability or inertia)
• The form (namely adaptations or replacement)
• The nature of change (namely emergent or intended)
• The types of feedback (negative feedback discourages)
• The connections in the system (loose or tight)

The four quadrants portray four types of change:

1. Continuous and convergent change: Change is slow and channelled into improving systems and practices. Change happens within organizational template. The template itself is not changed.

   1. Driver: minor instability

   2. Form: adaptations

   3. Nature: emergent

   4. Feedback: positive, encouraging deviations and adaptations.

   5. Connections: loose coupling

2. Episodic and convergent change: Change occurs more quickly and perhaps as a result of a specific shock or crisis. Negative feedback pushes minor changes and keeps the template in shape.

   1. Driver: minor inertia

   2. Form: replacement within an existing frame

   3. Nature: intended and local

   4. Feedback: negative – highlight the need for replacement

   5. Connections: loose coupling

3. Episodic and radical change: Change happens quickly in response to a major shock or crisis. The template is changed through, for example, a new top management team or new strategy.

   1. Driver: major inertia

   2. Form: replacement

   3. Nature: intended and system-wide

   4. Feedback: negative – highlight the need for replacement

   5. Connections: tight coupling

4. Continuous and radical change: Change arises out of an accumulation of small changes that gather momentum and lead to a new template being formed. If successful the new template becomes established and is reinforced by new rules, values and norms.

   1. Driver: major system instability

   2. Form: adaptations

   3. Nature: emergent and system-wide

   4. Feedback: positive and negative

   5. Connections: tight coupling

Dunphy and Stacey’s (1993) scale is similar to Grundy’s concepts of change. The benefit of this model is the detailed description of each scale. The four scales are:

1. Fine tuning: Change is an ongoing process and fine tunes the match between the strategy, structure, people and processes in an organization. Examples are: refining policies, creating specialist units, developing personnel better suited to the present strategy and clarify established roles.
2. Incremental adjustment: Change involves distinct modifications but not radical change to business, strategies, structures and processes. Examples are: expanding sales territory, improves production process technology, adjustment to organizational structures.
3. Modular transformation: Change is characterized by a major realignment of one or more departments and divisions. Examples are: major restructuring of particular departments, changes in key executives and managerial appointments, reformed divisional goals.
4. Corporate transformation: Change is characterized by radical shifts in business strategy and revolutionary changes throughout the whole organization. Examples are: reformed mission and core values, reorganization and executives in important managerial positions appointed from outside the firm.

Tushman et al. (1998) split the frame-breaking change into two types namely, modular transformation and corporate transformation. Tushman et al. (1998) observe that if organizations are successful and the environment is stable, frame-breaking change is quite dysfunctional.

Different discussions include the idea of organizations striving to maintain a state of equilibrium where the forces for change are balanced by the forces for stability. The organizational system is therefore always changing and making adjustments to maintain its optimum state.

Beck and colleagues (2008) conceptualize change as ‘discrete modification of structural organizational elements’, change today leads to change tomorrow. Experience of change leads to more chances of further change. They identify three commonly analysed change events:

1. Change of markets.
2. Change of organizational leadership.
3. Changes to rules and routines that comprise the basic structure of organization.

They argue more simply that change lead to more change: the more the organization changes different aspects, the more it learns about how to do it right.

The distinction between emergent and planned change is not clear cut. Wilson (1992) criticizes the idea that change can be planned logically and systematically. According to Jian (2007) unintended consequences are those things that would not have happened if an actor had acted differently and are not what the actor had intended. Quinn (1980) has also criticized the idea of planned change. Stacey (2011) summarizes the key points made by Quinn as follows:

1. Effective managers do not manage strategically in a piecemeal manner. The destination is thus intended.
2. The route to that destination (strategy itself) is not intended from the start in any comprehensive way.
3. Strategy emerges from interaction between different groups within the organization and are orchestrated by senior managers
4. Strategy emerges or evolves in small incremental opportunistic steps.
5. The result is an organization that is feeling its way towards a known goal, opportunistically learning as it goes. Quinn terms this process ‘logical incrementalism’.

In what way is an organization structured? - Chapter 3

The distribution of responsibilities, the grouping of activities of employees and their coordination and control are basic elements of an organization structure. There is a difference between organizational structure and organizational design. The structure describes the way an organization is configured into work groups and the reporting and authority relationships that connect individuals and groups together (Swailes, 2008). Organizational designs are ‘managerialist responses’ to the contingencies thrown up by the environment and the main framework for understanding organizational design is called contingency theory (Clegg, Kornberger and Pitsis, 2008).

‘Empty restructuring’ is the phrase used by Paul Bate (1995) to describe what happens when managers change designs but disregard the social interaction that are overlaying them.

What are the dimensions of structure?

Organizational structures can differ in many ways. A classic study identified the following six primary dimensions of structure (Pugh, Hickson, Hinings and Turner, 1969):

1. Specialization: the extent to which there are different specialist roles and how they are distributed.
2. Standardization: the extent to which an organization uses regularly occurring procedures that are supported by bureaucratic procedures or invariable rules and processes.
3. Formalization: the extent to which written rules, procedures, instructions and communications are set out for employees.
4. Centralization: the extent to which authority to make decisions lies with the apex (top) of the organization.
5. Configuration: the shape and pattern of authority relationships: how many layers there are and the number of people who typically report a supervisor.
6. Traditionalism: How commonly accepted is the notion of ‘the way things are done around this organization’.

Pugh et al. (1969) established four underlying dimensions:

1. Structuring of activities: the extend there is formal regulation of employee behaviour through the process of specialization, standardization and formalization.
2. Concentration of authority: the extent to which decision making is centralized at the top of the organization.
3. Line control of workflow: the extent to which control of the work is exercised directly by line management rather than through more impersonal procedures.
4. The support component: the relative size of the administrative and other non-workflow personnel performing activities auxiliary to the main workflow.

John Child (1988) added three more dimensions to support the other four dimensions:

1. The way sections, departments and divisions are grouped together
2. Systems for communication, the integration of effort and participation
3. Systems for motivating employees such as performance appraisal and reward.

What are the different types of structure?

Bureaucratic structure

The bureaucratic form of structure is one of the best-known structures. Max Weber (1947) is one of the founding fathers of the bureaucratic structure. Three ideas were central:

• The idea of rational legal authority
• The idea of office
• The idea of impersonal order

Weber (1947) identified several characteristics of bureaucratic form:

• Specialization and division of labour
• Hierarchical arrangement of positions
• System of impersonal rules
• Impersonal relationships.

Jackson and Carter (2000) argue that structure is not something concrete and objective, but it is abstract. In their post-structuralism approach, they maintain that there is no obvious and natural way of ordering the management activities.

Flatter structures

In order to response better to markets and reduce operating costs by removing layers of management, some organization have tried to flatten their core design. Two flatter structures rules are the more similar jobs at any one level, the more people a manager can coordinate and control and the more decision making is decentralized and therefore reducing the burden on each manager, the broader the span of control.

Rajan and Wulf (2006) found that the numbers of managers between the CEO and the lowest managers responsibility fell by over 25 % between 1986 and 1998. The possible explanations are increased competition, better corporate governance and information technology.

Mintzberg and Van der Heyden (1999) use organigraphs to show how organization really function. These organigraphs exists of two basic components:

1. Sets: machines or groups of people that rarely interact with each other
2. Chains: systems for converting input into outputs

In addition, there are hubs (where people, things and information move) and webs (show how points in an organization communicate with each other). In this way, organigraphs show the multiple relationships between components of the organizations.

(Multi)functional structures

Multifunctional structures are a common structural form particularly in the stages of an organization’s development when the early entrepreneurial phase gives way to a more settled phase of sustained growth: phase two of the Greiner model. This phase will end in the crisis of autonomy. It will be more efficient to organize around products instead of functions. This structure has both advantages, disadvantages and contingency factors mentioned below:

Advantages of functional structures:

• Each function had its high-level representative to guard its interests.
• Tight control possible at the top.
• Encourages development of specialist skills and expertise and provides a career structure within the function.
• Training can be organized along specialist lines.

Disadvantages of functional structures:

• As organizations grow and diversify or locate in geographically distributed places, coordination of activities across functions can become more difficult.
• It sometimes encourages narrow thinking which works against innovation.
• Important market intelligence can be overlooked.
• Functional structures limit the opportunity for the development of general managers.

Contingency factors of functional structures based on research of Cummings and Worley (2009):

• Stable and certain environment
• Small to medium size
• Routine technology, interdependence with functions
• Goals of efficiency and technical quality

Multidivisional structures are built around outputs rather than inputs. They allow faster responses to market conditions. This structure has both advantages and disadvantages mentioned below:

Advantages of a multidivisional structure:

• Maximizing the use of employees’ skills and specialized market knowledge.
• Opportunity for innovative ideas.
• Product differentiation facilitates the use of specialized capital.
• Offers good opportunities for the training of general managers.

Disadvantages of a multidivisional structure:

• Overlap of functions from one product division to another.
• Overall administrative costs tend to be higher than in pure functional structures.
• Top management have more difficulty in controlling what happens at the product divisional level.

Matrix

A matrix organization has a typical vertical hierarchy that is overlaid with a horizontal structure. Organization which adopt a matrix structure usually go through four stages (Barton and Martin, 1994):

1. Traditional structure: This is usually functional structure and follows the ‘unity of command’ principle.
2. Temporary overlay: Managers often work with or lead temporary interdepartmental teams that are created to address different issues. Managerial integrators operate on temporary basis. An example is a project manager.
3. Permanent overlay: Managerial integrators operate on permanent basis. An example is a brand manager.
4. Mature matrix: There is equal power.

Cummings and Worley (2009) suggest that matrix structures are appropriate under three important conditions:

1. Pressure from the external environment for a dual focus (as lectures focus on teaching and research income).
2. A matrix structure is of benefit when an organization must process a large amount of information and operates in a unpredictable environment.
3. There must be pressures for sharing resources which matrixes support.

Matrix structures are strongly dependent on teamwork. Team members are managed by two different managers: a functional line manager and a team or project leader. Moreover, different advantages, disadvantages and contingencies can be mentioned:

Advantages of a matrix structure:

• Decisions can be decentralized to the functional and divisional managers to speed up decision making.
• Increased flexibility in being able to form and re-form cross-functional teams.
• Staff form different functional areas have the opportunity to work with staff from other areas.
• Allow a flexible use of human resources and the efficient use of support systems.

Disadvantages of a matrix structure:

• Complex and can be administratively expensive.
• Confusion over who is ultimately responsible for staff and project outcomes.
• Increase potential for conflict, particularly between the functional and project managers.

Contingencies of a matrix structure:

• Dual focus on unique product demands and technical specialization.
• Pressure for high information-processing capacity
• Pressure for shared resources.
• Divided loyalties between two or more managers.

New organizational forms

Project organizations are much more like a network of interaction than a bureaucratic structure, teams are powerful, exciting and dynamic entities (Morgan, 1989). A project organization overlaps with the ‘Adhocracy’ of Mintzberg (1983). Adhocracy is an ad hoc group which mostly consists of professionals who are brought together for a single purpose associated with a particular project. The differences are that a project organization usually employs own staff. The adhocracy may also do this but may additionally have staff who work on a contract basis.

The loosely coupled organic network might be said to be the end furthest from the rigid bureaucracy. It operated in a subcontracting mode and can be a permanent structure.

There are three types of networks, namely an internal, vertical and dynamic network. There are different advantages, disadvantages and contingencies that can be mentioned:

Advantages of a network organization:

• Enable a highly flexible and adaptive response to dynamic environments.
• Due the fast pace and flexible nature each organization can leverage a distinctive competency.
• It allows rapid global expansion if needed.
• They can produce synergistic results.

Disadvantages of a network organization:

• Managing lateral relations across autonomous organizations is difficult.
• Motivating member to relinquish autonomy to join the network is difficult.
• Opportunity to give partners access to knowledge and technology that one may not wish to part with.

Contingencies of a network organization:

• Highly complex and uncertain environments.
• Organizations of all sizes.
• Goals and organizational specialization and innovation.
• Highly uncertain technologies.
• Worldwide operations.

According to Snow et al. (1992), the internal network ‘typically arises to capture entrepreneurial and market benefits without having the company engage in much outsourcing’. The organization owns most or all of the assets that are associated with the business of the organization. It has created businesses within the business. This means that it operates independently. It is similar to the project organization explained by Morgan (1989).

The vertical network is typical of the situation where the assets are owned by several firms but are dedicated to a particular business (Hinterhuber and Levin, 1994). The core organization spreads asset ownership and risk across a number of other independent organizations and gains benefits of dependability of supply and/or distribution.

For Snow et al. (1992), the dynamic network organization is the one that has ‘pushed the network form to the apparent limit of its capabilities’. This form operates with a lead firm that identified and assembles assets which are owned by other companies. Communication in the chain is very important.
For example: supplier à core firm à distributor franchisee.

A virtual organization uses information and communication technology to link people, assets and ideas to create and distribute things without having to rely on conventional organizational boundaries and locations. They are totally dependent on ICT to the point that the people in them seldom if ever meet (Burkhard and Horan, 2006) Key attributes of virtual organizations are: technology, opportunism, no borders, trust and excellence.

What are the definitions and meaning of the structuration theory, actor-networks and the institutional theory?

Structuration theory

The structuration theory is not so much a ‘patterned regularity’ but, as something that emerges from the ‘routine behaviour of people, which in turn influences those behaviours’ (Cunliffe, 2008). Organizations have structures in which it has departments and divisions that have both distinct and overlapping activities. People also named ‘actors’ do their work (Giddens, 1984). According to Giddens (1991), the structuration theory focuses on ‘the complementary nature of interactions between structures and actors within them’ (Senior and Swailes, 2016). So, there is a relation between actors and structures. Actors create a structure and becomes dependent on this structure.

Sarason (1995) explains why organizations differ by using the identity of an organization. By duality, Chu & Smithson (2007) mean that structure is both the medium and outcome of human interaction. According to Giddens the duality of structure is: ‘all social action presumes the existence of structure. But at the same time structure presumes action because structure depends on the regularities of human behaviour”.

Actor Network Theory

The Actor Network Theory (ANT) acknowledges that actors build networks involving other human and non-human (animals/technologies) actors (Latour, 2005). Actors can be human or non-human. an example of a non-human actor is a management system. Actors create networks and therefore, they create themselves. ANT explains how and why the networks that are initiated are more or less successful. Van der Duin and van Marwijk (2006) state that innovation means new patterns of coordination between people, organizations, technology and environment. They use ANT to explain this. According to van der Duim and van Marwijk (2006), a successful innovation calls for ‘translation’. Translation is explaining things in ways that persuade actors to fit with what a network is trying to achieve. If the four stages of translation are achieved the outcome is known as collective. Successful translation includes four stages:

1. Problematization.
2. Interessement.
3. Enrolment
4. Mobilization

If these four stages of translation are accomplished, the outcome is known as collectif.

Actor-network theorists regard structure as the process of organizing people technology, knowledge and other things into a stable network (Cunliffe, 2008).

Explanation of an actor network. The actor network tries to align the interest between the local community, police and local councils in a social and political context. This lead to drivers in a punitive context.

Institutional theory

Institutional theory consists of several similarities with the structuration theory. It emphasizes the cultural influences about design and structure. The people who decide what organizational should look like are ‘suspended in a web of values, norms, rules, beliefs and take for granted assumptions that are at least partially of their own making (Barley & Tobert, 1997). Culture provides an organization with a unique identity and culture influences decision making. Institutions work within bounded rationality due to culture. This institutional theory is not a theory of change, but it is a way of explaining the similarities of arrangements that are often found in a sector. It can also explain why things do not change.

Organizations in the same sector are affected by the same field. This describes why these organizations structure and operate in different manners. An institution is created out of action, but if this institution is created, it tends to restrict actions within this institution. Like grammar brings structure to speech and institutions bring structure and meaning to organizations. Scripts are cognitive schema informing behaviour and routines appropriate in particular contexts (Johnson, Smith and Codling, 2000). Barley and Tolbert (1997) saw scripts as more than cognitive scheme considering them as behavioural regularities. They see scripts as something that can be observed.

As said earlier, the institutional theory explains why particular things exist as they do. However, this theory does not say much about how change to institutions occur. A reason for this is the concept of isomorphism. Isomorphism is the tendency of organizations in the same field to adopt the same or similar structures (Konda & Hinings, 1998). This results in isomorphism of performance. A reason for this is mimetic behaviour. Mimetic behaviour means that organizations copy the behaviour of other organizations. This type of behaviour might occur because of risk aversion or when performance measures are not clearly defined.

Greenwood and Hinings (1996) show how institutional theory connects to theory of change. They propose three characteristics of neo-institutional theory.

1. Institutional context: organizations embed institutions even though these institutions have little or no impact on performance.
2. Templates: pressures from institutions push organizations in the same sector to adopt the same or similar forms and designs, that is, templates for organizing, shaped by underpinning ideas and values.
3. Resistance to change: templates for organizing cover not just designs and forms but also ways of thinking and thus inertia.

To help explain the pace and scope to change two additional concepts are used; tight coupling and sectoral permeability (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996).

• Tight coupling occurs when a sector exerts a high level of influence and control over the templates that organizations in the sector use.
• Sectoral permeability describes how much a sector is insulated from others (low: experience low influx of people from other sectors so transfer of ideas is within the sector, not across sectors).

What are the influences of structure?

When an organization decides to change the strategy, it should change the structure as well. One of the most important links is the relationship between strategy and structure.

The consequences of a deficient organizational structure are (Child, 1988):

1. Motivation and morale may lack of clarity as to what is expected of people and how their performance is assessed.
2. Decision making may be delayed and lacking in quality.
3. There may be conflict and a lack of coordination
4. An organization may not response innovatively to changing circumstances
5. Costs may be rising rapidly, particularly in administration

“Strategy is the direction and scope of an organization over the long term which achieves advantage for the organization through its configuration of resources within a changing environment, to meet the needs of markets and to fulfil stakeholder expectations” (Johnson, Scholes and Whittington, 2014).

Chandler (1962) found that strategy leads to structure. If the strategy works out well, it has a strongly positive effect on structure. According to Miles and Snow (1984) these organizations have an ‘agency’ structure. The structure follows strategy dictum is widely accepted and the reason why different structures associated with different structures was simple economic efficiency.

Mintzberg (1991) mentioned seven forces and forms that drive the organization:

1. Direction
2. Efficiency
3. Proficiency
4. Concentration
5. Innovation
6. Cooperation
7. Competition

Out of these forces, Mintzberg (1991) mentioned five organizational forms:

1. Entrepreneurial form: Tends to be low in formalization and standardization, but high in centralization with authority in a single person.
2. Machine form: High formalization and standardization, centralized authority vested in rules and regulations, functional departments.
3. Professional form: High in complexity and formalization, but low in centralization; allows the employment of trained specialists staff for the core work of the organization.
4. Adhocracy form: Very low in standardization and formalization, little hierarchy, much use of temporary project teams.
5. Diversified form: A combination of functions and products, with products dominating; they can be of matrix form or organized as divisions on the basis of products/markets.

Mitzberg (1991) argues that ‘if the form fits, the organization should wear it’. In other words: the organizational structure should align with the organizational strategy. According to Mintzberg (1991) strategy is not the only factor that influences structure. There are other factors that influence the structure. Examples of other factors are size, technology and information technology.

The influence of size on structure shows that size is positively correlated with overall role specialization and formalization (Pugh et al., 1969). Child (1988) found that the effects of size on organizational performance, for large organizations, the more bureaucratically structured they were, the better they performed.

Within the influence of technology, technology refers to the processes by which an organization transforms inputs into outputs. Woodward (1965) categorizes companies into three groups; small batch (organic), large batch and mass production (mechanic). She found a relationship between the types of technology used and aspects of structure. Woodward (1965) focused on production technologies. Perrow (1967) defined technology more generally and viewed it as a combination of two variables; task variability and problem analysability. A task that is highly routine would be low in task variability and the other way around. Task variety is the number of exceptional or unpredictable cases. Problem analysability is the extent to which problems are well defined and can be solved by using the acknowledged procedures and routines. There is low problem analysability if task completion requires innovative thinking.

The technology classification of Perrow (1967) can be visualized in a matrix of four types of technology:

• Routine: Low task variability, problems can be analysed and mechanic structures.
• Engineering: High task variability, problems can be analysed and organic structures
• Craft: Low task variability, problems cannot be analysed, aspects of mechanic structures
• Non-routine: High task variability, problems cannot be analysed, loosely organic structures.

Information and communication technology provides the possibility for managers to drive information more to the point where it used. Information, communication and technology (ICT) has the following impacts on structure according to Mukherji (2002):

• Supporting decentralization by enabling communication and control
• Increasing the routinization of some jobs
• Reducing hierarchy
• Creating much closer links across supply chains

Robbins (2003) talks of the ‘boundary less’ organization where both internal and external boundaries are eliminated.

What is the influence of the external environment on structure?

The authors discuss two types of influences, namely 1) environmental stability and turbulence and 2) socio-cultural influences.

Burns and Stalker studied the effects of environment on the structure of an organization. Burns and Stalker (1961) identified two main structural types:

1. Mechanistic (stable environments). This type of structure conforms to model 1 and 2 of Morgan’s model and to the machine form of organizations from Mintzberg.
2. Organic structures (dynamic environments). This type of structure conforms to model 4, 5 and 6 of Morgan’s model and to the adhocracy and diversified forms of organizations from Mintzberg.

Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) suggest that all organization should have organic parts and mechanic parts. According to Robbins (2003) environments can be characterized in terms of three key dimensions:

1. Capacity of environment
2. Degree of stability in the environments
3. Environmental complexity.

He concludes that the scarcer the capacity and the greater the degree of instability and complexity, the more organic a structure should be; the more abundant, stable and simple the environment, the more mechanistic a structure should be.

In what way are organizational structure and change related?

Currently, there exist no best way to design an organizational structure that will guarantee a successful performance. It depends on several factors such as the used technology, the size of the firm, the strategy, expectations and lifestyle of employees and more. It is not a formula that can be applied, and that success will be the outcome. Strategy, size, technology and environment, even when combined, can at best explain only 50% of the variability in structure. Successful structural change is difficult to complete without unintended adverse consequences.

An organization scans their environment and changes its design in a suitable way. Organizations are ‘adapting’ to their environments by using ‘social Darwinism’ (Hannan and Freeman, 1979). They argue that not all the variation in structure and can be explained by adaptation. Therefore, they state that organizations can bring about a level of structural inertia. This means slowness or resistance against, for example a change in structure. Internal forces creating inertia include:

1. Past investment in plant, technology and people that is not easily switched into other tasks.
2. Decision makers having to work with incomplete information about environments.
3. Organizational history leads to ways of operating that become embedded.
4. Structural change means disturbance to the political equilibrium that exist at any point in time.

External forces creating inertia include:

1. The barriers to exiting one industry and entering another such as regulation, capital investment and market knowledge.
2. The costs of acquiring specialist knowledge about unfamiliar markets.
3. Organizations acquire a certain public legitimacy from their past actions which can act as an asset.
4. A successful adaptive strategy for 1 organization may not lead to successful adaptation by another.

Inertia theory suggests that because older organizations have more stable and standardized routines they will have higher inertia. So, as the size of a firm increases, the predictability and the inflexibility increase. As a result, inertia increases.

What are the conclusions?

Design is not the same as structure, which has a stronger action perspective. Design change is influences by strategy, size, production technology, ICT and environment.

How to change an organizational culture? - Chapter 4

There can be made a distinction between the formal and the informal organization by using the organizational iceberg (French and Bell, 1990). The iceberg is partly below the water and partly above the water. This metaphor of the iceberg shows a visible part (above water) which explains the formal organization with its goals, strategy, structure, systems and procedures and management. A formal organization is made up of tangible components and it is focuses on planned change. Furthermore, the metaphor shows an invisible part (below water) which is the informal organization with its values, beliefs, leadership style and culture politics and power. Informal organization includes politics, power and culture. It can help or hinder the process of change and ultimately the success of an organization.

What is the meaning of culture in an organization?

Kroeber and Kluckhohn (1952) investigated more than hundred definitions of culture and offered a summary definition: “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 artefacts, the essential core of culture consists of traditional idea and especially their attached values”.

There are a lot of other different definitions of culture. For example, Hofstede (1981) defines culture as: ‘culture is the collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes the members of one human group from those of another. Culture is a system of collectively held values’.

These definitions refer to culture at both national and societal level.

Culture is likely to be resistant to change because it is dee-seated. However, Bate (1996) argues that ‘culture can be changed, in fact it is changing all the time’. There are three perspectives that can be identified:

1. Culture can be managed
2. Culture may be manipulated
3. Culture cannot be consciously changed.

A plan to change culture:

1. Assess current situation
2. Have some idea of what the aimed-for situation looks like
3. Work out the ‘what’ and ‘who’ of moving the organization, away from it current culture to what is perceived to be a more desirable one.
4. Intervene to bring about cultural change
5. Monitor outcomes and adjust as needed.

These steps are logical and rational formulated, but they are difficult to accomplish and to do.

What are important characteristics of culture?

Brown (1995) lists the following ingredients of culture:

1. Artefacts
2. Language in the form of jokes, metaphors, stories, myths and legends
3. Norms of behaviour
4. Ethical codes
5. History
6. Basic assumptions
7. Symbols and symbolic action
8. Heroes
9. Behaviour patterns in the form of rites, rituals and ceremonies

Robbins (2013) gives more insight into how these characteristics/ingredients can take shape and these can be ranged from high to low:

1. Innovation and risk taking
2. Attention to detail
3. Outcome orientation
4. People orientation
5. Team orientation
6. Aggression
7. Stability

Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv and Sanders (1990) argue that there are different levels of culture which can be visualized in a circle. From the inside to the outside of the circle:

• Values and practices
• Rituals
• Heroes
• Symbols

Schein (2004) suggests three levels from shallowest to deepest:

1. Artefacts: The visible organizational structures and processes such as language, environment, rituals, ceremonies, myths and stories. This is in line with the rituals, heroes and symbols of the different levels of culture of Hofstede et al. (1990).
2. Espoused values level: The strategies, goals and philosophies.
3. Basic underlying assumptions: The unconscious, taken for granted beliefs, perceptions, feelings that are the ultimate source of values and actions.

Dyer’s (1985) four levels model proposes: artefacts, perspectives, values and tacit assumptions.

What are the objectivist and interpretive views of culture and what is the difference between these two?

Alvession (1993), Bate (1996) and Brown (1995) draw attention to the distinction between two classifications of culture:

1. The objectivist or functional view: places culture alongside structure, technology and environment)
2. The interpretive view: interpret the meaning of culture as a metaphor for the concept of organization itself.

The cultural web of an organization includes all organizational elements. Johnson et al. (2008) focused on the influence of a dominant organizational paradigms. This is about the beliefs and assumptions that people make which form the organization. A cultural web is a useful tool to disclose organizational cultures. Johnson et al. (2008) explains the different elements of the cultural web as follows:

1. Routine ways that members of the organization behave
2. Rituals of organizational life
3. Stories told by members of the organization
4. Symbolic aspects of organizations
5. Control systems measured on what focus within the organization is important
6. Power structures
7. Formal organizational structure

Alvesson (1993) recommends combining perspectives at three levels:

1. Organization as a culture.
2. Organization as a meeting place for great cultures.
3. Local perspectives on organizational sub-cultures.

Hall’s (1995) compass of culture claims two components of behaviour:

• Assertiveness: This is the degree to which a company’s behaviours are seen by others as being forceful or directive. Behaviours that indicate high assertiveness are individualistic, pushy, challenging, hardworking, quick moving and taking control. Behaviours that indicate low assertiveness are cautious and indecisive.
• Responsiveness: This is the degree to which a company’s behaviours are seen by others as being emotionally expressed. Behaviours that indicate high responsiveness are sensitive, loyal trusting, value harmony and unpredictable. Behaviours that indicate low responsiveness are factual rather than emotional, consistent and precise rather than inexact.

These two behavioural components can be combined in four different combinations which will result in different cultural styles.

• North: low assertive and low responsive.
• East: low assertive and high responsive.
• South: high assertive and high responsive.
• West: high assertive and low responsive.

A disadvantage of this compass model is the very small sample size (211 responses) for such complex nature of what is being analysed.

Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1983) proposed a competing value model as a way of understanding variations in organizational effectiveness. This model is a 2 x 2 matrix. The horizontal axis represents the internal focus (focus on the person) versus the external focus (focus on the organization). The vertical axis represents the flexibility and change versus the stability and control. Each of the quadrants in the matrix represents one of the four culture types:

1. Human relations model: focus on people, morale, cohesions and team spirit.
2. Open systems: focus on flexibility, being adaptable, looking for growth, acquiring resources.
3. Rational system: focus on external focus and control, planning, goals, targeting, efficiency and productivity.
4. Internal process model: focus on control.

What are the different organizational culture types?

Culture can be seen as a structure. Charles Handy (1993) refers to organizational culture as atmosphere, ways of doing and he proposed four types of organizational culture by using the Greek gods for inspiration:

1. Power culture: A single person or group dominates (Zeus= rules by whim and impulse).
2. Role culture: Logic and Rationality (Apollo= god of reason).
3. Task culture: Represented by a net, matrix type structures. (Athena: getting the job done).
4. Person culture: Unusual as it exists only to service the needs of participating members (Dionysus: god of self-oriented individual).

Next to Handy (1993), Deal and Kennedy’s (1982) proposed four genetic cultures and link more closely to the external environment. This typology dates from the early 1980’s and Kennedy (2000) agreed that these assumptions needed revising. This model takes the competitive environment of an organization more into account. A new model shows Trompenaars and Prud’homme’s (2004) depiction of these four types with more up-to-date examples of each culture:

1. Tough guy, macho culture: Take high risks and receive rapid feedback on what they do (entertainment or software industry).
2. Work hard/play hard culture: Take low risks, but quick feedback on actions (sales).
3. Bet-your-company culture: Take high risks, feedback on actions take a long time (projects, oil, aircraft).
4. Process culture: Take low risk and slow feedback on actions (banks, insurance, government).

The horizontal axis represents the fast feedback versus the slow feedback. The vertical axis represents a high risk versus a low risk.

Scholtz (1987) combined internal and external cultures by using three dimensions: external, internal and evolution. Based on these dimensions he identified five types of culture:

1. Stable: Time oriented towards the past and an aversion to risk.
2. Reactive: Time orientation towards the present and an acceptance of ‘minimum’ risk.
3. Anticipating: Oriented towards the present but more accepting of ‘familiar’ risk.
4. Exploring: Time orientation towards the present and the future and an acceptance of increasing risk.
5. Creative: Looking forward to the future and accepting risk as normal.

What is the influence of national culture?

A distinguish can be made between convergent and divergent:

• Convergent: Forces of industrialization as well as increasing size will push organizations towards particular configurations with respect to strategy, structure and management.
• Divergent: The notion that differences in language, religion, social organization, laws, politics, education systems and values and attitudes will mean that national cultures will not converge but continue to remain distinct.

Kluckhohn and Stodtbeck (1961) claim that the cultural orientation of societies can be described using six basic dimensions:

1. People’s qualities as individuals in terms of whether people are seen as basically bad.
2. People’s relationship to their world
3. People’s personal relationships in terms of individualism or collectivism
4. an orientation to either doing or being
5. People’s orientation to time
6. People’s use of space

Hofstede (2010) introduced five dimensions of national culture. This was based on his analysis which includes 1116.000 employees in 50 countries. These five dimensions are used to differentiate national cultural groups:

1. Power distance: this refers to how society deals with the fact that people are unequal. In a high power distance society, people accept the inequalities of power.
2. Individualism versus collectivism: this refers to the relationships between an individual and their fellow individuals.
3. Masculinity versus femininity: this is the degree to which social gender roles are clearly distinct.
4. Uncertainty avoidance: this is about how the society deals with the fact that time runs only one way, from past to future, and that the future is unknown and therefore uncertain.
5. Long-term versus short-term orientation: this is about virtue versus truth. Long-term orientation looks to the past and present for their value systems. Short-term orientation looks towards the future, cultivating habits.

Examples of the culture dimensions for a few countries

China:

• Power distance: high
• Individualism: low (thus high collectivism)
• Masculine: moderate
• Uncertainty avoidance: moderate
• Long term orientation: low (thus short term orientation)

The Netherlands:

• Power distance: low
• Individualism: high (thus low collectivism)
• Masculine: low
• Uncertainty avoidance: moderate
• Long term orientation: moderate

United States:

• Power distance: low
• Individualism: high (thus low collectivism)
• Masculine: high
• Uncertainty avoidance: low
• Long term orientation: low (thus short term orientation)

There can be made an implicit model of the organization using the culture dimensions of Hofstede. This is a gross simplification of the complexity of distinguishing one country’s culture from another. It shows an implicit model of organizations according to the five dimensions. The horizontal axis represents the power distance ranging from small to large. The vertical axis represents the uncertainty avoidance ranging from strong to weak.

• Village market (UK): small power distance and weak uncertainty avoidance.
• Family (India, Asia, Africa): large power distance and weak uncertainty avoidance.
• Well-oiled machine (Germany and central Europe): small power distance and strong uncertainty avoidance.
• Pyramids (France): large power distance and strong uncertainty avoidance.

Laurents (1983) identified four dimensions of organizations to show the cultural differences between countries. These four dimensions are:

1. Political systems
2. Organizations as authority systems
3. Organizations as role-formalization systems
4. Organizations as hierarchical-relationship systems

Global Leadership of Organization Behaviour Effectiveness (GLOBE) framework tried to extend Hofstede’s earlier work and therefore understand how cultural values connected to organizational behaviour. This study found nine dimensions of national culture. These dimensions are:

1. Achievement and performance orientation
2. Future orientation
3. Assertiveness
4. Collectivism
5. Gender egalitarianism
6. Humane orientation
7. Power distance
8. Family collectivism
9. Uncertainty avoidance.

However, the work of Hofstede and Laurent’s can be criticized in terms of their attempts to ‘objectivize’ culture compared to more qualitative methods. A third method was employed by Calori and De Woot (1994) who used nondirective interviews with 51 human resource director in 40 large international companies with headquarters or major operating units in Europe. The following differences between the UK, southern Europe and Northern Europe are found:

• UK: more in common with US: short term orientation, shareholder orientation, higher turnover of manager, more freedom for top management, more direct and pragmatic relationship between people.
• Southern Europe: more state intervention, more protectionism, more hierarchy in the firm, more family business.
• Northern Europe: strong links between bank and industry, balance between a sense of national collectivism, system of training and development of managers

Another attempt to understand cultures and their changes is the World Values Survey. Inglehart and Baker (2000) found from their longitudinal analysis of 65 societies for both ‘massive cultural change and the persistence of distinctive cultural traditions’. They found that economic development promoted a shift away from traditional values to less religious systems will decline. Furnham and Gunter (1993) provided examples of organizations with low scores on Hofstede’s power distance dimension having common organizational structures. National cultures overlay principles, practices and assumptions that affect management practices such as selection, development and reward and as such influence interpersonal relationships and individual performance.

Professional cultures exist in groups of people in similar occupations and develop through education, training, the ways knowledge is generated, and the ways competence is demonstrated.

What is the relation between culture and change?

Organizational culture comes in many forms. The organizational capacity to change is influenced by several factors, for example the attitudes to criticism and the degree to which organization’s structure facilitates change. Figure 4.8 depicts the way elements of organizational culture and support and/or defend against change. Organic structures are more likely to be able to respond to the need for change than mechanic forms.

Kanter (1983) describes two extremes of organizational culture that are not only different in structural characteristics but also differ in underlying attitudes and beliefs of the people working in them:

1. Segmentalist culture: avoid experimentation, have weak coordinating mechanisms, see problems as narrowly as possible, stress precedent and procedures
2. Integrative culture: willing to move beyond received wisdom, combine ideas from unconnected sources, see problems as wholes, related to larger wholes, look for novel solutions and problems.

She offered ten rules for stifling innovation:

1. Regard any new idea from below suspicion.
2. Insist that people who need your approval to act first go through several other levels to get their signatures.
3. Ask departments or individuals to challenge and criticize each other’s proposals.
4. Express your criticisms freely and without your praise.
5. Their identification of problems a sign of failure, to discourage people from letting you know when something in their area is not working.
6. Control everything carefully.
7. Make decisions to reorganize or change policies in secret.
8. Make sure that requests for information are fully justified and make sure that it is not given out tot managers freely.
9. Assign to lower-managers, in the name of delegation and participation, responsibility for figuring out how to cut back, lay off and move people.
10. Above all, never forget that you are, the higher-ups, already know everything important about this business.

Argyris (1964) pointed to the difference between two kinds of learning:

1. Single-loop learning: A situation where an objective goal is defined, and a person works out the most favoured way of reaching the goal.
2. Double-loop learning: Questions are asked not only about the means by which goals can be achieved, but also the ends, that is, the goals themselves. Johnson (1990) refers this to ‘organizational relearning’; process in which that which is taken for granted and which is the basis of strategic direction – the paradigm – is re-formulated.

A strong culture implies a commonly understood perspective on how organizational life should happen. It facilitates conflict resolution, coordination and control in a common direction, reduction of uncertainty and complexity, motivation over and above motivation from extrinsic rewards, competitive advantage (most contentious). Weak cultures exist of many different cultures, who are easily conflicting each other.

In what way does cultural change effect organizational change?

Culture influences organizational life. Schwartz and Davis (1981) proposed a model to help managers to assess risks and culture conflicts. They developed a corporate culture matrix which provides a summary of culture in relation to tasks and a summary of culture in relation to relationships. They also assessed cultural risks. The horizontal axis represents the level of culture compatibility ranging from high to low. The vertical axis represents the importance of change to organizational strategy ranging from high to low. There can be made a difference in unacceptable risk, manageable risk and negligible risk. For example: a high level of culture compatibility and a low importance of change to organizational strategy is a negligible risk.

Assessing cultural risk helps management pinpoint where resistance to change could occur because of incompatibility between strategy and culture. This allows managers to make choices regarding whether to:

1. Ignore the culture (dangerous)
2. Manage around the culture
3. Try to change the culture or change the strategy to fit the culture
4. Change the strategy to fit the culture

According to Beer (1993) there are six steps to effective change:

1. Mobilize commitment to change through joint diagnosis of business problems.
2. Develop a shared vision of how to organize and manage for competitiveness.
3. Foster consensus for new vision, competence to enact it and cohesion to move it along.
4. Spread revitalization to all departments without pushing it from the top.
5. Institutionalize revitalization through formal policies, systems and structures.
6. Monitor and adjust strategies in response to problems in the revitalization process.

What are the conclusions?

Culture is a complex concept. Organizations can be seen as cultures rather as having them. Cultures are unique but exists in many different ways. There can exist different sub-cultures in an organization.

What is the influence of power and political conflicts on change? - Chapter 5

Power concerns the capacity of individuals to exert their will over others, while political behaviour is the practical domain of power in action, worked out through the use of techniques of influence and others (more of less extreme) tactics (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2013). Robbins and Judge (2013) divide politics into ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ political behaviour. Legitimate political behaviour means being normal everyday politics; forming coalitions, obstructing policies. Illegitimate political behaviour includes deliberate sabotage or whistle-blowing. Morgan (2006) has an objectivist view of organizational culture and poses organizations as political systems displaying different types of political rules:

1. Autocracy
2. Bureaucracy
3. Technocracy
4. Codetermination
5. Representative democracy
6. Direct democracy

‘-cracy’ is derived from kratia. This is a Greek term which means power or a rule. For example, autocracy means the rule of a person. Bureaucracy means people that sit on a bureau or desk and make administering rules.

What is the meaning of power in an organization?

There are a lot of different definitions for power. Morgan (2006) defines power as ‘power influences who gets what, when and how’. Despite the existence of different definitions of power, they all have one thing in common: power means being able to influence the behaviour of others, sometimes in direction which the person or group would not, otherwise, have chosen. A distinguish can be made between the elasticity and the relativity of power:

1. Elasticity of power: Some people have more knowledge or expertise than other do and, if these are scarce and desired, that person will have more power than others
2. Relativity of power: One person perceives another to have power while a second person believes otherwise.

Power focuses on both the potential to influence and the actual use of influence. Power is a function of both differences and relations between people, the belief of people and how much a person has relative to the other one.

French and Raven (1959) identified five sources of power and their ideas have had an enormous influence on social power:

1. Positional (legitimate) power: hierarchy.
2. Exert power: Skills and knowledge (recognized by Francis Bacon, 1957).
3. Referent power: Derives from charisma (ability to attract others to a cause).
4. Reward power: Ability to give some sort of reward (salary/promotion etc).
5. Coercive power: Power of forcing someone to do something that they would not want to do.

Robbins and Judge (2013) suggests two broad categories of power. These two categories are:

1. Formal power: this relates to the position of an individual within the organization.
2. Personal power: this relates to the unique characteristics of an individual such as skills and expertise.

Morgans (2006) defined multiple sources of power in organizations. These sources are: formal authority, control of scarce resources, se of organization structure, control of decisions processes, control of knowledge and information, control of boundaries, ability to cope with uncertainty, control of technology, interpersonal alliances and networks, control of counter organizations, symbolism and the management of meaning, gender and the management of gender relations, structural factor that define the stage of action, power one already had.

Weber’s (1947) three types of authority are: tradition, charismatic authority and rational-legal authority. The different types of power are:

• Resource power is power associated with being able to distribute or withhold values rewards. Push strategies attempt to influence people by imposing on the people if they do not do what is desired. Pull strategies emphasize material, social and other extrinsic rewards.
• The invisible power is control over resources are visible assets of the power holder, but we cannot see ‘invisible’ assets, like the power of control information.
• Exert or knowledge power is the power someone possess when they expertise something (‘it just cannot be done’ said by a ICT’er will stop the director).
• Symbolic power is widespread in political systems, the use of violence by police forces and surveillance. It is the power to manipulate and use symbols to create organizational environments and the beliefs and understandings of others to suit one’s own purposes. Artefacts can be seen as possessing three dimensions: symbolic, aesthetic, instrumental).
• Individual power which include according to Pfeffer (1992):
  • Energy, endurance and physical stamina.
  • Ability to focus energy and to avoid wasteful effort.
  • Sensitivity and an ability to read and understand others.
  • Flexibility and selecting varied means to achieve goals.
  • Personal toughness; willingness to engage in conflict and confrontation.
  • Able to ‘play the subordinate’ and ‘team member’ to enlist the support of others.

Hardy (1993) defined the possible sources of individual powers that give one the ability to influence other are: physical power, resource power, position power, expert power, personal power, negative power. The possible methods to attach themselves to particular types of power are: force, rules and procedures, ecology, exchange, magnetism, persuasion.

What does the politics of powerlessness mean?

A lot of people have relatively less power because they are affected by organizational factors. However, there are people with more power in relation to their minority groups. During these days, the power of women in organizations has been a common subject to discuss. In many sectors the higher the ladder, the fewer women are found and the percentage of women in top jobs in large corporations is very small (ILO, 2012).

The Female FTSE Report showed that there are more female in the board. However, the percentage of women in the board is still very small. There are a few reasons for having more women in the board:

• Women and men bring complementary skills in the board.
• Women may be more risk averse compared to men.
• Women in board or top level of the organization are better managers compared to men. This is because women had to perform better than men to get to the top of an organization.
• Women contribute differently to a board than men.

Countries in Europe has a higher percentage of women in the board compared to countries outside Europe. Exceptions are the United States and Australia.

There are barriers to change. There are different reasons why women on average do less than men are:

1. Perceptions of social roles that men and women should perform although social attitudes are changing to lessen these distinctions.
2. Placement of women in non-strategic roles from which is harder to progress to the top and which bring exclusion from networks that are important in underpinning career advancement.
3. Child-bearing and child-care.

O’Neill (2004) and Smith et al. (2013) explored whether men and women use different forms of upward influence at work. Upward influence concerns the way that people try to influence the attitudes of people above them in their favour. Tactics include:

1. Rationality: using facts and figures to support arguments and thinking
2. Coalition: claiming that lots of other people support you
3. Ingratiation: managing the impressions of others and flattering them
4. Exchange: using the exchange of benefits to gain favour
5. Assertiveness: being forceful in pushing for you way of thinking
6. Upward appeal: getting support of higher levels of managers for one’s ideas and plans.

Multiple studies state that organizational structures and processes are more influential in gender segregation than supply-side factors including socialization.

Lien (2005) gives feelings of powerlessness among Taiwanese women employees. These feelings came from: structural barriers, behavioural barriers, accommodation and rationalization.

Some groups of employees are powerless because of the positions they occupy. Kanter (1979) identified three lines of organizational power:

1. Lines of supply
2. Lines of information
3. Lines of support.

Kanter (1979) says that: “Power is most easily accumulated when one has a job that is designed and located to allow discretion (non-routinized action permitting flexible, adaptive and creative contributions), recognition (visibility a notice) and relevance (being central to pressing organizational problems). Power also comes when one had relatively close contact with sponsors (high level people who confer approval), peer network (circles of acquaintanceship that provide reputation & information) and subordinates (who can be developed to relieve managers of some of the burdens and to represent the manager’s point of view).”

What is the link between politics, power and conflict?

The resource power results from scarcity. Therefore, the issue arises whether competition is beneficial for resources or whether it is always dysfunctional. This lead to two ideas: the unitarist view and the pluralist view. Managers with the unitarist view argues people have the same interests and therefore there would be no conflicts. Managers with the pluralist view argue that people can sometimes have a conflict by having both shared and divergent interests. The unitary and pluralist views of interest, conflict and powers are summarized in the table below.

What are the conflicts in organizations?

Conflict must be perceived by the parties to it otherwise it does not exist. One party to the conflict must be seen as about to do or being something that the other party does not want (opposition). Some kind of interaction must take place. Conflicts can happen at different levels. For example, between individuals, between groups or between organizations. Robbins and Judge (2013) define a conflict as ‘a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has or is about to affect something that the first party cares about’. There are different levels and causes of organizational conflict: misunderstandings, differences of values, differences of viewpoints, differences of interests and interpersonal differences.

Conflict is likely because of the power imbalances that prevail in hierarchical structures. There are five factors identified that are seen as the main sources of conflicts in organizations. These five factors are:

1. Independence: Organizational departments are often dependent on each other. For example, marketing and production.
2. Organizational structure: A conflict can arise when there are power imbalances in the structure of an organization.
3. Rules and regulations: high formalization creates fewer opportunities for disputes about who does what and when. Low formalization; degree of ambiguity is such that the potential for jurisdictional disputes increases.
4. Limitation of resources: when resources are plentiful, the potential for conflict through competition for resources is reduced.
5. Cultural differences: conflict can arise through misunderstanding or trough inappropriate behaviour when working across national cultures.

Managing conflict will vary according to the managers’ frame of reference. An influential starting point is the Conflict Management Grid (Blake and Mouton, 1970) which has been the basis of much subsequent research. It depends on the organization’s view of conflict (unitary or pluralist). The techniques of conflict management can be categorized in two dimensions: concern for production and concern for people. Each dimension ranges from high to low. There are five styles:

1. Competition (high concern for production and low concern for people).
2. Collaborating (problem solving; (high concern for production and high concern for people).
3. Compromising (moderate concern for production and a moderate concern for people).
4. Avoiding (low concern for production and a low concern for people).
5. Accommodating (low concern for production and high concern for people).

Each conflict-handling style has an outcome in terms of its capacity to tackle the content of the conflict and the relationship with the other party as follows:

1. Competing (win/lose situation)
2. Collaborating (win/win situation)
3. Compromising (both parties partially satisfied)
4. Avoiding (no solution)
5. Accommodating (lose/win situation)

These five styles can be visualized in a graph. The horizontal axis represents the cooperativeness which is the focus on the concern of others. It ranges from uncooperative to cooperative. The horizontal axis represents the assertiveness which is the focus on own concerns. This ranges from assertive to unassertive. Accommodating is for example cooperative and unassertive while competing is uncooperative and assertive.

What is the link between power, conflict and change?

All three are aspects of social systems and organizational change. There are two faces of power (McClelland, 1970). He argues that power has two faces: its positive and negative face. The negative face (destructive) is characterized by a primitive, unsocialized need to have dominance over submissive others. Positive face (constructive) derives from a more socialized need to initiate, influence and lead and recognized other people’s needs to achieve their own goals as well as those of the organization.

A common actor in a change process is the ‘change agent’. The change agent is a person with a special responsibility for planning, implementation and outcome of strategic change (Lines, 2007). Cynthia Hardy (1996) argues that power ‘can provide the energy to drive the organization and its members through the strategic change process’. She identifies:

1. Power over meaning: Attempting alter values and norms.
2. System power: Power source lying within the organization and existing by virtue of its particular culture and structure. See table 5.1 for mobilizing the dimensions of power.

Nadler (1998) suggests three major problems associated with this transition process: problem of resistance to change, problem of organizational control and problem of power. There are different problems of change which is visualized in figure 5.2. It illustrates interconnections and problems between power, conflict and political action.

Convert political action is a phrase used to describe actions of the most extreme kind witnessed during episode of change. Morrill, Zald and Rao (2003) embrace four interrelated themes to explain change in an organization:

1. Contestation of power and authority
2. Perceptions of collective injury
3. Social occlusion
4. Officially forbidden forms of dissent

Morrill et al. (2003) see covert political action as follows:

1. It manifests in both material and symbolic forms
2. It carries an element of social visibility
3. It can be conducted by an individual acting alone but is often undertaken in a collective and organized way
4. It connects change in that it challenges routines and practices that individuals or groups see as unfair

So why does it occur?

1. Declining control
2. Identity
3. Social networks
4. Organizational structures

There exist a curvilinear or inverted U-shaped relationship between conflict and performance. The horizontal axis represents a conflict ranging from high to low. The vertical axis represents the task outputs ranging from high to low. DeDreu and Beersma (2005) maintain that between a low conflict (a climate of complacency and apathy) and a high conflict (a climate of hostility and mistrust) there is an optimal level of conflict that engenders self-criticism and innovation to increase unit performance.

Robbins (2005) explained the process of a conflict. He argues that there exist a mechanism of a conflict with five stages moving from an initial conflict situation through to alternative positive or negative outcomes:

• Stage 1: Potential opposition or incompatibility
• Stage 2: Cognition and personalization
• Stage 3: Intentions
• Stage 4: Behaviour
• Stage 5: Outcomes

In short, there are antecedent conditions (communication, structure and personal variables). This lead to 1) perceived conflict and 2) felt conflict. Both types of conflicts lead to conflict handling intentions and includes the five styles (competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and accommodating). This leads to overt conflict which lead to an outcome.

Furze and Gale (1996) take an optimistic view of conflict and they list some of their guidelines to deal with conflicts: encourage openness, model appropriate responses, provide summaries and restatements of the position, bring in people who are not directly involves, encourage people to take time to think and reassess, focus on shared goals, use directions and interests to develop areas of new gain, try to build objectivity into the process and adopt an enquiring approach to managing.

To harness conflict to change Lehman and Linsky (2008) recommend the following practices:

1. Build a container: represents a space (a padded cell perhaps) where people can ‘vent their spleen’
2. Leverage dissident voices
3. Let other resolve the conflicts
4. Raise the heat

Nadler (1988) proposed four action steps for shaping the political dynamics of change.

1. Develop power groups.
2. Using leader behaviour to generate energy in support the change.
3. Using symbols and language to create energy.
4. Shaping political dynamics of change is the need to build in stability.

There exist a model model of the power and motivation to block changes. The axes can be used the other way around: power to support change, motivation to support change. The horizontal axis represents the motivation to block change ranging from low to high. The vertical axis represents the power to block change ranging from high to low. The four quadrants are:

• A: keep satisfied (potential problems).
• B: Attempt to collaborate (definite problems).
• C: Do nothing (few problems).
• D: Keep informed (potential problems).

What is the conclusion?

Power and politics are driven by human differences. They are extremely difficult to research. Manager need to be aware of their own sources and levels of power and recognize the power and powerlessness of others.

What is the link between leadership and change? - Chapter 6

“The art of leadership is saying no, not yes. It is very easy to say yes.” (Tony Blair)

Mintzberg (1979) grouped managerial roles into three sets:

1. Interpersonal roles

   1. Figurehead

   2. Leader

   3. Liaison

2. Informational roles

   1. Monitor

   2. Disseminator

   3. Spokesman

3. Decision-making roles

   1. Entrepreneur

   2. Disturbance handler

   3. Resource allocator

   4. Negotiator

The differences between leading and managing highlight that management is more about what goes on within the formal structure of the organization while leadership focuses more on interpersonal behaviour in a broader context (Kotter, 1990).

What is leadership theory?

Over the past 100 years, leadership theory had steadily evolved. Trait theory underpins the idea that leaders are born not made. Charismatic-visionary leadership is mostly explained in a negative way. Landrum et al. (2002) defines charismatic leaders as unethical, manipulative, controlling and self-promoting. Charismatic-visionary leaders exhibit the following characteristics:

1. Ability to explain vision to others;
2. Ability to express the vision, not just verbally, but through behaviour and symbols that reinforce the vision;
3. Ability to extend or apply the vision to different leadership contexts.

Charisma works according to Lewin in three stages:

1. Frame breaking (unfreeze): Charismatic leader has the job of reducing the strength of ties to existing conventions.
2. Frame moving:
3. Frame realignment (refreeze): acceptance of new personal and social values which are then tapped by the leader.

Charismatic authority is enhanced by four additional dimensions that facilitate change:

1. Charisma as personal characteristic bestows on those who possess it a source of power and influence quite different to position power.
2. Charismatic leadership glorifies the leader figure and their qualities and break with traditions.
3. Charismatic leadership is short lived compared to rational-legal authority.
4. The commitment of followers to change is a consequence of their emotional ties with the leader figure and not through allegiance to a set of rules and structures that represent the ‘organization’.

There are trait theories of leadership. Six traits of successful leaders were put forward:

• Lord, De Vader and Alliger (1986): intelligence, an extrovert personality, dominance, masculinity, conservatism and being better adjusted than non-leader.
• Kirkpatrick and Locke (1991): drive, leadership motivation, honesty and integrity, self-confidence, cognitive ability, knowledge of the business.

Dulewicz and Herbert (1996) reported on managers who have been identified as either high-flyers or low-flyers. High-flyers scored higher than the low-flyers on the following: risk-taking, assertiveness and decisiveness, achievement, motivation and competitiveness.

Shin (1999) reveals a sobering contrast to the traits typically proposed for Anglo-Americal leaders:

1. Management respect for employees
2. Initiator attitudes
3. Tenacity and spirit
4. Network-building ability
5. Emphasis on competency

There exist two famous studies of leadership which identified two independent dimensions of leadership style:

• Consideration: The degree to which a leader builds trust and mutual respect with subordinates, shows respect for their ideas and concern for their well-being.
• Initiating structure: The degree to which a leader defines and structures their role and the interactions within the group towards the attainment of formal goals.

Blake and Mouton used the studies of leadership styles and proposed that the most effective leadership style is the one which is high on both people and task dimensions. The Leadership Grid Model explains five styles:

1. (9.1) Authority-compliance leader: High concern for task, little concern for people.
2. (1.9) Country club leadership: Production will follow if people needs are satisfied.
3. (1.1) Impoverished management: Minimum concern for both production and needs of people.
4. (5.5) Middle of the road management: Concerned with moderate, rather than high performance.
5. (9.9) team management: Incorporates high concern for production and high concern for people (best approach!)

This leadership grid model is a simplification of the many differences in leadership styles. Other studies have generated longer lists of behaviours of leaders, such as Useem (1996). He researched the characteristics of the most successful CEO:

1. Being visionary;
2. Showing strong confidence in self and others;
3. Communication high-performance expectations and standards;
4. Personally exemplifying the firm’s vision, values and standards;
5. Demonstrating personal sacrifice, determination, persistence and courage.

Although trait and style theories of leadership have some support, there are many things that can influence a leader’s effectiveness over and above a leader’s qualities and behaviour. Tannenbaum and Schmith (1973) suggest that a leader should move along the continuum (directive, participative) and select the style that is most appropriate to the situation prevailing They identify forces that determine the style of leadership to use:

1. Forces in the manager
2. Forces in the subordinate
3. Forces in the situation (two categories: nature of the task or problem itself and the general context in which the leadership activity takes place)

Fiedler (1967) agrees on the fact that leadership is dependent on the situation and this is also the centrepiece of Fiedler’s contingency theory of leadership. The 3 situational variables said to determine the style of leadership to be adopted are:

1. Leader-member relations: the extent to which a leader has the support of their group members.
2. Task-structure: the extent to which the task or purpose of a group is well defined, and the work outcomes can be judged clearly as a success or failure.
3. Position power: the amount of power the leader has over followers.

Hersey and Blanchard (1993) situational theory states that a leader’s behaviour should depend on the maturity and readiness of followers to accept responsibility and make their own decisions. They argue that a leader’s style should be contingent upon characteristics and attitudes of those who are led. A leader’s behaviour falls into one of four quadrants:

1. Telling
2. Selling
3. Participating
4. Delegating

Within the contingency model it is hard to mention which variable is most important. House (1971) developed the path-goal theory, which maintains that the leader should use the style of leadership that is most effective in influencing subordinates’ perceptions of the goals they need to achieve and the way in which they should be achieved. Four leader behaviours are suggested:

1. Directive behaviour
2. Supportive behaviour
3. Participative behaviour
4. Achievement-oriented behaviour

Two dominant situational factors are relevant: 1) characteristics of followers and 2) the nature of task/job and contexts in which it takes place.

Locus of control: a person’s beliefs about who controls their life. People with an internal locus of control believe that they control their own lives. People with an external locus of control believe other people control their lives.

Quinn (1988) proposed four models distinguished on the basis of two bipolar dimensions:

1. Adaptability and flexibility versus desire for stability and control
2. External focused or internal focused.

Contribution of contingency theory is the message that there is not one best way of leading regardless of situation. According to Parry and Bryman (2006) the contingency had serious limitations:

1. There are just too many contingent variables that the theory has to account for.
2. Studies struggled to justify why some situational variables should be included and others excluded.
3. Leader behaviour was not always situationally contingent.
4. Most research was cross-sectional (impossible to separate cause from effect).

A disadvantage of charismatic leaders is that followers will follow this leader even in pointless directions. Emotional intelligence (EI) focuses on the ability to recognize multiple emotional states in which a human being can be and others and to respond appropriately. Goleman (1998) claims to have found the personal capabilities that drive outstanding performance. He groups the capabilities into 3 categories; 1) purely technical skills, 2) cognitive abilities and 3) competencies demonstrating emotional intelligence (EI). He defines them as having 5 components of:

1. Self-awareness
2. Self-regulation
3. Motivation
4. Empathy
5. Social skills

There is a threshold capability: while being necessary for successful leadership they are not sufficient without the addition of emotional intelligence. Higgs and Dulewicz (2004) suggested that EI is concerned with achieving one’s goals through the capabilities to:

• Manage one’s own feelings and emotions
• Be sensitive to the needs of others and influence key people
• Balance one’s own motives and drives with conscientious and ethical behaviour.

There is a difference between transactional and transformational leadership. Transactional leadership is based on giving people rewards for doing what the leader wants. It makes leaders make minor adjustments to mission and the ways people are managed. The three dimensions are:

1. Contingent rewards
2. Management by exception (active)
3. Management by exception (passive)

Transformational leadership relies on giving followers a purpose, a vision of something to aim for and on creating follower identification with the leader. This style borrows much from Weber’s ideas about charisma.

The four dimensions are:

1. Charisma
2. Inspiration
3. Intellectual stimulation
4. Individual consideration

Disadvantages of transformation leadership theories are:

• It was usually studies in the context of top managers only
• Doubts about the integrity of managers who are viewed as transformational.

Authentic leadership is based on the idea that leaders should know themselves and know how their experiences in life have made them what they are. Attributes of authentic leaders (recall the traits approach) include: being true to themselves, humility and modesty, seeing situations from a range of perspectives, knowing one’s own sense right and wrong and adhere to personal standards in decision making.

What are the critical approaches to leadership?

Leaders can be derailed. There are five early warning signals of derailed managers:

1. Poor results
2. Narrow perspectives
3. Poor team building
4. Poor working relationships
5. Inappropriate and immature behaviour

Although the differences are small, studies of gender and management suggest that men are more transactional and rely more on position power to get results whereas women are more likely to be transformational and use relationships rather than power to motivate (Eagly et al., 2003). While opening up leadership positions to women is an important social goal it is far from clear that having more women in top jobs would deliver innovation, creativity and change any better than men.

Stories of change are too often overly simple and sequential stories of heroism would have us overlook the true complexity and true contributions made by largely anonymous cast.

What is the link between leadership and change?

Greiner and Quinn (1988) proposed that multiple leadership stages need various leadership styles to get the organization forward. Dunphy and Stace (1993) designed ways to change on two dimensions: 1) level of environmental readjustment needed and 2) the style of leadership to realign it. Their readjustment categories are: fine-tuning, incremental adjustment, modular transformation and corporate transformation. The categories of leadership are: collaborative, communicative, directive, coercive. The combination of these categories leads to:

• Type 1 Participative evolution
• Type 2 Charismatic transformation
• Type 3 Forced evolution
• Type 4 Dictatorial transformation

The problem with this model is that it implies that managers have a choice of change strategies. It argues that change can be planned and implemented whatever outcomes are desired.

Resistance applies that the employee who is asked to change puts up a fight against it. It is often seen as a negative thing. Piderit (2000) identified different forms of resistance:

• Behavioural: endless questioning, non-compliance, disruption to planned changes
• Affective
• Cognitive forms of resistance

Ford and Ford (2009) mentioned five manners to use resistance as feedback in a positive way:

• Boost awareness
• Return to purpose
• Change to change
• Build engagement
• Complete the past

Scepticism towards change is: doubt about the viability of a change for attainment of its stated objectives. Scepticisms do not believe that the intended change will bring about the intended benefits if it is implemented.

Cynicism differs in that is it disbelief about management’s implied or stated motives for a specific organizational change (figure 6.8).

Readiness for change involves shaping, perhaps conditioning, attitudes and beliefs to be favourable. Communication strategies need to emphasize 2 messages:

1. The need for change to explain the gap between what organization need to be doing and what it is doing
2. Affected party’s ability to change and the ability to do it well.

A figure to combine the readiness for change and urgency leads to the following typology (Harris and Mosshole, 1993):

• Low readiness/low urgency: communicate
• Low readiness/high urgency: crisis
• High readiness/low urgency: maintain
• High readiness/high urgency: quick response

Graen et al. (1995) introduced the LMX theory (leader-member-exchange) and argued that the different types of social exchanges fall into two types:

1. In-group: Employees are involved in decision making and might receive projects to lead.
2. Out-group: Employees are kept at arm’s length and only receive information needed to do their job.

What are the conclusions?

The existence of many different leadership theories provides insights in approaches and implication. Furthermore, resistance to change is better understood and good communication is one of the best strategies for dealing with it. Learning how to learn from resistors is a challenge to modern managers and leaders.

What is the meaning of hard systems models of change? - Chapter 7

Flood and Jackson (1991) classify various methodologies in a similar way but use terms ‘simple system’ and ‘complex system’ instead of difficulties and messes. Three ideological viewpoints, presenting three types of relationships between people:

1. Unitary. People relating to each other from a unitary perspective:

• share common interests
• have values and beliefs that are highly compatible
• largely agree upon ends and means
• all participate in decision making
• act in accordance with agreed objectives

2. Pluralist. People relating to each other from a pluralist perspective:

• Have a basic compatibility of interest
• Have values and beliefs that diverge to some extend
• Do not necessarily agree upon ends and means, but compromise is possible
• All participate in decision making
• Act in accordance with agree objectives

3. Coercive. People relating to each other from a coercive perspective:

• Do not share common interests
• Have values and beliefs that are likely to conflict
• Do not agree upon ends and means and ‘genuine’ compromise is not possible
• Coerce other to accept decisions

What are the systematic approaches to change?

Most people are able to think rationally and logically. Some would say the logical and rational approach is the only way to solve a problem or response to opportunities. These hard approaches rely on the assumption that clear change objectives can be identified in order to work out the best way of achieving them.

What is a hard system model of change?

The hard system model of change (HSMC) is a method that has been developed for designing and managing change. This method is useful when dealing with situations that lie towards the ‘hard’ end of the hard-soft continuum changes situations. It supplies a precise and systematic way of determining aims for change. The process can be divided into three phases:

1. Description phase: describing and diagnosing the situation, understanding what is involved, setting the objective for the change.
2. Options phase: generating options for change, selecting the most appropriate option, thinking about what might be done.
3. Implementation phase: putting feasible plans into practice and monitoring the results

Within these three phases a number of stages can also be identified:

Phase 1: Description stage

Stage 1: Situation summary

1. Stating the commitment to the analysis and the reason for doing it.

2. Describing in words and with diagrams, the situation within which changes will be set.

Stage 2: Identify objectives and constraints

1. Listing objectives that are consistent with the themes which emerged from the diagnostic stage.

2. Arranging the objectives into a hierarchy of objectives (objectives tree).

3. Listing constraints in term of those that are inviolable and may be modified.

Stage 3: Identify performance measures

1. Formulate measures of performance, which can be put against the objectives on the objectives tree.

Phase 2: Options

1. Drawing up a list of options. This can be done by making use of any number of creative thinking techniques such as: brainstorming, ideas writing, focus groups and research.

Stage 4: Generate options

Stage 5: Edit options and detail selected options

Stage 6: Evaluate options against measures

1. Check that the model you have used is an accurate representation of the system.

2. Consider whether the model seems to contain any bias or mistake assumptions.

3. Evaluate each option, or a combination of options, according how well it meets the performance measures.

Phase 3: Implementation

Stage 7: Develop implementation strategies

1. Pilot studies leading to eventual change

2. Parallel running

3. Big bang

Stage 8: Carry out the planned changes

What are the further uses of this method?

The HSMC model is used for situation with a hard complexity. It can be used to find problems and options in a quick manner. Therefore, the named Q & D (quick and dirty) analysis can be a useful starting point for the change agents tackling a more complex problem (Paton and McCalman, 2008). It will indicate key factors and potential barriers to change, it will highlight the principal players and give an indication of resource requirements. Such an analysis will at any early stage set the scene for things to come and provide the change agents with a valuable insight into the complexities of the transition process.

What is the conclusion?

The hard systems model is particularly useful when an area of the organization may need to be changed but may not infringe on other areas and when choices based on ration decision making can be made.

What is the meaning of soft systems models of change? - Chapter 8

Ackoff (1993) identifies three kind of things that can be done about problems:

1. Resolve. A problem can be solved by selecting a course of t action that produces an outcome that satisfices. This means satisfies and suffices. This approach relies on common sense and is based on experiences in the past. The users of this approach are mostly not fully objective. Approach that relies on common sense. To resolve a problem is to select a course of action that yields an outcome that is good enough.
2. Solved: Solvers use scientific methods, techniques and tools. They eschew qualitative models in favour of quantitative models to be completely objective.
3. Dissolved: “To dissolve a problem is to change the nature, and/or the environment, of the entity in which it is embedded so as to remove the problem.” Problem dissolvers idealize rather than satisfies or optimize because their objective is to change the system involved or its environment in such a way as to bring close to an ultimately desired state, one in which the problem cannot or does not arise. Only a minority of managers uses this approach and they are those whose principal organizational objective is development rather than growth or survival, and who know the difference.

“People do not act rationally, it is to way that they act according to their own view of what is rational for them” (Carnell, 2007). Change in this scenario will only be possible and effective if it is accompanied but processes that address feelings, needs of individuals. Hard systems models of change, are not sufficient to explain organizational messes and are extremely limited in providing a model for planning and implementing change in these situations.

Organization Development (OD) is an umbrella term for a set of values and assumptions about organizations and the people within them that, together with a range of concepts and techniques, are thought useful for bringing about long-term, organizational wide change.

What is the definition of organizational development?

There are different definitions of OD and most of them show the following characteristics:

1. It emphasizes goals and processes but with particular emphasis on processes as a means of improving an organization’s capacity to change.
2. It deals with change over the medium to long term, that is, change that needs to be sustained over a significant period of time.
3. It involves the organization as a whole as well as its parts.
4. It is participative, drawing on the theory and practices of the behavioural sciences.
5. It has top management support and involvement.
6. it involves a facilitator who takes on the role of a change agent.
7. It concentrates on planned change but as a process that can adopt to a changing situation rather than as a rigid blueprint of how change should be done.

French and Bell (1999) provide ten OD principles. These ten principles are:

1. OD focuses on culture and processes.
2. OD encourages collaboration between organization leaders and member in managing culture and processes.
3. Teams of all kinds are particularly important for accomplishing tasks and are targets for OD activities.
4. OD Focuses on the human and social side of the organization and in so doing also intervenes in the technological and structural sides.
5. Participation and involvement in problem solving and decision making by all levels of the organization are hallmarks of OD.
6. OD focuses on total system change and views organizations as complex social systems.
7. OD practioners are facilitators, collaborators and co-learners with the client systems.
8. An overarching goal is to make the client system able to solve its problems on its own by teaching the skills and knowledge of continuous learning through self-analytical methods.
9. OD relies on an action research model with extensive participation by client system holders.
10. OD takes a developmental view that seeks the betterment of both individual and the organization.

The employees of a company are the building blocks of the organization. The OD approach is an approach that cares about people. This approach believes that people at all levels throughout the organization are both drivers and the engines of change. Paton and McCalman (2008) offer three fundamental concepts with respect to the management of people gaining their commitment to their work and organization:

1. Organizations are about people.
2. Management assumptions about people often lead to ineffective design of organizations and this hinders performance.
3. People are the most important asset and their commitment goals a long way in determining effective organization design and development.

OD approaches to change assume that work groups and teams are an essential element in the process of designing and implementing change.

1. OD reinforces the systematic nature of organizational life and the fact that change in one part of the organization will inevitably impact on operations in the other part.
2. OD challenges the assumption that a single important cause of change with clear effects can be found, as well as the assumption that any cause and its effects are necessarily closed related in space and time.
3. Any organization is a balance of forces built up and refined over a period of time. Because OD as a concept is assumed to operate throughout an organization, he OD process is most definitely not a ‘quick fix’ to the latest management problem.
4. OD approaches to change are essentially processes of facilitating planned change.

The concept of a learning organization is built upon the proposition that there is more than one type of learning. Argyris and Schon (1996) distinguish:

• Single-loop learning. Goal-oriented approach: problems are viewed as a difficult.
• Double-loop learning. Process-oriented approach; problems are viewed as messy.

Senge (1990) terms single-loop and double-loop learning as adaptive and generative.

How does the OD process look like?

OD functions at all levels of an organization. The process for both initiating and implementing planned change is long-term. OD as a process for instigating and implementing change has two important characteristics:

1. Process of change which has a framework of recognizable phases that take the organization from its current state to a more desired future state.
2. OD process can be perceived to be a collection of activities and techniques that, selectively or accumulatively, help the organization and/or parts to move through these phases.

Lewin’s (1951) model of change is a well-known OD model:

• Unfreezing: shaking up habitual modes of thinking and behaviour of people to intensify their awareness of the need for change.
• Moving: the process of making the actual changes that will move the organization to the new state.
• Refreezing: stabilizing or institutionalizing the changes.

The disadvantages of Lewin’s model are focused on the last phase refreezing. The idea of cementing the changes in place to create a new organizational reality. Thereby, it tends to ignore the increasingly turbulent environment and the need for continuous change.

Is the OD model an action research-based model of change?

Change is a continuous process of confrontation, identification, evaluation and action (Paton and McCalman, 2008). The key to this is what OD proponents refer to as an action-research model. Several studies provide detailed descriptions of action research: “A collaborative effort between leader and facilitators of any change and those who have to enact it.” This includes seven steps:

1. Management and staff perceptions of problems.
2. Data gathering and preliminary diagnosis by those concerned with leading the change.
3. Feedback to key client, management and those involved in the change.
4. Joint agreement of the problems.
5. Joint action planning.
6. Implementation.
7. Reinforcement and assessment of the change.

This approach is different from the hard systems model of change. It is not a one-off event which stops if the change is accomplished. Next to that, it is an iterative process that is continuous and which continuous as part of everyday organizational life. Furthermore, each of the components of the model may be used to form each of the phases that make up a typical OD process. Lastly, this approach is firmly embedded in the assumption that all who are of who might be involved in any change should be part of the decision-making process to decide what that change might be and to bring it about.

Two stages are important: the present and future state. The change agent is important, and this person can be internal or external to the organization.

Stage 1a: diagnose the current situation. This stage performs an environmental analyse. A current situation can be diagnosed by 1) detecting strategic drift and 2) gathering data on capacity to response to a change in direction or ways of operating. A more detailed examination of organizational purposes, goals, structure, culture, leadership(styles) and training and development provision is needed.

Stage 1b: develop a vision for change. This is the creative phase. A vision can energize commitment as people will be working towards a common goal.

The second stage of the OD process is to gain commitment to the vision and the need for change. Feedback from the stages 1a and 1b is most important in this phase. It is not easy to gain recruits for change. Pugh’s (1993) show four principles for understanding the process of organizational change:

1. Organizations are organisms.
2. Organizations are occupational and political systems as well as rational resource-allocation.
3. All members of an organization operate simultaneously in the rational occupational and political systems.
4. Change is most likely to be acceptable with people who are successful and have confidence in their ability and the motivation for change.

The third stage of the OD process is to develop an action plan. This is the start to manage the transition from an organization’s current state to its desired future state. Several issues are important to understand in this stage (three steps):

1. Who guides the planning and the implementation?
2. What needs to change?
3. Where should an intervention take place?

Who guides planning and implementation?

The success of using an OD approach depends on those who act as facilitators of the change: the change agent. The role of the change agent is:

• To help the organization define the problem by asking for a definition of what it is;
• To help the organization examine what causes the problem and diagnose how this can be overcome;
• To assist in getting the organization to offer alternative solutions to provide direction in the implementation of alternative solutions;
• To provide direction in the implementation of alternative solutions;
• To transmit the learning process that allows the client to deal with change on an ongoing basis by itself in the future.

Buchanan and Boddy (1992) explain which five compententies are important for an change agent to be effective:

1. Goals: sensitivity to changes in key personnel, clarity in specifying goals, flexibility in responding to changes out control of the project manager.
2. Roles: Teambuilding activities, networking skills, tolerance in ambiguity
3. Communication: skills to transmit need for change effectively, interpersonal skills, personal enthusiasm, stimulating motivation
4. Negotiation: selling plans and ideas, negotiate with key players
5. Managing up: political awareness, influencing skills, helicopter perspective

Kotter (1996) mentions four key characteristics as being essential for it to be effective:

1. Position power
2. Expertise
3. Credibility
4. Leadership

Beckhard & Harris (1987) developed ‘responsibility charting’. This is a technique that determines the alternative behaviours for each person involved in different actions that are designed to bring about change. The actors identified can include:

• R = Person responsibility to initiate action
• A = Whose approval is required
• S = Those who can provide support and resources
• I = Those who merely need to be informed or consulted (can’t veto action)

Certain rules for making a responsibility chart are according to French and Bell (1999):

• Assign responsibility to only one person.
• Avoid having too many people with an approval- veto function on an item.
• The person with approval-veto on most decisions could become a bottleneck.
• The support function is critical.
• The assignment of functions to persons at times becomes difficult.

What needs to change?

Pugh (1986) came up with a matrix of change initiatives on the different issues that can restrict change and the level at which they occur. The matrix is useful for type of intervention required (horizontal), level at which it should take place (vertical). Beckhard and Harris (1987) came up with the following organizational subsystems which can be a starting point for change:

• Top management
• Management-ready systems
• Hurting systems
• New teams or systems
• Staff
• Temporary project systems

Where should intervention take place?

The planning of OD interventions must also take account of the degree of change needed that is the scope of the change activities. In terms of Pugh’s OD matrix, it is necessary to consider if:

• People’s behaviour needs to change, and/or;
• Organization’s structure and systems need to change and/or;
• Context or the setting needs to change.

Beckhard and Harris (1987) concept of the action plan is a ‘road map’ for change and it is a useful one. An effective plan should have characteristics as: relevance, specificity, interaction, chronology, adaptability.

The fourth stage is about the implementation of change. There exist different tools and techniques that can be used to initiate and implement change.

• Surveys can be used to assess the attitudes and morale of people across the organization and are used at different stages in the OD process.
• Organisational mirroring is a set of activities in which a particular organizational group, host group, gets feedback from representatives from several other organizational groups how it is perceives and regarded.
• Inter-group confrontation confronts organizational issues that go beyond particular expertise. This can be with assistance of third-parties.
• Role negotiating. This is developed by Harrison (1972) which involves individuals or groups negotiating to ‘contract’ to change their behaviour on a quid pro quo basis. It concentrates solely on the roles they plan and their behaviour as part of these.
• Process consultation views process consultation as a central part of the development of an organization.
• Team building can be an essential part of OD process.
• Life and career planning
• The role of short-terms wins. Short terms wins are visible, unambiguous, clearly related to change effort. Kotter (1996) identifies six ways in which short-term wins can help organizations transformations:

1. Provide evidence that sacrifices are worth it
2. Reward change agents with a pat on the back
3. Help fine-tune vision and strategies
4. Undermine cynics and self-serving resistors
5. Keep bosses on board
6. Build momentum

The fifth stage is to assess and reinforce the change change. In hard organizational situations it is relatively easy to assess the extent to which change has been achieved. This is more difficult for soft, messy situations. A number of ways are available for measuring the softer issues associated with change:

1. Survey or cultural audit.
2. Interviews with individuals or focus groups.
3. An examination of turnover and absenteeism rates.
4. An analysis (through observation or questionnaire) of group performance .
5. Re-picture the organization.

According to Farquhar, Evans and Tawadey (1989): “A real danger in the process of organizational change is the failure to carry it through sufficiently far”. It is pointless expecting people’s behaviour to change if this is not reinforcing by concomitant changes in personnel policies and practices, including appraisal, career development and reward systems.

What does the authors mean by the assessment of the OD model?

OD as a philosophy and a process can be critiqued according to a number of criticisms:

1. OD does not always face up to harsh realities.
2. OD is limited when change situation are ‘constrained’.
3. OD requires ‘out of the ordinary’ leadership.
4. OD fits uneasily with the structures and culture in the public sector. The problems are:

• Differences between the assumptions and values of the OD and the bureaucratic model are big.
• Public sector organizations are supervised by many interests which makes it difficult to get support and gain approvals.
• Financial support is difficult to obtain for OD work in public sector organizations.
• In public sector organizations the large variety of different and frequently conflicting interests are difficult to apply.

These points show a depressing picture that OD would succeed in public sector organization. However, since public sector organizations move towards market principles OD models for change become more realistic and easier to apply. Parkes (2008) brought about change to reduce sickness levels across the council workforce. Parkes notes that, what was then a newly team learnt a number of lessons for the future:

• Make sure you have a strong leadership at the top
• Involve managers in setting the policy
• Be consistent in your approach right across the organization
• Train everyone you need to in what is expected fro them
• Accurate, timely communications are essential o people understand what you are trying to achieve.
• Stick at it and do not give up

Why does OD not ‘work’ in all cultures? OD interventions will struggle to be accepted in societies that score high on the dimensions of Hofstede (1980): power distance, uncertainty avoidance, masculinity and moderate individualism.

What are the conclusions?

A similarity between hard and soft models for change is that they suggest a planned change. If you will follow the described steps, the change will be successful (according to these theories). Soft systems address the issues of soft complexity inherent messy situations.

What are the future directions and challenges? - Chapter 9

The purpose of this final chapter is to look more closely at the act of changing and recent thinking on how it happens and how best to catalyse it. The industry, lifestyle and social structure can influence the strategy and structure of an organization.

What are the differences between the current and the future environment of an organization?

Internal and external factors can affect the business, lifestyles and social structures.

The social structure can have an influence.

• Social class (e.g. elite, traditional working class, service workers etc.)
• Demographic changes
  • The population can be predicted for the future.
  • The ageing population and the percentage of young people is decreasing.
• Changing lifestyle
  • Household composition and ownership. There are differences in households, people who live alone, parents who are alone, renters and young people who live still at home.
  • Marriage and co-habiting. The fasted-growing families in the UK are cohabiting-couple families.

The psychological contract represents ‘an individual’s beliefs regarding terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between that person and another party’ (Rousseau and Parks, 1993). The contract is invisible when employees do their work normally. The contract becomes visible when an employee breaks the contract. The psychological contract has a huge influence on the acceptance of the employee and when managers need to be alert to how employees will perceive things when change is in the air.

The trends for the future highlight the importance of innovation, creativity and technologies. These changes can benefit the organization and their employees. However, it can also result in a split in the society. The standard of living of people can diverge. Innovation and creativity are not the same concepts. Some researchers argue that creativity is a component of innovation. Miles et al. (2000) emphasize the importance of innovation. Collaboration is the key to innovation, also known as meta-capability. There are three conditions for collaboration:

1. People need time to discuss ideas, reflect and listen that might produce fresh ideas.
2. They need to develop strong bonds of trust between each other.
3. People need a sense of territory marking one’s place in the outcomes of the collaborative process.

Anthony and Christensen (2005) argue that disruptive change and disruptive innovation theory are important concepts in explaining creating value for potential customers. They argue that: ‘existing companies have a high probability of beating entrant attackers when the contest is about sustaining innovations with radical or incremental improvements that target demanding customers at the high end of the market who are willing to pay premium prices for better products’. Examples are the supermarkets Aldi and Lidl who offer basic food for lower prices.

There exists a paradox between the trends because 1) people are more individualistic, independent, communicate more through ICT and 2) researchers argue for more organic, network and virtual organizations were collaboration is required. The question is: ‘do the changing career patterns undermine the key attitudes and behaviour that an employer need?’ Part of the answer is empowerment. However, it does not support the processes and culture that make the managers successful.

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is an organizational change methodology that takes a radically different view from traditional approaches, being a far more collective method that focuses on the positive psychology generated by asking positive questions rather than concentrating on negative questions and issues. AI is a search for the best in people and what is happening in their organizations. Eight principles how to implement:

1. Constructionist principle: reality is constructed through social interactions.
2. Simultaneity: expresses the idea that inquiry and change occur together.
3. Poetic principle: expresses the notion of organizations as narratives, continually being co-authored by the people in them together with outsiders who work with them.
4. Anticipation: images of the future that people create begin to shape their constructions and discourses about the future
5. Being positive
6. Wholeness: all groups and stakeholders connected to a change should be involved to maximize the capacity for creative outcomes.
7. Enactment: about living the future in the present.
8. Free choice: people should not be constraint in terms of how they contribute to an inquiry.

AI is a form of action research. The eight principles are used to underpin a four-stage cycle to engage people: discovery (what is done well in a firm), dreaming (on futures based on extraordinary experiences), designing (what should be done), destiny (collective agreement).

Some implications of AI:

• Skilful facilitators are required to accentuate the positive and prevent regression to negative thinking.
• The obvious focus on the positive could restrain the voices of people with honest grievances.
• Some decisions and intentions would need referral back to the council who would ‘put out the fires’ lit by AI processes.

Some qualities of AI:

• The focus on changing how people think and not what they do.
• The focus on creating an environment in which ideas lead to self-organizing change.

Capacity to change is about their ability to undertake large-scale changes without compromising daily operations or subsequent change processes. Building on the extensive advice there is on successful change
Meyer and Sansaker (2006) offer possibilities how the capacity can be expanded:

• Framing communications of the reasons for change.
• Participation of employees in the design and the implementation of change.
• Pacing and sequencing: tempo and timing of change.
• Change fatique: passive resignation.
• Routinizing new routines, processes and structure.
• Recruiting people to help to implement change.

By focusing on these prescriptions, capacity for change will increase.

Change capacity is conceptualized as comprising three correlated dimensions; learning, change process and organizational context (World Health Organization).

WHO is the World Health Organization, which is on a mission to see that people all over the world enjoy the best possible health.

What are the challenges for future research on change?

Researchers argue that there are gaps and limitations in change research:

1. Multiple context and levels of analysis
2. Time, history, process and action
3. Change processes and organizational performance
4. International comparative research
5. Reciprocity, customization, sequencing and pace
6. Scholar- practitioner engagement
7. Political influences

Makshak and Gant (2008) argue that there exist trends in organizational development from classic organizational development to new organizational development.

What is the conclusion?

There is no best way to accomplish successful organizational change. There are key areas that should be considered in relation to the diagnosis, implementation and review of change situations.

1. Multiple paths to change
2. The challenge of diversity:
3. Empowerment and control
4. Creativity and innovation

Change calls for high levels of persistence in the face of an unstable environment.

Organizational Change - Senior & Swailes - BulletPoints (NL)

Chapter 1: Organizations and Environments

• Een organisatie kan gedefinieerd worden als: ‘een system dat bestaat uit formele aspecten van operaties en het management die gedekt worden door informele aspecten van de organisatie die afgeleid zijn van de relatie tussen mensen.
• Een organisatie kan gezien worden als een systeem van subsystemen en componenten in een breder systeem en de omgeving biedt input voor het systeem en ontvangt de output. Het kan verdeeld worden in twee subsystemen: een informeel en een forma subsysteem. Deze subsystemen identificeren de belangrijkste elementen van een organisatie. Informeel gaat het om cultuur, politiek en leiderschap. Bij formeel gaat het om het management, de strategie van een organisatie, de doelen, de structuur, de operaties en de technologie.
• In het verleden waren er diverse financiële schandalen zoals de Leman Brothers, het faillissement van The Times en andere financiële instellingen vielen om of werden overeind gehouden door de staat. In het bedrijfsleven leidde dit tot een daling van vertrouwen en de angst nam toe. Naast macro-economische gebeurtenissen, werd verandering ook getriggerd door gebeurtenissen die een impact hadden op het gebied van scholing en de gezondheidszorg. Het leek erop dat verandering in organisaties getriggerd werd door grote gebeurtenissen. Organisatorische verandering wordt naast de interne factoren en de geschiedenis beïnvloed door de externe omgeving. Voorbeelden van het interne systeem zijn de input, omzetting en de output. Een organisatie bestaat uit diverse elementen die met elkaar in verband staan en opereren in een multidimensionale omgeving. Brooks (2011) legt de omgeving uit als een algemeen concept dat rekening houdt met alle externe omgevingsfactoren die invloed kunnen hebben op de activiteiten van een organisatie. Een veelvoorkomende manier om dit te doen is de PEST methode. PEST staat voor Political, Economic, Socio-cultural, Technological.
• Een politieke trigger kan de economische omgeving beïnvloeden. Voorbeelden zijn wet- en regelgeving ingesteld door de overheid, internationale wetgeving, lokale regulering, oorlogen, universele rechten, activiteiten van handelsorganisaties en belasting. Het belangrijkste doel van de overheid is het vergroten van de economische welvaart.
• Economische triggers zijn factoren zoals concurrenten, leveranciers, werkgelegenheidspercentages, lonen, het economische beleid van de overhead, valutakoersen, economisch beleid van andere landen, het leidende beleid van financiële instellingen en veranderingen van publiek naar privaat eigendom. De economische en politieke omgeving zijn nauw aan elkaar verbonden omdat politieke beslissingen invloed kunnen hebben op de economische vooruitgang. Daarnaast kunnen veranderingen in de economie de politieke beslissingen beïnvloeden.
• De sociale-culturele triggers beïnvloeden de manier waarop een organisatie in elkaar zit, werkt en gemanaged wordt. Daarnaast hebben deze triggers ook invloed op de capaciteit van een organisatie om de juiste mensen aan te trekken en te houden in de betreffende organisatie.
• Voorbeelden van technologische triggers zijn de informatietechnologie, het internet, nieuwe productieprocessen, nieuwe manieren om energie op te wekken, het managen van verspillingen en recyclen, de automatisering van processen en veranderingen in de transporttechnologie.
• De dynamiek van de omgeving van een organisatie is ook beschreven in termen van de mate van omgevingsturbulentie. Ansoff en McDonnel (1990) verklaren dat de prestaties van een bedrijf zijn geoptimaliseerd wanneer agressiviteit en reactievermogen overeenkomen met zijn omgeving. Zij hebben vijf niveaus van omgevingsturbulentie opgesteld, namelijk: 1) Voorspelbaar, 2) Prognose mogelijk door extrapolatie, 3) voorspelbare bedreigingen en kansen, 4) gedeeltelijk voorspelbare kansen en 5) onvoorspelbare verrassingen.
• Omdat organisaties tegenwoordig in meerdere en verschillende omgevingen werken, is de belangrijkste taak om goed te werken en te proberen de externe aanpassingen en interne integratie te beheren. Organisaties moeten snel kunnen anticiperen op kansen, bedreigingen en de onvoorspelbare verrassingen.

Chapter 2: What is the nature of organizational change?

• In dit hoofdstuk worden verschillende modellen van organisatieveranderingen besproken. De uitwerkingen van belangrijkste termen die behandeld worden in dit hoofdstuk worden hier kort samengevat: 1) Convergent: he ‘fine-tunen’ van de bestaande configuratie. De organisatie configuratie of het sjabloon is zelf niet gewijzigd. 2) Radical: dit word took wel frame-bending genoemd. Het losbreken van de huidige positive zodat een hele andere positive bereikt wordt. 3) Planned: discrete start en eind and punten. Verandering wordt gezien als iets da teen manager kan controleren. 4) Evolutionary: dit word took wel continue verandering genoemd. Dit is het langzaam aanpassen van bestaande systemen of structuren. 5) Revolutionary: Fast paced wat van invloed is op de hele organisatie of een deel van de organisatie op hetzelfde moment. 5) Emergent: verandering wordt gezien als iets waar managers het juiste klimaat voor scheppen. Een organisatie wordt gezien als een evoluerend systeem en daardoor komt verandering voort uit experimenteren en aanpassingen.
• Verandering is niet homogeen maar bestaat en komt voor in veel verschillende vormen. Een uitgangspunt om te kijken naar de aard van organisatieverandering is Grundy's (1993) drie variëteiten van verandering: 1) Vlotte incrementele verandering. Dit type verandering komt langzaam naar voren op een systematische en voorspelbare manier. Het is constant 2) Bumby incrementele verandering. Dit type verandering wordt gekenmerkt door periodes van relatieve rust onderbroken door versnelling in het tempo van verandering. 3) Discontinue verandering. Dit type verandering vertoont snelle verschuivingen in de strategie, de structuur of de cultuur, of in alle drie. Een voorbeeld is de privatisering van eerdere overheidsdiensten.
• De type veranderingen van Grundy (1993) zijn erg simpel. Daarom gaan Balogun and Hope (2008) een stap verder. Zij suggereren vier type veranderingen. Dit zijn de volgende: Evolution, adaption, revolution and reconstruction.
• Organisatorische verandering kan in kaart worden gebracht in termen van het tempo (continu of episodisch) en de reikwijdte (convergerend of radicaal) volgens Ploughman et al. (2007). Elk soort verandering verschilt van elkaar op de volgende dimensies: De bestuurder (namelijk instabiliteit of inertie), De vorm (namelijk aanpassingen of vervanging), De aard van verandering (namelijk emergent of beoogd), De soorten feedback (negatieve feedback ontmoedigt) en de verbindingen in het systeem (los of strak).
• De complexity theory is een verzameling ideeën. Deze ideeën komen voort uit een onderzoek naar natuurlijke systemen zoals weerpatronen en dierlijk gedrag. Dit is gebaseerd op wiskundige principes om het gedrag van organisaties te helpen verklaren (Burnes, 2005). Sommige studies beweren dat de begrippen complexiteit en gecompliceerd hetzelfde betekenen. Dit is echter niet helemaal waar, bijvoorbeeld: een computer is een gecompliceerd systeem maar hoeft niet per se ingewikkeld te zijn. Een gecompliceerd systeem is een geordend systeem, terwijl een complex systeem ontregeld en onvoorspelbaar is.
• Een tipping point (= kantelmoment) is een ander concept van de complexiteitstheorie. Gebeurtenissen vinden plaats hier vinden gebeurtenissen plaats en zijn ze vervat in een systeem dat leidt naar en dat uitmondt in een omslagpunt (Boyatzis, 2006). De vlindermetafoor beschrijft het idee dat kleine variaties in luchtdruk, die veroorzaakt worden door het slaan van de vleugels van een vlinder op één plek, kan een reeks weersomstandigheden in gang zetten die leiden tot een orkaan aan de andere kant van de wereld.
• Het diagnosticeren van een veranderingssituatie is belangrijk wanneer bedrijven willen reageren of deze verandering willen beheren. De organisatiecyclus van Greiner of technieken zoals SWOT of PEST zijn nuttig om verandering te diagnosticeren. In tegenstelling tot Greiner die zich richt op de structuur en het management van een organisatie, koppelt Strebel (1996) zijn model aan de competitieve omgeving van een organisatie, inclusief breekpunten. Deze breekpunten zijn de momenten waarop organisaties moeten veranderen als reactie op veranderingen in gedrag van concurrenten.
• Organisatorische verandering kan worden verdeeld in drie dimensies. Deze drie dimensies zijn: tempo, bereik en geplande opkomst. Verschillende modellen en benaderingen kunnen worden gebruikt.

Chapter 3: In what way is an organization structured?

• Bureaucratische vorm van structuur is een van de bekendste structuren. Max Weber (1947) is een van de grondleggers van de bureaucratische structuur. Er stonden drie ideeën centraal namelijk, het idee van rationeel wettelijk gezag, het idee van kantoor en het idee van onpersoonlijke volgorde.
• Flatter structures (= vlakkere structuren): om beter op markten in te spelen en de bedrijfskosten te verlagen door managementlagen te verwijderen, hebben diverse organisaties geprobeerd hun kernontwerp af te vlakken. Twee vlakkere structuurregels zijn ingesteld: 1) er zijn meer vergelijkbare banen op elk niveau en 2) hoe meer mensen een manager kan coördineren en controleren, hoe meer besluitvorming gedecentraliseerd is. Hierdoor wordt de last voor elke manager verminderd en daardoor wordt de ‘span of control’ breder in plaats van langer.
• Horizontale differentiatie: multifunctionele structuren zijn een veel voorkomende structurele vorm. Vooral in de ontwikkelingsstadia van een organisatie, wanneer de vroege fase van het ondernemerschap plaats maakt voor een meer geregelde fase van duurzame groei: fase twee van het Greiner-model. Deze fase zal eindigen in de crisis van autonomie: het zal efficiënter zijn te organiseren rondom producten in plaats van functies. In dit hoofdstuk worden de voordelen, de nadelen en contingentiefactoren van deze structuur behandeld.
• Multidivisionele-structuren zijn opgebouwd rondom de outputs in plaats van de inputs. Hierdoor kunnen organisaties sneller reageren op de omstandigheden in de markt waarin de organisatie opereert.
• Een matrixorganisatie heeft een typische verticale hiërarchie die is bedekt met een horizontale structuur. Matrixstructuren zijn sterk afhankelijk van teamwork. Leden van een team worden gemanaged door twee verschillende managers: een functionele lijnmanager en een team- of projectleider. Dit heeft diverse nadelen en onvoorziene omstandigheden.
• De structureringstheorie is niet zozeer een 'patroonregelmatigheid', maar is een theorie die voortkomt uit het routinegedrag van mensen, dat op vervolgens weer het gedrag beïnvloedt (Cunliffe, 2008). Organisaties hebben structuren waarin zij afdelingen en divisies hebben waarin zowel afzonderlijke als overlappende activiteiten hebben. Mensen worden ‘actors’ genoemd en zij doen het werk (Giddens, 1984). Volgens Golds (1991) richt de structureringstheorie zich op 'de complementaire aard van interacties tussen structuren en actoren tussen hen' (Senior en Swailes, 2016). Er is dus een relatie tussen actoren en structuren. Acteurs creëren een structuur en worden afhankelijk van deze structuur.
• Het Actor Network Theory (ANT) erkent dat actoren netwerken bouwen met andere menselijke en niet-menselijke (dieren / technologieën) actoren (Latour, 2005). Acteurs kunnen menselijk of niet-menselijk zijn. Een voorbeeld van een niet-menselijke actor is een managementsysteem: actoren creëren netwerken en dus creëren ze zichzelf. ANT legt uit op welke manier en waarom de geïnitieerde netwerken meer of minder succesvol zijn. Van der Duin en van Marwijk (2006) stellen dat innovatie nieuwe patronen van coördinatie tussen mensen, organisaties, technologie en milieu betekent. Zij gebruiken ANT om dit uit te leggen. Volgens Van der Duim en van Marwijk (2006) vereist een succesvolle innovatie ‘vertaling’. Vertaling verklaart dingen op een manier die actoren overtuigen om te passen bij wat een netwerk is proberen te bereiken. Als de vier stadia van de vertaling worden bereikt, staat de uitkomst bekend als collectief.
• De institutionele theorie bestaat uit verschillende overeenkomsten met de structureringstheorie en benadrukt de culturele invloeden op het ontwerp en de structuur. De mensen die beslissen op welke manier een organisatie eruit moet zien worden 'opgeschort in een web van waarden, normen, regels, overtuigingen en als vanzelfsprekende aannames' die op zijn minst gedeeltelijk van zichzelf maken (Barley & Tobert, 1997) Cultuur zorgt voor een organisatie met een unieke identiteit en cultuur beïnvloedt besluitvorming. Instellingen werken binnen begrensde rationaliteit als gevolg van cultuur. Deze institutionele theorie is geen theorie van verandering, maar het is een manier om de overeenkomsten te verklaren van regelingen die vaak in een sector voorkomen. Daarnaast kan het ook verklaren waarom dingen niet veranderen.

Chapter 4: Changing Organizational Culture

• Er bestaan erg veel verschillende definities van cultuur. Een van de onderzoekers die cultuur bestudeerd is Hofstede. Hofstede (1981) definieert cultuur bijvoorbeeld als: ‘cultuur is de collectieve programmering van de menselijke geest die de leden van de ene menselijke groep onderscheidt van die van een andere menselijke groep. Cultuur is een systeem van collectief bewaarde waarden.
• Schein (2004) suggereert dat er drie niveaus van cultuur bestaan van het ondiepst tot het diepst: 1) Artefacten: de zichtbare organisatiestructuren en processen zoals taal, omgeving, rituelen, ceremoniën, mythen en verhalen. Dit is in overeenstemming met de rituelen, helden en symbolen van de verschillende niveaus van cultuur van Hofstede et al. (1990). 2) Overwonnen waardenniveau (‘espoused values level): de strategieën, doelen en filosofieën. 3) Fundamentele onderliggende aannames: de onbewuste en mede daardoor vanzelfsprekende overtuigingen, percepties, gevoelens zijn de ultieme bron van waarden en acties.
• Alvession (1993), Bate (1996) en Brown (1995) vestigen de aandacht op het onderscheid tussen twee classificaties van cultuur: 1) Het objectivistische of functionele beeld. Deze classificatie plaatst cultuur naast structuur, technologie en omgeving. 2) De interpretatieve visie: de betekenis van cultuur wordt geïnterpreteerd als een metafoor voor het concept van de organisatie zelf.
• Er kan een onderscheid worden gemaakt tussen twee vormen namelijk, convergent en divergent: 1) Convergent: krachten van industrialisatie en toenemende omvang zullen organisaties naar specifieke configuraties duwen met betrekking tot strategie, structuur en management. 2) Divergent: het idee dat verschillen in taal, religie, sociale organisatie, wetten, politiek, onderwijssystemen, waarden en attitudes betekent dat nationale culturen niet zullen convergeren, maar juist zullen blijven onderscheiden.
• Hofstede (2010) introduceerde vijf dimensies van de nationale cultuur, gebaseerd op zijn analyse met 1116.000 werknemers in 50 landen. Deze vijf dimensies worden gebruikt om nationale culturele groepen van elkaar te onderscheiden: 1) Machtsafstand (power distance): dit verwijst naar de manier waarop de samenleving omgaat met het feit dat mensen ongelijk zijn. In een samenleving met een hoge machtsafstand accepteren mensen de ongelijkheid van macht. 2) Individualisme versus collectivisme: dit verwijst naar de relaties tussen een individu en zijn medemensen. 3) Masculiniteit versus vrouwelijkheid (masculinity versus femininity): dit is de mate waarin welke sociale genderrollen duidelijk onderscheiden zijn. 4) Onzekerheidsvermijding (uncertainty avoidance): dit gaat over de manier waarop de samenleving omgaat met het feit dat tijd slechts op één manier loopt: van het verleden naar toekomst en dat de toekomst onbekend is en daardoor onzeker. 5) Focus op de lange termijn versus de focus op de korte termijn (long-term oriented versus short-term oriented): dit gaat over deugd versus de waarheid. Lange termijn focus kijkt naar zowel het heden als het verleden voor het bepalen van hun waardesystemen. Korte termijn focus kijkt naar de toekomst door het cultiveren van gewoonten.
• Kanter (1983) beschrijft twee uitersten van de organisatiecultuur die niet alleen verschillen in structurele kenmerken, maar ook verschillen in onderliggende houdingen en overtuigingen van de mensen die erin werken: 1) Segmentalistische cultuur: vermijd experimenten, heeft zwakke coördinatiemechanismen, ziet problemen als zo nauw mogelijk, stress precedent en procedures en 2) integratieve cultuur: bereid om verder te gaan dan de ontvangen wijsheid, ideeën uit niet-verbonden bronnen te combineren, problemen worden gezien als een geheel, gerelateerd aan grotere gehelen, op zoek naar nieuwe oplossingen en problemen.
• Argyris (1964) beschreef het verschil tussen twee soorten leren: 1) single-loop learning: dit is een situatie waarin een objectief doel wordt gedefinieerd en een persoon werkt de meest favoriete manier uit om het doel te bereiken 2) Double-loop learning: Er worden niet alleen vragen gesteld over de manier waarop doelen kunnen worden bereikt, maar ook over de doelen. Dat wil zeggen: over de doelen zelf. Johnson (1990) noemt dit 'organisatorisch opnieuw leren', waarbij datgene wat als vanzelfsprekend wordt beschouwd en dat is de basis van strategische richting - het paradigma - is opnieuw geformuleerd.

Chapter 5: What is the influence of power and politic conflicts on change?

• Er zijn veel verschillende definities voor macht. Morgan (2006) definieert macht als" macht beïnvloedt wie, wat, wanneer en hoe krijgt. "Ondanks het bestaan ​​van verschillende definities van macht, hebben ze alle definities één ding gemeen: macht betekent het in staat zijn om het gedrag van anderen te beïnvloeden, soms in een richting die de persoon of groep anders niet zou hebben gekozen. Er kan een onderscheid worden gemaakt tussen de elasticiteit en de relativiteit van macht: 1) Elasticiteit van macht: Sommige mensen hebben meer kennis of expertise dan andere doen en, als deze schaars en gewenst zijn, zal die persoon meer macht hebben dan anderen en 2) relativiteit van macht: de ene persoon neemt waar dat een ander macht heeft terwijl een ander persoon anders gelooft.
• Het hulpbronnenvermogen is het gevolg van schaarste. Daarom rijst de vraag of concurrentie gunstig is voor hulpbronnen of dat het altijd disfunctioneel is? Dit leidde vervolgens tot twee ideeën: de unitaristische visie en de pluralistische visie. Managers met de unitaristische visie beweren dat mensen dezelfde belangen hebben. Het gevolg is dat er hierdoor geen conflicten meer bestaan. Managers met de pluralistische opvatting beweren dat mensen soms een conflict kunnen hebben door zowel gedeelde als uiteenlopende belangen te hebben.
• Conflicten ontstaan waarschijnlijk doordat er onevenwichtigheden in macht bestaan in hiërarchische structuren. Er zijn vijf geïdentificeerde factoren die beschouwd worden als de belangrijkste bronnen van conflicten in organisaties. Deze vijf factoren zijn: 1) Onafhankelijkheid. De diverse afdelingen van een organisatie zijn vaak afhankelijk van elkaar. Bijvoorbeeld de afdeling marketing en de afdeling productie kunnen van elkaar afhankelijk zijn. 2) De organisatiestructuur. Een conflict kan ontstaan ​​wanneer er onevenwichtigheden in macht zijn in de structuur van een organisatie. 3) Regels en voorschriften: hoge formalisering zorgt voor minder mogelijkheden voor geschillen over wie, wat doet en wanneer. De ambiguïteit van jurisdictiegeschillen neemt toe. 4) Beperking van middelen: wanneer middelen overvloedig aanwezig zijn, wordt het potentieel voor conflicten door concurrentie om middelen verminderd. 5) Culturele verschillen: conflicten kunnen ontstaan ​​door misverstanden of door ongepast gedrag bij het werken over nationale culturen.
• Alle drie bovengenoemde punten zijn aspecten van sociale systemen en organisatieverandering. Er zijn twee gezichten van macht (McClelland, 1970). Hij betoogt dat macht twee gezichten heeft: het positieve en negatieve gezicht. Het negatieve gezicht (destructief) wordt gekenmerkt door een primitieve, ongecoördineerde behoefte om te domineren over onderdanige personen. Een positief gezicht (constructief) komt voort uit een meer gesocialiseerde behoefte om de behoeften van andere mensen te initiëren, te beïnvloeden, te leiden en om hun eigen doelen te realiseren, evenals die van de organisatie.
• Er bestaat een kromlijnige of omgekeerde U-vormige relatie tussen de concepten conflict en prestaties. De horizontale as vertegenwoordigt een conflict variërend van hoog naar laag. De verticale as vertegenwoordigt de taakuitkomsten variërend van hoog naar laag. DeDreu en Beersma (2005) handhaven datgene tussen een laag conflict (een klimaat van zelfvoldaanheid en apathie) en een hoog conflict (een klimaat van vijandigheid en wantrouwen). Er is een optimaal niveau van conflicten dat zelfkritiek en innovatie oproept om de prestaties per eenheid te verbeteren.
• Macht en politiek worden gedreven door menselijke verschillen. Zowel macht als politiek zijn buitengewoon moeilijk te onderzoeken. Managers moeten zich bewust zijn van hun eigen bronnen en niveaus van macht. Daarnaast is het belangrijk dat ze de kracht en machteloosheid van anderen herkennen.

Chapter 6: What is the link between leadership and change?

• Mintzberg (1979) groepeerde managementrollen in drie sets: interpersoonlijke rollen, informatierollen en besluitvormingsrollen (interpersonal roles, informational roles en decision-making roles).
• Er bestaan verschillen tussen leidinggeven en managen. Er wordt benadrukken dat managen meer betrekking heeft op hetgeen wat speelt binnen de formele structuur van de organisatie, terwijl leiderschap zich meer richt op interpersoonlijk gedrag in een bredere context (Kotter, 1990).
• Charisma werkt volgens Lewin in drie fasen: 1) frame breaking (unfreeze): een charismatische leider heeft de taak de banden te verminderen met bestaande conventies 2) Frame moveing en 3) Frame realignment (refreeze): acceptatie van nieuwe persoonlijke en sociale waarden die vervolgens door de leider worden afgetapt,
• Er bestaan ​​twee beroemde studies over leiderschap die twee onafhankelijke dimensies van leiderschapsstijl hebben geïdentificeerd: 1) Overweging (consideration): de mate waarin een leider vertrouwen en wederzijds respect met ondergeschikten opbouwt. Een leider toont respect voor hun ideeën en zorgt voor hun welzijn. 2) Initiatiestructuur (initiating structure): de mate waarin een leider zijn rol en de interacties binnen de groep naar het bereiken van formele doelen definieert en structureert.
• Locus of control: iemands overtuigingen over wie zijn of haar leven beheerst. Mensen met een interne locus of control geloven dat ze hun eigen leven beheersen. Mensen met een externe locus of control geloven dat andere mensen hun leven beheersen.
• Er bestaat een verschil tussen transactioneel en transformationeel leiderschap. Transactioneel leiderschap is gebaseerd op het belonen van mensen om te doen wat de leider wil. Het zorgt ervoor dat leiders kleine aanpassingen kunnen maken in de missie van een organisatie en de manier waarop mensen worden beheerd.
• Transformationeel leiderschap vertrouwt op het bieden van een doel aan zijn of haar volgers. De leider creëert ‘follower identification’ met de betreffende leider. Deze stijl leent veel van Weber's ideeën over charisma.
• Authentiek leiderschap is gebaseerd op het idee dat leiders zichzelf moeten kennen en weten op welke manier hun eigen ervaringen in het leven hen hebben gemaakt tot wie ze op dit moment zijn. Attributen van authentieke leiders (denk aan de eigenschappenbenadering) zijn onder meer: ​​trouw zijn aan zichzelf, nederigheid en bescheidenheid, situaties zien vanuit verschillende gezichtspunten, de eigen zin goed en fout kennen en zich houden aan persoonlijke normen in de besluitvorming.
• Scepticism tegenover verandering houdt in: twijfel over de levensvatbaarheid van een verandering voor het bereiken van de gestelde doelen. Mensen die sceptisch zijn geloven niet dat de beoogde verandering de beoogde voordelen zal opleveren als het wordt geïmplementeerd.
• Cynisme verschilt daarin. Dit heeft betrekking op het ongeloof over de impliciete of gestelde motieven van het management voor een specifieke verandering in de organisatie.
• De bereidheid tot verandering (readiness to change) heeft betrekking op het vormen van gunstige houdingen en overtuigingen.
• Het bestaan ​​van veel verschillende leiderschapstheorieën biedt inzichten in benaderingen en implicaties. Verder wordt weerstand tegen verandering nu beter begrepen. Een goede communicatie is een van de beste strategieën om hiermee om te gaan. Leren van tegenstanders en weerstanden is een uitdaging voor moderne managers en leiders.

Chapter 7: What is the meaning of hard systems models of change?

• Flood en Jackson (1991) classificeren verschillende methodologieën op een vergelijkbare manier, maar gebruiken termen als 'eenvoudig systeem' en 'complex systeem' in plaats van moeilijkheden. Drie ideologische gezichtspunten presenteren drie soorten relaties tussen mensen: 1) Eenzaam (unitary). Mensen die met elkaar in relatie staan ​​vanuit een unitair perspectief, 2) Pluralist: mensen die met elkaar in relatie staan ​​vanuit een pluralistisch perspectief en 3) Dwang. Mensen die met elkaar te maken hebben vanuit een dwingend perspectief.
• De meeste mensen zijn in staat zowel rationeel als logisch na te denken. Sommige mensen stellen dat de logische en rationele benadering de enige manier is om een ​​probleem op kansen op te lossen. Deze harde benaderingen zijn gebaseerd op de veronderstelling dat duidelijke veranderingsdoelstellingen kunnen worden geïdentificeerd om de beste manier te vinden om ze te bereiken.
• Het hard systeemmodel van verandering (HSMC) is een methode die ontwikkeld is voor het ontwerpen en beheren van veranderingen. Deze methode is handig bij situaties die betrekking hebben op het 'harde' einde van de hard zachte continuümveranderingen. Het biedt een precieze en systematische manier om doelen voor verandering te bepalen.
• Het proces kan worden verdeeld in drie fasen namelijk: 1) Beschrijvingsfase (description phase): de beschrijving en de diagnose van een bepaalde situatie. Daarnaast biedt het inzicht in wat erbij hoort en wordt de doelstelling voor de verandering bepaald. 2) Optiefase (option phase): het genereren van opties voor verandering, het selecteren van de meest geschikte optie, en het denken over wat kan worden gedaan. 3) Implementatiefase (implementation phase): kijkt naar welke plannen haalbaar zijn en brengt ze in de praktijk. Daarnaast worden de resultaten gemonitord.
• De volgende 8 fasen zijn belangrijk: Fase 1: samenvatting van de situatie, Fase 2: het identificeren van de doelstellingen en de beperkingen, Fase 3: het identificeren van de prestatiemetingen, Fase 4: het genereren van opties, Fase 5: het bewerken van de opties en detailleer geselecteerde opties, Fase 6: het evalueren van de opties tegen maatregelen, Stap 7: het ontwikkelen van implementatiestrategieën en fase 8: voer de geplande wijzigingen uit.
• Het harde-systeemmodel is met name handig wanneer een deel van de organisatie misschien moet worden gewijzigd, maar geen inbreuk gemaakt mag worden op andere gebieden en wanneer keuzes op basis van beslissingen over rantsoenen kunnen worden gemaakt.

Chapter 8: What is the meaning of soft systems models of change?

• Mensen handelen niet rationeel, maar mensen handelen op een bepaalde manier die volgens hen rationeel (Carnell, 2007). In dit scenario is verandering alleen effectief en mogelijk wanneer de processen zich richten op de gevoelens en de behoeften van individuen. Harde systeemmodellen van verandering zijn niet voldoende om organisatorische ‘messes’ te verklaren. Bovendien zijn deze modellen beperkt in het bieden van een model om de veranderingen in deze situaties te plannen en te implementeren.
• Organisatieontwikkeling (organizational development ‘OD’) is een overkoepelende term voor een reeks waarden en veronderstellingen over organisaties en de mensen die samen met een reeks concepten en technieken, nuttig worden geacht voor het bewerkstelligen van een veranderingen in een organisatie op de lange termijn.
• De medewerkers van een bedrijf kunnen gezien worden als de bouwstenen van een bepaalde organisatie. Deze OD benadering is een benadering die zich bezig houdt met de mensen in de organisatie. Daarnaast gelooft deze benadering dat mensen op alle niveaus in de hele organisatie zowel drijfveren als de motoren van verandering zijn.
• Het concept van een lerende organisatie is gebaseerd op de stelling dat er meer dan één type leren mogelijk is. Argyris en Schon (1996) onderscheiden de volgende twee typen: 1) Single-loop learning. Dit is een doelgerichte benadering. Problemen worden als moeilijk beschouwd. 2) Double-loop learning. Dit is een procesgeoriënteerde aanpak: problemen worden als rommelig (‘messy’) beschouwd.
• OD functioneert op alle niveaus van een organisatie. Het proces voor zowel het aanzetten tot als het implementeren van een geplande verandering is een proces op de lange termijn. OD als een proces voor het aanzetten tot en het implementeren van verandering heeft twee belangrijke kenmerken: 1) het is een proces van verandering dat een raamwerk van herkenbare fasen heeft die de organisatie van zijn huidige staat naar een meer gewenste staat in de toekomst brengen. 2) OD processen kunnen worden opgevat als een verzameling activiteiten en technieken die selectief of accumulatief de organisatie helpen bij het doorlopen van deze fasen.
• Verandering is een continu proces van confrontatie, identificatie, evaluatie en actie (Paton en McCalman, 2008.) De sleutel hiervoor is hetgeen wat voorstanders van OD aanduiden als een action-research-model. Verschillende studies bieden verschillende gedetailleerde beschrijvingen van actie-onderzoek. Dit is een samenwerking tussen een leider en de ontwikkelaar van een verandering en degenen die het moeten uitvoeren.
• Deze benadering verschilt van het veranderingsmodel van harde systemen. Het is geen eenmalige gebeurtenis die stopt wanneer de verandering voltooid is. Daarnaast is het een iteratief proces dat continu is. Met continu bedoelen de auteurs dat het een onderdeel is van de dagelijkse activiteiten van de organisatie. Bovendien kan elk component van het model gebruikt worden om een fase te vormen dat zorgt voor een typisch OD proces. Ten slotte is deze benadering stevig verankerd in de veronderstelling dat iedereen die betrokken is bij het proces van een verandering, deel moet uitmaken van het besluitvormingsproces om te beslissen wat die verandering zou kunnen zijn en om die verandering tot stand te brengen.
• Er zijn twee fasen die belangrijk zijn: de huidige toestand en toekomstige toestand. De change-agent is speelt hierbij een belangrijke rol en deze persoon kan intern of extern zijn in de organisatie.
• Een overeenkomst tussen harde en zachte modellen voor verandering is dat ze een geplande verandering suggereren. Als je de beschreven stappen volgt, zal de verandering succesvol zijn (volgens deze theorieën). Zachte systemen pakken de problemen aan van zachte complexiteit.

Chapter 9: What are the future directions and challenges?

• Zowel interne als externe factoren kunnen van invloed zijn op het bedrijf, de levensstijl en sociale structuren.
• De sociale structuur kan een invloed hebben op: 1) de sociale klasse van een persoon (bijv. elite, traditionele arbeidersklasse, dienstwerkers enz.) 2) Demografische veranderingen: de bevolkingsaantallen kunnen voorspeld worden voor de toekomst. Bijvoorbeeld wanneer het gaat over de vergrijzing en het percentage jongeren in een land. 3) De levensstijl van iemand veranderen. Dit kan betrekking hebben op de samenstelling van een huishouden en/of het bezit van een huis. Er bestaan verschillen in huishoudens namelijk, mensen die alleen wonen, ouders die alleen zijn, huurders, jongeren die nog thuis wonen, een huwelijk en samenleven. De snelst groeiende gezinnen in het Verenigd Koninkrijk zijn samenwonende koppels.
• Het psychologisch contract vertegenwoordigt de overtuigingen van een individu met betrekking tot de voorwaarden en bepalingen van een wederzijdse uitwisselingsovereenkomst tussen die persoon en een andere partij (Rousseau en Parks, 1993). Het contract is onzichtbaar wanneer werknemers hun werk normaal en juist uitvoeren. Het contract wordt zichtbaar wanneer een werknemer het contract verbreekt. Het psychologisch contract heeft een grote invloed op de acceptatie van de werknemer en wanneer managers alert moeten zijn op de manier waarop hun werknemers dingen waarnemen wanneer er sprake is van een verandering.
• De trends voor de toekomst benadrukken het belang van innovatie, creativiteit en technologieën. Deze veranderingen kunnen de organisatie en haar werknemers ten goede komen, maar het kan ook resulteren in een opsplitsing in de samenleving. De levensstandaard ‘lifestyle’ van mensen kan uiteenlopen. Innovatie en creativiteit zijn niet dezelfde concepten. Sommige onderzoekers beweren dat creativiteit een onderdeel is van innovatie. Miles, et al. (2000) benadrukken het belang van innovatie. Volgens hen is samenwerking de sleutel tot innovatie. Dit staat ook wel bekend als meta-capability.
• Anthony en Christensen (2005) beweren dat disruptieve verandering (disruptive change) en disruptieve innovatietheorie (disruptive innovation theory) twee belangrijke concepten zijn bij het verklaren van het creëren van waarde voor potentiële klanten. Zij beweren dat: bestaande bedrijven een grote kans hebben om aanvallers te verslaan wanneer de wedstrijd gaat over het ondersteunen van innovaties met radicale veranderingen of incrementele verbeteringen. Dit is gericht op veeleisende klanten aan de bovenkant van de markt die bereid zijn om premium prijzen te betalen voor betere producten. Voorbeelden hiervan zijn de supermarkten Aldi en Lidl die producten aanbieden voor lagere prijzen.
• Er bestaat een paradox tussen de trends omdat enerzijds mensen veel individualistischer en onafhankelijker zijn. Ze communiceren meer via ICT. Anderzijds pleiten onderzoekers voor een meer organische, netwerk- en virtuele organisatie waar goede samenwerking vereist is. De vraag is vervolgens: 'ondermijnen de veranderingen in de loopbaan de belangrijkste houdingen en gedragingen die een werkgever nodig heeft? Een deel van het antwoord is empowerment. Het ondersteunt echter niet de processen en cultuur die de managers succesvol maken.
• Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is een methodologie voor organisatieverandering. Deze benadering heeft een radicaal andere kijk op traditionele benaderingen, omdat het een veel meer collectieve methode is die zich richt op de positieve psychologie. Dit wordt gegenereerd door het stellen van positieve vragen in plaats van zich te concentreren op negatieve vragen en problemen. Deze benadering zoekt naar het beste in mensen en wat er gebeurt in hun organisaties.
• Veranderingscapaciteit (change capacity) bestaat uit drie gecorreleerde dimensies. Deze drie dimensies zijn: het leerproces, het veranderingsproces en de organisatorische context (Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie).
• WHO is de Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie. Deze organisatie heeft als doel dat mensen over de hele wereld gebruik kunnen maken van de best mogelijke gezondheid.

Organizational Change - Senior & Swailes - BulletPoints (EN)

Chapter 1: Organizations and Environments

• An organization is a ‘system that consists of formal aspects of operations and management which are massively covered by informal aspects in the organization that is derived from the relation between people.
• An organization can be seen as a system of interacting subsystems and components set within wider systems and environment that provide inputs to the systems and receive its outputs. This can be divided into two subsystems: an informal and a forma subsystem. These subsystems identify the main elements of an organization. Informal: culture, politics and leadership. Formal: management, strategy, goals, structure, operations, technology.
• There were several financial scandals such as the Leman Brothers, the bankruptcy of The Times and other financial communities fell out or were baled-out. In the business community, the confidence decreased, and fear increased. Next to the macro-economic events, change is triggered by events that have an impact on the lines of an individual such as education or healthcare. It seems that a change in organizations is triggered by large and momentous events and by events. Organizational change is influenced by the external environment besides the internal systems (input, conversion, output) and history. An organization consists of several elements which are interrelated and operate in a multi-dimensional environment. Brooks (2011) explains the environments as a general concept which take into account the totality of external environmental forces which may influence any aspect of organizational activity. A common way of grouping different environmental factors uses the PEST mnemonic. PEST stands for: Political, Economic, Socio-cultural, Technological.
• A political trigger may influence economic environment like government legislation, international law, wars, local regulations, universal rights, trade union activities and taxation. The most important goal for governments is to enhance economic prosperity.
• Economic triggers are factors as competitors, suppliers, employment rates, wage rates, government economic policies, currency exchange rates, other countries’ economic policies, leading policies of financial institutions and changes from public to private ownership. Economic and political environments are closely related since political decisions shape economic fortunes and economic changes influence political decisions.
• Social-cultural triggers influence the way in which an organisation is set up, run and managed. It is also about their capacity to attract people within their company.
• Examples of technological triggers include information technology, internet, new production processes, new ways to generate energy, waste management and recycling, computerization of processes and changes in transport technology.
  An organization can 1) adopt and use technology to assist in production and delivery of goods and services and 2) exist through the creation of technology itself such as Microsoft or a telecom company.
• The dynamics of an organization’s environment have also been described in terms of the degree of environmental turbulence. Ansoff and McDonnel (1990) explain that the performance of a company is optimized when its aggressiveness and responsiveness match its environment. They propose five levels of environmental turbulence: 1) Predictable, 2) Forecast able by extrapolation, 3) predictable threats and opportunities, 4) partially predictable opportunities and 5) unpredictable surprises.
• Since organization operate in multiple environments, the key task is to work and try to manage the external adaptations and internal integration. They need to be quick on their feet to anticipate to opportunities and threats and the unpredictable surprises.

Chapter 2: What is the nature of organizational change?

• Within this chapter, different models of organizational change will be discussed. The explanation of some terms within this chapters are summarized below: 1) Convergent: fine-tuning of an existing configuration. The organizational configuration or template is not itself changed. 2) Radical: also known as frame-bending breaking away from a position such that a very different position is reached. 3) Planned: discrete beginning and end points. Change is seen as something that managers can control. 4) Evolutionary: also known as continuous change, slow adaptation of existing systems or structures. 5) Revolutionary: Fast paced, which affect all or most of an organization at the same time. 5) Emergent: change is seen as something that managers create the right climate for. Organization is seen as an evolving system then change arises out of experimentation and adaptation.
• Change is not homogeneous but exists and comes in many different forms. A starting point for considering the nature of organizational change is Grundy’s (1993) three varieties of change: 1) Smooth incremental change. This type of change emerges slowly in a systematic and predictable way. It is constant. 2) Bumby incremental change. This type of change is characterized by periods of relative tranquillity punctuated by acceleration in the pace of change. 3) Discontinuous change. This type of change shows rapid shifts in strategy, structure or culture, or in all three of them. An example is the privatisation of earlier publicly owned services.
• The types of change from Grundy (1993) are simplistic. Therefore, Balogun and Hope (2008) go a step further by suggesting four types of change: Evolution, adaption, revolution and reconstruction.
• Organizational change can be mapped in terms of its pace (continuous or episodic) and its scope (convergent or radical) according to Plowman et al. (2007). Each type of change differs on the following dimensions: The driver (namely instability or inertia), The form (namely adaptations or replacement), The nature of change (namely emergent or intended), The types of feedback (negative feedback discourages) and the connections in the system (loose or tight).
• Complexity theory is a set of ideas stemming from the study of natural systems such as weather patterns and animal behaviour and which draws on mathematical principles to help explain how organizations behave (Burnes 2005). Some studies argue that the concepts complexity and complicated are the same. This is actually not completely true. For example: a computer is a complicated system but is does not have to be a complex one. A complicated system is an ordered system while a complex system is disordered (unpredictable).
• A tipping point is another concept of the complexity theory. Here, events occur and are contained within a system which lead up to and which culminate in a tipping point (Boyatzis, 2006). The butterfly metaphor captures the idea that tiny variations in air pressure caused by the beat of a butterfly’s wings in one place can set in motion a chain of weather events that lead to a hurricane on the other side of the world.
• Diagnosing a change situation is important if companies want to respond or manage this change. The organizational cycle of Greiner or techniques such as SWOT or PEST are useful to diagnose change. In contrast to Greiner who focuses on the structure and management of an organization, Strebel (1996) links his model to an organization’s competitive environment including breakpoints. These breakpoints are those times when organizations must change in response to changes in competitor behaviour.
• Organizational change can be categorized in three dimensions: pace, scope and planned-emergent. Different models and approached can be used. The models discussed in this chapter are compared in table above. Cautionary note: Models are often showed two dimensional, assume orthogonality, have discontinuous scale and incidence of types. However, the reality is the opposite: multi- dimensional, interwoven, not so black-white with every quadrant filled.

Chapter 3: In what way is an organization structured?

• Bureaucratic form of structure is one of the best-known structures. Max Weber (1947) is one of the founding fathers of the bureaucratic structure. Three ideas were central: the idea of rational legal authority, the idea of office and the idea of impersonal order.
• Flatter structures: In order to response better to markets and reduce operating costs by removing layers of management, some organization have tried to flatten their core design. Two flatter structures rules are the more similar jobs at any one level, the more people a manager can coordinate, and control and the more decision making is decentralized and therefore reducing the burden on each manager, the broader the span of control.
• Horizontal differentiation: Multifunctional structures are a common structural form particularly in the stages of an organization’s development when the early entrepreneurial phase gives way to a more settled phase of sustained growth: phase two of the Greiner model. This phase will end in the crisis of autonomy. It will be more efficient to organize around products instead of functions. This structure has both advantages, disadvantages and contingency factors mentioned below:
• Multidivisional structures are built around outputs rather than inputs. They allow faster responses to market conditions.
• A matrix organization has a typical vertical hierarchy that is overlaid with a horizontal structure. Matrix structures are strongly dependent on teamwork. Team members are managed by two different managers: a functional line manager and a team or project leader. Moreover, different advantages, disadvantages and contingencies can be mentioned:
• The structuration theory is not so much a ‘patterned regularity’ but, as something that emerges from the ‘routine behaviour of people, which in turn influences those behaviours’ (Cunliffe, 2008). Organizations have structures in which it has departments and divisions that have both distinct and overlapping activities. People also named ‘actors’ do their work (Giddens, 1984). According to Giddens (1991), the structuration theory focuses on ‘the complementary nature of interactions between structures and actors within them’ (Senior and Swailes, 2016). So, there is a relation between actors and structures. Actors create a structure and becomes dependent on this structure.
• The Actor Network Theory (ANT) acknowledges that actors build networks involving other human and non-human (animals/technologies) actors (Latour, 2005). Actors can be human or non-human. an example of a non-human actor is a management system. Actors create networks and therefore, they create themselves. ANT explains how and why the networks that are initiated are more or less successful. Van der Duin and van Marwijk (2006) state that innovation means new patterns of coordination between people, organizations, technology and environment. They use ANT to explain this. According to van der Duim and van Marwijk (2006), a successful innovation calls for ‘translation’. Translation is explaining things in ways that persuade actors to fit with what a network is trying to achieve. If the four stages of translation are achieved the outcome is known as collective.
• Institutional theory consists of several similarities with the structuration theory. It emphasizes the cultural influences about design and structure. The people who decide what organizational should look like are ‘suspended in a web of values, norms, rules, beliefs and take for granted assumptions that are at least partially of their own making (Barley & Tobert, 1997). Culture provides an organization with a unique identity and culture influences decision making. Institutions work within bounded rationality due to culture. This institutional theory is not a theory of change, but it is a way of explaining the similarities of arrangements that are often found in a sector. It can also explain why things do not change.

Chapter 4: Changing Organizational Culture

• There are a lot of other different definitions of culture. For example, Hofstede (1981) defines culture as: ‘culture is the collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes the members of one human group from those of another. Culture is a system of collectively held values’.
• Schein (2004) suggests three levels from shallowest to deepest: 1) Artefacts. The visible organizational structures and processes such as language, environment, rituals, ceremonies, myths and stories. This is in line with the rituals, heroes and symbols of the different levels of culture of Hofstede et al. (1990). 2) Espoused values level: The strategies, goals and philosophies. 3) Basic underlying assumptions: The unconscious, taken for granted beliefs, perceptions, feelings that are the ultimate source of values and actions.
• Alvession (1993), Bate (1996) and Brown (1995) draw attention to the distinction between two classifications of culture: 1) The objectivist or functional view: places culture alongside structure, technology and environment) and 2) The interpretive view: interpret the meaning of culture as a metaphor for the concept of organization itself.
• A distinguish can be made between convergent and divergent: 1) Convergent: Forces of industrialization as well as increasing size will push organizations towards particular configurations with respect to strategy, structure and management. 2) Divergent: The notion that differences in language, religion, social organization, laws, politics, education systems and values and attitudes will mean that national cultures will not converge but continue to remain distinct.
• Hofstede (2010) introduced five dimensions of national culture. This was based on his analysis which includes 1116.000 employees in 50 countries. These five dimensions are used to differentiate national cultural groups: 1) Power distance: this refers to how society deals with the fact that people are unequal. In a high power distance society, people accept the inequalities of power. 2) Individualism versus collectivism: this refers to the relationships between an individual and their fellow individuals. 3) Masculinity versus femininity: this is the degree to which social gender roles are clearly distinct. 4) Uncertainty avoidance: this is about how the society deals with the fact that time runs only one way, from past to future, and that the future is unknown and therefore uncertain. 5) Long-term versus short-term orientation: this is about virtue versus truth. Long-term orientation looks to the past and present for their value systems. Short-term orientation looks towards the future, cultivating habits.
• Kanter (1983) describes two extremes of organizational culture that are not only different in structural characteristics but also differ in underlying attitudes and beliefs of the people working in them: 1) Segmentalist culture: avoid experimentation, have weak coordinating mechanisms, see problems as narrowly as possible, stress precedent and procedures and 2) integrative culture: willing to move beyond received wisdom, combine ideas from unconnected sources, see problems as wholes, related to larger wholes, look for novel solutions and problems.
• Argyris (1964) pointed to the difference between two kinds of learning: 1) Single-loop learning. A situation where an objective goal is defined, and a person works out the most favoured way of reaching the goal. 2) Double-loop learning. Questions are asked not only about the means by which goals can be achieved, but also the ends, that is, the goals themselves. Johnson (1990) refers this to ‘organizational relearning’; process in which that which is taken for granted and which is the basis of strategic direction – the paradigm – is re-formulated.

Chapter 5: What is the influence of power and politic conflicts on change?

• There are a lot of different definitions for power. Morgan (2006) defines power as ‘power influences who gets what, when and how’. Despite the existence of different definitions of power, they all have one thing in common: power means being able to influence the behaviour of others, sometimes in direction which the person or group would not, otherwise, have chosen. A distinguish can be made between the elasticity and the relativity of power: 1) Elasticity of power: Some people have more knowledge or expertise than other do and, if these are scarce and desired, that person will have more power than others and 2) relativity of power: One person perceives another to have power while a second person believes otherwise.
• The resource power results from scarcity. Therefore, the issue arises whether competition is beneficial for resources or whether it is always dysfunctional. This lead to two ideas: the unitarist view and the pluralist view. Managers with the unitarist view argues people have the same interests and therefore there would be no conflicts. Managers with the pluralist view argue that people can sometimes have a conflict by having both shared and divergent interests.
• Conflict is likely because of the power imbalances that prevail in hierarchical structures. There are five factors identified that are seen as the main sources of conflicts in organizations. These five factors are: 1) Independence. Organizational departments are often dependent of each other. For example, marketing and production. 2) Organizational structure. A conflict can arise when there are power imbalances in the structure of an organization. 3) Rules and regulations: high formalization creates fewer opportunities for disputes about who does what and when. Low formalization; degree of ambiguity is such that the potential for jurisdictional disputes increases. 4) Limitation of resources: when resources are plentiful, the potential for conflict through competition for resources is reduced. 5) Cultural differences: conflict can arise through misunderstanding or trough inappropriate behaviour when working across national cultures.
• All three are aspects of social systems and organizational change. There are two faces of power (McClelland, 1970). He argues that power has two faces: its positive and negative face. The negative face (destructive) is characterized by a primitive, unsocialized need to have dominance over submissive others. Positive face (constructive) derives from a more socialized need to initiate, influence and lead and recognized other people’s needs to achieve their own goals as well as those of the organization.
• There exist a curvilinear or inverted U-shaped relationship between conflict and performance. The horizontal axis represents a conflict ranging from high to low. The vertical axis represents the task outputs ranging from high to low. DeDreu and Beersma (2005) maintain that between a low conflict (a climate of complacency and apathy) and a high conflict (a climate of hostility and mistrust) there is an optimal level of conflict that engenders self-criticism and innovation to increase unit performance.
• Power and politics are driven by human differences. They are extremely difficult to research. Manager need to be aware of their own sources and levels of power and recognize the power and powerlessness of others.

Chapter 6: What is the link between leadership and change?

• Mintzberg (1979) grouped managerial roles into three sets: Interpersonal roles, Informational roles and Decision-making roles
• The differences between leading and managing highlight that management is more about what goes on within the formal structure of the organization while leadership focuses more on interpersonal behaviour in a broader context (Kotter, 1990).
• Charisma works according to Lewin in three stages: 1) Frame breaking (unfreeze): Charismatic leader has the job of reducing the strength of ties to existing conventions. 2) Frame moving and 3) Frame realignment (refreeze): acceptance of new personal and social values which are then tapped by the leader.
• There exist two famous studies of leadership which identified two independent dimensions of leadership style: 1) Consideration: The degree to which a leader builds trust and mutual respect with subordinates, shows respect for their ideas and concern for their well-being. 2) Initiating structure: The degree to which a leader defines and structures their role and the interactions within the group towards the attainment of formal goals.
• Locus of control: a person’s beliefs about who controls their life. People with an internal locus of control believe that they control their own lives. People with an external locus of control believe other people control their lives.
• There is a difference between transactional and transformational leadership. Transactional leadership is based on giving people rewards for doing what the leader wants. It makes leaders make minor adjustments to mission and the ways people are managed.
• Transformational leadership relies on giving followers a purpose, a vision of something to aim for and on creating follower identification with the leader. This style borrows much from Weber’s ideas about charisma.
• Authentic leadership is based on the idea that leaders should know themselves and know how their experiences in life have made them what they are. Attributes of authentic leaders (recall the traits approach) include: being true to themselves, humility and modesty, seeing situations from a range of perspectives, knowing one’s own sense right and wrong and adhere to personal standards in decision making.
• Scepticism towards change is: doubt about the viability of a change for attainment of its stated objectives. Scepticisms do not believe that the intended change will bring about the intended benefits if it is implemented.
• Cynicism differs in that is it disbelief about management’s implied or stated motives for a specific organizational change.
• Readiness for change involves shaping, perhaps conditioning, attitudes and beliefs to be favourable.
• The existence of many different leadership theories provides insights in approaches and implication. Furthermore, resistance to change is better understood and good communication is one of the best strategies for dealing with it. Learning how to learn from resistors is a challenge to modern managers and leaders.

Chapter 7: What is the meaning of hard systems models of change?

• Flood and Jackson (1991) classify various methodologies in a similar way but use terms ‘simple system’ and ‘complex system’ instead of difficulties and messes. Three ideological viewpoints, presenting three types of relationships between people: 1) Unitary. People relating to each other from a unitary perspective, 2) Pluralist. People relating to each other from a pluralist perspective and 3) Coercive. People relating to each other from a coercive perspective.
• Most people are able to think rationally and logically. Some would say the logical and rational approach is the only way to solve a problem or response to opportunities. These hard approaches rely on the assumption that clear change objectives can be identified in order to work out the best way of achieving them.
• The hard system model of change (HSMC) is a method that has been developed for designing and managing change. This method is useful when dealing with situations that lie towards the ‘hard’ end of the hard-soft continuum changes situations. It supplies a precise and systematic way of determining aims for change.
• The process can be divided into three phases: 1) Description phase: describing and diagnosing the situation, understanding what is involved, setting the objective for the change. 2) Options phase: generating options for change, selecting the most appropriate option, thinking about what might be done. 3) Implementation phase: putting feasible plans into practice and monitoring the results.
• The 8 stages: Stage 1: Situation summary, Stage 2: Identify objectives and constraints, Stage 3: Identify performance measures, Stage 4: Generate options, Stage 5: Edit options and detail selected options, Stage 6: Evaluate options against measures, Stage 7: Develop implementation strategies and Stage 8: Carry out the planned changes
• The hard systems model is particularly useful when an area of the organization may need to be changed but may not infringe on other areas and when choices based on ration decision making can be made.

Chapter 8: What is the meaning of soft systems models of change?

• “People do not act rationally, it is to way that they act according to their own view of what is rational for them” (Carnell, 2007). Change in this scenario will only be possible and effective if it is accompanied but processes that address feelings, needs of individuals. Hard systems models of change, are not sufficient to explain organizational messes and are extremely limited in providing a model for planning and implementing change in these situations.
• Organization Development (OD) is an umbrella term for a set of values and assumptions about organizations and the people within them that, together with a range of concepts and techniques, are thought useful for bringing about long-term, organizational wide change.
• The employees of a company are the building blocks of the organization. The OD approach is an approach that cares about people. This approach believes that people at all levels throughout the organization are both drivers and the engines of change.
• The concept of a learning organization is built upon the proposition that there is more than one type of learning. Argyris and Schon (1996) distinguish: 1) Single-loop learning. Goal-oriented approach: problems are viewed as a difficult. 2) Double-loop learning. Process-oriented approach; problems are viewed as messy.
• OD functions at all levels of an organization. The process for both initiating and implementing planned change is long-term. OD as a process for instigating and implementing change has two important characteristics: 1) Process of change which has a framework of recognizable phases that take the organization from its current state to a more desired future state. 2) OD process can be perceived to be a collection of activities and techniques that, selectively or accumulatively, help the organization and/or parts to move through these phases.
• Change is a continuous process of confrontation, identification, evaluation and action (Paton and McCalman, 2008). The key to this is what OD proponents refer to as an action-research model. Several studies provide detailed descriptions of action research: “A collaborative effort between leader and facilitators of any change and those who have to enact it.”
• This approach is different from the hard systems model of change. It is not a one-off event which stops if the change is accomplished. Next to that, it is an iterative process that is continuous and which continuous as part of everyday organizational life. Furthermore, each of the components of the model may be used to form each of the phases that make up a typical OD process. Lastly, this approach is firmly embedded in the assumption that all who are of who might be involved in any change should be part of the decision-making process to decide what that change might be and to bring it about.
• Two stages are important: the present and future state. The change agent is important, and this person can be internal or external to the organization.
• A similarity between hard and soft models for change is that they suggest a planned change. If you will follow the described steps, the change will be successful (according to these theories). Soft systems address the issues of soft complexity inherent messy situations.

Chapter 9: What are the future directions and challenges?

• Internal and external factors can affect the business, lifestyles and social structures.
• The social structure can have an influence: 1) Social class (e.g. elite, traditional working class, service workers etc.). 2) Demographic changes, the population can be predicted for the future. The ageing population and the percentage of young people is decreasing. 3) Changing lifestyle. Household composition and ownership. There are differences in households, people who live alone, parents who are alone, renters and young people who live still at home. Marriage and co-habiting. The fasted-growing families in the UK are cohabiting-couple families.
• The psychological contract represents ‘an individual’s beliefs regarding terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between that person and another party’ (Rousseau and Parks, 1993). The contract is invisible when employees do their work normally. The contract becomes visible when an employee breaks the contract. The psychological contract has a huge influence on the acceptance of the employee and when managers need to be alert to how employees will perceive things when change is in the air.
• The trends for the future highlight the importance of innovation, creativity and technologies. These changes can benefit the organization and their employees. However, it can also result in a split in the society. The standard of living of people can diverge. Innovation and creativity are not the same concepts. Some researchers argue that creativity is a component of innovation. Miles et al. (2000) emphasize the importance of innovation. Collaboration is the key to innovation, also known as meta-capability.
• Anthony and Christensen (2005) argue that disruptive change and disruptive innovation theory are important concepts in explaining creating value for potential customers. They argue that: ‘existing companies have a high probability of beating entrant attackers when the contest is about sustaining innovations with radical or incremental improvements that target demanding customers at the high end of the market who are willing to pay premium prices for better products’. Examples are the supermarkets Aldi and Lidl who offer basic food for lower prices.
• There exists a paradox between the trends because 1) people are more individualistic, independent, communicate more through ICT and 2) researchers argue for more organic, network and virtual organizations were collaboration is required. The question is: ‘do the changing career patterns undermine the key attitudes and behaviour that an employer need?’ Part of the answer is empowerment. However, it does not support the processes and culture that make the managers successful.
• Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is an organizational change methodology that takes a radically different view from traditional approaches, being a far more collective method that focuses on the positive psychology generated by asking positive questions rather than concentrating on negative questions and issues. AI is a search for the best in people and what is happening in their organizations.
• Change capacity is conceptualized as comprising three correlated dimensions; learning, change process and organizational context (World Health Organization).
• WHO is the World Health Organization, which is on a mission to see that people all over the world enjoy the best possible health.

Organizational Change - Senior & Swailes - ExamTickets

Chapter 1: Organizations and Environments

The organization as a system consists of input, subsystems and output. Inputs in the organization are materials and resources. Remember this as something that goes ‘in’ the organization. Output consists of achievement of organizational goals and employee satisfaction. Remember output as something that comes ‘out’ of the organization.
Input --> the organization (formal and informal subsystems) --> output.

There are two types of subsystems in an organization: 1) formal and 2) informal. Formal subsystems are the strategy, goals, structure, operations, technology etc. Remember this as something which is visible. An informal subsystem is for example the culture or politics. Remember this as a hidden element in the organization which is not directly observable.

Brooks (2011) explains the environments as a general concept which take into account the totality of external environmental forces which may influence any aspect of organizational activity. A common way of grouping different environmental factors uses the PEST: Political, Economic, Socio-cultural and Technological.

Chapter 2: What is the nature of organizational change?

There are different models of organizational change. This can be explained by: C – E – R – P – E – R:

1. Convergent: fine-tuning of an existing configuration. The organizational configuration or template is not itself changed.
2. Evolutionary: also known as continuous change, slow adaptation of existing systems or structures.
3. Revolutionary: Fast paced, which affect all or most of an organization at the same time.
4. Planned: discrete beginning and end points. Change is seen as something that managers can control.
5. Emergent: change is seen as something that managers create the right climate for. Organization is seen as an evolving system then change arises out of experimentation and adaptation.
6. Radical: also known as frame-bending breaking away from a position such that a very different position is reached.

Stacey et al. (2002) identified three cornerstones of complexity theory: C – D – C

1. Chaos theory. Chaotic systems are characterized by constant transformation analogous to the ways that species evolve.
2. Dissipative structures. These need energy and impetus from outside otherwise they reduce to next to nothing.
3. Complex adaptive systems. These systems are made up of agents each of which conforms to its own principles that shape its behaviour in relation to other agents.

The competitive cycle argues that there are two basic types of breakpoints: divergent and convergent breakpoints. Divergent breakpoint associated with sharply increasing variety in the competitive offering, resulting in more value for the customer. Divergent means different, various, diverse and therefore can be remembered by ‘increasing variety’.
Convergent breakpoints associated with sharp improvements in the systems and processes used to deliver the offerings, resulting in lower delivered costs à CC: Convergent breakpoints results in lower Costs.

Chapter 3: In what way is an organization structured?

Organizational structures can differ in many ways. A classic study identified the following six primary dimensions of structure: C – C – F – S – S – T

1. Centralization: the extent to which authority to make decisions lies with the apex (top) of the organization.
2. Configuration: the shape and pattern of authority relationships: how many layers there are and the number of people who typically report a supervisor.
3. Formalization: the extent to which written rules, procedures, instructions and communications are set out for employees.
4. Specialization: the extent to which there are different specialist roles and how they are distributed.
5. Standardization: the extent to which an organization uses regularly occurring procedures that are supported by bureaucratic procedures or invariable rules and processes.
6. Traditionalism: How commonly accepted is the notion of ‘the way things are done around this organization’.

Organizations use flatter organizational structures to response better to markets and reduce operating costs. It is easier for yourself to visualize this. By removing layers of management, the organization becomes flatter. This means that decision making is more decentralized and therefore, the span of control becomes broader instead of larger.

There is a difference between tight and loose coupling. Tight coupling occurs when a sector exerts a high level of influence and control over the templates that organizations in the sector use. Tight means close or strict. So, there is a ‘tight’ influence and control. It is not flexible.

Mintzberg (1991) mentioned five organizational forms that can be remembered as: D – A – M – P – E

1. Diversified form. A combination of functions and products, with products dominating; they can be of matrix form or organized as divisions on the basis of products/markets.
2. Adhocracy form. Very low in standardization and formalization, little hierarchy, much use of temporary project teams.
3. Machine form. High formalization and standardization, centralized authority vested in rules and regulations, functional departments.
4. Professional form. High in complexity and formalization, but low in centralization; allows the employment of trained specialists staff for the core work of the organization.
5. Entrepreneurial form. Tends to be low in formalization and standardization, but high in centralization with authority in a single person.

Chapter 4: Changing Organizational Culture

Schein (2004) suggests three levels from shallowest to deepest --> B – A – E

1. Basic underlying assumptions. The unconscious, taken for granted beliefs, perceptions, feelings that are the ultimate source of values and actions.
2. Artefacts. The visible organizational structures and processes such as language, environment, rituals, ceremonies, myths and stories.
3. Espoused values level. The strategies, goals and philosophies.

There can be made a distinction between two classifications of culture: the objectivist and the interpretive view. The objectivist view places culture alongside structure, technology and environment. The interpretive view interprets the meaning of culture as a metaphor for the concept of organization itself. So, the interpretive view interprets the meaning of culture while the objectivist approach is more open-minded and impartial.

Argyris (1964) pointed to the difference between two kinds of learning: single-loop learning and double-loop learning. Single-loop learning means that there is a situation in which an objective goal is defined, and a person works out the most favoured way of reaching the goal. Double-loop learning means that questions are asked not only about the means by which goals can be achieved, but also the ends, that is, the goals themselves. To remember: double-loop learning can be seen as ‘double learning’ also named relearning.

Chapter 5: What is the influence of power and politic conflicts on change?

There are barriers to change. There are different reasons why women on average do less than men are (P – P – C):

1. Perceptions of social roles that men and women should perform although social attitudes are changing to lessen these distinctions.
2. Placement of women in non-strategic roles from which is harder to progress to the top and which bring exclusion from networks that are important in underpinning career advancement.
3. Child-bearing and child-care.

There are two types of views: the unitarist view and the pluralist view. Managers with the unitarist view argues people have the same interests and therefore there would be no conflicts. Managers with the pluralist view argue that people can sometimes have a conflict by having both shared and divergent interests. Uni means singular or ‘one-coloured’: there is no conflict because people have the same interests.

The techniques of conflict management can be categorized in two dimensions: concern for production and concern for people. Each dimension ranges from high to low. There are five styles (CCC-AA): Competition, Collaborating, Compromising, Avoiding and Accommodating.

Chapter 6: What is the link between leadership and change?

Charisma works according to Lewin in three stages --> Remember: Frame

1. Frame breaking (unfreeze)
2. Frame moving
3. Frame realignment (refreeze)

Emotional Intelligence (EI) has five components according to Goleman (1998): (ME-SSS) à Motivation, Empathy, Self-awareness, Self-regulation and Social skills.

Graen et al. (1995) introduced the leader-member-exchange theory and argued that the different types of social exchanges fall into two types: In-group (employees are involved in decision making and might receive projects to lead) and out-group (employees are kept at arm’s length and only receive information needed to do their job). Remember: in-group type are people who are ‘in’ the group and they can make decisions while out-group members are not involved in the decision-making process. They fall outside the group.

Chapter 7: What is the meaning of hard systems models of change?

Three ideological viewpoints, presenting three types of relationships between people: 1) Unitary, 2) pluralist and 3) coercive. Unitary means singular or ‘one-coloured’: there is no conflict because people have the same interests, all participate, share values and beliefs.
Pluralist view: ‘plu’ means umbrella in Dutch. All people are under the umbrella: his means that all people participate in decision making, people relate to each other. They do not necessarily agree with each other, but compromise is possible.
Coercive means pressure. People are put under pressure to accept decisions and people do not share the same interests.

The hard system model of change (HSMC) is a method that has been developed for designing and managing change. The process can be divided into three phases: D – O – I

1. Description phase: describing and diagnosing the situation, understanding what is involved, setting the objective for the change.
2. Options phase: generating options for change, selecting the most appropriate option, thinking about what might be done.
3. Implementation phase: putting feasible plans into practice and monitoring the results

Chapter 8: What is the meaning of soft systems models of change?

Ackoff (1993) identifies three kind of things that can be done about problems: SOLVE
1) Resolve, 2) Solved and 3) Dissolved.

Statement: ‘Hard systems models of change, are not sufficient to explain organizational messes and are extremely limited in providing a model for planning and implementing change in these situations’.
Because: this model of change is developed for designing and managing change and not for implementing and planning the change.

Buchanan and Boddy (1992) explain which five competencies are important for a change agent to be effective (CGMNR): Communication, Goals, Managing up, Negotiation and Roles.

Chapter 9: What are the future directions and challenges?

Researchers argue that collaboration is the key to innovation. Collaboration is an interaction between people. There are three conditions for collaboration that can be remembered as ‘people’.

1. People need time to discuss ideas, reflect and listen that might produce fresh ideas.
2. People need to develop strong bonds of trust between each other.
3. People need a sense of territory marking one’s place in the outcomes of the collaborative process.

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a form of action research. The eight principles are used to underpin a four-stage cycle to engage people (D – D – D – D): Discovery (what is done well in a firm), Dreaming (on futures based on extraordinary experiences), Designing (what should be done), Destiny (collective agreement).