On completion of this seminar you should be able to:
Burnes Chapters 1, 2, 5 and 6. Begin by reading Burnes Introduction, pp. 1-4.
Kurt Lewin is believed to have commented, 'There is nothing so practical as a good theory'. If the generalisation holds true then we benefit from theory and theorising which should
Critical theory seeks to question the orthodoxy of "classical and rational management theory" with its concepts, commitments and practices variously referred to as Taylorism, bureaucracy and the systems' approaches. These prevail, dominating our thinking, planning, organisation and reorganisation of policies, programmes and processes. We need to be quizzical about the underpinnings of theory and critically evaluate the promises and limitations of all frameworks of analysis/diagnosis and prescriptions of implementation as commonly recommended by a plethora of change management 'gurus' - all out to establish their mark and sell their magical formula.
Change management theory emanated from the distillation of actual practice and experience of managing change. Having been on the receiving end of 'managed change' within our organisation - we form views about
Conclusions coalesce into abstract account or model explanations of the contexts, primary, intermediate and indirect factors and variables that we believe are relevant. However beware of assuming that all change is 'managed' - it is determined by "something" and exists in a cause and effect relationship. Where a theory is built on such an assumption then be aware of the possibility of random events and permutations that could not have been anticipated, that are not 'willfully' causal. Remember too that there is much incompleteness and many flaws in the prescriptions and explanations offered by change management theory.
Our explanations (theories) about factors and processes of change (why we think it happens, how we think it happens, our responses and methods and whether these actually work) are matters of interest for the study of organisational management. Those responsible for organisations, seek greater certainty and control. We are bound to want to better understand the influencing processes (if any) available for managing complexity and the potential for disorder and failure associated with change - this applies to commercial business, not-for-profit organisations and naturally government bodies and institutions who want to change parts of themselves and to also stimulate change in others.
Questions arise for our social science discipline concerning the nature and forms of control at play in change situations - those that may be manipulated, for example at the international, global or national levels of an industry or market, and those which can only be reacted to. Managerial knowledge and know-how needs to extend to understanding how they themselves and other stakeholders, and regulatory institutions may intervene, with some chance of success, to stimulate and control change.
A policy initiative is clearly a change effort as is moving an arrangement of furniture to improve a working environment. It involves choices based on some analysis of a problem or personal whim/desire for adaptation and the response to it. Large scale and local change occurs in public and private sectors. It occurs in marketplaces and in market transactions. At a world or industry level however, to what extent are changes actually controlled by institutions or powerful institutions or groups? Are many events and changes, at such a level, little controlled because they are patterns that emerge (as amalgams) from the natural interchange of individuals and dispersed organisations making independent decisions in a marketplace? If this is so then one, 'homespun' approach to change is simply to:
What do you understand by the term paradigm?
"Paradigm" is one of those abstract, buzz words that are useful to drop in intellectual conversations when you are trying to make a wise philosophical point. It needs to be used wisely and sparingly.
Thomas Kuhn (1970) in his book "The Structuring of Scientific Revoluions" explored important aspects of the history of science. He used the term "paradigm" to depict how knowledge of the world is structured in ways determined by a community of understanding and practice, not immutably fixed but subject to strictures, rules and assumptions expected by this community. Kuhn argued that the scientific understandings of the community may, from time to time, be subject to a shake up of its rules and assumptions - a 'paradigm shift' is experienced and a radical rather than an incremental reevaluation of "that-which-is-known" breaks on to the scene.
In a limited sense, we may speak of a new management paradigm emerging, a new set of concepts, practices, frameworks of analytical explanation. New ideas and practices in our 'science of management' might represent such a conceptual shakeout. "Paradigm shift" may be used as a shorthand term of a view that sees modern organisations as making a historically significant and decisive break with an earlier paradigm framework - one perhaps based on the assumptions of scientific and classical management theory. The problem however is that the "shift" may be mere repackaging and assertion of old frameworks.
It is essential that we question the depth and sustaining characteristics of "the shift" (whatever this is). The shift may be represented in fashionable speech and short lived action, a redecoration of existing notions and not substantially radical in many of its aspects. Are the ideas and applications of "Total Quality Management", "core competencies", "excellence", downsizing and outsourcing", "knowledge management" and "learning organisations" examples of such"paradigm shifts"?
This module seeks to engage in this debate to understand better the nature of our knowledge about organisation change. It seeks to examine the frameworks, tools and techniques that might be used in implementing change and deciding how change may be best effected changes. It explores two distinct, but related bodies of knowledge, focused respectively on:
Both have seen intense academic and practitioner interest. The aim here is to present and summarise the material to develop conceptual and critical understanding and awareness of sound practice where this is evident.
Several features of change need to be understood.
The dynamism and complexity of the change process is one of the major factors underpinning the development of organisational theory, and change management theeory as explored in this module.
Change management is often conceived in terms of:
A common view is that decisions leading to outcomes within the change management process stem from rational planning activity. However, commonsense experience and systematic study suggest that the notion of rational planning does not provide accurately represent what actually happens when organisations change. Thus we need to see how contemporary change theory fills the gap between theoretical accounts that lean towards assertion of "the rational" and change management as it is experienced. This module explores these diffierent approaches and their diagnostic techniques and tools of implementation.
Theories of organisation vary in their underpinning assumptions about the nature of organisations and how the 'human factor' works. Morgan highlights many 'images' or ways of looking at organisations. He argues that organisations may be viewed as:
These images or metaphors offer ways of 'interpreting', analysing, explaining and intervening in organisations. The "machine" metaphor is ideally suited to understanding those organisations which
The idea that organisations can be thought of as complex political systems, or even as psychic prisons may be less familiar. Different metaphors illuminate different aspects of organisational reality. In social science, there is no 'one best way' of looking at organisations. This diversity of viewpoint is a strength and not a weakness. Different theories of organisation are defined by the metaphors which portray or represent the organisational reality of the speaker. The various theories of change management similarly reflect different metaphors.
- What is your understanding of the value of the use of metaphor in organisational theory?
- Why is it so difficult to predict the results of organisational change?
- Why is theory such an important aspect of change management?
From your learning in earlier units, list the key features of organisational structure advocated by Classical theorists.
Classical theories of management offer simple principles which offer a general application. The key question for classical theorists is 'how does one structure the organisation'?
Classical theorists believed that organisational structure should follow from the need for controls of efficiency which stressed:
Classical management theory complemented scientific management as articulated by Taylor by emphasising:
These elements of organisational theory have exercised a powerful influence on management thought, but they have been qualified and augmented over the years by new insights.
Organisational weakness and the cranky, costly and frustrating irritations of dysfunctional bureaucratic structures that struggle to compete in a turbulent, competitive marketplace, is an ever present concern in the managerial domain. Is it an every present concern in the employee or customer or legal domain also?
Evaluation criteria for measuring organisational effectiveness may range across:
These are but a few factors and even a cursory glance at the sophisticated bureaucratic forms and systems which we encounter each day demonstrates how much we trust and rely on the efficiency of such systems to support us and guide our behaviour. When we talk of dysfunctional bureaucracy, 'red-tape', frustration with the unhelpful, rule-bound conformity of the bureaucrat and the management of change, we typically talk of seeking:
A key problem however is that of responsibility and accountability within the rules defined for permissible behaviour by organisational members. These boundaries of discretion or freedoms to act are defined by the delegation principles and processes of a bureaucracy (responsibility, authority and accountability). They are explicit and implicit in the policy and procedure requirements of the organisation, organisational members are appointed on the basis that they want to adhere to the proper norms and values and rationally defined activities and competencies required in an organisation that is dedicated to performance and service. They are trained, supervised and given feedback. They undertake their allocated duties and responsibilities with dedication, care, reliability and honesty. They undertake to behave cooperatively with those they work with in a client-service relationship i.e. internal and external contacts (customers), those who coordinate them etc. The extent to which each member of a bureaucracy has the freedom to undertake initiatives however is constrained by
These are such that, as Gifford Pinchott (date) points out, the freewheeling, creative spirit, the nonconformist or (wants-to-be-able-to-beaver-away-on-their-own) inventive-type does not find an easy place within a well-structured, well defined bureaucracy.
- How many such inventive-types does an organisation need?
- How can such 'freedoms and discretions' be built into every organisation members job role - managerial, technical or operative?
- How far is the notion of the intrapreneur only of relevance to high-tech., research oriented organisations that are placed in fast moving markets?
Pinchot urges those senior managers who seek to enable members of their bureaucratic organisation to behave with the creative, driving, inventive spirit and opportunity of the idealised entrepreneur, to provide opportunities for intrapreneurs.
Burns and Stalker (1961) distinguish between mechanistic and organic organisational firms, arguing that organic firms are inherently more suited to change. By 'mechanistic' they meant organisations characterised by a number of attributes including the following:
'Mechanistic organisations' clearly have many features in common with bureaucratic organisations. At the other end of the continuum are 'organic' organisations characterised by factors such as:
Closed, highly formalised structures are by definition less suited to turbulent changes in the operating environment than informal organic structures.
However, it can be argued that neither organic nor mechanistic images of organisation are able to capture the real complexity of organisational life. They are either/or images, but organisational life is dynamic, unstable, ambiguous and difficult to grasp. 'Mechanistic' outcomes are evident notably in the areas where fast decision-making powers are vested in the general manager and the hierarchic structure of control, authority and communication is being strengthened. On the other hand, there are a number of beneficial 'organic' consequences of general management, including expanding fields of responsibility and inducing increased commitment throughout the service.
The extent to which these apparently contradictory outcomes can be simultaneous' achieved is debatable. What is clear is that, in the attempt to attain them, general managers will need to balance the cultural benefits of flexibility and commitment against the structural benefits of authority and control. In operational terms, there is frequently an imbalance between one and the other; never a balance.
Scientific management theory, developed from the mid 1800s through to the first two decades of the 20th century, has had a consistent, pervasive impact on management practice. Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management was published in 1911 at a time when the USA was undergoing major industrial development. Complex forms had emerged over the previous century, with new technologies of production, the factory system and ever larger workforces. Many large industrial companies, such as US Steel, General Motors and Ford, were created at this time. Taylor's writings were amongst the first efforts to analyse and institute managerial practices to apply to organisations in general. His primary focus was on the design and analysis of individual tasks, roles and methods which have ramifications for the structure of organisations.
List your recollections of key features of Taylor's approach to management. Recall the industrial context in which he worked: the birth of Ford, General Motors, etc.
Taylor's approach was also concerned with:
Taylor wanted to improve both efficiency and cooperation within his organisation. He recommended the methods he developed and "proven" as underpinned by universal principles that would apply to other organisations. He called for a 'mental revolution' at the workplace which required managers to become scientists in the sense of objective definition, empirical observation, definition, experimentation to find the "one best method". Other elements of his prescriptions were :
Classical management theory complements the commitments of scientific management. Both seek universal principles, 'best ways' of designing and implementing organisational form and activity. The dominant metaphor is that of a machine and even organisational members tend to be regarded impersonally as resources whose performance could be optimised by means of efficient design, monetary reward and managerial controls. Scientific managers from Josiah Wedgewood to F.W. Taylor strived through methodical study and the application of scientific principles, to establish the best way of carrying out a job. Such principles were desirable and practicable as they bring the benefits of economic efficiency.
What do you understand by the term 'optimise'?
Scientific management as a management approach and value system is a victim of its own success. Discuss.
- Under what work conditions should Taylor's approach to organisational design be beneficial?
- What how do Taylorist or scientific management approaches benefit you each day of your life?
- What deep seated, disadvantages do you see this approach this bringing to the design of work and the nature of employment
To optimise is to achieve the highest level of performance from available resources however the point shifts depending on the ingenuity, the skills, imagination and resources available.
Scientific management has been highly influential in shaping the modern organisation but the approach is is associated with a number of problems:
Henry Ford and many others combined Taylorist principles with continuous-flow assembly-line production. Skilled jobs become automated, the execution of work was machine-paced and workers were offered economic benefits in exchange for high productivity.
Taylorism, (tight controls, financial reward, division of labour and routinised methods) tended to encourage rigid organisational forms. The structures associated with this 'paradigm' favour machine substitution for labour, deskilling (see Braverman) and inhibited creativity. Employees must adapt to fit the demands of the technology they are working with.
However, this view underestimates the dynamic character of Taylor's system as it evolved in capitalist and communist economies. 'Taylorism' has been in a state of constant evolution since its adoption in the early 20th century. The notion of Fordism is merely a further rationalisation and refinement in the division of labour.
A mechanical approach to designing work arrangements and operational systems works well where :
On the other hand, the mechanical assumptions of scientific management tend to:
Human relations theories began to enter managerial discussion more following the experiments carried out at the Hawthorne works of the Western Electric Light company in the USA over the period 1935-42 and beyond. The findings of these experiments
Mayo and his colleagues found that the assumption of a deterministic reward-effort relationship did not hold water. Productivity could be raised by giving release to worker feelings of belonging and by fostering group cohesion. This implied a move away from raw Taylorist methods of work organisation. In the early 50s Hawthorne triggered a burst of management education and in many large companies, management began to refine their approaches to motivation and reward. Human relations theorists argue that attention should be paid to the satisfaction of social needs and developing more humanised forms of supervision and control. The human relations approach is concerned with issues of motivation, supervisory style and job design. People were no longer to be seen as machines.
Contingency theory offers a diagnostic approach which regards environmental and organisational change as central tour understanding of management. The contingency approach assumes a different metaphor: organisations are viewed, not as machines or as communities, but as natural living organisms. The following points are at the heart of the contingency approach.
The 'one best way' approach is rejected.
We can see here the lyricism of the biological metaphor. It rolls well off the tongue. But it is deceptive. There is not the variety of organisational form that we find in nature - we may however find a variation of various general themes - a musical metaphor may be more apt.
Contingency theory suggested
Contingency theorists link the substance and movement of the business environment to key aspects of organisational structure. To survive organisations must an acceptable fit between one and the other. Successful organisations are likely to have found a very good fit by either changing their environment e.g. moving to a low labour cost are, or adapting to the best environment - setting up shop in a fashionable area.
1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the organic and biological metaphors?
2. The term 'continuum' refers to change which can be seen as roaming along a continuum from small-scale, incremental change - step by step, slowly, to larger-scale transformational change. Is this notion of much use in organisational thinking? What are its limitations/weaknesses of usage?
Contingency theory holds that organisations are dependent (contingent) on situational variables, the environment, technology and size - it is easier to manage change in a corner shop than, say, BP. Thus not organisations are going to face exactly the same contingencies - Marks & Spencer might face the variable of changing fashions; BT that of changing technology; hotels, a period of recession. Organisations as open systems - influence and are influenced by external variables, such as technological developments, currency values or the availability of skilled labour.
However, the concept of strategic choice suggests that it is managers who make decisions on how organisations are structured and operated. This is underemphasized by contingency theory. The strategic choice concept puts managerial responsibility where it belongs: with the managers and not with environmental variables, technology, size or availability of skilled labour. It is managers who respond - well or badly - to environmental variables. The concept suggests that an understanding of change management requires an understanding of internal decision making processes, power and politics.
Now read Burnes, Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, pp. 199-262.
We have noted some factors often given as reasons for initiating change within organisations. The late 20th and early 21st centuries are characterised by profound economic, political and technological changes which strongly bear on work organisations. Managers are pushed to seek ways to make organisations more competitive. This context becomes the driving force behind a a paradigm shift - as suggested by commentators such as Kanter and Quinn. Both question the bureaucratic form and argue that we are witnessing its final demise (highly doubtful). Yet their argument that a revolution in our assumptions about the way in which organisations are structured and run is plausible.
The reality of organisational change is, however, usually that bureaucratic forms have been reinforced and elaborated and also that change processes are more ambiguous and complex than classical perspectives would suggest. The need for robust, quizzical theory of change management becomes even more apparent. Compelling reasons for developing robust theories are:
We have reviewed questions of change management to encourage the evaluation (strengths and weaknesses) of these. Strengths and weaknesses are apparent in scientific management, systems and contingency theory. The latter are difficult to apply to the practical business of managing change but not so the pragmatic problem solving and process definition schemes of scientific management. All however neglect the political aspect of organisational life and social processes. The strategic choice/political process approach is however more robust and a practically useful explanation of how we might examine change management. This model will feature prominently in our case study analyses later when we compare strategic choice/political process model with other approaches to change management.
This use of metaphor allows us to 'read' and evaluate organisations, vital to our understanding of organisational change and management.
2. Managing change is inherently complex because organisational life is itself occurs at multiple levels, it is complex and subject to different viewpoints. Seminars 4 onwards show that this complexity is likely to increase with the scale of change and the number of parties involved.
3. Theories of change management derive from existing theory. The need for theory is related to both academic studies and 'common sense' experience of change management being at variance with rationalist assumptions about the planning and implementation of change.
4. Scientific management has triumphed over the previous 'craft'-based forms of production. Why was it so universal in its adoption as the template for work organisation? See Buchanan & Huczynski, Chapter 12, for the problems encountered by practitioners such as Taylor and Ford following the success of implementing scientific management methods and systems?
5. The systems and organic metaphors usefully highlight interaction with the environment; resource inputs and 'needs' necessary for survival. The organic/biological metaphor places too much emphasis on adaptation. The question of managerial choice is underplayed. Diversity of viewpoint (pluralism) and organisational politics are little referenced. Conflict is seen as an aberrant matter.
This document (© Chris Jarvis) was