Seminar 3

Systems Perspectives: Hard and Soft

Senior Chapter 3. Burnes, Chapter 7, pp.258-279.
../systems/sys.html

---

Perspectives in Systems Thinking

A useful resource giving an overview of the systems perspective on management and organisations is the systems management section of the Business Open Learning Archive (Jarvis). Von Bertalanffy's general systems theory offers a framework and language to define the purposes, structures and processes of an organisation within the broad environment it exists in and must respond to (the organisation changing or the organisation changing the environment). As "a system" the organisation functions to serve its owners and 'entities' in the environment e.g. customers, citizens, other institutions. It interacts with other entities e.g. suppliers. General systems thinking encourages us to identify and specify the inputs, outputs, elements, structural components and transformation processes, the purposes, interactions and feedback systems that enable communication, adjustment and control.

General systems theory prompts us to

• 'model': define and explain the elements of the organisation and its system and how these operate and interact together as a system.

Such thinking and modelling reflects the commitments of (organisational) engineering, cybernetics (the study of communications and control systems) and, from a technical measurement and prediction angle, operational research. It offers a range of methods to enable the definition and modelling of systems. These methods may be

• 'soft' such as Checkland's soft systems methodology and 'rich picture' analysis and also Lewin's 'Force-field analysis'. Checkland's SSM incorporates CATWOE: a mnemonic which assists in identifying and defining relationships between the clients, the actors, transformations, the weltanschauung (world-view), the owners and the environment of the system. Examining 'the system' from these perspectives enables a rich picture of the system components and interactions to be identified.
  
  
• 'hard' such as the 'top down' systems definition methods that are various referred to as structured systems analysis and design methodologies. These precise procedurally oriented methods are used to specify and chart information and data processing systems. The 'hard' methods also include various work and methods study techniques and organisational charting. These become 'tools' for defining the precise, technical nature of operational activity and designing new arrangements - seeing, from the diagrams and charts, how these are likely to operate when implemented.

Just as an architect may present drawings and estimates for a new building to clients and building contractors, general systems methodology offers tools that (with different degrees of precision) organisation developers may use.

---

Draw a diagram of a cafe as a simple input, process, output, feedback system. Try to depict key aspects of its structure, status and behaviour in response to the inputs and regulative stimulus it receives from its environment.

• List and explain six specific inputs to the cafe system.
• Identify the main processes of the cafe as a system?
• What are the cafe's outputs?
• What interface problems may customers encounter when ordering a meal and paying the bill? Why?
• What feedback information might the cafe system proprietors use? How may these fail?
• Who are the cafe's stakeholders? What is a stakeholder?
• Consider the sources of power, authority and influence that govern relationships, between the business's internal and external stakeholders.
• Draw a rich picture of the cafe as a health and safety system. Where would you draw the system boundary?What would you leave outside the boundary of the cafe health and safety system?

The system metaphor (see Morgan)

GST and 'hard or soft systems' analysis are useful for problems where we seek to specify how work arrangements operate, interact with other systems and subsystems and how our system of interest may be improved. The methods enable us to see how jobs, departments and functions interact and how operations, information systems and procedures may be routinised and sharpened perhaps with work being automated, communications improved or responsibilities redistributed.

'Hard' specification and charting methods, such as the information system development approach that is referred to as structured systems analysis and design methodology (SSADM) are essential when developing new and complex computerised information systems where algorithmic accuracy, efficiency and useability is required.

In 'hard-edged' technically specific situations, problems, possible solutions and user needs may be defined with some precision. Methods of systems analysis and definition have had major, long term and continuing influence on the management of operational and technical change. However open, human activity systems are manifested in complex. multi-layered ways from the global or national, to the level of the firm, the department, group and individual. An organisation as a system may be represented as many overlaping systems each with their sub-systems (operational, technical, social, managerial and decision/information oriented). Over-lapping and interweaving systems are difficult to pin down - there being too many components and relationships to comprehend. However 'soft systems methodology' offers support for defining the 'things that we are interested in' and drawing boundaries round our system of interest. We can separate the system's components from the system context and thus decompose a complex amalgam of environmental factors, functional, people and information problems which are not easy to define and resolve in terms of their interrelationships.

Traditional, engineering and technical system design methods tend to gloss over the problems of

• levels
• knock-on effects of a change in one system affecting a sub-system elsewhere
• and of course the softer human problems.

Various computer systems development methods have had 'user participation' concerns and recipes built into them, nonetheless, the hard technical and procedural aspects of the methods still tend, with their assumptions, to leave social systems and people as users behind. Perhaps this is typical of the technical expertise, modes of analysis and cognitive and communication styles of analysts and programmers responsible for the technical design and development world. Traditional systems analysis and development methods and tools tend to examine selected, "assumed to be discrete", parts of the organisation not the organisation as a holistic (interrelated whole) system.

Analysts concentrate more on systems design than problem solving and human interaction and is associated with relatively narrow measures of success. Systems analysis may view organisations as systemic in nature but we should be quizzical that hard systems thinking is gives sufficnet attention to consensus, coordination and regulation and politics within organisations. Checkland's soft systems methodology endeavours to capture these concerns but it still tends to underplay the politics and ends up by offering a deceptive bland, neutral picture of organisational life.

---

What aspects of organisational life are overlooked by systems analysis?

---

The Leavitt Diamond

• "We have to keep up".
• "We have to develop new products and differentiate our existing products" or
• from a constant economic efficiency imperative achieve savings, lower costs and boosts to productivity.

A change in one area may stimulate or require change in another. Client-server relationships are involved along the external and internal chains of supply. With a change in one area, the impact or knock-on effect of this change on another, even loosely related area, can often surprise initiators of change who have not anticipated the ramifications.

Leavitt (1964) with his Diamond recommended four interdependent elements prompting analysis and evaluation of interrelationships occuring between: technology, people, tasks and administrative structures.

Figure: The Leavitt Diamond
(Source: Leavitt, 1964)

Examples of relationships are legion:

• A change in an organisation's technology may involve installing a single piece of equipment, or reconfiguring an entire production process.
• Revising administrative structures may entail changes in pay and reward systems, billing, procurement or internal costing.
• Change in employment costs or an organisational merger may involve making changes in such things as attitudes, beliefs, values, skills and working practices.
• The task of an organisation refers to the primary product or service of a firm. Task changes might include changes in core production processes: changes in routines, procedures and work organisation.

We already see a problem i.e how to stop describing connection after connection and knock-on effect after knock-on effect.

---

• List some of the major technological, human, tasks and administrative structures within your own organisation.
• How far can they be regarded as separate?
• To what extent do they overlap?

---

The Leavitt diamond is still used in case analysis as:

• a convenient, prescriptive framework (analyse this way and you see the wood for trees method) for illuminating key elements in a change management situation but it only takes a first step in terms of analysis.
• It underpins many 'total process' accounts of organisational change but it does not offer any particular explanation of behaviour under conditions of change. Its significance is its assumption of interdependence.

The application of general systems thinking seeks to identify system elements, interactions and boundaries: the inputs, outputs and relationships with "the environment". This approach tends to

• take a bland, neutral line in analysis
• it under-states the part of 'human factors' - the actors and their experience of the drama both on and off stage.
• Systems theory offers little of practical value to the change manager other than its analytical, decompositional value.
• There is a problem in depicting multi-level, messy, complexity system relationships and in predicting events
• no suggestions are offered as to how to initiate the change process.

Hard systems analysis methods

These are far more focused and explicit in so far as they target data flows (the contents of data flows, processes that transform data, points at which data is stored and the senders/recipients of data), data structures (logical groups of data, their relationships and attributes) and events acting on particular items of data. The methods are used for the analysis, design specification and implementation of large scale computer-base information systems.

Conflict and Mess in Organisational Life

Hard and Soft Metaphors

• a sales policy, a purchasing procedure, a purchase ledger, a team list, a reporting structure.
• a quality control, an inventory management system and a committee structure with required documentation.

In bureaucracy many actions are bound by the set procedures. If we follow the algorithmic, prescriptive steps then the outcome is guaranteed in most cases. Where the procedure is defined in a computer system, only the programmed steps via menus, screens, look-ups and rule based calculations and reports, are possible. Where discretion is required an empowered person authorised, with discretion to take new decisions must be available.

When the payslip is printed if the data has been entered correctly the gross and net pay, tax and all deductions will be accurate. The data accessible from the information system is Savailable for internal and external reporting. These are concrete behaviours and they evidence the 'hard' defined side to organisations.

There is also a soft side to the organisation of

• feelings, imaginings, loves and bitternesses, values, preferences and motivations, fuzzy decisions, pressures felt, conspirings and alliances, beliefs and attitudes of participants in the organisation.
• These involve interpretations both of one's own position and the position of others.
• Together in our organisations we might imagine ourselves as living out a drama.

Images of Organisations

Morgan refers to such ways of conceiving organisations, as images. The hard picture presented above is a metaphor that reflects

• mechanical or engineering language. We point to the components - the struts, nuts and bolts, the wiring and controls - that 'evidence' the organisation. We seek to explain the purposes, contributions and interactions of each and assume that if we open a valve then a flow occurs. There is engagement with actuality, with things and with measurement. The components have clear definition - they can be readily observed, mmeasured, substantiated. As 'empirical scientists' we count, classify and may even apply mathematics, say statistics', to rank or predict a result from data.
• If we wish to modify how the organisation operates: adapt how it functions then we may uncouple bits, shuffle them around, add or remove elements, re-define and re-programme how the parts operate and interact with each other. We visit the buildings or the WWW site. We talk to the officers and read the product documentation. We interact via correspondence, by phone, at meetings and through other media. We forge contracts with the organisation.

However other metaphors might describe our organisation. We may use a dramatic metaphor,

• terms and phrases and images used in our account of organisational life present us as actors on various stages - in a monologue or a conversation, in a large chorus all singing as one, or on many stages at different levels.

The dramatic metaphor permits us to define

• the roles, the stage management
• the back of stage and off stage relationships
• the producer, director, diva, voice coach
• ticket office, publicity, casting and make-up roles and many more.

It invites

• an examination of scripts and modes of improvisation,
• how an actor sees a role and interprets the character alongside other characters.

It permits of

• audience reaction, applause, criticism and feedback.

It is the stuff of story telling, rehearsals and legends.

The soft dramatic perspective on open human activity systems emphasises subjetive interpretation. Organisational change is given life and a persona where elements and relationships are made concrete only as we talk of them and share understandings. Our understanding might be quite different to that of another group of interpreters who may construe the situation diferently and the position of individuals within it from quite different angles. To continue the dramatic metaphor, the pantomime dame may shout "Oh no it isn't" and the audience replies, "oh yes it is". One theatre critic may write "Marvellous, a classic interpretation" whilst another will exclaim "Boring, trivial, a weak wooden rendition".

The adaptive, biological metaphor

Here we would argue that "our organisation" must be capable of adaptation and change. The organism exists in "dynamic equilibrium" with its environment. To prosper it must interact (symbiosis) with rivals, customers, suppliers, institutions etc that also operate in the environment. Some of the latter may indeed regulate the environment through the law, economic policies and so on. Note how, the word 'healthy' reflects the biological metaphor. The organisation is not only a mechanical or neutrally defined system but a living, breathing entity one which goes through a life cycle and may be subject to "disease" for which there are "treatments".

Summary

Organisations are created and structured. The law of incorporation and contract facilitates this. (Note how organisational theory tends to ignore this). In addition by using the language of general systems thinking (another metaphor), the organisation as a human activity system responds to and processes inputs and outputs of ideas, assets/resources, people as members and interfaces others at boundaries of the organisation - other who have a stake in the organisation's operations and affairs, supplies and services, physical and mental energy, data and information.

Many metaphors, No one all-embracing theory

Our analytical methods reflect such perspectives. Some methods assume that organisational form and development is evidenced by hard data, structural, well defined, economic and technical specification and calculation. On the other hand softer, social interpretive approaches seek to penetrate the accounts of actors engaged in the system and how they, through their experience interpret and respond to organisational conditions in soft, human process, value and social interaction terms.

This seminar now examines

• the strengths and limitations of traditional views of change, those which rely on metaphors of structures, mechanics and engineering and systems (often referred to as 'classical' theory).
• some classical tenets of organisation design to see how these inform contemporary interest in such matters as de-layering organisations, down-sizing and outsourcing, project-based and network organisations.
• from a general systems perspective, it considers the usefulness of strategic choice and socio-technical system angles

The case study for this seminar, Brun Security Limited provides the opportunity to examine how more traditional theory may be used to examine and define the scope for change in an case organisation. Brun Security can also be used to demonstrate more process-oriented modes of analysis.

Hard Organisational Structuring: Classical Tenets and Concerns

To ensure that you fully comprehend the different types of organisational structure and the pros and cons of each in relation to organisational performance and responsiveness, you should read Senior Chapter 3. The dimensions of organisation structure encompass:

• the architecture of the organisation - how it is grouped, its shape, the definition of roles and functional/authority relationships, the number of layers and spans of control
• levels of specialisation and delineation between departments and roles
• the extent of routinisation and standardisation through policies, standard operating procedures, rules and guidelines, lines of communication
• the nature and degree of centralisation and controlled decentralisation

Diagnosis of Deficient Organisation Structures

Schein described the characteristics of health and unhealthy organisations in the following way. The description of the healthy organisation clearly reflects a unitary frame of reference and the medical reference is clear. As an idealised state it represents a statement of direction for the members of the organisation. It depicts an organisation based upone sharing, consenus based values where harmony reigns. The unhealthy organisation is cast as being dysfunctional and undesireable, unable to achieve its "unitary" purposes. This may be so but it also reflects ordinary every day human behaviour. As a description, the unhealthy picture suggests that "we really don't want to be in this state". The natural propensity the we have to engage in conflict oriented relationships brings disadvantages: disorderliness, hurt, material loss through inefficiency and being able to cgain the benefits available from cooperation ("singing from the same hymn sheet").

Clearly for the business and institutional world, the healthy organisation offers a more positive direction to go in.

Schein: Process Consultation 1964
	UNHEALTHY	HEALTHY*
1	Little personal investment in firm's objectives except at top flow of energy toward those objectives.	Objectives widely shared by members, strong and consistent
2	Staff see things going wrong and do nothing . No volunteers. Mistakes & problems habitually hidden or shelved.Ê People gripe about office troubles at home or in closets, not with those involved	People feel free to signal awareness of difficulties because they expect the problems to be dealt with and optimistic about solutions
3	Extraneous factors complicate problem-solving. Status and organization informally - less pre-occupied with status solving the problem. Excessive concern with mgt as a customer vs. the real customer. People treat each formally, politely but in stereotyped ways. Issues are masked.	Problem-solving is highly pragmatic in attacking problems, people work chart boxes are more important than territory, or second-guessing "what higher management will think". Much nonconformity tolerated
4	Top management try to control as many decisions as possible. They become bottlenecks, and make decisions with inadequate information & advice. People complain about management's irrational decisions.	Decision-makingÊ points determined by e.g. ability, sense of responsibility, availability of information, work load, timing, and openings for professional and managementÊ development. Organizational level - less of a factor.
5	Managers feel alone in trying to get things done. Somehow orders, policies, and procedures don't get carried out as intended.	There is a noticeable sense of team play in planning, in performance, and in discipline - in short, a sharing of responsibility.
6	People's judgment lower down in the firm is not respected outside the narrow limitsÊ of their jobs.	The judgment of people lower down in the organization is respected
7	Personal needs and feelings are side issues.	Range of problems tackledÊ incl. personal needs andÊ relationships
8	People compete and guard own area of responsibility. Seeking/accepting help is seen as a sign of weakness. Offering help is unthought of. People distrust motives speak poorly of each other; management reciprocate	Collaboration freely entered into. People readily request help of others and willingly give in turn. Ways of helping one another are highly developed.Ê Individuals & groups competeÊ - fairly &Ê with shared goals
9	In a crisis, people withdraw or start blaming one another.	In a crisis, people band together & work until crisis blows over
10	Conflict mostly covert and managed by office politics and other games, or there are interminable and irreconcilable arguments.	Conflicts seen as important to decision-making & personalÊ growth.ÊÊ Dealt with effectively, in the open. People say what they want and expect othersÊ to do same.
11	Learning is difficult. People don't approach their peers toÊ learn from them but learn from own mistakes ; they reject experience of others. Little feedback on performance, and any is unhelpful	Much on-the-job learning based on willingness to give, seek, and use feedback advice. People see themselves and others as capable of significant personal development and growth.
12	Feedback is avoided.	Joint critique of progress is routine.
13	Contaminated relationships. Maskmanship and image building. People feel alone and lack concern for one another. Undercurrent of fear.	Relationships are honest. People do care about one another and do not feel alone.
14	People feel locked into jobs, stale & bored but constrained by need for security. Behaviour e.g. in staff meetings is listless & docile or alienated. "This is no fun".	People are 'turned on' and highly involved by choice. They are optimistic. The work place is important and fun.
15	The manager is a prescribing father to the organization.	Leadership is flexible, shifting in style and person to suit the situation.
16	The manager tightly controls small expenditures and demands excessive justification.Ê Little freedom allowed or making mistakes.	High degree of trust, sense of freedom & mutual responsibility. People generally know what is important to the organization and what isn't.
17	Minimizing risk has a very high value.	Risk is accepted as a condition of growth and change.
18	"One mistake and you're out".	"What can we learn from each mistake?"
19	Poor performance is glossed over or handled arbitrarily.	Poor performance is confronted, and a joint resolution sought.
20	Organization structure, policies, and procedures encumber theÊ firm. People take refuge in policies and rules They play games with organization structure.	Structure, procedure & policies are fashioned to help people get the jobÊ done and to protect long-term organisational health not to give each bureaucrat his due.Ê They are also readily changed.
21	Tradition and past precedent are significant - "It has always been this way, why change now".	Sense of order and a high innovation. Old methods questioned & often give way.
22	Innovation is not widespread but in the hands of a few.	Firm itself adapts swiftly to opportunities/changes in its marketplace as all eyes are watching and every head is anticipating the future.
23	People swallow their frustrations: "I can do nothing. It's their responsibility to save the ship".	Frustrations are the call to action. "It's my/our responsibility to save the ship"

A Hard View of Culture

We may regard 'culture'

• from a hard viewpoint when it turns into a policy to be engineered, measured and driven.
• as reflecting social traditions and norms: how participants understand and are guided by socialised, unwritten understandings but are implicitly followed.

Yet even the short hand term 'culture' is inadequate to describe the significance of these understandings and patterns of behaviour. Members of the organisation share knowledge of tradition and 'normative behaviour'. They bring these to the organisation and they are further socialised into the ways of the organisation. The organisation, as a social constuction, relies heavily on expectation and understanding as members adhere to standard ways of behaving bounded by a sense of obligation and duty, right conduct and a notion of what is ethical and unethical.

Unitary and Pluralistic Frameworks of Analysis and Action

It would be wrong to imagine that 'normative behaviour' implies a constant "one-ness" with everyone thinking and acting in common ways with shared, agreed, consensus based, conforming understandings. We must differentiate the unitary from the pluralistic in our frames of reference.

• A unitary perspective assumes this "one-ness", agreed purposes and commitments, shared values and beliefs and a set of behaviours which are acceptable - enabling members of the organisation, the society even, to interact in predictable ways.
• A pluralistic frame of reference acknowledges difference and a propensity for conflict over harmony: of view, of purpose, of priority and source of leadership. A pluralistic perspective reminds us of the competitive aspects of life not just the mutually reciprocal cooperative concerns assumed by the unitary view. Pluralism acknowledges competition and rivalry for scarce resources (claim rights) and rivalrybetween commitments, value systems and ideologies. It admits to politics and power being characteristic of the social world.

Neo-bureaucracy and Information Communication Technologies

Weber's model of the rational-legal system (bureaucracy) offers a well-used, well-understood and highly effective (unitary) framework for organising work. The tenets of building and running a bureaucratic organisation have had tremendous import. Even today they substantially shape the large scale organisations we populate and have dealings with. The bureaucratic form and its systems endure and information technologies and data processing systems enable its standard operating systems to be automated. We might also suggest that we have entered a period of neo-bureaucracy. The routines, algorithmic systems and controls of ICTs (information and communication technologies) are so relied on for speedy processing of transactions that we take them for granted. We blame the computer but nonetheless, millions are spent on their elaboration, refinement and maintenance to ensure that transactions are processed seamlessly.

We can "buzz" a new term such as "neo-bureaucracy" but still not understand it. Senior's Chapter 3 offers a good summary of developments which are refinements of bureaucratic form. Neo-bureaucracy as a term addresses more recent adaptations to overcome some dysfunctional aspect of the bureaucratic form that, in implementation, are experienced.

 

---

Be sure to read Senior Chapter 3 so that you understand these refinements and recognise the advantages and improvements that each are thought to offer.

---

Information and communication technologies facilitate

• tall and flat bureaucracies.
  • Managers at the top of tall organisations can use database query systems to drill down into the databases (data mining).
  • Staff in flat bureaucracies benefit from the dissemination of information made possible by email and presentation of documents and other information resources through a browser based corporate intranet.
  • Other partners of the organisation e.g. suppliers and customers may also be given access to information available via Intranets - thus we can use the metaphor of a "network" organisation.
  • departments and products/services may become dispersed in terms of location - actual location, being in a place - becomes less important - as activity and function may be integrated and coordinated by ICTs - witness the remote and outsourced call centre.
• functional differentiation via discrete departments combine with matrix form of organisation where horizontal groupings are superimposed over the vertically and functionally defined. ICTs may lubricate communication between the dual chains of command and control that may be found in project based and matrix organisations.
• loosely coupled, temporary and fluid forms of network organisations such as server-broker and core firm structures are enabled. Members may appear and disappear but join in relatively quickly with common understandings and trust. These may be referred to with new jargon i.e. as virtual organisations

The Virtual Organisation

What are the atttributes of organisations given this vague title?

• They are likely to be temporary networks perhaps with a central contractor or coordinator that come together to exploit opportunities.
• The organisation does not grow through merger/acquisition but through collaborations and contributions - sharing costs, knowledge, skills, marketing and access to international markets.
• The Sun Corporation and project teams under the European Union's Tempus organisation typify the promotion of such organisational forms. These may
  • transcend borders
  • rely heavily on trust
  • unitary assumptions about mutuality, performance and excellence and technology are accepted by committed partners

Planned Approaches to Change: Organisational Development (OD)

OD methods assume a planned, interventionist approach to change i.e. schemes are devised for getting individuals, teams and organisations to function better. Many change initiatives have been based on this approach which incorporates two contrasting analytical concerns: behaviourist and rational.

Planned change requires a systemic, goal-orientated approach applied with diligence over time. It claims reliance on valid knowledge from the behavioural sciences: sociology, social psychology, anthropology and management theory.

1. Behaviourist
   
   OD practitioners seek to bring the underlying values, assumptions, beliefs and feelings of those involved in change to the surface. This highlights social and non-rational elements in the dynamics of change management valuable when analysing the responses of individuals or small groups.
   
   
2. Rationalist
   
   An OD recipes involve a programme of intervention based on rational, predefined assumptions about how the process of change is likely to unfold. OD theory offers prescriptive guides to intervention. It thus runs the risk of being unlikely to capture all the complexity of the given situation.
   
   • It will lean towards securing outcomes and targets which have been set in advance.
   • It tends to underplay and even ignore power differentials and divisions of expertise between managerial and non-managerial groups.
   • Senior management exercise a strong influence on a top-down perspective.
   • Middle and supervisory management responsible for the actual management of change may find it difficult to 'buy in' to a change programme which offers a mere prospect in exchange for current possession.
   • The unfreeze, change and refreeze stages of early OD theorists seem too simplistic.

These matters highlight the need, beyond OD thinking, for a re-examination of negotiated processes that are common to change management. Child's theory of strategic choice (1972) is significant here.

Early OD Prescriptions

• the application of strategies which secure commitment at different levels and the basing of change strategies on ownership and group sharing/acceptance not assumptions.

A "bottom-up" rather than a 'top-down' strategy is preferred - the latter being determined

• at the top of the organisation -by the CEO with others, lower down, being informed, rather than consulted.
• The communication system is vertical and less open to divergent views.
• It has the advantage of speed in decision-making but suffers from lack of commitment.
• It is favoured by bureaucratic systems.

An OD approach requires clients and change agents who value open group dynamics methods and who seek to address values such as the following:

• open, free flows of communication, cultures of collaboration and self-reflective learning.
• employee needs and aspirations underpin the existence of organisations in society, from the hospital to the factory.
• organisational goals are integrated with cultures of membership and commitment to organisational effectiveness.

Lewin (1951), as an early and probably the best known OD theorist, argues that understanding "critical steps" in the change process increases the likelihood of successful change management. (see also Schein on Process Consultation). Lewin suggested that change in organisations involves three steps:

• Step 1: unfreezing existing behaviours and attitudes
• Step 2: the event of change itself
• Step 3: re-freexing new behaviours and attitudes

Unfreezing is the stage at which there is a recognised need for change and action is taken to unfreeze existing attitudes and behaviour. Unfreezing means reducing the strength ofthose forces maintaining the organisation's behaviour at its present level; it's a re-education process for supporters of the status quo. This preparatory stage is considered essential to the generation of employee support and the minimisation of resistance.

Lewin's model of unfreeze, the event of change itself and refreezing of new behaviours and attitudes is quite simplistic. This model sees the organisation as an ice cube - change is linear? in a straight line from unfreeze to retreeze. However, many practitioners would argue that this view is quite inappropriate. Organisations are never frozen, much less refrozen, but are fluid, dynamic entities with conflicting ideas, personalities, values and preferences and to that extent there are stages, they overlap and interpenetrate in important ways with various and serious consequences for organisational life.

This staged approach to OD was popular as a "programme based" way of securing organisational change in the 1960s and 70s. It focused on bringing about change by unfreezing attitudes and behaviours which were seen to be resistant. The textbook prescriptions and consultant advice of the 1960s and 70s (à la Schein still part of OD consultant training today) tended to stress:

• a planned and ordered approach to change
• setting clear objectives and project milestones
• good communications so that the need for change is properly understood by participants
• a focus on team building and teamwork, harmonisation and empowerment. This tended to concentrate on non-directive group work to develop interpersonal skills and sensitivities in personal relationships. Leadership, communication skills, creativity and group training methods were commonplace.
• Individuals and groups supported by a non-directive facilitator reviewed and reflected on their problems and the ownership of their problems and the implementation of solutions
• a participative approach was essential with trust formation between groups and levels being vital. Those affected by change (at the operational or receiving end) should be involved and feel that they can influence the outcomes which they 'take ownership' of.
• methods of OD internvetion sought to secure changes in attitudes and behaviour and 'embed' and reinforce these through ownership, appraisal and evaluation once the changes have been installed.

Textbook, planned and ordered prescriptions are still prevailent today even though newer perspectives however question these notions of planned, clear-cut, controlled, stepped change.

The assumptions of the OD-change perspective are that the changes can be defined, implemented and secured in rational, top-down (with bottom-up fine tuning), calculative and predictive rule-based ways. This may be so, but lets recognise also with this approach that managers initiate and retain control of an assumed 'one-right-way' view of purposes, processes and outcomes.

---

Consider a recent change introduced into your organisation. Where can Lewin's three steps in the change process be seen to apply?

---

Force Field Analysis

According to Lewin there are two main forces acting for and against change in and social system. Within the organisation are to be detected:

• driving forces that operate for change
• restraining forces which act to maintain the status quo.

OD practitioners seeking to bring about change, have to either increase the strength of the driving forces or decrease the strength of the restraining forces, or do both simultaneously.

Figure: Lewin's Force Field Analysis Change management can be understood in terms of what Lewin called a force field analysis. If driving and restraining forces in a particular system are of equal strength the equilibrium exists and change is difficult to bring about. The task of the change manager is to re-enforce driving forces whilst weakening resisting forces

What difficulties do alcoholics have to stop drinking?

Drivers operating for change include:

• social pressure to drink alcohol
• high cost of booze
• the fear of addiction, heart and liver disease
• the law - losing your driving licence, drunk and disorderly
• disapproval of children drinking alcohol
• concern about effect of the habit on others - the family, workplace behaviour

Restrainers maintaining the status quo are:

• drinking wine, beer and spirits as a pleasurable, convivial activity, a nice social habit
• perceived relief of stress and tension, have a drink and relax
• partners and friends who also drik
• rejection of the 'puritan, temperance lobby' who seek to impose their will and values on my choices.

For the individual who enjoys a drink and is moving towards if not hooked into addiction, to refrain from drinking, the force of the driver factors may be greater than the restraining factors.

---

Your organisation is concerned about 'smoking in the workplace' and wants to take steps to change the behaviour and attitudes of those members of staff who do smoke.

Carry out a force field analysis on this problem. Identify the 'driving' and 'restraining' factors that possibly explain whether or not the desired change should and could be brought about.

---

 

Force field analysis offers little theoretical rigour yet it offers a heuristic technique to managers. Attention to the reduction of restraining force is probably easier than being able to think of and take action of ways to boost the driving forces.

OD, Bureaucracy and Resistance to Change

• remote, too conservative, highly segmented, hierarchical organisations
• rules and regulations are too strongly enforced fostering conformity,, lack of flexibility
• they depersonalise and require such routinised behaviours on the part of members that they de-humanise by taking functional specialisation and work simpliification too far, undermining individual creativity and limit discretionary, empowered action.

We use the term 'bureaucracy' often in anger expressing frustration with the officials and their officialise which block our abilities to do things or get things done. The officials hide behind their rules and are insufficiently flexible. It is wrong to assume that

• such dysfunctional (again the negative term) behaviours are associated with government and the public sector as bureaucratic applications and structures are common across public and private sectors.
• Traditional bureaucracies are difficult to change.
• that bureaucratic structures comprise tall hierarchies (many different levels of command) and highly specialised departments and functions who may be operating independently of each other
• 'turf protecting' and status quo protection are

Yes we can describe bureaucractically defined organisations as mechanistic but we need to recognise the benefits and value that such 'mechanisms' offer before we decry them.

Less mechanistic organisations (organismic) with looser structures do not, per se, have better communication between levels and across functions (if we can identify what the levels and functions are). Such organisations may be chaotic and - within this chaos - be just as resistant to change and reflect uncertainty, turbuelence and power plays - anarchy.

Changes in work organisation and reward systems involve changes to membership contracts (see Mumford). Our general understanding tells us that self-interest will be a key factor, perhaps a legitimate one even recognised at law. Self-interest (egoism) may consciously or subconsciously override willingness to forgo individual rights and claims for the good of the team or organisation as a whole (a more altruistic orientation).

Resistance may be engendered in situations where

• employees are not informed of the changes prior to their implementation
• where we may lose face or be confronted by extra work associated with bringing in changes, loss of status, earnings, job prospectus, redundancy or transfer.
• where our past investments of time and love have been superceded by ideas and methods pushed by others

Such concerns reflect an interplay between

• cooperation,
• completition
• and conflict.

One managerial response to resistance to change is to off-load the problem on the "personnel specialists" - it is their type of problem. However this is a cartoon representation. A more detailed analysis is needed of who initiates the change, how the criteria they use in the analysis and decisions are generated and how others are recruited into the implementation effort. Resistance to change, as an issue, is a recurrent theme in popular reporting and the academic literature. Kanter (1990) for example argues that people resist unanticipated changes, even when substantial personal gain may result.

The word 'resistance' itself suggests illicit or aberrant behaviour and that is best overcome or side-stepped yet the manifestation of resistance is both a symptom and a cause (of difficulty) in change management programmes. It is mistaken to view so-called resistance to change solely as an individual and psychological response.

Work changes involve changes in contracts, structures and culture - the way we do things here. A predominant, general cultural framework (the organisation or the profession as examples) also features sub-cultures. In society at large, professional groups, e.g. accountants, doctors, teachers and traffic wardens, So too in a corporation sales people, IT specialists, administrative staff and warehouse operatives have their own cultures. Their qualities and the shaping forces behind these may have their origins in gender, in group solidarity and values and may be nurtured and maintained outside the organisation and even beyond it e.g. into unnion activity or leisure associations or political membership. The opinions, attitudes and values generated by sub0culture membership may underpin particular resistances to change.

Permanent, core staff in an organisation have high emotional stakes in the current culture. They have reputations, acquired skills, experience, a history of membership and creative work and seniority. These are hard-won positions and investments which they might be unwilling to jeopardise - give up for a promise or uncertainty of a future prospect. Gains from a change, as communicated by management, may be readily interpreted and actually calculated as certain losses - even the loss of autonomy. But this depends on the nature of the organisation and the cultural orientation of employees.

Beyond OD - a return to Autocracy and Utilitarianism.

It would be perjoritive, depreciatory to say that, deep down, OD change methods are still directive

• senior management authorise and fund them and may press for particular outcomes to be enacted.

A critic who emphasises power-imbalances and problems of unequal rights in a 'community' might take such a line. Those who initiate and engage in OD change strategies however may genuinely feel that participative, 'listening and responding methods, operating through 'the team' are proper and the best way for all concerned yet a unitary, managerial impatience and a utilitarian perspective (the greatest happness of the greatest number) is still present in organisation development.

The OD-change school stresses such commitments.

In stable, predictable organisational environments detailed, measured, stage, long-term change strategies plans may work as expectations and standard behaviours (cultures) may change. We need time to see them through. The problem is that where ground moves under us, organisation development efforts can fall into the trap of looping discussions within the change groups with actual problems being difficult to get hold of perhaps because power-brokers are not involved in the devolved, 'sensitivity' discussions.

In situation of turbulence and short-term pressure, an 'open-plan, discursive approach' and a change plan may quickly become stretched needing to be modified quickly - stopped before it is completed and a new diretion taken. This will upset those who have been involved in the OD process who will see their efforts going to waste. The humanistic, OD approach tended to regard organisational change as more open-ended. Clear starting and end points were sought but were difficult to define and keep trace of and keep going. We begin to see that change is not a series of discrete, self-contained events but multi-layered, ambiguous and iterative (forever looping back on itself) and this itself may favour more arbitary, top-management interventions.

Group cohesion and change

• Physical proximity
  People working together in the same place will tend to form a group, even if their work is not interdependent. Length of time together increases the tendency towards cohesiveness.
• Same or similar work
  People doing identlcal or similar work are faced wlth the same problems and can help each other in varlous ways - a source of group formation.
• Homogeneity Cohesiveness in groups tends to be greater lf members share such characteristics as race, age,sex, social status and attitudes or values.
• Personality
  Members do not have to be alike in personality, but some combinations of personality work better than others.
• Communication
  Cohesion will be greater if members can communicate easily with others, and less if distance, noise or organisational arrangements make communication difficult.
• Size
  It becomes more difficult for groups of more than 12 members to develop group cohesion. Small groups are much more likely to do so.

Group cohesion provides advantages

• Greater co-operation
• More/easier communication Increased resistance to frustration
• Reduced labour turnover
• Lower absenteeism
• Low tolerance of "slacker"

Disadvantages?

• Life more difficult for new entrants
• Restricted entry for new ideas
• Resistance to changes in work practices
• Seen as awkward and combative by other groups - thus reducing intergroup co-operation

Sayles: Four workgroup types

Sayles considered that the context in which a group operations will also influence its cohesion and inclination to 'act' in terms of pressure on management. Sayles argues that technology determines the type of work groups that emerge. His four types of workgroup derive their "quality of cohesion" on the basis of their level of skill and degree of interpersonal interaction.

• Are such types evident today?
• In what industries? Public and private?
• Working in relation to what technologies?
• What gives these groups their bargaining power?
• Are these groups necessarily unionised in a traditional way?

Capacity for pluralism and resistence

The Sayles groups denote the capacity for pluralism and resistence. These factors are not dealt with adequately by an unitary, Lewin-type organisation development approach. Attempts to change the structures, processes and cultural expressions and behaviours of an organisation may have varying degrees of the dragging of feet, disgruntlement, scepticism, passivity and lack of commitment to the changes. Individual behaviours such as "getting your head down, moving jobs if you can, working hard, networking to open up new options and negotiating for early retirement or a good severance deal" are probably more representative of resistence or responses to change in 2003 rather than union action and strikes and pressure against management.

The 2002/2003 pay and organisational change dispute between fire service employers and unionised firefighters which has confounde the Blair government however illustrates the same "group" resistances to change that the electricity power workers demonstrated in 1973 (the three-day week led to a defeat for the Heath government). The year-long miners' stoppage of 1982 was'a fight to the death so too the print union disputes of the early 80s. These demonstrated organised labour's resistance to change in a situation which involved major industy change brought about by economic (pricing) factors and technological (cost savings and production flexibility) factors. Both resistances were systematically and legislatively opposed by Margaret Thatcher's government which paid for policing and changed the law to weaken the power of organised labour. This strengthen the capacity of management to resist the resistance.

Perceived losses may include:

• non-use of costly acquired skill anticipated loss of monetary reward
• fears about personal inconvenience
• concern over job satisfaction
• present provision serves a preterred client group.

Perceived gains may include:

• anticipated monetary reward
• increased personal advantage
• increased job satisfaction
• enhanced status
• escape from a current supervisor.

---

Think of a recent change in your organisation.

• What losses or gains did you associate with it?
• How did these influence your acceptance of the change?
• What was lost by changing the status quo?

Case Studies:

• PowerDoc

The PowerDoc case contains elements of both technological and organisational change. A key aspects is that the changes are being driven, not by the technology itself, but by managerial choices, which may take account of one or more stakeholders within the organisation.

The SAQs that may offer insight into the use of theory in the management of change. Make brief notes on these questions for use in later exercises on the case study in the next seminar.

---

(SAQ Guidance)

Use the Leavitt diamond to identify different kinds of change in the Powerdo case study. How many of the Leavitt 'triggers' to change appear in the case? Make a list of the main:

• 'Task' issues
• 'Structural' issues
• 'People' issues
• 'Technology' issues.

Examine how all four aspects are integrated in the case i.e. use the Diamond in an analytical process.

Use Burns and Stalker's concept of mechanistic and organic - organisational structures to describe and evaluatePowerDoc:

• before the introduction of the new technology
• after the introduction of the new technology.
• how many different stakeholder groups can you identity? How strong are their "claim rights"?
• Which was the dominant group of stakeholders?

Outline the broad relevance to the PowerDoc case of the theories of Scientific Management, and Contingency and Systems approaches.

---

Powerdoc illustrates ways in which perceived needs to cut costs led managers to introduce new technology and changes in the existing organisation of work. Management followed the advice of the data processing manager and opted for a highly mechanised solution - primarily concerned with cost cutting. This had consequences with an adverse effect on the organisation.

---

The DP manager tends to focus on objectives related to measurement, control and standardisation of the work process.

• Which organisational theory can be identified with these tendencies?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of this approach?
• What was the implication for company performance?

(SAQ Guidance)

Conclusion

This seminar reviews some ideas about planned change management: Lewin stages and Leavitt's diamond etc. The latter is a tool for simple analysis but limited as a robust theory of organisational change. It is not. We might conclude that general systems approach is also too limited to properly define and project the overall and detailed dynamics of change. GST hooks into these dynamics at different levels, and we can explore boundary exchanges and interplays between subsystems but it neglects matters relating to power and political process.

The PowerDoc case demonstrates the complexities and levels of organisational change and exemplifies the interdependencies between technology, people, tasks, and organisational structure noted by Leavitt (op. cit) .

1. new information and communications technologies have been accompanied by organisational changes. There is substantial gain where technical change is accompanied by organisational change. Both quantitative (cost saving) and qualitative (quality of service) improvements have been realised as part of these change measures. Older 'command and control' forms of bureaucracy are replaced by more information-based, networked forms of organisation and, this challenges the middle management stratum. Information systems can now 'manage' tasks previously carried out by managers, such as order handling, procurement and work scheduling. In addition, the case demonstrates that changes in technology and organisational structures further enhance the efficiency of the police service through relief from clerical work, thereby contributing to improved effectiveness.
   
   

2. Listing the task, structure, people and technology issues is a good starting point for case study analysis. Leavitt's model relates apparently unrelated aspects together in many subtle ways e.g. the task question when moving from project-based work to centralised pooling of wordprocessing. Clearly this solution was one that applied in the mid-1980s. Today everyone would have a PC on their desk, networked or otherwise and the notion of having a central word processing section is largely history. The move from project-based working (wide range of tasks) to a narrower range associated with pooling is interesting . Task and people issues are closely related. The move from one form of work organisation to another also implies changes in the culture, attitudes and expectations that go with the job. The move to a more centralised and bureaucratic organisation of work is underlain by a move from a culture of 'responsible autonomy' to one which is much more suited to close supervision, a narrowing of tasks, and routinisation of work
   
   

3. P owerDoc is an example of Burns and Stalker's organismic organisational form prior to the changes under consideration.
   
   

4. Follow up your 'before and after' analysis of PowerDoc by locating the case study within Table 3.4 on pp.46-47 of Morgan's Images of Organization. Several key players and stakeholder groups are involved: clerical staff, supervisors, project leaders, the data processing manager and senior management. There is no explicit mention of a 'dominant coalition', but the data processing manager acted according what he believed would be the organisation's dominant view.

5. The data processing manager is influenced by the type of ideas and assumptions that are loosely dubbed 'scientific management' . Several aspects are apparent in moving to more centralised organisation at PowerDoc. The DP manager is interested in centralisation as a means of enhanced control and control over costs. At the level of the work group, productivity is being rewarded according to keystrokes as a crude measure of output. The changes to work organisation are focused on tighter controls, closer supervision and a more narrowly defined skills.
   

6. Contingency theory offers insight into the 'goodness of fit' with the business environment and the structuring of roles. PowerDoc's raison d 'etre is defined by the need for high-quality market research - provided on a 'one off' basis. Close attention to the document output for each account means that project group secretaries have an informally defined, but vital quality control role. This 'structuring of roles' resembles aspects of Burns and Stalker's organismic form. PowerDoc also reminds us of the contingency view that there is 'no one best way' of organising production. This insight has not been challenged by the advent of new technologies: it is apparent that a given technical system may be operated using quite different social systems.
   

7. The DP manager's approach takes a sci. mgt line, with its concern for certainty, reliability and quality through routinisation and control over production. Its weaknesses are its association with rigidity and dampening of discretionary action limiting scope for personal expression and creativity. There is an indication that staff turnover increased and document quality was impaired i.e. the performance gains were disappointing. These however cound be also explained by teething troubles and an external economic climate that encouraged job moves. So criticism of so-called negative effects of a scientific management approach is based on personal preference and so may be premature.