Friday, December 14, 2018

'The Contribution of Processual and Emergent Perspectives to Strategic Change\r'

'Change is ubiquitous. Organisational switch has become synonymous with divvy uprial efficaciousness since the mid-eighties (Burnes, 1996; Wilson, 1992). However, north American charm all over the quest for commitment, efficiency and improved performance, appears to behave fallen abide upon largely Tayloristic flavors of counsel, with the result that validational castrate is widely perceived to be controllable by modern c be, with brass sections themselves subservient in their in their hands (Collins, 1997).\r\nHowever, this ‘scientific surface appears to have diffused with scant regard to mise en sceneual variables that whitethorn serve to modify and constrain contemporary managerial rhetoric for tilt (Hatch, 1997). One perspective that take ons to counseling the argue on wider issues has come to be know as the processual or emergent attack to make-upal channelize (Collins, 1997), and it is this perspective that this paper seeks to evaluate\r\nYou can exact also Waves\r\nFirst, the inevitability of switch over is briefly considered as the time frame selected for organisational epitome tends to dictate the warmness of investigation. This leads into a brush up of be after variegate chthonic the umbrella of strategic alternative, with its core assumptions establish upon managerial hegemony. This approach is then contrasted with the processual and emergent perspectives that seek to reach out circumspection appreciation to include factors beyond the organisation and its immediate surroundingss. The implications of the appargonnt divergence mingled with surmisal and behave are briefly outlined out front concluding that the subjectivist paradigm of the processual/emergent approach is trump out seen as a modification to theories of strategic resource, which whitethorn add to erective managerial practice in the future. This argument is qualified by the need to birth such(prenominal) a modification by a fundamental c hannelize in modern managerial grooming.\r\nThe Inevitability of Change\r\n‘Change exudes temporality. While it whitethorn be a truism that in any chtype Aaign of activity, all periods may be characterised by convince and continuity, the time frame selected will tend to foreground diverseness or continuity (Blyton and Turnbull, 1998). For example, a focus upon organisational change during the last two-decades may reveal a period of rapid change. However, a perspective comprehend the last two hundred years may indicate a basic continuity in the capitalist affectionate mode of overlapion (ibid). Consequently, differentiating among whether organisational change should be analysed from the perspective of a exacting chronology of ‘clock or linear time, with its associated nonions of relentless progress, planning and implementation, or whether changed is viewed from the perspective of a processual analysis over tracts of time, has addicted rise to a vigorous debate on how change should be understood as it applies to Gordian business organisations (Wilson, 1992).\r\nTwo paradigms dominate the analysis of organisational change. On the one hand, a positivist view holds that change is objectively measurable, and and then controllable, embracing notions of reasoning(prenominal)ity, temporal linearity and sequence †change is an outcome of deliberate achieve by change agents (Hatch, 1997; Kepner and Tregoe, 1986). On the other hand, a subjectivist view holds that change is dependent upon the temporal context of the wider social placement in which it occurs and is thus a social construction †while organisations define and attempt to manage their change processes, outcomes are not of necessity the result of the top-down cascade advocated by the intend approach (Pettigrew, 1985). Consequently, as a point of departure, mean organisational change shall be discussed before moving on to examine the emergent approach as a challenge to the rational model.\r\nThe Planned Perspective\r\n coeval US and UK managerial governmental orientation may be identified as an outcome of, and a contributor to, neo-liberalist voluntarism (Dunlop, 1993). This ideology is mobilised finished the agency of management to cling to capitals interests above all others. Consequently, management and managers come to be considered a social elite through their motion of ‘god-like control over a logical and rational process of adaptation, change and ever-improving performance. The organisation is thus instrumental in the hands of management (Collins, 1997; Daft, 1998; Hatch, 1997; Kepner and Tregow, 1986).\r\nGenerally referred to as ‘strategic choice, the planned approach, according to Wilson (1992:22) is constructed upon the pursuit theories of organisation:\r\n1 Organisational Development (OD) and Behavioural Modification (BM);\r\n2 Planned incrementalism;\r\n3 The ‘enterprise culture, better(p) practice and ‘gur us as change agents.\r\nThese perspectives have all in parking area the role of compassionate agency, whereby, ‘…human decisions farm an important difference… a voluntarism in which human courage and determination count (Gouldner 1980, cited in Wilson, 1992:25).\r\nOD and BM (closed system) approaches emanate from the field of psychology, positing that organisational change is implemented by management through changing the behaviour of individuals. OD aims to foster consensus and participation on the basis that management attributes resistance to change to poor interpersonal transaction (Wilson, 1992). BM is a systematic approach to the learn of managerially defined ‘ withdraw behaviour, establish upon Skinnerian psychological theories of cultivation (reward and punishment) and motivation (ibid).\r\nBoth approaches are base on the assumptions that managers are overt of identifying internal barriers to change, determining appropriate behaviours, and de signing and implementing programmes to achieve desired outcomes. Consequently, there is a plethora of ‘frameworks, ‘recipes and ‘how to packages aimed at managerial audiences (Collins, 1997)\r\nA key feature of many of these packages is Lewins (1951) ‘force field framework, which proposes that change is characterised as a state of imbalance among nips for change and pressures against change. It is suggested that managers are capable of adjusting the equilibrium state of zero-change, by selectively removing or modifying specific forces in the inevitable direction (Senior, 1997). Implicit is the normative nature of planned change: managers should know the various forces as they keep back to their own contingent situation, and should understand and possess the delegacy to exert turn over them. It follows that, ceteris parebus, without deliberate managerial action, change, at worst is un liable(predicate) to occur and, at best, is unlikely to realise des ired outcomes without the intervention of venture (Collins, 1997).\r\nPlanned incrementalism argues that change is constant and evolutionary and should be planned in small steps based on an orderly adjustment to information menstruum in from the operating environment (Quinn 1980, cited in Senior, 1997). This approach is related to contingency theory. The argument runs that the almost effective steering to organise is contingent upon conditions of complexity and change in the environment. Thus, the organisation should achieve congruence with its grocery store environment and managers should support their strategies with appropriate mental synthesiss and processes to enhance the likelihood of success (ibid).\r\nTurning to the final ‘ingredients, Wilson (1992:37) argues that ‘enterprise culture, ‘best practice and ‘management gurus are different faces of the akin ideology. effort culture denotes best practice and grows from a particular interpretation of management theory. This interpretation shapes the role of outdoor(a) consultants and thus determines who are the gurus; the ideology becomes self-supporting. Thus the ideology of strategic choice is mobilised in support of managerial ideology: to be successful in a free market system (entrepreneurial), firms should be modelled by managers upon best practice (currently, from the US and Japan), should adopt tractile specialisation and decentralised structures, and should seek to create organisational cultures appropriate with managers own. The ‘successful manager comes to be defined as a ‘change master (Kanter, 1993; see Peters and Waterman, 1982).\r\nThe Emergent, Processual Perspective\r\nA common critique of the planned perspective is that the ability of management to rationally plan and implement organisational change ignores the influence of wider, more deterministic forces outside the realms of strategic choice (Wilson, 1992). Largely in opposition to this perspe ctive and loosely referred to as ‘systemic dispute, the emergent approach, according to Wilson (ibid:22) is constructed upon the following theories of organisation:\r\n1 Contextualism;\r\n2 Population environmental science;\r\n3 Life racks;\r\n4 Power and authorities;\r\n5 Social action.\r\nWhile also guardianship to acknowledge the role of human agency in effecting change, these approaches serve to widen the debate to include the continue of human interaction at micro and large levels, thus constraining strategic choice (ibid).\r\nContextualism is based upon an open systems (OS) model which views any organisation as be an interdependent component of a oft larger whole (Pettigrew, 1985). Serving as a direct intellectual challenge to closed system perspectives, fundamental is the notion that no organisation exists in a vacuum. Emery and Trist (1960, cited in Wilson, 1992) argue that OS reveals the following characteristics:\r\nEquifinality †no one best way of achi eving the same outcomes;\r\nNegative entropy †importing operating environment resources to curtail or reverse immanent descent;\r\nSteady state †dealinghip stability between inputs, throughputs, outputs;\r\nCycles and patterns †cash flows, stock-turns and so on.\r\nThus, OS enables the variances between organisations performances to be explained by external influences, facilitating comparative analysis, the establishment of sectoral norms and the identification of ‘supra-normal practices (Wilson, 1992).\r\nPopulation ecology (and perhaps institutional theories) is based upon the Darwinian notion of ‘survival of the fittest (Hatch, 1997). Thus strategic change is aimed at maximising ‘fitness within the usual population of organisations, through the identification of ‘market niches and strategies of specialisation, differentiation or generalism (Porter, 1980, 1985). Competitive advantage is thus created and sustained through the construction of distinctive and inimitable structures, processes and cultures, eg: erecting spirited barriers to entry through technological investment, or eliminating threats of product substitution through proud R & D investment and thus (desired) innovation (ibid).\r\nThe living cycle perspective explicitly recognises the temporal nature of organisational change. Though linear in nature (all life sentence cycle theories assume birth, growth, maturity, decline and death as givens), this approach provides insights into the potential internal and external conditions (and constraints) that an organisation is likely to encounter during distinct life cycle phases (Greiner, 1972 cited in Senior, 1997). However, this approach suffers from a similar critique to those levied at models of planned change. ‘Cycles are not in fact cycles (suggesting reincarnation). Development is linear and progressive and an organisations hole on the ‘cycle is highly subjective.\r\nPerhaps the major parcel of the emergent approach to organisational change, is the highlighting of the role of ability and politics in moderating managerial efforts to effect fundamental and sustainable change (Handy, 1986). Essentially, three political models of place reveal that outcomes are incapable of being considered independently of processes and personal stakes.\r\nFirst, overt situation is the conspicuous manifestation of localised influence over like processes and outcomes (eg: ‘its the way weve always done things around here). Second, hugger-mugger power is less visible and related to the extent of information sharing and participation in change processes afforded by organisational sub-groups (eg: senior management) to others †the phrase ‘inner circle is a common indicator of covert power relations in operation. Finally, third, contextual power suggests that outcomes are arbitrate by societal forces and the economic structure of parliamentary law itself (eg: elit es, notions of social justice, and so on) (Burrell and Morgan, 1979). Postmodern analysis reveals the influence of discourse, symbol and myth as interchangeable between organisations and societies in the endorsement of preferred solutions.\r\nThus, contextual power may be utilised to shape the wider excuse and acceptability for organisational change( eg: ‘restructuring for labour stripping; ‘reingeering for work intensification; ‘partnership for incorporated labour coercion; ‘TQM for zero-tolerance and panoptican managerial control). Moreover, the contextual power perspective also reveals the hegemony of accounting ideology in neo-liberal systems (itself positivist, reductionist and inextricably linked to Taylorism). Thus component to expose the influence of elite groups, notably reticent under the strategic choice framework (Wilson, 1992).\r\nFinally, social action theories depict organisational culture (OC) as the structure of social action (ibid). The strategic framework choice would hold that OC is a possession of the organisation and is thus capable of manipulation . In contrast, the systemic conflict framework depicts OC is something an organisation is (a contrasting ontological position) and is then largely beyond managerial influence (Legge, 1995). Nevertheless, ‘strong (integrated) notions of OC are eulogised by the so-called gurus (see Kanter, 1993; Peters and Waterman, 1982), despite receiving severe rebuke for their weak methodological foundations (See Guest, 1992). The emergent approach appears to be at odds with the strong culture = high performance proposition at the heart of most change programmes; its causality is unclear.\r\nImplications\r\nAs the above watchword illustrates, the management of change appears to hold sway over the analysis of change (Wilson, 1992). This implies that understanding has been exchanged for expediency. ensnare differently, managing change is both a learnable and teachable skil l.\r\nIn view of the short-termism inherent in the US and UK economies, with their shareowner emphasis on maximum financial returns and tokenish financial risk (itself a contradiction with the notion of ‘entrepreneur), it is hardly surprising that ‘recipes for success are so eagerly sought after by under pressure managers and eagerly supplied by management gurus with pound-signs in their eyes. habituate appears to be on a divergent means from theory (Collins, 1997).\r\nCollins (ibid) attributes this apparent divergence to managerial education, which itself (as must(prenominal) any educative process) be viewed as a perpetuation of ideology. With respect to organisational change, management education serves to promote the aggrandisement of managers as ”Canute-like rulers of the waves. Epitomised by the MBA (Master of turf All?) with its roots in north America, such programmes are themselves reductionist and short-term in nature. Thus, students are precluded by time constraints from exposure to the theoretical foundations of change and, consequently, may be discouraged from challenging receive wisdom. This is not to assert that ‘hands on skills are unimportant, sort of to expose that they lose potency in the absence seizure of the appreciation of the wider context which MBA ‘babble, among a wider range of programmes, serves to suffuse.\r\n closing †a rejection of Positivism?\r\nThe investigation of organisational change has not escape the inexorable north American ‘shift towards hypothetico-deductive perspectives of political economy and psychology, with their positivist paradigms focused upon atomisation akin to the natural sciences (Cappelli, 1995).\r\nFrom a temporal perspective, while organisational change is viewed as inevitable in much the same way as in nature, the time frame selected for analysis tends to dictate the scope and degree of change to be investigated. Short-termism, it appears, is a form of temp oral reductionism in the bet for objective truth, that is a key factor rat the notion that managers can be trained to manage change through sets of skills that imply mastery over the ‘natural world and therefore, time itself. In this view, planned models of change, root in classical theories of management, may be criminate of being an ideological construct of assumed authenticity and authenticity.\r\nOn the other hand, a subjectivist systemic stress approach, rejects reductionist ‘tool kits and lays claim to the inclusion of contextual variables at work throughout an organisation, its operating environment and beyond. In this view, while change is clearly not beyond managerial influence, its management is reliant upon wider understanding of the interplay of these variables, of which power relations may be prominent, in order to be able to predict the likely outcomes of managerial actions.\r\nHowever, for something to exist it must be capable of theoretical explanatio n. That practitioners have opted for voluntarist models of strategic change is not surprising given the elitist ideology of modern management: to control is to manage; short-termism equates to reduced risk and increase control; the institutions of Western corporate governance and finance thus have their goals met by such an approach.\r\nYet, this is to modify the quintessential qualities of the processual, emergent contribution to organisational change. While not refuting planned change, it perhaps serves to modify it †for any change to be understood, explained and sustained, the duality of voluntarism and determinism must be admit and incorporated into the managerial knowledge base. The emergent approach exposes the potential folly of the extremes of positivism as use to organisations as social entities, thus throwing open the debate to multi-disciplinary perspectives and enriching the field or organisational change. To be of value, such enrichment must be reflected in manage rial education itself.\r\n'

No comments:

Post a Comment