Page 100 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh05v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:19 PM Page 83

Emerging thinking about organizational change
inevitable consequence of various stages of the development of society and not
least of a ‘meritocratic’ society. The whole apparatus of organization development
as described by French and Bell (1995), Kotter (1996) and Kanter (1983) may be a
process based on collusion with power-holders, at best, or ‘brainwashing’ at worst.
However, it appears difficult to conclude that such a simplistic critique can con-
vince during a period of rapid change or throughout a population of organizations
as diverse as the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, public bodies of varying
kinds, professional organizations, hospitals, colleges and many more.
In summary, then, critical theory raises real and important questions. This
body of work seeks to replace so called positivist thinking. This is right as far as
it goes. What is less clear is the extent to which critical theory raises questions
not already posed within the existing paradigm. In one sense critical theory
brings forward the important idea that all of human history is not best judged as
a process of continued progress, based on the view there just may not always be
a solution to a dilemma we face. There may be no way forward. But it is not clear
that critical thinkers writing within the management field take such a view.

Postmodernism

Postmodernism places language and discourse at the centre of analysis. It is oth-
erwise very similar to critical theory. For the postmodernist ‘multiple truths’ are
always possible. As a body of thought it draws on the work of Foucault (1970,
1972, 1977, 1980, 1986). Knights and Morgan (1991) note the tendency of much
strategy literature to be based on a supposition that it provides certain knowledge
of practical relevance to organizations. This seems to be rather an extreme claim,
not in any way consistent with Mintzberg’s rejection of much of the strategic
management literature and theory. He argues the case for ‘emergent strategy’. The
idea of emergent strategy is that strategic thinking and practice are linked but not
the same. While Knights and Morgan rightly see strategy as a series of discourses
this is exactly the situation Fraher describes. In reality most writing about strategy
seems to me at least to be based on the supposition that it is by engaging with
carefully argued models and by contrasting models with real experience that read-

ers and practitioners learn how more effectively to understand their own situa-
tion. This seems hardly different to the Fraher observation that the process of
transformation requires that contending ideas be understood and considered.
Emergent models of strategy formulation typically include the idea of differing
discourses being engaged but take account also of the changing circumstances most
likely to give rise to these discourses, not least strategies which are seen not to be
working effectively by key stakeholders. Nevertheless, postmodernist thinking has
led to work seeking to codify and understand discourse about strategy and to look
at the idea of ‘strategic credibility’. Here the strategist needs to deploy narrative
devices both to ensure credibility and to create a sense of novelty when presenting
strategy. This is a particularly helpful contribution not least because these authors
link discourse to strategic ‘genres’, identifying ten such genres in Mintzberg’s sem-
inal survey of the strategy literature (Mintzberg, 1994).
Naturally enough, postmodernist thinking on strategy is subject to the very
criticism its proponents level at others. If they seek to deconstruct discourses used

83