Page 103 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh05v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:19 PM Page 86

Chapter 5 ■ Theories of change: critical perspectives
Rogers (1995) had noted that the ‘early adopters’ were not likely to be ‘opinion
leaders’ in an organization. More oriented to external ideas (i.e. external to their
own social group) they were more likely to be viewed as ‘deviant’ and perceived
as having ‘low credibility’. In his study (of procurement reform in the US govern-
ment) he found that the ‘early adopters’ were likely to be opinion leaders. What
explains this difference? In truth Kelman does not really explain this adequately.
The most likely explanation is that senior managers, working through their own
line managers, have identified ‘opinion leaders’ at local level. Kelman refers to
them as ‘most respected co-workers’. Significant efforts are then made to engage
them in the change process including training them in the relevant skills and
knowledge and involving them in working groups, task forces and so on. By going
through this learning and the change-related activity these people become knowl-
edgeable and skilled in the new procurement systems and ways of working. No
doubt these people derive satisfaction and even status from this engagement but
it is interesting to note the process involved. To follow Kelman these ‘most
respected co-workers’ are being provided with a ‘psychologically safe environ-
ment’ within which to learn. Senior executives both argue the case for change and
then create this ‘learning space’. In effect this creates ‘organizational cover’ for this
learning. Sponsorship from the senior team creates legitimacy for the activity.
Traditionally in the organization behaviour literature this is known as ‘organiza-
tional slack’. Burns and Stalker (1961) in an early study of innovation within
organizations note that innovation requires that there be some slack or unused
resource in an organization to provide for experimentation with new ideas. Of
course, this is a task for leaders. Providing the ‘learning space’, creating sufficient
slack, sponsoring particular individuals may be seen as part of what the idea of the
‘leader as coach’ is all about. Note that this idea is increasingly brought forward as
essential by organizational theorists and is certainly beginning to be influential
within at least the human resources community in large organizations.
But then the change process observed by Kelman relies on the same process
cascading down the structure. But now the ‘most respected co-worker’ appeared
to play a pivotal role. Kelman refers to a process of ‘behavioural facilitation’
which he describes as a process of influence which includes the creation of a psy-

chological safe environment within which to innovate. We would rework this as
the creation of the conditions for learning, and therefore of change at the indi-
vidual level. It is interesting to note that from Kelman’s data, while supervisors
and local office managers were shown as playing such a positive role, in fact the
‘most respected co-workers’ who were also pro reform were shown as having a
substantially greater impact within teams. So much so that Kelman concludes
that the ‘most respected co-worker’ may well be seen as the best source of change-
related training.
In practical terms this is of real interest. Often the investment in change-
related training is seen as too inadequate (CIPD survey, 2003). What this data
implies is that organizations should invest in pro reform ‘most respected co-
workers’, both in providing training and in engaging them in the change process
and then rely substantially on ‘on the job’ training led by those same people. On
this basis training investment, once change implementation is underway, might
focus more extensively on sharing best practice. This may be particularly relevant

86