Page 104 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh05v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:19 PM Page 87

Emerging thinking about organizational change
in situations where lots of local adaptation is needed for successful implementa-
tion, a condition most likely to arise in large, dispersed and complex systems. We
will return to this point in Chapter 18.
Kelman’s data also showed that social influence is of central importance to the
achievement of sustainable change. The proportion of any group who were mem-
bers of the change vanguard had a positive impact on change attitude as one would
expect. But the ‘most respected co-workers’ attitude also had a positive impact.
Lesser than the impact of the proportion of the group being within the change van-
guard but very significantly more than the impact of the local leader attitudes.
Thus ideally the group embraces change. However, if not, it is more important
what the ‘most respected co-worker’ does on this evidence. This is certainly con-
sistent with Emery’s idea of ‘diffusive learning’ and we should note that for Kelman
these processes are about consolidation of change. The arguments for change, the
articulation of those arguments at local level and early success create a mutually
reinforcing set of processes through which change efforts can accelerate. Again we
will return to this idea in Chapter 18.
Now Emery is very clear on the point that organizations do not learn because
organizations do not have a nervous system. For her the best definition of a
‘learning organization’ is an organization structured in ways which encourage
learning continuously. She also questions the idea of ‘organizational memory’
because in periods of rapid turnover organizations often find that the memory
leaves with the people. While these doubts are worth raising it is also possible to
observe organization so codifying learning in new working and business models
that patterned and permanent changes are achieved. Taking her own work on its
own terms such a view must be accepted otherwise action research would
become an expensive luxury, whereas the body of work within which Emery
appears to ground her own contribution is based on the idea of action research
as the basis for learning and change within organizations and involves identify-
ing and working within design principles for doing so effectively.
Boonstra (2004) notes that organizations often must deal with complexity in the
processes of production, innovation and creation. As we have observed this leads
to greater flexibility and the emergence of network solutions, combining the skills,

resources and market access of the partners involved. In turn this can lead to pres-
sures for decentralization and self-management at the local level. Scholars working
on this issue have deployed a dynamic systems theory approach (see, for example,
Checkland and Howell, 1998; Stacey, 2003).This approach views organization as
being permanently situated between equilibrium and disequilibrium. In fluid
dynamics this is called ‘dynamic homeostasis’ – a condition of movement at the
atomic level with an inbuilt tendency to seek equilibrium. So it seems to be in
organizations, so long as those involved can comprehend the dynamics of the sit-
uation in which they are located and are able to intervene within that situation,
even where those interventions involve working with others. Central to creating
the conditions where this is so appears to be creating the conditions within which
people can learn. Most important here may be the ability to express feelings and
assumptions which challenge the status quo, and the social space within which to
do so. The links between the practice proposed here and the argument presented
above are self-evident.

87