Page 105 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh05v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:19 PM Page 88

Chapter 5 ■ Theories of change: critical perspectives
In consequence, change and learning requires that those involved can share and
exchange views on the organization and its context and on how effectively it is
operating. Consistent with the ideas of critical theory in particular we also note the
relevance of the work of Weick (1979, 1995) on dialogue and conversations about
strategic change (see Chapter 10) and also of the Argyris concept of double-loop
learning which may well be essential to the achievement of sustainable change, at
least in some circumstances (Argyris, 2004). Specifically the circumstances where
this conclusion applies may be where the leadership of an organization has become
dysfunctional for the achievement of its purposes and leadership behaviour
becomes characterized by the ‘organizational defensive routines’ identified in
Chapter 10 of this book.
Boonstra (2004) refers to interactive learning which he argues involves the fol-
lowing:
1 Viewing the process of organizing as involving feedback, positive and nega-
tive.
2 Creating ‘space’ for self-organization.
3 Creating transparency of process and relationships in a period of change.
4 Legitimating multiple constructs of reality, problems, issues.
5 Legitimating the expression of feelings, ambitions, knowledge, experience and
insight.
6 The pursuit of shared views, ideas and ways of understanding events and per-
ceptions.
7 Allowing time for interaction, reflection and learning.

All in all, a process like that proposed by Kolb (1984) in his analysis of experien-
tial learning.
Does this imply the need for ‘equilibrium’ in order that learning can be facili-
tated by the provision of support and space (and/or organization cover)? Dynamic
balance or Stacey’s (1996) ‘dynamic instability’ may not be conducive to learning.
Lack of balance can be a basis for learning and change (de Caluwe and Vermaak,
2004). His argument is that lack of balance or ‘bounded instability’ requires organ-

izations to choose between competing goals, practices, structures, technologies and
so on. It is lack of choice, the unwillingness to decide and the absence of ambition
that leads to disruptive levels of performance, chaos and the possibility of failure.
These authors quote Fritz (1996), as follows:

Every time we go through some major organizational change, our executive
managers find ‘tools’ or methods to help. ABCM, re-engineering, different
process consultants bring in other methods. We implement them, then we
find half way through the process the organization isn’t taking them on. So
then we abandon them, but later new tools are brought in. People are really
up in the air about it all. . . .
Fritz, 1996, quoting a manager at BC Telecom
Is this not the very conditions for the antithesis of the learning organization? We
shall see in Chapter 14 that this situation is all too common. Change initiatives
cascade in ever-increasing numbers. Few are properly explained, codified,

88