Page 143 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh08v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:24 PM Page 126

Chapter 8 ■ Sustaining organizational effectiveness

Change

● They work towards change in teams ● Higher risk taking
● Change more predictable ● Creative solutions

● Reduced anxiety ● Less resistance
● Involvement and self-control ● Commitment more predictable
● Increased security ● Anxieties surface early

Figure 8.2 Planned change: effects on people
in the organizational area – for instance, in the context of mergers and acquisi-
tions, where joint ventures are involved, in difficult technological change situa-
tions and so on). Basically the approach he favours is to take any and all measures
likely to lead to a more systematic approach to planning, decision making and
implementation. Some of his recommendations relate to leadership style and
some to the structure of decision making, but all are designed to create or facili-
tate this more systematic approach.

Organizations and rationality

All the above must lead us to question whether what happens within an organi-
zation is rational. Moreover, do we believe that effective organizations are
‘rational’ organizations? Are organizations designed and managed on rational
lines? Can the thorough application of a systematic approach to change plan-
ning and implementation lead to a ‘rational’, perhaps ‘optimal’, result? Not if we
equate rationality with the notion of optima drawn from the scientific method.

It all depends on our definition of rationality.
As an example, the idea of ‘clinical’ rationality is often seen as dominant within
healthcare systems. The decisions of doctors govern the pattern of care provided
and the use of resources. This does not mean that all doctors have the same views,
beliefs or attitudes, or that they would argue for the same vision of healthcare.
People are not automata, without autonomy or freedom of action. At the outset we
must make clear that our definition of rationality owes nothing to the ‘scientific
method’. There is no simple dichotomy between rationality and irrationality, the
former based on ‘science’, the latter on emotion, feelings and so on. On this view
we suggest that when subject to changed circumstances in their environment
(which might be a budget cut or the advent of a new ‘bit’ of medical technology)
people will reflect on the courses and consequences of the change, developing
responses and decisions based on reason. People use reason based on knowledge
and experience. In turn these emerge through the processes of thought, emotion,
action and decision making in the ‘practical world’. We argue that there are various

126