Page 149 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh08v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:24 PM Page 132

Chapter 8 ■ Sustaining organizational effectiveness
Table 8.1 Ineffectiveness–effectiveness patterns

Behaviour Response Outcome
Ineffectiveness Not defining goals People become defensive Limited testing
Maximize ‘winning’ and Inconsistent, feel vulnerable,
minimize losing act in manipulative ways, mistrust, Issues not discussable
Minimizing the expressing lack risk taking or take very high
of feeling risks, withhold information, adopt ‘Distance’ themselves
Appearing always to be ‘rational’ power-centred behaviour from issues
Effectiveness Depend on people Builds confidence, ‘self-esteem’ Effective testing
Allow tasks to be jointly controlled Creates learning and trust Informed choice
Make the protection of feelings Leads to less defensive relationship Internal commitment
a joint responsibility and group dynamics
Discuss issues, performance and Open confrontation of issues
problems, not people

All this can have important consequences. People attempt to ‘distance’ them-
selves, to treat key issues and events or norms as ‘undiscussable’ and to offer advice
which, while ostensibly aimed at increasing rationality, actually inhibits it. All this
tends to hinder the production of valid information for diagnosis and decision
making. Yet these behaviours are most prevalent just when valid information is
needed – when people are dealing with difficult and threatening problems. Argyris
(1985) suggests that we are dealing with a powerful set of individual, group, orga-
nizational and cultural forces which are mutually reinforcing. These forces create
contradictions. Yet success can, and does, occur. But this will be based on routine
performance, on stability, which can mean that people do not feel it necessary to
pay attention to the deeper issues until the impact of these contradictions becomes
so powerful that the stability is itself under threat. Now the organization is seen to
be in a crisis. Drastic action is possible; ‘turnaround’ becomes the objective. These
factors will all influence the process diagnosing the need for change. In essence,
therefore, we need to deal with the ‘blockages’ before we can identify, let alone
make progress towards, the organizational changes we need.

Sadly, as Argyris makes clear, people can become highly skilled at maintaining
these patterns of ineffectiveness. He calls this ‘skilled incompetence’ (see Argyris,
1990). He demonstrates the relevance of this to major programmes of change by
reference to a study of six large US corporations which had invested heavily in
change programmes that had not worked, in which the authors found evidence
of the following:
Inflexible rules and procedures.

Managers not understanding customer needs.
Managers not committed to, or skilled in, handling change.

Inter-group problems.
Poor communication.
Lack of strategic thinking.

132