Page 151 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh08v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:24 PM Page 134

Chapter 8 ■ Sustaining organizational effectiveness

and promotion, to both junior and senior partner level. It was argued that this was not
a panacea but would allow for modest improvement in present practice. It would not
undermine existing practices or lead to a fall in the technical competence of staff.
Moreover, it was proposed that the process be largely informal and be designed so as
not to threaten anyone. One response to these ideas was: ‘I’m glad to hear that we
intend to move slowly and build on present practices. The most important thing is to
ensure that we recruit the right people and ensure that they perform well.’ All agreed
on the need to build up the firm’s position. One pointed out that some of the junior
partners were overcommitting themselves in order to ensure promotion. Others felt that
this would not matter ‘if kept within reasonable limits’.
One partner passionately put the point that the firm’s growth and reputation would
be harmed unless they could develop new services to allow them to meet rapidly chang-
ing needs. It was essential to attract people with ideas. Others responded: ‘We don’t
seem to have any problems attracting people, and in any event we are highly profitable
now. What’s the problem?’
When the meeting convened, several partners proposed that part of it be used to
review the performance of the practice. Moreover, other commitments that people men-
tioned meant that it had to end at noon, rather than go on to late afternoon. The review
of performance lasted until 11.20 a.m., allowing only a short discussion of the career
development issue. There were constant interruptions as various senior partners were
‘called to the telephone’. At the end the chairman summed up. Nothing would be done
that was costly in terms of time and money. He proposed that a subcommittee of the part-
ners be formed to develop ideas and a policy. One senior partner asked that the sub-
committee’s representation should include the range of views. This was agreed. The
meeting ended with much comment about the progress made.

Background to the meeting
Interviews afterwards identified the following points:
■ The senior partners concerned to see significant progress on the career development
front felt they had to avoid anything which made other partners defensive. No men-
tion would be made of the need to develop new ideas, services and business.
■ They also wished to avoid overstating their case because this would lead to the issue

becoming personalized.
■ Overall it was felt important to keep the discussion on ‘rational lines’.
■ Others clearly felt that the best approach to the meeting was to give those who
wished to see career development ‘their head’: ‘Let them talk so they cannot accuse
us of having our heads in the sand’.
■ Thus it was that everyone appeared to rule out discussion of the validity of the views
being put: ‘If people are upset they become emotional and you cannot test their
views’. ‘After all, we must be rational.’

Putnam and Thomas (1988) sketch out an organizational action map which
shows that in various circumstances (e.g. low economic growth), cultural norms
such as that of attempting to give all employees equal treatment and the wish not
to upset people combine with management behaviour (covering up conflict) to
create consequences such as resentment by good performers of poor performers,

134