Page 152 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh08v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:24 PM Page 135

Organizations and rationality
protection of mediocre performance and so on. Any attempt (e.g. by good per-
formers) to refer the situation to the grievance procedure would simply lead to
mistrust, polarized attitudes, less coaching of them by managers whose perform-
ance reviews were being criticized and, even worse, the acceptance of mediocre
performance. To escape these patterns of behaviour, managers map their situa-
tion. By making the behaviour and its consequences explicit there emerges a bet-
ter understanding of the situation, a fuller diagnosis and a greater willingness to
engage in what Argyris calls ‘productive reasoning’. At the core of this as a suc-
cessful strategy is the need for all involved to see learning as an essential charac-
teristic of ‘productive reasoning’, a thought we shall return to as an essential
ingredient of effective change.
In the CAC Consultants case study it is not difficult to see that the key issue
is the future of the practice itself. There are two questions to be faced – What
new markets and services can/should be developed? To what extent should the
practice grow? Some senior partners are tempted to maintain the status quo.
They have built it and it does provide good profits, and therefore good
incomes, at the moment. Growth and change will be uncomfortable. But will
competition mean that the status quo is not a viable option? This point needs
careful discussion and analysis.
The question of attracting and retaining new staff is very much a matter of
means. A status quo and a growth/development strategy will require different
approaches. Therefore, to make progress the senior partners need to discuss the
overall strategy and their own motivations. These are the forces relevant to the
choice that needs to be made. To make progress there is a need for senior part-
ners to discuss these issues more openly. We will return later to how such progress
may be made. For the moment I will merely state that it requires effective lead-
ership and good team working among the senior partners.
The ‘block-busting’ ideas of Adams (1987) are relevant, as are the practical rec-
ommendations to be made in chapters following. In general we suggest greater
openness, but two points should be made. First, openness and honesty are not
the ultimate purposes of learning; rather they facilitate learning in the circum-
stances that we are considering. Second, it is important to enable people to con-

trol this process (a point made by Argyris). Only then are we likely to minimize
the sources of ineffectiveness that we have discussed. Handy (1983) identifies the
following blocks to learning:

■ We don’t see the questions: we do not critically examine our success and failure.
We do not habitually question events. Yet to learn we must constantly exper-
iment, trying out new ideas and skills.
■ We see the question but seem unable to come to any answers: answers do not come
automatically. We need to search for them, compare a problem situation from
the past, talk to friends and colleagues.
■ We are sometimes unable to see how to put an answer into action in order to see if it
works: here the issue is one of turning ideas into practical action in such a way as
to allow for monitoring, feedback and learning. It is important to identify people
who can help, provide support, counsel and encourage. This also demands inter-
nal motivation and energy. If we can get so far, we are learning how to learn.

135