Page 267 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh13v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:31 PM Page 250

Chapter 13 ■ Managing major changes
Is that as straightforward a matter as it seems on the face of it or are there prob-
lems here? What processes can hinder coping activities? The second problem
relates to the problem of ineffective behaviour.

Providing information

At a practical level much of what we have said has been concerned with infor-
mation. People need to understand the new system if they are to understand
their own part in it. Information must be shared if people are to judge the impact
of changes on themselves and on ‘their’ jobs. Does this mean that openness and
sharing information is a good thing, and the more the better? Some will say that
this is so. We can only make mature judgements if we have the relevant infor-
mation.
Others will point to the uncertainty surrounding many changes. What if the
manager you exhort to pass on information does not have it to share? Then the
question of confidentiality is often raised.
In fact, there is a dual problem which must be faced when significant changes
are underway. For the individuals concerned, the demands of a change situation
can be revealing to themselves and to others. We often respond emotionally
because we feel that the new demands, the new situation, strip away barriers and
reveal parts of ourselves which we have kept private. One’s recent performance,
the good and the less so, are now examined as the planners gather data to justify
the change. One’s skills are examined and explored. One’s work behaviour comes
under observation and analysis. The individual is asked what he or she feels
about the present system, process, job, machine or structure. How well does it
work? What are its problems? How might it be improved? What are the best
things about it? What are the worst things about it? Thus the individual provides
information.
As Bok (1984) makes clear, this is not without problems. To the extent that this
probing enters the individual’s personal domain (or territory), then it is an inva-
sion of the self. That human beings will use ingenious means to protect their pri-

vacy has long been understood (see Roy (1954) for fascinating case material based
on well-known observational studies in industrial settings). Should we be con-
cerned about it? Yes, if it is our concern to see these same people actively sup-
porting and committed to the changes. What does this mean? We would suggest
that it tells us how important it is to collect information from people on their own
terms. Only then will we minimize the chances of invading their personal
domains. Information is needed, of course, but the more we can get the people
involved to collect and interpret their own information, feeding it into the
broader analysis of the section, department or organization, the better. Empathy
becomes a crucial skill (see above). Do we mean that people should be free to
keep poor performance secret, or problems? We do not but we must accept that
there is a need for secrecy; the question is one of balance. Secrecy may be indis-
pensable to individuals, to groups and to organizations.
Secrecy for plans is needed, not only to protect their formulation but also to
develop them, perhaps to change them, at times to excuse them, even if to

250