Page 277 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh14v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:32 PM Page 260

Chapter 14 ■ Change architecture
Again one can see how ‘personal learning cycles’, ‘change coping cycles’ (see
Chapter 13) and the organizational change cycle may fit together. Learning cycles
may be ‘nested’ within the ‘change coping cycles’ which in turn are nested within
the organization’s change cycle. Add to that the concept of adoption of inno-
vation, which suggests that people vary in the pace of adoption of new ideas from
innovators, early adopters to laggards, and it is possible to suggest some inter-
esting lines of thought both for the practice of organizational change and for
research.
Can we, for example, pick out the most likely innovators? Many observers
suggest that they are venturesome and prepared to accept risks. De Vries (1980)
would probably add that they are prepared to take calculated risks. Kirton
(1988), the originator of the Kirton adoption–innovation test or KAI, identifies
various differences between innovators and adopters suggesting that both are
essential to success. Amabile (1988) identifies components of individual creativ-
ity (e.g. product and technical skills and knowledge, cognitive style, work styles,
attitudes and motivation) which she sees as emerging from cognitive abilities,
perceptual and motor skills, education, training, experience in developing new
ideas, the ability to minimize extrinsic constraints, which certainly suggest lines
for further research but which might allow us to identify potential ‘change
champions’ and ‘change agents’. The champion might be the risk taker, strongly
achievement orientated, with the capability of ignoring, or at least settling for,
one-side constraints until ideas are shaped through the process of early trials.
Amabile (1983) suggests that the appropriate cognitive–perceptual style includes
the following:
■ the ability to break the existing mind-set;
■ the ability to hold open options for a long time;
■ the ability to suspend judgement;
■ excellent memory;
■ the ability to break out of ‘performance scripts’.

All of this appears very similar to the ‘block-busting’ capabilities we have
discussed.
Grundy (1994) adds important insight into strategic learning to the Juch
model. For him strategic learning and strategic action are two linked cycles. Set
out in Figure 14.3 is a modified version of his idea. Thus strategic learning is a
dual process of action and learning. Both loops operate simultaneously but are
not often well synchronized. In much the same way the learning loop is often
not completed and the learning maximized because formal evaluation is not
encouraged. In effect, Grundy supports our original view of this: that it does not
require a separate stage but, rather, a linked process aimed at achieving the learn-
ing. Thus not least there could be a management development programme used
both to roll out and to cascade major changes throughout an organization.
Grundy also argues that a key feature of success is the ability to block out dis-
tractions (see the discussion of ‘champions’ above).

260