Page 61 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh03v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:11 PM Page 44

Chapter 3 ■ The transformation perspective
In a world in which the ability to change is a key ‘engine of success’ the shift
from strategy into capability demands leadership, action planning, the ability to
cope with pressure and uncertainty and a willingness to learn. More analysis
helps us in that it aids our understanding of where we are and how we came to
get there – however, analysis alone will not create the future.
From Figure 3.1 we see that strategic diagnosis is driven by and/or formed by ideas
formulated about the future of the organization leading to a ‘vision of the future’.
There are techniques available for vision/strategy formulation, employee surveys,
customer surveys and competitive benchmarking and so on, but it is important to
focus initially on what we are doing in the diagnosis process. We are not merely
attempting to collect symptomatic evidence but to understand what has happened.
Thus falling sales or increasing costs are problems which demand some form of
change, but it is impossible to say what without understanding why. So much is
obvious enough but rarely do we really attempt to understand what has happened
as part of a preparatory diagnosis of what and how to change an organization.
Miller (1990) provides us with an impressive treatment of the dynamics of cor-
porate success, decline and renewal. This is important both because it extends the
ideas of how the seeds of success and failure can be understood and because it
provides us with a better understanding of the corporate dynamics within which
we are enmeshed and attempt to transform and introduce changes. In turn this
is vital simply because much treatment of change is too narrowly focused.
What does this mean? Basically most studies of change are narrowly focused
on what is being changed and are treated in rather a static way. Thus we see that
an organization is deemed to need improved quality and the discussion focuses
on the implementation of a total quality management programme and the asso-
ciated culture changes needed for it to be successful. Rarely is any attempt made
to carry out a longitudinal study (there are a few rare exceptions to this) but even
less often is there any real attempt to examine the dynamics which created the
need for a total quality management programme in the first place. Thus it is that
we often cannot judge whether or not the programme will succeed.
Why is it that people are often managed inappropriately in a period of change?
There are two main reasons. Managers managing change are under pressure. This

pressure undermines their own performance. Also, organizations often do not
possess managers who are sufficiently skilful in handling change. Kotter (1988),
for example, suggests one ‘syndrome’ associated with inadequate leadership,
which we might similarly associate with inadequate change management. In
summary, the argument is that successful organizations can carry the seeds of
their own later decline unless managers learn to be both successful and adapt-
able. The syndrome is set out in Figure 3.2. The tensions created by declining per-
formance create performance problems.
Thus the argument combines the success of a few key people, a period of early
success and growing organizational complexity followed by declining perform-
ance creating pressures towards short-termism and an inward focus. All of this
can lead to a lack of credibility among top management combined with a ‘fear of
failure’ throughout the organization.
Particularly interesting is the point about ‘fear of failure’; the pressures are
dual in nature. On the one hand the short-term approach, combined with a

44