Page 67 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh03v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:11 PM Page 50

Chapter 3 ■ The transformation perspective
This quote captures two or three ‘big’ ideas about change. First, that many
change programmes fail because they are implemented within a part of the
organization – there is an absence of an integrated approach as between divi-
sions, departments and the like. Second, that successful change may best be
achieved by focusing change efforts horizontally, i.e. along the customer value
stream rather than vertically up or down the structure. This idea does not negate
all the notions of bottom-up, top-down and cascading change programmes
which you will have read about, experienced and/or managed, but it does pro-
vide a different perspective when thinking about change.
Another ‘big’ idea is that of organizational learning, whether in the context of
strategy, management development, organizational development or major
change. Many practitioners and consultants/researchers point to the vital role of
organizational learning in a period of change. In so far as major change involves
implementing new organizational arrangements to deal with new conditions
(whether in external markets or internally within the organization) it is obvious
that change requires and leads to learning. It requires learning if the need for
change is to be accepted. It involves learning particularly because our initial
attempt to resolve the change problem needs to be evolved with experience.
However, the circumstances within which we seek to engender change are now
fundamentally different. We are each of us aware of the fundamental changes
going on: globalization, deregulation of markets, new technology, privatization,
fundamental rethinking about the nature and role of the state, and so on.
Moreover, we are each of us dealing with the organizational consequences,
including downsizing, flattening of structures, empowerment, outsourcing,
strategic focus, the ‘lean’ organization, acquisitions and mergers, joint ventures
and strategic alliances, multi-functional team working and much more. Many
now conclude that the ‘mind-set’ through which senior managers view the world
has changed in consequence.
Therefore, the characteristic model of the successful organization has changed.
Once we sought economies of scale via horizontal and vertical integration.
Eventually we discovered that these economies of scale were often illusory. Some
of the ‘costs’ of scale were increasingly alienated and demotivated employees but,

in particular, inflexible and inwardly focused organizations. Observers concerned
with these problems noted two linked points:
1 What appeared to be a growing alienation of many within modern society
co-alesced around attitudes to bureaucracy–whether public or private.
Organizations which could give genuine priority to delivering value to cus-
tomers would begin to break down the alienation many felt about these
large bureaucracies.
2 Whatever else we could say about large, multi-level bureaucracies it is obvious
that they are expensive, but much less obvious that they deliver value for money.
And so many began to seek means of encouraging flexibility and entrepreneurship.
This led to a fundamental shift in our thinking about how to change organizations.
Traditionally, we have sought to change the organization within its existing
boundary. We have not sought to ask whether or not the boundaries themselves
should be changed. The one exception is a change strategy adopted throughout

50