Page 82 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh04v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:16 PM Page 65

Introduction
Thereby we learn how more effectively to resolve that problem. The positive
feedback thus generated creates the learning which leads to changes being more
fully established as people become more confident about the relevance of the
ideas to their own situation. Here we can see the possibility of using ‘social influ-
ence’ or ‘contagion models’ as a basis for assessing progress from initial concept
through early adoption to the achievement of critical mass support for change.
This notion is drawn from both the innovation literature (Rogers, 1995) and work
on ‘social movements’. The latter is covered in more detail in the next chapter.
Ideas such as the ‘tipping point’ then become relevant. Is there a point where the
accumulating evidence from experience is such that change becomes irreversible?
Where ‘social influence’ models are used this raises the same question about
leadership. Which leaders, positioned where in the organizational system, are
likely to be most influential? As soon as you accept the notion that social factors
play a part you must immediately question the idea that change is created on a
straightforward top-down basis. Even where the organization is a relatively sim-
ple affair where change involves embracing new technology then we know that
existing power bases become challenged. This is simply another way of accepting
that in that context leadership may well come from different sources.
Kelman (2005) has published a study of changes to procurement policy and
practice in the US government using innovation theory to examine how positive
feedback can create a self-reinforcing process which consolidates change. For
Kelman the ‘change effort’ can feed on itself. In effect his claim implies that a ‘tip-
ping point’ can be reached beyond which change is irreversible. However, this
idea is presented rather simplistically. For example, he argues as follows:
In this view simply launching the change effort and continuing it over time
generates forces building support for change. Thus launching and persisting
in a change effort itself increases the likelihood the effort will succeed. What
is amazing about this is that it occurs automatically, with no further inter-
vention on the part of change leaders other than to launch and persist with
the effort.
Many observers might add that given the positioning of his own office in the

Clinton White House (he was appointed to lead this process of procurement
reform) and the importance attached by the Clinton administration to the
reform programme, doubtless of interest to the budget office and others in gov-
ernment and the Congress, means that this conclusion obscures as much as it
reveals. So we may reasonably conclude that the support for these changes is
rather more extensive than Kelman is suggesting, but we must nevertheless note
that his core idea is worth remembering. Indeed it is based on the ‘diffusion of
innovation’ work he relies on. There is likely to be a slow start but eventually the
pace of change will grow and irreversible change will result.
However, Kelman is rather begging the question of what is meant by ‘persist in
the effort’, even though we certainly acknowledge his contribution relating to the
importance of ‘positive feedback’ as a source of reinforcement for change efforts.
Note also that in Kelman’s study while senior executive and middle management
efforts in support of change had a positive impact on employees successful overall
experience with change, ‘most respected co-workers’ also had a positive impact.

65