Page 86 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh04v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:16 PM Page 69

Linear approaches
they at least specify the tasks which managers need to undertake, these models
are also commonly criticized as too simple. The experience of managing a change
of any magnitude is generally more complex with many stops and starts and
much ‘side-tracking’ along the way. Stacey (1996) is clearly of this view, identify-
ing three assumptions leading to that conclusion:
1 That managers are able to identify organizational adaptations ahead of envi-
ronmental changes (note that this appears to be a rather purist view; why must
it be ahead of those environmental changes?).
2 That change is a linear process.
3 That organizations are systems tending toward static equilibrium (i.e. a stable
state within which the organization’s position in its environment is ‘stable’).
Of these the first seems both purist and unnecessary. Why is the timing such an
issue? The other two certainly appear to characterize many models of organiza-
tional change. The first might be reworked to say that models of change tend to
view the process as operating within the existing organizational system, that is
with senior executives starting and then dominating the process. Perhaps the
most influential of these linear or managerial models is that proposed by Kotter
(1988). He does at least consider the importance of external stakeholders and rec-
ognizes the need for constant adaptation and change.
Indeed, it is worth noting that changes can be categorized in terms of rate of
change. It is common for observers to note that the rate of change in the envi-
ronment is important (Lawrence and Dyer, 1983). Similarly Kanter et al. (1992),
responding to the distinction between incremental and transformational change,
notes that the latter may be achieved via a ‘bold stroke’ or revolutionary approach,
or by a series of incremental changes leading to transformation over an extended
period of time. To my mind the missing concept here is that of ambition. For
whatever reason the bold stroke starts out with an ambitious challenge to the sta-
tus quo which is articulated as such from the outset. The incremental approach to
transformational change may seek the same ambition but may proceed along a
trajectory of change which leaves options more open. All of this is similar to the
Beer and Nohria (2000) distinction between theory E and theory O change.

Theory E change pursues the maximization of shareholder value through finan-
cial incentives, downsizing and divestment. It is about tough choices driven by
financial imperatives and financial performance. Theory O aims at incremental
performance improvement through incremental interventions to the organiza-
tional culture, capability and the promotion of organizational learning. Could we
argue that theory E states tough and challenging strategic objectives in stark finan-
cial terms while theory O obscures the tough choices in pursuit of organizational
cohesion and long-term survival. That is to say both seek the same outcome but
theory O seeks a trajectory to that outcome which will keep the organization in
being. Theory E, once applied, may lead to rapid and disruptive change.
Can both operate together? Probably only in circumstances where competitive
and other pressures allow. You can also argue that theory E may be the place to
start if radical change involving job losses is needed. But then theory O may also
be needed once those initial changes have been established in order that the
organization which emerges can be transformed for the longer term. As I shall

69