Page 95 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh05v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:19 PM Page 78

5 Theories of change: critical

perspectives

Introduction

One of the difficulties many observers have with the change management litera-
ture is that it is overly pragmatic. It lacks theoretical depth. The change process
is depicted as a series of neat steps and stages. Yet in the real world organization
change is not like that . . . it is altogether more complicated. Moreover, the
change management literature can be read as suggesting that it is possible to set
out a well articulated theory of how to achieve successful change. Yet most of the
world’s problems appear to be full of uncertainties and often the steps we take to
resolve them are themselves the origins of ‘unintended consequences’ which give
rise to either new problems or to pressures making the problems we sought to
solve worse, not better.
Technology, demography, globalization and social change are all and each lead-
ing to external, environmental changes. None is new. But all have an impact now
in a world where less organized activity is determined by hierarchical relationships
of power and control, whether these be feudal or based on corporatist principles.
To an increasing extent market solutions prevail. While the most developed version
of this argument is deployed by Bobbitt (2002) in his formulation of the concept

of ‘the market state’, it is clear from any application of Williamson’s original
approach (1975) that in both the private and the public sectors there has been an
accelerating tendency to rely on market solutions to the problems of change. In
essence the argument is that the rewards and punishments of the market create a
dynamic arising from competitive pressure which is hard to achieve within an hier-
archical organization unless crisis threatens. Thus the ‘market decides’ becomes a
mantra for many seeking to lead change. That in turn means that outcomes are
determined by the millions of choices people make. Thus is created the dynamism
we referred to above which encourages innovation. But it also removes many of the
certainties created by the checks and balances of former solutions to the problem
of how to organize for agriculture, commerce or war. Now this is not to argue that
the market dominates all aspects of human endeavour. However, market forces are
increasingly relied on by politicians and business executives alike.
Thus the organization and its environment are both increasingly dynamic
and uncertain. For Clark and Clegg (1998) this has lead to ‘a transformation of

78