CHAPTER 3: CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND ORGANISATIONAL LEARNING
3.1 Change management and organisational development
3.1.2 A critical appraisal of change theories, models and organisational development
Some criticism is directed at change literature, which could create unrealistic assumptions about change processes for managers. Attention is also drawn to new leaders that are expected to lead change efforts, often only based on learning that occurred a few months back in the classroom (Anderson & Anderson 2001). Kanter et al. (1992: 370) argue that “despite volumes of literature on planned change, legions of consultants, and the best efforts of corporate leaders, organisational change still appears to be a chaotic process”. Part of the problem lies in the thinking and perspectives of the writers (McMillan 2008).
Many change initiatives fail, regardless of the wide-spread literature on change management (Elving 2005). Change literature appears to be of little use to managers, as was found by Bamford and Forrester (2003) due to oversimplifying the change process and being incapable of capturing the rate of change. Furthermore, studies on change tend to concentrate on single aspects rather than heterogenous descriptions (Gravenhorst, Werkman & Boonstra 2003).
Examples of such studies are ones that will focus, for example solely on aspects of communication in change, or on organisational culture.
A few studies with those at the top involved in change efforts in organisations, reveals some of the deficiencies in the literature. CEOs interviewed by Callan et al. (2004) challenged the assumption that the planned, linear approach to change often resulted in managers feeling generally positive about achieving success, by arguing that people often had their own ways of perceiving things. Managers interviewed by Andrews, Cameron and Harris (2008) valued theories that allowed them to grasp and contextualise their specific change scenarios and which had applicability to their own situations. It was important to them that if a specific approach failed, that there was a range of theories, concepts and models that could be utilised. Managers also valued theory which viewed change in a non-linear way, thereby acknowledging the non- rational components (Andrews et al. 2008).
Some authors thus make mention of the importance of acknowledging complexity. The assumption of a well-managed change process and the consequent use of linear models are applicable in a reasonably static environment (Ferdig 2007). This could therefore be a reason why much of the planned approaches to change do not work out. Wedge (2006: 10) argues against the idea that “all successful change is led”. This is an important point, as much literature stresses the critical role that management plays in change processes. Many change efforts, especially those with the latest models or approaches fail because most organisations were built with the focal point being on stability (Worley & Lawler 2006). These models create a false impression of the change process being orderly and following through with the activities or stages, which do not work in the real world (Carnall 2003). Callan et al. (2004) do not necessarily disregard the traditional change models but do stress the inherent complexity of directing change, and planning for uncertainty. They, however, still emphasise the role of management.
Some have therefore come to be rather critical of the field of organisational development.
McKendall (1993) examined the tyranny of change by critically examining the organisational development field. She firstly points to the power that management has by the very nature of planned organisational change, which entails conformity and compliance, and views the emergence of uncertainty in the change process as a means of controlling employees. She argues that submission to management is a consequence of the reliance experienced by management due to the uncertainty (McKendall 1993).
The role of management in change therefore receives much criticism. McKendall (1993) states that the majority of planned change initiatives are just a means for management to drive their own goals and needs. She questions as to how precisely change can be owned when it is being commanded and implemented by others. The question then is whether organisational
development is actually accomplishing what it is setting out to do. McKendall (1993: 102) concludes that organisational development “is not a universally positive experience” and that the field is swarming with deception, and that those in the area find themselves in a state of self delusion by propagating methods of participation. Such criticism thus raises a valid point that much of the literature tends to overlook or underplay where those who are not in management fit in. McMillan (2008) contends that many writers and managers are driven by antiquated philosophies, with the result that much management literature prescribes control during change processes. McMillan (2008) further argues that there are indications that management and management literature view organisations as machines. This description correlates to Morgan’s (1997) machine metaphor.
The field of organisational development has, as a result of the problems outlined above, come under criticism. Research by Worley and Feyerherm (2003) with experts in the field indicate that the field of organisational development should be less faddish; something which has affected its reputation. This refers to the on-going introduction of new methods to the field, which leads some authors to question the usefulness of such methods. Even those who are in organisations have come to be rather uncertain about such constant introductions. The problem also lies with managers who often find appeal with theories, assuming they will quickly fix things, but inevitably end up ignoring fundamental problems (Harvey & Brown 2001).
Reference is made by Jackson (2000) to fad writers, in stating that they often do not have an overall vision, which is in opposition to the emphasis on the whole as proposed by systems thinking. Another area of concern is that fad writers generally do not interrogate the fundamental theories connected to recommendations that they make (Jackson 2000).
It is necessary to take a closer look at what precisely organisational development was supposed to have achieved. French, Bell and Zawzcki (2005) point out that organisational development consists of a short and long-term view by helping organisations manage their processes, structures and culture better. Long-term and system-wide utilisation of behavioural science methods must be employed in order to influence organisational effectiveness. Different contemporary applications from the behavioural sciences such as “group dynamics, action research, and sociotechnical systems” are used in organisational development (Van Tonder &
Roodt 2008: 57). It is therefore a continuing process because organisations change and do not remain static (Harvey & Brown 2001). The neglect by organisations in acknowledging inherent complexities may be part of the reason why organisational development efforts fail or are less successful than hoped for.
Organisational development should allow organisations to anticipate and adjust to future shocks by changing beliefs, attitudes, values and structures (Harvey & Brown 2001). Organisational development should also result in improvements for both the organisation, as well as for individuals (French et al. 2005). The question then is whether everybody in the organisation truly does become more adaptable. Worley and Feyerherm’s (2003) research highlights the need for applicable change methods, and the ability to balance interventions on all levels of individual, group and large systems. Reference was also made to organisational development practitioners needing to comprehend large systems and be completely honest with their clients.
An over-reliance on consultant practitioners by client organisations can thus also create a lack of accountability. Concerns around consultants, as noted by Flood (1995) could include pressure to satisfy management, failure in offering genuine advice, non-committal to the ideas that they suggest, the presentation of pre-made packages, or simply getting involved in jobs for which they are not adequately skilled.
The importance of learning processes are therefore of utmost importance. Organisational development should encompass learning and must culminate in a transferred capability from the practitioner to the client to manage future change (Worley & Feyerherm 2003).
New models of change and organisation are thus required, and the field needs to prove that it is not just about change management and the development of effectiveness, but rather that the field can enable the capacity of a system to change in the future (Worley & Feyerherm 2003).
This study is thus an attempt at answering such calls for relevant research into change and organisations.