Samenvatting
HPI4008 Full literature summary of case in week 3: Organisational Change
- Instelling
- Maastricht University (UM)
Full literature summary of case in week 3: Organisational Change
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 36 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 36 pagina's
In winkelwagengesponsord bericht van onze partner
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
Week 3: Organisational ChangeLearning goals:
1. What is:
a. Organizational change
I. What types of change are there?
b. Change capabilities
I. When can we consider an organization capable of (or ready for)
change?
c. Ambidexterity
I. What problem does this highlight?
II. How to overcome this problem? For all concepts, ask yourself; what
does this really mean (beyond a definition), why is it important, and
how does it relate to the other concepts?
2. Why do organizations change?
a. What are reasons for or drivers of change (i.e. how do different
paradigms/theories explain (the occurrence of) change)?
b. How do these drivers relate to strategy, dynamic capabilities, and
professionalism?
3. How do (professional) organizations change?
a. Which hidden mechanism surface when changing organizations?
b. Why do these mechanisms surface (i.e. can we understand them)?
c. Which of these mechanisms are most relevant/likely in the context of
professional organizations and why?
d. What approaches can we use to address, solve, overcome, or deal with these
mechanisms?
e. How can we manage change in (professional) organizations (e.g. which color
approaches exist)?
4. How can change be effectively led in (professional) organizations?
a. How is leading different and/or similar to managing?
b. Who should be the change leaders in professional organizations and why?
c. What type of leadership approach is best suited to lead change in professional
organizations and why?
Book Chapters
Why change is complicated (Chapter 2 in: Learning to Change: A Guide for
Organization Change Agents)
2.1 On Loosely Coupled Systems
The theory of “loose coupling” was developed by Weick. He considers it applicable at the
organizational level (2.1.1) as well as at the individual level (2.1.2). The garbagecan theory
by Cohen, March, and Olsen (2.1.3) demonstrates that a similar phenomenon can occur at
group level.
2.1.1 Ambiguities in Organizations
Ambiguous objectives. This is the case when an organization functions with various badly or
vaguely defined, sometimes even conflicting, goals. These goals can be interpreted in a
variety of ways and act as a “cover” for a mixed bag of activities.
,Ambiguous technology (work processes). Many employees have little insight into the work
processes that determine the output and value their organization produces. That causal
connection between activity and value is difficult to define and to articulate.
Ambiguous participation. The involvement of persons or groups in any activity within an
organization generally varies and thus is hard to pin down.
2.1.2 Loose Coupling Between Intentions and Behavior
Loose coupling, according to Weick (1969), plays a role not only at the organizational level
but also at the individual level: the way in which intentions and behavior influence each
other. There is a growing awareness that opinions and intentions have little influence on
behavior; the opposite seems to be the case. In other words, intentions and opinions are stated
rationally after the event. Weick says that, consequendy, behavior and opinions at the
individual level are as much uncoupled as systems are at the organizational level. Behavior
appears to function quite independently of opinions. If you ask people what the reason or
motive was for their behavior, they will construct something on the spot.
In order to clarify intentions, many organizations invest a great deal of time in developing
plans. However, the theory suggests that this is a dead-end street: the coupling becomes even
looser than it was. Instead of concentrating on plans, intentions, and opinions it is also
possible to ask people to make explicit their behavior and to reflect on it. This lays bare the
implicit opinions that underlie their actions. The difference between their implicit and explicit
opinions becomes clear as it scrutinizes the loose coupling between behavior and opinions.
Weick regards this consciousness raising as an important exercise, the best way of creating a
“tighter coupling” between behavior and opinions.
2.1.3 Garbage-Can Decision Making
A vivid illustration of the ineffectiveness of meetings and decision making is demonstrated in
the garbage-can decision-making theory of Cohen, March, and Olsen (1972) and in de
Caluwe and Petri (1985). The former give the following definition of an organization:
An organization can be viewed for some purposes as collections of choices looking
for problems, issues and feelings looking for decision situations in which they might
be aired, solutions looking for issues to which they might be an answer, and decision
makers looking for work.
“Garbage cans” full of unresolved issues, unrealized solutions, and potential decisions are to
be found everywhere and instead of being emptied, they are transferred into new, larger
garbage containers.
The longer the moments of choice last, the more problems can be thrown in. The garbage can
is full and consequendy it becomes increasingly difficult to empty it. As a result of the
discussions and the proposals, involvement has increased and the decision that must be taken
has become weightier. The risk that a “wrong” decision will be made also increases: where
nobody really gets what he wants and nobody really gives his support. The best recourse then
seems to be to postpone the decision and take stock. However, the risks keep on increasing.
The longer the moments of choice remain open, die more unsolved issues can once more be
dragged in.
,In the meantime, the first garbage can is still full of issues waiting to be solved, but because
of the complexity and risks involved no decisions are taken. People run away from this first
garbage can and install a new, empty one by deciding on a study conference. The result is
that: the old problems are transferred to the new garbage can and there are great expectations
all around.
In this way, problems and decisions float around in the organization as elements seeking and
avoiding each other and new moments of choice are highlighted. The “organization” carries
on without really solving any problems and, more important, also without creating new,
collective problems that would challenge the organization.
2.1.4 Implications for Change Agents and Change Processes
Organizations can much better be characterized as networks of autonomous centers
(sometimes right down to the level of the individual staff members) that, in their dealings
with each other, are continually searching for an identity and a direction. For change agents,
the loosely coupled character of organizations means that, in many cases, they cannot limit
themselves to a top-down rational approach. Expanding the coupling between the parts means
that the staff members must be involved in the discussions concerning objectives, in carrying
out the activities, and in mastering the most important competencies.
The garbage-can theory implies that this involvement can degenerate into an interminable and
fruitless cycle of meetings. There is little chance for organizational development when there
is a high degree of garbage-can decision making as these organizations are plagued by little
coherence, acceptance of noncooperation, and counterproductive communication. Meetings
become mere frustrating rituals. A breakthrough in the garbage-can mechanism will come
about only as a result of external causes: a shrinking market share, mergers, a chance to make
a great leap forward, or a topdown reorganization. If discussions have not deteriorated into a
garbage-can situation, however, (here are more possibilities. The theory of a loose coupling
between intentions and behavior warns us not to focus discussions on intentions, for they
might then have no effect on behavior. If one wants to influence behavior during the change
process it is best to first make people aware of their actual behavior and how it contributes to
the problems at hand. This involves making this behavior visible. Only then can one make
explicit the underlying opinions and intentions. There are approaches to change or
interventions that further the realization of a tighter coupling between opinions and behavior.
These are approaches in which:
- behavior is made visible
- there is sufficient safety for people to give and receive feedback on their behavior
- the people involved are committed to learning about their own behavior
- the skills that enable people to learn from and about each other are present
2.2 On Managing and Being Managed
2.2.1 Autonomous Workers and Hierarchical Managers
(Not) managing oneself and (not) being managed is a theme that is much in evidence in
professional organizations, where it can take exceptional forms.
Professionals are not keen to renounce their independent and cocksure nature, and they
behave as if they are still self-employed. What is more, good professional quality' is
considered to be of overbearing importance. Correspondingly, commercial result orientation
is often lacking. Another factor is that professionals do not easily agree among themselves
about the current or desired quality' of their work. Learning together and innovating prove
, difficult, and knowledge is regarded as personal property' and remains locked in the head or
in a cupboard. And so three core problems often arise:
- fragmentation as a result of everyone following his own direction;
- mediocrity' because people do not learn from one another;
- and noncommitment because there is no focus on results or deadlines.
These core problems occur in most professional organizations. Professionals can hold long,
emotional discussions about these problems but here, too, they act as typical freelancers:
Everyone has his own shrewd solution.
Managers have a natural disposition to view possession and control, definition and overview,
planning and evaluation as guarantees of good fortune. It is implied that there is such a thing
as actually managing and controlling an organization and that there can be one person with
sufficient power to do all that. This approach has proved its worth in sectors with
standardized working methods and where efficiency is prized above all else.
In short, the combination of the bureaucratic manager and the autonomous professional is
troublesome. A boss who attempts to give strong leadership is faced with a lack of
understanding. Top down leadership is taboo; professionals are allergic to everything that
even hints at the dreaded threesome of “Bureaucracy, Bosses, and Policies.” They follow
their managers’ activities not only with Argus’s eyes but consider it perfectly legitimate to
express unsolicited criticism. They think that they are permitted to publicly discuss the
incompetence of the management, but of course, managers are forbidden to do the same
about them. Furthermore, they feel that they have the right to ignore any management
decision that clashes with their professional standards and, before you realize it, they try to
extend their authority to cover such management matters as budgets and personnel policy.
They’ll show the boss how it should be done.
2.2.2 The Basic Conflict
Bureaucrats attempt to steer and control change and compel employees to carry out their
wishes. Employees, on the other hand, try to avoid being steered and controlled, certainly
when this interferes with their own plans and ideas. This is what we call the basic conflict.
Mark Hanson (1996) describes this basic conflict in his Interacting Spheres Model (see
Figure 2.1). He states that managers and professionals/workers each have their own domain
over which they make decisions. Each “party'” cherishes his or her own domain, and if
another party' tries to trespass, they defend it fiercely and things do not run as smoothly as
before.
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper lonvanalst. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 52510 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen