Complexity of change and its relationship with the levels of cooperation needed during a change process
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14267/VEZTUD.2020.05.02Keywords:
change management, change management theories, dialogue, partnership, cooperationAbstract
Change, and the capacity for change is an organic and necessary part of the life of organisations, and this organisational phenomenon has been the topic of countless researches and publications. The decisive majority of change management approaches are basically functionalist and look for the tool(kit)s of managers to bring the change process to success. The focus is on managers (leaders); if they look at the employee perspective at all, they do so to identify clues for the leaders. They want to understand employee behaviour to upgrade the change management tools of managers so that the latter can achieve their goals as effectively as possible. This study follows a different approach: identifying what relationship, what type of cooperation/co-action is assumed or recommended for change processes by existing and well-known change management schools. This paper reviews the basic change types along two dimensions to identify the most popular change management theories and the change types they discuss. One fault line dividing the theories
concerned into two major groups is whether they consider the relationship between change and the quasi-steady state typical of organisations to be discontinuous, incremental or continuous. Another fault line concerns control being exercised over the change process, i.e. the extent to which the initiators and/or leaders of the change can and/or want to assert their intents during the process. The nature of this paper is a narrative or integrative review, which is based on a more idiosyncratic engagement with the literature. That is, the author considered the mainstream approaches and theories as my starting basis. This paper comes to the conclusion that the more complex the changes a theory aspires to solve, the more central the partnership, cooperation and dialogue between management and employees are in the model. The deeper the changes it operates with, the more it affects the deepest cultural layers of organisations, and
the more essential the dialogue component is for the model.
Downloads
References
Argyris, C. (1977). Double Loop Learning in Organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115−125. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118785317.weom110140
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching Smart People How To Learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 99−109. https://doi.org/10.1162/152417302762251291
Argyris, C. (1994). Good Communication That Blocks Learning. Harvard Business Review, 72(4) 77−85.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, Massachussetts, USA: Addison-Wesley. https://doi.org/10.2307/40183951
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our Journey in Organizational Change Research and Practice Journal of Change Management, 9(2) 127−142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010902879079
Bakacsi, G. (2004). Szervezeti magatartás és vezetés. Budapest, Hungary: Aula Kiadó.
Bakacsi, G. (2005). Változásvezetés és szervezeti magatartás. In: G. Bakacsi, K. Balaton, & M. Dobák (Eds), Változás és vezetés (pp. 61−81). Budapest: Aula Kiadó.
Barnard, M., & Stoll, N. (2010). Organisational Change Management: A Rapid Literature Review. Bristol: Centre for Understanding Behaviour Change.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000), Cracking the Code of Change Harvard Business Review, 78(3), 133−141. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-16511-4_4
Blaikie, N. (2007). Approaches to Social Enquiry (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Bouwen, R., & Fry, R. (1991). Organizational Innovation and Learning. Four Patterns of Dialogue between the Dominant Logic and the New Logic. International Studies of Management and Organizations, 21(4), 37−51. https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1991.11656566
Bouwen, R., De Visch, J., & Steyaert, C. (1992). Innovation Projects in Organizations: Complementing the Dominant Logic by Organizational Learning. In: D. M. Hosking & N. Anderson (Eds.), Organizational Change and Innovation. London, UK: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351063623-8
Burnes, B., & Jackson, P. (2011). Success and Failure In Organizational Change: An Exploration of the Role of Values. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 133−162. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2010.524655
Burnes, B. (2011). Introduction: Why Deas Change Fail, and What Can We Do About It? Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 445−450. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2011.630507
By, R. T. (2005). Organizational Change Management: A Critical Review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369−380. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010500359250
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2014). Doing Action Research In Your Own Organization (4th ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2001). Organizational Development and Change. Mason,Ohio, USA: South-Western College Publishing.
Dobák, M. (1996). Szervezeti formák és vezetés. Budapest, Hungary: KJK Kerszöv Kiadó.
Drucker, P. F. (1999). Management Challenges for the 21st Century. New York, New York, USA: Harper/Collins Publisher. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080942384
Edmonson, A. & Moingeon, B. (1998). From Organizational Learning to the Learning Organization. Management Learning, 29(1), 5−20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507698291001
Edmonson, Amy C. (1996). Three Faces of Eden: The Persistence of Competing Theories and Multiple Diagnoses in Organizational Intervention Research. Human Relations, 49(5), 571−595. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679604900503
Gelei, A. (1996). Szervezeti keret és szervezeti változás: egy értelmezési kísérlet. Szociológiai Szemle, 1996(3−4), 55−81.
Gelei, A. (2002). A szervezeti tanulás interpretatív megközelítése. A szervezetfejlesztés esete. Doktori disszertáció. Budapest: BKÁE, Vezetési és Szervezési Tanszék.
Gelei, A. (2011). A szervezeti tanulás interpretatív megközelítése II.: a domináns szervezeti logika és az innovációs logika dialogikus kölcsönhatása. In: M. Dobák, Gy. Bakacsi, & Cs. Kiss. (Eds.), Stratégia és menedzsment. Tanulmányok Balaton Károly tiszteletére. Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem, Vezetéstudományi Intézet, Budapest, 2011 (pp. 139 –154).
Grasselli, N. I. (2009). Lehet akciókutatásból doktorálni? Eszményképek kontra valóság. In: Vezetéstudomány XI. Évf. 2009 4. szám pp. 65−71.
Karp, T. (2005). Unpacking the Mysteries of Change: mental modelling. Journal of Change Management, 5(1), 87−96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010500057573
Kerber, K., & Bouno, A. F. (2005). Rethinking Organizational Change. Organizational Development Journal, 23(3), 23−38.
Kotter, J. (1999). A változások irányítása. Budapest, Hungary: Kossuth Kiadó.
Kotter, J.n (2006). Our Iceberg is Melting. USA: St. Martin’s Press.
Kotter, J. (2007). Leading Change. Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review, 85(1), 96−103. https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2009.5235501
Kotter, J. (2008). Developing a Change-Friendly Culture. An Interview with John P. Kotter. Leader to Leader, Spring 2008(48), 33−38. https://doi.org/10.1002/ltl.278
Kotter, J. (2012). Accelerate! How the Most Innovative Companioes Capitalize on Today's Rapid-Fire Strategic Challenges − And Still Make Their Numbers. Harvard Business Review, 90(11), 44–58.
Leppitt, N. (2006a). Challenging the Code of Change: Part I. Praxis Does Not Make Perfect. Journal of Change Management, 6(2), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010600683104
Leppitt, N. (2006b). Challenging the Code of Change: Part II. Crossing the Rubicon: Extending the Integration of Change. Journal of Change Management, 6(3), 235−256. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010600683153
McLain-Smith, D. (2013). Chris Argyris. Reflections, 13(2), 5.
Nutt, P. C. (1987). Identifying and Appraising How Managers Install Strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 8, 1−14. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250080102
Palmer, I., Dunford, R., & Akin, G. (2009). Managing Organizational Change. A Kultiple Perspectives Approach (2nd ed). New York, New York, USA: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying Organizational Change and Development: Challenges for Future Research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697−713. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069411
Pulinka, Á. (2007). Ignáci szervezet − ignáci tanulás. Szakdolgozat. Kézirat. Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem, Vezetéstudományi Intézet, Budapest.
Rieley, J.s B. ,& Clarkson, I. (2001). The Impact of Change on Performance. Journal of Change Management, 2(2), 160−172. https://doi.org/10.1080/714042499
Robbins, S. P., Judge, T. A., & Campbell, T. (2010). Organizational Behaviour. UK: Pearson Education Ltd.
Schein, E. H. (1981). Coming to a New Awareness of Organizational Culture. Sloan Management Review, 25(2), 3−16.
Schein, E. H. (1993). On Dialogue, Culture, and Organizational Learning. Organizational Dynamic,s 22(2.), 40−51. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(93)90052-3
Schein, E. H. (1996). Kurt Lewin's Change Theory in the Field and in the Classroom: Notes Toward a Model of Managed Learning. System Practice, 9(1), 27−47 https://doi.org/10.1162/152417399570287
Schein, E. H. (2002a). Models and Tools for Stability and Change in Human Systems Reflections, 4(2), 34−46. https://doi.org/10.1162/152417302762251327
Schein, E. H. (2002b). The Anxiety of Learning. Interview by Diane L. Coutu. Harvard Business Review 80(3), 100−106.
Senge, P. M., & Kofman, F. (1993). Communities of Commitment. The Heart of Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 5−22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(93)90050-b
Senge, P. M. (1990a). The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York, New York, USA: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M. (1990b). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. New York, New York, USA: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline. The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. London, UK: Random House.
Sirkin, H. L., Keenan, P., & Jackson, A. (2005). The Hard Side of Change Management. Harvard Business Review, 83(10.), 109−118. https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2014.6966953
Smith, M. K. (2001). Chris Argyris: Theories of Action, Double-Loop Learning and Organizational Learning. available from: http://infed.org/mobi/chris-argyris-theories-of-action-double-loop-learning-and-organizational-learning/ Downloaded/letöltve: 13. November 2016.
Tsoukas, H. (2002). Vulnerability, Moral Responsibility and Reflexive Thinking. Commentary on Chris Argyris' Writing "Teaching Smart People How To Learn". Reflections,4(2), 14−15.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change. The Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York, New York, USA: W. W. Norton & Co.
Wheatley, M. J. (2006). Leadership and the New Science. Discovering Order in a Chaotic World (3rd ed.). San Francisco, USA: Berrett-Koehler.
Zaltman, G., & Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for Planned Change. New York, New York, USA: Wiley & Sons Inc.
Zizek, S. (2014). Trouble in Paradise. From the End of History to the End of Capitalism. UK: Penguin Books.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors assign copyright to Vezetéstudomány / Budapest Management Review. Authors are responsible for permission to reproduce copyright material from other sources.
