As this entire website is, in a sense, devoted to the topic of organisational change, in this Topic Assistant we will focus on various approaches to organisational change. A useful classification of the different historical view-points, based on the work of Robbins (1990), Dunphy (1981) and Perrow (1973), suggests the following four perspectives. These are not clearly defined and articulated methods of organisational change, nor are these four all-encompassing. They are, however, a good way to start you thinking about the ways that people have approached the issue of change in organisations. Information on each perspective can be accessed by clicking on the listing or by scrolling down the page.
[See related information in a presentation on organisational change.]
Organisational change
by edict
A traditional bureaucratic organisation, whether it
be in the public or private sectors, is run from the
top by a powerful manager and/or owner. The chief executive
or senior management group decides to make a change,
they announced their decision, and their subordinates
carry out those orders. This approach views an organisation
as a mechanical device designed to achieve certain
goals. Management focus is on efficiency. The
theories of Frederick Taylor's Scientific Management
(1911) are applied frequently. Taylor's Scientific
Management suggests that managers should find the "one
best way" a job can be done by applying the scientific
method. Henri Fayol's (1949) fourteen general principles
of management are also used, such as division of work,
authority, discipline, and unity of command and of
direction. This approach to change focuses on the technical
(i.e., production or service provision) systems and
tries to ensure that they are as efficient as possible.
Although organisational change by edict may provide a clear direction and objectives for change, focused and decisive leadership and authoritative backing to the program of change, it fails to create wide-spread commitment to change, it creates resistance by failing to acknowledge and use existing knowledge, expertise and power, and it creates distrust and conflict.
How to deal with resistance
to change
At least partially in reaction to the mechanisation
of the classical view, many people recognise the contribution
of informal and social (i.e., non-technical) factors
in organisational innovation and change. The focus
in this view is on the motivation of individuals and
groups and on the associated organisational processes
that support behaviour.
The Illumination and Hawthorne studies (Snow, 1927; Rothlisberger & Dickson, 1939) first highlighted the importance of social systems and the dynamics of work groups, attitudes, expectations and labour-management relations when making changes in organisations. Chester Barnard (1938) consolidated a great deal of work done up until the late 1930's and concluded that organisations were basically cooperative systems. He viewed the organisation as a system in need of balance between social and people requirements and issues on one hand and technical requirements and issues on the other. He challenged the notion that authority only flowed top-down, recognised the power of the informal organisation, and proposed that managers' roles were to facilitate communication and to motivate subordinates.
Although recognising resistance to change is critical and has led to our appreciating (1) the need to involve those affected by change in order to generate commitment, (2) the importance of understanding and influencing peoples' attitudes, beliefs and expectations, and (3) the effects of work groups on implementation success, it is just as one-sided as the change by edict perspective.
The answer is "it
depends"
A contingency perspective suggests that the best form
or structure of an organisation depends on a number
of factors, or contingencies, that impact the firm
(e.g., organisation size, environmental uncertainty,
production technology). For example, some classic work
done in the U.K. (Woodward, 1965; Perrow, 1979; and
Thompson, 1967), suggests that the organisation's technical
systems, its production and service-delivery subsystems,
must be matched to its environment and other organisational
structures. If your firm works with stable production
technology and the environment is stable in terms of
the market and technology, then you should change toward
more formal and mechanistic
organisational structures. If, on the other hand,
your technology and markets are dynamic, your firm
should be flexible and organic
in order to better respond.
The way you should go about implementing these changes, was never really discussed in the 1060s/1970s by these contingency researchers. During the 1980's, however, a socio-technical systems (STS) perspective emerged that provides a contingency-based answer. Generally, the STS approach is to define the purpose of the work system or unit, to analyse the technical and social subsystems of the organisation, to develop a design for the joint systems that optimally fits them together dependent upon a number of relevant contingencies, and then to implement the design. See Trist (1981) for a review of the evolution of socio-technical systems perspective.
This is the first of the modern approaches to organisational change and is quite compatible with what we are looking at in this manual. A more detailed version of the process follows, based on the work of Graversen (1989):
1. Initial systems scanning
A. Analysis/consideration of the technical system: the tasks, the production process and existing equipment, the layout. Identification of "unit operations" and "key process variances".
B. Analysis/consideration of the social system: the work
organisation and management systems, job content, industrial relations, informal
structures and systems. Examine peoples' perceptions of their roles, the tenance system as
it relates to the above technical system, the supply and users systems, the work
environment (including the physical work environment), and any other plans (e.g.,
development plans) that are under-way, or soon to be under-way, that must be taken into
account.
2. The change process (the phases of implementation)
A. The idea and initiatory phase: market analysis, capacity requirements, profitability compared with investment, costs and savings examined.
B. Programming phase: specification of the objectives and requirements for the technical implementation and the formulation of the major principles and proposals about human resources and industrial relations
C. Project planning phase: technical solutions are found in response to the requirements set down in the programming phase done itself in three phases (i.e., basic planning, planning, and detailed planning).
D. Implementation phase: deliver and set-up of the new technology.
E. Running-in phase: testing, breaking-in, debugging, re-invention.
Without power, nothing
happens
In another view of organisational change, people have
recognised the following: (1) the importance of the
social perspective from the human relations school,
(2) how firms need to be in fit with their environments
from the contingency perspectives, and (3) they add
their focus on the results of the political struggles
for control among coalitions as determinants of organisation
change, structure and behaviour. This perspective suggests,
therefore, that although both the social and technical
sides are essential and must be appropriately designed
and integrated, nothing changes anywhere within an
organisation without power. Dunphy (1981, pgs
49 - 50) puts it well, "The Human Relations and
Sociotechnical schools underestimated the importance
of power relationships. While their change programs
frequently affected power relationships, the restructuring
of formal authority in the upper echelons was seldom
the prime target of change or even the key means to
reach some other end."
This political or power-oriented perspective is not the same as the same as the classical school's organisational change by edict. While it does assume that an organisation is a political arena in which power, conflict and organisational structure all favour those in control, and that organisation design is the result of the power struggles of diverse coalitions, it does not suggest that innovation and technical change can be implemented successfully by force or edict.
Because this perspective recognises multiple forms of power, and various coalitions and sets of interests, it suggests that organisational change can only occur if all of these are taken into account. Numerous forms of industrial democracy, where labour-management power relationships are legislated to ensure representation, as well as recent forms of award restructuring and the negotiation of technology change agreements in Australia, also fall in to this category.
References
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard
University Press.
Dunphy, D. (1981). Organisational change by choice. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.
Fayol, H. (1949). General and industrial management. London: Pitman.
Graversen, G. (1989). Social factors in the introduction of new technology: A Scandinavian case study. In Greg Bamber and Russell Lansbury (Edts), New Technology. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Perrow, C. (1973). The short and glorious history of organisational theory. In J. M. Shfritz & P. H. Whitbeck (eds.), Classics of organisation theory: 313 - 323. Ill: Moore.Rothlisberger, F. J. & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
Perrow, C. (1979). Complex organisations: A critical essay (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.
Robbins, S. P. (1990). Organisation theory: Structure, design, and application (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Snow, C. E. (1927). A discussion of the relation of illumination intensity to productive efficiency. The Tech Engineering News, November.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper & Row.
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organisations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Trist, E. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems. Toronto, Ontario Ministry of Labour, Occasional Paper No. 2.
Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial organisation: Theory and practice. Oxford: University Press.