Componentes del indicador de logro

In addressing the process of change, Burns and Scapens (2000) provide three main classifications of change during a MAC process, perceiving change as an ongoing dynamic process as opposed to an isolated one-off event or phenomenon. Dawson (2012) and Burnes (2012) suggest that change is shaped by three interrelated elements of politics, context and substance of change. This processual approach to change is defined by Dawson (2012:121) as:

The contextual retrospective and real time study of change as it happens overtime through the observed, documented and lived experiences of people as they seek to make sense of and give sense individually and collectively to decision and non-decision making activities, the actions and torpidity of others, the multiple stories that transform and compete over time, and the events and critical incidents that occur in expected and unexpected ways.

Other categorisations of change in the literature focus on three dichotomies of change: formal versus informal change; revolutionary versus evolutionary change; regressive versus progressive change (Soin et al., 2002; Burns and Scapens, 2000). Burns and Scapens (2000) posit formal change as occurring by conscious design influenced by the actions and design of powerful groups operating within the organisation who introduce new rules or routines. On the other hand, informal change refers to change that is occasioned by changes in operating conditions that indirectly influence how organisations operate. This is classed as change, albeit at a tacit level (Yosseuf, 2013).

While Burns and Scapens (2000) suggest change at the informal level lags behind formal change there is a possibility for anxiety and tensions to develop within the organisation, which can result in resistance to the change process or an outright failure of the change initiative.

41

Where an organisation adopts the option of formal change, Youssef (2013) suggests an approach of new methods of thinking across changing organisations.

While Burns and Scapens (2000) conceive revolutionary change as a fundamental distortion to organisational routines and established institutions, they consider revolutionary change on the other hand as entailing incremental, small-measured and minor disruptions to organisational routines. Regarding the definition of revolutionary change, Youssef (2013) clarifies change as not relating only to the content of change but also as extending to the change of existing organisational processes and institutions. In terms of the ease of implementing change, Burns and Scapens (2000) argue that change – with minimal impact and variations to existing processes and institutions – is likely to be easier to implement within organisations. They argue where change appears to be in line with existing norms and behaviours of the organisation, the proposed organisational change is perceived as being at variance with existing norms, processes and institutions, especially where minimal changes in external institutions support these changes. In some cases, such revolutionary changes fail because existing routines challenge the new practices that challenge existing arrangements.

Adopting the regressive and progressive dichotomy, Burns and Scapens (2000) provide further insight into the process of MASC, suggesting that regressive change is a new behaviour that reinforces ceremonial dominance and restricts institutional change, whilst progressive change refers to a displacement of ceremonial behaviour and attributes. They contend that where ceremonial domination exists (as in the case of family-controlled firms), progressive change can still take place with the introduction of technology that may result in employees questioning organisational routines or processes. There is thus a need to consider the role of power groups and vested interests in hindering the process of organisational change. Integrating regressive and progressive change perspectives can thus yield insights into the role of power

42

and group interest in the process of change and the institutionalisation of organisational routines.

Arguing further on emergent change, Burnes (2012) suggests that emergent change consists of an irrational process dependent on five key organisational factors for survival: organisational structure, organisational culture, organisational learning, managerial behaviour, politics and power. Burnes (2012) posits an emergent approach may not be applicable in all situations; hence it is based on a need to be used along with other approaches. It is believed that the emergent approach is more relevant in instances where the operating environment is characterised by turbulence and dynamic operating environments such as how modern organisations operate, as opposed to a system of incremental change planned change which requires individually separate change events. The emergent process is perceived to privilege the roles of power, politics, managerial behaviour, organisational culture and structure.

A planned approach to change is considered an alternative to the emergent approach, although it is criticised for its weakness and construction of change as a series of conscious steps planned in a logical sequence, which is not always the case in organisations. Lewin’s planned approach to change is still considered by Burnes and By (2012), amongst others, to be as relevant as when it was first postulated in the 1940s. However, others have criticised the planned approach as overly reliant on the skills and experience of managers to facilitate and implement change processes. Kanter et al. (1992) argue for instance that the static and linear conception of the change process as a frozen and unfrozen routine does not hold through in practice; a view supported by Burnes (2012) who perceives planned change as being unfit for purpose. Similarly, change process based on a planned model perceives MASC to be a phenomenon that can be pre-planned and which implies a definite end point, which contradicts the predominant view that change as an emergent process takes into account daily actions of members of the organisation in formulating new processes and procedures. Proponents of change as an

43

emergent process suggest that change is a continuous dynamic and contested process where substance, politics and context interact and overlap (Dawson 2003a; Burnes 2013); even where change process is implemented in full, there is a need for constant refinement and modification to make it relevant to changing times and the environment the business is operating within. MAC and by extension organisational change is not a linear process but an open ended cumulative and unpredictable process of experimentation and adaptation of matching resources and capabilities to the opportunities and constraints of a dynamic operating environment (Burnes, 2012). They further contend that change is a multi-level cross-organisational process that unfolds in an iterative method over a time period, with influence from political and cultural processes.