Conmiseración 46

Broadbent (1992) in her study of organisational change in the National Health Service • develops and enriches Laughlin’s (1991) theoretical model. The focus of her case study is the accounting system and the interpretations of it made by different members of the organisation, arguing that, this development aids explanation of the process of change that has taken place in her research. The methodological position adopted in Broadbent's research also stems from middle range thinking. The theoretical insights provided by the models of change are used as a basis for understanding the situation studied, while at the same time the empirical findings have extended the theoretical model.

In applying the models to a practical situation Broadbent (1992) raises three key issues. First, her research found that the practical situation has been more complex than the models would suggest. Second, she asks at which point can change be said to be of a second order? Third, her research shows that change cannot simply be evidenced by a consideration of the design archetype alone. These three issues will now be discussed in turn.

With respect to the first issue, Broadbent states that:

"The empirical data suggests that a more complex model of the of the interpretive schemes is needed and that the pathway of change in an organisation may not necessarily be uniform - different elements of the organisation may change in diverse ways and at different rates" (p 360).

In the first instance Laughlin's models do not address the question as to whether all members of an organisation would hold the same set of interpretive schemes and Broadbent's research illustrates that organisational members need not necessarily hold identical sets of interpretive schemes. Her research also highlights that there are different cultural elements in the interpretive schemes which are embraced to different extents by different organisational members. The models described by Laughlin do not deal with the possibility and outcome of "fragmentation" (Broadbent 1992 p361) of the cultural element of the interpretive schemes in an organisational context. As Broadbent states:

"The existence of cultural fragmentation raises the question of whether the organisation can remain an entity when it has differing cultural elements in its interpretive schemes. Why in these circumstances does it not disintegrate? The organisation which has been the focus of this case study, for example, continues despite this fragmentation. How is this possible?” (p 361).

It is at this point that Broadbent extends the original theoretical models and through the case study provides a means of suggesting an answer to the above question. The

amalgamation between the theoretical models and the case study suggests an element of flexibility in the linkages between the different elements of the interpretive schemes and between the interpretive schemes and the design archetype. The flexibility results from the existence of different levels of abstraction in these elements. The heart of Broadbent's argument is highlighted below:

"The existence of different levels of abstraction allows for the possibility that agreement of organisational members at higher levels of the interpretive schemes (e.g. the metarules) might be contrasted with disagreement at lower levels (e.g. the cultural level). Because of the agreement which exists at higher levels of the interpretive schemes, differences at the lower cultural level do not cause the organisation to disintegrate or break up. The organisation is instead, able to absorb some level of organisational tension. Thus a more complex conceptualisation of the interpretive schemes of the organisation might be suggested" (p362).

Broadbent's case study highlights that although there may be congruence at higher levels of abstraction of the interpretive schemes, this does not prevent some fragmentation at the cultural level:

"The fragmentation at this level provides different orientations to the same design archetype and the possibility of organisational conflict. The coherence of the higher level metarules and mission contains the conflict and the organisation continues" (p363).

The second key issue raised by Broadbent (1992) is, at which point can change be said to be of a second order? She argues that this issue is important not just to provide a more complete theoretical analysis but also because it is a key issue in understanding the nature of change in organisations in practical situations. At which stage is the impetus for

change so great that it triggers a change from the cultural to a higher level of

abstraction? The fragmentation at the cultural level complicates the issue of classification of the overall organisational change. Where fragmentation exists, can even first order change be said to occur, unless the culture of all organisational members is changed? Broadbent argues that this points to the possibility of a "schizoid" organisation (Laughlin

1991) because it has a fragmentation of the interpretive schemes at the cultural level.

The third consideration raised by Broadbent is that change cannot be evidenced by change in the design archetype alone. Logically, a change in the interpretive schemes should lead to a change in the design archetype, but change may take place before the design archetype is adjusted. In Broadbent's (1992) case study the evidence of change comes from the attitude of the organisational members to the design archetype. Her research showed that interpretations of the same design archetype can be very different because of the diverse cultural orientations of organisational members:

"the accounting records, forming part of the design archetype, did not change; they retained the orientation suggested by the previous 'civic culture'. It was the attitudes of the different members of the organisation and their differing interpretations of the information which an indication of change... ...interpretations of the same design archetype can be very different because of the diverse cultural orientations of organisational members. The same design archetype is flexible enough to link to different

cultures and this allows 'schizoid' organisations to continue without a need for change of this more tangible elements. Given that tangible elements, such as an accounting system cannot often be changed instantaneously (because of practicalities such as cost or lack of staff training, for example) the existence of this flexibility is important. It allows for change of the design archetype to be phase in on a more evolutionary basis and lag behind a change in the interpretive schemes" ( p364).

Broadbent's research extends Laughlin's original analysis and shows that organisations can exist despite tensions between different groups within them because of common commitment to the highest elements of the interpretive schemes, the metarules and the missions and beliefs.