Métodos naturales

The subject of managing change has been largely ' pract Ice-based1 and Influenced by organizational consultants and popular management literature. Most of its literature concentrates on answering what

needs to be changed that is, the diagnosis; and at the same time answering the question of h o w change Is achieved, In other words, changes of the organization as a whole, to cope with the environment's new challenges and changes In behavioral patterns at the Individuals' level for organization adaptation (Greiner and Barnes, 1970).

The divergence between research-theory perspectives and action-change perspectives or the researcher's descriptive stance, required for understanding the problem w h i c h may contradict the consultant's

prescriptive stance, required for developing the problem Is a strong cause for the lack o f mention of any development of new theories of change (Frledlander a n d Brown, 1974).

4-5.4_The,LI.Bt 4 Ins VU «. Of "cfrbnge"

What has been a difficulty In the literature has to do with "the tendency t o regard the change project as the unit of analysis, a n d change Itself either as a single event or a set of d i screte episodes somehow or other separate from the immediate o r more distant context which gave those events form, meaning, and substance. The Impression Is created In t his view of change that each change has a particular b e g inning and a finite ending apart from the more generalised processes around It" (p.23, Pettigrew, 1985a) which Is limiting.

4.6 A Sv— ery nf Conclusions from Different Reviews on Organization

Qeygippiwnt and Organisation Qhanga literature

A review by Friedlander and Brown <1974) described OD In terms of planned change and found the human-processual and technostructural aspects of the organization reasonably effective beginnings for organization change. But they also pointed out the need for greater

depth in OD, ex p l o r i n g various technologies, different sorts of change-agent relationships, and alternative values currently emerging In our society. W h i l e they see the future of OD as dependent In part on Its practice, the o r y and research, their view Is that at the practical level, O D should not be simply an avenue for diagnosing and solving problems. T h e i r central concern Is the lack of general theory

of planned change a n d they see the need to produce a theory of change which emerges from the change process Itself rather than from an uninvolved and distant role.

Tushman's (1974) review on organizational change literature took "The Dynamics of Planned Change" by Lippit, Watson and West ley in 1958 as the foundational literature because they attempted to develop a

general theory of change out of their notion of "planned change". Tushman f o u n d that the early literature by Llpplt et al. focussed on the p rocess of change over time like the three-step3 of Lewln's model, but not o n "change". Tushman felt that the early efforts did not answer t h e critical question of how the change is to be accomplished.

He found that the literature on change can be roughly divided into two areas. T h e "structural". approach is based on the work of Arensberg, Chappie, Sayles and Whyte, and the "people" approach is based on Leavitt, Maslow and Argyrls. Although both approaches produced a number o f tools, they have produced few systematic studies. Tushman concluded that both approaches have their sociological and psychological biases, and that it is too simplistic to have an elther-

or a p proach to change. He argued for an interdisciplinary approach to change w h i c h Is more comprehensive and combined structural and behavioural aspects of change. He held the view that the "open- systems" theory (Trist and Bamforth, 1951; Emery and Trist, 1965; Katz and Kahn, 1966; Thompson, 1967; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967) and the "role" the o r y (Weick, 1979; Katz and Kahn, 1966; Taylor, 1990) have direct Implications for the study of organizational change.

Goodman a n d Kurke's (1982) review noted that the different approaches of the change process have some heuristic value but it does not produce a coherent theory about change. How each analyst or consultant makes of his or her approach brings so much variation in approaches in

its literature. This probably impedes Its theoretical development. Despite the number of consultants or OD practitioners in this field,

the overall literature on contingent forms of organization diagnosis (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1969), theories of change (Alderfer, 1976), and

strategies for building and managing consultant groups (Pettigrew,

1975a) Is still not abundant. The lack of theory is because of a variety of reasons. The main reason Is the lack of link between theory and practice. The researchers and the practitioners limit literature development because they adopt limited frames of reference, methodologies, approach and view of "change". The different focus of the practitioners and the researchers also makes theory building difficult. Overall, Goodman and Kurke felt that the conceptualizing of the change processes seems more fruitful because of a more coherent set of concepts through which to understand change and improve the testing of theories about the change process.

Pettigrew (1985a), in chapter 1 of his book on ICI, reviewed the

limitations of the literature on organizational change and development and strategic change. His conclusion is in the same direction as the other reviewers above, in that, there has been limited frames of reference and methodologies and approaches to the study of change, and that theory and practice h ave not been well connected. He found that the lack in theory of change was because the attempts at theoretical development are few, highly focussed kinds of conceptualisation and

very limited empirical findings. The problems with the literature development are as set out in sections *.5.1 to *.5.*. His view is that the study of organizational change is at the stage where

"theory and knowledge is required principally to understand the dynamics of changing in alternative contexts using a framework of analysis which can

incorporate different levels of analysis with varying degrees of explanatory immediacy and distance from the change process under examination" <p.25, Pettigrew, 1985a). He highlighted the need for a proper exploration of the

relationship and interplay between the content of change, the context of change, and the process of managing it, examining how and why changes occur in different organizational

cultures and political systems, under different socioeconomic and business conditions, through time.

L_Z— Approache s t.a C h ange

Whatever the target of change, Blake and Mouton (p.47, 1976) expressed the need for understanding the complexities of change in this way:

"The history of society and its capacity to identify and grapple with complex and interrelated problems of the physical environment, new technologies, and community development is significantly linked with the production and use of priniclples, theories and models for understanding, predicting and therefore, managing natural and human environments".

An organization includes people, technology, and process/structure,

set in the context of its environment. The interaction of these components and its management to achieve human and task objectives is

complex; it is unlikely that there is one best way or approach to planned change (Greiner and Barnes, 1970).

A major approach to change is the 'structural' approach but its application was found to be limited to certain kinds of organizations. The other major approach is what Leavitt calls the 'people' approach. Both approaches were criticized as being too simplistic with

sociological and psychological biases, as well as conditional success (Tushman, 1974). T h e work from the Tavistock Institute (Trlst and Bamforth, 1951; Rice, 1958) exposed problems with the structural approach and indicated the need for both technical and social factors to be considered. The literature progressed from other studies (Taylor, 1971; Huse and Bear, 1971) towards a more comprehensive, general approach which Includes structural and

behavioural interventions, and the environment. The closed-system perspective which is deterministic and excludes dependency on the

environment, was abandoned for an 'open-system' approach which took in

the exchanges with the environment (Thompson, 1967; Katz and Kahn, 1966) . The Increasing recognition of change in different organizational cultures and political systems, different socioeconomic and business conditions, through time, pushed the 'change* literature onto a strategic level, beyond the contingency theory which emphasized

links with the environment, structure requirements, behaviour or change (Pettigrew, 1985a).

*• 7. 1__ Thg g,lrM C t y r g L .appr.9.9!g.h

The structural school of thought has its roots in scientific management and administrative science movements initiated by Taylor who focussed on the workshop level and Fayol, on the uppei— level

administration. In the context of change, structuralists believe that when the structure is changed, attitudes and performance will follow

(Lawerence, 1958; Blau, 1955; Chappie and Sayles, 1961; Mouzells, 1967) . They see the levers of adjustment a n d change to be role definitions, role relationships and role behaviour. Their assumption is that individuals, as role occupants, are considered constant, and tied to and defined by patterned activities w i t h i n their organization.

4 ■ ?.-.2__Thp-jagplfl appraicti

The people approach was a counter perspective to the structural approach which gave understanding of the 'human factor* in work situations. The 'founding father' of the human-relations movement was Mayo (1990) who emphasized that workers must b e understood first as

people if they are to be understood as organization workers. In the context of change, the people approach b elieves that attempts to

change organizations should begin with influencing attitudes, values and norms, and that structure is believed to follow (Greiner, 1967;

Blake and Mouton, 1964; Maslow, 1965; Barnes, 1967). They see 'people' as the primary lever of change despite thetr awareness of technological and structural constraints.

Frledlander and Brown (1974) saw the "convergence" of the techno- structural approach and human-processual approach at the Interface of the organization process and structure, which helps to deal with the complexity of the change and OD literature.

4 -7 ,3 ___Th? gE g n -sy stsa g w r o a c h

As explained above in section 4.7, the limitations in the structural approach and the people approach, and the need to include both

technological requirements and environmental constraints (Rosengren, 1985) in organizational change (Perrow, 1970) moved the literature on change onto the open-systems approach. The concern with organization environments and its changes is because of implications for its goals; for example, law revisions and change in the political situation. Emery and Trist <1965), Katz and Kahn (1966), Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) and Thompson <1967) have contributed to the early literature on

the open-systems approach.