7.3.1 PROMOCIÓN ECONÓMICA

Triggers of change “are the factors which may conspire to initiate change both internally and externally regardless of whether these are seen as needs, opportunities or threats” (Grundy, 1993). Organisational change literature suggests a number of forces that may lead to organisation change. For example, change can be the outcome of pressures that may derive from the external environment e.g., market and economy pressures, governments policies and regulations, technological advances, competitors, changing customer expectations, social and political changes or from the internal organization environment e.g., power and system dynamics, new organizational strategies, outdated products and/or services, market opportunities, changing structure and workforce diversity and expectations (Jones & Sharbrough, 2002; Kiefer, 2005; Lanning, 2001; Moll, 2003; Sharma, 2007). Sharma (2007) presented with a diagram the shift of trends that lead change forces as following (Figure 2.2):

Figure 2.2: Shift of trends (adapted from Sharma, 2008, p. 4).

Lanning (2001) summarized that organizational change is driven from outdated organizational operation and performance that are no longer aligned with the demands of the internal and/or external competitive environment. From an institutional

Industrial area National economy Technology development Stability and predictability Long term Centralization Hierarchies Emphasis to continuity Information area Global economy Technology sophistication Sudden changes Short term Decentralization Networking Emphasis on change Shift in trends

perspective, Moll (2003) referred to the view that organisations do not always wait for legitimacy to be conferred but sometimes they can make a conscious choice to be perceived as legitimate. Baron and Baron (1993) described organisational change with some examples (Table 2.3). Change is characterized as planned and deliberate or unplanned and random, due to external or internal changes.

Planned change Unplanned change

Internal change Changes in products or services

 Changes in administrative systems

 Changing employee demographics

 Performance gaps

External change Introduction of new technologies

 Advances in information processing and communication

 Government regulations

 External competition

Table 2.3: Examples of organisational change (adapted from Greenberg & Baron, 1993, p. 624)

According to the planned approach, it is assumed that change is regular, stable and it is identified by a causal-effect relationship. Planned change is seen as a transition from a quasi-equilibrium state to a new state of equilibrium. Organizations need to go through various states in order to derive to a desired state (Eldrod II & Tippett, 2002; Sharma, 2007). Change that is planned is concerned the deliberate and concerted effort for new conditions and circumstances to be established. On the other hand, unplanned change is not consciously produced. It is produced rather through side effects, through some subsidiary event or secondary effect or even unexpected consequences of action without a predictable cause-effect relationship. According to this view change and effects can not be with certainty predicted and/or controlled evolving through the interaction of different factors (April, 1999; Ford & Ford, 1994; Sharma, 2007). Lewin (1946) initiated the planned approach to change and since then a large amount of

research has been conducted around the planned change approach as it was subscribed to by Lewin (Cummings & Worley, 2001).

However, there is the view that change in organisations is initially the result of pressure from the external environment rather than the outcome of an internal desire to change (Lanning, 2001). Thus, criticism has been exercised to the planned approach even though it is a long established and highly effective one (Todnem, 2005). Todnem (2005) suggested that criticism was mainly exercised by those who have advocated the emergent approach. Emergent approach suggested that the planned approach viewed organizations as moving across different states in a manner that is already planned under constant operating conditions. Further, they claimed that the planned approach towards change focused mainly on small scale change questioning thus its applicability in rapid and major change that may needed in an increasingly rapid changing business environment. This uncertainty of both the internal and external organizational environment suggests that the emergent approach is more appropriate than the planned approach to change. The emergent approach focused on the unpredictable nature of change and defined change as a learning process. It suggested that change should be driven from the bottom-up. In addition, it argued that the nature of change is unpredictable and viewed change as a learning process through which organizations respond to the uncertainty and competitiveness of the organizational environment. This means that organizations become systems of open learning and the change may emerge from the interpretation and the processing of environmental information (Todnem, 2005). Todnem (2005), also referred to Burnes’ (1996) claim regarding the emergent approach. Indeed, Burnes supported that the emergent approach stressed on the

“extensive and in-depth understanding of strategy, structure, systems, people, style and culture, and how these can function either as sources of inertia that can block change, or alternatively, as levers to encourage an effective change process” (Burnes, 1996, p. 14).

Thus, it can be suggested that the emergent approach towards change focuses rather on the readiness for change and change facilitation than on the provision of planned specific steps (Todnem, 2005). Finally, Todnmem (2005) highlighted that Burnes (1996, p. 14) claimed that “the emergent model is suitable for all organizations, all situations and at all times”. According to the same author (Burnes, 1996) the applicability and validity of the emergent approach to change depends on the view that organizations operate in unpredictable and dynamic organizational environments and they need to be adapted to this on a constant basis. However, emergent approach to change has been criticized for the lack of coherence and techniques diversity (Todnem, 2005).

Independently of the planned or emergent approach to change the strategies adopted and organizational responses related to both internal and external environmental pressures vary between organizations (Scott, 1998c). Oliver (1991, p. 151) argued that organisational responses to institutional pressures

“will vary from conforming to resistant, from passive to active, from preconscious to controlling, from impotent to influential, and from habitual to opportunistic, depending on the institutional pressures toward conformity that are exerted on organisations”.

Also, people’s key role is recognized as influencing the type of organizational response to changes as “in order to make a decision to change an organisation, individuals must

perceive a need and source for that change” (Fligstein, 1991, p. 315). London (2001, p. 133) also highlighted the core role of the involved people in the change process reporting that “the adoption of new work practices or behaviours is more likely to be accepted if the benefits of change can be demonstrated to the people affected by the change”. Thus, managing change is an important issue that is needed to pay attention as a key element of a successful change effort.