This section critically analyses the various theories that study organisational change. Each theory for studying organisational change has its own limitations, which are important to consider. The need to critically analyse each approach is vital to ensure that the most suitable one is used to study change in disability sport organisations, and to achieve the aim and objectives of this thesis. Recent studies have proposed several theories in relation to the investigation of organisational change, including the contextualist approach (Pettigrew, 1987), the network approach (Castells, 1996), the Weberian approach (Weber, 1964), and more as shown in Table 4.2. However, these theories are underrepresented in studies on organisational change in disability sport which is a major gap in the current knowledge base. Indeed, it is not just the change itself which this research is trying to understand but the drivers behind change and how it has influenced disability sport organisations. These main theoretical approaches are briefly reviewed in this section and a synthesis is presented in Table 4.2.
This is followed by a more detailed discussion of the contextualist approach, which will form the theoretical framework of this study.
113 Table 4.5 Different theories for studying organisational change
114
As shown in Table 4.2, Pettigrew (1987) identifies the three key elements for studying organisational change as context, content, and process. The contextualist approach offers a more comprehensive understanding on organisational change; providing an integral interplay of different aspects to change which other approaches seem to lack. Clark (1999) and Wilson (1992) are followers of the contextualist approach for studying organisational change. Regarding the theory, this approach favours a case study method as most theories engaged with organisation change prefer the case study method because the context is critical. The key features of Pettigrew’s approach are listed in Table 4.3, and further details about the contextualist approach are presented in Section 4.3. Wilson (1992) focuses on the significance of context, however he lacks discussion about the content as he spends more time disparaging the theories of others than he does in devising means of overcoming the limitations associated with different methods.
Castells (1996) outlines a networking theory which claims that organisational evolution is governed by social interaction and networking; this approach focuses on establishing correlations between factors from a social perspective. However, networks, as organisational forms, create contradictions to systems that need to be solved through bargaining, concealment, or challenging (Waddington and Skirtstad, 2008). This implies, when analysing organisational change from a disability sport perspective, the Network Theory will not be able to answer all the questions raised around change within the context of the UAE because in order to understand such a complex phenomenon, multiple contexts and processual factors are needed to be considered which this theory lacks, as shown in Table 4.3.
115 Table
Key Features Pettigrew’s
approach
Others’ approaches Enables achievement of the aim and objectives of this
thesis Yes No
Context, content, process Yes No
Six key challenges Yes No
Time Yes No
History Yes No
Long-term Yes Some of them
Comprehensiveness High Low
Rich data Yes No
Better understanding of what, why and how changed Yes No
Appreciate the importance and role of historical,
processual and contextual nature of change Yes No
Shows the contextual pressures (internal and external) Yes No
Interplay among different aspects of change Yes No
116
The figurational approach (Elias, 1978) differs from Pettigrew’s approach by focusing on the game model and on how organisational members and their interaction form the basis of the organisational structure whereas Pettigrew’s approach allows for understanding the complete picture of the variables involved in organisational change. The figurational approach also focuses on power and hierarchy, which have a significant influence on organisational change (Hanstad, 2008). However, this approach is limited as it studies individuals in isolation and fails to explore the relationships and interdependences that exist among them (Callon, 1999; Newton, 2001). In comparison, Pettigrew emphasises the importance of both the individual and the overall entities when analysing the organisational structure. It lacks certain key features, as shown in Table 4.3, that Pettigrew’s approach offers. Furthermore, Newton (2001) performs an appraisal of the figurational approach as endorsed by Elias (1978) and asserts that it is a limited and overly-simplified approach; he elucidates how it hovers vaguely between a state of order and a state of chaos. So, the figurational approach is also not suitable to fully achieve the aim and objectives of this thesis.
Another theory referred to as the stakeholder approach (Freeman, 1984) involves analysing the interests and contributions of stakeholders and investigating what effect their activities have on organisational change. This approach perceives change in the light of the stakeholder activity and their position in the hierarchical structure. However, it lacks depth and fails to account for more long-term transition (as shown in Table 4.3), which is one of the primary requirements of this particular research study.
Another theoretical approach is Laughlin’s model (1991), which analyses how organisational change can be represented historically. However, this approach is also rather restrictive as it lacks adaptability in resolving issues of discord or dispute (Zakus and Skinner, 2008). It lacks certain key features, as shown in Table 4.3, that Pettigrew’s approach offers. Furthermore, according to Gray et al., (1995), this approach lacks flexibility and is unsuitable for the analysis of unanticipated issues and organisational change from a real-life perspective. Moreover, this theory does not consider the outer and
117
inner influences on organisational change, which is one of the objectives of this thesis to study external and internal factors that impact on disability sport organisations.
The Weberian approach (Weber, 1964) focuses on the role of management in the evolutionary process and examines how various management activities can alter the organisational structure (Kelly, 2008). However, this approach also has certain limitations as a manager’s fundamental role in an organisation is very difficult to quantify and this theory essentially relies on the testimony of managers themselves, which may not be entirely objective. Moreover, it lacks certain key features, as shown in Table 4.3, that Pettigrew’s approach offers.
An analysis of the literature suggests that the existing knowledge of such theories is important and plays a significant role in examining organisational change. However, each of these theories focuses on examining only a part of the organisational change, and does not consider the full picture or posses a comprehensive list of features (as shown in Table 4.3). In addition, they do not help in achieving the objectives of this thesis. The contextualist approach not only looks at the organisation from various aspects but also offers several key features, as shown in Table 4.3, which enable fulfilling the objectives of this research (as mentioned in Chapter 1), and hence, becomes the most suitable approach to be adopted for this research. The contextualist approach (Pettigrew's approach) is elaborated in greater detail in the next sections.