LA REALIDAD URBANA: EL POSICIONAMIENTO CULTURAL “En los barrios de nuestra ciudad y, particularmente, en el

Organizational change issues have been a central concern of research over the last few decades, especially in management and accounting. Although many studies have focused on organizational change, there has been no concensus on its definition. Dawson (2003 P:11) defines organizational change simply as “new ways of organizing and working”. It may probably not be regarded as significant if the products or services and markets are stable, as the need for change is rare. Such stability has not existed in practice, and change is consequently an ever-present attribute of organizational life; many authors have explained that the scale, pace and significance of change are the main topics of interest nowadays (Burnes 1996). Mohrman et al. (1989: 2) defined organizational change as “change in the charter of an organization that significantly alters its performance”. This definition consists of two important constructs: change in character and change in performance.

Organizational change in the character requires changes in the organization‟s design and processes. Organizational design includes organizational strategies, systems, structures, configurations of technology, formal information and decision-making systems, and human resource systems. Meanwhile change in performance is a wider term that may refer to the systems‟ effectiveness as measured by a number of aspects, or to the nature of the aspects themselves, such as an organization‟s relationships with its environment, the way it transforms inputs into outputs, the nature of its outputs, and its design and processes. A change more often becomes part of an integrated system rather than a stand-alone system (Mohrman et al. 1989).

Change is a phenomenon of time (Ford and Ford 1994). Hence, it is important to understand the perception of change over time in one or more aspects of an organization (Van de Ven and Poole 1995). Understanding organizational change refers to understanding alterations within organizations at the widest level among individuals and groups, and at the collective level across the whole organization (Burnes 1996). Hence, organizational change involves difference “in how an organization functions, who its members and leaders are, what form it takes, or how it allocates its resources” (Huber et al. 1993:216). From the perspective of organizational development, change is “a set of behavioural science-based theories, values, strategies, and techniques aimed at the planned change of the organizational work setting for the purpose of enhancing individual development and improving organizational performance,

33

through the alteration of organizational members, on-the-job behaviours” (Porras and Robertson 1992:723).

Consequently, organizational change occurs when there is a change in structure and operations, or any change in management control systems, new information systems, and MASs. Individualism and realism argue that organizational change happens when individuals‟ actions modify the organization in relation to selected criteria. For example, organizations will be more efficient after the adoption of ABC system which explains how the allocation costs are treated. Contexualism and socio-constructivism see change as a process of institutionalization created during the implementation of rules, routines and norms. For example, using ABC is a process of homogenization that directs organizations towards adopting such technologies resulting from contextual urgency; both sides may have diverse epistemological emphasis, but they share the new terms of change and the entities involved (Quattrone and Hopper 2001).

Organizational change is conceptualized as an effort at becoming less homogenous and responsive to the multiplicity of various constituents within the environment. Thus, the post- modern context requires organizations to change; there is no way to avoid this cycle (Kezar 2001). Understanding why a change is taking place is an essential prerequisite for the analysis and discussion of change. The two different pressures or sources of change typically noted are: (1) external environment and (2) internal environment (Burnes 1996; Rajagopalan and Spreitzer 1997). The external environment can thus play an active role in organizational change. Although organizational change is often a response to external factors, the impetus for the change is typically internal (Carnall 2007).

The evolutionary framework of change focuses on the interaction between the external environment and an organization. This interaction is seen as the major impetus for change. Internal sources that are noted for initiating change include gathering of surplus resources, culture and institutions, readiness and willingness of at least a dominant coalition to endure change (e.g. power and politics mobilization), and transformational leadership. The main assumption underlying evolutionary theories including institutional theory is that change is a response to internal and external circumstances, situational variables, and the environment faced by each organization (Morgan 1986). Social systems as diversified, interdependent,

34

complex systems evolve naturally over time as a result of the interaction between internal processes and external demands (Morgan 1986).

According to the internal environment, the change processes tend to be long-term and slow. Change within an organization entails alteration of values, beliefs, institutions, myths, and rituals (Schein 1985). Change occurs because organizational members see a need to grow, learn, and change their behavior. In cultural aspects, the change process occurs naturally as a response to alterations in the human environment; organizational cultures are constantly changing (Morgan 1986). However, organizations have social, technical, economic and cultural aspects as well as a political dimension. Social and political dynamics differ from one organization to another (Pettigrew and McNulty 1995). The change process is a key element in the roles of most functional and general managers at all levels of the organizational structure, and they usually combine change responsibilities with their daily work. Hence organizational structure creates roles and departments which compete with one another, and organizational decisions cannot be resolved by reason and logic alone but depend on the values, institutions, politics and preferences of the key members involved (Buchanan and Badham 1999).

Most critical organizational decisions are a result of social and political processes that are only partly influenced by evident and reasonable arguments, which are usually shaped by „the pulling and hauling that is politics‟ (Mangham 1979:17). Similarly, organizational change is about renegotiating certain dominant values and institutions in the organization in order to introduce new systems and subsystems (Kakabadse and Parker 1984). Accordingly, power, politics and organizational change are inextricably linked. Organizational change creates uncertainty and ambiguity among organizational members as they ponder how their jobs will change, how their workloads will be affected, and how their relationships with colleagues will be enhanced or damaged. Here, conflict or resistance can occur as a result of poor communication (Buchanan and Badham 1999). Organizational actors deploy power and political tactics when necessary to introduce the organizational change agenda, potentially in the face of conflict and resistance (Laver 1997). Consequently, power mobilization has to be considered as the first order of the change.

Organizational change cannot be understood without knowledge of the role of power and political behavior. Power and political behavior are both positive and negative. Understanding

35

of power and political behavior may thus benefit those who deploy such strategies and tactics, and support those who seek to challenge and counter such change (Buchanan and Badham 1999). Although political processes shape change, there is a need to gain some insight into how this process occurs, at the same time, there is a little knowledge about how politics overlap with other aspects of change. Do politics hinder or enable adaptability? How does the environment affect politics? How do politics influence organizational character? As notions of power and politics are changing, how might politics be an enabler of reasonable change? (Kezar 2001).