Читать книгу Organization Development - Donald L. Anderson - Страница 77

In addition, related to the social construction approach to change, new paradigms are emerging in organization development that take the social construction philosophy quite seriously. One of these has been influenced by the study of self-organizing systems in biology and other disciplines. The complex adaptive systems perspective, like the social construction approach reviewed above, rejects the notion of the organization as a machinelike set of interconnected and systematized parts that form a predictable whole. Instead, this view sees the organization as ever-changing based on emerging patterns of self-organization created by the interactions of those agents acting as part of it (Olson & Eoyang, 2001). This approach rejects the belief inherent in systems theory that systems are generally alike and general principles can be applied to predict how they will react and respond. Instead, complex adaptive systems thinking believes that individuals and organizations respond differently depending on the circumstances, so behavior cannot be predicted and controlled so systematically. This implies that managing change does not work from a top-down perspective, as in systems theory, but instead, “the role of the change agent is to use an understanding of the evolving patterns to . . . affect the self-organizing path, to observe how the system responds, and to design the next intervention” (Olson & Eoyang, 2001, p. 16). For many observers, this approach resonates because it highlights how changes can adapt and spread throughout a system to illustrate how even small changes made to a single project team can have expansive effects across the organization.

Another of these emerging paradigms, a dialogic approach to OD, similarly supports the notion that changes in an organization can be continuous and emergent, and that they are based in the narratives and changing conversations of organizational members. This view also takes seriously the notion that the organization and its changes are not objectively real phenomena (nor that there is agreement about them) that exist apart from the reality defined and ascribed to them by organizational members. In fact, there are likely to be multiple and competing discourses about change circulating at any given time. What does this view imply about the role of the OD practitioner? To fully appreciate the implications of the dialogic perspective on OD, we will postpone a more complete description of this perspective until the next chapter, when it can be effectively contrasted with a classic diagnostic OD process.

At this point, you may be wondering which of these explanations of organizational change is the most appropriate one to use. Each offers benefits and contains drawbacks, making some elements of the organization visible while it obscures others. From a philosophical perspective, there are some fundamentally incongruous assumptions between the two schools of thought, so buying into multiple perspectives would seem impossible (e.g., the nature of organizational structure as representing an empirical reality versus being socially constructed).

From a practitioner’s pragmatic view, however, each of these models offers unique insight into a client’s environment. For some, what matters is not so much which model is right, but instead which model helps to facilitate additional understanding and is most consistent with both a practitioner’s approach and the client’s need. For example, in a highly structured hierarchical environment or in a stable organization not experiencing rapid change, clients may be more drawn to systems theory approaches. Alternately, in a rapidly changing or uncertain environment, practitioners may find it enlightening to examine a team’s language during meetings to better understand how the team is arriving at decisions or how team member conflicts reflect different underlying assumptions. Using multiple models may also help to illuminate new aspects of a situation, since being overly wedded to one particular model may blind the practitioner to important information (Burke, 1993). What is important is to be conscious of the assumptions of the approach being taken and the consequences of those assumptions.

Practices in Leading Change

No matter the model of change that guides it, many scholars and practitioners believe that there are several practical steps and ideal leadership practices that will facilitate change. Kotter (1996) has outlined eight steps that leaders should follow in instituting a major change in their organizations:

1 Establishing a sense of urgency. Fight complacency about current performance by examining current performance and measuring it against competitors or other benchmarks.

2 Creating the guiding coalition. Build a team of energetic, capable leaders who have expertise and credibility to lead the change.

3 Developing a vision and strategy. Create an engaging description of the future and the path that will be taken to get there.

4 Communicating the change vision. Communicate regularly, using multiple media, in jargon-free language, what the change will mean and why organizational members should be enthusiastic.

5 Empowering broad-based action. Remove organizational, systemic, skill, and policy barriers to making the change successful.

6 Generating short-term wins. Implement a number of immediate and visible changes to prove the success of the change effort and provide motivation.

7 Consolidating gains and producing more change. Overcome the tendency to become complacent and continue to promote even greater changes.

8 Anchoring new approaches in the culture. Ensure that new employees and new leaders represent the desired culture. (p. 21)

Summary

Organizational change is the explicit purpose of most organization development work. Practitioners intervene in organizations at the individual level, at the level of group or team, with multiple groups or teams, at the whole organization level, and between organizations, states, or nations. Change can be planned or unplanned, one-time or continuous. It can also be first-order change, or minor modifications within existing patterns, or it can be second-order change, which is a creation of new frameworks and patterns.

Scholars and practitioners have developed models and approaches to explain how change occurs, and each model has benefits and drawbacks. Some of these models are based in systems theory, seeing an organization as a set of input, throughput, output, and feedback processes. Lewin’s three-phase approach to change as unfreezing, moving, and refreezing, as well as the Nadler-Tushman congruence model, the Burke-Litwin model of change, and Weisbord’s Six-Box Model all are consistent with the basic tenets of systems theory. These models explain how change can be successful when the basic components of the organization fit together effectively, and that changes to one area often result in necessary and perhaps unintended changes to another area. A different approach to change has a social construction perspective at its core, which sees organizations as they emerge and unfold in communication patterns. This approach sees change as a continuous process rather than a specific project.

With a good understanding of organizational change, the OD practitioner can be more conscious of the most appropriate interventions that will help produce change. In the next chapter we will focus more specifically on the practitioner’s role, how an OD practitioner works with a client, and the process that the OD practitioner follows during change.