Topic: Applying Complex Adaptive Systems Theory

Hey Tutor,

You are to read the instructions below and the case study after the instructions below. Please compose a 500-word or more discussion post. I will attach literatures. You will use the same literatures for an assignment after you complete the discussion post below: Please make sue you look at the rubric and state according to the theory stated:

Discussion Topic: Applying Complex Adaptive Systems Theory

In the case study in the Week 3 readings, “Recasting the Role of CEO: Transferring the Responsibility for Change: How Leaders Can Tap the Creative Energy of Employees,” Nayar made several significant changes that altered the way HCL Technologies functions.

Which factor had the most significant impact? From a complex adaptive systems theory perspective, explain the effects that this change had on the system and why.

Support your discussion with references to and citations from your readings. Be sure you adhere to APA guidelines for citations and references.

Your post should contain 250–500 words.

Case Study

Everyone agrees that leadership is fundamental to a company, yet its role is difficult to define in companies that compete in a knowledge economy. According to Vineet Nayar, CEO of HCL Technologies, a leading global IT services company, the greatest impact of the “employees first, customers second” approach to management is that it unleashes the power of those working in what he calls the value zone-where direct interaction with customers actually creates customer value-and lessens the inhibiting effect of those in top-level positions, thus increasing the speed and quality of innovation and decision making. In fact, according to Nayar, if you are a leader who wants to create sustainable change and prevent your company from periodically falling out of the race, you must stop thinking of yourself and your leadership team as the only source of new ideas. Instead, you must begin to transfer ownership of your company’s growth to the next generation of leaders who are closer to the value zone. Only then can you create a company in which employees feel like owners, are excited by their work, and focus every day on change and innovation. This chapter was originally published as Chapter 4 of “Employees First, Customers Second: Turning Conventional Management Upside Down.”

Book Reference:
Gharajedaghi, Jamshid. Systems Thinking : Managing Chaos and Complexity: a Platform for
Designing Business Architecture, Elsevier Science & Technology, 2011. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=730205.
Created from capella on 2023-10-22 23:39:23.
Holistic Thinking 5.1 Iterative process of inquiry The distinction of systems thinking is its focus on the
whole. But in most cases, this claim has been a simple declaration of intent without an explicit,
workable methodology. What is systems methodology and how can we use it to get a handle on the
whole? There seems to be more agreement on the desirability of systems thinking than on its
operational definition. Contrary to a widely held belief, the popular notion of a multidisciplinary
approach is not a systems approach. The ability to synthesize separate findings into a coherent
whole is far more critical than the ability to generate information from different perspectives. Without
a well-defined synthesizing method, however, the process of discovery using a multidisciplinary
approach would be an experience as frustrating as that of the blind men trying to identify an
elephant. Positioned at a different part of the elephant, each of the blind men reported his findings
from his respective position. “It’s a snake.” “It’s a pillar.” “It’s a fan.” “It’s a spear!” Consider the futility
of trying to make sense of the whole by using this story without the prior conception of “elephant.” I
am sure you experienced no frustration in sorting out the distorted information and putting it in
perspective because the storyteller had already told us that the subject is an elephant. It seems we
need a preconceived notion of the whole before we can glean order out of chaos. A different version
of the same story, found in Persian literature and narrated by Molana Jalaledin Molavi (Rumi),
captures the level of complexity produced when we have no preconceived notion of the subject. The
story is about a group of men who encounter a strange object in complete darkness. Because the
storyteller is in the dark himself, he cannot provide a clue about the object. Here, all efforts to identify
the object by touching its different parts prove fruitless until someone arrives with a light. The light,
which in this context is a metaphor for methodology, enables them all to see the whole at last.
Rumi’s version of the story illustrates that the ability to see the whole somehow requires an enabling
light in the form of an operational systems methodology. In his mystical wisdom Rumi proposed that
to get the enabling light one needed to tune in to the universe. For our purpose, the operational
meaning of tuning in is that one should be able to make one’s underlying assumptions about the
nature of the sociocultural systems explicitly known and verifiable. Whatever the nature of the
enabling light, my contention is that it must have two dimensions. The first dimension is a framework
for getting a handle on reality, a system of systems concepts to help generate the initial set of
working assumptions about the subject. The second dimension is an iterative search process to
verify and/or modify initial assumptions and expand and evolve the emerging notions until a
satisfactory vision of the whole is produced. As beautifully put by Singer (1959): “Truth lies at the
end, not at the beginning of the holistic inquiry.” Three well-known inquiring systems (analytical
thinking, synthetic thinking, and dynamic thinking), despite their success, have yet to agree on a
method to see the whole. Analytical thinking has been the essence of classical science. The
scientific method assumes that the whole is nothing but the sum of the parts, and thus
understanding the structure is both necessary and sufficient to understanding the whole. Synthetic
thinking has been the main instrument of the functional approach. By defining a system by its
outcome, synthesis puts the subject in the context of the larger system of which it is a part, and then
studies the effects it produces in its environment. Dynamic thinking, on the other hand, has long
been focused on process. It looks to the how question for the necessary answer to define the whole.
However, I contend that seeing the whole requires understanding structure, function, and process at
the same time. They represent three aspects of the same thing and with the containing environment
form a complementary set. Therefore, structure, function, and process with the context define the
whole or make the understanding of the whole possible. Structure defines components and their
relationships, function defines the outcomes or results produced, process explicitly defines the
sequence of activities and the know-how required to produce the outcome, and context defines the
unique environment in which the system is situated. Use of all three perspectives of structure,
function, and process as the foundation of a holistic methodology can be justified on both practical
and theoretical grounds, as this chapter will demonstrate. On more familiar and practical territory, we
could observe that the classical school of management, with its input orientation, deals with
structure. The neoclassical school, with its notion of management by objective, is concerned with
functions. And the total quality movement, with its concern for control, is preoccupied with the
process. Analysis, synthesis, and dynamics, each in its own right, have produced a great deal of
information and knowledge. However, if we looked at the same phenomenon from all three
perspectives of structure, function, and process at the same time, we could develop a more
complete understanding of the whole. So, it is reasonable to conclude that a holistic approach must
include all three notions of structure, function, and process. On theoretical grounds, we can reach
the same conclusion with the following arguments. In a classical concept of reality, a specific
structure (S) causes a particular function (F), and different structures cause different functions
(Figure 5.1). Therefore, it is assumed that to understand a system, we need to know only its
structure. This is why analysis — understanding structure — is the dominant method for classical
science. But according to Ackoff (1972): 1. A given structure can produce several functions in the
same environment (Figure 5.2). For example, the structure of the existing education system
produces the functions of babysitting and buffer, in addition to the explicit function of transferring
knowledge. 2. Different structures can also produce a given function (Figure 5.3). For example, the
transportation function can be achieved by different means such as a train, plane, or car. The
classical notion of causality — where cause is both necessary and sufficient for its effect — proves
inadequate to explain this phenomenon. Production of different functions by a single structure in the
same environment can be explained only by the assertion that different processes Figure 5.1 Single
structure producing single function. Figure 5.2 Single structure producing multiple functions.
were involved with the same structure in producing different functions. A simplistic example
illustrates the point: a screwdriver can be used as a gouge, a chisel, a hammer, or a variety of other
tools, depending on how it is applied. This idea is compatible with the systemic notion of producers
and product (Singer, 1959), which claims that a producer is necessary but not sufficient for its
product. That is why a structure cannot completely explain its outcome and why we need the
additional concept of an environment as a coproducer. However, when several outcomes are
produced in the same environment by a given structure, then knowledge of the process becomes as
necessary to understand the whole as the knowledge of environment, structure, and function.
Structure, function, and process, along with the environment or context, form an interdependent set
of mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive variables. Together, these four perspectives define
the whole or make the understanding of the whole possible. A set of interdependent variables forms
a circular relationship. Each variable coproduces the others and in turn is coproduced by the others.
Which one comes first is irrelevant because none can exist without the others. They have to happen
at the same time. To fail to see the significance of these interdependencies is to leave out the most
important challenge of seeing the whole. Therefore, to handle them holistically requires
understanding each variable in relation to the others in the set at the same time. This demands an
iterative inquiry. Iteration is the key to understanding complexity. Stephen Wolfram (2002)
demonstrated how an iterative process of applying simple rules is at the core of nature’s mysterious
ability to produce complex phenomena so effortlessly. Iterations of structure, function, and process in
a given context would examine assumptions and properties of each element in its own right, then in
relationship with other members of the set. Subsequent iterations would establish validity of the
assumptions and successively produce an understanding of the whole (see Figure 5.4). For
example, to appreciate the heart holistically, we must understand its function, structure, and process
within the context of the body. Starting with the function we simply note that the output of the system
is circulation of the blood; therefore, its function must be that of a pump. The structure of this pump
consists of four muscular chambers and a set of valves, arteries, and veins. And the process, which
must explain how the structure produces the function, simply uses alternating cycles of contractions
and expansions of the chambers to push the blood through arteries and then pull it back into the
chambers through the veins by suction. Now we need to pause and relate our understanding of
function, structure, and process together to appreciate why the heart does what it does. By placing
the heart in the context of the larger system of which it is a part, we might conclude that the heart is
at the core of a circulatory system. The
purpose of the circulatory system is to exchange matter and energy between the body and its
environment. This closely links the heart with autopoiesis, the self-generation of living systems (see
Figures 5.5A and B). The principle of iterative inquiry is reinforced by Singerian experimentalism :
“There is no fundamental truth; realities first have to be assumed in order to be learned” (Singer,
1959). Successive iterations would yield a greater understanding and more closely approximate the
nature of the whole. These iterations, then, are like a reverse zoom lens through which we see the
system we are trying to understand as a working part of successively bigger and bigger pictures. We
stop enlarging the view when we no longer gain useful insights as we “go around.” 5.2 Systems
dimensions In addition to iteration of context, function, structure, and process we also need to
identify and understand the parameters that coproduce the whole. These parameters, in my
experience, are found in the interactions of the following five dimensions of a social system: wealth,
power, knowledge, beauty, and values. The generation and dissemination of wealth, power,
knowledge, beauty, and values form a comprehensive set of interdependent variables that
collectively describe the social system in its totality (Figure 5.6). Historically, the identification of
social system dimensions has been both reactive (reacting to certain problems in social life) and
proactive
The five dimensions of social system include wealth, power knowledge value, and beauty.
systems correspond to the following major problem areas historically faced by all human societies:
economics, scientifics, aesthetics, ethics, and politics. Although some prominent social thinkers have
implicitly considered more than one dimension in their analysis, most have chosen a single and, not
surprisingly, different function as the prime cause of all social phenomena. Marx, for example,
considered the economy, the mode of production, as the underlying cause of social realities. For
Weber, power, supported by notions of authority and legitimacy, seemed the prime concern.
Bagdanov used knowledge as the organizing principle of society. Meanwhile, religious thinkers place
values at the core of everything. On the proactive side, Ackoff, in his discussion of ideal-seeking
systems, identified four classes of societal activity individually necessary and collectively sufficient
for progress toward the ideal, or omnicompetence: the pursuits of truth (scientific function), plenty
(economic function), good (ethical-moral function), and beauty (aesthetic function). Coming from a
different culture, I had a different point of view. In addition to knowledge, wealth, and values I
included power , more specifically power-to-do (freedom and ability to choose), as a critical function
of social systems. Surprisingly, I had missed the notion of beauty as a separate dimension. When I
met Ackoff, in the early 1970s, we argued over this for days, until he decided that I needed a good
lecture on the subject. That lecture was beautiful, and I realized that I had missed the notion of
beauty for exactly the same reason that Ackoff had missed the notion of power. Thinking with my
heart, I considered beauty to be the liveliness that defined life. Beauty for me was the whole, or the
emergent property. On the other hand, the phenomenon of choice has been a major preoccupation
of Ackoff’s discussions. He saw the ability to satisfy needs and desires as being equivalent to
competence. Competence for Ackoff was a matter of
the emergent property of the whole. Maybe it is true that fish do not realize that something called
water exists. Revisiting Aristotle’s concept of the “good life,” the pursuit of happiness, and his
elaborate scheme defining the elements necessary to achieve a good life (Adler, 1978), confirms my
earlier assertion that these dimensions may form a complete set and collectively define the whole.
Paralleling our five dimensions of power, wealth, knowledge, beauty, and values are Aristotle’s
association of liberty with choice and the willfulness to carry them out; his discussion of health,
vitality, and vigor under the heading of wealth; the profound argument about the need to know and
the skill of thinking; the assertion that a loveless life may not be worth living; and, finally, the
magnificent notion of moral virtues (the good habits of choosing correctly). In a different context,
about 2,000 years later, John Dewey (1989), the great American philosopher, in discussing freedom
and culture , explicitly refers to the states of politics, economics, science, art, and morality as the
elements of the culture that determine the state of the society. His notion of art includes the sphere
of emotionality, and in this context he argues convincingly that emotions are much more potent than
reason in shaping public perception. Recognizing these five dimensions as a mutually exclusive and
collectively exhaustive set, unlike those of conventional practice, is not meant to isolate each
dimension so it can be analyzed separately. Rather, it is meant to emphasize their interactions.
Although each dimension represents a unique functionality, interdependency among them is such
that it is quite feasible for any four to become coproducers of the fifth one. For example, power, as
the ability to do, can be positively or negatively influenced by wealth, knowledge, beauty (charisma),
and values (tradition). Recognition of multidimensionality and the imperative of and relationships
among the five dimensions of social systems is one of the most significant characteristics of holistic
thinking. Positive and negative feedback loops help to create stability and order while also creating
synergy among the compatible dimensions, resulting in an order of magnitude improvement in
systems performance. Systems theory of organizations maintains that major obstructions in
development of sociocultural systems are the results of a malfunctioning in one or all of the five
dimensions of social systems. Finally, appreciation of the and relationship between the two functions
of generation and dissemination in each dimension results in a whole new way of looking at our
present set of problems and opportunities. 5.2.1 Generation and Dissemination of Wealth Consider
the classical question of generation and dissemination of wealth. Traditionally these two
complementary functions have been treated as a dichotomy. On the right, high concern for
generation of wealth combined with low concern for its distribution results in a position that considers
the cost of labor as the source of the problem. It considers the individual to be
solely responsible for his/her fortune and sees the role of the government to be only the protector of
wealth and grantor of freedom and security by maintaining law and order. In this conception market
is the sole arbiter for deciding what to produce, for whom to produce, and how to distribute the
generated wealth, thus creating a polarized and alienated society. On the other hand, a leftist
orientation, with high concern for distribution of wealth, and taking the production of wealth for
granted, looks at corporate profit as the source of evil. It considers the collective to be responsible
for all misfortune and sees the role of the government as the main provider of justice and equality by
creating and maintaining a necessary social nest. It considers governmental and bureaucratic
control as the only remedy for limiting the inherent excesses of the corporate world, which
unfortunately may lead to equal distribution of poverty. But in reality generation and distribution of
wealth are two sides of the same coin. Generation cannot be continued if there is no continued
purchasing power to consume it. In the long run no society can continue to consume more than what
it is capable of producing. Distribution without effective production can only result in equal
distribution of poverty. True to the principle of multidimensionality, if we treat complementary pairs as
a dichotomy we will surely find them to be in conflict. Fortunately, a high concern for both generation
and distribution of wealth is also a strong possibility if we are willing to reward organizations not only
for generation but also equally for distribution of wealth, for example, if our social calculus would
permit us to consider certain types of payroll, in sectors with high unemployment rates, not only as
cost but also as an output of the organization. This consideration would allow employers to deduct
from their corporate income tax the equivalent of what their new hires (in the predefined categories)
would pay in federal income tax. This would go a long way toward absolving the persistent 10%
unemployment rate. With this scheme the amount of tax deductions by the corporation would be
more than offset by the hired employees’ federal income tax, payroll tax, state tax, and city tax
payments. Government would save payment of unemployment benefits and the demand for goods
and services will be enhanced by the newly added purchasing powers (Figure 5.7). In the same
context both collective and individual responsibility would be realized by the reconceptualization of
the power dimension as power-to-do instead of power-over and by the notion of duplication of power.
This observation brings us to our discussion of generation and distribution of power. 5.2.2
Generation and Dissemination of Power (Centralization and Decentralization Happen at the Same
Time) To deal effectively with multi-minded systems requires understanding choice, and choice is a
matter of freedom and power-to-do. We have argued that while the parts of a multi-minded system
increasingly display choice
and behave independently, the whole becomes more and more interdependent. This represents a
dilemma: a dichotomy of centralization (authority of the whole) or decentralization (autonomy of the
parts). This dichotomy leads either to suffocation (concentration of power) or chaos (abdication of
power). On the other hand, a compromise based on “sharing the power” produces frustration and
gridlock. The answer lies in the fact that centralization and decentralization are two sides of the
same coin. Both have to happen at the same time. This phenomenon is possible because power is
like knowledge. It can be duplicated. The conceptualization of power as a non-zero-sum entity is the
critical step toward understanding the essence of empowerment and the management of multiminded systems. Empowerment is not about the sharing of power. Sharing implies a zero-sum
relationship and, therefore, abdication of power. Instead, empowerment is duplication of power in an
organization or any sociocultural system. It requires a collective understanding of the reasons why
we are doing what we are doing. Such a shared understanding not only empowers the members to
act in harmony and autonomously, but also empowers the leaders to act effectively and decisively on
behalf of the collectivity. The following example illustrates this point. Suppose you have just started
to work for a no-nonsense management-by-objective guy who has
judge you only on the results. You look forward to this opportunity to try a few exciting ideas that
require a degree of autonomy to be realized. After a few weeks you run into your new boss and
decide to share with him some of the exciting things you have been doing. Although he attempts a
poker face, you somehow sense he does not like what he is hearing. Maybe he is not in the right
mood. You tell yourself, “When he sees the final results, he’ll like it.” A few weeks later, at a cocktail
party, he seems very upbeat and you assume this might be a good time to share your new ideas with
him. But he does not like them. Maybe you should leave him alone for a while, you think. But it is too
late; he is already nervous. A few days later he shows up in your office and asks a few questions
about some things you have proposed. When he leaves, you know he is not happy. Decentral ization
has gone out the window. You cannot risk being found incapable by the person who controls your
future. So what do you do? You call him every time you need to make a decision to ask him what he
wants you to do. You both become increasingly frustrated, and finally you decide to quit. At this point
a manager from another department reminds you that you have two kids in college and a mortgage
to pay. She offers you a job if you are willing to forget the nonsense about decentralization and
autonomy and do exactly what she tells you. Having no other choice, you reluctantly accept the offer.
Your new boss, however, has a funny style. Not only does she tell you what to do, but she also tells
you why she thinks this way. For a while you think she wants to brainwash you. Or maybe she is
insecure and wants to prove something. You try to reassure her of your loyalty. “Just tell me what to
do and I’ll do it,” you tell her. But she will not give up. Apparently, she loves to talk. During these
interactions, somehow, you find out how she makes decisions, you learn her decision criteria, and
you begin to understand her value system. One day, when she’s thinking out loud trying to tell you
what to do, you ask her, “How about this?” She says, “Fantastic.” Decentralization happens. The
message of this brief story is that it is the sharing of decision criteria, not sharing or abdication of
power, that results in empowerment and makes centralization and decentralization happen at the
same time. Achieving a higher order of individual responsibility or decentralized decision making
requires a higher order of collective responsibility or centralized agreement on decision criteria.
5.2.2.1 Design for participation: ackoff’s circular organization To produce a shared understanding of
decision criteria among all members of an organization individually is an impossible task. The
process of empowerment has to be institutionalized. The following scheme, known
has been used effectively in different contexts. It creates a nested network of “learning and design
cells” that engage members in an interactive process. Every manager in the organization forms a
design cell. The membership of the cell will consist of the manager, his/her board, his/her boss, and
all the direct reports (see Figure 5.8). Since every cell includes three levels of membership, a nested
network is created. This provides an opportunity for everyone to interact with up to five levels in the
organization (with peers on the same level, with the boss and boss’s boss, and finally with the direct
reports and their subordinates). The main function of these cells is to create a shared understanding
of why the organization does what it does, to develop an awareness of the default values of the
culture, and to take collective ownership of the decision criteria. 5.2.2.2 Decision criteria Decision
criteria explicitly define the implicit rules of decision making, whereas decisions themselves are
applications of the decision rule to specific situations. The absence of at least one degree of freedom
virtually converts the decision criteria to decisions. A policy is a decision criterion at a higher level of
abstraction. Policy essentially deals with choice dimensions (where variables are involved), why
questions, underlying assumptions, and expected outcomes. Policy decisions are value-loaded
choices that should be explicit about their implications for human, financial, and technical domains.
To be
Degree of Freedom : Decision criteria should leave a healthy degree of freedom for the decision
maker. They should be specific enough to ensure consistency of action, as well as constancy of
purpose and direction. At the same time, they should be broad enough to avoid straightjacketing by
allowing room for flexibility and learning. Degrees of freedom grant choice to the decision maker.
Consistency: Decision criteria should be internally consistent so that they do not create structural
conflicts by introducing contradictory performance criteria. Examples include conflicts between inputbased compensation and output-oriented performance or between cost centers (such as production
units) and revenue centers (such as sales units). Explicitness: Criteria to guide policy decisions
ought to be explicit. They should reveal the assumptions on which the policies are made and spell
out the expected outcome. The expectations should reflect at least these three areas: financial
(financial performance), people (human system), and customer (quality of output). Consensus:
Effectiveness of any decision depends on the degree of consensus generated for it. The
understanding and consensus reached in adopting a particular policy decision determine the level of
collective commitment to that policy’s implementation. Generating consensus is purely a matter of
leadership. Here, as in many other issues involving rational, emotional, or cultural dimensions of
behavior, the role of leadership is indispensable. It cannot be reduced to a magic formula. Ultimately,
consensus will stand or fall on the quality of leadership. Consensus is not majority rule; it does not
even imply unanimity. It is an agreement to act. No one should be allowed to take the process
hostage. A “no decision” is a decision for the status quo, and it should therefore be acknowledged as
such. Situations that defy consensus call for leadership in its highest form. The absence of
consensus would be a judgment call on the leader to ensure that the process is not hung up. He/she
would then have to formulate an explicit working synthesis of the different positions that would be
adopted as the default decision by the end of the session if the participants produce no alternative
decision. When the group remains seriously polarized, the alternative is for the opposing parties to
agree on an experiment whose result will produce the decision. The group should agree on the
design of the experiment and specify its performance criteria. It is also very useful for the opposing
parties to specify, up front, what will prove them wrong. 5.2.3 Generation and Dissemination of
Beauty: Social Integration The dimension of beauty is about the emotional aspect of being, the
meaningfulness and the excitement of what is done in and of itself. It is about the imperative of “I like
it” or simply the pursuit of pleasure. Maturana (1980) profoundly stated that, “The path of living
systems in general, and
human history in particular, is guided by emotions not resources. What guides this path is simple
pleasure.” According to John Dewey (1989), “Emotions are much more potent than reasons in
shaping public perception.” Avicenna, the famous Persian philosopher, reinforces this understanding
of beauty by the assertion that, “The essence of life is love, love of beauty, and beauty is in the
pursuit of wholeness.” The understanding of holistic thinking cannot be complete without
understanding the role of beauty in social integration. In contrast to machines in which integration of
the parts into a cohesive whole is a onetime proposition, for organizations the problem of integration
is a constant struggle and a continuous concern. Despite a desire for individuality and uniqueness,
as emotionally vulnerable social beings we display a strong tendency to be members of a collectivity.
Most of us have a burning desire to identify with others, to be accepted by others, and to conform to
the norms of a group of our choice. This integrative phenomenon seems rooted in the emotional
dimension of our beings. An exciting book, objects of beauty, and a heroic or a tragic encounter all
generate an urge to share. The boundary between individuality and collectivity — the question of
how much of me is me and how much of me is those to whom I am bonded — remains at the heart
of the manifestation of beauty. Beauty is, therefore, the most potent agent of social integration. The
level of integration that an organization achieves depends on the level of excitement and
commitment it generates among its members. Recall that in the earlier discussion of development
we identified desire as the essential ingredient for creation of an achieving society. Ability without
desire is impotent, just as desire without ability is sterile. In this context aesthetics, contrary to
popular belief, is not a luxury. Throughout history, societies that were antithetical to aesthetics
invariably proved to be anti-human and anti-development as well. 5.2.3.1 Membership The
significance of membership in sociocultural systems (family, groups, organizations, nations) lies in
the fact that the units of these systems are not the individuals but the roles imparted to them. Under
different circumstances and in different social settings, individuals display different behaviors. A good
friend is not necessarily a good employee. A successful vice president might make a lousy president.
The nature of these roles is influenced by expectations and the limitations imposed by the social
structure, the culture, and various environmental realities mapped by the actors. Effective
membership in a multi-minded system requires a role, a sense of belonging, and a commitment to
participate in creating the group’s future, so much so that rolelessness is the major obstruction to
integrating a social system.
When an individual feels that his/her contributions to the group’s achievements are insignificant, or
when he/she feels powerless to play an effective role in the system’s performance, a feeling of
indifference sets in and the individual gradually becomes alienated from the very system in which
he/she is supposed to be an active member. In this context, the inability to carry out the
responsibilities of a specific role (incompetence) results in anxiety and frustration. To fulfill the role of
a physician or carpenter requires certain levels of expertise and mastery that must be learned.
Otherwise, the individual to whom the role is entrusted will be alienated. As the strength of a chain is
determined by its weakest link, incompatibility between the members often causes the more dynamic
ones to retrogress to the level of the weakest, spreading a general feeling of ineffectualness and
impotency. Conflicting values within a social system also contribute to alienating its members. The
extent to which an individual’s value image coincides with that of the community determines the
degree of that individual’s membership in that community. A multi-minded organization is a voluntary
association of purposeful members. The purpose of an organization, in addition to its own viability, is
to serve the purposes of its members while serving the purposes of its containing whole. Members
join an organization to serve themselves. Unless the organization serves them, they will not serve it
well. Although it is possible to persuade purposeful members of a purposeful social system to
engage in a sacrifice for a limited time, it is highly improbable that they will accept this condition as a
way of life. There needs to be an exchange system so that the individual’s struggle for his/her own
gain is enhanced by the degree of contribution he/she makes toward satisfying the needs of the
higher system and those of the other members. Nevertheless, proper functioning of a multi-minded
organization also requires an implicit threat system . In other words, continued membership in a
system should depend on avoiding a certain set of behaviors considered antagonistic to the survival
of the whole. For an elaborate treatment of role, exchange, and threat see Boulding (1968). 5.2.4
Generation and Dissemination of Knowledge The success of any social system will ultimately
depend on its ability to generate and disseminate knowledge, which requires a three-dimensional
learning system. Learning to learn is about the ability to learn, unlearn, and re-learn, both within and
beyond conventional frameworks. Given the accelerated rate of change that keeps transforming
everything in contemporary life, the real competency of the knowledge dimension is to produce selfdirected learners. To relearn one has to unlearn first and, unfortunately, unlearning is much more
difficult than learning. One might have to go through a lot of trouble to undo what previous
Learning to be covers the whole spectrum of learning experiences that result in both individual and
collective development in quality-of-lifeenhancing activities that involve pleasure. It is about desires
as well as abilities; more about content than capacity, direction rather than speed; why rather than
how ; it is about life, about explicitly understanding the state of being and the process of becoming.
Learning to be, in essence, is about values, worldviews, cultures, and identities; more specifically it
is about having the courage to question the sacred assumptions. If history is a lesson, national
declines are preceded by cultural stagnation. Learning to do is about competency to operationalize
knowledge, to define problems and design solutions in the real and messy world. But the problems
in the real world do not divide themselves the way universities do. Traditionally, learning to do
happened most effectively in the work environment and businesses provided this function. When I
joined IBM in the 1960s, the assumption was that I would be working for them for 30 years. That is
why they invested more than 1,800 hours of formal training to make me a systems engineer.
Unfortunately, abdication of this critical responsibility by business along with a proliferation of the
number of specialists who enjoy knowing more and more about less and less and their implausible
inability to connect the necessary dots is becoming a major concern. Learning to do is about
acquiring the ability to relate one’s special text to its proper contexts, and to understand how the
other related parts or actions coproduce the whole and how action of each part is affected by actions
of the others. After all, no problem or solution is valid free of context. Operational thinking (subject of
Chapter 6) tries to over come this deficiency. 5.2.5 Generation and Dissemination of the Value:
Conflict Management When parts of a system display choice, conflict among them is inevitable. The
ideal of a conflict-free society not only is not feasible, but it is not even desirable. A conflict-free
system will only be possible if the behaviors of its members are reduced to a robotic level. The
answer is that sociocultural systems should develop the capability for continuously dissolving
conflicts. To integrate a multi-minded system is to design an organization whose members can
operate as independent parts with individual choices while simultaneously acting as responsible
members of a coherent whole with a collective choice. The effectiveness of an organization,
therefore, depends not so much on managing the actions but on managing the interactions among
its members. The interactions among members of an organization take many forms. Members may
cooperate with regard to one pair of tendencies, compete over others, and be in conflict with respect
to different sets at the
same time. In general, by agreeing or disagreeing with each other on compatibility of their ends,
means, or both, actors (individually or in groups) can create four types of relationships: conflict,
cooperation, competition, and coalition 1 (Figure 5.9). • In conflict , each party reduces the expected
value of the outcomes for the others. The opposite is true of cooperation. Competition represents a
situation in which a lower level conflict serves the attainment of a commonly held higher level
objective for both parties. It is a conflict of means, not ends. Coalitions are formed when actors with
conflicting ends agree to remove a perceived common obstruction. In this unstable situation, conflict
is temporarily converted to cooperation, only to be succeeded by possibly more severe conflict at a
higher level. • If organizations are to serve their members as well as their environ – ments, they must
be able to deal with conflict. Creating a conflict-free organization may not be possible, but creating
one capable of dealing with conflict is. • Conflict can be addressed in four different ways: solve,
resolve, absolve, or dissolve (See Figure 5.10). • To solve a conflict is to select a course of action
believed to yield the best possible outcome for one side at the cost of the other; in other words, a
win/lose struggle. • To resolve a conflict is to select a course of action that yields an outcome good
enough and minimally satisfactory to both the opposing tendencies; in other words, a compromise. •
To absolve a conflict is to wait it out, hoping that, if ignored, it will go away; in other words, a benign
neglect. • To dissolve a conflict is to change the nature and/or the environment of
Selecting any one of these courses of action depends on how the relationships between opposing
tendencies are formulated. As discussed earlier (under the principle of multidimensionality), these
relationships are conceived in at least three ways: dichotomy, continuum, or multidimensional
scheme. Dichotomy represents an or relationship, a win/lose struggle. This calls for a solution to the
conflict. The loser, usually declared wrong, is eliminated. Continuum calls for a compromise, or
resolution of the conflict. For multidimensional concepts, however, interaction between opposing
tendencies is characterized by an and relationship. This formulation permits the conflict to be
dissolved. When the conflict situation is formulated as a zero-sum game, gain for one player is
invariably associated with a loss for the other. But in the multidimensional concept, a lose/lose as
well as win/win, in addition to win/ lose struggles, are strong possibilities. Therefore, a loss for one
side is not always a gain for the other. On the contrary, both opposing tendencies can increase or
decrease simultaneously. To dissolve a conflict is to discover new frames of reference in which
opposing tendencies are treated as complementary in a new ensemble with a new logic of its own. It
requires reformulation or, more precisely, reconceptualization of the variables involved. Finally, to
dissolve a conflict is to redesign the system that contains the
5.2.5.1 From lose/lose to win/win environments An important characteristic of a win/lose struggle is
the possibility of converting it to either a lose/lose or a win/win environment. In today’s complex and
highly differentiated social systems, emergence of a lose/lose environment is not only highly
probable, but it is an increasingly dominant reality. Today, winning requires much greater ability than
ever before. It is easier for groups to prevent others from winning than to win themselves. Increasing
numbers of small special interest groups are diluting the strength of the traditional power centers.
Even many disadvantaged minorities have been forced to learn how to keep the opposing sides from
winning. The illusion that increased losses for the other side is equivalent to winning is what prolongs
the struggle and forces the game to be played to a lose/lose end. Ironically, it is awareness of this
high probability for lose/ lose that becomes instrumental in converting a win/lose to a win/win. This is
easily confirmed by understanding the reason why the players in the famous prisoners’ dilemma
(Rapoport, 1965) chose the win/win strategy to avoid a lose/lose end. Dynamic interaction of the
players, combined with awareness of a possible lose/lose situation, creates a meta-game leading to
selection of a win/win strategy. 5.2.5.2 Changing conflict to competition Ends and means are
interchangeable concepts. An end is a means for further ends. Changing conflict to competition
requires finding higher level objectives shared by lower level conflicting tendencies. The lower level
opposing ends are converted into conflicting means with a shared higher level objective, resulting in
competition. The search for finding a shared higher level end can continue up to and include the
ideal, when ends and means converge and become the same. The probability of finding a shared
objective increases by moving to higher and higher levels. It is maximized at the ideal level. Now, if
even the ideal level cannot produce a common end for conflicting tendencies, then the conflict is
considered non-dissolvable within the context of existing worldviews. In this situation, dissolving the
conflicts requires a change of worldviews. This change can be a reaction to frustrations with the
existing assumptions’ failure to deal with a new era, a march of events nullifying conventional
wisdom, or it can happen by an active learning-and- unlearning process of purposeful
transformation. 5.2.5.3 Democratic challenge For a viable society based on democratic conventions,
it is crucial to define the notion and parameters of majority rule. It is imperative to forge a widespread
agreement on what constitutes a legitimate majority: its powers, its
minorities in the name of the whole. It should define the limits of the minority and majority rights so
that they may complement, rather than encroach on, the rights of others. If the rule of law finds its
legitimacy in the will of the majority, then tyranny of the majority would already be an accomplished
fact unless it transcends, and reigns supreme over and above, the majority itself. The majority, for
example, has no right to disown its right to democracy and, thus, democratically undermine
democracy itself. The individual and the collectivity both have separate, and yet interrelated, rights
and responsibilities. Not only are these two sets of rights and responsibilities not exclusive, but they
are essentially complementary. They are so interdependent that one could not be dealt with without
touching the other. Collectivity has distinct rights to security, viability, and sovereignty. It has a right to
act; its decision process cannot be taken hostage. It is also responsible for making sure that the
individual, even as a minority of one, is provided with enough alternatives to make his/her choices
meaningful. An individual citizen has inalienable rights, such as the right to privacy and the right not
to be discriminated against. In addition to these rights, an individual can enjoy certain privileges,
which he/she may acquire or lose, provided certain conditions are, or are not, satisfied. An individual,
however, stands to lose the privileges that he/she abuses; irresponsible driving would be one
obvious example.
Journal of Change Management, 2015
Vol. 15, No. 3, 231 –252, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2015.1021271
Leading Change – Insights Into How
Leaders Actually Approach the
Challenge of Complexity
PAUL LAWRENCE
The Centre for Systemic Change, Forestville, NSW 2087, Australia
A BSTRACT In recent years, a multitude of authors have compared and contrasted traditional,
episodic approaches to change management with more dynamic and continuous approaches that
have emerged from thinking around complexity and complex adaptive systems. This debate has
taken place alongside a narrative that suggests that most change interventions are unsuccessful,
a claim based on little substantive evidence, and that most change leaders are not deemed to be
capable of effectively leading change. This paper outlines the findings of an exploratory piece of
research designed to find out what change leaders actually do. The results suggest that many
leaders are at least intuitively aware of the limitations of traditional approaches to change and
tend not to rely upon traditional change models. Many aspects of emerging change theory were
reflected in the stories they recounted about their personal experiences of change. The content of
those stories is reflected in the Emerging Change Model, which captures aspects of both
rationalist and emergent change theories and which, it is hoped, may prove useful to change
practitioners as a reflective device.
K EY WORDS : Change, change management, organizational development, leadership, complexity,
complex adaptive systems (CAS)
Introduction
Shaw (1997) characterizes ‘classical organisational development (OD)’ with
reference to the work of Lewin (1958) and Schein (1988) and suggests that this
approach to change is based on an assumption that change can be planned centrally and implemented accordingly. She contrasts ‘classical OD’ with approaches
based on complex adaptive system theory and cites Stacey (1996) who compared
Correspondence Address: Paul Lawrence, The Centre for Systemic Change, Forestville, NSW 2087, Australia.
Email: paul.lawrence@systemic-change.com.au
# 2015 Taylor & Francis
232
P. Lawrence
the ‘legitimate system’, the organization’s intentionally designed ideology, policies and processes, with the ‘shadow system’, self-organizing processes mediated
through other networks in the organization. According to Stacey, in a complex
system, change emerges from the interactions within and between these systems
in a way that may be influenced, but not controlled. Change is not linear, and
organizations as systems do not necessarily tend to states of stable equilibrium
(Stacey, 1996). Building on this theme, Tsoukas and Chia (2002) frame change
as an ongoing process rather than a set of episodic events and also depict
change as emerging from interactions between different members of an organization. They argue that change is pervasive and constant, and critique the work
of authors who suggest that continuous change is a property only of some organizations. Werkman (2010) contrasts ‘traditional OD’ with ‘New OD’. Traditional
OD is individualistic, with a focus on the potential of the individual and aspects of
the organization that may be getting in the way of that individual potential being
realized. Change is depicted as a series of planned processes through which
obstacles and barriers to the realization of individual potential are removed, and
is a participatory process through which people are increasingly empowered. A
problem with traditional OD, Werkman suggests, is that it locates OD practitioners externally to the events that they are seeking to orchestrate. It implicitly
assumes a single perspective and again frames change as being essentially episodic. The ‘New OD’ acknowledges the existence of multiple realities and positions
change as continuous and ongoing. Some accounts also incorporate the idea of
‘sensemaking’, the process by which people seek to construct a narrative that
brings meaning to events. Grant and Marshak (2011) characterize the ‘New
OD’ squarely in terms of the theoretical emphasis it places on socially constructed
realities, and the practical emphasis it places on facilitating change with reference
to individual and system consciousness. According to this social constructionist
perspective, discourse is the principal means by which the members of an organization co-create a coherent social view. ‘Realities’ and ‘truths’ therefore represent social constructs.
In summary, these authors and others (e.g. Burnes & Jackson, 2011; Ford, 2008;
Jabri, Adrian, & Boje, 2008) depict a traditional approach to change as being discontinuous, episodic, and linear, with the role of the change agent being to frame a
predetermined outcome based on a single perspective of events. Early descriptions
of a new post-modern approach to change suggested that not all organizations
could be described in this way, while more recent accounts suggest that change
should always be regarded as continuous and emergent and place a heavy emphasis on social constructionist theory and the social nature of sensemaking. Before
considering further the extent to which these two approaches represent alternative
approaches or contingent approaches based on context, aspects of the ‘New OD’
will be considered in more depth.
Sensemaking and Identity
Weick, Sutcliffe, and Obstfeld (2005) depict sensemaking as a process by which
people rationalize their own actions and the actions of others. The outcome of sensemaking is the ability to articulate the meaning of circumstances in a way that
Leading change 233
serves as a springboard into action. It is ‘an issue of language, talk and communication’ and is intrinsically linked to the notion of identity. It is to our sense of identity that we look to when faced with uncertainty, and at the same time, our
identities are subject to the outcomes of the sensemaking process. Sensemaking
can therefore be a high-stakes process because issues of identity are involved
(Weick et al., 2005).
The sensemaking process is complex because people may have multiple identities. Bond and Seneque (2012) outline the evolution of social identity theory
(SIT) and self-categorization theory (SCT). SIT contends that people tend to classify themselves and others into categories. The process of categorization enables
people to define themselves relative to others and with respect to their workplace.
SCT builds on SIT, proposing that self-conception and identity formation occur at
multiple levels such that people will seek different identities in different contexts,
always looking for an identity that best meets their needs in the moment.
This sensemaking process is social (Weick et al., 2005) and the development of
identity is therefore a socially constructed process (Beech, Kajzer-Mitchell,
Oswick, & Saren, 2011; Reissner, 2010), a reflexive narrative in which people
experiment with different identities through talking to others as well as themselves. Gover and Duxbury (2012) outlined a ‘faultline theory’ that describes
how coalitions develop within organizations on the basis of homogeneity and heterogeneity. Sources of commonality and difference are based on identity, be that a
readily observable factor, such as age or gender, an informational factor, such as
education level or work experience, or indeed any other aspect of identity. These
faultlines may be activated, to the detriment of organizational effectiveness, by
triggers such as differential treatment, differing values, an expectation that all
members of a group will act similarly, insult, or simply being forced to interact
with a different subgroup. The focus of any change initiative therefore becomes
the redefinition of identity (Thurlow & Helms Mills, 2009), multiple personal
identities as well as collective identities, which continue to evolve over time in
a dynamic process of ongoing human interaction.
Dialogue
If change is the outcome of sensemaking, and sensemaking is a social process, this
positions social interaction at the heart of change (Ford & Ford, 1995; Marshak &
Grant, 2008; Van Nistelrooij & Sminia, 2010). Accordingly, many contemporary
approaches to change emphasize the importance of facilitated interactions
between members of an organization. In the experience of Jabri et al. (2008),
many of these change efforts designed to increase participation are monologic,
with the emphasis placed on persuading others to align to a predetermined
‘common’ vision. These authors frame effective interaction as an ongoing dialogic
process in which a multiplicity of meanings is encouraged. Efforts to achieve consensus are often framed as dialogic, but the desire to arrive at a predetermined
outcome usually means that they are actually monologic, such that a consensus
apparently attained is often fragile and illusory. The authors cite Bakhtin in
arguing that the possibility for illumination and for seeing things differently
exists when people are free to respond and interact openly. McClellan (2011)
234
P. Lawrence
tells the story of an art college’s attempt to redesign building spaces to accommodate increased student enrolment and promote environmental sustainability. The
change process included collaborative workshops at which it was intended that
the different stakeholders would come together and agree a way forward. McClellan sat in on some of the workshops and found that change proposals supporting
people’s existing understanding of what the art college was, what it did, whom it
served (its identity) were generally supported. Those that challenged that identity
were closed down. Consequently, all of the agreed changes supported the existing
identity of the organization and transformational change was not achieved. In
other words, McClellan experienced an absence of dialogue and the domination
of monologue.
Contingency and Context
Some authors commend a contingency approach to managing change. Burnes and
Jackson (2011), for example, suggest that the congruence between an organization
and the type of change required should be considered in making a choice, and that
we need to be able to categorize change initiatives in service of being able to determine which approaches will work best in different situations. Stacey (1996)
described a process by which practitioners could characterize change in terms
of certainty and agreement and select a change approach depending on the
results of this diagnosis. However, Stacey (2012) later wrote that he regretted
having published the framework since it privileged the perspective of the individual apparently standing outside the organizational system, an aspect of ‘traditional
OD’. Tsoukas and Hatch (2001) argue that it is useful to simply think of all organizations as being complex, Ray and Goppelt (2011) suggest that such an approach
safeguards against missing behaviours we might not otherwise be looking for, and
Higgs and Rowland (2005) report that an ‘emergent’ approach tends to work best
whatever the context.
Evidence
Graetz and Smith (2010) critique traditional approaches to change and suggest that
the ‘management penchant for these types of tools continues unsated’ based on the
content of management texts and business magazines, but there is little evidence to
support an assertion that managers act upon these texts. Furthermore, whilst it is
often claimed that around 70% of change interventions fail, there is no reliable evidence to support this (Burnes, 2011; Hughes, 2011) and in any case, most attempts
to quantify the success of change efforts appear to be based on traditionalist
approaches to change with their emphasis on pre-planned outcomes. Similarly
Gilley, McMillan and Gilley (2009) report that 74% of employees surveyed
believe that their leaders never, rarely, or only sometimes are effective in implementing change, but this begs the question as to what ‘effective’ means and
assumes that leaders and followers adopt similar implicit theories of leadership.
In summary, we do not really know how leaders go about leading change in practice
and we have no agreed means by which to measure the efficacy of emergent
approaches to change. The purpose of this study was to begin by shedding further
Leading change 235
light on how leaders actually go about leading change from which may emerge
insights as to how we might revisit the notion of success and failure. Given the multitude of factors at play in a complex change scenario and problems in defining
success and failure, it was decided to embark upon an exploratory study for
which a qualitative methodology was deemed to be most appropriate.
Method
Grounded Theory
Grounded theory is a qualitative research methodology in which the researcher
approaches the study with a broad question or area of interest (Corbin and
Strauss, 1990). Data collection and analysis are regarded as interrelated processes
such that the analysis guides the ongoing nature of enquiry. The grounded theorist
is not trying to prove or disprove a predetermined hypothesis; rather, the theory
emerges from the research process. The purpose of a grounded theory study is
to discover a new theory that accounts for all the data observed and which is
likely to be generally applicable. This generalizability is partly achieved by
seeking for abstract concepts. The more abstract the concepts, the wider the
theory’s applicability. The aim of the exercise is to build a theory that explains
observed phenomena, how they arise, and the consequences of those phenomena.
Where exceptions to this regularity are observed, it is the role of the researcher to
account for those variations.
Sampling
Consistent with much of the change literature, the design of this study was based
upon an assumption that we might regard change as a general phenomenon. The
focus was on identifying what different change interventions have in common,
identifying variations that might be attributable to the specific context. In grounded
theory, it is representativeness of concepts rather than people that is important
(Corbin & Strauss, 1990) and so interviewees were sought who were known to
have experience of leading change in multinational/multicultural organizations,
or who had led large projects with several layers of management involved. Attention was paid to sampling a population from a diversity of different backgrounds
working in different markets, and from different kinds of organization.
Fifty people were interviewed over a period of five months between June and
November 2013. An initial list of 39 people was drawn up based on conversations
between the author and 6 colleagues working in the change industry. Of the initial
list of 39 people, 35 of agreed to participate in a 60– 90-minute interview. The
remaining 15 interviewees were suggested by members of the original group of
35. Whilst there were no formal sampling criteria, the final population of 50 interviewees may be characterized thus:
. 70% were male and 30% female.
. 80% were business leaders, 12% internal change practitioners and 8% external
change consultants.
236
P. Lawrence
. Of the 80% business leaders, 62.5% had CEO experience and 37.5% had
other senior leadership experience, such as a head of function or head of
business.
. 80% were working at the time for corporates, 10% worked in government
organizations, and 10% worked for not-for-profits.
. Of the 80% working for corporates, 22.5% worked in retail, 17.5% in manufacturing, 17.5% in integrated energy, 12.5% in distribution, 10% in technology,
7.5% in oil exploration, 7.5% in financial services, 5% in media and 2.5%
each in mining, construction, telecommunications, ticketing and pharmaceutical sales.
. 40% were Australian, 36% European, 14% North American, 8% African and
2% Asian
. 18% related stories of change spanning across multiple countries. 38% told
stories of change interventions in Australia, 21% in Europe, 7% Asia, 5%
USA, 5% Africa, 4% Middle East and 2% South America.
Given the exploratory nature of the study, the original semi-structured questionnaire had only one standard question:
I’d like you to share with me two stories, first the story of a change in which you
were involved, which you feel went well. Second, if we have time, the story of a
change which you didn’t feel went so well’
In grounded theory, the researcher proceeding through a series of interviews is
looking for concepts; the basic unit of analysis, the clustering of concepts into categories, and an overarching theory, or core category. Although the methodology
is qualitative and not quantitative, the researcher nevertheless pays attention to the
frequency with which particular concepts show up, since a concept earns its way
into the theory only by being repeatedly present. Over the course of this study, the
researcher conducting the interviews tested concepts, categories and core category
with colleagues on a regular basis, opening up his analysis to the scrutiny of others
(Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Interviews were conducted face to face where possible,
else by telephone or Skype.
Results
Concepts and Categories
Figure 1 shows all the factors mentioned by at least 10 of the interviewees in
response to the initial open question. For example, 36 people mentioned some
aspect of power and politics in at least one of their stories, 33 mentioned the
importance of a common purpose or direction, and so on.
Figure 2 shows how these factors were subsequently determined to represent
concepts or categories by the researcher consulting with colleagues. Figure 2
includes factors in italics mentioned by less than 10 interviewees but that subsequently were determined to be connected to a category.
Leading change 237
Figure 1. Concepts.
Dialogue
Listening, voicing and reflection were all ultimately defined as subcategories
beneath a category called dialogue. Voicing as a subcategory includes being
open and transparent, storytelling, giving feedback and crafting the message to
address others concerns. Just under half those interviewed emphasized the importance of communicating the change message outwards. However, most interviewees spoke also about the importance of listening. For example, this CEO of a
not-for-profit said:
You need to communicate, communicate, communicate . . . and listen. The solution
shouldn’t be hard-wired. For example, we decided to outsource our call centres. Our
frontline staff said ‘Have you really thought through what clients will think?’ An
account manager told us the reason one of our major clients did business with us
was because he got to deal with us direct and not through an outsourced operation.
I was grateful for the insights and recognised we had more work to do before pressing the button.
238
P. Lawrence
Figure 2. Concepts and categories.
Two stories illustrate the difference between monologue and dialogue in terms
of approaching conversation with or without a predetermined agenda. The first
story is told by a regional CFO, the second by the CEO of an Australian company:
He does come out and visit us from time to time, sometimes unannounced, but it’s
always about his agenda and what he’s trying to achieve. He doesn’t appear to be
interested in what we have to say. When I do manage to get a word in and tell
him about some of the problems we’re having, he assures us that everything will
be sorted out. But there’s no follow-up and it doesn’t get sorted out.
Leading change 239
There’s no substitute for going out and talking to people. It’s about getting out and
about without an agenda. I go out with no other intention other than to just talk to
people and sound them out. You find out far more by getting out and talking to
people than you do from a monthly report.
An ex-chief constable in the UK spoke about being encouraged to implement a
monologic process, but opting instead for dialogue:
We needed to reduce the number of senior managers. We brought in an HR firm to
help us work out how to do it. Their approach was very process driven and harsh. I
thought to myself – no – I’m not going to do it that way. So we designed a dialogue
to bring the senior people together in one room to discuss what needed to be done.
HR screamed – no! – but it was the best thing. We were able to talk to people about
their concerns, and to put something together that was humane and which was
accepted because we co-generated the approach.
Several leaders spoke about a personal journey in coming to recognize the importance of dialogue vs. monologue. This executive dean spoke about coming to
question his model of leadership:
I myself needed to go through a personal change journey. I needed to learn to shut up
and listen. I had to be less aggressive. You get to leadership because you know the
answers. You need to transition to asking questions, and it’s not a transition everyone makes well. I recognised it was a journey that I needed to make.
It remains an open question as to whether reflection constitutes a separate category
or whether it is a concept that might sit beneath the category of listening, depending on how listening as a category is defined. Some leaders did speak specifically
about reflection. This group manager spoke about the facilitation of a reflective
process being part of his role as leader:
With the leadership team I made sure we spent time reflecting together at every
meeting. What’s happening? What’s the current conversation? We discussed and
collectively responded. We developed strategy on the run, recognising hot spots
and how to address them.
The issue that remained unresolved for the researchers was whether or not reflection is an inevitable consequence of people genuinely listening to others, to the
extent that they are listening for meaning, checking for assumptions and considering how their message is likely to be received by others.
Courage and authenticity were also clustered under dialogue rather than
voicing. Having the courage to speak out is an obvious aspect of voicing, but
what also emerged from the study was the courage required to listen. For
example, this HR Director said that:
It helps that the CEO is brave. He commissioned a strategic review after he’d already
been around for quite a while. He opened himself up to the possibility that his own
240
P. Lawrence
behaviours could be changed. He role-modelled being relentlessly self-critical, and
always for a looking for a new way of doing things. Analyzing data with an open
mind draws you to what needs to be done. The CEO put himself at the heart of it
and openly committed to doing things differently, versus defending himself
because he was feeling criticized.
This courage appears to be related to self-awareness, in that those who talked
about being courageous also spoke about their values and beliefs acquired
through experience and reflection upon that experience. This story comes from
the CEO of a retailing company acquired by a larger organization:
If the numbers falter they may hang me out to dry. That’s a personal risk, but it’s not
my career – it’s a job. If I was trying to be a corporate guy then I couldn’t take risks.
I used to work in private equity where your job is it; you sell the business you lose
your job. That’s a good mindset to have at the senior level. I’m not here to make
them happy, but to do the right thing. It’s a very liberating mental attitude.
Self-awareness and authenticity also show up in terms of outcome, and as such are
included under identity (see below).
Perspective
Interviewees spoke about the importance of facilitating an exchange of perspectives on the here-and-now as a precursor to seeking a consensus on future state.
For example, this CEO had just taken up the reins at an organization that had
been losing money for quite a few years:
For the team the key moment was when I said we were going to have an offsite. They
complained, saying that previous offsites had achieved little in terms of agreeing a
future direction. I told them we weren’t going to talk about the future, we were going
to talk about the present; the state of the market, the competition, what we were all
doing. They were surprised by what they learned and the silos started to break down.
Interviewees talked of the importance of getting out and about and engaging with
people face to face. The first story below comes from the Vice-President of a
medium-sized retailer. The second story is told by the local managing director
of a global technology company:
With one or two colleagues I explained the change to every retail business in each
state and explained it personally. What and why. Authentically and open. It made me
accessible so they could understand, and I gained an understanding of what their
concerns were so that I could hear and respond.
Here I’ll meet with eight people from the organisation at a time and sit down for an
hour of informal talk, each group comprising people from the same level in the
organization. I’ll share what’s on my mind for five or ten minutes and use the rest
of the time to find out what’s going on.
Leading change 241
When the leadership of an organization does not seek to understand others’ perspectives, the outcome may be significantly detrimental to the performance of
the organization. The ex-Human Resources Director of a large multinational
spoke about the aftermath of an intense period of mergers and acquisitions
during which the company suffered a number of highly publicized setbacks. He
talked about a particular moment which he said in retrospect may have led to
many of the subsequent problems. After most of the acquisitions had been finalized, the new executive settled down to run the new business. They declared
the new venture to be one company with one set of goals and objectives and
one way of doing things such that there was no need to spend any more time discovering how different people viewed the world post-merger and acquisition.
Whilst well intended, this declaration effectively blinded the executive team to
the reality, which was that the new organization was not a single entity and that
each heritage organization had its own way of doing things. Different parts of
the organization used the same language to mean different things which created
confusion. The HR Director of a global multinational said:
People’s heritage can’t be brushed aside. After a big merger or acquisition you can’t
just say ‘we’re all one company now and that’s it.’ Even today, ten years later, there
are people in one of the companies we acquired who have been watching who’s done
well and who’s not done so well. They look at the top team now and see lots of their
old bosses in that team and say that they’ve won.
Purpose
In this study, the words ‘purpose’ and ‘vision’ were used interchangeably to mean
the articulation of a clear endpoint or destination, the attainment of which became
the context for dialogue and for people’s work. The importance of aligning around
a common purpose or vision was mentioned by 68% of interviewees. Early on in
the interviewing process, it appeared that a paradox was emerging. Some leaders
described a collaborative approach to visioning, for example, this external consultant describes the behaviour of a CEO:
The company hired a new CEO who quickly recognised that the old strategy wasn’t
going to deliver. He didn’t have a clear idea as to what the new strategy needed to be
and said that the first thing we needed to do was to come up with a new and common
view of the future, one that would reenergise the company, because without that
energy it was obvious we weren’t going to deliver. The task was to come up with
an idea, a powerful vision. The CEO and the top team decided to engage the organisation in co-creating something.
Others spoke about a process that at first glance appeared less collaborative. For
example, this story comes from the CEO of a national retailer:
I went in with a clear idea of what we needed to do. Two of us led the development
of the investment thesis and set about executing the pre-formed plan. We executed it
and sold the business for nine times our investment in less than four years.
242
P. Lawrence
In practice, however, he may have been describing a more open process than first it
seemed:
Yes, it was a simple thesis, a textbook approach I had seen used before by others at
the companies where I had worked. I hoped it was directionally correct, but had I got
it wrong, well then I would have copped it on the chin and said so.
The process by which change leaders come up with a purpose or vision for the
organization may then be seen to always be social. The first question is: with
whom does the leader engage in dialogue in order to come up with an initial articulation of that purpose? The second question is: to what extent does the leader subsequently engage in dialogue around purpose, recognizing that as the environment
changes so may the purpose of the entity? This HR Director chose not to engage
with her immediate colleagues in coming up with an original purpose, nor in
further reflecting upon that purpose as events unfolded:
I wanted to change the way the company did HR and I didn’t think the HR team I
inherited had the right capabilities. I thought they couldn’t see what they couldn’t
deliver, they couldn’t write the plan, so I brought in an HR guru from the US and
I wrote an extensive paper on what I planned to do by myself. I didn’t bring
people along with me though and people didn’t see things the way I saw them. I
replaced seven of the top nine people in twelve months and the people below
freaked out and decided they weren’t going to play.
This CEO’s story illustrates the need for a continual revisiting of purpose and
vision:
I had public shareholders to look after outside of China. The company listed at $3 but
then the real estate market collapsed as did access to equity. The value of the
company fell to five cents, but the Chinese weren’t too concerned. They would
default on their loans, but the banks couldn’t do anything about it. The project
simply went on hold. The Chinese were OK with that – they were in it for the
long haul. My offshore shareholders were very concerned though. At that point
the goalposts changed, and the focus became avoiding bankruptcy. I worked
really hard and eventually managed to refinance the company. My overseas shareholders respected what I’d done in a very challenging situation and recommended
me to be considered to run a new turnaround opportunity.
Identity
Several interviewees made direct reference to identity in describing how they
managed specific change scenarios. For example, this storyteller came into a government organization from a corporate role as CIO. This extract of his story is full
of references to identity:
I was the transformation guy, bringing a modern way of thinking to a bureaucratic
organization. But the organization’s mantra was ‘we’re a family’ and I was treated
Leading change 243
like a drunken Uncle Fester, as an outsider. I was the ‘firefighter’ rather than the
‘architect’ or ‘builder’ and I created some of the bushfires without knowing it. In
the second year, when people realized I was a ‘glue-man’ trying to make everyone
successful, I tried to turn relationships round through the use of language. It was hard
work, forever selling yourself, always in interview mode. Who are you? What makes
you so special, as an ex-private sector person? I assembled my team of ‘green berets’
to come with me on the journey, and they’ve all been fantastic.
So this person inhabited the various identities of ‘transformation guy’, ‘architect’
and ‘builder’ while others experienced him as ‘drunken Uncle Fester’ and ‘firefighter’ before everyone converged on the co-created identity of ‘glueman’, all
within an organization whose identity was ‘family’. This general manager told
the story of an office move in which some people appeared to resist the move
because of the impact they perceived it to have upon their personal status and
the degree to which they identified the organization with the physical structure
of the head office building:
Some people had worked their whole careers in the same building. For them the
building and the company were the same thing and they seemed to go through
some kind of grieving process. There was something about the move that meant
they lost their status as having been around longest. So we managed them differently. For example, we introduced a system for the new cafe where everyone had
to have a numbered card to buy coffee. We numbered the cards according to
length of service, so the person who had served longest got card number 00001,
and so on.
A CEO told me about how an organization’s ‘family culture’ proved to be an
obstacle to achieving commitment to a particular strategy:
The only option was to kill one of the brands. I dedicated a lot of energy to telling the
story so that everyone understood. The problem was that killing the brand meant
closing down some parts of the business. The organisation thought of itself as a
family, and families don’t ask people to leave. We had to ask some people to go
and the organisation found that very difficult to cope with.
When faced with prospective threats to identity people require time to make sense
of change and they seek out opportunities to engage in dialogue. This Vice-President spoke about the efforts of one of his direct reports in leading change:
It was a mammoth project and required persistence. Typically, he involved people
well before a rollout, doubling the amount of time he spent engaging them. All
this psychology! It wasn’t the technical complexity. I used to think you could accelerate human change, now I’m not sure you can. I think there’s a time period over
which people have to absorb information and get used to the change. It takes
quite a while; in this case, nine months. I’ve seen big projects implemented fast,
and fail.
244
P. Lawrence
Power and Politics
Seventy-two per cent of interviewees made mention of some aspect of power and
politics. Fifty-six per cent said that support from the top is required if change is to
be successful. For example, this CFO told me:
I was trying to implement a new system. I’d done all the right things; I’d shared the
vision and the benefits with everyone, and presented it to all the Asian countries. We
rolled out successfully in most countries flawlessly, but one country GM didn’t want
it. I couldn’t get to the bottom of it; all I got was a lot of excuses. Singapore was an
important milestone for us and if that hadn’t gone ahead, the rest of the rollout could
have been endangered. Ultimately, I elevated it to the global CFO who contacted the
VP Finance in Singapore and told him to implement the system – or else.
However, leveraging disciplinary power to drive large-scale change down through
an organization is unlikely to be sufficient. Thirty per cent of our storytellers spoke
about the importance of engaging the whole executive team. For example, this
external consultant said:
The new CEO asked me to help him get the whole organisation aligned around a new
vision. He exuded phenomenal energy. He dropped by the change office on a regular
basis and talked to people. The rest of the leadership team came only when invited,
more out of obligation than genuine interest. The CEO left it up to them. He talked
about picking our battles and questioned if their support was essential. He wanted to
nudge them into taking an interest and thought if we got one of them on board we’d
get the rest. In the end, not getting the whole of the leadership team passionate and
on board was our biggest failure. As a consequence, they demarcated their functional
agendas from the big change agenda, which meant too many people found it hard to
get involved.
Many interviewees spoke specifically about the importance of involving middle
management. An internal consultant servicing a number of clients in Europe
told the story of middle management being effectively disempowered by a topdown approach to change:
Up until that point, we had a real change of mood. Middle management was very
committed – ‘we can do it!’ Then they brought in the consultants. The consultants
were all dynamic and strong and they overrode the middle-management layer. I went
there every four weeks and each time I visited I saw ownership being progressively
given up and people becoming demotivated. The consultants introduced all their
models and practices with good intentions, but they disengaged people. These
were people who’d started to own their own destiny. Step by step, they got
pushed back into minor roles, delivering data and doing what they were told.
Interviewees described different forms of power. For example, power through (i)
knowledge, (ii) customer relationships and (iii) internal relationships:
Leading change 245
(i) We decided to replace the legacy system with an outsourced system, piggybacking a competitor system, but there was a lot of resistance to even broaching the idea. The legacy system experts picked on functionality that could not
be replicated and held it up as deal-breakers, or they did not come to meetings, or they bad-mouthed the executive and the competitor’s system. But we
needed them until post-migration. So we offered them money to stay even
though their behaviour was poor. They had power.
(ii) The new office was to be open plan without exception. Lots of people
actively fought to retain their offices and we had to ask the CEO to ring
people up to tell them they were not going to get an office. All except the
Funds Managers. They were key, even more important than the CEO. We
had to compromise with them. We lost that battle.
(iii) When I went to the global head office I did not read it well. My predecessor
was not strong and his 2IC (second-in-command), now my 2IC, had taken
over. The 2IC was not interested in changing the way we worked; he was
just interested in maintaining his relationship with the Vice President, and
the Vice President did not want to piss off the 2IC because he was giving
him what he wanted. It took me a while to realize the 2IC had no interest
in my success and no interest in supporting the change. I found myself
unable to do the job I had been brought in to do. I learned that you have
got to make sure you know how everyone is linked to the stakeholders,
and that you understand the lines of authority and how they work.
After much consideration this category ended up being called ‘power and politics’
rather than just ‘power’ because interviewees often contexted narratives on power
by describing the scenario as ‘political’. The word politics is therefore being used
in this context to describe the exercising of different forms of power in an
organization.
The Emerging Change Model
From these concepts and categories emerged the over-arching core category or
theory, namely the ‘ECM’ depicted in Figure 3. The model depicts the relationship
between the different categories. Dialogue sits at the heart of the change process
since it appears that change generally emerges from dialogue. This might be intentional dialogue initiated in service of change, or it might be unplanned dialogue
from which change emerges anyway. Dialogue is the process through which
people collectively make sense of events, or action, that take place in the environment on an ongoing basis. Multiple perspectives form both an input to and
outcome of dialogue, as does purpose, such that the relationship between dialogue
and these other aspects of the model is best shown as two-way. An analysis of the
stories suggests that whilst facilitating a collective understanding of multiple perspectives makes it easier to align an organization around a common purpose, it is
not always sufficient. People have different experiences, values and beliefs that all
influence the narratives that underpin individual and collective identities. Identity
may be best thought of not as a hurdle to change, but again as both an input to and
outcome of dialogue. Dialogue takes place all over an organization, all the time,
246
P. Lawrence
Figure 3. The emerging change model.
against a backdrop of power and politics. The nature of emergent change is a consequence of the interplay between patterns of dialogue and power.
The model thus posits dialogue at the heart of change. However, not every interviewee thought to focus on reflective dialogue was sufficient. For example, this
interviewee worked on the senior executive team of one of the world’s five
biggest companies:
Some people say all that matters is the conversation. It’s not. It’s also about power
and influence.
Interviewees talked about the thought processes they went through in determining
who they sought to engage in dialogue, when, and how. Similarly, interviewees
spoke about interventions other than dialogue and the importance of adopting a systemic perspective to help them decide when to act, for example, in bringing new
people into the organization, or exiting existing employees. This systemic perspective is not incorporated into the model itself. Rather, the model may be referred to as
part of a broader reflective process. In this context, the word ‘systemic’ is being used
loosely, as it was by those interviewees who used it, to mean consciously seeking to
consider events from a more holistic big picture vantage point.
Planning
Notably absent from most stories was any explicit mention of planning. Whilst
many of the stories referred to complex undertakings across a number of different
functions or markets, planning was explicitly mentioned by only two of the people
Leading change 247
interviewed. Otherwise, it seemed to be assumed that some kind of planning process
was being undertaken. Similarly, almost no one mentioned a specific change model.
These omissions reflect the general absence of top-down accounts of change in
which a senior leader set out to impose a change upon an organization. There
was one notable exception, which will be recounted now in detail. One of the
people interviewed was asked to transform the functioning of an entire organization
and to do so quickly. The organization in question had been found by external regulators to have behaved improperly and been issued a large fine. The regulators
obliged the organization to undergo an independent audit and insisted that the findings of that report be implemented else face the prospect of being closed down. The
interviewee’s role was to ensure that report findings were implemented. He spoke
about establishing a project management office and basing his approach on the
Kotter model of change (Kotter, 1995). He met with the CEO on a regular basis
as part of the process and made requests of him when appropriate, all of which
were responded to. He described the outcome as a success, in that the findings of
the report were implemented, the regulator was satisfied, and the business was
not closed down. On the other hand, he also spoke about a high number of people
leaving the business, dissatisfied with the new culture, and a significant deterioration in financial performance. For this leader, the most significant aspects of
ensuring the change process was implemented successfully were the support of
the CEO, sticking to the plan, clear and easy-to-understand outward communications and his own perseverance and resilience.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore what change leaders actually do in the
context of an academic narrative comparing and contrasting traditional rationalist
approaches to change with more recent emergent schools of thought. A closer consideration of the data suggests that aspects of both are reflected in the way leaders
approach change. Furthermore, an argument will be presented here challenging
the notion that rationalist and emergent approaches to change are most usefully
framed as being qualitatively different.
Emergent Change
Whilst the importance of clearly articulating a message outwards was emphasized
by participants, the difference between monologue and dialogue (Jabri et al.,
2008) was widely understood and communication was often framed as a social
meaning-making process (Salem, 2008). The abilities of the change leader to
understand others’ perspectives, to tailor the message to the audience and to
assess issues in a non-judgemental fashion were widely recognized (Buchanan
& Badham, 2008; Charles & Dawson, 2011; Salem, 2008). In recounting stories
of ‘resistance to change’, most interviewees framed this as a perfectly normal
response, recognizing the need to create time and space for people to engage
with change on their own terms, and acknowledging their own role in seeking
to understand how others related to change. Many interviewees made direct or
indirect references to identity, and ‘resistance to change’ was framed less as an
248
P. Lawrence
obstacle and more as a call to dialogue (Beech et al., 2011; Caldwell, 2013; van
Dijk & van Dick, 2009; Ford, Ford, & Amelio, 2008; Johansson & Heide,
2008; Thomas & Hardy, 2011). There was a general and explicit acknowledgement that top-down linear approaches to change were usually ineffective. Nevertheless, some aspects of the rationalist/linear approach were present.
Rationalist Change
There was one very clear example of a leader who adopted a linear programmatic
approach to wide-scale change. The purpose for change was established without
the input of employees and the scope was non-negotiable. Communication was
largely monologic, dissenters were told to get in line or leave the organization
and examples were made of people who behaved outside the new norms. Although
many people did leave the organization and financial performance suffered, the
storyteller described the intervention as successful. In a similar vein, Higgs and
Rowland (2011) described three categories of leadership behaviour: shaping,
framing change and creating capacity. Framing change and creating capacity
were positioned as enabling behaviours, whereas shaping was described as a
leader-centric approach in which the leader plays the role of ‘mover and
shaker’, sets the pace for others to follow, and expects others to do what they
do. They found that framing and capacity behaviours were most effective in
effecting change, but also unearthed examples of success being achieved by
means of a ‘notable degree’ of shaping behaviour, a finding they flagged as
being worthy of further exploration. These findings present us with something
of a dilemma. Our initial response may be to think to construct some sort of contingency theory, but Stacey (2012) suggests that since this would require some
form of diagnosis, this in itself would be to adopt a traditionalist approach to
change and to ignore some of the tenets of complexity theory. There may,
however, be another way of reconciling the data for which the ECM may play a
useful role, particularly in its consideration of power.
Power
With its positioning of dialogue at the heart of change and its emphasis on sensemaking and identity, the ECM appears consistent with many narratives on the
nature of emergent change. However, the model also frames the importance of
power, a variable missing from some accounts of emergent change (Grant &
Marshak, 2011; Marshak & Grant, 2008; Thomas & Hardy, 2011; Werkman,
2010). Power shows up clearly, implicitly or explicitly, in most traditional
change models. The Kotter (1995) model, for example, is implicitly top-down.
Change, says Kotter, ‘ . . . always demands leadership. Phase one . . . typically
goes nowhere until enough real leaders are promoted or hired into senior level
jobs’. Power shows up less explicitly in many emergent accounts of change.
The emphasis instead is often on the limitations of disciplinary power, and what
happens in the ‘shadow system’ regardless of the intentions of senior leadership
(Shaw, 1997; Stacey, 1996).
Leading change 249
Power showed up consistently in this study. For example, it showed up in the narrative around dialogue and the leader articulating the purpose of the organization,
and the identity of the leader as being confident, courageous and authentic. The dialogic process, as described by the leaders in this study, takes place against a backdrop of power and the expression of that power, labelled here as ‘politics’.
Consistent with a traditional approach to change, some of the interviewees in this
study appeared to place a primary emphasis on positional power. Whilst recognizing that positional power is often insufficient, the narrative remained essentially
top-down, in that what was perceived to be missing was the enrolment of the
next-level down (e.g. the senior executive team) and the level below that (e.g.
‘middle-management’). Whilst this is consistent with findings elsewhere that
local management has a key role to play in effecting change (Conway & Monks,
2011; Judge & Douglas, 2009; Raelin & Cataldo, 2011; Salem, 2008), it nevertheless appears to reflect a hierarchical model for change in which positional power is
privileged. Other interviewees spoke about different forms of power, for example,
relational power and expert power. This hints at a dynamic perspective in which the
power of the individual is framed as an aspect of identity, socially constructed
through meaning making (Werkman, 2010). Grant and Marshak (2011) refer to
the work of Hardy and Phillips (2004) who suggested that discourse both shapes
and is shaped by power. This perspective enables us to see clearly that whilst sensemaking is a social process, it is not a purely democratic process; power determines
the extent to which people are able to influence the dialogic process, and meanings
do not merely emerge, but may be negotiated. To add another layer to the way this
aspect of change may be perceived, Thomas and Hardy (2011) challenge the idea
that power is some kind of static resource. Instead, they say, ‘power circulates
through complex webs of possible actions in which all actors are located’.
Integrating Rationalist and Emergent Approaches to Change
This depiction of power allows us to consider how useful or otherwise it may be to
think of rationalist and emergent approaches to change as being distinct and separate. Relevant here also is the idea, espoused earlier in this article, that all visions
are co-created. When change leaders choose not to engage others in the organization to co-create a purpose or vision, this does not mean that they have come up
with the vision by themselves. The idea and the conviction come from engaging in
dialogue with others, colleagues from previous organizations, mentors, academics
etc. . . . The ECM implies that effective leaders consciously choose who to engage
in dialogue taking into account power dynamics. A key component of the
‘traditional/rationalist’ story told in this study was the extent to which the storyteller depended on the support of the CEO and CFO. At the same time, he
spoke about feeling uneasy at times, to the extent of travelling to the USA to
seek assurance from a business school professor as to how likely it was that he
would succeed. He spoke about the importance of perseverance and resilience.
Dialogue shows up in his story, but the dialogue is between him and his
manager, and him and people outside the organization. He appeared to make a
deliberate choice not to engage the majority of employees in that dialogue
because he had already formed a clear purpose as determined by the regulator,
250
P. Lawrence
and because he judged that he could ultimately be successful without engaging in
dialogue with the broader organization.
The ECM
This discussion may serve to frame the potential value of the ECM. When asked to
recount the story of a successful change intervention, many said that they felt
unable to demonstrate that the change intervention they were to describe was ‘successful’ in an objective sense. Indeed, many spoke about how different players in
the scenario they described applied different criteria as to what constituted success
or failure. Therefore, it cannot be said that use of the model will make it more
likely that a change practitioner will be ‘successful’. Nor should the model be
compared and contrasted necessarily to a traditional, linear, change model. The
model’s value may lie instead in its use as a reflective device and as such it
may be used alongside traditional change models, not instead of.
The ECM includes reflection as a subcategory beneath the category called dialogue. In this context, reflection is reflection-on-action and in-the-moment while
engaging in dialogue with others. This dialogic process, including reflection,
may be conceptualized differently. Rather than thinking of dialogue as a specific
event, one might frame dialogue as a single process taking place over a period of
time between multiple people at different times. The ECM may be then used to
reflect at a meta-level on the context in which the change leader is operating and
how change is unfolding in service of deciding what action to take next. It is in
this sense that the ECM may be used in conjunction with traditional change
models. To suggest that the prescriptive use of traditional change models is unlikely
to lead to effective outcomes is not to say that such models may not be useful when
used with a mindset that acknowledges the complexity of the environment and the
impossibility of being able to predict what will happen at every stage of the journey.
In a complex environment, different models may prove to be useful in different situations at different times. Van de Ven and Sun (2011) define reflection in these terms,
as an ongoing questioning of one’s mental models based on the results of actions.
The ECM may be best used as such a tool, directing the practitioner’s attention
to aspects of change that may be relevant, for example, patterns of dialogue
taking place across the organization, aspects of identity and the dynamics of
power. Ultimately, the extent to which such reflections lead to change being
implemented more effectively will remain impossible to quantify and practitioners
are bound to make their own judgements (Stacey, 2012).
Conclusion
To ask ourselves what approach to change is most effective, rationalist or emergent, may not be a useful question. This is a line of enq…