Perspectives on Organisational Change - Essay Example

Section/# Four Perspectives of Organisation Within the text, Organisation Change: Themes and Issues by Jim Grieves, the reader is introduced to a plethora of change concepts and the inner workings of how an organisation functions; as well as postulated theories associated with organisational actions. Most prominent among these are what is known as the Four Perspectives of Organisational Change. These four perspectives represent a historical and evolutionary view of management and organisation that begins with structural/functionalism, continues to multiple constituencies, gives rise organisational development, and finally ends with creativity and volition. This is not to say that one theory has been replaced by another as time marches on; instead, each theory is a distinct result of the environment in which it was fabricated as well as the lessons and distinctions gleaned from the strengths and shortcomings of proceeding perspectives. This essay will attempt to briefly analyze each of the Four Perspective of Organisational Change, weigh them, classify them as to their specific strengths and weaknesses, provide the reader with an understanding of which of the Four Perspectives of Organisational Change is most aptly suited for use by management currently, and further explore the themes and implied meanings that constitute these four perspectives. Structural/Functional Perspective: Firstly, the structural/functional perspective grew from the age of industrialism. This was a time of modernism where defined inputs equalled to defined outputs. The total was the sum of the parts. Cause was based on effect; measurement was a rigid and mathematical science that was believed could properly define every level of an organisation. During this period of modernism, the ideas of people such as Henry Ford and others helped to further regiment the organisation and labour processes that helped to define them. As Grieves states, “(Functionalism) was able to look at an organisation as a control mechanism: that is to say, to understand the important structural components and to articulate the functional interrelationships between he parts...because it is a model for controlling operations, this model is therefore mechanistic. It tends to ignore the motivations, behaviours, attitudes, and values that contribute to effective performance” (Grieves, 2010). As such, this approach, born out of rationalism, defined the unit as a sum of its component parts. This extremely scientific and methodical approach tended to miss the mark with regards to who and what actually made up the backbone of an organisation. Such thinking is doubtless one of the causal factors that made institutions such as the League of Nations such short-lived experiments. Doubtless, there is a distinct need for exactness and measurability when analyzing the inner workings of industry. This is not to say that there is no place for such regimentation and cold precision; however, this type of analysis is dangerous in that it does not take into account the human factor at any level whatsoever. At its core, any organisation, any unit, any work group is comprised of people; as such, it only stands to reason that by completely ignoring the effects that the individual will have on any process or change dynamic, one is in danger of oversimplifying the organisation as a sum of its mechanistic parts (Kotter, 2012). As such, sole use of the functional/structural perspective will likely lead to an oversimplification of the organisation and will result in faulty and/or incomplete information being relayed back to the management. Indeed, the text states the following concerning the functional/structural perspective: “Structural theory assumes that organisations are amenable to change – because organisations are rational and should seek to better themselves and achieve their objectives” (Grieves, 2010). Due to the very nature of change, the known effects of culture, the very real threat of resistance to change within an organisation, it is easy to dismiss the structural/functional approach as supremely lacking with regards to grasping the gravity of the organisation as a whole and complete entity. Because of the uneven nature of this perspective, the following perspective hoped to further define the nuances of an organisation and how it acted within the context of changes through governance. It is without question that regardless of the scope, speed, or charismatic nature of management, culture is one of the final determinant as to whether or not change will be effected. This is especially insightful as it shows the distinct similarities and differences between monolithic and revolutionary changes. Regardless of the mechanism, an inability of management to transmit the necessity for change or the dismissal of habitualized/harmful actions within the culture, the change will not take place (Trevino, 2004). Multiple Constituencies Perspective: Management theoreticians soon realized that there were major concerns and drawbacks with relation to the structural/functional approach to organisation. As a result, the multiple constituencies perspective was proffered as a way to help explain the shortcomings of organisational theory that structural/functional perspective held. In this particular perspective it was realized that the sum of the parts did not always necessarily help to adequately define how the organisation would behave with respect to a particular matter. Instead, this particular perspective proffers that the motivations/needs/wants of key stakeholders within the organisation were the most important factors in defining the organisation. This perspective is an evolutionary step from functionalism discussed earlier as it realizes that the wants (sometimes selfish in nature) and needs of key stakeholders will likely influence the decision making process and define an organisation more so than the altruistic view that organisations automatically realize that they should change and work towards that goal – as functionalism states. As the text states, “This view effectively reduces organisation change to consensual negotiation between pluralities of groups” (Grieves, 2010). Although not entirely untrue, the perspective also misses the dynamic that the individual within the organisation at every level will necessarily have. One strength of this perspective is the cold realism with which it handles the way in which complex organisations make decisions. Although the other perspectives put forward idealistic approaches that claim the decisions are made in the best interests of the organisation, or the decisions are the result of groups, this particular perspective dismisses this wide eyed optimism and states the painful truth that organisation’s actions are often determined by the choices and actions of a few ultra powerful self-interested individuals within the organisation who seek to gratify selfish needs (Johnson, 1993). One marked weakness of this perspective is that it tends to confuse the goals of the organisation with the goals, perspective, and individual biases of powerful individuals in control of key aspects of the organisation (Collinson,1994). This over implication leads to an incomplete and untrue categorization of an organisation and organisational change. Although the biases and needs/wants of key shareholders is likely to mold the decision making process, all key actors do not act in unison or voice the same key desires or wants. As such, there is a cacophony of competing needs and wants from key shareholders that will doubtless end in non-action and stagnation for the firm. Additionally, such emphasis is placed on the key power players in an organisation and their needs and wants, the workers and middle management is all but ignored. A further weakness of this perspective is its marked avoidance of the fact that the best way to minimize resistance to change is to work to minimize cultural selfishness. People are slow to adopt changes if they believe they will lose something of value as a result of the change. Instead, it is necessary to focus on the increased profitability/efficiency that the company will gain by such changes and in so doing encourage employees to give of their own comfort in order to achieve this mutually beneficial goal. Rather, this perspective champions self interested action at the highest level as a way of explaining how organisations behave and what shapes their change mechanisms as well as their own culture. In a professional environment where employees see that management/leadership does not subscribe to the same cultural norms that they are attempting to foster within the ranks, the company wide culture will suffer from a breach of trust (Meyerson, 1987). As such, any future changes that need to be transmitted from upper management organisation-wide will be likely to fail as the lower echelons will feel any compulsion to follow the dictates of a hypocritical leadership. In order to have norms adopted by the group, leadership must subscribe to and practice them as well as incentivize and offer a reward structure for the adoption of these norms. Likewise, the importance of middle and lower management is arguably more important to the definition of organisational culture than this perspective realizes. A cursory study of organisation and change within an organisation reveals that these middle players are every bit as integral in effecting change as dictums from upper management. Without buy in and shareholder concurrence with any organisational manipulations, there is a great likelihood the culture will not be affected and the change will not be enacted. Although it is doubtless true that key shareholders abuse their positions in order to serve their own unique interests and the interests of certain segments of an organisation, it is also true that in so doing, they are operating a zero sum game in that there are only a few iterations of this that can take place before all cooperation within the organisation is effectively killed. Organisational Development: The largest evolutionary step within these Four Perspectives is seen between the Multiple Constituencies Perspective and Organisational Development Perspective. As the text states, “For the first time we begin to see people as resources to be developed rather than as simply cost on a balance sheet” (Grieves, 2010). This is an extremely important step as the previously ignored importance of individuals within the organisation is at last recognized. However, this is not to say that the Organisational Development Perspective abandons all of the elements of the prior perspectives. In fact, it can be seen as a further develops the perspectives put forth by both functionalism as well as those championed and put forward by the multiple constituencies perspective. As with the prior perspectives, organisational development was greatly influenced by the emphasis on personal and group development that was gaining traction during the 1960’s. This occurred as those that had previously championed functionalism determined that there was indeed a definitive limit as to what their theory could explain. Additionally, it was determined that sociological as well as psychological factors intimately affected performance and change dynamics as well. As can be seen, this type of perspective provides a well rounded view of the organisation and draws upon the most integral building block of any organisation (the individual) to explain the actions and motivations that are likely to occur. As such, the overall strength of this perspective lies in its understanding that regardless of the type of industry or organisation in question, the individual is the key to explaining how change will be effected, to what degree it will be successful, and how the organisation itself will evolve over time. Although a simple explanation, this perspective had to wait through nearly fifty years of management and organisational development theory to come to prominence. As will be seen later in this analysis, it is the belief of this author that this particular viewpoint is the most sound with regards to the theories presented. With respect to the weaknesses of this particular perspective, it is difficult to speak to any innate shortcomings of this perspective as it so adequately deals with how organisations behave and the causal factors and motivations that drive groups of people. However, if one were forced to list a weakness of the theory it would merely be that it focuses on people and the sociological and psychological impacts that are inferred so much so that it forgets to place adequate emphasis on procedures and tasks (Burrell, 1979). As the text states, “Maximum efficiency and effectiveness cannot be achieved by dealing with tasks, procedures, and customer’s or client’s needs without looking at the quality of management, leadership, communications, culture, motivation and values” (Grieves, 2010). As such, tasks and procedures do have their place within the organisation and it could be argued that they cannot be ignored at all times whilst focusing on the individual and how groups react within a given construct. Creativity and Volition: Critical Theory of Change: The final perspective that this analysis will weigh is the Creativity and Volition Perspective. This perspective is unique among the others as it does not necessarily seek to offer solutions to change problems. Instead, it attempts to go further than any of the other aforementioned perspectives in demonstrating that people, not systems, are the integral component of the organisation. The strength in this perspective is the obvious truth that without people there would exist no system in the first place. This fact was lost upon the functionalists as they avoided the issue and focused instead upon measurable with which they felt comfortable. Indeed, functionalism was a way in which to comfortably define the world in terms of absolutes; whereas Creativity and Volition defines a world in which no absolutes exist – other than the defining principle that people account for organisations and organisational change. Furthermore, the strategy chides prior knowledge with relation to change as it relates to organisational theory. The text states, “If change ignores conflict, stability and uncertainty, then intervention strategies will have limited and often unintended effect” (Grieves, 2010). This perspective further emphasizes the power that cultural institutions within the organisation can have. This realization is a powerful one. Whereas previous theories have focused on the measurability of an organisation, the key players within an organisation, and the people within the organisation, no perspective as yet has dealt with the cultures (as constructs built around groups and individual dynamics within an organisation) and the extent to which they can affect and mold the direction and scope of an organisation. With respect to the greatest strength of this perspective, it is the view of this author that its emphasis on the individual – coupled with the emphasis on culture is a point of view that had yet to be heard within organisational theory. Building upon the strength of the Organisational Development Perspective, the Creativity and Volition Perspective factors in the effect of culture and the individual all at the same time. It is without question that culture plays a supreme and powerful role within any organisation; determining whether it can adapt and evolve or whether it will remain rigidly mired in the past and unwillingness to change. If one were to chose a weakness of this perspective, it would likely be the fact that the perspective appears to be motivated not by a desire to seek a solution or change problems, as noted in the text, but rather born out of a supreme dislike for and desire to counter-balance the warped and misguided tendencies and theories put forward by the functional/structuralist perspective. Though useful in its position, the perspective itself would be better served by a clear and concise methodology that attempted to offer concrete resolution and solutions to organisational theory. Opinion: The Best Perspective of the Four – Organisational Development It is the strong opinion of this analysis that the Organisational Development Perspective is the most logically sound of the Four Perspectives mentioned in this essay. There are several reasons for this. The first of which is the abstinence of absolutes used within this theory. The two previous theories rested the heart of their argument on the creation of absolutes that all too easily fell apart when greeted with the fluid environment of real world application. Structuralism has definite limitations when applied to living breathing humans that do not always act rationally or in the best interest of a given organisation. Likewise, multiple constituencies perspective falls short in explaining the roles and directions that an organisation is likely to take apart from the self interested actions of a few elite at near the top of the organisational chart. Lastly, creativity and volition falls short of offering concrete and applicable changes that could work to affect a positive difference in an organisation (as the previous perspectives mentioned). Organisational Development avoids the absolutism that the other perspectives championed and in so doing gives a more realistic approach in explaining the behavior and development that is exhibited within an organisation. Bibliography Burrell, G, 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. 1st ed. London: Ashgate Publishing. Collinson, D. and Hearn, J. 1994. “Naming Men as Men: Implications for Work, Organisation and Management”. Gender, Work & Organisation, 1: 2–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.1994.tb00002.x Grieves, Jim. 2010. Organisational Change: Themes and Issues. Edition1. Oxford University Press. Johnson, Phil. 1993. Management Control and Organisational Behaviour. Edition. Sage Publications Ltd. Kotter, J. “Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail”. Harvard Business Review . 2012. [ONLINE] Available at: http://hbr.org/2007/01/leading-change-why-transformation-efforts-fail/ar/1. [Accessed 08 August 2012]. Meyerson, D, & Martin, J 1987, 'Cultural Change: Integration of Three Different Views’, Journal Of Management Studies, 24, 6, pp. 623-647, Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost, [Accessed 14 August 2012]. Trevino, K. Brown, M. “Managing to be Ethical: Debunking Five Business Ethics Myths”. Academy of Management Executive, 18, 4 pp. 69-82 2004. [ONLINE] Available at: http://home.sandiego.edu/~pavett/docs/gsba532/mging_ethic_debunk.pdf. [Accessed 14 August 2012]. Read More