Engineering a paradigm shift?

JOCM13,2

104

Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement, Vol. 13 No. 2, 2000,pp. 104-120. # MCB UniversityPress, 0953-4814

Engineering a paradigm shift?An holistic approach to organisational

change managementGillian Ragsdell

University of Paisley, Paisley, UK

Keywords Management, Engineers, Organizational change, Metaphors

Abstract Brings together some of the empirical findings from a series of action researchprojects undertaken in a number of engineering companies. Systems concepts were employed withengineers to assist organisational change. The key driver for each programme of change was theimplementation of a new company-wide strategy for increasing competitive edge in the openmarket. In each instance, senior management recognised that, while their engineers possessed the`̀ hard'', technical skills to fulfil such a strategy, they did not all possess the `̀ soft'', people-relatedskills to cope with the cultural aspects of the change. Systems concepts, such as rich pictures andmetaphors, were used to generate new perspectives that would stimulate a more holistic approachto organisational change management.

IntroductionThis paper is based on experience gained by the author during interventionswith different engineering organisations over a period of three years. Generalcommon themes are drawn out in order to retain confidentiality of individualcompanies. In each instance, the author's remit was to:

(1) stimulate creative thinking processes amongst engineers (working incohorts of about ten engineers); and

(2) support a culture change amongst engineers as part of a widerprogramme of change that was embracing them.

The approach taken to the first objective has been discussed elsewhere byemphasising some of the design considerations of the creative workshops thatwere run with one particular organisation (Ragsdell, 1998). Hence, the focus ofthis paper is on the second objective. Specifically, this paper shares someinsights into the practical value of using two selected systems concepts forinitiating a paradigm shift from a scientific stance to one that more openlyrecognised `̀ people issues''.

BackgroundOrganisational change may be seen differently by each organisational member.For some people, change in their organisation might present the prospect offacing new challenges, of gaining promotion and of furthering their career. Forothers, it might present a reduction in responsibility, a loss of status or even anenforced career break. Whatever the perception of organisational change, itmeans entering new territory and `̀ playing the game by new rules''. A

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available athttp://www.emerald-library.com

Engineering aparadigm shift?

105

paradigm shift is called for and, whether it is welcomed or resisted, theparadigm shift needs to be managed. Barker (1993, pp. 198-9) recognises that`̀ our perceptions of the world are strongly influenced by paradigms'' but goeson to suggest that, from his observations, `̀ it is the outsider who usually createsthe new paradigm''. An approach that attempted to acknowledge and, moreimportantly, work with the engineers' different perceptions of organisationalchange forms the basis of this paper. Further, by employing a number ofsystems concepts, creation of a new paradigm that was commensurable withthe external triggers for change was undertaken by the engineers rather thancreated for them; that is, the `̀ insiders'', rather than the `̀ outsiders'', would createthe new paradigm. As a result of this empowering approach, some of theanticipated resistance to change either did not emerge or was challenged earlyin the change process before it had chance to become an insurmountableobstacle.

The intention of any organisational change, one would expect, is to move theorganisation from its current state to a more desirable, improved state ± there isa `̀ before'' and an `̀ after'' state. Especially in busy, task-oriented organisations itcan be tempting to focus on the `̀ after'' and to neglect the `̀ before'', and the valueof reflecting on questions such as `̀ What sort of organisation are we?'' and`̀ What are we doing?'' may be overlooked. However, it can be insightful toexplore the underpinning philosophy of the current state and to surface theorganisation's raison d'eÃtre before embarking on a change process; anyinherent assumptions that could inhibit the change process may then beaffirmed or denied. In this instance, `̀ rich pictures'' (Checkland, 1981; Checklandand Scholes, 1990) were used to explore the `̀ before'' scenario and `̀ metaphors''(Morgan, 1986; 1993)[1] were used to envisage the `̀ after''. Together thesesystems concepts, rich pictures and metaphors, formed a process of explorationthrough which groups of engineers could articulate their view of the currentorganisational situation, and go on to visualise their desired future. While thispaper does not extend beyond the creation of their new vision, in reality theengineers went on to formulate a detailed action plan using Ackoff's (1974;1978) `̀ idealised design'' process, with which they could journey from `̀ wherethey were'' to `̀ where they wanted to be''. In addition, the `̀ six thinking hats'' ofde Bono (1992) were used to revisit and review the plan in order to sustain thechange process.

The paper begins by identifying, in general, what constitutes a `̀ systemsconcept'' and then converges to the chosen pair. For rich pictures and formetaphors, an outline description is given. Next, there is an illustration of theiruse and, finally, some reflections on the practical contribution of the concept toorganisational change management are shared. Aspects such as its userfriendliness, any shift in thinking that it brought and its future employability inthe workplace are discussed. While some of the reflections are based onpersonal observations and experiences as the facilitator, other sources ofinformation such as formal evaluation sheets, review sessions and informal

JOCM13,2

106

discussions were also sought. The paper closes with a summary of the potentialcontribution of systems concepts in supporting a paradigm shift so oftennecessary in organisational change.

So, having introduced the context of the paper and outlined its structure, wecontinue by creating an awareness of the extensive selection of systemsconcepts that could be used to aid organisational change management.

Systems conceptsFor the practising manager, there is a plethora of systems tools from which tochoose. One way of organising such a wide range is to think of them in ahierarchical fashion as shown below. Not only does the hierarchy give anindication of the relative number of members at each level, but it alsohighlights the interdependency of one level with another. This latter notion isdrawn out (see Figure 1) as a route of progression to the summit of thehierarchy is suggested and as the level of concern of this paper is emphasised.

A newcomer to systems thinking would be wise to first become familiar withsystems concepts from the lowest level. This level provides an entry point forgaining confidence in articulating thoughts on chosen systems by offering awide variety of terms, diagrams and models that are useful for exploring,representing and communicating information about systems.

Taking a couple of examples with respect to terminology, one might starttalking about a system's `̀ boundary'' as a way of distinguishing the systemfrom its `̀ environment''. Reference might be made to components that are`̀ inside the boundary'' or `̀ outside'' of it. Equally, you may comment on the typeof `̀ feedback'' that is experienced from the `̀ output'' of a system to its `̀ input''.There might be `̀ negative'', or a regulating form of feedback, as in the case of acentral heating system that aims to maintain a particular temperature despitefluctuations in its wider environment. Alternatively, a system may showevidence of `̀ positive'' feedback, or a reinforcing form of feedback, such as is

META - METHODOLOGIES

e.g. Total Systems Intervention

SYSTEMS METHODOLOGIES

e.g. Interactive Planning

METHODOLOGY COMPONENTS

e.g. Rich Picture, Dialectic Debate

TERMS

e.g. Boundary

DIAGRAMS

e.g. Systems Map

MODELS

e.g. Queuing Model

4

3

2

1Figure 1.Hierarchy of systemstools


107

experienced on a savings account where a deposit accumulates interest. Termssuch as these can open up discussions that bring new understanding ofsituations and afford a language through which it can be shared.

As well as the introduction to a new vocabulary, a newcomer will benefitfrom becoming familiar with diagramming techniques. Developing and usingdiagrams such as systems maps, influence diagrams and sign graphs canbring clarity of situations and afford another medium for prompting dialogue.The art of diagramming enables the transformation of confused thoughtsin our mind to two-dimensional images that can capture the interconnectednessof issues and, additionally, express a situation in a clear, aestheticallypleasing format. The old adage of `̀ a picture says a thousand words'' speaksvolumes.

In a similar way, using systems models (be they computer-based orotherwise) to represent, in particular, quantitative aspects of a situation can beinformative and offer another avenue of exploration. Models can offer thepossibility of testing the `̀ what if?'' scenario without incurring the risks andsome of the constraints of the real world. So, for example, if we had a model thatrepresented the queuing behaviour of patients in our local hospital, we mighttry increasing the number of doctors, nurses or beds in the model and see whatcombination reduced the queuing time for patients to a minimum. However, thenecessity of then translating the findings from the model back into the realworld should not be forgotten!

Each systems term, diagram and model is put forward as an example of afundamental systems concept. As more of these low level concepts are used inpractice, the more holistic the analysis or exploration will become. Once theseconcepts have been mastered, the systems thinker is able to progress up thehierarchy.

At the next level up, the systems concepts are slightly more advanced andimplicitly rely on an understanding of the more fundamental ones. Each one ofthese concepts could be used in isolation to generate an holistic process.However, even though concepts such as rich pictures and dialectic debate canbe used as discrete components, their greatest benefit is gained from their rolein the parent methodology (Checkland's soft systems methodology (SSM) forthe former and Mason and Mitroff's strategic assumption surfacing and testing(SAST) for the latter)[2] or as a part of a hybrid methodology[3]. The two levelsthat have just been mentioned are the levels from which are drawn the selectionof systems concepts.

Once an individual is competent in the use of the basic systems concepts, itis time to start bringing the notions together. This can be achieved through anintroduction to systems methodologies. In short, in the context oforganisational change management, a methodology would tend to be a processthat guided participants in improving a perceived problem situation.Methodologies not only promote appropriate activity and action (what to do)but also promote thinking around how to proceed, thus demonstrating a morein-depth and less prescriptive approach than methods encourage. The third

JOCM13,2

108

layer of the hierarchical arrangement comprises systems methodologies suchas SSM (Checkland, 1981) and critical systems heuristics (Ulrich, 1983). Thesesystems methodologies, along with the many others that have been developed,have their own unique flavour and may call for different skills and traits fromtheir users. However, it can certainly be said that members of this level tend toencompass a process of intervention that is implicitly or explicitly underpinnedby the concepts in the lower two levels.

In turn, the highest level embraces the three lower levels which could includeframeworks such as Flood and Jackson's (1991) and Flood's (1995) versions oftotal systems intervention (TSI). Without going into detail, such meta-methodologies strive to bring the philosophy of a critical approach to systemsthinking into the practical arena. In turn, TSI can be useful in guiding thepractice of systems methodologies such that there is an appropriate `̀ match''between the situation in which you are intervening and the methodologies thatyou employ. This is in preference to a non-critical stance in which there is adanger that methodologies will be used from an uninformed and unreflectivestance.

So, having indicated the breadth of the systemic manager's tools and sharedsome thoughts on the place of systems concepts in the author's hierarchy ofsystems tools, we now move to the first systems concept that was employed,that of the rich picture.

Rich picturesRich pictures were used with small groups of engineers to address the questionof `̀ Where are we now?'' It was not taken for granted that every engineer held acommon understanding of their current situation with his/her colleagues. Asthis section shows, the employment of rich pictures drew out variousinterpretations of the organisation at the start of the change programme andproved to be a useful tool for increasing cohesion between the participatingengineers. However, first there will be a brief introduction to rich pictures bothas a component of SSM and as a stand-alone systems concept.

DescriptionWhile the engineers used rich pictures outside of its parent methodology, theydo actually form part of the early stages of Checkland's (1981) SSM process ofinquiry. SSM can be an effective approach for tackling ill-defined situationswhere one cannot define `̀ the problem'' but suspects that all is not as good as itcould be and that things could be improved. SSM users are keen to learn aboutthe problem situation and are committed to gathering as much quantitative andqualitative information as possible in the first instance. Formal and informalmeans can be used in this process ± interviewing, observing, collecting minutesof meetings, sending out questionnaires and engaging in casual conversationscould all play a role. The information is then expressed in a `̀ cartoon-likeexpression'' ± that is, in a `̀ rich picture'' ± wherein a certain amount of poeticlicence is allowed. An holistic view is captured as aspects of structure, process


109

and climate are represented. The methodology then proceeds through five otherstages that guide a cycle of learning. Ultimately, suggestions for improvementthat are culturally feasible and desirable to the participants will emerge.

As with any type of diagramming, developing rich pictures is a craft ratherthan a science. As might be expected, different interventionists have beenrecorded as adopting slightly different approaches to rich picturing. Indeed,Bronte-Stewart (1999) has provided a useful summary of some of the differentstances that have been taken. While some users are fairly prescriptive aboutthe format that a rich picture should take, others advocate a much more fluidstyle. The approach taken within this case study was, by comparison, quitegeneric as will now be described [4].

Use of rich picturesEach time a rich picture was drawn by a group of engineers, guidance wassought from the principles of the parent methodology of SSM. In particular, theprinciples of participation and learning were made apparent in the practicalarena[5], as is demonstrated in Figure 2.

The example-rich picture chosen for inclusion originated from a group ofengineers that came from different functional areas and from different layers oftheir rigid hierarchical organisation. Much debate went on in the group before itwas realised that, despite their differences in context and authority, similarwork dilemmas were being experienced. The current situation was seen as onein which engineers were being expected to cope with an ever-increasing number

Figure 2.Example of a rich

picture

JOCM13,2

110

of `̀ initiatives'' that senior management assigned to them. An inspired analogyof knights running a race to their Lord's castle brought a strong metaphoricalslant to the rich picture (probably stronger than Checkland intended) andstimulated refreshingly new topics of discussion. An extract from the richpicture that captured this view of organisational life is shown below. While therich picture `̀ spoke for itself'' to the group, any rich picture is never so clear to anaudience. A brief explanation of some of the pertinent points now follows.

The hierarchical nature of the organisation has been emphasised throughthe distancing of senior managers in their castle where melodious tunes are inthe air, the sun is always shining and the engineering flag is always proudlyflown. There is access to the castle via the drawbridge but whether thedrawbridge is up or down is at the discretion of senior management. Inaddition, there seem to be two routes to the castle ± there is an easy, sign-postedroute, along which one can deposit the day jobs and ride the initiatives homewith access to adequate supplies along the way. Or there is a difficult route onwhich one is heavily burdened with routine responsibilities of the day job, andmany obstacles that can scuttle the initiative. There are no resources en route ±only diminishing ones from their baggage. Directions are unclear and there areserious hazards to overcome. Travellers on the easy route tend to be spotted bythe senior managers and are welcomed into the castle. However, they create alarge dust cloud that obscures those on the hard route from view. Hence, theefforts of travellers on the hard route often go unnoticed; sometimes they do notreach the castle at all, but fall by the wayside.

Other messages, whether consciously or subconsciously captured by theengineers, can no doubt be `̀ read'' in the rich picture. However, we must becareful as observers, rather than participants, not to impose our understandingtoo heavily on the output of this process ± it is its value to the group'sunderstanding of the current situation that is of prime importance.

Contribution of rich pictures to organisational change managementMuch of the contribution of rich pictures to organisational change managementarose out of the recognition that the process of rich picturing is more importantthan the actual rich picture that is produced. The discussion and debate thatsurround the drawing activities are the key to surfacing the current paradigm.While a rich picture is a useful reminder of the situation, it is important toremember that it is only accurate at the moment of development and only forthose people who were involved. In short, rich pictures should not be divorcedfrom the context in which they were drawn.

The rich picture proved to be useful as a third party through which tomediate between the engineers and to bring some of the more `̀ tricky'' issues tothe surface in a light-hearted but respected manner. Many issues that wereraised through the rich picturing process would not have been mentionedduring a face-to-face discussion. The medium of drawings, rather than speech,prompted more honest and much deeper inquiry than would have otherwisebeen the case with these engineers.


111

In the same vein, the relaxed atmosphere and openness to learning that richpictures bring meant that the hierarchical nature of the organisations wasdissipated during the group sessions. Senior managers were relieved of some ofthe pressures that existed in their everyday role. During rich picturing, theywere no longer expected to `̀ have all the answers'' and to provide strongleadership for their subordinates. This exercise provided the forum in which itwas acceptable, and indeed encouraged, for senior managers to seekclarification and advice without assuming a submissive stance and withoutarousing suspicion among other participants. Once again, in contrast to their`̀ normal'' working environment, this type of behaviour from the higher echelonswould ordinarily have been quite unnerving for engineers and a sign ofweakness for senior figures.

Besides the observations discussed above, adherence to the principles ofparticipation and learning, in particular, unquestionably brought about a moreemphatic change that would smooth any planned organisational change. At thestart of the session, few of the engineers were familiar with each other;previously they had merely been `̀ names in the internal telephone directory''.By the end of the session, genuine teams of engineers had formed whoserelationships would bridge their geographical separation and functionalboundaries in the future. As well as seeing a new side to their own and other'stalents in creative thinking there was a much deeper understanding amongstthe group of one another's perspectives. There was an appreciation of whereeach person `̀ was coming from'', and a more overt sensitivity of the qualitativeaspects of their organisational life.

User friendlinessThere is a learning curve to be followed with rich pictures as with any new tool;a brief formal presentation of their origins and role in the wider methodology ofSSM soon launched the engineers into action. Some took to it like `̀ ducks towater'' while there were initial hesitations from others who declared `̀ they couldnot draw'' and were eager to volunteer another person in the group to take thepen! Others would protest saying `̀ this is what my children do at playschool''.However, with a little coaxing, all did take a pen and begin to draw. Withfurther coaxing and reinforcement that there was no need for artistic expertiseand that everyone can indeed contribute, there was soon a noticeable increasein momentum in the process.

The main requirement of the facilitator during the rich picturing processwas to try and move these highly skilled, technically biased individuals out oftheir cause-effect type mentality. Additionally, to move them out of an `̀ expertmode'' with a focus on finding `̀ solutions to problems'' rather than `̀ improvingproblem situations'' such as Checkland's (1981) SSM calls for. Coupled withovertones of a blame culture, the expert mode often led to a dominantfunctionalist perspective in the early moments. Strong facilitation skills wererequired to move them into a more interpretive stance in which explorationbecame a central theme.

JOCM13,2

112

With just a one-hour time slot from its introduction to its conclusion, timedid not appear to be on the side of the process. However, it was surprising whatrich, rich pictures were achieved in that time! In most cases, it took the full timeallocation to compile the basic picture; in some instances there was probablysufficient momentum to have carried on for another hour to tidy up theaesthetics of the rich picture and to seek confirmation of more detailedunderstanding amongst the group. With hindsight, though, it had been best toclose down activities earlier rather that later, since the memory of a process`̀ fizzling out'' was not one that I wanted to leave the engineers with.

Shift in thinkingThe benefits of rich picturing being underpinned by learning and participationbrought about new understanding and the beginning of a paradigm shiftamongst all the engineers who took part. In addition, there were some newdiscoveries amongst senior managers who had not participated in the processbut who, at the participants' invitation, had viewed the finished rich pictures.All agreed that the pictures had stimulated discussions on topics that wouldnot normally be raised in a `̀ task oriented'' engineering world. So, some of thetypical boundaries of engineering were pushed back and new territories wereexplored.

The surfacing of less obvious similarities and differences in the wayengineers worked, thought and formed expectations of their company was aconstant surprise for participants, Again, this was information that would nothave naturally come to light but, once it had, proved to be an important triggerfor redefining their frame of reference. Every engineer said that they hadrealised something about their organisation's structure and processes that hadnot occurred to them before. Less appeared to be learned about the culturalaspects of their companies ± the prevailing uncertainty might have inhibitedtheir openness on the subject. Another explanation is that organisationalculture per se was too new a concept for them to fully articulate theirperspectives on it.

Future employability in the workplaceOne of the measures of the effectiveness of rich pictures in aidingorganisational change is whether they continue to be used meaningfully whenthe external facilitator has left. There could be many obstacles to their inclusionin day-to-day activities. Current evidence shows that rich pictures arecontinuing to be used in the companies under discussion and, even morepleasing, they are being shared with internal and external clients. An exampleof this is an organisation that is very proud to display a framed pair of richpictures, entitled `̀ Them by us'' and `̀ Us by them'', which originated fromdialogue between an external customer and the engineering department. Ithad been perceived that the situation between the two groups could beimproved ± while the rich pictures were developed independently by eachgroup, they served as a starting point for discussion when all parties joined up


113

for an `̀ away day'' to improve matters. This is a testament to the power of richpictures and the proactiveness of the company to utilise their new vehicle forinquiry.

As was indicated during the description of the use of the rich picture,sometimes the engineers drifted into the use of metaphors during richpicturing. While metaphors can indeed invigorate the development of richpictures they can also promote systems thinking in their own right. It is to theuse of metaphors that the discussion now turns.

MetaphorsThe question of `̀ Where do we want to be?'' was predominantly addressedthrough systems metaphors from the second level of the hierarchy but with asupporting role from idealised design. The complementary way in which thisworked in practice meant there were spin-offs as the synergy between the twoconcepts was exploited. In the following section, it is solely the role ofmetaphors that is presented. First, there is an introduction to the use ofmetaphors for organisational analysis with particular reference to the seminalwork of Morgan (1986). The transition to an emphasis on the use of metaphorsin organizational development is then highlighted through Morgan's (1993)more recent work, before describing the employment of metaphors with oneparticular group of engineers.

DescriptionFor a number of decades metaphors have been used to analyse and explainorganisational behaviour. A single metaphor can be used to create a compactand distinctive description of the complex life within an organisation; it mightgenerate images that reflect parts of the organisation. For instance, Morgan(1986) was writing of organisations as though they were such things as psychicprisons, organisms and machines. His seminal work showed how eight distinctmetaphors brought new learning and understanding of organisations butadmitted to the partial view that was conveyed by each metaphor's emphasison particular aspects of the organisation. The metaphors and their particularemphases are summarised in Table I.

Table I.Metaphors and

emphases

Metaphor Emphasis

Machine Standardization, closed systemsOrganisms Organisational needs and environmental relationshipsBrain Information processing, learning and intelligenceCultures Norms, values and ritualsPolitical metaphor Different interests, conflict and powerPsychic prisons Psychodynamic and ideological aspects of organisationsFlux and transformation Shaping nature of organization at a societal levelInstruments of domination Understanding organisations from perspective of an exploited

group

JOCM13,2

114

Using a range of metaphors is often a much richer process than relying on asingle one to tell the whole organisational story. There is then the possibility ofgenerating images that reflect the whole of the organisation and not merely aslice of life therein; that is, a more holistic approach. This acknowledgement,coupled with the move to using metaphors for organisational developmentrather than organisational analysis has raised the value of metaphors forpractising managers as is now discussed in the context of Morgan's (1993)process of imaginization.

While employment of metaphors for developing plausible explanations oforganisational behaviour continues to be a valuable managerial skill, it israther a static approach. Morgan has emerged as a major proponent of moredynamic metaphorical exploration. Through his process of imaginization,Morgan (1993) uses metaphors as a vehicle for organisational changeinterventions. Relying on rich metaphorical descriptions, imaginization aims tohelp problem managers reframe their problems and to look forward toexperiencing new insights. Imaginization aims to develop alternative ways ofthinking about organisations so that alternative management styles andorganisational structures can be introduced. His belief is that it is notproductive to try `̀ . . . new styles of organization and management whilecontinuing to think in old ways'' (Morgan, 1993, p. vi).

Morgan has recognised that organisations have changed ± they are `̀ notwhat they used to be''. The traditional view of organisations as stable, regulararrangements no longer suffices in current times when adaptability andflexibility are called for. As he says, we are

. . . moving into an era where the ability to understand, facilitate, and encourage processes ofself-organization will become a key competence (Morgan, 1993, p. v).

Imaginization aims to develop alternative ways of thinking aboutorganisations so that replacement management styles and organisationalstructures can be introduced. Morgan offers the process of imaginization as akey managerial tool to assist managers in their bid to face the challenges ofsuch an era; to overcome the `̀ old way'' of thinking so that `̀ . . . new styles oforganization and management'' (Morgan, 1993, p. vi) can be introduced. Inshort, metaphors could be a tool for promoting a paradigm shift.

Use of metaphorsWhile metaphors could equally be used to explore the situation as is, thegroups of engineers in the group were invited to use metaphors as a means ofvisualising and expressing their desired organisation[6]. They were to neglecttheir current position and use metaphors to make a quantum leap to where theywould like to be.

In keeping with Morgan (1993, p. 293), the author was keen to encourage thegroups to experiment with their own metaphors for finding and creatingmeaning, rather than to determine the metaphor to be used. In a short while, ametaphor would `̀ resonate'' with a group that would bring meaningful changeproposals for participants.


115

An example of a metaphor that one group incubated and hatched was that ofa `̀ voyage to the moon''. Those four words conjured up an image of their idealorganisation; a reasonably holistic view (with attention to structures, processesand cultures) was captured for them. The same metaphor can express differentinterpretations for different groups. In this instance, the group perceived that avoyage to the moon reflected all, and more, of the following list ofcharacteristics:

`̀ VOYAGE TO THE MOON''

well planned

sufficient resources

no U-turnsgood partnerships

each person with own specialism

known roles

a `̀ proper'' team

respect for each team member's contribution

no free loaders

an exciting adventure

committed support back at base

pulling together

a few front people of high profile

people behind the scenes get their share of recognition

new technology

confidence in the project

`̀ once-in-a-lifetime'' experience

Many of these characteristics can be translated directly into the image ofthe organisation that this group of engineers wanted to create. The metaphorof the voyage to the moon encapsulated their shared vision for theirorganisation.

Contribution of metaphors to organisational change managementPrimarily, generating images via metaphors enabled the participatingengineers to contribute to the organisational change by assisting them inarticulating what it was that they desired. Personal hopes and expectations canoften be uncomfortable to share and difficult to express in a typicallyunemotional environment such as these engineers operated in. The holisticnature of metaphors conveyed every aspect of their desired organisation ±sometimes intentionally, other times subconsciously ± from the physical natureto more intangible aspects such as the value system and culture that theywanted to adopt. The metaphor captured the whole picture for them andafforded a language through which to disclose their aspirations.

JOCM13,2

116

Another important contribution of this systems concepts was that, as withthe rich picture, the metaphorical explorations took direct attention away fromthe participants and gave a third party through which to channel emotionalenergy. Thus, most inhibitions and apprehensions were dissolved and a freerinput of ideas led to an exciting process in which quantum leaps in imaginationcould be taken.

User friendlinessDiscussion of the rich picturing process suggested that the engineers slippedunprompted and (too) readily into metaphorical analysis. It should thereforenot be too surprising to learn of the ease with which the engineers readily usedmetaphors to aid their thinking surrounding their utopian organisation. Itseemed relatively natural to adopt a new, common language of metaphors anda distraction from the pessimism in which they had been holding theirorganisation.

Having stressed the ease with which the engineers tackled the exploration,the hermeneutic nature of the exercise and resultant lack of a formal paththrough the process meant that they were inclined to seek clarification andreassurance from the facilitator more often than during rich picturing. `̀ Are weon the right lines?'' was regularly heard. The conceptual nature of both theprocess and the outcome seemed to necessitate a strong mentoring role fromthe facilitator as the engineers' confidence level demanded an extra boost in themove away from right answers.

Shift in thinkingIt was interesting to note the different type of shift in thinking that the use ofmetaphors had brought. It cannot be denied that, en masse, the groups hadformulated and articulated a new frame of reference, which they wanted toadopt. However, whether this was a `̀ shift'' would be difficult to prove since thiswas their first opportunity to express their desired future. Their shared visionmight have been subconsciously in their minds from the outset; metaphorsmight not have aided the creation of that vision but been a vehicle throughwhich to express it. The significant change that metaphors appeared to triggerwas as follows. While rich picturing tended to bring a shift in thinkingregarding, in the main, the content of their perspective, metaphors brought abigger shift in thinking regarding the processes that determined the engineers'perspectives. Reflections on the exercise drew out the power and novelty of theprocess, the benefits of sharing each other's dreams and the value of buildingon one another's thoughts. There was an appreciation that the metaphors hadmoved the engineers into another paradigm and they could choose to revisit itas they wished.

Future employability in the workplaceEven though it has been stressed how comfortable the participants felt withmetaphors in relation to the rich picturing, there were some engineers who


117

found it more difficult to use metaphors explicitly as a concept in isolation.This could have been as a result of the different question that had been posed ±`̀ What metaphor best expresses your ideal organisation?'' ± or a consequence ofthe conceptual nature of the process.

One suspects that the lack of a tangible output from imaginization makesmetaphors somewhat less attractive in goal-oriented organisations, which need`̀ something'' to show for the time that has been devoted to an exercise. On thatbasis, there is limited optimism that many of these engineering companies willuse metaphors without an external trigger. While metaphors had beenrespected as another powerful systems concept that could promotemanagement of organisational change early indications suggest that theengineers will more readily use them for visualising engineering plant than formore conceptual frameworks such as their wider organisation. In doing so, thiswill play to the `̀ hard'' side of engineers rather than develop their `̀ softer'' sidesince there will be more opportunity for tangible components to dominate at,sadly, the expense of intangible aspects.

Having shared some experiences of using metaphors, the next sectionsummarises the contribution that these two systems concepts made, as part ofa wider intervention programme, in promoting and sustaining a paradigm shiftin these engineering organisations.

ConclusionsAt the outset of this paper reference was made to the necessity for a paradigmshift to be made by members of an organisation that was going throughchange. Traditionally, this paradigm shift has been designed by outsiders andhas been imposed on organisational members. This is not in keeping with theempowering philosophy that many organisations are putting forward today.However, there is a need for new tools and techniques that will enableorganisational members (insiders) to decide on their desired paradigm shift andto start managing the subsequent change process. Rich pictures and metaphorshave been introduced in this paper as systems concepts that might be includedin that collection of tools and techniques. Their practical value has beendescribed in this paper based on the contribution that they made toorganisational change management in a number of engineering companies.From these studies it is clear that the major contributions of rich pictures andmetaphors have been to:

(1) Provoke discussion of organisational topics not generally addressed ineveryday work life. By ignoring some organisational issues, whetherintentionally or unintentionally, we are being selective over the extentand nature of issues that are faced in a change programme. This canlead to some parties feeling excluded or issues being left dangerously onthe `̀ back burner''. The nature of rich picturing and using metaphorscalls for virtually no specialist skills. Hence, they are one means ofincluding many parties in a process of ensuring that as many issues as

JOCM13,2

118

possible are brought to light. Then, and only then, should it be decidedwhether it is desirable, or indeed possible, to tackle specific issues.

(2) Offer a third party through which a process of mediation can take place.Coupled with the first benefit of rich pictures and metaphors, they cantake away some of the confrontational element that is often associatedwith organisational change management. Personal challenging can beredirected through the medium of the process ± the picture or thelanguage of metaphor ± and thus convert some of the tensions andstrains of change into constructive debate.

(3) Trigger a greater awareness of engineers as people and suppress anyover-emphasis on technical skills. Some organisations are inclined to viewtheir members only in their functional roles and forget that they possessother attributes outside of a particular specialist role. This can meanthat a lot of human potential is not being tapped ± this is ineffective forthe organisation and can be unsatisfying for the individuals involved.The engineers involved in the processes of rich picturing and metaphorswere able to step outside of their stereo ± typical engineering role and`̀ wear a different hat''. A `̀ softer'' side was allowed to emerge and a morerounded view of one another was appreciated.

(4) Promote team building and meaningful relationships amongst engineers.Building on the last point, attention to the human side of organisationsis often compromised and personal interactions often neglected whenthere is constant pressure to meet performance targets. However, therelatively short time that these engineers spent working with richpictures and metaphors enabled old relationships to be rekindledand new ones to be formed. In turn one would anticipate that thiswould have an effect on the overall working environment of thecompanies.

(5) Encourage engineers to participate in and take responsibility for theirorganisational design. The whole stance of this paper has been towardsempowering insiders of an organisation to create their own newparadigm rather than wait for an outsider to create one for them. Theway in which rich pictures and metaphors were used with these groupsof engineers gave them the opportunity to do just that ± to take out oftheir functional roles and to take a systemic view of their currentorganisation and of their ideal organisation. Preliminary results showthat, in doing just that, there has not in fact been the resistance to changethat would ordinarily have been expected.

These five contributions are among the range of benefits that using systemsconcepts can bring to organisational change. But this paper does not claim totell the whole story for there are many other practical and theoretical issuesthat could be explored. For instance, there are issues in relation to the debate on`̀ multimethodology'' (see, for example, Mingers and Gill, 1997) that is fast


119

gaining momentum. The question of `̀ Why did this combination of systemsconcepts `work'?'' could have been addressed. Alternatively, the focus couldhave been on the philosophical underpinnings of the type of managementpractice that I was advocating, that is on critical systems thinking in the guiseof `̀ critical creativity'' (see, for example, Flood and Jackson, 1991 or Ragsdell,1997a; 1997b). The sharing of this practical experience is offered as an examplethat systems concepts do have an important role in organisational changemanagement and as a possible lead in to further academic debate on some ofthe associated issues.

Notes

1. The author recognises that there are many more references for these concepts ±introductory examples only have been given.

2. Flood and Jackson (1991) provide a useful summary of a range of systems methodologies,including SSM and SAST.

3. Here, reference is being made to a current debate in systems circles that goes under theheading of `̀ multi-technology'' (for some of the core arguments, see Mingers and Gill, 1997).In short, debate is focused on the mixing of components of well-established methodologiesas a means of creating `̀ new'' and unique methodologies that can more effectively tackleproblem situations.

4. The reasons why this was the case are the basis of another research agenda for theauthor.

5. The cultural principle of SSM was initially intrinsic to the process as the engineers stayedwithin their current paradigm. However, as is noted later, their established culture beganto change as a result of the process of rich picturing. The remaining, unmentionedprinciple of SSM (according to Flood and Jackson, 1991) that stresses a conscious transitionbetween the `̀ two modes of thinking'' was not relevant, since the engineers were staying inthe `̀ real world'' throughout the exercise.

6. Rather than working with a metaphor that reflected their current position and wouldpromote incremental changes, the influence of idealised design guided the author to strivefor greater advances in creative thinking.

References

Ackoff, R.L. (1974), Redesigning the Future, Wiley, New York, NY.

Ackoff, R.L. (1978), The Art of Problem Solving, Wiley, New York, NY.

De Bono, E. (1992), Serious Creativity, HarperCollins, London.

Barker, J.A. (1993), Paradigms, The Business of Discovering the Future, Harper Business, London.

Bronte-Stewart, M. (1999), `̀ Regarding rich pictures as tools for communication in informationsystems development'', Computing and Information Systems, Vol. 6, pp. 83-102.

Checkland, P.B. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester.

Checkland, P.B. and Scholes, J. (1990), Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester.

Flood, R.L. (1995), Solving Problem Solving, Wiley, Chichester.

Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M.C. (1991), Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention,Wiley, Chichester.

Mingers, J. and Gill, A. (Eds) (1997), Multimethodology: The Theory and Practice of CombiningManagement Science Methodologies, Wiley, Chichester.

Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organization, Sage, London.

JOCM13,2

120

Morgan, G. (1993), Imaginization: The Art of Creative Management, Sage, Beverley Hills, CA.

Ragsdell, G. (1997a), `̀ Creativity and problem solving'', in Flood, R.L. and Romm, N.R.A. (Eds),Critical Systems Thinking: Current Research and Practice, Plenum, New York, NY.

Ragsdell, G. (1997b), `̀ Creative management of creative management: a critical systemsapproach'', unpublished PhD thesis, University of Hull, Hull.

Ragsdell, G. (1998), `̀ In pursuit of creativity: a critical systems approach'', in Dingli, S. (Ed.),Creative Thinking: Towards Broader Horizons, Malta University Press, Msida.

Ulrich, W. (1983), Critical Heuristics of Social Planning, Haupt, Berne.

Documents

Engineering a paradigm shift?