Organizational Change - Challenging the Norm Files/change.pdf · Weatherup’s organizational analysis defined a potential problem which would keep Pepsi from Organizational Change

Challenging the Norm

Organizational Change

Edward Wons

Organizational Change - Challenging the Norm

1

2

3

5

6

7

A

Number

Introduction

Literature Review

Change Dynamics

Organizational Model

Achieving Change

Social vs Corporate Change

Bibliography

Chapter Title

TABLE OF CONTENTS

4

Appendix Exercise

Copyright Policy

Fair use of copyright material: Please credit the author Ed Wons and the publisher JPCTraining & Consulting LLC

Publiction: Please credit the author Ed Wons and the publisher JPC Training & ConsultingLLC and provide a link to this site (www.jpc-training.com/change/cover.htm)

Print Publiction: Please credit the author Ed Wons and the publisher JPC Training &Consulting LLC. Payment of $150.00 US dollars for up to 1,000 copies.

Contract: [email protected]

©1995-9 JPC Training & Consulting LLC

Introduction


4/20/99 1

Introduction

The purpose of this project is to be able to effectively communicate what I have learned about orga-

nizational change over the last fifteen years. I believe I have developed a way of looking at an orga-

nization which facilitates an understanding of how organizational change occurs. The real work of

this project is finding ways to bridge the gap between commonly held conceptions of what con-

stitues an organization and a perspective of organizational structure which can be used to facilitate

change.

What I have found, in short, is that the underlying fundamental concepts of organizational change

are really quite simple. Despite the simplicity of the governing concepts, organizational change is

difficult to grasp because the actual structure of an organization is complex and highly dynamic. In

essence, organizational change is simultaneously complex and dynamic yet simple.

During the course of developing this project, I have made the observation that the written word is

an extremely limited communication medium. For example, I have alternatively used the word

principles and the phrase “norms and beliefs” to try to convey a key concept explaining how orga-

nizations function. Even when these terms are accompanied by a thorough definition, I have found

the communication process to be garbled. The main difficulty is that the real world meaning of this

particular concept changes over time and varies from organization to organization. A communica-

tion medium that incorporates some type of interactive approach seems to be more effective. This

is why I have chosen a web site to present my ideas for review and comment.

I strongly believe that interaction is critical to the process of understanding change as simple yet

complex and dynamic. As a result, I would like to caution the reader that this document represents

a break from traditional concepts of organizational change. Based on previous feedback, the writ-

ten material tends to generate one of two reactions: either puzzlement or a negative response. The

organizational model predicts this reaction. In terms of the model, I am acting as a visionary chal-


4/20/992

lenging the norm. While this is not an easy role to fill, I have found that over time if an idea is wor-

thy it will gradually gain acceptance and change will occur.

The current norm concerning organizational change concentrates on intervention strategies. This

apparent concentration is reflected in the literature review. Interventions are easy to write about,

but simply implementing a change strategy or re-arranging the hierarchy does not always bring

about the desired organizational change. When true change is not achieved, then a new interven-

tion strategy is employed. This “management by fad” is depicted satirically by the comic strip

Dilbert.

In moving beyond intervention strategies I ask people to discover the truth of their organization or

group. This is no simple matter as truth operates several layers beneath the normal consciousness

of an organization. It is my contention that once truth is discovered, the ethics of change as well as

the implementation of techniques become clear.

It is my hope to make this document enjoyable and interesting to read. To this end, I will make

every attempt to limit long winded scholarly sounding text that could easily be stated in a few para-

graphs. I also apologize if the content of this document presses one or more of your “hot buttons”.

This is likely unavoidable and avoiding such a reaction is probably undesirable. If I do manage to

jar your sensibilities in some way, I encourage you to move beyond the immediate reaction and ask

why. Please refer to the part of the model which deals with how we determine what is true.

Specifically, consider what happens when two sets of results are in conflict.

Even if you disagree I would very much enjoy and welcome a discussion and exchange of ideas.


4/20/99 3

Literature Review


4/20/99 5

ScopeIt has also been suggested that I only include information related to organizational change as it

relates to for-profit organizations. When I suggest that there is also relevant information which

relates to social change, I typically hear the recommendation that I should focus on one or the other

but not both. This appears to be a secondary manifestation of a belief that the dynamic of organi-

zational change is directly linked to methodology. As of yet, I have not heard a credible argument

about how the dynamic of social change differs from corporate change. The main differences

appear to be related to the goals of the desired change. Even suggesting a correlation between cor-

porate and social change appears to challenge widely and apparently deeply held assumptions

about the nature of organizational change.

During the course of working on this project I have been actively involved in the creation of four

organizations: three for profit and one non-profit. Although these organizations are very different in

both style and mission, the dynamics of formation were startlingly similar. Despite my substantial

influence in the formation of three of the organizations they developed very different and distinct

organizational cultures. It is safe to say that both cultures took on a life of their own. This experi-

ence has convinced me of the necessity of including literature concerning both for-profit and non-

profit organizations.

Change Strategies Based on Kurt Lewin

The majority of material concerning the subject of change as it relates to for-profit organizations

appears to focus on making organizations more efficient. Since this focus on organizational effi-

ciency appears to be quite popular and relatively well known, it is a reasonable starting point for


4/20/996

this section. I should state at the outset, however, that I am skeptical that there is a link between

efficiency improving methodology and a clear understanding of the dynamics of organizational

change. For example, I believe there is more clear evidence noting organizations which changed in

a way that made them less efficient than organizations that became more efficient. I call your atten-

tion to this because the link between increasing efficiency and the dynamic of organizational

change, while clearly present, is often treated uncritically as a basic assumption.

I see a significant danger in making such an assumption. If we believe that methodology, typically

improving efficiency, is change, then method can be used to explain how change occurs. The feed-

back I have received from people who have reviewed previous editions of this paper indicate to me

that most people tend to equate the methods for achieving organizational efficiency to how organ-

izations actually change. This assumption is only true if the operational dynamic of organizational

change is different based on the methodology utilized. This means that the process of change

occurs differently based on the method used to implement the change. I would ask that you at least

consider the possibility that this is not the case.

To understand this emphasis on methods we need to review a particular model of organizational

change. Kurt Lewin (1951) proposed a force field analysis model to understand organizational

change. Force field analysis proposes that an organization is typically in a state of equilibrium.

There are two forces which maintain organizational stability: driving forces and restraining forces.

The driving forces are those elements of the organization which support a desired organizational

change. Keeping the organization in equilibrium are the restraining forces. If the two forces are

equal, the organization will remain static. Change occurs when one of these two forces becomes


4/20/99 7

stronger than the other (disequilibrium). Once the change has occurred, the organization reverts to

a new state of equilibrium which reflects the desired change.

If followed to a logical conclusion, Lewin’s model predicts that an intervention which strengthens

the driving forces or weakens the restraining forces will result in the desired change. If an inter-

vention can accomplish both so much the better. In accepting this concept of organizational

change, the focus of attention turns towards developing an effective intervention. This is a critical

point. By accepting Lewin’s model the attention shifts away from how organizational change occurs

and focus on how to create an effective change intervention. It is important to keep in mind that

intervention strategies do not serve to explain how organizational change occurs. Given this back-

drop, let’s examine a number of change methodologies.

Often change methodologies are accompanied by a success story to give the method credibility.

This is especially true of non-research literature which tends to concentrate on success stories. Out

of all my readings concerning organizational change, one such story sticks out in my mind: Pepsi-

Cola’s president Craig Weatherup1. PepsiCo’s sales had risen to more than seven billion dollars and

earnings were up 10%. Weatherup believed that this positive performance would cause the com-

pany to become complacent. In effect, he believed that since the bottom line looked very good, the

restraining forces within the organization would be dominant. His fear was that if the soft drink

market turned flat and competitors more aggressive, the Pepsi organization would not be able to

respond.

Weatherup’s organizational analysis defined a potential problem which would keep Pepsi from


4/20/998

responding to new circumstances in the market place. To counteract this problem Weatherup took

the following action: At a meeting with his top eleven executives he stated that 10% earnings were

not good enough. An earning rate of 15% is what he considered acceptable adding “There’s a

freight train out there, it’s called 15% earnings. We’re standing on the track, and we’d better figure

out something or it will run us right over.”2 To emphasize the train metaphor, he gave his managers

a model train engine that had 15% painted on the side. Standing on the tracks in front of the model

engine were eleven tiny frightened figures.

It would seem reasonable to assume that Weatherup viewed his organization as divided into two

groups: one that favored change and one that opposed change. A second assumption in

Weatherup’s analysis is that when an organization is not experiencing a crisis it is unlikely to

change. The solution, to call for an increase in earnings of 15%, combined with the highly sym-

bolic 15% train metaphor, was designed to do two things: undercut the influence of the restraining

forces and create a air of crisis within the organization.

This article was written in 1993 using figures for a division of PepsiCo. I was unable to substantiate

the earning figures given, most likely because division earning are not readily available. But the

data for the company as a whole seems to follow the information in the article. In 1992 PepsiCo’s

profits were down substantially from 1991 3; 1991 was down from 1990. In 1993 profits jumped

back to the 1990 level. Based on this data, we can conclude that the organization experienced a

real crisis in 1991-2. In 1993, Weatherup was attempting to maintain an organizational crisis. If

the goal of this change methodology was to increase profitability, it appears to have failed; 1994

profits were virtually unchanged from 1993.


4/20/99 9

It would seem then that organizational change is not as simple as creating a metaphor which says

“change or you will be fired”. Put yourself in the position of one of those eleven executives in front

of the train. Your boss says “We’re on the track...” but the model only shows eleven people on the

track not twelve. I doubt that anyone of the eleven missed the meaning of this subtle discrepancy.

I would speculate that these executives were smart enough to know a real crisis from one that was

manufactured.

The omission of the twelfth figure on the track indicated a lack of leadership. This is according to

Ron Urick and Roger DeMont. Urick and Demont contend that subordinates “must see leaders

whose behavior delivers this (the change) message.”4 In other words, Urick and DeMont would

fault Weatherup’s lack of leadership. If Weatherup had “walked the talk” the change would have

been successful. “Walking the talk” is based on the observation of successful changes. Yet I am left

to wonder if there are not a number of organizational changes that failed despite the leader “walk-

ing the talk”. Just like the concept of handing out the 15% model train, it sounds so good and sen-

sible that it must really work. There appears to be little, if any, data that directly links “walking the

talk” with a successful organizational change effort.

Still, one can argue that Weatherup’s analysis was correct but the methodology was ineffective.

Using Lewin’s force field analysis, the restraining forces were not effectively neutralized. Following

the Lewin model, the organization should have remained “frozen” because the intervention was not

effective in lessening the restraining forces. On the other hand, I wonder what my reaction might

have been if I were one of Weatherup’s subordinates. I find it difficult to believe that the organiza-


4/20/9910

tion was completely unchanged.

Pepsi’s experience is apparently not unique. According to Gateway Information Services, a New

York consulting firm, 70% of all change programs fail due to employee resistance5. Dennis Jaffe and

Cynthia Scott6 believe that employees experience four distinct stages to any change process: denial,

resistance, exploration and commitment. During the denial and resistance stages people tend to be

centered on self interest and the past. If a change agent can get people to believe that there is a

need to change, employees will move into an exploration mode where a wide range of new orga-

nizational activities now become possible. The last stage is a commitment to a new way of doing

things in the organization. This employee resistance cycle clearly falls within the scope of Lewin’s

model of freeze - thaw - refreeze.

Jaffe and Scott are not unique as there are a whole host of people, mainly consultants, who believe

that change dictated from the top down is ultimately doomed to fail. Effective change requires a

consensus of both management and employees. Authors who argue for consensus generally outline

a formula for success. The following are the basic elements of a formula based organizational

change strategy.


4/20/99 11

1 Determining the need to change. This is an examination of what within the organization

needs to change and why.

2 Development of a vision. “The vision, then, serves as the lighthouse beacon pulling the

organization in the desired direction.”7 Ideally, a vision is a set of principles that guide the organi-

zation’s behavior.

3 Buy in, a process of consensus building. Robert Knorr, a business consultant, defines a crit-

ical mass of consensus as agreement among 100% of the executive and 20% of the general popu-

lation.

4 Once a consensus has been reached, barriers to implementation must be identified. Barriers

can either be structural (i.e.: company policies) or cultural (fear of job loss, losing turf, “not invent-

ed here”).

5 Communication of the vision must synchronize the actions with the words. (Walk the talk)

An effective communication plan should be developed to minimize “rumors at the water cooler”.

The following communication matrix8 was designed to help in the development of an effective com-

munication plan.


4/20/9912

6 Creating an overall change strategy. This puts steps 1 through 5 into a cohesive plan.

7 The final stage is implementation and making sure that the change plan stays on track.

The formula approach to organizational change meets the Lewin model’s requirement for a change

intervention. It appears to be more comprehensive and well thought out than the “change or get

fired” approach. Based on my conversations with people who are interested in change, I believe

that the formula approach to organizational change constitutes the conventional wisdom on the

subject. It is not surprising then, that people believe that in order for organizational change to

occur, you need a vision and the commitment of top management. Despite the emphasis on obtain-

ing employee buy in, this form of organizational change essentially occurs from the top down.

Despite the wide spread acceptance of the formula approach, there is little evidence to support its

effectiveness. The credibility of the formula approach rests on the credibility of its proponents. The


4/20/99 13

proponents interestingly enough are overwhelmingly business consultants. We can assume that

since these people are the experts in the field of organizational change that we should give their

observations the benefit of the doubt.

Since I have personal insight into what it means to be a consultant, I tend to be a bit skeptical. In

order to be a successful consultant, one must fill a need in the marketplace. A consultant is not

immune from the forces which govern a free market society. A person who promotes a particular

idea or concept does so not just for the sake of an abstract idea but to sell their services. This

became apparent to me during the formulation of the organizational model which I will present in

the next section. I asked a fellow consultant what he thought of my ideas and was constantly asked,

“What’s the market value?” I believe that this is the reason why so much of what is written about

organizational change concerns improving organizational efficiency. Improved organizational effi-

ciency is the real product being offered, as opposed to an understanding of organizational change.

Much of what had been written about organizational change over the last 44 years has never ques-

tioned the Lewin model. This is particularly true as it relates to improving organizational efficien-

cy. This concept of organizational change concentrates on strengthening the driving forces, weak-

ening the restraining forces, or a combination of the two. Lewin’s prescription for change requires

the development of an effective intervention. Driving the development of organizational interven-

tions is a large and lucrative market demand for a formula which will improve a company’s bottom

line. Given this backdrop, it shouldn’t be surprising that we see a proliferation of interventions

which promise greater organizational efficiency.

Are these interventions effective? It would appear that they are not. Remember it has been esti-


4/20/9914

mated that 70% of all interventions fail. Downsizing, for example, prescribed the elimination of

middle management. Following this prescription, some companies indiscriminately eliminated

middle managers. These prescriptions for improved efficiency typically have difficulty achieving

the promised result. This leads to a second round of literature to clarify the prescription. In this

example, downsizing becomes Rightsizing recognizing that some middle management positions are

necessary. Over time, however, the prescription falls out of favor and a new one takes its place. I

have heard a number of people from various organizations describe this cycle as “management by

fad”. Peter Senge has, in fact, taken the time to chart out this fad cycle9.

Based on this analysis, I believe that it is prudent to treat prescriptions for organizational change

with extreme skepticism. This sentiment is echoed by Schaffer and Thompson who argue against

an uncritical application of prescriptions. “This “rain dance” is the ardent pursuit of activities that

sound good, look good, and allow managers to feel good - but in fact contribute little or nothing to

bottom line performance.”10 To this I would add that one should also be wary of those who tai-

lor their message to managers and CEOs.

The need for skepticism is also a concern for more researched based studies. Roberts and Robertson


4/20/99 15

undertook a study of Organizational Development research. They were able to find a negative rela-

tionship between measurement rigor and positive findings.11 This study indicates that the imple-

mentation of organizational change strategies that do not have a strong measurement component

will tend to be rated as a success.

We often view organizations with respect to their hierarchical structure. By utilizing this metaphor

it becomes essential that any successful organizational change originates from upper management.

The following is a typical extension of the hierarchical metaphor: “Without strong leadership from

top management, the psychological and political disruption that accompany such radical change

(re-engineering) can sabotage the project. Inevitably, managers and employees may feel that their

turf, jobs, and organizational equilibrium are under attack. But opposition to the new design can

be overcome if top-level managers approach reengineering as a painful but necessary disruption of

the status quo.”12

If we accept the idea that organizational change is linked to the support of the upper levels of an

organization’s hierarchy it becomes impossible to explain how a union can bring about organiza-

tional change. I would submit that this is a truism that applies directly to a potential consultant.

“You won’t be successful unless you have the support of top management.” Rosabeth Kanter’s work

also casts doubt on the concept that top management is an essential component of organizational

change.


4/20/9916

Rosabeth Kanter describes organizational life at the top, the middle and the bottom by gathering nar-

ratives in her book Life in Organizations: Workplaces as People Experience Them13. Through the

narratives in this book we leave the world of theoretical models and enter a more practical way of

looking at organizations. One of the interesting aspects of this view is a common theme running

through each group: The idea of being powerless to bring about change.

First let’s begin by looking at the bottom of an organization. Kanter argues that a “real sign of being

at the bottom is the degree to which a person is controlled”.14 This is a clear reference to hierar-

chical status. Donald Roy’s experience as a member of a group at the bottom of an organization15

demonstrates that Kanter’s assertion is essentially correct. Yet this group is far from docile. Roy

describes a wide variety of activities that, when taken as a whole, constitute a complex set of behav-

iors which allow the group to cope with their situation. While this group has limited or no contact

with management, it is not passive.

I found one of Roy’s observations particularly enlightening. “One man, who may or may not have

been of managerial status, was seen on various occasions lurking about in a manner which excited

suspicion. Although no observable consequences accrued from the peculiar visitations of this silent

fellow, it was assumed that he was some sort of efficiency expert, and he was referred to as “The

Snooper”.”16 I can imagine that “The Snooper” might have viewed the work groups as people car-

rying out the directives of the organization’s hierarchy. This would be a view external to the group.

In this instance we observe a group of people who are at the bottom of the organization’s hierarchy.

The work is very boring and repetitive. In this situation, we see a variety of behaviors that allow


4/20/99 17

members of the group to function within the context established by the larger organization (man-

agement). From this I would conclude that this group of people had formed a subgroup within the

organization. The mission of this group was to: Allow members of the group to function within the

context established by the management. The group was intensely interested in the activities of “The

Snooper” because he represented a potential threat to the primary mission of the group.

Roy establishes that the group was effectively cut off from management; indicating the group had

little opportunity to bring about organizational change through the hierarchical structure. The group

was also part of a union. Concerning the group’s relationship to the union, Roy observes that the

“actual interactional processes (between the union and management) were carried on somewhere

beyond my range of observation and without participation of members of my work group.”17 The

disconnection between both the union and management indicates that the group’s ability to change

the organization is limited to changes in coping strategy. Despite an outward appearance of pow-

erlessness, this subgroup does indeed have the capability to change the organization.

This is really a powerful insight since we have determined that a number of people can form an

independent subgroup within two parent organizations, in this case the company and the union.

This subgroup is also capable of developing a mission which is separate from either parent organi-

zation. We can also project that the group will change its set of behaviors in order to accomplish

the group’s mission.

On the other end of the organization Kanter points out that: “There is a striking difference between

privileged position and the ability to make anything happen. ... Top executives experience this par-


4/20/9918

adox themselves. The President of a major city bank, frustrated by a Board of Directors he could

not influence and a tradition-bound staff that seemed unable to adopt new ideas, said to a group of

students who wondered why he didn’t make major changes in the bank, “Everyone has power -

until they try to use it. Then you see how real the power is. I appear to have it, but it is impossi-

ble for me to act unilaterally.”

If this executive’s experience is typical, it is no wonder that concepts of organizational change that

emphasize the idea of buying into a vision are so popular. Kanter illustrates that the power to

change an organization doesn’t rest solely at the top of the hierarchy. If this is true, it is a reason-

able conclusion that not all organizational change originates from top management.

Kanter includes such an example in a story by Kermit Vandivier titled “Why Should My Conscience

Bother Me?”. This is a story about an engineer in the middle of the B. F. Goodrich Co. As the title

suggests the events revolve around an ethical dilemma. In 1967 Goodrich was contracted by LTV

Aerospace Corp. to develop a brake for a new Air Force plane. After a few design tries, it became

apparent that the proposed design would not work. At first, the qualification tests were run per spec-

ification. The story related how management pressured the engineers to eventually falsify the qual-

ification test.

The engineering department was responsible for the qualification testing. This sub-group of the par-

ent organization viewed their mission as being the impartial and fair judges of the product. The

company’s management was so determined to deliver the product that they demanded that two of

the engineers falsify the report. These two engineers agonized over this mandate because they felt


4/20/99 19

that the defect could lead to a loss of life. Vandivier chronicled the various strategies used to chal-

lenge this mandate through hierarchy. All of these efforts failed.

Finally, one, then the other contacted a lawyer and eventually the FBI. This prompted an investi-

gation by the Air Force and Congressional hearings. In the end, both of the engineers resigned, the

brakes were redesigned and the Department of Defense changed their testing and reporting proce-

dures. While this is far from the typical rosy picture of organizational change, I believe this story is

far more representative of how organizational change actually occurs.

It seems that no matter were a person is in the organization, they feel at least to some degree, that

they are powerless to change the organization. This, of course, is a matter of perspective. The peo-

ple at the bottom certainly don’t see the people at the top as being powerless. Yet the people at the

top acknowledge all the trappings associated with power but don’t experience the power to sub-

stantially influence the organization. The people who are in the middle share the view of power

from both the top and the bottom simultaneously. I feel it is reasonable to conclude that a realistic

understanding of organizational change recognizes all of these viewpoints as an aspect of reality.

Given the poor success record of various intervention strategies, it is reasonable to question their

validity as it relates to understanding the dynamics of organizational change. These strategies

appear to be marketed to people who are interested in improving the profitability of their respective

organizations. As a result of these marketing strategies, books and services tend to emphasize top

management because they control the purse. Further, a consultant needs the support of top man-


4/20/9920

agement to obtain and retain a client looking to “re-engineer” its organization. There are also obvi-

ous instances where top management did not initiate change. For example, foreign competition,

not top management, forced U.S. car makers to change. Based on this analysis of the literature I

believe that obtaining the commitment of the organization’s leaders is not a integral aspect of the

dynamics of organizational change.

If intervention strategies are suspect, it is also reasonable to question the organizational change the-

ory which supports these interventions. Lewin’s model of organizational change consists of two

basic concepts. The first that an organization’s natural state is static or unchanging. Lewin describes

this state as being “frozen”. When the organization is in a state of change it is malleable or it

“thaws” then reverts to a static or “frozen” state. The second this that an organization can be suc-

cessfully divided into two groups. One that seeks change and one that opposes change. I have

grave doubts that either concept has much basis in actual organizations.

To contend that organizational change consists of a freeze - thaw - freeze cycle requires a selective

view of organizational change. This statement is true only if you accept data from rapid and dra-

matic change events. Yet I have never experienced an organization that was truly frozen as Lewin

contends. In larger organizations there are hundreds, possibly thousands, of subtle changes which

occur on a daily or weekly basis. Over a period of years, these changes have a cumulative effect.

Because this type of organizational change takes place over a long period of time they do not appear

as dramatic changes. In fact, these changes may happen so slowly that the change may only be

apparent to people who have only occasional contact with the organization.


4/20/99 21

Based on the work done by Rosabeth Kanter, it is difficult to believe an organization can be effec-

tively divided into two simple groups; one that favors change and one that opposes it. It would

appear that an organization is made up a multiple sub-groups. Each of these sub-groups may belong

to multiple organizations. While it is possible to divide an organization as Lewin suggests, it appears

to be overly simplistic.

Organizational Change from the Bottom Up

A second grouping of literature concerning organizational change focuses on social change. The

market for these ideas are groups and individuals who seek change as part of a moral imperative. I

appears that this information is geared to people who are not members of the organization’s elite.

In contrast to Lewin based interventions, this body of literature does not require the support of an

organization’s management. In fact it often assumes that change agents can expect the active oppo-

sition of those “in power”. Despite the tailoring of the message to the target market, this body of lit-

erature offers a richer understanding of how organizational change occurs.

Harry Boyte in Community is Possible describes organizations (communities) empowered to shape

their own direction from the bottom up. Using case studies, Boyte argues that issues are best solved

within the organization through empowerment of the organization’s members. A truly functional

organization is able to accomplish its goals. Accomplishing goals, even relatively small goals,

demonstrates to the organization’s members that the organization is effective, empowering them to

take on greater goals. A power base is essential for an organization to accomplish its goals and

shape the direction of the organization. In these case studies leadership had three objectives: artic-


4/20/9922

ulate workable solutions, keep the organization focused on its mission, and recruit new leadership

within the organization. A successful leader utilized organizational systems to control direction.

Using Boyte’s grass roots view, an organization missing the key elements of a base of power, accom-

plishing goals, leadership, empowerment, and a focus on the organization’s mission, will not be

able to control its direction.

Elizabeth Janeway in Powers of the Weak expands on the nature of a power base and its relation-

ship to leadership. In every organization there exists a social mythology (or culture) that operates

as a basis of power. A natural process of maintaining this social mythology involves the empower-

ment of leaders. Empowerment by the organization is necessary to develop a leader’s legitimacy.

Power, therefore, is a communal relationship between its organizational members and its leader.

The implication of this communal relationship is that the organization, as a whole, defines the range

of acceptable behavior in a legitimate leader. From Janeway’s viewpoint the real power in an organ-

ization rests in its social mythology or culture and legitimate leaders are simply an extension or fig-

urehead of the organization’s culture.

William Chafe views this cultural power from the viewpoint of the individual in the organization.

The organization will seek to maintain its culture not only by placing limitations on its leadership

but also on its individual members. Through a variety of methods, which Chafe terms “An analogy

of social control,” the organization pressures its individual members to conform. Social control pre-

serves the organization’s culture over time, developing an effective defense mechanism to change.

Chafe defines social control, with reference to the individual, in terms of concentric spheres. The


4/20/99 23

outermost sphere is physical intimidation. The next sphere is control over economic status includ-

ing, but not limited to, promotions, raises, and access to education. Next is the limitation of aspi-

rations which may be characterized by the dead end job. The concept of ‘the dead end job’ limits

the possibilities of an individual without regard to their talents. The last and most effective control

mechanism is generated within the individual’s sub-organizational cultural norms. These norms

develop as a means for survival within the organization as a whole. The survival of the sub-organ-

ization depends heavily on each member behaving according to these norms. The concepts of

social control illustrate the many forces that influence conformity and resist change on an individ-

ual level.

Identifiable Aspects of an Organization

Peter Senge argues in The Fifth Discipline that a process known as systems thinking is required to

understand the underlying principals which govern an organization’s operation. The question then

becomes: What are the underlying principals which govern organizational change? Since this proj-

ect does not need to turn a profit to be successful, I am free to explore this question unconstrained

by market forces. This decision allows me to focus on how organizational change occurs as

opposed to how to achieve a social agenda or improving organizational efficiency. With this per-

spective in mind, I will attempt to “re-order” the literature into a systems thinking format.

Change from the top down puts a finite amount of power in the hands of the organization’s highest

leader. This power is then distributed to other subordinate leaders in the organization. The lowest

member of the organization is seen, often by themselves, as having no power. The essential ele-


4/20/9924

ments of leadership from this viewpoint are a well-defined sphere of power and the subordination

of the “rank and file.”

The classical theory leader sees the organization’s culture as something they control rather than

being controlled or constrained by the culture. Not surprisingly these leaders, as noted in Life at the

Top, feel frustration when they are unable to impact the organization’s culture. To the leader in the

middle the answer is simple; increase the sphere of influence. Inevitably, however, the leader finds

the task of organizational change an enormous challenge at best and impossible at worst.

In most organizations the opposing views of leadership coexist. To understand how they interact I

will define the classical hierarchical leader as a manager and the finite power of the manager as

authority. Power then becomes based in the culture of the organization and leaders are empowered

by the organization’s members. These roles or functions will form the basis to model the compo-

nents of effective or ineffective leadership.

John Gardner makes the point that the concepts of manager and authority are separate. The exam-

ple of a meter maid who has authority but is not a manager is noteworthy. Individuals, however,

can take on several of these organizational functions simultaneously; a leader — manager for exam-

ple. An extension of this reasoning would view leadership, power, social control, management, and

authority as separate functions of a typical organization.

How an organization actually operates depends on the priority that an organization’s culture places

on each of the functions. The armed forces, for example, place a high priority on management,


4/20/99 25

authority and social control and a low priority on leadership and power. But as Gardner noted, from

his activity on a committee for the War Department, the culture empowered leaders to interpret “the

book” to accomplish the necessary tasks. Daniel Zwerdling’s profile of International Group Plans

gives a glimpse of an organization that values leadership, power and social control over manage-

ment and authority. But even in this organization where the power of the culture is emphasized,

the need for management and authority is recognized. An organization in our society operates with

the functions of leadership, power, social control, management, and authority even if it is not for-

mally acknowledged.

A hierarchical organization requires the subordination of lower status members, and the leader as

manager must expend a great deal of effort to maintain this condition. The most common approach

is to remove all control of the work environment from the workers. Over a period of time the work-

ers develop what social psychology terms learned helplessness. Once learned helplessness devel-

ops, even if control is returned it is not exercised. This is probably the greatest implication of clas-

sical theory because it literally unplugs the organization from its true source of power and legitima-

cy.

Systemic policies which result in learned helplessness abound in our society. The key element to

these policies is the removal of control. Examples would include our welfare system and a restric-

tive manufacturing environment. Proponents of concepts such as cell based manufacturing which

return control to subordinates often bewail the fact that participants do not assume control. What

is not readily apparent is that organizational sub-groups that were not previously expected to exer-

cise control developed their own cultural norms and controls, discouraging personal control, in


4/20/9926

order to survive in the organization as a whole. Managers, on the other hand, view giving control

to subordinates as a threatening proposition. If a manager is required to allow subordinates greater

control, the result will probably be only symbolic. The infestation of systemic learned helplessness

is a crippling factor to any organization.

To maintain their identity, organizations set a high priority on social control, finding themselves

“hard wired” to resist cultural change. Some organizations work around this problem by institu-

tionalizing change. As a colleague once told me “It wouldn’t be Banner (Engineering) if we weren’t

constantly changing.” Those that do try to initiate cultural change find the defense mechanisms of

social control difficult to crack. The expression “You can’t beat City Hall” is a recognition of the

task’s difficulty. But as a grass roots organizer understands, City Hall can be beaten if vulnerable

elements of the organization’s (community’s) culture are reexamined, reevaluated and changed by

the organization’s members. Another option is to force a change in organizational behavior. The

force to change may come internal or external to an organization. I believe it is most often exter-

nal, as in the case of the Chrysler Corporation in the 1980s. If the change in behavior can be main-

tained, the culture may shift to accommodate the new behavior. True change occurs only when

force is no longer required to maintain the behavior. Due to the nature of social control, cultural

change must occur at a grass roots level either by force, influence or both.

A leader can influence the organization only to the extent which the culture will allow. This aspect

of leadership signifies a visionary function or role as separate from leadership. The role of a vision-

ary is one that sees the overall organization from a perspective greater than self. Janet Hagberg

describes visionaries, in terms of personal power, as people who have a view of life greater than self


4/20/99 27

and are not motivated to seek leadership or management. They accept leadership only when it is

thrust upon them or as a means of creating a greater good. Once the greater good is accomplished,

the leadership role is relinquished. I submit that visionaries prefer to work behind the scenes influ-

encing the organization’s culture avoiding the limitations imposed on leaders and managers.

The visionary by nature, or definition, holds views different from the organization as a whole. The

visionary may be able to escape the limitations of management and leadership, but does not escape

the social control exerted on the individual. Given these two opposing forces, a visionary, simply

to survive in the organization, must develop a strong internal frame of reference for guidance.

An organization needs the elements of power, leadership, management, authority, social control,

cultural change and vision in order to function effectively. The priority of each of these elements

depends heavily on the organization’s overall mission. It is important to realize that the priority of

each of these elements are not static but shift as the need arises.

Organizational Change and the Interaction Between Groups

To further clarify what I see as the relationship between an organization and its sub groups, I offer

the following analysis of the events in My Soul is Rested by Howell Raines. Although this text is not

strictly an analysis of organizational change, it does bring together a number of the complex ele-

ments which resulted in change. In this illustration, the United States could be considered to be the

overarching organization.


4/20/9928

“I am not pleading for India to practice nonviolence because she is weak. I want her to prac -

tice nonviolence being conscious of her strength.” Mahatma Gandhi18

“If every Southerner who feels as I do, and they are in the vast majority, will make this vow,

we will defeat this Communistic disease that is being thrust upon us.” Robert Patterson19

When the civil rights movement of the 1960’s implemented Gandhi’s methods they were using

techniques grounded in an understanding of power as defined earlier in the aspects of an organiza-

tion. The source of power applies equally to all subgroups. The use and effectiveness of this power

varied considerably among the subgroups chronicled in My Soul is Rested. This section will focus

on the source of power in subgroups, the factors which control this power, how subgroups exercise

their power and how the use of power can bring about organizational change.

Andrew Marrisett identifies “Bull” Conner as the power in Birmingham.20 Marrisett asserts that

Conner controlled the formal power structure and ran the city. Theoretically the mayor and the city

council should have complete authority over Conner in his position as the police commissioner. In

Birmingham, these roles were reversed. In Conner’s instance the external symbol of a high politi-

cal office was not necessary for him to “run the city.” This seems to confirm the idea that the sup-

port of top management is not critical to controlling an organization’s direction.

If Conner’s power was not based in an external symbol, where did his authority come from? The

answer to this question lies not so much in what Conner did, but what he did not do. For example,


4/20/99 29

if the house of a black “trouble maker” was set afire, no one was ever punished.21 Conner was seen

by segregationists as someone who preserved their way of life. The segregationist subgroup in

Birmingham looked to Conner when it was necessary to “hold the line” when it came to segrega-

tion. This was the true base of his political power.22 In “Bull” Conner’s case, his authority came

directly from the segregationist sub group23 of Birmingham.

William Bradford Huie’s investigation of race murders provides additional support to the concept of

power being rooted in the sub group. Initially, the men who committed these crimes received the

support of the segregationist sub group. The manifestation of this support is the realization that no

punishment resulted from a racially motivated murder.24 In effect, the segregationist sub group

encouraged and condoned murder, under certain conditions, contrary to the law of the land. Over

time, however, these same people who were empowered to commit these acts, became social out-

casts due to the sycophantic attitude of the sub group. On the one hand they were glad the acts

were committed; on the other hand they didn’t want murderers in the community. Huie identifies

this pattern in all whites who committed atrocities against the black community.25 An analysis of

these murders reveals clear evidence that the external manifestation of power is based on the abil-

ity to embody the mythic ideals of a particular way of life.

Martin Luther King Jr. was able to embody the mythic ideals of the black community. Although a

large number of people held the same mythic ideals, King possessed the ability to effectively artic-

ulate this view of life. His “I have a Dream” speech is probably the best example of King’s ability

to express the mythic ideals of the black community. Like Conner, King was a man of action, a per-

son others could look to promote or preserve a sub group’s mythic ideals by direct action. The


4/20/9930

source of King’s power was the combination of embodying widely held mythic ideals, articulation

and action .

In order to maintain their link to power, figureheads are required to continue to embody the myth-

ic ideals of their subgroup. This can take place in two forms: as an extension of a personal belief

system or as an opportunity to gain power for personal ambition. George Wallace is identified as a

true believer while ‘Bull’ Conner is described as an opportunist.26 In either case the figureheads of

power are limited in their actions by the mythic ideals in the subgroup which is the source of their

power. In Birmingham the Kennedy borthers had persuaded King that the demonstrations should

be called off so negotiations could continue. Fred Shuttlesworth forcefully disagreed with this

action, stating it would be going back on a promise he had made to the black community.27 In

essence, the black community was setting boundaries for King to operate within. These constraints,

although different, applied to all figures of power.

For the purposes of this section I will define three subgroups whose exercise of power influenced

the events of the civil rights movement. These three sub groups are: The National Democratic Party

as represented by the Democratic Administration, the segregationist sub group as represented by

local officials and the black sub group as represented by Martin Luther King Jr.. These three groups

provide an excellent example of how sub groups interact within an organization.

The civil rights movement provided the Democratic Party an opportunity to increase their support

in the South by obtaining the black vote. The black community’s support of John Kennedy was pri-

marily in response to his call to Mrs. King concering Dr. King’s safety.28 After this incident the


4/20/99 31

Democratic party was very anxious to obtain the black vote. Voter registration was an important

part of an overall plan in the black community. It was an issue that was in the best interests of both

the Democratic party and the black community. Voter registration became the issue that aligned the

Democratic party with the civil rights movement.29

The Democratic party appeared to have four major objectives while exercising its power. The pri-

mary objective was to obtain the southern black vote. They also wished to appear, to their north-

ern constituents, as taking a moral stand against segregation. They did not want the issues of black

voter registration to appear as though it was forced on the South by the federal government.

Covertly they wanted a contingency plan to distance the party from or stop the civil rights move-

ment if necessary30. If the party could obtain these objectives, their power base and legitimacy

would increase.

The Democrats exercised their power in a low profile manner. Federal agents and the courts were

used as tools to protect the black community and encourage voter registration. The use of direct

force was not invoked to avoid offending southern leaders. The FBI was used as a tool to control

the black leadership and some evidence suggests FBI involvement in the death of Martin Luther King

Jr.31. At the time of King’s death the party’s objectives had been met and the black community was

moving in a direction that would have placed it in confrontation with the Democratic administra-

tion32. The leadership of the Democratic party was clearly operating in the best interest of the myth-

ic ideals that supported it.

The black community exercised its power directly through the members of its community. The


4/20/9932

expression of this power was primarily civil disobedience, based on Gandhi’s philosophy. Another

aspect of Gandhi’s philosophy advocated use of a moral standpoint to erode the legitimacy of the

segregationist community. This was the link between Gandhi and the black religious leaders.

Although not all members of the black community agreed on Gandhi’s philosophy of power, they

did see the effectiveness of nonviolence in the face of a violent reaction. Once the black commu-

nity realized their communal power, members of the black community began to strongly advocate

violence33 as a means to obtain their objectives. For the most part the expression of power by the

black community was exercised by physically standing behind their mythic ideals.

The segregationist community, typically, would misjudge the situation and react with violence. This

reactionary use of power often played into the hands of the black community34. Years of uncon-

tested power and a sense of legitimacy would often lead to counter productive results. The inter-

esting exception was Laurie Pritchett, the police chief of Albany Georgia. He was sensitive to his

adversaries and had studied their methods and techniques. His use of nonviolence against nonvi-

olence was effective to the point that it was called “one of the most stunning defeats of [King’s]

career.”35 The single biggest factor in the success of the black community was their misjudgment

by the segregationists.

Sub groups that exercise their power effectively are aware, at least at some level, of the mythic ideals

of the sub groups with which they interact. Once the black sub group was able to demonstrate to

the segregationist sub group that it did indeed have power, the common question was “What do

blacks want?”. This question signifies two important points: The segregationist sub group was

unaware of the true mythic ideals of the black sub group and the acknowledgment of the black sub


4/20/99 33

group’s power. The use of violence, combined with the questioning of segregation on a moral basis

within the segregationist sub group,36 brought its mythic ideals into question. The segregationist sub

group lost legitimacy through the exercise of their power. In contrast the black and Democratic sub

groups both increased their power base and legitimacy by exercising their power based on their

mythic ideals. The effective use of sub group power requires an understanding and interaction

between other sub groups and the organization as a whole.

True power originates from commonly held mythic ideals. A person articulating and acting in accor-

dance with these mythic ideals is one whose power and legitimacy is confirmed by the sub group.37

In order to bring about organizational change or to maintain the status quo, without force, one sub

group must debate the value of another sub group’s mythic ideals. Organizational change is not a

matter of legislative change, but a modification of mythic ideals. Gandhi termed this idea satya-

grahi38 and states as its objective “ [a] transformation or purification of that relationship [between

opponents]”.39 True organizational change, therefore, requires the modification of mythic ideals.

The black sub group was successful in establishing its power. It was less effective in terms of true

organizational change because of its limited success in changing the mythic ideals of the other sub

groups. This failure has promoted pacification rather than cooperation as the mode of sub group

interaction. I believe that the black community will not be able to achieve total equality until the

mythic ideals of other communities are somehow modified.


4/20/9934

Scientific Studies

Lewin may have been right in his observation of driving and restraining forces within an organiza-

tion. But we need to question the model of unfreezing, changing and re-freezing an organization.

As we have seen, there is significant evidence that these driving and restraining forces are not stat-

ic and that their interaction is rather complex in nature. Further, there is significant doubt that for-

mula based interventions are effective in bringing about organizational change. With the rise in

popularity of chaos theory the entire concept of scientific management has come under scrutiny.40

Traditional scientific methodology isolates individual factors to prove or disprove a hypothesis. This

methodology has been extremely useful in turning relationships into usable formulas. These for-

mulas are extremely valuable to the design of bridges, electronic circuits and space flight. Yet occa-

sionally is heard the complaint “We can send a man to the moon but we can’t .....” Unfortunately

the scientific method has great difficulty explaining events which are highly dynamic and depend-

ent on multiple variables.

The bulk of, if not all, scientific studies exploring organizational change are highly simplistic single

factor experiments. This state of affairs would not be considered acceptable for understanding a

moderately complicated manufacturing process let alone something as complex as organizational

change. To add insult to injury, Roberts and Roberson found a tendency toward positive finding bias

and a lack of methodological rigor in organizational development studies41. Based on my review

of studies related to organization change, I concure this this assesment.


4/20/99 35

1 Dumaine, Brian “Times are good? Create a crisis.” Fortune, June 28, 1993 v127 n13 p123(4)2 Dumaine, Brian “Times are good? Create a crisis.” Fortune, June 28, 1993 v127 n13 p123(4)3 Hoover’s Online http://www.hoovers.com/premium/fin_tables/11166ft.html March 16, 19984 Urick, Ron and DeMont, Roger “Feedback is often neglected in the midst of change.” HR Focus, Oct 1993 v70

n10 p15(1)5 Reynolds, Larry “Understand employees’ resistance to change.” HR Focus, June 1994 v71 n6 p17(1)6 Reynolds, Larry “Understand employees’ resistance to change.” HR Focus, June 1994 v71 n6 p17(1)7 Knorr, Robert O. “A Strategy for Communicating Change” Journal of Business Strategy p18 - 208 Standing, Tom , Martin, Jerry and Moravec, Milan “Attitude surveys: a catalyst for cultural change.” HR Focus,

Dec 1991 v68 n12 p17(2)9 Senge, Peter The Fifth Discipline (New York, 1990), p. X10 Schaffer, Robert H. and Thomson, Harvey A. “Successful change programs begin with results.” Harvard Business

Review, Jan-Feb 1992 v70 n1 p80(10)11 Roberts, Darryl R. and Robertson, Peter J. “Positive-findings bias, and measuring methodological rigor, in evalua-

tions of organization development.” Journal of Applied Psychology, Dec 1992 v77 n6 p918(8)12 Hall, Gene, Rosenthal, Jim and Wade, Judy “How to make reengineering really work.” Harvard Business Review,

Nov-Dec 1993 v71 n6 p119(13)13 Kanter, Rosabeth & Stien, Barry Life in Organizations (New York, 1979)

“Life at the top” Bennis, Warren “Why Leaders Can’t Lead” p. 36 to 48“Life in the Middle” Terkel, Studs “Wheeler Stanley, General Forman” p. 98 to 104“Life in the Middle” Vandiver, Kermit “Why Should My Conscience Bother Me?” p. 160 to 175

14 Kanter, Rosabeth & Stien, Barry Life in Organizations (New York, 1979)15 “Making a Life at the Bottom” Roy, Donald F. “Banana Time”: Job Satisfaction and Informal Interaction16 “Making a Life at the Bottom” Roy, Donald F. “Banana Time”: Job Satisfaction and Informal Interaction pg 19317 “Making a Life at the Bottom” Roy, Donald F. “Banana Time”: Job Satisfaction and Informal Interaction pg 19318 Attenborough, Richard The Words of Gandhi (New York, 1982), p. 5219 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 29820 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 14721 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 13622 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 36523 Communities in this respect are not physical localities but a group of individuals who share the same view of life.24 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 39225 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 39326 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 365 & 37427 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 15828 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 90 & 95n29 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 22830 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 369 - 370 31 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 32232 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 468 & 469n33 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 469n34 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 14335 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 36436 Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested (New York, 1977), p. 36837 Ronald Reagan is a good example of a leader articulating and acting on widely held mythic values.38 A simplified version of this idea is a win — win philosophy.39 Attenborough, Richard The Words of Gandhi (New York, 1982), p. 5540 Freedman, David H. “Is management still a science?” Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec 1992 v70 n6 p26(9)41 Roberts, Darryl & Robertson, Peter. “Positive-Finding Bias, and Measuring Methodological Rigor, in Evaluation of

Organizational Development” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1992 v77 n6 p918 - 923


4/20/9936

Change Dynamics


4/20/99 37

An Organizational Model Relevant to Organizational Change

In a traditional understanding of organizational structure, a leader or leaders are surrounded by a

number of followers. If this represented a complete model of an organization, organizational change

would be completely controlled by an organization’s leadership. As demonstrated in the literature

review, this is often not the case. As a result of this observation, this leader - follower model of an

organization offers limited information about the process of change.

As noted in the social versus corporate change chapter of this document, a reexamination of cur-

rent assumptions concerning the subject of organizational change is necessary. During this reexam-

ination process, elements of an organization’s structure relevant to the process of change were iden-

tified. Utilizing these elements, a more complex organizational model emerges. The result of this

process is a new model consisting of a series of concentric spheres with a core in the middle.


4/20/9938

Spheres of Control

The spheres of control are dual purpose mechanisms used by an organization to maintain individ-

ual member conformity and to advance the organization’s goals. These control mechanisms oper-

ate on its members to maintain stability and ensure the survival of the group. The spheres also are

a tool which allows the organization to operate externally with other groups to achieve its goals.

These spheres of control are relevant to understanding organizational change because they are often

used by one organization to change, dominate or control other organizations. For example, the lim-

itation of aspirations limits the possibilities of an individual without regard to their talents. The orga-

nization controls the aspirations of people internal and external to the organization. Manifestation

of this type of control might include limiting access to education or being placed in a dead end job.

Physical Intimidation

Specific Examples of Physical Intimidation would include:

Death or Threat of Death

Bodily Harm or Threat of Bodily Harm

Bombing of Specific Targets

Creating a Code of behavior enforced by personal violence

Torture

Riots


4/20/99 39

Limitation of Aspirations

Specific Examples of Limitation of Aspirations would include:

Work slow downs

“Work to rule”

Control of promotions

Control of job status

Access to education

Distribution of social benefits

Control over economic status might include promotions, raises, or job opportu-

nities.

Control of Economic Status

Specific Examples of Control of Economic Status would include:

Boycotts

Labor strikes

Peaceful disruption of economic activities

Control of job requirements

Employment compensation

Fringe benefits

Vendor selection

Sanctions

Regulations

Tax structure


4/20/9940

Organizations within Organizations

Rare is the organization that is of one mind. Any understanding of organizational change needs to

accommodate differences among groups within the organization. In analyzing the work of Karl

Lewin, it becomes apparent that an organizational model focused on understanding the dynamics

of change needs to be more complex than two subgroups, one that desires change and one that

opposes change. In fact, we can reasonably expect to see a variety of subgroups within an organi-

zation. To accommodate this need, each subgroup within the organization can be understood as

separate organizations within a larger organization. Furthermore, organizations do not exist in a vac-

uum; they are part of governmental and cultural - social structures.

In this view a particular subgroup can be simultaneously part of a number of larger organizations.

Likewise an individual can be simultaneously a member of several subgroups or organizations.

While this is a significant increase in complexity, I feel it is more reflective of the complex interac-

tion between individuals, subgroups and organizations.

At an Organization’s Core are its Principles

At the core of every organization there exists a perception of what is true. A great deal of human

philosophy and theology is devoted to determining what is true. What arises out of the search for

what is true is a system of beliefs which govern how someone or group can come to know what is

true. For example I could use the scientific method to determine the tensile strength of a piece of

steel. By doing so I could state what is true about a piece of steel.


4/20/99 41

While I believe that I have determined “the truth” about the tensile strength of a piece of steel, some-

one else may disagree with my methodology. This person may argue strongly and convincingly that

I have not discovered “the truth” because my way of determining what is true is in error. Given a

different methodology a different truth is known. What we consider to be true, therefore, depends

on methodology. Accepting that real Truth exists, what we commonly call “the truth” is really a

result of a particular methodology.

In order for someone to believe that their result is reflective of the Truth, they must have faith that

their methodology is correct. While there may be relatively slight disagreements about the method-

ology involved in determining the truth about the tensile strength of a piece of steel, other areas of

life offer a wide variation on what is true. One group may believe that the Bible is the source of all

truth. The Result of interpreting passages (Methodology) reveals the Truth. Another group may

believe that all truth can be known using the scientific method. Both groups may arrive at results

that are in direct conflict. Yet they are bound by the idea that in order to believe that a result is true,

one must have faith that the methodology is correct.


4/20/9942

Organizational principles are based on what the organization believes to be true. If X and Y are true,

then the organization should function like Z. Principals, therefore are the natural extension of a

methodology determining what is true. Principals based on truth form the basis which determines

the direction and the range of acceptable actions for the organization. The survival of the organiza-

tion depends heavily on each member behaving according to these principles. The organization’s

principles defines the moral code for the organization or group.

In this view, the relationship between, Truth, Methodology and Results which make up an organi-

zation’s Principals, holds the key to understanding the dynamics of organizational change. The

Methodology used to determine what is true is the primary element in determining an organization’s

principles. Principles are what drive the organization’s actions. The dynamics of organizational

change involve the modification of an organization’s methodology to determine the truth. Change

is difficult because an organization’s methodology is rooted in a “leap of faith” that the present

methodology results in an accurate reflection of the truth.


4/20/99 43

The relationship between Truth, Methodology,, Result and Action can be described in a four ele-

ment model. Truth is the ultimate understanding of everything. Normally we can not directly access

the truth. There may, however, be instances where direct access is possible. Attaining “Nirvana” or

what Maslow describes as Religious Peak Experiences seems to indicate that it is possible to direct-

ly access the truth, but only for brief periods. For the purposes of our ordinary daily life, we must

rely on a particular methodology to access a portion of the truth.

Methodology is the process we use to access small parts of the Truth. Methodology can encompass

a wide range of activities. Application of the scientific method, pursuit of philosophy or the reli-

gious, simple observation, study of history and historical patterns or intuitive insight through the arts,

just to name a few. All methodologies have one thing in common, they are not independently ver-

ifiable. The reason they are not verifiable is that we do not have direct access to the truth. Essentially

a methodology is a tool we use to understand the truth. It is not possible to use a tool to prove that

a tool is true. In this model, methodology requires a “leap of faith” that the methodology is valid.

The last two elements are a bit more familiar; Result and Action. The Result is the part of the Truth

which the Methodology discovers. Action is based on what we believe to be true (The Result).

Because we make the leap of faith that our methodology is valid, it is common to group Truth,

Methodology and Result into one and simply call it “The Truth”. While this short hand is normally

acceptable it is insufficient and counterproductive to understanding the fundamental dynamic of

organizational change.

The Role of the Visionary

We often imagine a visionary as a knight on a white horse whose “outside the box” thinking leads

a multitude of happy followers to a new paradigm. This image of a visionary is only partially true.

When it does happen, it is at the point where organizational change has already occurred and the


4/20/9944

visionary has ceased to be a visionary and is now a leader. In the beginning of the change process,

the life of a visionary is far from that of a knight on a white horse.

The role of the visionary is to stand up and tell the organization in effect what you believe to be true

is not true. Within the context of this model, the visionary is saying your faith in the organization’s

methodology is incorrect. At the start of an effective change process a visionary questions the faith

of the organization. As might be expected this is not a recipe for creating a multitude of happy fol-

lowers. This is especially so if members of the organization have a vested interest in the belief that

a particular methodology yields an accurate refection of the Truth. A person who questions the faith

of the organization should expect the full wrath of the organization’s control mechanisms as

described in the spheres of control.

One example of such a visionary is Nikola Tesla. Tesla invented the AC motor. The AC motor was

a significant development because it facilitated much of what we take for granted in our present

society. When Tesla first proposed the AC motor he was roundly denounced by the academics of

his day. Even after he proved himself correct, there was considerable resistance to his ideas. I find

Tesla a representative example of a visionary; he died broke and unrecognized for his contribution.


4/20/99 45

Organizational Model


4/20/99 47


4/20/9948

Cycle of Organizational Development

Each stage is defined by a conflict between two forces. This conflict offers a spectrum of results.

Failure to resolve the conflict positively results in a break in the cycle. If the conflict is not resolved

positively or is resolved by default this makes dealing with the next conflict more difficult.

For example if the survival vs. failure stage does not result in a successful mission statement, deal-

ing with delegation vs. control issues will be impossible. It will require the organization to go back

and reevaluate and resolve the survival vs. failure issues.

Survival vs. Failure

This stage determines if the new organization is able to identify and execute the factors necessary

to insure the organization’s survival.

A positive resolution results in a strong mission statement.

A negative resolution is the failure of the organization.


4/20/99 49

Delegation vs. Control

As the organization grows the owner(s) or dominant person(s) are no longer able to control all

aspects of the organization.

The conflict at this stage is between delegating certain aspects of the organization to non-owners or

less dominant members of the organization and keeping control of the day-to-day activities.

A positive resolution allows the new leaders/ managers to make mistakes within their area of con-

trol.

A negative resolution does not allow delegation and the growth of the organization is limited to the

ability of the owner(s) or dominant person(s).

Mission vs. Special Interest

As control is delegated to a larger number of leaders / managers the focus of each separate sphere

of control narrows.

The conflict at this stage is between the special interest of each separate sphere of control and the

need to fulfill the mission statement.

A positive resolution requires each separate sphere of control to balance its needs against the mis-

sion statement.

A negative resolution allows each sphere of control to set their own agenda independent of the mis-

sion statement.


4/20/9950

Reevaluation vs. Diminishing Returns

As each sphere of control directs its efforts toward the mission statement efficiency increases until

further effort yields little or no results.

The conflict at this stage is between the status quo and a reevaluation of success.

A positive resolution results in a redefined mission statement allowing for further development.

A negative resolution allows the organization to slip into complacency.

Definition of Terms

Spheres of Control

The spheres of control are duel purpose mechanisms used by the organization to maintain confor-

mity among the organization’s member. These control mechanisms operate on its members to main-

tain stability and ensure the survival of the group. The spheres also are a tool which allows the orga-

nization to operate externally to achieve its goals.

Truth

At the core of every organization there exists a perception of what is true. A great deal of human

philosophy and theology is devoted to determining what is true. What arises out of the search for

what is true is a system of beliefs which govern how someone or group can come to know what is

true.


4/20/99 51

Limitation of Aspirations

The limitation of aspirations limits the possibilities of an individual without regard to their talents.

The organization controls the aspirations of people internal and external to the organization.

Manifestation of this type of control might include limiting access to education or being placed in

a dead end job.

Control of Economic Status

Control over economic status might include promotions, raises, or job opportunities.

Physical Intimidation

Physical Intimidation is just that; real or threatened violence.

Power

In every organization there exists a truth (or social mythology) that operates as a basis of power. The

real power in an organization rests in its vision of the truth. Legitimate leaders are simply an exten-

sion or figurehead of the organization’s truth. Empowerment by the organization is necessary to

develop a leader’s legitimacy.

Leadership

A natural process of maintaining the organization’s culture involves the empowerment of leaders.

Leadership is a communal relationship between the organizational members and its leader. The

implication of this communal relationship is that the organization, as a whole, defines the range of

acceptable behavior in a legitimate leader. Power in terms of leadership can be defined as a leader

who acts as a guiding head influencing or swaying the members of a group.


4/20/9952

Authority

Authority is defined as the formulation and enforcement of formal organizational policies. This

would include, for example, accounting procedures and personal policy. Organizational authority

therefore is a finite concept. Because authority is finite, formal and rigid, it requires the subordina-

tion of lower status organizational members to be effective. The concepts of manager and authori-

ty are, however, separate. An example of this would be a meter maid who has authority but is not

a manager.

Manager

Hierarchical organizational theory puts a finite amount of authority in the hands of the organiza-

tion’s highest leader. This authority is then distributed to other subordinate leaders in the organiza-

tion. The lowest member of the organization is seen as having no authority. The essential elements

of management are a well defined sphere of authority and the subordination of the rank and file.

The manager sees the organization as something they control rather than being controlled or con-

strained by the organization.

Visionary

The visionary by nature, or definition, holds views different from the organization as a whole. The

visionary may be able to escape the limitations of management and leadership, but does not escape

the social control exerted on the individual. The role of a visionary is one that sees the overall orga-

nization from a perspective other than the accepted organizational truth. A visionary should expect

to experience pressure to conform to what the organization accepts to be true.


4/20/99 53

The Model in Action

This model is flexible enough to accommodate a wide variety of situations to account for differences

between types of organizations. The function of the model is to provide an meaningful framework

for understanding the current state of an organization in respect to organizational change. The fol-

lowing are some examples of how this can be done.

Relative Emphasis Placed on Control Mechanisms

The organization’s principals determines the emphasis placed on each of these control mechanisms.

A typical for-profit corporation might look like this:

emphasizing control of economic status and the limitation of aspirations.

A volunteer organization might look like this:

where the limitation of aspirations is the primary organizational tool.


4/20/9954

A street gang or a terrorist organization might look like this:

where there is an overall emphasis on violence to maintain control and to achieve political, social

or economic goals.

The tactics used by an organization are a reflection of the organization’s principles. The dynamic of

organizational change, therefore, is not dependent on a particular change strategy. This is why I con-

tend the distinction between social change and corporate change is more superficial than real.

Violent Conflict Between Organizations of Differing Strength

The desire for each organization to maintain a set of principles allows the creation of an “us vs.

them” mentality. This is especially true if a dominant organization claims a moral superiority. From

a view of moral superiority it is a short step to dehumanize an “inferior” group.

One response to this type of oppression is to create a sub-group which can live within the violence

sphere of the dominant group. Using violence, this relatively small group can effect the economic

status of the dominant group. The ultimate goal is to get the dominant group to respect the beliefs

of the oppressed group.

The difficulty with this response is that the members of this terrorist group are trapped in violence

not only by the dominant group, but by their own people. Even when the dominant group decides

to respect the beliefs and way of life of the oppressed group it is difficult to break the cycle of vio-


4/20/99 55

lence. It also serves to explain why terrorist groups are not deterred by violence or threats of vio-

lence from the dominate group.

This analysis suggests that violence is not effective in modifying the principles of the target group

and is therefore an ineffective change strategy for a minority group seeking change from a majority

or power group. Conversely, violence exercised by a dominant group is more likely to elicit a vio-

lent response from a minority group than it is to bring about a change in the group’s principles.


4/20/9956

Achieving Change


4/20/99 57

Modifying an Organization’s Principles

The model of the organizational change suggests that an effective effort to change an organization

should be directed toward understanding and modifying the principles of the organization. If this

can be accomplished, the rest of the organization will follow.

The question then becomes, how do you change an organization’s principles? This question returns

us to the heart of the change model illustrating how an organization’s principles are formulated. It

assumes that Truth exists but that we can not fully or directly comprehend it. We get glimpses of the

Truth by applying a methodology to what we can observe. A leap of faith is necessary to believe a

methodology yields a result which is a refection of the Truth. The result of a methodology is the basis

for the organization’s principles and corresponding actions. Changing the organization’s principles

involves a visionary who effectively questions the organization’s faith in its methodology.

This position is radically different from others in that I lack a step by step intervention strategy to

achieve organizational change. I contend, however, that the intervention strategy theory is based on

a flawed principle. The basis for the intervention strategy is Kurt Lewin’s freeze / thaw / refreeze view

of organizations. It assumes that organizations are normally static and require some type of inter-

vention to achieve change. In my literature review I present a case that suggests there is a negative

correlation between the use of an intervention strategy and success in achieving organizational

change. This is why I believe a complete rethinking of how change occurs is necessary.

My investigation and experience tells me that a continued exploration of intervention strategies will

not solve the problem of a fundamental error in the underlying theory which supports its use.

I suggest that an organization is never frozen, but that it is constantly in a state of change. While

some of these changes are subtle, the organization is different from day to day. It must respond to

internal and external forces. Usually, it reacts to maintain certain routines or principles. If this view


4/20/9958

of organizations is true, then how we go about directing this inherent change process must move

away from conventional change interventions. I contend that an organization’s principles drives this

inherent change process. If we can modify an organization’s or sub group’s principles we change

the direction of the organization. What is the dynamic driving an organization’s principles? I have

developed a three step process.

This process assumes that an ultimate truth exists. This ultimate truth is so vast and complex that we

can not access all of it directly. Maslow suggests that some of us get brief glimpses of insight or

direct access to the truth. He calls these peak experiences. They are usually associated with a reli-

gious experience. Normally however we get small portions of the ultimate truth. This is were the

three step process comes in.

By applying a methodology to what we observe we end up a result which is a reflection of the truth.

Based on this result we take action. For example, I could say that a piece of steel has a tensile

strength of 700 pounds / sq. inch based on the type of steel and its thickness. Armed with this knowl-

edge, I use this steel to design and build a walking bridge.

In this example, the truth I accessed is the strength of the steel. The methodology used is a formula


4/20/99 59

developed for a particular type of steel. The result is the strength of the steel and the action is using

the steel to build a bridge. I must have faith that my formula will give me a result which is based on

the ultimate truth. This, however, may not be the case. The formula may be in error or may be

incomplete. It may not, for example, take into account the carbon content of the steel.

As long as I have faith in my methodology, I will consider the truth and the result of my methodol-

ogy one and the same and I will act accordingly. If I run into a situation where my belief is ques-

tioned, for example the bridge I built falls down, my faith is shaken. This occurs when there is a dis-

connect between the ultimate truth and the result of my methodology. This forces me to modify or

even throw out the old methodology.

If, as I contend, an organization’s principles ultimately determine the direction of an organization,

the three step process holds the key to guiding organizational change. I believe there are three

essential elements to guiding organizational change. The first is to identify and articulate how we

determine what is true (current methodology). The second is to speculate if a better methodology

exists. The final element is adoption of a new methodology.

I have created an exercise designed to be used in a group setting. It can be used to highlight differ-

ing methodologies between three groups. In this exercise divide people into three groups and allow

them to role play for a period of time. Then introduce a discussion which asks the group as whole

to determine what beliefs (principles) drive each of the three groups.

After this is complete, ask the participants how the role play situation would have been different if

teach group had known the principles of the other groups before the role play began.

This exercise illustrates how change can be guided within an organization. Identify the various sub

groups within an organization. Identify the principles which drives each of these subgroups.

Develop a strategy which causes a rethinking of a subgroups methodology. (See Appendix C)


4/20/9960

Social vs CorporateChange


4/20/99 61

Social Change vs. Corporate Change

There are several factors which seem to divide ways of thinking about change. One of these divid-

ing factors is purpose. Those writing about social change seem to agree that the purpose for bring-

ing about change is to: correct an injustice, preserve something of value or to make a better society.

A typical example might involve the reallocation of resources. Harry Boyte cites an example of a

community in San Antonio Texas which forced the city to fix a chronic drainage problem in the poor

section of town1. The purpose of social change appears to be almost always rooted on a more just

distribution of resources.

In contrast, people who focus on corporate change are interested in increasing efficiency, improv-

ing profits and increasing or maintaining market share. It is safe to say that there is no lack of ideas

on how corporations can be made better. The sheer volume of books, seminars and consultants sug-

gests that improving efficiency and profits is itself a thriving industry. Peter Senge makes the fol-

lowing observation “... I saw a “pattern of behavior” graph over time that represented the inevitable

rise and fall of fads. I imagined that like all fads that catch on, interest in learning organizations

would grow rapidly. Then there would be a leveling off, followed by a decline.”2 Senge’s observa-

tion is supported by a trail of discarded concepts such as time efficiency studies, theory X, Y and Z.

All of which were at one time or another considered cutting edge management theory. The only

consistent theme or market value is to improve the operating efficiency of a business.


4/20/9962

Even in areas where there appear to be similarities there are sharp differences. Empowerment is a

case in point. From a social change perspective, empowerment means to take back control from

another person, group or institution. Empowerment in the corporate setting is used to release the

creative forces within the organization. In one, control over a situation is taken and in the other it

is given. This analysis also reveals a difference in focus. Corporate change is seen as occurring from

the top down while social change is seen as occurring from the bottom up.

Finally there is the “vision thing.” I have outlined social change as being focused on issues of jus-

tice creating change from the bottom up through a process of empowerment. Vision is then a shared

belief that an ideal can be transformed into a reality. On the other hand, corporate change is

focused on increasing efficiency from the top down by a wide variety of methods. Vision is typi-

cally described as getting people to “buy into” a mission, philosophy or methodology.

Are We Asking the Right Question?

In developing my model for understanding the dynamics of organizational change I challenged the

assumption that there is a distinct differences in the dynamics of change between social change and

corporate change. Certainly there are difference between social change and corporate change but

do these difference constitute an argument that the fundamental dynamic of change is truly differ-

ent? To help answer this question I created the following chart to identify the differences between

social change and corporate change.


4/20/99 63

From this analysis it appears that the purpose of change is dramatically different between social and

corporate change. This distinction, no matter how sharp, does not suggest that the fundamental

dynamics of organizational change are really different. What it does suggest is that there is a sig-

nificant difference in methodologies.

Change and Methodology

This raises the next question. If the propose of change does not influence the fundamental dynam-

ics of change does the change methodology impact the its fundamental dynamics of change? To

help answer this question I created the following chart grouping change methodologies by the con-

trol mechanisms defined in the organizational change model. In compiling this list, it became

apparent that there is a third classification of change: National / International. I justify this inclu-

sion by stating that: Nations are simply a very large organization and that the purpose of an organi-

zation is not relevant to the dynamics of change.


4/20/9964

By presenting change methodologies as I have in the chart above, the methodologies converge at

the innermost aspect of the model. This suggests the possibility that there is a common underlying

dynamic at work. If this assumption is accurate then we need to understand why there are differ-

ences in methodological preference between groups in the categories of physical intimidation, con-

trol of economic status and the limitation of aspirations.


4/20/99 65

Methodology and “Socially Acceptable Practice”

By looking at which methodologies are generally considered “socially acceptable practice” for each

of the general headings we begin to see a plausible explanation for methodological preference.

To illustrate the idea of social acceptability is consider the following example. An organization

decides to bomb selective targets to achieve change. If this group is a government, the social

acceptability of this change methodology is high to moderate. If the organization is not a govern-

ment, the organization is branded a terrorist group and the social acceptability of this change

methodology is low. In this example the very same change methodology can have a radically dif-

ferent socially acceptable practice rating depending on the organization implementing the method-

ology.

Despite this difference, there are a number of common aspects. Both organizations, government

and terrorist, are driven by the principles of the organization. (It is wrong for Iraq to invade Kuwait

- It is wrong to oppress Palestinians) To the degree that the organization’s leaders articulate and act

on an organization’s or subgroup’s principles they are empowered to implement the organization’s

change methodology.


4/20/9966

Methodology and Effectiveness

If the only challenge to organizational change is to find and apply the proper methodology, some-

one much smarter would have found the answer long ago. Over the last 15 years I have reached

the point where I believe that an analysis of methodology is virtually useless.

Most of what is written about organizational change is focused on methodology geared toward a

particular type of organization. Generally these authors propose one methodology and cite one or

more success stories. What appears to be missing is an understanding of why a particular method-

ology works. I hope I have cast some doubt on the wisdom of such approach.

One notable exception to this generalization is Gandhi. In Gandhi we see an approach to change

which involves the following: Where change is desired between or within two or more organiza-

tions or groups within an organization, the group initialing the change should utilize change

methodologies which are respectful but get the attention of the other groups. The propose of

methodology is not to create change but to initiate a dialogue which reshapes the principles of ALL

the groups.

True organizational change only occurs when there is a change in an organization’s or group’s

principles. This is a radical departure from the conventional wisdom concerning organizational

change. In this model of the dynamics of organizational change, it is critical to understand each

organization or sub group’s interpretation of the truth. In this view change methodology no longer

dictates the dynamic of change but becomes simply a tool much like the relationship between a

hammer and carpentry. By placing change methodology in a relatively minor role, it is reasonable

to conclude that differences between social, corporate and national / international change are rela-

tively superficial to the process of organizational change.

1 Boyte, Harry C. Community is Possible, (New York, 1984) pages 126 - 1272 Senge, Peter M. The Fifth Discipline, (New York, 1990) page ix


4/20/99 67

Bibliography


4/20/99 69

Bibliography

Attenborough, Richard The Words of Gandhi New York, NY 1982

Axelrod, Dick “Getting everyone involved: how one organization involved itsemployees, supervisors, and managers in redesigning the organization.” Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, Dec 1992 v28 n4 p499(11)

Bartunek, Jean M., Lacey, Catherine A. and Wood, Diane R. “Social cognition inorganizational change: an insider-outsider approach. (Leadership by Teachers)”Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, June 1992 v28 n2 p204(20)

Beer, Michael and Spector, Bert “Organizational diagnosis: its role in organizationallearning.” Journal of Counseling and Development, July-August 1993 v71 n6p642(9)

Blake, Lanny “Reduce employees’ resistance to change.” Personnel Journal, Sept1992 v71 n9 p72(4)

Brenton, Angelia Laird. (1993) “Demystifying the Magic of Language: CriticalLinguistic Case Analysis of Legitimation of Authority,” Journal of AppliedCommunication Research, Volume 21 #3, 227 - 244

Bunker, Barbara Benedict and Alban, Billie T. “Conclusion: what makes large groupinterventions effective?” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Dec 1992 v28 n4p579(13)

Campbell, Joseph Transformations of Myth Through Time New York, NY 1990

Chafe, William H. Sex and Race: The Analogy of Social Control

Dannemiller, Kathleen D. and Jacobs, Robert W. “Changing the way organizationschange: a revolution of common sense.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,Dec 1992 v28 n4 p480(19)

Duck, Jeanie Daniel “Managing change: the art of balancing.” Harvard BusinessReview, Nov-Dec 1993 v71 n6 p109(10)


4/20/9970

Dumaine, Brian “Times are good? Create a crisis.” Fortune, June 28, 1993 v127 n13p123(4)

Erikson, Erik H. (Editor) Adulthood New York, NY 1978

Erikson, Erik H. Gandhi’s Truth New York, NY 1969

Freedman, David H. “Is management still a science?” Harvard Business Review,Nov-Dec 1992 v70 n6 p26(9)

Fuqua, Dale R. and Kurpius, DeWayne J. “Conceptual models in organizationalconsultation.” Journal of Counseling and Development, July-August 1993 v71 n6p607(12)

Glaser, Susan R. (1994) “Teamwork and Communication,” ManagementCommunication Quarterly, Volume 7 #3, 282 - 297

Goss, Tracy, Pascale, Richard and Athos, Anthony “The reinvention roller coaster:risking the present for a powerful future.” Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec 1993v71 n6 p97(12)

Hagberg, Janet O. Real Power Minneapolis, MN 1984

Hall, Gene, Rosenthal, Jim and Wade, Judy “How to make reengineering reallywork.” Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec 1993 v71 n6 p119(13)

Jack, Homer A. The Gandhi Reader New York, NY 1956

Janeway, Elizabeth Powers of the Weak

Johnson, Paul A History of Christianity New York, NY 1987

Juergensmeyer, Mark Fighting With Gandhi New York, NY 1984

Jung, C. G. Psychology and Western Religion Princeton, NJ 1984

Kahn, William A. “Facilitating and undermining organizational change: a casestudy.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, March 1993 v29 n1 p32(24)


4/20/99 71

Kanter, Roseabeth Moss and Stein. Barry A. (Editors) Life in Organizations USA,1979

Knorr, Robert O. “A Strategy for Communicating Change” Journal of BusinessStrategy p18 - 20

Kumar, Parmod / Ghadially, Rehana “Organizational Politics and Its Effect onMembers of Organizations” Human Relations, April, 1989 pages 305 to 314

Lau, D.C. (Translator) Confucius The Analects London, England 1979

Lau, D.C. (Translator) Mencius London, England 1970

Levin, Ira M. and Gottlieb, Jonathan Z. “Quality management: practice risks andvalue-added roles for organization development practitioners.” Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, Sept 1993 v29 n3 p296(15)

Marshak, Robert J. “Lewin meets Confucius: a re-view of the OD model of change.”Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Dec 1993 v29 n4 p393(23)

Martin, Roger “Changing the mind of the corporation.” Harvard Business Review,Nov-Dec 1993 v71 n6 p81(9)

Maslow, Abraham H. Religions, Values and Peak-Experiences New York, NY 1964

McGaa, Ed Rainbow Tribe San Francisco, CA 1992

McKendall, Marie “The tyranny of change: organizational development revisited.”Journal of Business Ethics, Feb 1993 v12 n2 p93(12)

McPherson, J. Miller, Popielarz, Pamela A. and Drobnic, Sonja “Social networksand organizational dynamics.” American Sociological Review, April 1992 v57 n2p153(28)

Miller, Barbara Stoler (Translator) The Bhagavad-Gita New York, NY 1986

Miller, Johnson, and Grau. (1994) “Antecedents to Willingness to Participate in aPlanned Organizational Change,” Journal of Applied Communication Research,Volume 22 #1, 59 - 80


4/20/9972

Miner, Anne S. “Organizational evolution and the social ecology of jobs.” AmericanSociological Review, Dec 1991 v56 n6 p772(14)

Neihardt, John C. Black Elk Speaks New York, NY 1959

Niebuhr, Reinhold The Nature and Destiny of Man New York, NY 1964

Raines, Howell My Soul is Rested New York, NY 1977

Rastogi, P. “Essence of Leadership” Vikalpa, December, 1987 pages 37 to 41

Reck, Ross & Long, Brian The Win Win Negotiator Michigan, 1985

Regan, Margaret “Beware the work/family culture shock.” Personnel Journal, Jan1994 v73 n1 p35(2)

Reynolds, Larry “Understand employees’ resistance to change.” HR Focus, June1994 v71 n6 p17(1)

Roberts, Darryl R. and Robertson, Peter J. “Positive-findings bias, and measuringmethodological rigor, in evaluations of organization development.” Journal ofApplied Psychology, Dec 1992 v77 n6 p918(8)

Rothstein, Lawrence R., Casse, Pierre, Niven, Steve, Miller, Carolyn Boulger andMiller, Lyle “The case of the temperamental talent.” Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec 1992 v70 n6 p16(6)

Schaffer, Robert H. and Thomson, Harvey A. “Successful change programs beginwith results.” Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1992 v70 n1 p80(10)

Shrader, Charles / Lincoln, James / Hoffman, Allen “The Network Structures ofOrganization: Effects on Task Contingencies and Distribution From” HumanRelations, January, 1989 pages 43 to 66

Spiegel, Leo “Change management eases complex projects.” InfoWorld, Feb 28,1994 v16 n9 p50(1)

Standing, Tom , Martin, Jerry and Moravec, Milan “Attitude surveys: a catalyst forcultural change.” HR Focus, Dec 1991 v68 n12 p17(2)


4/20/99 73

Stewart, Thomas A. “Rate your readiness to change.” Fortune, Feb 7, 1994 v129 n3p106(3)

Stump, Robert W. “Change requires more than just having a vision. (Brave NewWorkplace: Issues and Trends for Human Resources Management)” HR Focus, Jan1994 v71 n1 p3(1)

Thompson, Curt M. “Preparation is key to successful change.” HR Focus, April 1994v71 n4 p17(2)

Urick, Ron and DeMont, Roger “Feedback is often neglected in the midst ofchange.” HR Focus, Oct 1993 v70 n10 p15(1)

Vanderslice, Virginia “Separating Leadership from Leaders: An Assessment of theEffect of Leader and Follower Roles in Organization” Human Relations, September,1988 pages 677 to 696

White, Louis P. and Rhodeback, Melanie J. “Ethical dilemnas in organization devel-opment: a cross-cultural analysis.” Journal of Business Ethics, Sept 1992 v11 n9p663(8)

Zampa, Frederick P. and McCormick Jr., Albert E. “Proxy power and corporatedemocracy: the characteristics and efficacy of stockholder-initiated proxy issues.”The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Jan 1991 v50 n1 p1(15)


4/20/9974

Appendix


4/20/99 75

Edmund

In this exercise you will be part of a group discussion with three different perspectives.Although it is apparent that there is a problem, this not a problem solving exercise. Yourgoal is to effectively communicate your perspective and understand the perspective of theother groups.

Background

Barksville is a city with a population of 1.5 million which includes the surroundingsuburbs. In 1965 an airport was built just north and east of downtown Barksville. Thetwo main runways run east and west; a third runway runs north and south. When the air-port first opened there were only 100 flights per day. Now there are 1200. Most of theseflights use the east west runways. During the hours of 8 AM to 12 PM and 3 PM to 10PM a plane takes off or lands every 40 seconds.

You live in the Edmund neighborhood of Barksville. Edmund is a working classneighborhood west of the airport and directly in the flight path of the Barksville Airport.The noise has always been bad but over the last 4 years the number of flights hasincreased by 100%. The neighborhood has met the Airport Commission to complainabout the dramatic increase in noise, but little has been done. An Airport Commissionstudy has shown what you already know; that the amount of noise has increased dramati-cally and Edmund bears the brunt of the noise. You have also found out that the propertyvalues in Edmund are significantly lower than other areas of Barksville. This has, in part,led to an increase in deteriorating rental housing and crime.

Since the entire community benefits from the Airport you feel that it isn’t fair thatEdmund must endure the majority of the noise. You also feel that reducing the excessivenoise will help stop the neighborhood’s deterioration. You would like the AirportCommission to change runway usage so more flights use the north / south runway. Thiswould direct flights over the wealthy suburb of Hilldale. The Hilldale residents havehired attorneys to stop any action which would increase the number of flights over theirneighborhood.

Your task is to communicate to the Airport Commissioners that you want the Airportto use the north south runway to distribute the noise more equitably.


4/20/9976

Hilldale


Background


You live in Hilldale, a suburb of Barksville. Hilldale is a middle class neighborhoodnorth of the airport. Hilldale is a safe quiet place to live and raise a family. This is whymost people move there, but recently there has been a move to route air traffic overHilldale. It seems that the inner city neighborhood of Edmund has mobilized to changethe flight patterns to reduce the amount of noise in their neighborhood. If what they pro-pose happens, the noise in Hilldale will quadruple. An Airport Commission study hasshown that the amount of noise has increased and Edmund bears the brunt of the noise. AReal Estate Attorney who lives in Hilldale estimates the property values will drop 10 to15% if the noise increases.

You are sympathetic to the noise problem in Edmund but don’t think that you shouldhave to live with their noise or suffer a decrease in property values. After all, most of thepeople who live in Edmund moved there after the Airport was built, so they knew it wasgoing to be noisy. People who moved to Hilldale live there because they knew it wouldbe quiet. You would like the Airport commission to require the Airlines to use quieter jetsas a solution to the noise problem and keep the runway use the same.

Your task is to communicate to the Airport Commissioners that you want them torequire the Airline to use quieter jets and keep the runway use the same.


4/20/99 77

Airport Commissioner


Background


You are a member of the Hilldale Airport Commission. The Commission is facedwith the problem of increased noise. Most of the complaints have come from the innercity neighborhood of Edmund. Edmund has mobilized to change the flight patterns toreduce the amount of noise in their neighborhood. Changing the flight patterns willincrease the noise in Hilldale. Hilldale is a upper income suburb north of the airport. Areal estate attorney who lives in Hilldale estimates the property values will drop if thenoise increases but has no real evidence to back up this claim. An Airport Commissionstudy has shown that the amount of noise has increased significantly over the last fouryears and Edmund bears the brunt of the noise. You have been under pressure from theAirline industry to increase the number of flights per day. There is a fear that reducingflights or the added cost of requiring newer quieter jets will result in a loss of Airlineindustry jobs.

You are sympathetic to the noise problem in Edmund and understand the concern ofthe Hilldale residents but don’t think that you should favor one group over the other.Besides the Airport Commission is limited in what it can actually do. For the most partFAA regulations determine runway usage so the Commission cannot totally reduce thenoise in Edmund by changing the traffic patterns. The commission can pressure theAirlines to use quieter jets but does not have the authority to require compliance. Yourprimary concern, however, is to maintain the economic stability of the Airline industry inBarksville.

Your task is to communicate to the two groups that your primary mission is to main-tain the economic viablity of the airport.


4/20/9978

Documents

Organizational Change - Challenging the Norm Files/change.pdf · Weatherup’s organizational analysis defined a potential problem which would keep Pepsi from Organizational Change