Managing Change Portfolio

Managing Change Portfolio - January 2012, Coventry University.

Introduction

Before starting this module I assumed it would be about how best to manage change
within an organisation, how to deal with objections to change, ways of implementing
change and how to come up with the best ideas for change. To an extent I was correct,
however, rather than focus on the immediate issues of managing change this module
taught me to look much deeper at the world around us. To question what is seen to be
truth and look at issues in an objective and unbiased way.

During the lectures and seminars we learnt about a social constructionist perspective. This
taught me that by looking at issues objectivity we can challenge the many taken for
granted's and the essentialist perspective. An essentialist would say someone “is” boring,
implying that “boring” is part of their fixed personality. However, a social constructionist
would say that the person is “being” boring, implying that their personality is not fixed and
the persons “being” boring is effected by the world around them and influencing factors.
We also learnt how a discourse can be biased toward one point of view and how people
enact opinions according to discourses. We can then challenge these discourses by
showing that they do not start from an objective and unbiased point of view.

Using a social constructionist perspective we can fundamentally challenge the barriers to
change within an organisation by looking at each issue objectively. Finally, the essays
gave me the opportunity to put my knowledge of managing change into practice by
applying the knowledge to problems.


Important Texts

A very important text in this module is Social Constructionism by Vivian Burr. Dr. Vivian
Burr is a reader in Psychology at the University of Huddersfield. (Vivian Burr, University of
Huddersfield). Her book on social constructionism was extremely useful during this module
in understanding a social constructionist perspective. She also uses interesting and easily
understandable real world examples to accompany many topics in the book, this helped
me greatly to understand the theory by having a practical example along side it.

Other important texts during this module included Lukes “Power: A Radical View”,
Foucault's “Power: The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984” and Gergen's
“invitation to social construction”.


Social Constructionism

A key element of the managing change module is being able to approach change within an
organisation with a social constructionist perspective. Social constructionism can be
described as “the study of human beings as social animals” (Burr, 2003, Page 1)
Social constructionism argues that we should be aware of “taken for granted's” when
discussing or understanding something. A “taken for granted” is how it sounds – what we
take for granted in the world around us. These taken for granteds can be perceived as
truth – we see them as facts when they not be.

For example, a taken for granted may be that a teenager is much fit and healthier than a
pensioner. So if they had a running race the teenager should win. This outcome would be
interpreted as truth – we take for granted that the teenager is fitter and healthier than the
pensioner therefore the teenager must be better in a running race, so must win. This is
seen as fact.

However, the pensioner may be much healthier than the teenager, may not be much older
(perhaps they retired very early), they may also be a better runner – so may win the race.
What we took for granted (that the teenager would win the race) is therefore not a definite
conclusion, this teaches us that we should challenge taken for granteds as they are not
facts.

An essentialist perspective is the common perception in which people interpret the world –
it is the common/normal viewpoint. An essentialist perspective interprets people as having
a fixed personality, therefore they would say someone “is” lazy, “lazy” is part of that
persons personality – a characteristic. There are many taken for granteds in the
essentialist perspective that may not be factual only a false understanding of something.
A social constructionist perspective teaches us that we should always challenge these
taken for granted's. A social constructionist perspective also goes against the fixed
personality that I explained above. As the essentialist perspective says someone “is” lazy
(lazy is a part of there fixed personality) a social constructionist perspective would interpret
them as “being” lazy. Not a fixed part of their personality (a characteristic) but something
influenced by the environment.

In “Social Constructionism” (Burr, 2003) Vivian Burr uses a social constructionist
perspective to argue that we should be objective and unbiased in our view of the world. “to
challenge the view that conventional knowledge is based upon objective, unbiased
observation of the world.” (Burr, 2003, page 2)

In other words, what is seen by the world to be truth – based on an objective and unbiased
view of the world, may not be. Burr argues that social constructionists can and should
challenge these assumptions.

Our taken for granteds, what the world perceives to be true is relevant in many categories.
For example, social class, wealth, health, illness, sexuality, gender, religion, personality,
history, culture and many more. In “Social Constructionism” Burr illustrates social
constructionism in an interesting way with an observation about gender identity. She
observes that there are “two categories of human being, men and women.” (Burr, 2003,
page 3). This is the essentialist view of gender. Going on she observes that there is
however a “greyness” - an uncertainty, over the issue of gender identity. This is apparent
when in comes to issues such as gender reassignment surgery and people who are
unambiguously male or female. Australia now offers three rather than the conventional two
gender options on its passports - male “M”, female “F” and an “X” option for “intersex”
people (Pink News, 2011) this directly challenges the taken for granted that there are only
two natural genders. Burr goes on to observe that what may seem to be two natural
categories of male and female may be a social construct. Challenged by examples such
as the Australian Passport.

Going on further Burr challenges the idea of masculinity and femininity in culture and the
whole idea of “personhood” , “what it means to be a man or a women” (Burr, 2003, page 3)
may be based on this social construct. Challenging the taken for granted of two gender
identities using a social constructionist perspective may also challenge other taken for
granteds in other categories such as sexuality.


Discourses

When exploring social constructionism it is important to look at discourses. Foucault
describes discourses as “practices which form the objects of which they speak” (Burr,
2003, Page 64). In other words a discourse is how the world around us is represented,
leading to a particular interpretation of a subject and an understanding of it. They may be
many different conflicting representations of the world around us, therefore all discourses
do not share interpretation of the world. It is up to us to look objectively at discourses to
assess which one to follow.

In “Social Constructionism” Burr uses the example of keeping the fox population low
through fox hunting - “fox hunting as pest control” as an example of a discourse (Burr,
2003, page 65). In this example of a discourse, fox hunting is seen as a positive thing.
Without fox hunting the number of foxes may run out of control. The continuation of fox
hunting is therefore good for humans and foxes as humans don't want to be over run by
foxes, and the foxes want less foxes so they face less competition for food, space, mates,
etc. Anybody engaging in the discourse “fox hunting as pest control” is therefore likely to
support fox hunting for these reasons.

This discourse shows how a discussion can begin from a biased position. It is taken as
truth that fox hunting keeps the fox population down and is therefore good for humans and
foxes. However, using a social constructionist perspective we can question how objective
and correct this discourse is. Perhaps the fox population is already very low (something
not considered in this discourse) and therefore any further hunting would put foxes at risk
of extinction. Also, how do we know that fox hunting is the best solution to keeping the fox
population low. There may be more effective and humane ways of reducing the number of
foxes. By using a social constructionist perspective we can therefore show that the
discourse “fox hunting as pest control” and the essentialist conclusion from this that fox
hunting must be good is biased and non-objective.

For this reason by using a social constructionist perspective we can challenge discourses
rather than simply accept their conclusions. In this way we can also challenge discourses
surrounding organisational change and look at each discourse objectively.


Lecture Two – Concepts and Language

In Lecture Two we explored the basics concepts and language within the module as well
as more about social constructionism.

This included the concept of individualism, what it means to be an individual and if “the
individual” in a social context even exists. Individualism argues that each individual has
their own personality and that the actions of an individual are a result of their
characteristics, influenced by personality. Individualism fits within the essentialist
perspective as someone is doing something as a result of their characteristics, as in the
example that someone is “lazy” (a characteristic) as opposed to a social constructionist
perspective of someone “being” lazy.

Therefore, in individualism people are knowable, manageable and predictable. They have
a set personality so we may know what they may do and we can manage them according
to their individual personality.

The lecture then went on to explain how we extend the concept of individualism to groups,
constructs (markets and cultures) and concepts (facts and info) – that they are
independent with a set “personality” and this influences how they act. They are therefore
also predictable.

However, we can challenge the concept of individualism with a social constructionist
perspective. For example, in the lecture we asked the questions “has anyone ever seen a
personality?” In other words, do personalities with set characteristics exist or are they
influenced by the circumstances and environment. Also “are you the same person you
were yesterday?” , are personalities (if they do exist) fixed or can they change. If the
concept of a personality doesn't exist and that who we are is changeable then this
challenges individualism, and the statement that people are knowable, manageable and
predictable.

We then went on to look at positioning. Positioning starts the discussion of person from a
different place. For example, identity resources such as other people, the roles of people,
social norms, etc. may influence the position of a relationship between people.

We then went on to look at two statements “is she lazy?” and “is he boring?” looking at
how these two statements imply a fixed personality of these two people. This goes back to
the point about an essentialist perspective verses a social constructionist perspective. An
essentialist takes the view of a fixed personality and that the personality influences the
individuals actions (Individualism). Whereas a social constructionist would use the terms
“is she being lazy?” and “is he being boring” implying that there actions are temporary and
not fixed.

By using the essentialist view of the original two statements “is she lazy?” and “is he
boring?” this seriously limits any future relationship going forward as personalities are
fixed, not changeable and not able to negotiate with each other. Whereas in a social
constructionist perspective personalities are changeable, so it makes the improvement of
relationships between people more likely in future.

In Conclusion, this lecture taught me to identify and question the taken for granteds. How a
relationship can change when people make assumptions such as those from the original
two questions, and by using a social constructionist perspective not to make assumptions
and to start a relationship from an objective point of view not assuming that personalities
are fixed.

Essay Plan One

“I can't work with him. We have a personality clash!”

How can we explain a personality clash when social constructionists challenge the idea of
personality as fixed, stable or real.

Essay Plan One

Introduction.

Repeat question and description of how you intend to answer it.
Essentialist/Social Constructionist.
– Essentialist, someone is...., (“common sense” view), treats the abstract as real, may be
based on political/social assumptions and views. Social Constructionist, someone
“being”.... ,Personality changes dependant on the situation they are in..... examples.
Challenges the essentialist and “taken for granteds”. (Ref. Burr, pages 29 – 35.
Beaumie Kim; et al).

Define “personality.” (Ref: Burr, Gergen, K)
Define “clash.” (Ref: Burr, Gergen, K)

Fixed?
– Concept of “positioning” (Ref: Burr)
– starts the discussion in a different place
– ....constructed in relation to others people, rules, social norms.
– Position therefore seems reasonable... but is it?
– Persons perception of someone depends on their own perception. Previous knowledge
and experience.
– Therefore is it actually fixed?

Stable?
- what is stable? (Ref: Burr, Graetz, S., Darwin, J.)
– are you the same person you were yesterday?
Essentialist view.
Constructionist view - identities can change and evolve over time.

Real?
– you can't physically “see” a personality. How to prove it is real, what is a personality?
(back to definitions). Same applies to groups, constructs and concepts.. examples.
What are Businesses? Cultures? (a set of values, beliefs) Maths, Numbers? Define
each. Therefore is a personality real? (Ref: Searle, J. , Burr).
– Individualism (Mc Namee, S. Gergen, K.), actions the result of characteristics. What is
an individual?

Conclusion
Go back to the original question. What we have discussed – Essentialist vs Social
Constructionist, Fixed – “positioning”, perceptions, so is it fixed? what we found, Stable –
what we found, Real – what we found. (Ref: all).

References

Vivien Burr, Social Constructionism
Darwin, J. et al. Developing Strategies for Change
Graetz, S. et al. Managing Organizational Change.
Hacking, I. The Social Construction of What?
Searle, J. The Construction of Social Reality.
Mc Namee, S. Gergen, K. Relational Responsibility: Resources for Sustainable Dialogue.
Gergen, K. Realities and Relationships: Soundings in Social Construction
Beaumie Kim; et al "Social Constructivism" Association for Educational Communications
and Technology

Comments

This piece of coursework starts with a statement - “I can't work with him. We have a
personality clash!” and then gets us to challenge how a personality clash is even possible
from a social constructionist perspective, given that social constructionism challenges the
fundamentals of personality – that it is fixed, stable or real.

I began the essay with a quick definition and description of the opening sentence - “I can't
work with him. We have a personality clash!” . I then go on to describe the essentialist
perspective verses that of a social constructionist and how personality is described within
social constructionism.

I then go on to explain fixed, stable and real, how this fits with an essentialist and social
constructionist perspectives. I also explain how the idea of a personality clash goes
against the social constructionist point of view as personalities can change. Also under
“real” in social constructionism the idea of a personality is challenged ....


Essay Plan Two

“Using a conventional writing on change management; identify what are the key issues
raised by the author, and discuss, from a relational perspective the taken-forgranted's/
narratives that make such ideas sensible.”

Essay Plan Two

Article: 8 step change model.
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_82.htm
8 steps to implement change.
Introduce Social Constructionist/Relational Perspective. Discourses. Explain taken for
granteds.

Create urgency
- develop a sense of urgency around the need to change.
- Identify threats
- examine opportunities
– start discussions
– input from stakeholders

Taken for Granteds (TFG)
– assumes employees want change
– assumes stakeholder inputs

Kotter
Form a powerful coalition
– identify the org leaders
– team build among leaders
– mix of ppl

tfg
– assumes org leaders
– assumes a good mix of ppl

Create a Vision For Change
– determine values
– summary
– “vision” speech

Communicate The Vision
- communicate vision at all opportunities

tfg
– ppl will want to hear the vision
– ppl will accept vision

Remove Obstacles
tfg
there are obstacles to remove
– obstacles can be removed
– obstacles will be willing to be removed (employees)

Create Short Term Wins
- stw available

Build On The Change
– analysis
– continuous improvement (kaizen)
outline “kaizen”

tfg
- change has been achieved
Anchor The Changes In Corporate Culture

tfg
- changes will be permanent
– no more immediate change
wider taken for granteds/narratives::
– change is inevitable for businesses
– change needs to happen
– some employees will be willing
– change is positive

Conclusion

Comments

For essay two I used a text on Kotter's 8 step change model as the basis of my essay. I
then began by introducing a social constructionist/relational perspective and explaining
discourses and the concept of “taken for granteds”. I then analysed each of the key issues
in the text (the eight steps to change) and identified the meaning of each step and
explaining it. I also identified the taken for granteds in each of the key issues raised by the
author.

In some of the eight steps I was able to identify many taken for granted's but in others it
was more difficult. I would then go on to analyse the overall narrative of the text and the
taken for granteds I noticed over the whole piece. These included that change is good for
business, that it needs to happen, that change is inevitable and that managers and
employees will be willing to follow the eight steps.

I then concluded by summarising the essay, what I thought was good in the text, what was
not so good and the overall narrative of the piece.


Portfolio Questions – The Person

1. “Oh I can't get on with Bill, its a personality clash.” How would a relational
perspective help in this situation?

Firstly, from a relational/social constructionist perspective “personality” is neither fixed,
stable or real. So therefore the concept of a personality clash is illogical from the
perspective that it doesn't exist within this perspective. However, if the relational
perspective only accepted that personality wasn't fixed or stable then a relational
perspective could help. The social constructionist could argue that as personalities aren't
fixed then the person doesn't have a personality clash with Bill and that with effort they will
be able to work around their problems.

The relational perspective would therefore reject the idea that they can't work together
because of personality. The relational perspective suggests that there are other
environmental factors stopping them working together. They may also view the “can't work
with Bill” argument as a taken for granted to be challenged.


2. “Can a leopard change her spots?” What taken for granteds are referenced in this
statement?

There are many taken for granteds in this argument. Firstly, that the leopard is female
(“her” spots), perhaps its a male leopard or maybe a non identifiable gender (going back to
Burr's point on gender) Secondly, it takes for granted that a leopard has spots in the first
place that it can change, maybe its a different species of leopard or one that just doesn't
have any spots. Finally, it assumes that the leopard is willing to change its spots, it may
not be so whether it can or not is irrelevant.


3. “John got out of the wrong side of bed today.” Discuss how you could say a similar
thing from a relational perspective.

Well firstly the statement assumes there is a “wrong” side of the bed, this is a taken for
granted and could be challenged from a relational perspective. Who's to say there is a
right or wrong side of the bed? So I would start by saying “John got out of a side of the
bed”. It also takes for granted that he got “out” of bed as if getting “out “ of a duvet. A
relational perspective would say “John left the bed”. Also, it says a “side” of the bed. A
relational perspective would challenge the idea of a “side”, does it mean the longest side?
The underside of the bed? So I would simply say “John left the bed.”


4. “All history is biography.” Was the speaker coming from a relational or entative
perspective? Why?

I would suggest that the statements “All history is biography” is entitative. All is a very
general term as its means literally everything in history. A biography is an account of
someone's life so to assume that all of history is about the lives of humans is incorrect,
many areas of history are about pre-human eras. Secondly, there is no definite history,
nobody knows the exact truth about “all” of history, again suggesting this sentence is
entative. Secondly, a biography tends to be a narrative whereas not all of history has this
structure, it cannot always be told as a story.


Lecture Three – Political Action and Power

In lecture three we looked at a relational consideration of power within an organisation. We
started with conventional treatments of power, power is seen (from an essentialist
perspective) as the possession of power by individuals coming from the result of their
attributes. This also comes from power (knowledge) bases – expertise, legitimate, access
to resources.

We also learnt about Steven Lukes three dimensional view of power. In his book “power: a
radical view” (Lukes, 2004) he refers to the three dimensions of power. The first dimension
of power is power seen in decision making, exercised by those in formal institutions and
measured by the outcomes of decisions. In other words, the first dimension of power is the
authority to make decisions where there are conflicting interests.

The second dimension of power includes the basis of the first dimension but also includes
an informal influence, a coercion over authority. The third dimension includes political
ideologies, social beliefs and norms to influence power.

We then went on to explore power through a social constructionist perspective, whether
knowledge is power or if the reverse is true - power is able to define what is knowledge.
We then went on to talk about discourses and the important relationship between
discourses, knowledge and power. As I explained previously many discourses start from a
biased an non-objective view and these discourses influence how we interpret the world.
Such as the fox hunting example: our discourse “fox hunting is pest control” leads us to the
view that fox hunting must be good, necessary even to keep the fox population low.
We also use discourses to inform our social practices. So the same discourses: “fox
hunting is pest control” may be inclined to protest against the ban on fox hunting. Even if a
discourse is biased and non-objective it still influences are actions, so two opposing
discourses may influence two groups or individuals actions. Such as opposing fox hunting
protests (for and against).

Michel Foucault is an important author in managing change. He argued that certain
institutions and authorities, for example: governments, religious organisations, schools
and even business, teach certain ways as being truth. These discourses may be biased
but many still follow them as they come from an authority. He argued power was then in
the hands of those who could manipulate these discourses. An example of this is Pope
Benedict XVI, the leader of the roman catholic church. Those within the church are
encouraged to follow his advice and in this way he influences the discourse of many
people due to his authority in that organisation. (Pope Benedict XVI, 2010)

We then went on to discuss Gergen. Gergen argued that any act is equivocal – capable of
different meanings, and the meanings of an act are supplemented (joint production). As
certain acts are then repeated frequently they become the “norm”, they are taken for
granted as truths. The more they are repeated the more power these acts have over
others, eventually alternatives are seen as nonsensical as the first way (act) has been
repeated so frequently. This can lead to monological thinking, that when there is
considered to be only one right way of doing something because its always been that way.
This is apparent when managing change within an organisation, there may have been one
way of doing something in the past so all employees follow it because its accepted as the
norm. However, there may be better ways of doing it but this is then question by
employees simply because the original way has been repeated so many times that it has
become “truth” and holds authority over alternatives.

Finally, we looked at Riane Eisler's dominator/partnership model. The dominator model is
based on principles of “power over”: ranking, differentiation and distinguishing between
“levels”. This is most simmiliar to a top down organisational structure with power at the top
(dominated by the top) and then a hierarchy down the organisation. The alternative
partnership model is more collaborative, based on principles of linking, connectedness,
relatedness. It is less dominating, less hierarchical and employees have more influence
over decision making.


Essay Plan Three

“Briefly outline common sense notions of political actions and power. Discuss how Social
Constructionist/Relational Theory challenges the notion that political action is a problem
that interferes with the normal running of an organisation. Outline to what extent these
challenges could assist a manager within their workplace.”


Essay Plan Three

Ref. Lecture 3 & 4

Burr parts of chap 4 & 5

Intro.

What Is change? Implications of Change?

common sense notions of political actions and power.
Power – conventional treatment
-the possession of individuals or organisations
– power bases
Gergens act/supplement relationship

Monological Thinking
Dominator/Partnership Model – explain
actions to manage politics
– ensure support of key power groups
– use leader powers
– use symbols and language to promote change
– build in stability

Relational Theory
Knowledge is Power?
– Michel Foucault.
- introduction.
- Argued institutions teach certain ways, ppl internalise these 'truths' and they are
not questioned.
– Power was in the hands of ppl who could influence these 'truths' (discourses)
– knowledge and power link.

Conclusion

Comments

In Essay Three I was given the opportunity to demonstrate my understanding of power. I
would start by briefly outlining some examples of common sense notions of power,
acknowledging where power conventionally comes from and referencing the three
dimensional theory of power (Lukes).

I would then explain social constructionism and how this challenges many conventions in
the world around us before applying this to the “notion that political action is a problem”. I
would explain how a conventional essentialist view would see political action and then
challenge this with the social constructionist alternative.

I would then bring in other theories of power – such as Gergen, his ideas leading to
monological thinking. Going on to say how political action challenges this monological
thinking (Gergen) – one way of doing things, and is therefore seen as a bad thing (political
action is an alternative).

Using the dominator/partnership model and link partnership to political action I would
suggest within a “dominator” organisation why political action may then become a problem.
I would then talk about actions to manager politics and how this relates to social
constructionism. Then how Michel Foucault's theories may explain an aversion to political
action within organisation. I then explain how these changes could assist a manager by
challenging the norm, using relevant theories. Before concluding with a summary of the
relevant theory and answering the question overall.


Portfolio Questions – World Making

1. “facts are facts, and you can't deny that!” Critique this statement from a relational
perspective.

From the statement it seems clear that from a relational perspective “facts are facts”
because they are the same thing, a fact is a fact whether it exists or not. However, a
relational perspective may question the taken for granted that there are such things as
“facts” in the world. A relational perspective would question what are facts? Do they exist?
Is a fact ever certain to be true?

A relational perspective would also question the varying degrees of truth between facts
and by saying “facts are facts”, if you are contrasting two different facts then they are not
the same. Two things can't literally be the same. Therefore the word “facts” is illogical, only
“fact is fact” would be logical from a relational perspective and only if the fact was the
same.


2. “facts are sacred, opinion is free.” critique this statement from a relational perspective.

There are many problems with this statement from a relational perspective. Firstly “facts
are sacred” suggests that facts cannot be changed and that they are absolute truth when
in reality “facts” can change all the time. This statement has taken for granted that facts
are reliable and unchanging. The statement also takes for granted that facts are more
reliable and important than opinions by calling facts “sacred” and opinion “free”, this isn't
always necessarily true. The statement also assumes that facts and opinion are separate
entities, however a relational perspective would observe that what is considered fact is
actually the opinion of experts on many occasions, summarily, when people have an
opinion they regard that as fact, to them their opinion is fact. So calling facts “sacred” and
opinion “free” is illogical as they are often the same thing.


3. Who or what can be used from a relational perspective to measure the accuracy
appropriateness of any action or statement?

This is a very difficult question as with a relational perspective all taken for granteds are
challenged. “Appropriateness” as used in the question is also conflicting, a social
constructionist would argue that it isn't possible to judge if something is appropriate or not.
The word “appropriateness” has a very loose meaning. One solution would be to judge the
statement or action against other statements and then decide which is most accurate or
appropriate in comparison. Another solution would be to find an independent adjudicator to
look objectively at the statement or action and give their opinion. However, this is very
difficult from a relational perspective as what is true objectivity?


Lecture Four – The Problems With Change

In lecture four we looked at “understanding and combating the problems with change. An
interesting part of the lecture was discussing the implications of change within an
organisation and this can lead to many of the problems (or solutions) with organisational
change. The implications of change that we discussed are that it may alter job content,
introduce new unknown content, disrupt working practices, affect relationships, reduce
autonomy and status and the change may not be understood. Many of these implications
of change are negative and refer to Gergen's of monological thinking – the “norm” whether
it be to do with job content, practices in the organisation, current relationships is
considered the “right” way of doing something so any alternative approach is challenged
by employees.

Beer et al. Argues that three factors are important to organisational change: co-ordination,
commitment and competencies and that management needs to balance each of these
three factors. They argue that management normally focuses on the commitment aspect
whilst ignoring the other two factors. We then went on to explore a systems approach. This
approach at its most basic consists of inputs and outputs with a transformation occurring in
between. The properties of a systems approach are an interdependence of change
components (each component relies on the one before, I.e. no transformation – outputs
without inputs), systems also have a tendency toward equilibrium and interacts with the
environment around it.

In David Nadler's congruence model of organisational behaviour inputs such as
environment and resources go through a strategy transformation. Organisational
Performance then consists of four interdependent components: the work (the day to day
organisational activities), the people (the skills, attributes and actions of those in the
organisation), the formal organisation (the formal policies and systems of the
organisation), the informal organisation (unplanned, informal systems such as values and
norms).

This model suggests that successful organisational change comes when each of the four
components – work, people, formal org. and informal org. work together organisational
change is most effective. And if any one of the components then other components need
to adapt to them.

We then continued to discuss resisting the problem of equilibrium (systems approach –
organisation tend towards equilibrium). Forces of equilibrium include re-definition of the
organisations task, resistance to change from individuals (Gergens theory – monological
thinking), Organisational control and the changing balances of power. Any of these four
factors can lead to equilibrium and resistance to organisational change.

We then went on to critique organisational change through a relational/social
constructionist perspective and managing change critiques from earlier lectures. For
example there is an emphasis on knowing the manager but we questioned “knowing”
through social constructionism in earlier lectures, also the implicit subject-object relation.
However this is a simplistic assumption of “power over” as in the dominator/partnership
model. The “power over” dominator option not always being the most successful.


Lecture Five - Participation

In lecture five we discussed the role of participation in managing change including
participative change processes.

Firstly, appreciative enquiry. Appreciative inquiry works from the position of; appreciating
the best of what is, envisioning what might be, dialoguing what should be and innovating
what will be. It takes into account of what the organisation is best at, what it is capable of
and where decision makers want the company to go and makes a decision accordingly.
Another form of participative change process is a participative change process. This is
when constructive dialogue is encouraged between two or more groups with opposing or
just dissimilar groups. The groups then outline their views to identify where the differences
are, they educate each other about why they take a certain opinion and try to understand
the other groups point of view. Hopefully the two or more groups (or individuals) can then
find some common ground and agree on a solution. This form of participative change
management may not always work in practice, particularly if each side has severely
conflicting views but in my opinion the principle of finding common ground between
conflicting interests is a good one. I included in my essay the example of the abortion
debate. Both sides have opposing discourses based on what they believe to be truths from
their own view point. By coming together they can broaden their views and challenge
these truths.


Essay Four
* see Appendix A


Comments

In essay four we were asked to asses a top-down and command and control style of
management and whether this was better or worse than two examples of participative
change processes (in my essay appreciative enquiry and participative change process).
I began by defining and describing “top down” and “command and control” styles of
management. I then began explaining discourses, how they can start from a biased
position and influence our point of view. I used a social constructionist perspective to argue
that these discourses could be challenged. I then used the example of Michel Foucault
and how he challenged truths and how people internalised them.

I also explained the concept of taken for granted's within discourse, and that this can lead
to monological thinking (top down management structures). I then went on to explain the
first form of participative change management - a public conversation project and used the
context of the abortion debate to explain in. How a public conversation project could be
useful in this debate as well as in managing organisational change as a whole.

I then explained the second form of participative change management – appreciative
enquiry, compared this to top down management and how it could assist in organisational
change. I used the example of John Lewis as a practical form of participative change
management and how the form of management in this company contrasted a top down
structure and the advantages and disadvantages of a management structure like the one
at John Lewis. Finally, I concluded by summarising the essay and giving my opinion on
each form of management structure and which was best for managing change.

References

Lukes, S. (2004) Power: A Radical View, 2nd Ed. Palgrave McMillan.

Burr, V. (2003) Social Constructionism, 2nd Ed. Routledge.

Foucault, M. (2002) Power: The Essential Works of Michel Foucault 1954-1984. 3rd
Edition. Penguin.

Dr. Vivian Burr, University of Huddersfield. http://www2.hud.ac.uk/hhs/staff/shumvb.php

Australia to allows transgender and intersex passport options, (2011), Pink News,
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/09/16/australia-to-allow-transgender-and-intersexpassport-
options/
(16th September 2011).

Pope Benedict XVI, (2010), BBC News http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worldeurope-
11141340
(3rd September 2010).

Gergen, K. (2007) An invitation to social construction. 2nd Ed. Sage Publications.
Nadler and Tushman, congruence model: political, organism. Super Business.
http://www.super-business.net/Knowledge-Management/853.html

Kotters 8 step change model, Mind Tools.
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_82.htm


Appendices

* Appendix A

“A “top down” or “command and control” style of management is often assumed to be the
best way to get an organisation through a period of change. Critically evaluate this style of
management and contrast it with two examples of participative change processes.”


Essay Four

When critically evaluating the “top down” and “command and control” management styles
it is first essential to establish exactly what “top-down” and “command and control”
management styles are, how they can get an organisation through a period of change and
whether they are the best styles of management to do so.

(Top-down, The Free Dictionary) defines a top-down management style as “an approach
to a problem that begins at the highest conceptual level and works down to the details.” In
my opinion top down management usually involves employees at the top of the
organisational management structure making significantly more decisions about the future
of the organisation than those employees lower down the organisational management
structure. In this management style key decisions are often made by a combination of the
chairman, chief executive, board of directors and perhaps senior management.

In my opinion a command and control management style is simmiliar to that of a top down
style. A few employees (usually at the top of the organisation) take strict control of
elements such as the company finances with very little input from others (usually lower
down the managerial hierarchy). Decisions are also made with minimal or no input from
lower level employees and those at the top of the organisation effectively take the overall
strategic decisions about the company themselves.

When an organisation is going through a period of change it is often assumed that “top
down” and “command and control” styles of management are best suited to guiding the
company through that period of change, there are many factors which support this view.
However, there are also many other factors which don't support it.

When evaluating change within an organisation it is important to take into account the
discourses and “taken for granteds” influencing that change and to question them.
Discourse can be defined as “the speech patterns and usage of language, dialects, and
acceptable statements, within a community.” (What is discourse, Wisegeek.).

(Burr, page 64) defines discourse as - “...a set of meanings, metaphors, representations,
stories, statements and so on that in some way produce a particular version of events.”
The discourses that we are involved in can hugely affect our perceptions of the world and
the assumptions that we make. Discourses affect how we act (our social practices) and we
use discourses to justify our actions. We believe certain discourses to be truth – hence the
term “taken for granted's” , and do not challenge them.

An example of a discourses maybe a religious view or teaching justifying someone's view
against abortion. In this case, they would see this discourse (that abortion is wrong) as a
truth or “taken for granted” and as such wouldn't challenge it. This discourse may then
affect the person's actions, for example campaigning/protesting against abortion, voting for
legislation supporting their view, etc. In some cases their may be two or more conflicting
discourses – for example the anti-abortion discourse may conflict with a pro-abortion
discourse held by another person. Conflicting discourses may sometimes persuade people
to challenge their own “taken for granted's” (what they view to be truth).

French historian and philosopher Michel Foucault argued that people internalised these
discourses (truths) and did not question them. He argued that power was in the hands of
those who influenced these discourse. In many cases it was large organisations that
controlled the discourse – government, businesses, religious organisations, and that the
discourse wasn't challenged, it was taken as “truth”. Therefore huge power was in the
hands of those who controlled the discourse and it was up to people to challenge it.
Discourses can lead to monological thinking (one way of doing/understanding things). In
the case of “top-down” and “command and control” styles of management when an
organisation is going through a period of change may be attributed to certain discourses
(truths). For example, one taken for granted may be that those at the top of the
organisation think that they are more intelligent and better placed to lead their organisation
through a period of change than those lower down the managerial hierarchy whom may
not be trusted, they may assume that those lower down the company hierarchy must then
be “commanded and controlled” - carefully instructed what to do - and that involving these
employees in decision making or giving them a degree of autonomy would lead to
problems, i.e. only senior management can be trusted to make strategic decisions.

Another taken for granted may be that only those at the top understand the process of
change that the organisation is going through. The discourse may also assume that
hierarchical management structures are the best management structure for the
organisation and that a more “flat” management structure with more general employee
participation would be bad. The discourse may also assume that a top-down or command
and control structure is easier to manage than a more participative management structure.
However, in the long term employees may become disgruntled about the management
structure making it more difficult for management and leading to perhaps more problems
than has their been a participative management structure.

In my opinion an advantage of “top down” management structures are that sometimes
decisions are reached quickly as fewer people have to be consulted than with a more
participative decision making processes. It is also a simpler form of management as it
involves communication between fewer people. I also believe that in some cases top-down
or command and control management can lead to more accountable decision making
within change management. As fewer people within the organisation are making decisions
if any poor decisions are made then its clear who is accountable; whereas, if larger groups
of people are making decisions (more of those in the organisation) decisions can arguably
be less accountable as it can be who was at fault (due to the number of people). However,
there are ways of making more participative systems accountable and its clear there are
many disadvantages to a top down or command and control styles of management.

A contrasting method to “top-down” and “command and control” management structures of
managing change within an organisation are participative change processes. A
participative change process involves employees much more with decision making than
the previous two structures. It is a way of management collaborating with employees
taking into account their opinions and collectively making strategic decisions.

The advantages of participative change management are that by involving employees in
decision making employees feel they have a sense of ownership as they more involved in
the organisation, companies come up with better and more innovative ideas as a wider
range of opinions are being recognised, employees also feel more responsibility of
decisions taken by the organisation and as such are more likely to accept those decisions.
Participative change management can also give those from lower down the managerial
hierarchy more decision making and managerial experience, this can in effect lead to
potential future managers being trained within the organisation.

One example of a participative change process is a public conversation project. This is
when constructive dialogue is encouraged between two or more groups with opposing or
just dissimilar groups. The groups then outline their views to identify where the differences
are, they educate each other about why they take a certain opinion and try to understand
the other groups point of view. Hopefully the two or more groups (or individuals) can then
find some common ground and agree on a solution. This form of participative change
management may not always work in practice, particularly if each side has severely
conflicting views but in my opinion the principle of finding common ground between
conflicting interests is a good one. I also believe this can be a helpful way of broadening
either sides views beyond their own discourse educating them about why someone may
take a different opinion.

When managing change within an organisation a public conversation project can be very
useful as it allows differing opinions to be heard before making a decision about how to
change an organisation. It also gives the opportunity of an amicable solution being
reached of which all parties agree, rather than favouring one view over another which may
lead to resentment by those who disagree.

A public conversation project may be useful in the abortion debate mentioned previously.
In this case where there are two opposing views each side can hear the other opinions
and an amicable solution may be found. It may also open up the narrow discourse of either
side and challenge some of the taken-for-granted's (truths).

Another form of participative change management is appreciative inquiry. Appreciative
inquiry works from the position of; appreciating the best of what is, envisioning what might
be, dialoguing what should be and innovating what will be. In this way it takes into account
of what the organisation is best at, what it is capable of and where decision makers want
the company to go and makes a decision accordingly. This is different from problem
solving which identifies problems and possible solutions rather appreciative inquiry takes
into account abilities of the organisation and the desired outcome.

An example of a company that uses the participatory change process is John Lewis.
“ The [John Lewis] Partnership has over 76,500 Partners who own 35 John Lewis shops ,
274 Waitrose supermarkets, an online and catalogue business -johnlewis.com, a
production unit and a farm, and share in the benefits and profits...”
(Our Founder, John Lewis Partnership)

By involving employees in decision making and giving them shares in the business,
employees feel involved in the organisation and have ownership over it. They are
encouraged to participate by management who call employees “partners”, employees are
also effectively managements bosses as they own the company. This style of management
is very different from the “top down” and “command and control” management structures
and directly challenges some the discourse and taken for granted's about that style of
management.

For example, John Lewis is arguably successful because it involves employees rather than
despite involving employees. It is also a relatively stable company with the ability to adapt
challenging the discourse that by involving employees in decision making either decisions
will be far too radical and lead to the company collapsing or that employees will be too
rigid in their ideas, refuse to change and the company won't survive that way. In my
opinion, John Lewis has just the right balance managing change with the participation of
its employees.

In conclusion, although a “top-down” or “command and control” style of management is
assumed to be the best form of management for getting an organisation through a period
of change, it may not actually be the best form due to many factors. Although top-down or
command and control styles of management can often be a simple and quicker form of
management it lacks involvement from those in the organisation but not at the top levels,
this may lead to an organisation having very narrow opinions about the best way to
change and leave some employees feeling they have a lack of ownership over the
organisation.

Participative change management however is very much the opposite in that it involves
many people in an organisation and results in collective and co-operative decision making.
The two forms of participative change management – public conversion and appreciative
inquiry can be useful in this way. Public Conversation in particular takes into account
opposing views to come up with an amicable solution rather than favouring one opinion or
another as in top down or command and control management structures.

2,042 words

Reference (Essay 4)

Top-down, The Free Dictionary,
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/top-down

What is discourse, Wisegeek.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-discourse.htm

Burr, V. (2003), Social Constructionism, 2nd ed. Routledge.

Our Founder, John Lewis Partnership.
http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/ourfounder


Bibliography

Burr, V. (2003), Social Constructionism, 2nd ed. Routledge.
Man, T. et. al. (2010) Participate for a change: A guide to participative change
management. 1st ed. RP publishing house.

Command, control... and you ultimately fail, (2007), The Guardian,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/dec/16/2
[16th December 2007]

Some Problems with “Command and Control” Management, one effective management.
http://oneffectivemanagement.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/some-problems-with-commandand-
control-management/