Henri fayol principles of management images

Chapter 2
Images of Change Management
Learning objectives
By the end of this chapter you should be able to:

LO 2.1Evaluate the use that different authors make of the terms change agent, change manager, and change leader

LO 2.2Understand the importance of organizational images and mental models

LO 2.3Compare and contrast six different images of managing change and change managers

LO 2.4Explain the theoretical underpinning of different change management images

LO 2.5Apply these six images of managing change to your personal preferences and approach, and to different organizational contexts

www.CartoonStock.com

31
LO 2.1What’s in a Name: Change Agents, Managers, or Leaders?
This chapter focuses on those who drive and implement change. We first consider how those individuals are described, and then explore different ways in which their roles can be understood. This is not just a theoretical discussion. An understanding of organizational change roles has profound practical implications for the way in which those roles are conducted. And if you are in a change management role, now or in future, the way in which you understand your position will affect how you fulfill those responsibilities and whether you are more or less successful.

The use of terms in this field has become confused, and we first need to address this problem. Do the terms change agent, change manager, and change leader refer to different roles in relation to organizational change? Or are these labels interchangeable?

For most of the twentieth century, the term change agent typically referred to an external expert management consultant who was paid to work out what was going wrong in an organization and to implement change to put things right. This model is still in use. In the United Kingdom, if your hospital is in financial difficulties, the national regulator, Monitor, will appoint a “turnaround director” (external expert change agent with a fancy job title) to sit on your board of directors and tell you how to cut costs and restore financial balance. External change agents do not all work like that. Many adopt the “process consultation” approach popularized by Edgar Schein (1999). Here, the role of the “expert” is to help members of the organization to understand and solve their own problems.

Today, a change agent is just as likely to be a member of the organization as an external consultant. The term is now often used more loosely, to refer to anyone who has a role in change implementation, regardless of job title or seniority. Given the scale and scope of changes that many organizations face, a significant number of internal change agents may be a valuable—perhaps necessary—resource. Internal change agents usually have a better understanding than outsiders of the changes that would lead to improvements. In short, when you see the term “change agent,” it is important to check the meaning that is intended, unless that is obvious from the context. When we use the term change agent in this book, we will always indicate clearly to whom this applies.

Conventional wisdom says that, with regard to the other terms in our section heading, management and leadership are different roles, and that this is an important distinction. One of the main advocates of this distinction is John Kotter (2012). For him, change management refers to the basic tools and structures with which smaller-scale changes are controlled. Change leadership, in contrast, marshals the driving forces and visions that produce large-scale transformations. His main point, of course, is that we need more change leadership.

This argument has two flaws. The first concerns the assumption that large-scale transformations are more meaningful and potent, and are therefore more valuable than small-scale change. They are not, as the discussion of “depth of change” (figure 1.1) in chapter 1 suggested.

For example, Cíara Moore and David Buchanan (2013) report a change initiative called “Sweat the Small Stuff.” Staff in one clinical service in an acute hospital were asked to identify small, annoying problems that had not been fixed for some time. These included broken equipment and faulty administrative processes. The five problems were addressed 32by a three-person team including an “animateur” who set up and coordinated the project, a clinical champion who engaged medical colleagues, and a “who knows who knows what” person whose administrative background and networks helped the team to identify shortcuts, “workarounds,” and “the right people” to solve these problems quickly. All five problems were solved within five days. The total costs came to £89 for a piece of equipment, and the 40 minutes that the animateur spent in conversations. The benefits were “financial (US$35,000 income generation), processual (safer patient allocation), temporal (tasks performed more quickly, less waiting time), emotional (less annoyance, boredom, frustration), and relational (improved inter-professional relations)” (Moore and Buchanan, 2013, p. 13).

One of the overarching benefits of “sweating the small stuff” was better management-medical relationships, laying the foundation for further improvements, in this area and in others. Fixing the small stuff was beneficial in its own right and was the precursor for future major changes. The animateur’s job title was “operations manager”; was she a change manager, or a change leader?

The second flaw in the argument concerns the belief that the contrasting definitions of these management and leadership concepts will survive contact with practice. They do not. While it may be possible to define clear categories in theory, in practice these roles are overlapping and indistinguishable. The general distinction between management and leadership is challenged by Henry Mintzberg (2009, pp. 8–9), who argues, “I don’t understand what this distinction means in the everyday life of organizations. Sure, we can separate leading and managing conceptually. But can we separate them in practice? Or, more to the point, should we even try?” He asks, how would you like to be managed by someone who doesn’t lead, or led by someone who doesn’t manage? “We should be seeing managers as leaders, and leadership as management practiced well.”

In short, management versus leadership is not a distinction worth arguing over, and may be more simply resolved by a combination of personal and contextual preference. In this book, we will use the terms change management (or manager) and change leadership (or leader) synonymously—unless there is a reason for making a distinction, which will then be explained.

LO 2.2Images, Mental Models, Frames, Perspectives
More important than the terminology, the internal mental images that we have of our organizations influence our expectations and our interpretations of what is happening, and of what we think needs to change, and how (Morgan, 2006; Hatch and Cunliffe, 2012; Bolman and Deal, 2013). We typically hold these images, metaphors, frames of reference, or perspectives without being conscious of how they color our thinking, perceptions, and actions. These images, which can also be described as mental models, help us to make sense of the world around us, by focusing our attention in particular directions. The key point is that, while an image or mental model is a way of seeing things, a standpoint drawing our attention to particular issues and features, it is also a way of not seeing things, shifting our attention away from other factors, which may or may not be significant.

For example, if we have a mental image of organizations as machines, then we will be more aware of potential component “breakdowns” and see our role in terms of maintenance and repair. In contrast, if we think of organizations as political arenas, we are more 33likely to be aware of the hidden agendas behind decisions and try to identify the winners and losers. We are also likely to see our role, not as maintaining parts of a smooth-running machine, but as building coalitions, gathering support for our causes, and stimulating conflict to generate innovation. Shifting the lens again, we may see our organizations as small societies or “microcultures.” With this image, we are more likely to focus on “the way things get done around here,” and on how to encourage the values that are best aligned to the type of work that we do. A microculture image highlights the importance of providing vision and meaning so that staff identity becomes more closely associated with the work of the organization. Each frame thus orients us to a different set of issues.

There are no “right” and “wrong” images here. These are just different lenses through which the world in general, and organizations in particular, can be seen and understood. The images or lenses that we each use reflect our backgrounds, education, life experiences, and personal preferences. There are some problems for which a “machine” image may be more appropriate, and other problems where a “microculture” image is relevant. Some problems may best be understood if they are approached using two or three images or lenses at a time.

Those who are responsible for driving and implementing change also have their own images of organizations—and more importantly, images of their role as change manager. Those images clearly influence the ways in which change managers approach the change process, the issues that they believe are important, and the change management style that they will adopt. Like the child with a hammer who treats every problem as if it were a nail, the change manager is handicapped in drawing on only one particular image of that role. It is therefore important, first, to understand one’s personal preferences—perhaps biases—in this regard. It is also important, second, to be able to switch from one image of the role to another, according to circumstances. This ability to work with multiple perspectives, images, or frames concerning the change management role is, we will argue, central to the personal effectiveness of the change manager and also to the effectiveness of the change process.

We will outline six different “ideal type” images of managing change, describing the assumptions that underpin each image and the theoretical views that support them. We will then explore how change managers can draw from and use these multiple perspectives and images of managing change.

LO 2.3The Six-Images Framework
How are our images or mental models of organization and change formed? To answer this question, Ian Palmer and Richard Dunford (2002) first identify two broad images of the task of managing, which can be seen as either a controlling or as a shaping activity. They then identify three broad images of change outcomes, which can be seen as intended, partially intended, or unintended. Why focus on change outcomes and not on the change process in this approach? The outcomes of change do not always depend entirely on the decisions and actions of those who are implementing change. Change outcomes are often affected by events and developments outside the organization, and which are beyond the direct control of individual change managers, whose intentions may be swamped by those external factors. How change managers see those outcomes 34is therefore a significant component of their image of the change management role. Combining these images of managing and of change outcomes leads to the six images of managing organizational change summarized in table 2.1: director, coach, navigator, interpreter, caretaker, nurturer.

TABLE 2.1

Images of Change Management

Images of Managing

Images of Change Outcomes

Controlling (Roles and Activities)

Shaping (Enhancing Capabilities)

Intended

director

coach

Partially intended

navigator

interpreter

Unintended

caretaker

nurturer

Management as Controlling
The image of management as a controlling function has deep historical roots, based on the work of Henri Fayol (1916, 1949) and his contemporaries (Gulick and Urwick, 1937) who described what managers do, captured by the clumsy acronym POSDCoRB. This stands for planning, organizing supervising, directing, coordinating, reporting, and budgeting—activities that the change manager, as well as the general manager, may be expected to carry out. This reflects a “top-down,” hierarchical view of managing, associated with the image of organization as machine. The manager’s job is to drive the machine in a particular direction. Staff are given defined roles. Resources (inputs) are allocated to departments to produce efficiently the required products and/or services (outputs). This image is today reflected in the work of Henry Mintzberg (2009), who describes contemporary management roles in terms of deciding, focusing, scheduling, communicating, controlling, leading, networking, building coalitions, and getting things done. Harold Sirkin et al. (2005) argue that “soft” factors such as culture, leadership, and motivation do not significantly affect the success of organizational change, and that change managers should concentrate on the “hard” factors instead—controlling, communicating, scheduling, monitoring. The hard factors have three properties:

First, companies are able to measure them in direct or indirect ways. Second, companies can easily communicate their importance, both within and outside organizations. Third, and perhaps most important, businesses are capable of influencing those elements quickly. Some of the hard factors that affect a transformation initiative are the time necessary to complete it, the number of people required to execute it, and the financial results that intended actions are expected to achieve. Our research shows that change projects fail to get off the ground when companies neglect the hard factors. (Sirkin et al., 2005, p. 109)

Management as Shaping
This image of management as a shaping function, enhancing both individual and organizational capabilities, also has deep roots, based on the “human relations” school of management from the 1930s (Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939; Mayo, 1945). It has also been influenced by the organization development movement (Bennis, 1969; Burke, 1987). This image is associated with a participative management style that encourages 35involvement in decision making in general, and in deciding the content and process of change in particular. Employee involvement in change is based on two assumptions. First, that those who are closest to the action will have a better understanding of how things can be improved. Second, that staff are more likely to be committed to making changes work if they have contributed to the design of those changes. Managing people is thus concerned with shaping (and not directly controlling) behavior in ways that benefit the organization. The contemporary concern with “employee engagement” is another manifestation of this image. From a global survey of over 2,500 executives carried out by McKinsey, a management consultancy, Keller et al. (2010, p. 1) argue that the success of transformational change depends on “engaging employees collaboratively throughout the company and throughout the transformation journey,” and on “building capabilities—particularly leadership capabilities.” They also found that:

[W]hen leaders ensure that frontline staff members feel a sense of ownership, the results show a 70 per cent success rate for transformation. When frontline employees take the initiative to drive change, transformations have a 71 per cent success rate. When both principles are used, the success rate rises to 79 per cent…. Given the importance of collaboration across the whole organization, leaders at companies starting a transformation should put a priority on finding efficient and scalable ways to engage employees. (Keller et al., 2010, pp. 3 and 5)

There is no argument concerning which of these images—controlling or shaping—is “correct” and which is “wrong.” It is possible to marshal argument and evidence in support of both frames. We may have to ask, however, which would be more appropriate or effective in given circumstances.

Table 2.1 also identifies three dominant images of change outcomes, based on the extent to which it is assumed that change outcomes can be wholly planned and achieved.

Intended Change Outcomes
The dominant assumption of this image is that intended change outcomes can be achieved as planned. This assumption is at the core of much of the commentary on organizational change and has dominated management practice for over half a century (Burnes, 2014). Change is the realization of prior intent through the actions of change managers. Chin and Benne (1976), whose work has been influential in this area, identify three broad strategies for producing intentional change:

Empirical-rational strategies assume that people pursue their own self-interest. Effective change occurs when a change can be demonstrated as desirable and is aligned with the interests of the group who are affected. Where change has those properties, then intended outcomes will be achieved.

Normative–re-educative strategies assume that changes occur when people abandon their traditional, normative orientations and commit to new ways of thinking. Producing intentional outcomes in this way involves changes in information and knowledge, but also in attitudes and values.

Power-coercive strategies rely on achieving the intended outcomes through the compliant behavior of those who have less power. Power may of course be exercised by legitimate authority or through other, less legitimate, coercive means.

These three strategies share the view that the intended or desired outcomes of a change program can be achieved through using different change strategies.

36
Partially Intended Change Outcomes
In this image, it is assumed that some, but not all, planned change outcomes are achievable. Power, processes, interests, and the different skill levels of managers affect their ability to produce intended outcomes. As Mintzberg and Waters (1985) note, the link between initial intent and final outcome is not necessarily a direct one. This is due to the fact that both intended and unintended consequences may emerge from the actions of change managers; intended outcomes may be adapted along the way, or externally imposed forces may modify what was originally intended. For these reasons, change initiatives do not always deliver the outcomes that were planned.

Unintended Change Outcomes
Less attention has been paid to this image in commentary on change management, but this is a common theme in mainstream organization theory. This image recognizes that managers often have great difficulty in achieving the change outcomes that were intended. This difficulty stems from the variety of internal and external forces that can push change in unplanned directions. Internal forces can include interdepartmental politics, long-established working practices that are difficult to dislodge, and deep-seated perceptions and values that are inconsistent with desired changes. External forces can include confrontational industrial relations (which can bring management-inspired changes to a standstill), legislative requirements (tax demands, regulatory procedures), or industry-wide trends affecting an entire sector (trade sanctions, run on the stock market). These internal and external forces typically override the influence of individual change managers, whose intentions can be easily swamped. On occasion, of course, intentions and outcomes may coincide, but this is often the result of chance rather than the outcome of planned, intentional change management actions.

LO 2.3 LO 2.4Six Images of Change Management
Table 2.1 identifies six different images of change management, each dependent in turn on contrasting images of the function of managing, on the one hand, and of the delivery of change outcomes, on the other. We can now outline each of these images and their theoretical underpinnings.

Change Manager as Director (Controlling Intended Outcomes)
The director image views management as controlling and change outcomes as being achievable as planned. The change manager’s role here, as the title indicates, is to steer the organization toward the desired outcomes. This assumes that change involves a strategic management choice upon which the well-being and survival of the organization depends. Let us assume that an organization is “out of alignment” with its external environment, say, with regard to the information demands of a changing regulatory system and the more effective responses of competitors. The change management response could involve a new corporate IT system, to capture more efficiently and to analyze larger volumes of data. The director image assumes that this can be mandated, that the new system can be implemented following that command and that it will work well, leading to a high-performing organization that is more closely aligned to its external environment.

37

©Helder Almeida/Shutterstock

What theoretical support does this image have? As chapter 10 will explain, there are a number of “n-step” models, guidelines, or “recipes” for change implementation that are based on the image of the change manager as director. The change manager is advised to follow the steps indicated (the number of steps varies from model to model), more or less in the correct sequence, and regardless of the nature of the change, in order to ensure successful outcomes. These models are united by the optimistic view that the intended outcomes of change can be achieved, as long as change managers follow the model. One of the best known “n-step” models was developed by John Kotter (1995), who advocates a careful planning process, working through the eight steps in his approach more or less in sequence, and not missing or rushing any of them. Even Kotter acknowledges that change is usually a messy, iterative process. Nevertheless, he remains confident that, if followed correctly, his “recipe” will increase the probability of a successful outcome.

As chapter 10 will also explain, contingency theories of change argue that there is no “one best model” for change managers to follow. These perspectives argue that the most appropriate approach is contingent; that is, it depends on the context and on the circumstances (Stace and Dunphy, 2001; Huy, 2001). Contingency theorists thus part company with n-step “best practice” guides, suggesting that a range of factors such as the scale and urgency of the change, and the receptivity of those who will be affected, need to be considered when framing an implementation strategy. In other words, the “best way” will depend on a combination of factors—but as long as the change manager takes those factors into account, and follows the contingent model, then the intended outcomes should be delivered.

Change Manager as Navigator (Controlling Some Intended Outcomes)

©Nova Development

In the navigator image, control is still at the heart of management action, although a variety of external factors mean that, although change managers may achieve some intended change outcomes, they may have little control over other results. Outcomes are at least partly emergent rather than completely planned, and result from a variety of influences, competing interests, and processes. For example, a change manager may wish to restructure a business unit by introducing cross-functional teams to assist product development. While a change manager may be able to establish teams (an intentional outcome), getting them to work effectively may be challenging if there is a history of distrust, information hoarding, and boundary protection by the business units. In this situation, functional managers may appoint to the cross-functional teams people who they know will keep the interests of their department uppermost and block any decisions that might decrease their organizational power (an unintended outcome of putting the teams in place).

Exploring why change initiatives stall, Eric Beaudan (2006, p. 6) notes, “No amount of advance thinking, planning and communication guarantees success. That’s because change is by nature unpredictable and unwieldy. The military have a great way to put this: ‘no plan survives contact with the enemy.’” He also argues that “leaders need to recognize that the initial 38change platform they create is only valid for a short time. They need to conserve their energy to confront the problematic issues that will stem from passive resistance and from the unpredictable side effects that change itself creates” (Beaudan, 2006, p. 6). Change may be only partially controllable, with change managers navigating the process toward a set of outcomes, not all of which may have been intended.

What theoretical support does this image have? Processual theories (see chapter 10) argue that organizational changes unfold over time in a messy and iterative manner, and thus rely on the image of change manager as navigator (Langley et al., 2013; Dawson and Andriopoulos, 2014). In this perspective, the outcomes of change are shaped by a combination of factors including the past, present, and future context in which the organization functions, including external and internal factors; the substance of the change, which could be new technology, process redesign, a new payment system, or changes to organization structure and culture; the implementation process (tasks, decisions, timing); political behavior, inside and outside the organization; and the interactions between these factors. The role of the change manager is not to direct, but to identify options, accumulate resources, monitor progress, and navigate a way through the complexity.

Change managers must accept that there will be unanticipated disruptions, and that options and resources need to be reviewed. Change navigators are also advised to encourage staff involvement. For senior management, rather than directing and controlling the process, the priority is to ensure receptivity to change and that those involved have the skills and motivation to contribute. However, given the untidy, nonlinear nature of change processes, navigators—consistent with the metaphor—have room to maneuver; the course of change may need to be plotted and replotted in response to new information and developments. There is no guarantee that the final destination will be that which was initially intended. In some instances, change may be ongoing, with no clear end point.

Change Manager as Caretaker (Controlling Unintended Outcomes)

©Jeff DeWeerd/Getty Images

In the caretaker image, the (ideal) management role is still one of control, although the ability to exercise that control is severely constrained by a range of internal and external forces that propel change relatively independent of management intentions. For example, despite the change manager’s desire to encourage entrepreneurial and innovative behavior, this may become a failing exercise as the organization grows, becomes more bureaucratic, and enacts strategic planning cycles, rules, regulations, and centralized practices. In this situation, the issues linked to inexorable growth are outside the control of an individual change manager. In this rather pessimistic image, at best managers are caretakers, shepherding their organizations along to the best of their ability.

Theoretical support for the caretaker image can be drawn from three organizational theories: life-cycle, population ecology, and institutional theory.

Life-cycle theory views organizations passing through well-defined stages from birth to growth, maturity, and then decline or death. These stages are part of a natural developmental cycle. There is an underlying logic or trajectory, and the stages are sequential (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). There is little that managers can 39do to prevent this natural development; at best they are caretakers of the organization as it passes through the various stages. Harrison and Shirom (1999) identify the caretaker activities associated with the main stages in the organizational life cycle, and these are summarized in table 2.2. Change managers thus have a limited role, smoothing the various transitions rather than controlling whether or not they occur.

TABLE 2.2

Life-Cycle Stages and Caretaker Activities

Developmental Stage

Caretaker Activities

Entrepreneurial Stage

Founder initiates an idea

•Make sure that resources are available

•Establish market niche

•Design processes to aid innovation and creativity

•Ensure founder generates commitment to vision

Collectivity Stage

Coordination through informal means as group identity develops

•Coordinate communication and decision making

•Build cohesion and morale with goals and culture

•Develop skills through appropriate reward systems

Formalization Stage

Formalization of operations, emphasizing rules and procedures, efficiency and stability

•Facilitate shift to professional management

•Monitor internal operations and external environment

•Focus procedures on efficiency and quality

•Strike balance between autonomy, coordination, and control

Elaboration Stage

Change and renewal as structure becomes more complex and environment changes

•Adapt current products and develop new ones

•Ensure structure facilitates divisional coordination

•Plan for turnaround, cutbacks, and renewal

Source: Adapted from Harrison and Shirom, 1999, pp. 307–14.

Population ecology theory focuses on how the environment selects organizations for survival or extinction, drawing on biology and neo-Darwinism (White et al., 1997). Whole populations of organizations can in this perspective change as a result of ongoing cycles of variation, selection, and retention:

Organizational variation occurs as the result of random chance.
Organizational selection occurs when an environment selects organizations that best fit the conditions.
Organizational retention involves forces (e.g., inertia and persistence) that sustain organizational forms, thus counteracting variation and selection (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995).
Some population ecology theorists suggest that there are limited actions that change managers can take to influence these forces, such as:

interacting, perhaps through key stakeholders, with other organizations to lessen the impact of environmental factors;
repositioning the organization in a new market or other environment.
In general, however, the implication of this perspective is that managers have little sway over change where whole populations of organizations are affected by external forces. 40For example, managers of many financial institutions struggled to deal with the widespread global crisis triggered by the collapse of Lehman Brothers, an investment bank, in September 2008. That event affected adversely the global population of finance organizations (and the governments that had to recapitalize them).

Institutional theory argues that change managers take broadly similar decisions and actions across whole populations of organizations. The central concern of this perspective is not to explain change, but to understand “the startling homogeneity of organizational forms and practices” (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983, p. 148). These similarities can be explained by the pressures associated with the interconnectedness of organizations that operate in the same sector or environment. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) distinguish three such pressures, which in practice interact:

coercive, including social and cultural expectations and government-mandated changes;
mimetic, as organizations imitate or model themselves on the structures and practices of other organizations in their field, often those that they consider more successful and legitimate;
normative, through the professionalization of work such that managers in different organizations adopt similar values and working methods that are similar to each other.
Not all organizations succumb to these pressures; there are what DiMaggio and Powell call “deviant peers.” However, the assumption is that these external forces are inexorable and individual managers have only limited ability to implement change outcomes that are not consistent with these forces. At best, change managers are caretakers with little influence over the long-term direction of change.

Change Manager as Coach (Shaping Intended Outcomes)

©Jiri Moucka illustrations/Alamy RF

In the coach image, the assumption is that change managers (or change consultants) can intentionally shape the organization’s capabilities in particular ways. Like a sports coach, the change manager shapes the organization’s or the team’s capabilities to ensure that, in a competitive situation, it will be more likely to succeed. Rather than dictating the state of each play as the director might do, the coach relies on establishing the right values, skills, and “drills” so that the organization’s members can achieve the desired outcomes.

What theoretical support does this image have? Organization development (OD) theory reinforces the image of the change manager as coach, by stressing the importance of values such as humanism, democracy, and individual development (see chapter 9). OD “interventions” are designed to develop appropriate skills, reduce interpersonal and interdivisional conflict, and to structure activities in ways that help the organization’s members better understand, define, and solve their own problems. As the OD movement evolved, the emphasis shifted from team-based and other small-scale interventions to organization-wide programs, designed to “get the whole system in the room” (Weisbord, 1987, p. 19; Burnes and Cook, 2012). As a movement underpinned by values, OD advocates can be evangelical about the advantages of helping organization members develop their own skills in problem solving to achieve their intended outcomes, claiming not only that the approach works but that it produces results with less resistance, greater speed, and higher commitment (Axelrod, 1992).

41

© Jorg Greuel/Getty Images

Change Manager as Interpreter (Shaping Some Intended Outcomes)
The change manager as interpreter has the task of creating meaning for others, helping them to make sense of events and developments that, in themselves, constitute a changed organization. It is up to change managers to represent to others just what these changes mean. However, there are often competing interpretations of the same issues, especially where there are different groups who do not necessarily share common interests and perceptions (Buchanan and Dawson, 2007). This suggests that only some meanings—and therefore some change intentions—are likely to be realized.

In this contested climate, managers as interpreters “need to be able to provide legitimate arguments and reasons for why their actions fit within the situation and should be viewed as legitimate” (Barge and Oliver, 2003, p. 138). Downsizing, for example, is one situation where competing interpretations are inevitable. Change managers may portray this action as a way of strengthening the organization in the face of environmental pressures and thus protecting more effectively the jobs of those who remain. Others, however, may tell different stories, of management incompetence and of underhand ways of “outplacing” politically troublesome individuals or even whole departments under the cover of “efficiency.” Stephen Denning (2004), mentioned in chapter 1, emphasizes the power of storytelling, observing, “I’ve seen stories help galvanize an organization around a defined business goal” (p. 122), and that a “well told story” can be more inspiring and motivating than a detailed analytical approach. In other words, when it comes to interpreting the meaning of change for others, the effective interpreter tells better stories than the competition.

What theoretical support does this image have? Architect of the influential processual perspective on organizational change, Andrew Pettigrew (1985, p. 442) sees the “management of meaning” as central. He argues, “The management of meaning refers to a process of symbol construction and value use designed to create legitimacy for one’s own ideas, actions, and demands, and to delegitimize the demands of one’s opponents.” The change manager seeking to introduce significant, strategic change may thus be faced with the prospect of trying to create a story that will dislodge a well-established ideology, culture, and system of meaning. Change managers, of course, do not have a monopoly on storytelling skills; sometimes the stories of others are better, and they “win.”

The interpreter image is central to Karl Weick’s (1995; 2000) sense-making theory of organizational change. Sense-making, Weick explains, is what we do when we face a problem—a surprise or a crisis, for example—and have to work out how we are going to respond. For sense-making to work in these situations, however, four factors have to be present. First, it has to be possible to take some action to address the problem; almost any action will do, as long as experiment and exploration are allowed. Second, that action must be directed toward a purpose or goal. Third, the context must allow people to be attentive to what is happening and to update their understanding accordingly. Fourth, people need to be allowed to share their views openly, in a climate of mutual trust and respect. Weick calls these four components of sense-making animation, direction, attention, and respectful interaction.

42
Interpreters at Work Four Conditions for Changing Mindsets
Emily Lawson and Colin Price (2010) argue that the success of change relies on persuading individuals to change their “mindsets”—to think differently about their jobs and the way in which they work. They identify three levels of organizational change. First, desired outcomes (increased revenue) can often be achieved without changing working practices (selling noncore assets, for example). Second, employees can be asked to change working practices in line with current thinking (finding ways to reduce waste, for example). The third level involves fundamental changes in organization culture, in collective thinking and behavior—from reactive to proactive, hierarchical to collegial, inward-looking to externally focused. There are four conditions for changing mindsets at level three:

Employees will alter their mindsets only if they see the point of the change and agree with it—at least enough to give it a try. The surrounding structures (reward and recognition systems, for example) must be in tune with the new behaviour. Employees must have the skills to do what it requires. Finally, they must see people they respect modelling it actively. Each of these conditions is realized independently; together they add up to a way of changing the behaviour of people in organizations by changing attitudes about what can and should happen at work.

(Lawson and Price, 2010, p. 32)

Weick (2000, p. 225) also observes that emergent, continuous, cumulative change is the norm in most organizations. The textbook focus on planned, transformational, revolutionary, disruptive change is partial and misleading. Emergent change involves the development of new ways of working that were not previously planned:

The recurring story is one of autonomous initiatives that bubble up internally; continuous emergent change; steady learning from both failure and success; strategy implementation that is replaced by strategy making; the appearance of innovations that are unplanned, unforeseen, and unexpected; and small actions that have surprisingly large consequences.

Emergent changes are thus driven by continuous sense-making, often by frontline staff, and not by senior management. Indeed, top team intervention may inhibit change. Weick (2000, p. 234) argues that, while the four sense-making activities of animation, direction, attention, and respectful interaction are necessary for learning, adaptation, and change, “they are also the four activities most likely to be curbed severely in a hierarchical command-and-control system.” For successful change, Weick concludes, management must become interpreters, recognizing that “organizational change is emergent change laid down by choices made on the front line. The job of management is to author interpretations and labels that capture the patterns in those adaptive choices…. Management doesn’t create change. It certifies change” (Weick, 2000, p. 238; emphasis added).

Change Manager as Nurturer (Shaping Unintended Outcomes)

© pagadesign/Getty Images

The image of change manager as nurturer assumes that even small changes can have a large impact on organizations, and that managers may be unable to control the outcomes of these changes (Thietart and Forgues, 1995). However, they may nurture the organization, developing qualities that enable positive self-organizing. Like a parent’s relationship with a child, future outcomes are nurtured or shaped, but the ability to produce intended 43outcomes is limited because of the impact of much wider, sometimes chaotic forces and influences. Specific directions and outcomes of change cannot be intentionally produced but rather emerge and are shaped through the qualities and capabilities of the organization.

Perspectives supporting the nurturer image include chaos theory and Confucian/Taoist theory.

Chaos theory argues that organizational change is nonlinear, is fundamental rather than incremental, and does not necessarily entail growth (table 2.3). Chaos theorists, drawing also on complexity theory, explore how organizations “continuously regenerate themselves through adaptive learning and interactive structural change. These efforts periodically result in the spontaneous emergence of a whole new dynamic order, through a process called self-organization” (Lichtenstein, 2000, p. 131). The phenomenon of self-organization is driven by the chaotic nature of organizations, which in turn is a consequence of having to grapple simultaneously with both change and stability. In this context, the change manager has to nurture the capacity for self-organization, with limited ability to influence the direction and nature of the spontaneous new orders that may emerge. This may sound abstract and puzzling, but this describes the emergent strategy—nurturing capabilities—that the successful Brazilian entrepreneur Ricardo Semler (2000) adopted in his manufacturing company, Semco. This explains how Semco successfully diversified into electronics.

Semco A Chaotic Business?
Semco is a well-known South American manufacturing business. The company has a flat hierarchy and emphasizes staff empowerment to engage in decisions about virtually all company issues, from strategy to setting their own salaries. Ricardo Semler, the Brazilian majority owner of Semco, discussed how the company moved away from manufacturing, making industrial pumps and white goods, and into e-business and other services that now account for 75 percent of its business. Many of the company practices and philosophies illustrate principles of chaos theory. For example, Semler maintains that the company successfully “went digital without a strategy.” He attributes this to what some might term a chaotic management style whereby, in his words:

[R]ather than dictate Semco’s identity from on high, I’ve let our employees shape it through their individual efforts, interests, and initiatives.

That rather unusual management philosophy has drawn a good deal of attention over the years…. The way we work—letting our employees choose what they do, where and when they do it, and even how they get paid—has seemed a little too radical for mainstream companies.

… [S]ome of the principles that underlie the way we work will become increasingly common and even necessary in the new economy. In particular, I believe we have an organization that is able to transform itself continuously and organically—without formulating complicated mission statements and strategies, announcing a bunch of top-down directives, or bringing in an army of change-management consultants. (Semler, 2000, pp. 51–52)

44
TABLE 2.3

Chaos Theory and Change Management

Change Management Actions

Core Elements

Managing transitions

Destabilize people

Get them involved in decision making and problem solving

Building resilience

Develop ability to absorb change

Destabilizing the system

Create a state of tension, act as devil’s advocate

Seek disconfirmation of organizational beliefs

Nurture creativity to cope with a chaotic environment

Managing order and disorder, the present and the future

Balance the needs for order and change

Creating and maintaining a learning organization

Make continuous learning available to everyone

Source: Adapted from Tetenbaum (1998).

Confucian/Taoist theory—perhaps better regarded as a philosophy—adopts assumptions with regard to organizational change that are fundamentally different from Western views (Marshak, 1993). Change is regarded as:

cyclical, involving constant ebb and flow;
processional, involving harmonious movement from one state to another;
journey-oriented, involving cyclical change with no end state;
based on maintaining equilibrium, or achieving natural harmony;
observed and followed by those who are involved, who seek harmony with their universe; and
normal rather than exceptional.
Taoist Approach to Change Leadership
Richard Pascale and Jerry Sternin (2005) discuss the role of change leaders in circumstances where there are no “off the shelf” remedies or coping strategies for dealing with the organization’s problems. The role of the leader, they argue, is to be a facilitator rather than a “path breaker.” This means identifying and encouraging the “positive deviants” in the organization, who are already doing things differently—and better. The key “is to engage the members of the community you want to change in the process of discovery, making them the evangelists of their own conversion experience” (p. 74). To illustrate what is involved, they quote the well-known Taoist poem written by Lao-tzu:

Learn from the people

Plan with the people

Begin with what they have

Build on what they know

Of the best leaders

When the task is accomplished

The people all remark

We have done it ourselves

45
Organizational change outcomes from this standpoint are not intended so much as produced through the nurturing of a harmonious Yin-Yang philosophy in which each new order contains its own negation. Embedded in this philosophy, therefore, is an image of the change manager as nurturer.

LO 2.5Using the Six-Images Framework
Each of these images of managing change represents a Weberian “ideal type.” They are “ideal” in the sense that a “pure” version of the concept may not exist, but they give us a set of benchmarks, or templates, against which practice can be compared. (Note: “ideal” does not in this case mean “desirable.”) These images are not separate categories; they form two continua, from controlling to shaping management roles, and from planned to unintended outcomes. The boundaries of these six images are blurred, and their elements may overlap in practice. The case study at the end of this chapter, “The Turnaround Story at Leonard Cheshire,” illustrates how this happens in practice.

These six images are enduring, each having, as we have seen, differing theoretical underpinnings that serve to legitimate them. Nevertheless, as already noted, the caretaker and nurturer images are less frequently discussed in relation to change management—although they are more widely accepted in other domains of organization theory, particularly where there is less practice orientation. In contrast, the director, navigator, coach, and interpreter images involve more active, intentional, and directional views of the ability of change managers to produce organizational change, whether through control or shaping actions. In this sense, they are more positive images than caretaking and nurturing, which reflect a more reactive view of managerial effectiveness—in terms of both why changes occur and the extent to which these changes are driven by management intentions. Managers obviously do not like to feel that they are insignificant players in their organizational worlds. Rather, the assumption that they are able to produce positive and intentional change is an important component of the Western change management lexicon.

The need to be seen to be producing positive intentional change was demonstrated to us in the following example. A well-known change consultant based in Washington, DC, told us how he intended to use the six-images framework in a major international organization to help their staff to understand the impact of the culture of the organization and its many competing discourses of change. The company agreed to use the framework and even requested copyright permission. However, some senior executives argued against using it, “because it might legitimate managers not assuming responsibility for initiating and managing change; it might give them an out.” This was for two reasons. First, there was the possibility of seeing change having unintended outcomes. Second, there was the possibility that change managers would have minimal impact where the organization was dominated by enforced change from the outside. The six-images framework was not used.

This example is instructive for the following reasons. Some commentators distinguish between topics that are “sacred” and those that are “profane.” Some topics are not to be questioned, and to do so is not legitimate. The experience of our Washington consultant indicates that the idea that change can be controlled to produce intentional outcomes is sacred. It is profane to suggest otherwise—that managers may be overwhelmed by forces beyond their control. The view that we would like to promote in this text is that it is time 46to end this divide. It is necessary to recognize that, in the long run, such a distinction is unhelpful. This stance hinders change managers by discouraging a reflective, self-critical view of their actions and of what is achievable in any given context.

So, how should the six-images framework be used in practice? There are three interrelated issues where reflection on the part of the change manager is valuable: surfacing assumptions about change, assessing dominant images of change, and using multiple images and perspectives of change.

Surfacing Assumptions about Change
The six-images framework guides us in reflecting on the images and assumptions we hold about managing change. As we noted at the start of this chapter, we all have mental models and these help us to simplify and to make sense of the complex organizational worlds in which we operate. At the same time as they simplify and illuminate, they turn our attention toward some things and away from others. Being aware of the mental models with which we work helps us think more carefully about their relevance—and the extent to which the assumptions they entail are really ones that are going to be of assistance to us in approaching organizational change.

Being aware of these images enables change managers to assess the assumptions that are being made by others with whom they are working or interacting or from whom they are taking advice. Resulting from this assessment may be actions to reorient the images others have of the particular change in which they are involved by providing new images through which the change can be seen.

For example, a change manager working with a navigator image may get others, who may view change through a director image, to acknowledge that unanticipated outcomes may occur as change unfolds. The navigator may persuade others to accept that one possibility of engaging in a change is that their current view of what is desired at the end may shift as the process unfolds and new possibilities emerge. In this sense, awareness of differing change management images can lead to an educational process within a change team. It requires encouragement of conversations around images and assumptions about the anticipated change, testing these with the group, and ensuring that all members of the team share common change image(s). This ensures that individual change managers are not talking past one another and making assumptions that are not shared by others.

Assessing Dominant Images of Change
The six-images framework encourages change managers to reflect on whether they are dominated by one particular image, and on the limitations of that perspective. For example, the director image turns our attention to the outcomes we want to achieve and the steps needed to get there; at the same time, it turns our attention away from whether the outcomes are really achievable (or even desirable) and whether unintentional outcomes also might occur should we pursue a particular change course.

The framework also directs attention to whether the organization in which the change is to occur is dominated by a particular view of what is achievable and how change should unfold. Indeed, Hamel and Prahalad (1994) point out that some organizations are dominated by a particular view of how things should get done—almost to the point where the view is part of the “genetic coding” of the organization and is therefore seen as natural and not open for negotiation. In this case, change managers whose images are not consistent 47with the dominant organizational image may experience frustration and stress as they work with a change that may be seen as less legitimate or irrelevant.

Using Multiple Images and Perspectives of Change
It is possible that a change manager’s “image-in-use” may depend on their personal preferences, or it may be an unconscious decision based simply on the use of a familiar approach. One of the advantages of exposure to the range of images is to reduce the likelihood of a change manager using a single image because of a lack of understanding of the range of options. The six-images framework directs attention to the range of available options and to how their use may vary between contexts. A conscious choice of image-in-use can be based on at least the following four sets of considerations.

Image-in-use depends on the type of change. Change managers may assess some types of change as being more amenable to one image or approach rather than another. An interpreter approach might be seen as possible for one but not another type of change. Change managers are thus advised to adjust their image of change, and the perception of what is possible, depending on the situation. Anderson and Anderson (2001), for example, adopt a coaching image, arguing that developmental and transitional change can be managed from this perspective, but not transformational change. They draw on a navigator image in relation to transformational change, arguing that there are too many intangibles that can inhibit the achievement of predetermined outcomes; what is required is a mindset that accepts that organizations can be led into the unknown without the end point being predictable in advance.

Image-in-use depends on the context of the change. As chapter 10 explains, management approach should ideally be consistent with the context. In some settings, organizational members may be unhappy with the status quo and ready for change. The appropriate image-in-use in this context could be coach or interpreter, involving people in order to identify desired change outcomes and how those should be achieved. Where change faces hostility and resistance, and intended outcomes are thus in jeopardy, a caretaker or navigator image may be more appropriate. However, if change is necessary for the organization’s survival, then a director image may necessary.

Image-in-use depends on the phase of change. Change processes pass through different phases (see chapter 10). Change managers may thus choose to use different images at different stages of the process, or depending on perceptions of the phase that change has reached. For example, in initiating an externally imposed or encouraged change (such as the Malcolm Baldrige Quality Awards) in order to continue as an accredited supplier, change managers may feel that the caretaker image is appropriate, as change was not generated internally. However, as change progresses, an interpreter image may become relevant, conveying to staff new meanings associated with the implementation such as enhanced professionalism and the possibility of diversifying into new areas.

Image-in-use depends on simultaneous involvement in multiple changes. At any given time, in any one organization, there are often many changes unfolding, in different business units or across the organization as a whole. Some of those changes could be externally driven, and a caretaker image may apply. Where externally generated change is not negotiable—a change in legislation, for example, demanding compliance—then a director image may be necessary. Other initiatives, however, may be internally generated, and a director image may again be appropriate to achieving desired outcomes in a controlled way. This implies that skilled and reflective change managers are able to adapt, to move 48between images depending on how conditions are developing. It may also be appropriate to manage simultaneously with multiple images where these are related to different but concurrent initiatives. As noted earlier, the Leonard Cheshire case below illustrates this possibility.

SELF-ASSESSMENT
What Is Your Image of Managing Change?
LO 2.5

What is your personal image of how to manage organizational change? This assessment is based on the six-images framework, and it sets out a series of beliefs, some of which are contradictory. This has been designed to profile your own beliefs and to encourage reflection concerning your approach to change. This is an assessment, not a test; there are no right or wrong answers. It should take you only 10 to 15 minutes to complete and score the assessment.

Rate each statement (tick the appropriate box) with regard to how closely it reflects your views, using this scale:

49

Source: This assessment was designed by, and is reproduced here with the permission of Jean Bartunek, Professor of Management and Organization, Boston College, MA.

50
SELF-ASSESSMENT
Scoring
Transfer your ratings to this table. Add the ratings for each image, and calculate your average.

Director

Coach

4

________________

10

________________

5

________________

11

________________

13

________________

14

________________

24

________________

15

________________

total:

________________

total:

________________

÷ 4 = average:

________________

÷ 4 = average:

________________

Navigator

Interpreter

7

________________

8

________________

12

________________

19

________________

18

________________

21

________________

23

________________

22

________________

total:

________________

total:

________________

÷ 4 = average:

________________

÷ 4 = average:

________________

Caretaker

Nurturer

1

________________

6

________________

2

________________

9

________________

3

________________

16

________________

20

________________

17

________________

total:

________________

total:

________________

÷ 4 = average:

________________

÷ 4 = average:

________________

You will have an average score of between 1 and 5 for each image. Consider the following questions, and where possible compare your answers with colleagues:

What are your two highest scores? These are your “dominant” images. Check your understanding of those images with the descriptions in table 2.4.
Do any of these images of change management involve actions that you would be uncomfortable taking? Why?
If you have one or two dominant images, how do you feel about being advised to use the other, low-scoring images, if conditions indicate that would be more appropriate?
If your six scores are similar, does this mean that you are able to act differently in different change settings?
51
TABLE 2.4

Six Images of Change Management

Image

Sound Bite

Approach to Change

When to Use

Director

“This is what is going to happen”

Management choice, command and control

When urgent change is required for survival, and change manager has better knowledge of solutions

Navigator

“I will tell you what I would like to happen”

Plan with care, but expect the unexpected

When the organization’s history, culture, context, and politics will affect change plans

Caretaker

“Let us explore what might be possible”

Accept the force of external context factors and adapt as necessary

When environmental forces are overwhelming, affecting the entire sector

Coach

“How can we develop our capability to deal with change?”

Shape systemic capabilities—values, skills, drills—to respond effectively to change

When the organization’s members need to resolve interpersonal conflicts and build understanding to solve their own problems

Interpreter

“We need to think differently about this”

Managing meaning through interpretations that explain and convey understanding to others

When different stakeholders have competing views of the same issues and they do not share common interests

Nurturer

“This is everybody’s problem—how will we fix it?”

Develop resilience, encourage involvement, continuous learning, and self-organizing

When faced with competing and changing external pressures requiring constant regeneration and adaptive learning

We will refer to these images of change management throughout the book. We would therefore like you to reflect on the following additional questions:

Is it likely that most people will have one dominant image of change management?
Are change leaders more likely to be successful if they remain faithful to their dominant style(s)?
Are change leaders who have the capacity to apply a range of different images more likely to be successful?
4 In your judgement, do most managers have the behavioral flexibility to move between different styles, or do they tend to apply just one or a limited range of approaches?
EXERCISE 2.1
Assessing Change Managers’ Images
LO 2.2

Your task, individually or in a small group, is to find and interview two people who have managed organizational change, or who have been directly involved in change implementation. Design a “topic guide” for your interviews. This should cover, for example, the organizational context; your interviewees’ roles in relation to change; the nature of the changes in which they were involved; why those changes were significant; how the changes were implemented, covering key decisions, actions, turning points, crises; how your interviewees would describe their personal management styles; the outcomes of those changes—successful, or not. If possible, choose to interview managers from different organizations and sectors, to provide contrast. Once you have collected this interview evidence, consider the following questions:

52
Which images of change did those two managers illustrate?
How did those images affect their change management decisions and actions?
Where they drew on more than one image, to what extent were those related to
type of change?

context of change?

phase of change?

their involvement in more than one change at the same time?

What other factors did you identify?
What conclusions can you draw from your analysis about the effects of images and mental models on the way that your interviewees approached their change management roles?
EXERCISE 2.2
The Turnaround Story at Leonard Cheshire
Issues to Consider as You Read This Story
LO 2.5

What image, or images, of change management does Clare Pelham illustrate?
What insights does this story have to offer concerning the role of the change leader?
What lessons about managing organizational change can we take from this experience and apply to other organizations, in healthcare and in other sectors?
The Context
Leonard Cheshire was the largest charity in the United Kingdom, supporting thousands of people with physical and learning disabilities and acquired brain injuries. The charity’s support included care in a range of residential settings, respite services, and skills development to build confidence and to improve employability. The charity employed 7,500 staff in over 300 different services, in the United Kingdom and internationally. The charity also had the support of 3,500 volunteers.

The Problem
Clare Pelham was appointed chief executive in November 2010. The charity’s income was £155 million, and it had a deficit of £5.4 million. The tenures of four previous chief executives had been short. Her immediate predecessor lasted 18 months, implementing a reorganization with the loss of 100 managerial and administrative jobs. Japan Tobacco International had been chosen, with much controversy, as a commercial partner. The Care Quality Commission, a national healthcare regulator, was about to restrict activities at some of the charity’s care homes. The charity was founded in 1948 by Group Captain Geoffrey Leonard, who died in 1992. Pelham had worked as a volunteer at a Leonard Cheshire home as a teenager, but her ambitions had taken her into a management career in other public- and private-sector organizations. Now, how to solve the charity’s problems?

The Solution
Phase 1: Pelham said, “I always start with the people.” On her first day in her new role, she met with each of her senior managers individually. She then visited the charity’s homes. Action was swift:

53
I started in November and by the first week in December we had a new strategy. You need to do things quickly. You also need to be clear as a group of people about why are we here? What do we believe in and how are we going to achieve it?

One of her other first actions was to hold a management board meeting with no agenda:

We talked about how we were going to work together. I suggested they all share with each other the things they had said to me personally. We came up with some ways of working. It was guidelines like, if you write anything down, it can be shown to anyone, copied or forwarded to anyone and you should be prepared to stand by what you have written.

The aim was to develop openness and trust. The guidelines also applied to conversations; “We agreed you should never say something about someone you would not say to their face.” Pelham also banned the “b” and “f” words: blame, fault, failure. In order to build pride in the work of the charity, Pelham encouraged a culture of “you don’t walk past”:

If I am late or if anybody is late for anything and the reason is that it is because they saw something that was not OK and they stopped to address it, then that’s fantastic. If you are doing something to make life easier or better for any individual person, what else could you be doing that is more important than that?

Phase 2: How did the focus on people and culture address the charity’s financial problems? Pelham was also concerned with procedures, measurement, and information:

I think leadership is a caring profession. You cannot do it well if you do not care about the people. You need the heart, but you need to enable the people day to day and engage your head so I am quite big on having procedures because that’s how you measure. Let’s have ways of doing things, to protect the confidentiality of whistleblowers, for example, or ensure safeguarding. Sometimes you want to depart from them but let’s do that knowing you are doing it. You need information gathering so that you can see where you are and see a trend. It is no good saying that this is a good idea and not measuring. That’s not going to do disabled people any good at all.

Fundraising was to become everyone’s business, not a specialist function, and Pelham held regular meetings to gather ideas and prompt action. Significant savings came from making procurement more efficient and by reducing spending on expensive agency staff by more than a third while improving continuity of care. Pelham received personal weekly reports on these efficiencies. Speaking about her leadership role and style, she said:

It is my responsibility when things go wrong and if anyone is to blame it is me and if anyone is to go and answer for it or resign because of it, it is me. If you accept that people share your commitment and passion and values and they are not doing things as well as they can, you have to look in the mirror first and ask: what is it that you could have done to help them do the job they came in to do?

One indicator of Pelham’s passion and values concerned her attitude to the traditional practice of making short support visits to older people. These visits, provided by local councils and care services, were funded to last only 15 minutes. She decided to start a campaign to stop this practice:

54
Our 15 minute campaign came out of a conversation where one of my colleagues talked me through what a 15 minute visit meant. I asked, “Are we OK with this?” We decided we would no longer bid for them and we would actively campaign against them. Our staff hate these visits and every day see people suffering. They love that we are prominent in trying to make this stop.

The charity’s condemnation of these visits triggered outrage at the practice and was headline news. The government’s Care Bill was amended accordingly—a triumph for Pelham.

The Outcomes
In 2013, the charity’s income was £160 million, with a surplus of £3 million. Voluntary donations had increased by 20 percent over the previous two years, to £13.4 million. In 2014, Leonard Cheshire Disability had a surplus, and it started to expand and refurbish its supported living accommodation.

Story Sources
Carlisle, D. 2014. The woman who banned the f-word. Health Service Journal (February 28): 24–28.

http://www.leonardcheshire.org/

Additional Reading
Battilana, J., and Casciaro, T. 2013. The network secrets of great change agents. Harvard Business Review 91(7/8):62–68. Research concluding that it is the networks of change agents that can make them more successful, especially where the nature of their networks (“bridging” or “cohesive”) matches the type of change that they are pursuing.

Chatman, J. 2014. Culture change at Genentech: Accelerating strategic and financial accomplishments. California Management Review 56(2):113–29. This is a case study of successful culture change in a pharmaceuticals company. The senior vice president, Jennifer Cook, said: “My leadership philosophy is that individuals are people first and employees second. Our best employees make a choice to come to work every day and we have to earn the right to have them want to come back. The way I look at it is that I’m bringing a framework and infrastructure as a way to harness the group’s thinking, but it’s their thinking” (p. 113). Contrast this philosophy with that of Ron Johnson at J. C. Penney (chapter 1).

McCreary, L. 2010. Kaiser Permanente’s innovation on the front lines. Harvard Business Review 88(9):92–97. This famous healthcare organization has an internal “innovation consultancy” that employs change agents to watch, note, sketch, and identify better ways of working, asking staff how they feel about their work, holding “deep dive” events with staff to generate ideas. The aim is to introduce service-oriented innovation quickly and economically. This is a caretaker image of change managers—controlling, but looking for unpredictable outcomes.

Pascale, R. T., and Sternin, J. 2005. Your company’s secret change agents. Harvard Business Review 83(5):72–81. Argues that the leader’s role is not to direct change but to identify and encourage the organization’s “positive deviants” who are creating new solutions and ways of working on their own initiative. This supports the nurturer image of the change manager, shaping conditions that again will lead to unpredicted outcomes.

55
Roundup
Reflections for the Practicing Change Manager
To what extent are you more comfortable with one or another of the six images described in this chapter in terms of your own (current or anticipated) approach to managing change?
Why is this the case?
What are the strengths and limitations of the images that you have identified as most relevant to you?
What skills do you think are associated with each image in order to use it well?
Are there areas of personal skill development that are needed in order for you to feel more comfortable in using other change management images?
Have you worked in an organization that was dominated by particular images or approaches to change?
What barriers would you face in trying to bring consideration of alternative images in these organizations? What strategies could you use to assist you in overcoming these barriers?
As a small group exercise: Compare your responses to the above questions. Where do you differ from colleagues? Why do those differences arise?
Here is a short summary of the key points that we would like you to take from this chapter, in relation to each of the learning outcomes:

LO 2.1Evaluate the use that different authors make of the terms change agent, change manager, and change leader.

Some commentators argue that the distinction between change managers and change leaders is clear and significant. We have argued, in contrast, that in practice these two roles are closely intertwined. This is a semantic squabble that is not worth arguing about. The term change agent traditionally refers to an external consultant or adviser, and while that role is still common, the term today is used more loosely, to refer to internal as well as external change agents.

LO 2.2Understand the importance of organizational images and mental models.

The images or mental models that we all have provide us with ways of understanding the world around us. While these images are useful, we have to appreciate that “ways of seeing” are also “ways of not seeing.” Focusing on specific attributes of a situation of necessity means overlooking other attributes—which may sometimes be important. Change managers approach their task with an image of the organization, an image of the change process, and an image of their role in change. These mental models—our “images-in-use”—have profound implications for change management practice.

LO 2.3Compare and contrast six different images of managing change and change managers.

We explored six images of the change manager: director, navigator, caretaker, coach, interpreter, and nurturer. Each is based on different assumptions about the role of management (controlling versus shaping) and about the change outcomes being sought (intended, partly intended, unintended).

56
LO 2.4Explain the theoretical underpinning of different change management images.

Each image finds support in organization theory and change management theory, which was explored briefly. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that these images, which have strikingly different implications for practice, are based on research evidence and theory.

LO 2.5Apply these six images of managing change to your personal preferences and approach, and to different organizational contexts.

We identified three uses of the six-images framework: surfacing assumptions, assessing dominant images, and using multiple perspectives and images. There are no “right” and “wrong” images of change management. It is valuable to be able to interpret problems and solutions in general, and change processes in particular, from different standpoints. This “multiple perspectives” approach can help generate fresh thinking and creative solutions.

This framework has other uses, explored in later chapters. One concerns the assessment of change as successful or not. That judgement is often related to one image rather than another. We often ask: Was it managed well? What went right? What went wrong? Did we achieve what we wanted? However, judging success is open to interpretation. As Pettigrew et al. (2001, p. 701) argue, “Judgements about success are also likely to be conditional on who is doing the assessment and when the judgments are made.” The six-images framework highlights the need to raise conversations early about judging the success of change, and to ensure a broadly common view of that judgement across the organization.

References
Anderson, L. A., and Anderson, D. 2001. Awake at the wheel: Moving beyond change management to conscious change leadership. OD Practitioner 33(3):4–10.

Axelrod, D. 1992. Getting everyone involved: How one organization involved its employees, supervisors, and managers in redesigning the organization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 28(4):499–509.

Barge, J. K., and Oliver, C. 2003. Working with appreciation in managerial practice. Academy of Management Review 28(1):124–42.

Battilana, J., and Casciaro, T. 2013. The network secrets of great change agents. Harvard Business Review 91(7/8):62–68.

Beaudan, E. 2006. Making change last: How to get beyond change fatigue. Ivey Business Journal (January/February):1–7.

Bennis, W. G. 1969. Organization development: Its nature, origins, and prospects. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bolman, L., and Deal, T. 2013. Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. 5th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Buchanan, D. A., and Dawson, P. 2007. Discourse and audience: Organizational change as multi-story process. Journal of Management Studies 44(5):669–86.

57
Burke, W. W. 1987. Organization development: A normative view. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Burnes, B. 2014. Managing change: A strategic approach to organizational dynamics. 6th ed. Harlow, Essex: Pearson.

Burnes, B., and Cook, B. 2012. The past, present and future of organization development: Taking the long view. Human Relations 65(11):1395–429.

Carlisle, D. 2014. The woman who banned the f-word. Health Service Journal (February 28):24–28.

Chatman, J. 2014. Culture change at Genentech: Accelerating strategic and financial accomplishments. California Management Review 56(2):113–29.

Chin, R., and Benne, K. D. 1976. General strategies for effecting changes in human systems. In The planning of change, ed. W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, and K. E. Corey (22–45). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Dawson, P., and Andriopoulos, C. 2014. Managing change, creativity and innovation. London: Sage Publications.

DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48:147–60.

Fayol, H. 1916. Administration industrielle et générale. Bulletin de la Societe de l’Industrie Minérale 10:5–164.

Fayol, H. 1949. General and industrial management. Translated by C. Storrs. London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons.

Gulick, L., and Urwick, L. 1937. Papers on the science of administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration.

Hamel, G., and Prahalad, C. K. 1994. Competing for the future. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Harrison, M. I., and Shirom, A. 1999. Organizational diagnosis and assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hatch, M. J., and Cunliffe, A. L. 2012. Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Huy, Q. N. 2001. Time, temporal capability, and planned change. Academy of Management Review 26(4):601–23.

Keller, S., Meaney, M., and Pung, C. 2010. What successful transformations share. Chicago and London: McKinsey & Company.

Kotter, J. P. 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review 73(2):59–67.

Kotter, J. P. 2012. Leading change. 2nd ed. Boston: Harvard University Press.

58
Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H., and Van de Ven, A. H. 2013. Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal 56(1):1–13.

Lawson, E., and Price, C. 2010. The psychology of change management. The McKinsey Quarterly (special edition: the value in organization):31–41.

Lichtenstein, B. B. 2000. Self-organized transitions: A pattern amidst the chaos of transformative change. Academy of Management Executive 14(4):128–41.

Marshak, R. J. 1993. Lewin meets Confucius: A re-view of the OD model of change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 29(4):393–415.

Mayo, E. 1945. The social problems of an industrial civilization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McCreary, L. 2010. Kaiser Permanente’s innovation on the front lines. Harvard Business Review 88(9):92–97.

Mintzberg, H. 2009. Managing. Harlow, Essex: Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Mintzberg, H., and Waters, J. A. 1985. Of strategies deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal 6(3):257–72.

Moore, C., and Buchanan, D. A. 2013. Sweat the small stuff: A case study of small scale change processes and consequences in acute care. Health Services Management Research 26(1):9–17.

Morgan, G. 2006. Images of organization. 3rd ed. London: Sage Publications.

Palmer, I., and Dunford, R. 2002. Who says change can be managed? Positions, perspectives and problematics. Strategic Change 11(5):243–51.

Pascale, R. T., and Sternin, J. 2005. Your company’s secret change agents. Harvard Business Review 83(5):72–81.

Pettigrew, A. M. 1985. The awakening giant: Continuity and change in ICI. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., and Cameron, K. S. 2001. Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal 44(4):697–713.

Roethlisberger, F. J., and Dickson, W. J. 1939. Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schein, E. 1999. Process consultation revisited: Building the helping relationship. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Semler, R. 2000. How we went digital without a strategy. Harvard Business Review 78(4):51–58.

Sirkin, H. J., Keenan, P., and Jackson, A. 2005. The hard side of change management. Harvard Business Review 83(10):108–18.

59
Stace, D. A., and Dunphy, D. 2001. Beyond the boundaries: Leading and re-creating the successful enterprise. 2nd ed. Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

Tetenbaum, T. J. 1998. Shifting paradigms: From Newton to chaos. Organizational Dynamics, Spring:21–32.

Thietart, R. A., and Forgues, B. 1995. Chaos theory and organizations. Organization Science 6(1):19–31.

Van de Ven, A. H., and Poole, M. S. 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review 20(3):510–40.

Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA/London: Sage Publications.

Weick, K. E. 2000. Emergent change as a universal in organizations. In Breaking the code of change, ed. M. Beer and N. Nohria (223–41). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Weisbord, M. 1987. Toward third-wave managing consulting. Organizational Dynamics 15(3):19–20.

White, M. C., Marin, D. B., Brazeal, D. V., and Friedman, W. H. 1997. The evolution of organizations: Suggestions from complexity theory about the interplay between natural selection and adaptation. Human Relations 50(11):1383–401.

60