In assessing the need for organizational change managers must

Leading Organizational Change

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.