Grey and Sturdy (2003) criticised the focus on managerialism and universalism of managing change, making an argument against a recipe approach to change management and the existence of step by step guides on how to manage change successfully.

I am not unfamiliar with that component of Grey and Sturdy’s critique, as it was one of the core ideas of the module TU812: Managing systemic change: inquiry, action, and interaction of the Open University. Ison (2010), in his book “System practice: How to act in a climate-change world”, suggests that situations should be approached by a system thinking approach rather than a recipe-for-all theory.

The disadvantage of system thinking is the significant commitment of resources to engage in a systemic enquiry, as explained by Ison.

In this context, Theory E&O falls under the recipe-based approach and cannot englobe all details for an effective change.

The author’s opinion that a recipe-based approach should be used as a first approach to deal with change, monitoring the progress of the change and switching to a ‘meta platform based on system thinking when the complexity of the change starts to become apparent.

The main reason to attempt a recipe-based approach to managing change is the heavy burden of time and resources that a systemic approach requires.

Alternative approach: Stacey’s Complexity Zone

The paper Complexity theories and organisational change (Burnes, 2005) introduces the concept of complexity theories with the following area of concern:

"[…] the emergence of order in dynamic non-linear systems operating at the edge of chaos: in other words, systems which are constantly changing and where the laws of cause and effect appear not to apply “.

The definition seems to expand on Stacey’s zone 5 or zone of bounded instability/complexity zone. This zone is described as where the company can be more creative and make a considerable difference, and in which traditional management is least effective.

I consider that this approach will benefit an organisation by opening a dialogue to search for a new management system and providing a self-sustained model regarding the number of departments.

I have observed previously a system relying on several departments, but with the current personnel not enough to fill all departments. Simultaneously, people are exchangeable between departments as the education and competencies are identical between the sections.

A most efficient approach is to embrace the changing environment and create procedures for the emergence of functional areas based on the specialisation of knowledge rather than fixed departments.

The new areas will emerge as long as new people join the organisation. The idea is not new but rather a simplification of the existing concept of communities of practice (Blackmore, 2010).

I think the implementation of that concept will allow dissipating some of the resistance of change, as all stakeholders can share their ideas regarding the new system rather than being imposed by a director. At the same time, it will provide a system that overcomes the current limitation of bumping from a static situation A to a static situation B, being A the old small company single-departmental structure, and B the new multiple-departmental structure.

Last it will avoid the excessive overhead of middle management in the initial phase after the change: with several departments and barely enough people to populate them.

The views of a systemic approach are not free of risks. We have already discussed that system thinking approaches require more resources and time to engage with the situation. We should note the possibility of endless dialogues in which no solutions or commitments are agreed upon. Therefore no change is the most probable outcome.

References

  • Blackmore, C. (2010) Social learning systems and communities of practice, Social Learning Systems and Communities of Practice [Online]. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2 (Accessed 16 March 2019).
  • Bruch, H. and Ghoshal, S. (2003) ‘Unleashing Organizational Energy’, MIT Sloan Management Review, vol. 45, no. 1.
  • Burnes, B. (2005) ‘Complexity theories and organisational change’, International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 73–90 [Online]. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00107.x.
  • Grey, C. and Sturdy, A. (2003) ‘Beneath and Beyond Organizational Change Management: Exploring Alternatives’, Organization, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 651–662.
  • Ison, R. (2010) Systems practice: How to act in a climate-change world, London, Springer London [Online]. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-84996-125-7.
  • The Open University (2015) Book 1: Exploring management, Fifth edit. The Open University (ed), Milton Keynes, The Open University.