Organizational Behavior
the need for and the start of the change
Tomáš Ondráček
ondracek.t@mail.muni.cz
Faculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk University
2021
The Gradualist Paradigm
The Gradualist Paradigm
·ORBE ·2021 2 / 46
The Gradualist Paradigm
the gradualist paradigm
time
change
the gradualist paradigm
·ORBE ·2021 3 / 46
The Gradualist Paradigm
the gradualist paradigm:
a definition I/II
The Gradualist Paradigm
The gradualist paradigm posits that organizations adapt to
opportunities and threats by engaging in a process of continuous
incremental change. Their response is evolving and, over time,
these continuous changes cumulate to transform the organization.
(Hayes, 2014: 47)
·ORBE ·2021 4 / 46
The Gradualist Paradigm
the gradualist paradigm:
a definition II/II
The Gradualist Paradigm
Each variation of a given form is not an abrupt or discrete event,
neither is it, by itself, discontinuous. Rather, through a series of
ongoing and situated accommodations, adaptations, and alterations
(that draw on previous variations and mediate future ones), sufficient
modifications may be enacted over time that fundamental changes
are achieved. There is no deliberate orchestration of change here,
no technological inevitability, no dramatic discontinuity,
just recurrent and reciprocal variations in practice over time. Each
shift in practice creates the conditions for further breakdowns,
unanticipated outcomes, and innovations, which in their turn are
responded to with more variations. And such variations are ongoing;
there is no beginning or end point in this change proces.
(Orlikowski, 1996: 66)
·ORBE ·2021 5 / 46
The Gradualist Paradigm
the gradualist paradigm:
processes associated with continuous change
Improvising:
facilitates the modification of work practices through mutual
adjustments in which the time gap between planning and
implementing narrows towards the point where planning
(composition) converges with implementation (execution).
Translation:
refers to the continuous adaptation and editing of ideas as they
travel through the organization.
Learning:
involves the continuous revision of shared mental models, which
facilitates a change in the organization’s ability to be responsive.
((Hayes, 2014: 48); see (Weick & Quinn, 1999))
·ORBE ·2021 6 / 46
The Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm
The Punctuated Equilibrium
Paradigm
·ORBE ·2021 7 / 46
The Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm
the punctuated equilibrium paradigm
time
change
The punctuated equilibrium paradigm
·ORBE ·2021 8 / 46
The Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm
the punctuated equilibrium paradigm:
a definition
The Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm
The essence of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm is that systems
(organizations) evolve through the alternation of periods of
equilibrium, in which persistent ‘deep structures’ only permit limited
incremental change, and periods of revolution, in which these deep
structures are fundamentally altered.
(Hayes, 2014: 48)
·ORBE ·2021 9 / 46
The Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm
the punctuated equilibrium paradigm:
key components I/III
deep structure
This deep structure is what persists and limits change during
equilibrium periods, and it is what disassembles, reconfigures, and
enforces wholesale transformation during revolutionary punctuations
(Gersick, 1991: 12)
·ORBE ·2021 10 / 46
The Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm
the punctuated equilibrium paradigm:
key components II/III
equilibrium periods
Within equilibrium periods, the system’s basic organization and
activity patterns stay the same; the equilibrium period consists
of maintaining and carrying out these choices. As implied above,
what "carrying out"means is different for different types of systems.
In systems without intentionality, it can be a mechanical set of
activities or a series of minor adjustments to the environment.
. . .
Systems in equilibrium also make incremental adjustments
to compensate for internal or external perturbations without
changing their deep structure.
(Gersick, 1991: 16)
·ORBE ·2021 11 / 46
The Punctuated Equilibrium Paradigm
the punctuated equilibrium paradigm:
key components III/III
revolutionary periods
As long as the deep structure is intact, it generates a strong inertia,
first to prevent the system from generating alternatives outside its
own boundaries, then to pull any deviations that do occur back into
line. According to this logic, the deep structure must first be
dismantled, leaving the system temporarily disorganized, in order for
any fundamental changes to be accomplished. Next, a subset of the
system’s old pieces, along with some new pieces, can be put back
together into a new configuration, which operates according to a new
set of rules
(Gersick, 1991: 16)
·ORBE ·2021 12 / 46
A Typology of Organizational Change
A Typology
of Organizational Change
·ORBE ·2021 13 / 46
A Typology of Organizational Change
types of organizational change: basic and weakness
weak
Incremental Transformational
Proactive Tuning Reorientation
Reactive Adaptation Re-creation
strong
((Hayes, 2014: 56) adapted from (Nadler & Tushman, 1995: 24))
·ORBE ·2021 14 / 46
A Typology of Organizational Change
types of organizational change: intensity
Least intense → → most intense
Tuning Adaptation Reorientation Re-creation
(Hayes, 2014: 60)
·ORBE ·2021 15 / 46
Recognition
Recognition
·ORBE ·2021 16 / 46
Recognition
bad recognition
less time for planning
involvement of others
little time to experiment
little opportunity to influence shifts
(Hayes, 2014: 56)
·ORBE ·2021 17 / 46
Recognition external sources of change
external sources of change
·ORBE ·2021 18 / 46
Recognition external sources of change
PEST
political factors
economic factors
sociocultural factors
rechnological factors
(Hayes, 2014: 68)
·ORBE ·2021 19 / 46
Recognition external sources of change
Strebel’s cycle of competitive behaviour
((Hayes, 2014: 70) adapted from (Strebel, 1998: 11))
·ORBE ·2021 20 / 46
Recognition internal sources of change
internal sources of change
·ORBE ·2021 21 / 46
Recognition internal sources of change
The Five Phases of Growth
(Greiner, 1989: 5)
·ORBE ·2021 22 / 46
Recognition internal sources of change
The Five Phases of Growth:
phase 1
Growth through creativity leading to a crisis of leadership
. . .
as the organization grows, the need for more knowledge about the
efficiencies of manufacturing, more professional systems for
maintaining financial control, and more formal approaches for
managing and developing people lead to a crisis of leadership. A new
approach to managing and leading the business is required, but the
founders may not be qualified to provide this
. . .
((Hayes, 2014: 71) see (Greiner, 1989))
·ORBE ·2021 23 / 46
Recognition internal sources of change
The Five Phases of Growth:
phase 2
Growth through direction leading to a crisis of autonomy
. . .
organizations often differentiate activities and develop a functional
organizational structure, along with a clear hierarchy, more formal
communication systems, and more sophisticated accounting,
inventory and manufacturing systems. Although this new level of
order and direction delivers efficiencies, as the organization
continues to grow, it eventually becomes less effective; [...] This
leads to demands for greater autonomy.
. . .
((Hayes, 2014: 71) see (Greiner, 1989))
·ORBE ·2021 24 / 46
Recognition internal sources of change
The Five Phases of Growth:
phase 3
Growth through delegation leading to a crisis of control
. . .
Employees at lower levels are motivated and managers operating in a
decentralized organization structure can act faster. Eventually,
however, they begin to lose sight of organization-wide goals, develop
parochial mindsets, and begin to work too independently. This gives
rise to a need for greater coordination across the organization.
. . .
((Hayes, 2014: 71) see (Greiner, 1989))
·ORBE ·2021 25 / 46
Recognition internal sources of change
The Five Phases of Growth:
phase 4
Growth through coordination leading to a crisis of ‘red tape’
. . .
Formal systems and procedures are introduced in order to facilitate
greater coordination. While these measures align separate functions,
departments and work groups around corporate goals, the creeping
bureaucratization of the organization eventually stifles initiative and
strangles growth.
. . .
((Hayes, 2014: 71) see (Greiner, 1989))
·ORBE ·2021 26 / 46
Recognition internal sources of change
The Five Phases of Growth:
phase 5
Growth through collaboration
. . .
Greater spontaneity is encouraged through developing interpersonal
competences, matrix and network structures and associated systems
that enable people to work together in ways that rely more on social
control and self-discipline than formal control and close monitoring
from above.
. . .
((Hayes, 2014: 71) see (Greiner, 1989))
·ORBE ·2021 27 / 46
Recognition internal sources of change
The Five Phases of Growth:
practices
(Greiner, 1989: 10)
·ORBE ·2021 28 / 46
Recognition the trap of success
the trap of success
·ORBE ·2021 29 / 46
Recognition the trap of success
the trap of success
((Hayes, 2014: 73) adapted from (Nadler, 1995: 11))
·ORBE ·2021 30 / 46
Recognition indicators of effectiveness
indicators of effectiveness
·ORBE ·2021 31 / 46
Recognition indicators of effectiveness
indicators of effectiveness
Purpose
Stakeholder perspective
Level of assessment
Alignment
Time perspective
Benchmarks
Constraining and enabling factors
r
((Hayes, 2014: 73) adapted from (Nadler, 1995: 11))
·ORBE ·2021 32 / 46
Recognition indicators of effectiveness
a balanced scorecard
((Hayes, 2014: 78) adapted from (Nadler, 1995: 11))
·ORBE ·2021 33 / 46
The Change Agency
The Change Agency
·ORBE ·2021 34 / 46
The Change Agency playmakers
playmakers
·ORBE ·2021 35 / 46
The Change Agency playmakers
playmakers
Playmakers
The individuals who influence the organizational agenda are referred
to by Pitt et al. (2002) as ‘playmakers’, a term they borrow from
football, where it refers to the restless, energetic midfield role that
links play, energizes the team and ‘makes things happen’.
((Hayes, 2014: 81) see (Pitt, McAulay, & Sims, 2002))
·ORBE ·2021 36 / 46
The Change Agency playmakers
the role of playmakers
upward-facing advocates
rational arguments
upward-facing emotive champions
use of emotions and polemics
democratic brokers
facilitating lateral communication
((Hayes, 2014: 81–82) see (Pitt et al., 2002))
·ORBE ·2021 37 / 46
The Change Agency playmakers
the deterministic view
The Deterministic View
The deterministic view is that the ability of the manager to influence
change is limited because the main determining forces lie outside
the organization and the realms of strategic choice for managers
. . .
one of the points that classical industrial organization and
organizational ecology scholars can agree on is the deterministic role
of the environment that constrains management action.
(Hayes, 2014: 86–87)
·ORBE ·2021 38 / 46
The Change Agency playmakers
the voluntarist view
The Voluntarist View
. . .
rejects the assumption that managers are powerless. Advocates of
this perspective argue that managers and other organizational
members are the principal decision makers who determine the fate of
the organization.
(Hayes, 2014: 87)
·ORBE ·2021 39 / 46
The Change Agency playmakers
the voluntarist view: problems
LUCK
(Hayes, 2014: 87)
·ORBE ·2021 40 / 46
The Change Agency playmakers
the voluntarist view:
assumptions and attributes
managers can make a difference
managers can learn to manage change more effectively
the confidence
the motivation
conceptual models
action tools/interventions
change management skills
(Hayes, 2014: 88)
·ORBE ·2021 41 / 46
The Change Agency playmakers
the voluntarist view: the confidence
locus of control (Rotter, 1966)
learned helplessness (Seligman, 1972)
Motivational deficits
Cognitive deficits
(Hayes, 2014: 87)
·ORBE ·2021 42 / 46
Change Relationships
Change Relationships
·ORBE ·2021 43 / 46
Change Relationships
the deterministic view
theorizing
advising
supporting
challenging
information gathering
(Hayes, 2014: 86–87)
·ORBE ·2021 44 / 46
Change Relationships
collaborative relationships
Do listen!
Do not judge!
·ORBE ·2021 45 / 46
Sources
Gersick, C. J. (1991). Revolutionary change theories: A multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium
paradigm. Academy of management review, 16(1). doi: 10.2307/258605
Greiner, L. E. (1989). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. In Readings in strategic management
(pp. 373–387). Springer.
Hayes, J. (2014). The theory and practice of change management. Palgrave MacMillan.
Nadler, D. A. (1995). Discontinuous change: Leading organizational transformation. Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Publishers, 350.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1995). Types of organizational change: From incremental improvement to
discontinuous transformation. Discontinuous change: Leading organizational transformation,
15–34.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective.
Information systems research, 7(1), 63–92.
Pitt, M., McAulay, L., & Sims, D. (2002). Promoting strategic change:‘playmaker’roles in organizational agenda
formation. Strategic Change, 11(3). doi: 10.1002/jsc.586
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.
Psychological monographs: General and applied, 80(1), 1.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1972). Learned helplessness. Annual review of medicine, 23(1), 407–412.
Strebel, P. (1998). The change pact: Building commitment to ongoing change. Financial Times Pitman Pub.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual review of psychology,
50(1). doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361