Speaking For All Mankind

Graetz and Smith’s (2010) article starts off well enough:

“Traditional approaches to organizational change generally follow a linear, rational model in which the focus is on controllability under the stewardship of a strong leader or ‘guiding coalition’.  The underlying assumption of this classical approach, ever popular among change consultants, is that organizational change involves a series of predictable, reducible steps that can be planned and managed (Collins, 1998).  The evidence from case studies of failed change implementations indicates, however, that this uni-dimensional, rational focus is limited because it treats change as a single, momentary disturbance that must be stabilized and controlled.  Such a view fails not only to appreciate that change is a natural phenomenon which is intimately entwined with continuity but, also, that the change-continuity continuum is what defines organizations and their ability both to exploit and explore.  Change and continuity represent competing but complementary narratives, bring in ambiguity and novelty to destabilize as well as validate existing organizational routines.” (pp. 135-136).

But the rest of the article doesn’t live up to the promise of introducing a new method for bringing about organizational change.  The authors catalog ten change philosophies* by describing each philosophy’s methods for change and associated shortcomings.  They then discuss the continuity-change continuum and argue that change agents must use a “multi-philosophic” approach even though the authors don’t specify what they mean by multi-philosophic. That is unfortunate because I believe that they have pinpointed the fundamental problem with change management in modern organizations.

Organizations are in a constant state of change as an inherent part of its interactions within and without.  Organizations are also constantly resisting change because the members are trying to maintain continuity.  Most of the time, change is a constant background hum in the organization that periodically causes minor changes in processes (switching from voice mail to email to communicate requests or distributing information via the web versus the previous method of printed reports).

Change agents need to realize that change already exists in the organization and that to bring about deep change is to dial up the change part of the continuum while realizing that people in the organization are conditioned to respond by dialing up the continuity part.  If the organizational change is meant to destroy the existing continuity part of the continuum in favor of a new continuity, there will be a period of chaos until the new continuity is established in the continuum.  Change produces feedback and this has to be handled carefully or the increasing disruption can upset the continuum balance.

Graetz and Smith (2010) have the beginnings of a successful change method.  Harness the change inherent in the organization and realize how the continuity portion of the continuum will resist the change.  Convince a critical mass of the organization’s members to drop the continuity in favor of the change in order to shift the balance.

The big question is just how do you handle these tasks in the change-continuity continuum?

Note:

* Biological, Rational, Institutional, Resource, Contingency, Psychological, Political, Cultural, Systems, and Postmodern.

Reference:

Graetz, F., & Smith, A.C.T. (2010). Managing organizational change: A philosophies of change approach. Journal of Change Management, 10:2. 135-154.

Along the same lines of my own research – simulation of cultural change.  Computational social science is going to revolutionize the social sciences as simulation revolutionized the hard sciences.

In my previous blog, I wrote several posts praising Eric Beinhocker’s The Origin of Wealth.  It is a brilliant application of complexity theory to economics that demonstrates the failure of classical economic theory.  As Beinhocker explains, early economists attempted to make economics more scientific by grafting classical physic theories onto the field.  The most pervasive concept was “equilibrium” which has guided economic thought since the 1800s.  It was this central concept that has divorced economic theory from economic reality as Beinhocker successfully demonstrates in Part One of his book.  A better explanation of what really happens in economic systems is the interaction of autonomous agents acting in a complex and evolving fitness landscape.

I was reminded of Beinhocker’s book when I read John Cassidy’s How Markets Fail: The Logic of Economic Calamities.  Cassidy recounts the economic history of the last hundred years to explain the market failures of 2008 and 2009.    Like Beinhocker, Cassidy also blames the emphasis on equilibrium in classical economics to blinding economists like Greenspan to the realities of how economic systems actually work (as Greenspan himself admits in the book’s introduction).  Even though Cassidy calls his conclusions “reality economics,” his descriptions of subprime mortage market and the near-failure of the market giants are great examples of complexity economics.   In fact, it is hard not to read Part Three of How Markets Fail without thinking of how complexity economics (Part Two of The Origin of Wealth) can much better explain the events of 2008 and 2009 better than traditional economic theories.

How Markets Fail is an important book and another great argument on rethinking economic theory.  Why this is important to government is that efforts to fix the economy are based on outmoded theories which only go to make the situation worse.  By adopting complexity economics, governments can better treat economic issues and help sustain the market system.

And when you read the article by Dr. Richard Cook, you will hang them on your office wall too.  Four pages that encapsulate a great deal of wisdom.