Chapter 3: What To Change In An Organization: Framewo 575200

Chapter 3: What to Change in an Organization: Frameworks

Change leaders must understand both the HOW and the WHAT of change. The focus here is on WHAT needs to change. Open systems organizational frameworks are valuable assessment tools of what needs to change. Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model is explored in detail. The non-linear and interactive nature of organizations is explored to make sense of their complexity. Quinn’s competing values model is used to create a bridge between individual and organizational levels of analysis. Organizational change over time is discussed.

Uses diagnostic frameworks to better understand: how to change & what to change. Organizations exchange information, material, and energy with their environment; they are interconnected systems. Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model examines inputs such as environment, resources, history, and culture, and how these influence outputs. Understanding environmental pressures for change, analyzing organizational components, and evaluating outputs are essential for assessing what needs to change and how effectively the organization is functioning.

The open systems perspective emphasizes that organizations are complex webs of interrelated components that seek equilibrium but are subjected to constant change and feedback. These systems are dynamic, nonlinear, history-dependent, and often counterintuitive and policy resistant. Recognizing the interconnectedness of organizational parts is crucial for effective change management.

Key models like Nadler & Tushman’s Congruence Model help analyze the alignment between organizational components and external stimuli. External pressures can serve as catalysts for change, but misalignments can hinder progress. When evaluating outputs, organizations should identify areas needing improvement and address underlying resource or structural issues that impede goal achievement. Resources such as diagnostic tools, stakeholder input, and performance data are vital for comprehensive analysis.

The linear view of organizational change, emphasizing straightforward cause-effect sequences, is flawed due to time delays, cause-effect complexity, and false learning. Feedback models present a more realistic understanding by incorporating mutual influences, decision environments, and unintended side effects. Quinn’s competing values framework offers insight into balancing control and flexibility, internal and external focus, through various key roles in managing change—e.g., HR, innovation, internal controls, and economic maximization.

Greiner’s five phases of organizational growth describe how organizations evolve through stages of creativity, direction, delegation, coordination, and collaboration, with crises marking transitions. Stacy’s complexity theory emphasizes that organizations are paradoxical systems—pursuing stability and change simultaneously—and operate within feedback loops that can lead to chaos or stability. Success lies in navigating the space between these extremes.

Long-term organizational development depends on spontaneous self-organization amid complex feedback loops, making prediction difficult. Management's role is to influence these short-term dynamics, understand their impact on long-term trends, and adapt strategies accordingly. This dynamic process requires embracing uncertainty and fostering innovation within a paradoxical environment.

For effective change assessment, organizations should view themselves as open systems. External environmental factors often initiate change and cause internal disturbances. Both evolutionary (gradual) and revolutionary (transformational) changes are necessary for growth. Understanding the WHY and WHAT of change is essential; models from this chapter emphasize the WHAT but recognize that change processes are inherently messy, nonlinear, and unpredictable.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Organizational change is a complex process that requires a nuanced understanding of both what needs to change and how to implement those changes effectively. Analyzing organizations through open systems frameworks, such as Nadler and Tushman’s Congruence Model, provides valuable insights into the internal and external factors influencing organizational performance. This model underscores the importance of understanding how inputs—like environment, resources, and culture—interact with transformation processes to produce desired outputs, highlighting areas where change is necessary.

Central to understanding organizational change is the open systems perspective, which sees organizations as interconnected webs of relationships constantly exchanging information and energy with their environment. This perspective recognizes that organizations are dynamic, nonlinear, and adaptive. For example, feedback loops within these systems can either stabilize or destabilize the organization, depending on how they are managed. This understanding shifts the focus from linear cause-effect chains to recognizing the complex interdependencies that influence change processes.

Within this framework, one of the critical challenges is identifying what needs to change. Organizations often face misalignments between their strategic objectives, internal structures, and external environmental demands. Diagnosing these misalignments requires comprehensive analysis using diagnostic frameworks like the Congruence Model that assess inputs such as environment, strategy, and resources, and their impact on outputs like performance and customer satisfaction. Often, the desired outputs are not achieved due to structural or resource-related barriers that need to be addressed through targeted change initiatives.

It's important to recognize that traditional linear models of change fall short in capturing the reality of organizational dynamics. Linear models suggest a straightforward path from problem identification to solution implementation, but organizations are affected by time delays and cause-effect complexities that can lead to false attributions of success or failure. Feedback models provide a more realistic view, emphasizing the importance of continuous learning and adaptation. They acknowledge that decisions and actions influence the environment and performance in a mutual, ongoing process.

Quinn’s competing values framework adds a valuable dimension, illustrating how organizations balance competing demands such as control versus flexibility and internal versus external focus. Different roles and priorities emerge from this framework—such as HR roles centered on teamwork and development, or innovation roles focused on power and change management—that influence how organizations approach change. Effective change management involves balancing these competing values to foster an environment conducive to strategic adaptation.

Greiner’s model of organizational growth further contextualizes change, describing how organizations evolve through stages marked by crises that prompt shifts in management style and operational focus. For instance, as organizations grow, they may encounter crises of leadership or control that require restructuring or cultural shifts. Recognizing these phases helps leaders anticipate potential barriers and plan interventions that align with organizational maturity.

Complementing these models, Stacy’s complexity theory emphasizes that organizations are inherently paradoxical, aiming for stability while needing to adapt continuously. The feedback loops that connect different parts of the organization can lead to stability or chaos, depending on how well these processes are managed. Success in change management, therefore, involves navigating this paradox—finding a balance where the organization remains resilient yet adaptable.

Long-term organizational development depends on harnessing spontaneous self-organization within the system’s feedback loops. Managers play a crucial role in influencing short-term dynamics, encouraging innovation, and maintaining the balance between stability and change. To be effective, leaders must accept the uncertainty inherent in complex systems and develop strategies that foster resilience and adaptability over time.

In conclusion, organizations are dynamic, interconnected systems that require sophisticated tools and frameworks to understand and facilitate change. Recognizing the complexity and messiness of change processes allows leaders to design more effective interventions, anticipate resistance, and foster a culture of continuous learning and adaptation. The models discussed—such as the Congruence Model, Quinn’s competing values, and Stacy’s complexity theory—provide essential guidance for navigating the complexities of organizational change in today’s environment.

References

• Deszca, G., Ingols, C., & Cawsey, T. F. (2020). Organizational Change: An Action-Oriented Toolkit (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1997). Competing values: Managing organizational change for competitive advantage. Jossey-Bass.
• Quinn, R. E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Learning to be creative. Harvard Business School Press.
• Greiner, L. (1972). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business Review, 50(4), 55-67.
• Stacey, R. D. (2007). Strategic management and organizational dynamics. Pearson Education.
• Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.
• Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday/Currency.
• Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50(1), 361-386.
• Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1987). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change. Addison-Wesley.
• Ulrich, D., & Brockbank, W. (2005). The HR value proposition. Harvard Business Press.