Organizational Change and Innovation

Psychological Perspectives and Practices in Europe

Dian Marie Hosking, Neil Anderson

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781351063609
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

First published in 1992. Organisational change and innovation has been at the centre of much management literature, which has been informed by debates in organizational behaviour and strategic management. The psychology of how people in organizations adapt to and manage change is key to our understanding of the processes by which such changes can occur successfully.

Organizational Change and Innovation brings together the recent research findings of leading European work and organization psychologists, who take stock of existing theories about organizational change in the light of new case material. Their findings, from a range of cultural and national contexts, challenge some previously accepted models and set a new agenda for future research. In particular, the volume provides new perspectives on the person organization relationship; the political qualities of organizational change; the input-output model of organizations as entities; and finally on research methodology.

1 Organizing change and innovation

Challenges for European work and organizational psychology

Dian Marie Hosking and Neil Anderson

The Changing Context of European Work and Organization Psychology

The emergence of organizational change and innovation as issues for concern among academics and practitioners alike has been noted in several quarters of late (British Psychology Society 1988; Arnold, Robertson and Cooper 1991; Hollway 1991). Separate literatures have emerged on innovation and on change, although the nature of this distinction has been seldom theorized. Given the tumultuous political and socio-economic developments in Eastern Europe, and given the derestriction of the labour market within the European Community, it is not surprising that work and organization (W/O) psychologists are recognizing organizational change as an emergent theme of enormous importance.

It is therefore timely to take stock of our current understanding of organizational change and innovation within European W/O psychology. Regrettably, the literatures confuse innovation and change. For this reason, when we speak here of change we include innovation; although we would argue that talk of innovation must imply change for the better (Hosking and Morley 1991; Anderson and King 1991).

On examining the literature, some quite fundamental issues and shortcomings quickly became apparent. These key issues resurfaced time and time again throughout the editorial process of this volume. European W/O psychology lacks theoretical integration, validated models and modes of action, and even appropriately tested methods of research and intervention to tackle the multifaceted, multi level of analysis and multi-perspective nature of organizational change and innovation. In summary, we fall far short of Roe and Ten Horn’s (1991) call for the development of generic theories and integrated models in organizational psychology capable of explaining observed similarities and differences across national and cultural contexts. More serious, in our view, is that there is a clear need for radical and fundamental changes in the ways we theorize, understand, and research organizational change.

It is our intention that this volume should be integrative in two ways: first, by providing a state-of-the-art review of knowledge in the areas of strategic change, innovation, technological change and work organization, and change methods and methodologies – accordingly the text is divided into four sections; second, by highlighting the crucial themes which emerge from the individual chapter contributions – to some extent in the section editorials, but more importantly in this overview editorial chapter – we intend to present a distinct but constructively controversial challenge to the established orthodoxy within W/O psychology. We argue that there is a demonstrable need for W/O psychology to develop new perspectives on person and organization, and thus on organizational change.

Challenges To European W/O Psychology

The topic of change has become increasingly popular in the literatures on management and organization. A major reason for this lies in the common assumption that organizations today must deal with environmental changes of a speed and complexity never before experienced. Given this assumption, it is argued that management and organizations must innovate, for example by creating new and better products, and must be able to change – preferably in a planned and strategic manner (see for example Peters and Waterman 1982; Kanter 1983, 1990; Nyström 1990; and chapter 2 in this volume).

The fields of W/O psychology have long contributed to the understanding of change ‘in’ and ‘of’ organizations. These contributions, of necessity, are grounded in certain understandings about the relationship between person and organization; often these are left implicit. We will outline the implicit understandings which seem to characterize W/O psychology’s treatments of change and organization. We will do so in order to expose the ways change has been understood in relation to organization and to highlight perspectives and issues which have been neglected.

The ‘challenges’ which we refer to in the title of this chapter emerge from these neglected issues and dimensions of change. In essence, we argue that there are four central challenges to be addressed:

1. To generate new perspectives of the person-organization relationship.
2. To retheorize relational processes in ways which do not rely on the traditional input-output model of organizations as entities.
3. To recognize the intrinsically political qualities of organizing and change.
4. To develop alternative methodologies and to foster reflexivity in our methodological assumptions toward organization change processes.

Overviewing challenges

First, we discuss the ways in which W/O psychology typically has understood the relationship between person and organization. Discussions of change in relation to organization have tended to reflect a very particular and restrictive view of this relationship. We outline this perspective, placing particular emphasis on epistemological arguments. W/O psychology, and treatments of change in these literatures, has been dominated by relational assumptions grounded in subject-object differentiation, in methodological individualism, and in an emphasis on ‘objective reality’.

Challenge One is to develop a new perspective of the person-organization relationship – which is ‘generative’ (Gergen 1982) and which offers new ways to understand change and organization. We are especially keen to develop a perspective which focuses not on what is seen as objective fact but on the relational processes involved in creating reality when the underlying assumption is subject-subject, not subject-object (see Dachler and Hosking, 1991). Our discussion in this chapter reflects our first small steps in this direction.

Our ‘small steps’ are taken by examining selected features of the literatures on change, identifying themes which have resulted from the traditional perspective on person-organization relations. Our second theme – deriving from the first – concerns the common assumption that powerful individuals, or dominant coalitions, can design changes in organizations (from conception to implementation) in ways which, in principle, are predictable. Illustrations are given to show how popular this view has been in W/O psychology, but equally how inaccurate it is as a view of change – an anomaly we term ‘the illusion of manageability’.

Challenge Two is to retheorize relational processes in ways which do not rely on the traditional input-output model of organizations as entities. In particular, it will be necessary to theorize the reflexive and emergent qualities of these processes. From this perspective – and in contrast to the traditional perspective – what emerges is, in principle, not predictable or designable.

Third – and again building on earlier arguments – we suggest that W/O psychology usually has ignored or has trivialized political processes. Treatments of person-organization relationships have been such that the political qualities of change could not be recognized except in very limited ways. Organizational politics have been individualized – viewed as self-serving ‘behaviours’ of individuals, rather then as being inherent in the processes of organizing and change. Here then is Challenge Three: to give due recognition to the political qualities of organizing and change – not as behaviours of individuals, but as qualities of the relational processes which characterize organizing. Clearly this will depend on achievements with respect to the first two challenges.

Developing these themes leads to our fourth challenge, which follows on from and reflects the previous three. Challenge Four is to encourage reflexivity in the practices of W/O psychology as a profession, particularly in relation to methodological assumptions over, and methods used to research into, organization change. So, for example, we would like to see more critical examination of ‘how we do’ W/O psychology, the issues we do and do not address, our valuational stances, normative arguments and the ethical aspects of these. Notice, however, that such a ‘critical examination’ looks very different when conducted from a subject-subject perspective, as compared with a subject-object perspective. We examine this issue as an integral part of Challenge Four, and conclude by highlighting some of the professional and ethical issues involved.

Challenge One: to generate new perspectives of the person-organization relationship

Perhaps the first text to name the area of organizational psychology was the one bearing that name, published by Edgar Schein in 1965. He rightly noted that, to understand organizational psychology, it is necessary to understand something about organizations. We would add that for organizational psychology to contribute to an understanding of innovation and change, the same also is true. How then does W/O psychology understand ‘organizations’? More precisely, given that psychology deals with ‘questions that involve human beings’ (Schein 1980: 3), how does organizational psychology understand the relationship between person and organization?

The answer seems to be that person and organization usually are categorically distinguished and set apart from one another. That is, relations between person and organization are understood as subject-object relations. Depending on the particular interests of the researcher, persons may be treated as subjects or objects; the same is true of organizations. To illustrate, persons are treated as objects when they are understood to be manipulated by the objective realities of their contexts; this is the ‘culturalist fallacy’ in which agency is located in the context, not the person – indeed when this perspective is adopted, the contributions of persons often are ignored (Hosking and Morley 1991; see also Chapter 2 in this volume). Interestingly, it most usually is organizational members who are studied as objects, rather than top management. An example directly relevant to change and organization is found in the perspective which characterizes human resource management. More narrowly, W/O psychologists have studied, for example: change strategies as they might more or less successfully influence the values, competencies, actions, and commitment of organizational members; training techniques; quality of working life (QWL); participation; organizational development; and the restructuring of work organization (see for example Guest 1984; Porras and Silvers 1991).

Subject-object differentiation can be the ‘other way round’, so to speak: persons may be treated as subjects. Here it is persons who are understood to manipulate, they who are viewed as agents, separate from and independent of their contexts; dominant over and able to manipulate those contexts. This perspective is reflected in treatment of change in which persons (often top managers or change agents) are viewed as the architects of organization and change: captains of their own managerial or leadership styles, the architects of organization structures, the designers of strategies and organization-environment relationships. Typical accounts in this vein are to be found in the literatures of strategic choice and organizational change (e.g. Child 1972, 1984; Pettigrew 1985, 1988). We will say more about these literatures and alternative treatments of change in the development of our second theme – the manageability of change.

We have defined subject-object differentiation as being the key element of the predominant perspective in W/O psychology. We also have noted that the focus on the person as subject usually is adopted in relation to senior management. When speaking of the person as the agent or creator (subject), Schein (1980) refers to ‘the manager ... acting on behalf of the organization’. He goes on to say that this is a ‘kind of “organizational” perspective, but should not be construed to mean that the organization acts as an abstract entity; rather, it acts through the individual behaviour of certain key members in crucial managerial or leadership roles’ (Schein 1980:4).

Schein’s language is revealing. The subject-object differentiation of which we speak goes together with a methodological individualism which treats organizational wholes as made up of aggregates of individual properties – values, competencies, attitudes and the like. It is understood that decisions, development and change of individuals cause organizations to change: through training, organizational development, mobilizing power, innovating in their work roles, imposing their visions of the organization upon other less powerful actors, and the like (French and Bell 1984; Peters and Waterman 1982; Glendon in this volume).

The subject-object perspective we have outlined pays little attention to the processes by which realities are created. Instead, the focus is on the objects of creation (structures, cultures, resistance to change, learning climate, etc.). Yet it is through these processes that the ‘objects’ are understood (Dachler and Hosking 1991). This subject-object perspective makes it impossible to view the subject as an integral part of that which is created; yet this is precisely the understanding we would like to see developed.

This brings us to our first challenge. We would like to see W/O psychology take up the challenge of exploring a new perspective on organization and change – one which focuses on the relational processes through which realities are created when a subject-subject perspective is taken. This is a very different way of understanding the relationship between a person and their context – be the context considered as other persons, procedures, rules, hierarchy, environmental complexity, pollution, or whatever. The process of reality creation in subject-subject relations is a process of mutual creation: a process of co-construction where each to some extent makes the other. Our subsequent discussion of related challenges will develop this theme, and explore exactly what is meant by W/O psychology moving toward a subject-subject perspective of organizational change.

Challenge Two: to retheorize relational processes which do not rely on the traditional input-output model of organizations as entities

We have argued that W/O psychology traditionally has understood the relationships between person and organization as a subject-object relationship. One expression of this lies in the treatment of persons as active subjects: subjects able to design and manage objects – the ‘objects’ of interest here being organizations. Many examples of this perspective can be found in the discussions of change and organization (e.g. Kanter 1983; Van de Ven, Angle and Poole 1989). The ubiquitous assumption across these literatures is that change processes are actually under the direct control of the dominant coalitions within organizations. Their ability to instigate, plan and direct all forms of organizational change has been taken for granted, creating a present-day misinterpretation appropriately termed ‘the illusion of manageability’. By this we mean that the extent to which managers are able to direct or predic...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Preface
• 1 Organizing change and innovation
• part I Strategic change
• Part II Innovation and change
• part III Technical change and work organization
• part IV Change methods and methodologies
• Author index
• Subject index