Organisational Change and Learning

Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online Chapter Title Organizational Change and Learning Copyright Year 2011 Copyright Holder Springer Science+Business Media, LLC Corresponding Author Family Name Küpers Particle Given Name Wendelin Suffix Author Division/Department School of Management & International Business Organization/University Massey University (Albany Campus) Street QB 2.09 Private Bag 102 904 North Shore MSC 0745 City Auckland Postcode 4442 Country New Zealand Email W.Kupers@massey.ac.nz Family Name Deeg Particle Given Name Jürgen Suffix Division/Department Chair of Business Administration, Leadership & Organization Organization/University University of Hagen Street Profilstr. 8 City Hagen Postcode 58084 Country Germany Email Juergen.Deeg@FernUni-Hagen.de Comp. by: MANIKANDAN R Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1495 Title Name: ESL Page Number: 0 Date:11/6/11 Time:18:17:31 1 O Organizational Change and Learning 2 3 8 WENDELIN KÜPERS1, JÜRGEN DEEG2 1 School of Management & International Business, Massey University (Albany Campus), Auckland, New Zealand 2 Chair of Business Administration, Leadership & Organization, University of Hagen, Hagen, Germany 9 Synonyms 4 5 6 7 meaning, which involves relating parts of the subject matter to each other and to a greater whole, and thereby generates a comprehension and reinterpretation of the known in the organizational context. Accordingly, a learning organization actively creates, captures, transfers, and mobilizes as well as modifies knowledge between individuals and groups in a systemic context to enable it to adapt to as well as to act in a changing environment (Küpers 2008). Relevance 11 Change in learning organizations; Organizational transformation and organizational learning 12 Definition 13 Organizational Change and Learning 10 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Organizational change is clearly one of the most iridescent terms in organization science, which can be deducted from its various, different denotations and synonyms (e.g., transformation, development, dynamic). This terminological vagueness has become a fundamental characteristic for theory and research. In the first instance, the constituent part of the notion of organizational change is the more general term of change, which has become one of the most important topics of social sciences or humanities altogether. Thereby change is defined as a series of variances or alterations leading from one state to another or to new forms or qualities of objects. As temporal phenomena, such changes can only be discerned over a certain period of observation (cf Van de Ven and Poole 1995). These variations, can – like organizations – be viewed in two ways: Thus, on the one hand organizational change is an ex-post observed, eventuated alteration; on the other hand it is the process, which is taking place in the moment of observation. Likewise, organizational learning can be defined as a multidimensional process and accomplishment. As such it comprises embodied, emotional, cognitive as well as responsive, individual and/or collective dimensions and levels in organizations. In addition to acquiring knowledge, learning is also a form of making sense or abstracting To assert that we live in an age of unprecedented change and transformation, in which nearly every aspect of modern life is affected by the rapidity and irreversibility of such changes, has almost become a truism. More and more organizations are under an increasing pressure to respond to even more and more dramatic changes in order to remain viable, profitable, or attractive (Deeg 2009). Thus the ability to cope with such changing contexts is now a key variable for organizational success, performance, and growth. Without the possibility to change, organizations would rest upon linearity, predictability, and readymade structures and artifacts unviable in today’s context. As current organizations are facing various challenges concerning an acceleration of complex and discontinuous change processes, various activities, such as restructuring, delayering, downsizing, or outsourcing, etc., are increasingly part of organizational realities. Additionally, being embedded in competitive market dynamics, the necessity to adapt to changes and pressure for innovation require corporations to change and transform themselves continuously. As pressures toward change may even be stronger in the future, the problem of change is more virulent than ever and change can sometimes even become a traumatic event for an organization and its members. This growing relevance of change and its management explains the increasing research in organization science. Correspondingly also learning in and of organizations has become more and more important in today’s complex, uncertain, and dynamic business environments. The growing rate of competitive challenges imposed by the global economy, the pace of cultural and technological changes in products, processes, and organizations and the often overwhelming Norbert Seel (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-1428-6, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011 # 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 Comp. by: MANIKANDAN R Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1495 Title Name: ESL Page Number: 0 Date:11/6/11 Time:18:17:31 2 O Organizational Change and Learning organization have been as well conceptualized from various theoretical perspectives and comprehensively investigated in empirical research (see ▶ Organizational Learning). Learning in organizations is increasingly considered a key area in management and organizational research using various methods (Easterby-Smith et al. 2009). More recently, the social and temporal structuring of multilevel and discontinuous learning dynamics and its politics and unintended consequences have been studied (Berends and Lammers 2010). 90 abundance of information is forcing organizations and their members to appreciate the value of learning in order to increase knowledge sharing, communication, improve innovativeness, and effectiveness. As organizational contexts are becoming increasingly fragmented, learning is seen as a medium for more effective and flexible acting and dealing with change and has been critically discussed in organizational and management literature (Bapuji and Crossan 2004; Easterby-Smith and Lyles 2005). 91 Theoretical Background Linking Organizational Change and Learning Organizational change is an old and continuously reemerging topic in organization, management, and leadership practices and studies. Work organizations have always been an important realm for the development of human beings and institutions. Although organizations and its members have in the past changed themselves, they are currently situated in societal and environmental contexts, which urge them to more profound transformations and require a more sophisticated theoretical advancement. Due to the aforementioned relevance, understanding organizational change is nowadays commonly accepted as a central issue within organization studies and also one of the great themes in the social sciences. Unfortunately, the scientific discussion of organizational change is extremely disjointed with no commonly accepted (unitary) theory of change at sight, as change has been comprehended and conceptualized in many different ways. For example, it has been seen as “organization development,” “transformation,” “turnaround,” or “corporate renewal.” This wide variety of perspectives on change has also generated many models, typologies, and classifications of change or change processes, which are “abstracting, fixing, and labeling” (Chia 1999, p. 210) the complex and multifaceted ways and modes of changing. As many concepts and models of organizational change represent more or less mere variations of structural contingency theory, ideas of linearity, homogeneity, and determinacy are dominant in thinking about change. Furthermore, due to the oversimplifications of contingency thinking a rather mechanistic understanding of change is prevailing. Moreover, for a long time research and theories concentrated on incremental and gradual change and fostered models of organizational adaptation or development. Such theorizing regards the mere improving or adjusting of the existing structural form of organization as sufficient for organizational survival or as an adequate response for pressures to change coming from the environment of the organization. Being complex phenomena, organizational learning and the learning Both organizational change and learning are closely connected, yet not entirely congruent with one another. There is no transformational change without learning and no learning in organizations takes place without implemented change practices. As change represents an important learning opportunity, learning itself is a kind of change practice. Importantly, as an ongoing individual and social accomplishment and dynamic process, change and learning are not static, embedded capabilities or stable dispositions of actors, but constituted and reconstituted in the dynamics of everyday practice. As a capacity to interact, change and learning are competencies and practices of actors and systems as agencies to intervene or to let go in a flow of action, respectively to modify the course of events in specific contexts. These contexts consist of historical, social and cultural and material realities and features. It is in these multifacetet worlds that change and learning manifest in a variety of forms and by the use of different media. Practices of change and learning are circumscribed as a “bricolage” of embodied, mental, sociocultural resources. Therefore, the meaning of practices of change and learning is related to specific local ways of living and patterns of possibilities and habits, situated within an integral nexus. Notwithstanding the above, there can be an asymmetry or discrepancy between change and learning in the form of a “rushing standstill”: Everything seems to change, i.e., modifications on the surface within a logic of the same are taking place, but almost no progress is made in terms of a “real” or transformative learning on a more advanced or sophisticated level. Furthermore, there is a continuous need for changing the ways of learning in and of organizations. To be effective as a learning organization requires a move toward a deep learning cycle involving fundamentally new ways of thinking and interacting as well as innovative methods, tools, and infrastructures for the sake of long-term growth and change, in contrast to the short-term orientation of most organizations today. 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 Comp. by: MANIKANDAN R Stage: Proof Chapter No.: 1495 Title Name: ESL Page Number: 0 Date:11/6/11 Time:18:17:31 Organizational Change and Learning 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 Important Scientific Research and Open Questions Organizational change is widely seen as a pattern of reaction by which organizations can adapt to their environment (adaptive change) – often due to a misfit or resulting from an organizational crisis. Consequently, the major part of research and literature has so far focused on positive aspects of change, and is seeking ways of mastering change. In particular, planned change has been given preference to unplanned change. Only a minor part of the discourse on change has considered its problems and pathologies. For example the resistance against change, structural inertia preventing organizations from changing in due time or downward spirals and decline as undesirable developments have been analyzed. Finally, not only considering organizations as agencies of change, but also as the participants and agents of change (and pioneers of learning) have gained considerable interest. Yet, the discussion on organizational change is so far in several respects substantially insufficient, not covering the ambivalences involved. Following a pervasive “pro-change bias” (Sturdy and Grey 2003) first, one important research field for the future concerns the unplanned and indeterminate characteristics of change and learning, as both imply surprise, uniqueness, and otherness. This requires exploring potential dangers and dark sides in more detail. Second, research about organizational change and learning has mainly focused on gradual and incrementalistic change and thereby widely neglected radical and discontinuous forms of re-evolutionary processes, which need to be further investigated (Deeg 2009). Third, most concepts of change and learning are (implicitly or explicitly) still based on the equilibrium model and regard change as an exception of order and continuity. As change and learning nowadays often emerge in dynamic and acute ways, imbalance or steady state models are needed. Accordingly, the changing nature of change toward more discontinuity requires new ideas and conceptualizations about how different processes of organizational change and learning and their interplay can be analyzed, explained, and handled. As organization science has for a long time been dominated by paradigms of stability and continuity, while change and learning have been viewed as an exception, epiphenomenon, or episode, research is quite far from a mature comprehensive understanding of the different effects of time, process, and discontinuity or context. Avoiding being restricted to reifying definitions or mechanistic or organic models, both change and O learning in and by organizations demand to be investigated as an embodied relational and responsive event of transformation. This should include considering developmental (individual and collective) levels and lines within an integral cycle of inter-learning (Küpers 2008). Methodologically, there is a need for more inter- and transdisciplinary as well as real-time longitudinal research to uncover process dynamics of learning, instead of retrospective studies, which tend to highlight continuity and linear development. Future research may also extend beyond the organizational level of change and learning to include embedding temporality, structures, and developments at environmental, sectoral, and societal or sociocultural levels. The challenging realities of business in contemporary world, calls for bringing change and learning strategically and inclusively together for developing more responsible and sustainable organizations and integral transformations, theoretically and practically. Cross-References ▶ Analogical Learning ▶ Metaphorical Models of Learning ▶ Organizational Learning References Bapuji, H., & Crossan, M. (2004). From questions to answers: Reviewing organizational learning research. Management Learning, 35(4), 397–417. Berends, H., & Lammers, I. (2010). Explaining discontinuity in organizational learning: A process analysis. Organization Studies, 31(8), 1045–1068. Chia, R. (1999). A “rhizomic” model of organizational change and transformation: Perspectives from a metaphysics of change. British Journal of Management, 10, 209–227. Deeg, J. (2009). Organizational discontinuity: Integrating evolutionary and revolutionary change theories. Management Revue, 20(2), 190–208. Easterby-Smith, M., Li, S., & Bartunek, J. (2009). Research methods for organizational learning. Management Learning, 40, 439–447. Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles M. A., (eds). (2005). The Blackwell handbook on organizational learning and knowledge management. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Küpers, W. (2008). Embodied ‘inter-learning’ – An integral phenomenology of learning in and by organizations. The Learning Organisation: An International Journal, 15(5), 388–408. Sturdy, A., & Grey, C. (2003). Beneath and beyond organizational change management: Exploring alternatives. Organization, 10(5), 651–662. Van de Ven, A., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 510–540. 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 3