a meso-level theory of organisation change

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Introduction

Despite an intensive Harvard Business School led conference (in 2000) on “cracking the code of change” which attracted some of the best minds (practitioners, consultants and academics) on organisational change, “the code of change had not been broken” (Martin, 2000, p.449). A theory, in service of action to help practitioners in the real world is still missing (Argyris, 2000, Johansson & Heide, 2008). A deeper understanding and critical theoretical appraisal of how and why change is accomplished (Chia, 2014; MacKay & Chia, 2013) – what actually goes on within and between the phases of change – is still elusive (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Recent literature suggests that change has become ubiquitous, necessary and ever more important to organisations (Burgelman & Grove, 2007; Nohria, Joyce, & Roberson, 2003). However, although growing in importance, there are reports of dismal failure rates and a host of accompanying reasons why change fails (Burnes, 2011; McClellan, 2011). On the other hand these reports of high axiomatic failure rates are being seriously questioned (Hughes, 2011).
To add to the confusion, there is a multitude of models, recipes and prescriptions that motivate how managers should plan, approach and implement change (Andrews, McConnell, & Wescott, 2010; Kezar, 2001, 2013; Latta, 2009; Lukka &Partanen, 2014). The real world is complex and plurality of approaches to understanding such complexity must be encouraged (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Van de Ven, 2007). However the lack of an actionable theory that accommodates the dynamism and complexity of change cannot be left unresolved.
What is required are specific types of evidence: rich, thick, contextual, empirical data over time that help unravel the dynamics of change (du Gay & Vikkelsø, 2012; Langley, Smallman, Tsoukas & Van de Ven, 2013; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001). The following sections situate the problem more explicitly. There are two main sections: the first provides the context and background to the research problem; the second clarifies the research problem and suggests evidence that will help resolve the problem.

Context for the research problem

The background to the research problem draws attention to five observations. First, change is omnipotent and omnipresent irrespective of the nature of organisation. Change occurs everywhere (du Gay & Vikkelsø, 2012; Whelan-Berry & Somerville, 2010). Second, although change is inescapable, it seems to frustrate and fascinate: practitioners are finding it difficult if not impossible to manage change. Academics are still battling to “get their heads around it”. Failure to make change happen is perceived as the norm (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Chia, 2014; Wetzel & Van Gorp, 2014). Third, the models drawn mainly from academia are not helpful.
They are criticised for being rigid, simple and linear: they miss what happens on the ground and fail to capture the reality and messiness of change (Gilley, McMillan & Gilley, 2009; Lichtenstein, Uhl-Bien, Marion, Seers, Orton & Schreiber, 2007, MacKay & Chia, 2013). Fourth, the reasons for failure are so many that it creates confusion and anxiety. Both organisational and individual level factors are cited as reasons for failure (Burnes, 2011). Lastly, this background and context present a gloomy picture for scholars and practitioners. This parlous state of knowledge cannot continue. If change is as important and pervasive as claimed, developing a deeper understanding of change and a theory useful to practitioners in the real world is essential.

The universal need for change

The extant literature describes the real need for change by all types of organisations. Teams and organisations face rapid and on-going change like never before (Brunton & Matheny, 2009; Gilley et al., 2009; Kotter, 1995, 2007). There are many macro reasons for this.

Table of Contents :

• ABSTRACT
• DECLARATION
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• PART I: RESEARCH PROBLEM AND LITERATURE REVIEW
  • 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
  • 1.1. INTRODUCTION
  • 1.2. CONTEXT FOR THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
  • 1.3. RESEARCH PROBLEM
  • 1.4. SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
  • 1.5. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS
  • 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
  • 2.1. INTRODUCTION
  • 2.2. LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY
  • 2.3. LITERATURE REVIEW OVERVIEW
  • 2.4 THEME 1: STORIES AND NARRATIVES
  • 2.5. THEME 2: DISCURSIVE APPROACHES
  • 2.6. THEME 3: COGNITIVE APPROACHES
  • 2.7. THEME 4: SENSEMAKING AND SENSEGIVING
  • 2.8. THEME 5: ROUTINES AND PRACTICES
  • 2.9. THEME 6: COMPLEXITY BASED APPROACH
  • 2.10. REFLECTION: FOUNDATIONS – THE TERRAIN FOR SUBSEQUENT RESEARCH
  • 2.11. CONCLUSION TO THE LITERATURE REVIEW
• PART II: RESEARCH QUESTIONS, DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
  • 3. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
  • 4. RESEARCH DESIGN
  • 4.1. INTRODUCTION
  • 4.2. NATURE OF RESEARCH QUESTION
  • 4.3. DESIGN LOGIC
  • 4.4. UNITS OF ANALYSIS
  • 4.5. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
  • 4.6. LOGICS OF THE RESEARCH
  • 4.7. CHOICE OF RESEARCH DESIGN TYPE
  • 4.8. SELECTION OF THE CASE
  • 4.9. PRIORITY ORDERING OF VALIDITY TYPES
  • 4.10. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
  • 4.11. CONCLUSION REGARDING THE RESEARCH DESIGN
  • 5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
  • 5.1. INTRODUCTION
  • 5.2. RATIONALE FOR CHOICE OF QUALITATIVE APPROACH
  • 5.3. DATA COLLECTION
  • 5.4. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
  • 5.5. DATA ANALYSIS
  • 5.6. PROVISIONAL CODING LIST
  • 5.7. 1ST CYCLE CODING
  • 5.8. MEMOING
  • 5.9. INCIDENTS AND EVENTS
  • 5.10. NARRATIVE – FIRST ATTEMPT
  • 5.11. NARRATIVE – REVISED
  • 5.12. FROM EVENT SEQUENCE TO STORY NARRATIVE
  • 5.13. 2ND CYCLE CODING
  • 5.14. CAUSAL LOOP DIAGRAMMING AND CODEWEAVING
  • 5.15. FOCUSED AND CHARACTERISTICS CODING
  • 5.16. CODEWEAVING
  • 5.17. ENSURING VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY
  • 5.18. LIMITATIONS OF THE DESIGN AND METHOD
  • 5.19. CONCLUSION TO THE REVIEW OF THE DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
• PART III: NARRATIVE, FORMAL ANALYSIS, DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION
  • 6. NARRATIVE – STORIES ABOUT CHANGE AT AN INDUSTRY-LEVEL ORGANISATION
  • 6.1. INTRODUCTION
  • 6.2. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT: THE CASE ITSELF
  • 6.3. DISEQUILIBRIUM STATE: PHASE ONE
  • 6.4. TENSION AND THRESHOLD: PHASE TWO
  • 6.5. EMERGENCE: PHASE THREE
  • 6.6. STABILISING FEEDBACK: PHASE FOUR
  • 6.7. CONCLUSIONS
  • 7. FORMAL ANALYSIS
  • 7.1. INTRODUCTION
  • 7.2. CAUSAL LOOP DIAGRAMMING AND CODEWEAVING
  • 7.3. MAPPING THE EMERGENCE OF CHANGE
  • 7.4. HOW AND WHY DOES DISEQUILIBRIUM STATE (PHASE 1) COME ABOUT?
  • 7.5. HOW AND WHY DOES TENSION AND THRESHOLD – (PHASE 2) COME ABOUT?
  • 7.6. HOW AND WHY DOES EMERGENCE (AMPLIFYING ACTIONS PHASE 3) COME ABOUT?
  • 7.7. HOW AND WHY DOES STABILISING FEEDBACK (PHASE 4) COME ABOUT?
  • 7.8. CONCLUSION – MESO-LEVEL THEORY OF CHANGE
  • 8. DISCUSSION
  • 8.1. THEORETICAL GAP1: DYNAMIC PROCESS MODEL OF CHANGE
  • 8.2. THEORETICAL GAP2: SPECIFYING AND LINKING THE PROCESSES OF CHANGE – MESO-LEVEL THEORY
  • 8.3. THEORETICAL GAP3: PROVIDING A MESO-LEVEL THEORY
  • 8.4. THEORETICAL GAP4: BUILDING THEORY: EXPLAINING WHY PHENOMENA HAPPEN
  • 8.5. THEORETICAL GAP5: IDENTIFICATION OF CHANGE SPECIFIC SKILLS REQUIRED
  • 8.6. THEORETICAL GAP6: SURFACING OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE BEHAVIOURS
  • 8.7. THEORETICAL GAP7: PROVIDING AN ACTIONABLE THEORY
  • 8.8. OTHER THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS
  • 9. CONCLUSION
  • 9.1. INTRODUCTION
  • 9.2. MAIN FINDINGS FROM RESEARCH
  • 9.3. “TEN TAKE OUTS” FROM THE RESEARCH
  • 9.4. RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION
  • 9.5. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH SUGGESTIONS
  • 9.6. CONCLUSION
  • 10. REFERENCE LIST
  • 11. APPENDICES
  • APPENDIX A – RECORD OF CASE STUDY DATABASE
  • APPENDIX B – PROVISIONAL CODING LIST

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT