and the harder it is to assemble the necessary resources to study empirically. Partly, it is the level of
generality ’theories* tend towards in these areas, and the resulting disenchantment with them. As Dale put it,
theoretical writings on planned change are
'frequently speculative and offer very few concepts which could be used operationally to study change'
Partly there is the dominance of seminal ideas to discourage theorising -Lewin's change theory still more or less holds
19
the field . And partly there is a shift of emphasis towards specific contexts as greater experience has eroded some of the simpler propositions and concepts
. 90
(the reassessment of how to deal with resistance to change is a case in point).
This shift was already being heralded between the first and second editions of the seminal publication, ’The
2\
Planning of Change' , by the exclusion of readings which dealt with the broad problematic of ’planned change1
in favour of many more articles which dealt with the practice and techniques of change. Significantly, too, there is an increasingly uncritical acceptance of the goal of change or simply a lack of definition about it.
22 ,
No end of articles and books from the I9o0’s onwards include a ritual bow in the direction of the proposition,
'society is undergoing increased change, the pace of this will increase, and we must learn to adapt our
23
institutions and organisations’. Toffler's book (cited
as an influence by many consultants) particularly
captures this mood. Consequently, in the research which
2 k
will now be reviewed, the implicit goal (if not explicit one) of the major part has been the improved manipulation of change.
The framework for empirical studies of applied social and behavioural science has been largely defined by the notion of ’planned organisational change’, as was the programme for Organisation Development as defined by its
25
early proponents. Though 'logico-deductive',
’theoretical', or ’speculative’ accounts intrude upon the field at all points and often provide a necessary framework for it, the starting-point has necessarily b een the single case study:
'The outstanding characteristic about research into organisational change is that the single case study is by far the most widely used method for analysing and describing the dynamics of change processes' According to those who have reviewed the field, this has not been the fruitful source of theory one might have
expected. According to Dale, writing in 1973 i this is because of the lack of a common theoretical framework
for describing and analysing change in different settings: ’There is at present a large and growing volume of studies of planned organisational change. 0nt3 recent estimate (Havelock et a l , 19^9) is that there are probably about 10,000 examples published in the
social science literature, although many of them are in esoteric journals. With this level of activity, it might be supposed that some theoretical advances in the study of planned change must have been made. However this does not appear to be the case. O n the
contrary, much of the literature is characterised
by an approach which can only be called a- t h e o r e t i c a l , and the advances which have been made are small.
In view of the enormous resources which are required (and sometimes used) in studies of change, there
seems to be an urgent need for a theoretical framework with which to guide research and facilitate the
comparison of studies.’ „
d (
Both Dale & McLean see the problem lying in the theoretical biases of the change practitioner and writer, and the
circumstances under which accounts are often written: 'There is the problem of the sheer mass of
information that needs to be reduced, either consciously or unconsciously, in order to give a manageable account from the point of view of both reader and writer. The writer selects from this mass of information on the basis of his criteria and in so doing is making a judgement of what he considers to be crucial events. The reader is, of course, in no position to judge.
In so doing the writer is already operating on his own, however rudimentary, theory of change,
even though he may even be unaware of the fact. The criteria on which events are selected are rarely made explicit, nor are the values upon which they are founded.
To Clark and Ford the problem of deriving general principles concerning the working of organisational systems under conditions of change, and the forms which
change, and interventions to promote it, may take, arises from the fact that
'such scholarship and research as does exist is primarily directed to the needs of the action oriented social scientists promoting planned organisational change'.
Clark and Ford, and later McLean, argue, therefore, that change should be looked at from the perspective also of others involved in change, than just the change agent/ consultant, and that 'unplanned' or 'natural* processes of change should also be examined. Moreover like Dale, and others they argue that if accounts of 'p.o.c.' are biased by the thecj^etical framework of the change agent, and
assuming these themselves are infuential in creating change, then the theoretical frameworks of practit ibner.s should themselves be studied.
'The consideration of practice without its guiding theory frequently makes little sense1^ Firstly, therefore, describing the mechanics of
interventions is inadequate - it is the lack of an adequate theory of organising which really hampers the description
31
and analysis of change. x Secondly, the theory that guides the change agent cannot be assumed. Therefore, McLean calls for
'A more explicit recognition and exposition than is currently the case of the values, theories, ideas and hunches that govern the actions and choices of action by practitioners which yet lie outside the recognised body of theories and concepts'
3^
The single case study thus provides a focus for two lines of enquiry - (a) the project itself as a study in system change, (b) the role,behaviour, theories, etc. of the
change agent himself. The desire to develop generalisable statements has thence led to comparative studies, on the one hand of programmes and types of interventions, and on the other of change agents themselves. Ganesh thus
comments:
'There appear to be two useful and complementary paths for furthering the understanding of OD and OD work. One of these is related to understanding the various types of interventions and the other is related to understanding individuals in the field.'^
In each case, the emphasis has been upon evaluation, under the pressure to clarify what is pragmatically effective (though a few, such as Hornstein acknowledged that there can be no "exact calculus").
Comparisons of Organisational Change
McLean writes:
•The value of comparative studies and surveys is startlingly straightforward. Identifying themes, patterns and contrasts, and separating them from the idiosyncratic features of individual cases is essential if we are to construct any general theories about change. In spite of the undoubted benefits of such forms of research, however,
examples are relatively f e w . ’ _ 35
Familiar examples of survey or comparative evaluation are studies by Bowers, Friedlander, Greiner, Buchanan, and Franklin.
These may be subdivided according to whether they take as their focus:
(a) the evaluation of specific forms of intervention (e.g. B o w e r s ;Friedlander) This interest stems from the early widespread use of laboratory training techniques in organisational change programmes. Laboratory training may be the subject of explicit evaluation as an instrument
37
for change (e.g. Friedlander; Mangham and Cooper); or its nearest rival in the early American change literature, survey feedback, may be favourably evaluated in comparison
(e.g. Bow e r s ).
(b) the identification of specific conditions for effective and successful change (e.g. Greiner; Buchanan; Franklin) The aim here is to build up, or to test out, a general model or theory of change to guide practitioners. Thus Jones in his ambitious pioneering study proclaims:
'The study attempts to develop a broad model or concept which is based largely upon empirical evidence and which operationalizes social science knowledge and technology for the purpose of
implementing planned changes in the type of
social entities commonly designated ’organisations'
The latter in particular demonstrates the shortcomings of comparative evaluation. Jones describes his approach thus:
'The principal research methodology employed in this study was the analysis of nearly two hundred cases by the technique of content analysis. The objective was to isolate, identify, define, and classify the
significant elements in change and to learn how these elements could be operationalised by
professional change agents.' Q
j y
The problem with this is that such studies are dependent upon the original form of reporting of the single case studies they analyse. This is not just a problem of the selectivity and theoretical biases of the original 'change agents' (as Dale and McLean pbserved). But a problem compounded by the research evaluator, of comparing like with like (unlike?), and aggregating what is superficially
40
the same in a way that nullifies context. Notwithstanding, such studies, sensitively conducted, can lead to plausibly accurate perceptions of the change process, and the
observations and prescriptions of Greiner, Buchanan, Jones contribute valuable rule of thumb guides to the practice of 'p.o.c.'.
41
Similarly, Dunn and Swierczek (who acknowledge the influence and support of Garth Jones) employ a method of content analysis which they term a 'grounded' approach, for the reason that they base their choice of variables
for analysing studies on factors previously identified as salient by both general theorists and by those who have conducted empirical studies. Their analysis is 'grounded* in the accumulated wisdom of observers and practitioners. Their study thus becomes a form of test of the hypotheses about ’p . o . c . 1 advanced by general theorists and empirical students of the subject. One suspects, however, that this approach merely compounds the faults of factorial comparisons of ’p . o . c . ’.
Dissatisfaction equally with factorial comparisons deriving from retrospective case analysis and with experimental designs
(’rigid research') that measure a small number of parameters (from a great many possible ones) at different points in time, and compare these effects either within or between
several organisations, has led others towards the comparative qualitative analysis of projects in which they are personally a c t i v e .
This is an alternative way of compensating for the shortcomings of the single case study.
Thus Hertog and Wester, after commenting on nthe general discontent with the present state of research in the field of organisational change" describe their own approach as
h2
"comparative process (or case) analysis". Whilst
acknowledging the work of Dunn and Swierczek, and those whom the latter cite (Greiner,Buchanan,Franklin) as having
th e s am e g o a l - "of m a t c h i n g g e n e r a l k n o w l e d g e of
’p.o.c.’ with the experience from concrete change efforts" - their own work takes a distinctively different path.
’In the first place it should be noted that the data comes from different internal sources. We did not rely on external academic publications. Secondly, the element of feedback is built in. The organisation was entered to derive the material and feed it back
in different phases of the research project. This means that the outcome of the study is heavily
influenced by those who have the practical experience in the field. Thirdly, the choice is made for the selection of a specific area within the company to enhance the comparability of the projects. This
means, on the other hand, that generalisations may to a large extent be limited. The relatively intense and qualitative analysis of a limited number of
projects represents the fourth option. The relevance and concrete content of the output has been given a higher weight than reliability and possibility for generalisation.’^
What this seems to herald is a retreat from system focused evaluation of change across a variety of systems to an actor and action -, oriented focus. That is, to the
tradition of action-research (or genuine "grounded" theory).
3 . 4 .Studies of Change Agents
Although arguments for comparative studies and surveys of projects and 'interventions’ are superficially
attractive the results of these typically seem of more value to observers (as "theories of change") than to practitioners (who, as Bermis noted, are more interested
44
in "theories of changing" . ) This is, indeed, a curious inversion of values and priorities for a subject which owes much to Bennis' instigation in the first place.
The problem is that studies which agglomerate change efforts from a variety of contexts, in the interests of an ’overview' or 'general theory' of change, abstract general features to the extent of rendering these
'findings' inaccessible or inoperable for practitioners.
In point of fact, however, there are many particular
theories of change (and creating changes) in circulation, relative to particular contexts and purposes. Much
writing on change stems from, and is geared to, the interests and practice of professionals concerned with bringing about particular sorts of change.
The idiosyncratic character of theory and practice is thus recognised and preserved in those studies which focus on the roles and behaviour of change agents themselves.
Much of what passes for 'theory' in the first place, is, in fact, based on the conceptualisation of their own practice by a handful of pioneering consultants (e.g. Argyris,
Schein, Jaques, Rice, Blake,) Their conceptualisations have thereafter acted imperialistically to frame the
issues to which others have continued to address themselve
A primitive interest in what change agents, or consultants do and think thus stems from this fact - that the
foundations of 'knowledge' were laid by individual
practitioners reporting often through the medium of case studies, on their own practice. Whereas some researchers have been concerned to evaluate and modify
particular conceptions derived from this source, by
comparative or experimental means, others have sought to advance fresh conceptions from their own practice and cases, sometimes to challenge accepted models, other times merely to report on their own practice in order to expand appreciation of the scope and variety of consulting work. Thus, Ottaway in 'Change Agents at
45
Work' provides a platform for nine practitioners to demonstrate the differences in their craft.
The primitive interest in personal accounts is unlikely to wither. At the same, research into particular forms of intervention is always liable to return to the
subject of the consultants themselves who practise these. and thus may lead (indeed, has) to an explicit recognition of the consultant/change agent as a legitimate subject of study in his own right. This has become a growth area for research, although writing in 1978 Ganesh comments:
'Quite in contrast to the vast literature about the concepts and methods of O D , the literature on people who are involved in OD work is very m e a g e r ' ^
The heterogeneous literature which focuses on OD
people is reviewed below. Whilst the categorisation of this literature may be somewhat imperfect, it is broadly based on the focus that relevant articles and books themselves adopt, - namely,
(1) general styles and personality characteristics of the change agent.
(2) cognitive styles, 89
(3) behaviours and consulting ’p r o c e s s 1, (4) roles, and relationships,
Inevitably, as each is but a facet of a common
phenomenon (consultants in action, these categories overlap.
3.4.1 Styles
The interest in consultancy styles stems from a desire to establish what makes for effective consulting in
different contexts. Thus,Tichy:
’We need to establish which change strategies are effective for w h a t . ’^
Many studies in this area can be seen as conducting a dialogue over the normative prescriptions of O D , for
48