SKAT and images of change
A Coggle Diagram about Nurturer
(Shaw - complexity, nothing can be controlled our anticipated
, Chia : you cant plan anything and all you can do is care for the organization.
, SKAT could and should do anything. Nothing can be controlled. They should focus on shape peoples perception to change, but not control them. Enhance the adaptive and creative capacity.
, SKAT saying: this is everyones problem, so how do we fix it?
, Critique: Reactive and very pessimistim towards influencing change
and o Develop resilience , encourage involvement, continuous learning and self-organizing
(How can we see have applied interpreter?
, Alerts managers to the dif. Interpretations people can have --> SKAT and narratives.
, Resistance occurs when the change is not interpreted well or understood. The manager’s role is to help clarify the meaning of change. To create meaning of the complex --> somebody failed in the process here!
, Huy (2001) Group focus emotions (understand and address emotions in order to influence the quality and behavior that affect org performance)
and Critique of this image: A lot of effort to put into this process. Takes a lot of time and resources. And can interaction and managing meaning actually solve or do what is actually needed? Changes require physical action that is not only interaction - e.g. why you need coaching
(There is no simple prescription, navigate in the mess- in some parts we are navigator, which is reflected in our final reflections
, Stacey: "one influences others in that everything one does is playing a part in what emerges." SO he would argue that a change agent can and should be involved in the process but would not be able to influence outside the patterns of interaction this is why top mgmt and middle mgmt at SKAT should have been more involved.
, We could have been navigators if we see the changes imposed from the politicians as external, and then how to navigate in the political landscape
, Stacey is not completely navigator, but Stacey recognizes the political landscape
and Why not navigator?
Some authors use a coaching image when they say that transitional change can be managed, but transformational change cannot. Instead they draw on a navigating change image when discussing transformational change.
o Skilled change managers are able to swap images depending upon the situation/context. WE used coach due to the theory we applied and Choosing an image also depends on simultaneous involvement in multiple changes. as the structural changes are imposed by the politicians (director), then top mgmt and middle mgmt at SKAT has another task of preparing the employees → interpreter and coach. you could also argue that it needs elements from the caretaker perspective, as this is usually when changes are externally driven.
(How can we see that we have applied a coach perspective in our paper?
, Chnages we look at: Strukturrefromen, EFI, downsizing the continuous restructurings.
, Look at how to deal with transformational changes afterwards - in it we have the smaller incremental changes. There are 3 changes that cannot be characterizes as incremental or transformational. 1) mid range change (overcomes intertia) 2) change as punctuated equilibrium ( interplay btwn incremental and transformational) 3. Change as robust transformation (environmental changes to be temporary and change as a constant).
- Doesn't fit if SKAT want to change rapidly bc it takes time to develop SC and IC. Also taking LT perspective of dealing with future changes.
- Maybe the coach perspective isnt suitable in an org. like that is 'old' and have a bureaucratic structure
(More reactive where rest of images are creating the change -
, SKAT could not have done anything to manage these changes more efficiently, they should have focused on shepherding the organization to cope with the changes
, Caretaker would acknowledge that politicians are imposing changes at SKAT so top mgmt. are restricted to act
and Caretaking and evolutionary life cycle : changes should be built upon rrather than replace another change. SO at SKAT they should've cared and built upon the changes already present instead of replacing them.
(Similar to Huy's commandor style
, We think top mgmt had a director image of change- Kotter
), Can you manage SC?
(Our perspective yes but if you apply Shaw no.
), Huy & Mintzberg (2003) shift between director (dramatic) and organic (nurturer) and systematic
, Caretaker and nurturer = organization theory. Change managers receive rather than initiate change. Maybe this is more top mgmt. at SKAT?
and Caretaker = Accept the force of external context factors and adapt as necessary