All: Critique and links to other authors
A Coggle Diagram about Weick
(Critique: Hard to graps the process of sensemaking
, This view is a fundamental challenge to common change management thinking.
, If you're chnage agent/consultant then you cant introduce sensemaking as an action plan you wieve it int o another model or action
, Ford & Ford have a Weickian view: "changes emerge through the interconnectedness in micro conversations."
, We see in practice that some planned change are succeeding - how can Weick explain this?
, doesnt recognize the transformational changes - but sometimes they are necessary? eg. M&A? Big structural changes?
, How do you measure the degree of influence from a change manager - lacking in measurable instruments for how you achieve sensemaking
, Doesnt touch upon the specificity
and OD: in order to take into consideration the positive aspects of the organization you could argue that you need to freeze
), Stacey, Shaw & Chia
(Does not consider emotions. Huy would be highly against this view
, Middle managers are not as much involved, Arent they the most important ones? Conger doesnt touch upon the middle managers as much.
, He talks from the top to the top - may be biased
, He doesnt touch upon feedback mechanisms
, • Initiatives are not dealt with in this text. We need them but he doesn’t really emphasize them enough.
, One of the mgmt. models: doesn’t say anything about the METHOD – and HOW to do it. How to eg. Build a coalition?
and Link Weick: Mid managers are in the best position to work with change bc they are the ones that are working with the things – its not the job of the CEO – not at all – Weick view. SKAT! We shouldn’t not only focus on top down, we also need the bottom. Change can start anywhere but doesnt refer to where is should be led.
(The main criticisms of OD address the lack of theory and clear definitions of the primary concepts within the approach to guide research in the area and the validity of external and internal factors.
, Focus too much on humanistic values, rather than on issues such as business strategy – are the values as universal as they can be? Are they still relevant?
, Difficult to establish relationship between org. effectiveness and OD
, Critique: Traditional OD view is objective and dialogic is subjective. Some authors argue that this distinction is unhelpful and that we should discuss whether a comprehensive and systematic diagnostic OD can be integrated into a really good dialogic OD to create a powerful change process.--> rather take the best of both worlds!
, AI's response to critique that they ignore the problems:
They don’t ignore the facts, rather it seeks to give attention to the positive to counter the historic dominance on a problem focused approach to change
and The difference between CM: the values. They don’t want to just change the structure of the company, they also want to involve the employees so they get something out of it. Some critiques this.
, Nahapiet & Ghoshal:
, Rick Mauer (2009)
(He assumes the cycle of change can help you:
• see that no change lasts forever
• understand why resistance is occurring
• predict the consequences of using a particular approach to leading change
• monitor progress and take corrective actions
, Studying emotions/resistance is a difficult process (concious) and they are unaware of their resistance. At SKATthey were just askign polite structural questions and maybe there wasnt more encouraging of personal issues they could have covered more root issues causing the problems.
, Says each change has its own demand --> contingency and specificity.
, Gives best practices - a rule book but at the same time says it depends on the situation and you have to be adaptable. But still a checklist - so hard to get out of the checklist mode even though he says you need to adapt and have contigency plans ( is it then just another mix of order of what he says)
and Resistance are many things - you cant just impose a lot of information upon the recipients
), Huy& Mintzberg (2003)
- took Lewin's model and made his own
- Rigid model > don't always need to start burning platform, linearity can lead to wrong assumptions
- weak on guidance to sustain change
o Mechanistic/one size fits all/too rigid
o Steps are in requisite of each other
o Top-down: co-creation and involvement are not included
o Doesn’t take individual needs into account
, Weick: more of a communication model and we should use it as such.
- the sequences may not be the best for the org.
- the timing of steps may not be right
- there may be multiple changes going in the org. it doesnt take this into account
- what happens if we miss some of the steps?
- are all the steps REALLY needed?
and N-step models:!:
- they ignore the legacy effects of past changes and how that may impact on how people act,
- the treatment of sustaining change is rather limited, and
- the advice is generic with little advice on how specific context can be taken into account.
), Huy 2001
(doesnt consider emergent change?
, Assumes that managers are capable of shifting their perspectives. Is it always possible to just switch from commanding to socializing?
and It may be a positive thing to look at the negative emotions, since this can be considered as critical feedback in the change process
( ( The top is not enough - similar to Conger. Strategic change is an org. wide phenomenon. Each part of the org. has their own role.
) and The images are an overall view of how to approach change and how one sees change - the nature of change. hart explains the roles that top mgmt. and org. members have when working together. Here he does not touch upon how to view change, he argues that based on the situation, some strategy making styles such as command or generative are more suitable than others. Looks at strategy making and not change.
), Huy 2002: Emotional balancing
(Critique: there is no management approach as he says himself.
and Change will occur naturally and creatively. Opposes control strategies.
BUT how is this possible in large org like SKAT???
), Our view: interpreter and coach; what they should do and not what have happened - thus our image focus on the future and not the past
(Difficult to assess the underlying assumptions. **Do **people tell the truth? Are employees actually able to articulate this?
), Huy: group-focus emotions.
, Ford et al:green_cross:
and Stacey and weick
(In order to understand what is going on, we should engage in conversations says Stacey so very similar to Weick. However, they differ in that, Stacey acknowledges the complexities in human nature that Weick does not.