Theories of organizational dynamics and development in IT

¶ … Organization Dynamics & Development it

The Breadth Component - Organizational Culture and Leadership

This study examines a spectrum of organizational culture and leadership, organizational change, and system-wide organizational development theories with a focus on the underlying methods of achieving performance excellence in a university entity. To this end, the objectives of this study are to: (a) analyze various theoretical foundations associated with system-wide organizational development, organizational culture and leadership, and organizational change, including those theories of Schein, Bennis and Mische, Binney and Williams, Birnbaum, Davidow and Carr, examining the exigencies of the major theories discussed in their writings; and to (b) integrate the disparities among theories to form a comprehensive view of achieving performance excellence in a higher education organization. A summary of the research and salient findings are presented in the conclusion.

Review and Discussion

Organizational Culture and Leadership.

As never before in history, organizations of all types and sizes are confronted with the opportunities and challenges that go hand-in-hand with competing in an increasingly globalized marketplace. As Carr and Hard (1995) emphasize, "Today, organizations big and small, public and private, domestic and global... find themselves in an era of paradigm shift when a set of assumptions no longer applies and must be replaced. The recent remapping of the world, the emergence of new players on the global scene, and the explosion of technology have created new circumstances to which organizations are learning to adapt" (p. 3). While the body of evidence concerning the impact of organizational culture and leadership style on company performance continues to grow and be refined, there are some aspects of organizational development that have achieved relative consensus among human resources authorities, including what organizational culture is in general terms. According to Risher (2007), "At this point, the notion of an organizational culture is generally understood. Perhaps the simplest and most practical definition is 'the way things get done around here.' A more academic but still practical definition is 'the collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with contacts outside the organization'" (p. 25). Today, one of the most challenging aspects of understanding how organizational culture and leadership can affect a company's performance and profitability is why some approaches work in some settings just fine while they may fail miserably in others, even with everything being equal otherwise. In his book, Management Fads in Higher Education: Where They Come From, What They Do, Why They Fail, Birnbaum (2000) provides a useful conceptualization concerning the success and failures of different management approaches that illustrates some current trends in academic leadership. According to Fife (2003), "Those who believe that the loosely coupled, semicontrolled, anarchical nature of higher education institutions is the most appropriate form of organizational structure for this education enterprise will find great pleasure and solace. Those who believe there are alternative organizational structures will be greatly disturbed" (p. 469).

According to Birnbaum, a so-called "management fad" is "a management innovation that is introduced with exaggerated zeal, receives brief popularity and modest success, but, because it is incompatible with the organizational culture, is never fully absorbed and is eventually rejected, as a body would finally reject a foreign matter" (p. 469). Regrettably, many otherwise potentially useful management approaches have been discarded in favor of yet the next "management fad du jour" without ever having used these approaches properly or without providing them with the requisite time needed to realize any benefits. As Ashkenas (1994) emphasizes, "Like moths to a flame, many North American managers have been inexorably drawn to the magic of the quick fix -- the exciting new program or management approach that promises fast results and competitive advantage. Unfortunately, all too many of these managers become burned rather than brightened, wasting untold corporate resources while diverting their people from more productive endeavors" (p. 25). In this regard, Birnbaum identifies seven recent management innovations that he believes satisfy this definition: (a) Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems (PPBS); (b) Management by Objectives (MBO); - Strategic Planning; (d) Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB); (e) Benchmarking; (f) Total Quality Management (TQM) and (g) Business Process Reengineering, which are described further in Table 1 below.

Table 1.

Overview of recent management fads.

Management Fad

Description

Planning, Programming, Budgeting Systems (PPBS)

PPBS was concerned with creating a more rational approach at the beginning or input stage of a process by linking planning based on program priorities with budgeting. It was seen as a solution to the historically based, incremental budgeting systems (called Ur-Management by the author) that rarely questioned the appropriateness of a budget and had as a basic assumption that more money would solve any problem (Birnbaum).

Management by Objectives (MBO)

MBO attempted to bring some control to an organization's output or what an organization should actually be doing by identifying and holding people accountable for specific objectives or outcomes (Birnbaum).

Strategic Planning

Strategic planning came into existence because existing planning techniques primarily focused internally on an organization's priorities and did not take into consideration how external events might also affect an organization.

Zero-Based Budgeting (ZBB)

The underlying assumption of ZBB was that both PPBS and MBO blindly accepted an organization's existing priorities. ZBB required that budget priorities and assumptions be continually reexamined and justified in order to qualify for future funding (Birnbaum).

Benchmarking

Benchmarking evolved as a more sophisticated form of MBO. While MBO was focused on existing organizational objectives, benchmarking assumed that an organization could be improve by studying and adopting the processes of another organization that was doing something better than anyone else. TQM attempted to bring together, as a total system, the concepts that related to the inputs of an organization (i.e., planning and budgeting); how an organization functioned or its processes (i.e., the major focus of benchmarking); and the outcomes of an organization (i.e., the basis of MBO) (Birmbaum).

Continuous Process Improvement

This paradigm espouses many of the principles of the total quality management (TQM) movement discussed below which is currently prevalent in business and industry. Two of several principles common to CPI and TQM include (a) explicitly stated outcomes (b) that have been validated by the organizations customers (Waner, 1995).

Total Quality Management (TQM)

Fundamental to TQM was the assumption that if inputs, processes, and outcomes were seen as an interrelated and interdependent system, an organization would better understand the cause and effects of the various parts of organization's processes and be able to make changes that would help an organization better achieve its vision and mission (i.e., create focused continuous improvement) (Birnbaum).

Business Process Reengineering

Business Process Reengineering, or BPR, is an extension of MBO and benchmarking, was the result of the frustration people have with the slowness of change. Reengineering assumed that once reorganization or the implementation of new systems was determined as necessary in order to eliminate internal resistance, it was critical to make rapid changes in personnel, organization, and processes. As Earl (1998) points out, "Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is the latest management recipe being offered for the survival of Western businesses. Also known as Business Process Redesign, Process Innovation, and various combinations of these keywords, it has become the subject of best-selling books, a new practice area (sometimes trademarked) for consultants, a phenomenon upon which most business academics feel they should have a view, and a growing endeavour in many companies" (p. 53).

Source: Birnbaum cited in Fife at p. 469; Earl at p. 53; Waner at p. 52.

The foregoing list is only a partial recounting of all of the recent management "fads" that have experienced various levels of popularity. A partial list of such management fads provided by Ashkenas also includes the following:

Computerization;

Theory Y;

Quantitative Management;

Diversification;

T-Groups;

Centralization;

De-centralization;

Matrix Management;

Conglomeration;

Managerial Grid;

Zero-Based Budgeting;

The Experience Curve;

Portfolio Management;

Theory Z;

Intrapraneuring;

Demassing;

Restructuring;

One-Minute Managing;

Management-by-Walking-Around;

Skunkworks;

Quality Circles;

Wellness Programs;

Rightsizing;

Diversity Training;

Work-Out;

Benchmarking;

Broad-Banding;

Core Competencies;

Supply-Side Management; and, 360 Degree Feedback (Ashkenas, p. 25).

The evolution of these management fads can be easily discerned from a timeline that reflects the era in which they were developed as shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2.

Management fads according to decade of introduction.

Decade

Management Fads Introduced

1950s

Computerization, Theory Y (Douglas McGregor), Quantitative Management, Diversification, and Management by Objectives.

1960s

T-Groups, Centralization and then Decentralization, Matrix Management, Conglomeration, and the Managerial Grid

1970s

Zero-based budgeting, the Experience Curve, Portfolio Management. Strategic Planning

1980s

Theory Z (William Ouchi), Intrapraneuring, Demassing, Restructuring, Corporate Culture, One-minute Managing (Blanchard), Management by Walking Around (Peters and Waterman), Skunkworks, Quality Circles, Wellness Programs

1990s

Rightsizing, Diversity Training, Work Out (developed by GE); Benchmarking; Broad-banding; Total Quality; Core Competencies; Supply-side Management; 360 degree feedback; and Reengineering.

Source: Ashkenas at p. 25.

One of the primary constraints to the all of the foregoing management approaches, though, is their fundamental inability to capture all of the robust qualities, factors, details and interpersonal relationships that can make or break an organization's success. Despite their supposed differences, all of the foregoing organizational management techniques and approaches share some common themes involving getting a better handle of what is actually being done in companies and how better to manage these things. Unfortunately, another common theme these management approaches share is the inappropriate or misapplication of these approaches by managers who either do not understand how they work or by rabid managers who insist on absolute conformity with these processes and procedures without any room for flexibility according to the unique needs of the organization. In fact, according to Mills (2003), "Analysis of the data suggests that the implementation of organizational change, particularly selected change programs such as Culture Change, TQM and BPR, does not follow the rational, orderly decision-making processes indicated by advocates" (p. 2). Nevertheless, some of the more recent management approaches do provide a more comprehensive analysis of what can reasonably be expected to take place during organizational development and transformations. For example, although continuous process improvement only considers the impact of information technology on a change initiative tangentially, business process reengineering considers it a "key enabler" as shown in Table 3 below.

Table 3.

The transformational scope of Business Process Reengineering.

Factor

Continuous process improvement

Business process reengineering

Change

Incremental

Quantum leap

Focus

Current practice

Start again

Frequency

Continuous

One shot

Scope

Narrow, within function

Broad, cross-functional

Participation

Risk and rewards

Low to moderate

Type of change

Work design

Structure, culture roles

Role of it

Incidental

Key enabler

Aids

Ideas and suggestions

Methods and tools

Source: Earl, 1999 at p. 59.

Despite this laudable trend toward a more comprehensive analytical framework in recent management approaches, especially those that take into account the importance of the impact of it on such initiatives, there remains a paucity of evidence of rationality in some cases concerning how or why these initiatives were implemented and administered in the first place. For example, in an attempt to meet the absolute standards stipulated by ISO 9000, Adams (2003) cites real-world examples of managers who required their employees to label everything in the work environment, with some fed-up employees eventually even labeling the "newly waxed floor" in disgust over the inflexible requirement (p. 242). This author emphasizes that, "Managers at big companies everywhere began documenting everything they did and labeling every tool they used. It was a frenzy or labeling and document, labeling and documenting.... It was ugly" (p 241). Clearly, this overenthusiastic approach to implementing any of the foregoing management approaches is counterproductive, but each of the proponents of the respective approaches suggests that an all-out approach is needed in order to ensure success. Indeed, Ashkenas also cites an example of potentially effective management fads gone awry. In an effort to reverse a downward trend in profitability, one company implemented the following array of improvement programs over the course of a few months:

customer satisfaction survey;

An employee satisfaction survey;

Baldrige Award-type process, complete with large-scale audits and an internal panel of judges;

Across-the-board quality training and dozens of quality action teams;

Kaizen training and manufacturing floor redesign;

Activity-based accounting;

strategic measurement process with a team of "experts" that moved through each department developing measurement "levels";

senior "visioning" team to compare the future state with the current situation and do "interactive planning" to close the gap;

"bureaucracy-busting" team to root out unnecessary forms, meetings, and administrivia.

A major information systems project to integrate the order entry and production scheduling systems;

Socio-technical training in several plants;

project to achieve ISO 9000 certification; and Personal productivity training for managers based on a recent management "best seller" (p. 25).

Not surprisingly, the company not only failed to realize any substantive benefits from any of the foregoing initiatives, many of them caused more harm than good as a result of the disruptive nature of enterprise (Ashkenas). In this environment, identifying a careful and informed balance between the best of what each management approach has to offer and the unique needs of the organization and its stakeholders assumes new relevance and importance today.

Complicating the situation for many managers today is the diversity of opinion concerning the impact of various leadership styles on a company's bottom line. It would seem reasonable to assert that companies which enjoy the guidance of effective charismatic leaders have an inherent competitive advantage over those that do not, but there is much more involved than that of course. Some managers are able to accomplish far more than their peers because they possess the right mix of people skills and experience, while others achieve superior results by virtue of goal-setting or otherwise, but the fact remains they are getting the job done and doing it better than their counterparts who are likewise using these identical management approaches. What, then, are the fundamental differences in these successful vs. unsuccessful organizational settings? As Michalisin, Karau and Tangpong (2007) emphasize, "Organizational researchers have long studied the effects of organizational leadership on firm performance, producing a rich array of theories and empirical findings. These theories and studies have revealed that the relationship between leadership behavior and specific performance outcomes is complex, and that the specific behaviors that are effective often depends on a variety of variables, including situational factors and follower characteristics" (p. 2).

A good basic example of this in a real-world setting would be two fast-food franchises that were equipped with identical furnishings, decor, menus, equipment, staffing levels and demographic populations, and one might be managed like a well-oiled machine that consistently generates high profits and enjoys a low turnover rates while the other would be a veritable hell in which to work in any capacity. Clearly, the key difference involved in the comparative success of these two franchises would be the type of leadership team that was in place and what management styles were used. This analogy can easily be extended to other workplace settings where the fundamental difference in the workplace environment is the organizational culture that is engendered from the top-down and the bottom-up. Alas, identifying a universal and across-and-the-board leadership style that consistently produces positive outcomes in the form of an organizational culture that works in all settings is unviable, so understanding why some things work best in some settings while others do not simply makes good business sense.

The growing body of evidence concerning the impact of organizational culture on company performance has identified frequently dramatic differences in performance levels (Risher, 2007). According to this author, "One study found that with different work management strategies, performance gains of at least 30 to 40% are possible. The business media carried regular stories though the 1990s of companies that had realized gains like that" (Risher, p. 25). In those organizations where such management fads were actually successful, the gains that were realized were frequently the result of the existing strengths of the company rather than any specific attributes inherent to the management regimen involved. As Risher emphasizes, "The gains are attributable to differences in the way work is organized and managed, and by creating a culture where employees are expected to use more of their capabilities. In effect, employees are working smarter. By contrast, those studies also shed light on the practices that inhibit performance and contribute to a culture that discourages workers from coming forward with ideas to improve performance" (Risher, p. 25). Likewise, in those instances where organizations failed to realize any benefits from a quality improvement initiative, such failures might be attributable to existing weaknesses in the organization. In this regard, Shafritz (1998) emphasizes that, "There is a very high failure rate for quality initiatives in many organizations; this is not surprising given the fact that many are already failing due to management diseases and the difficulty in adopting a new work paradigm. In addition, dramatic environmental changes in today's business world can overtake any management initiative" (p. 2269).

Because of the problems inherent in identifying a "one-size-fits-all" approach to developing an effective organizational culture and determining what leadership approaches are best suited for different settings, a wide range of leadership theories have been offered in recent years in an attempt to explicate precisely what leadership behaviors are effective in what specific contexts (Michalsen et al.). For comparison purposes, these various leadership theories and their proponents are described in sum in Table 4 below.

Table 4.

Contextual leadership theories.

Theory

Proponents

Description

Situational leadership theory

Hersey & Blanchard, 1988

Situational leadership theory builds a prescription for supervisory behavior based on the stage of development (or maturity) of the subordinate who is the target of the leader's influence efforts (Chemers, 1997). From this perspective, in order to be effective, leaders must adjust their behavior to the maturity of the followers. Follower maturity consists of job maturity -- "the task-relevant knowledge, experience, and ability possessed by followers -- "and psychological maturity -- "the self-confidence and motivation relative to the task (Shafritz, p. 198). The model classifies subordinate maturity on two dimensions; "psychological maturity," assessing the follower's commitment, motivation, and willingness to accept responsibilty; and "job maturity," which captures the follower's experience, knowledge, and understanding of task requirements. High psychological maturity reflects a willingness to undertake responsible tasks, whereas high job maturity reflects the ability to accomplish such tasks. Thus, a subordinate could be willing or unwilling and able or unable with the lowest level of overall maturity being the unwilling and unable subordinate, followed by the willing but unable, then the able but unwilling, and the highest level of maturity being both willing and able (Chemers, 1997).

Path-goal theory

House, 1971

This theory implicates subordinate perceptions regarding expectancy and instrumentality of effort. The path-goal line of theoretical thinking has close ties both to the University of Michigan (through expectancy theory) and to Ohio State University (through the consideration and initiating structure constructs) (Miner, 2002). From a path-goal perspective, a leader attempts to initiate structure in the work environment and to clarify for the subordinate the path leading to performance goals so that the likelihood of personal payoffs are increased. The less structure in the work environment, the more a leader is motivated to provide it by directing and coaching.

Normative decision model

Vroom & Yetton, 1973

This model focuses on those characteristics of decisions that may require more or less input from subordinates. According to Shafritz, "This model proposed that leader effectiveness is a function of knowing when and how much to allow followers to participate in decisionmaking. Their model defines five levels of participation, from autocratic (leader solves the problem or makes the decision alone using information available) through consultative to joint (leader shares the problem with the group, and together they generate alternatives and attempt to reach a decision). The critical leader behavior consists of the level of participation the leader grants to followers. The key to effective leadership is to decide which behavior to exhibit and when; again, the answer depends on situational factors.

Source: Michalsen et al. p. 2; Chemers, 1997 at p. 56; Shafritz, 2000 at pp. 198, 451.

All of the foregoing theories and models provided different categories of leader behaviors that could contribute to either positive or negative firm performance, depending on workplace variables, follower characteristics, and individual and team processes; as a result, all of the foregoing suggest that the extent of fit between leader behavior and work context should contribute to company performance as a result of specific individual and group-level processes (Michaelsen et al.). The foregoing perspectives, though, are incongruent and nebulous concerning which specific leadership behaviors contribute to improved company performance under different conditions, but by all accounts, the relationship between leadership styles and behaviors and company performance is a complex one. In this regard, Michalsen and his colleagues point out, "Taken as a whole, the prior leadership literature depicts a complex relationship between leaders' task and social behaviors and firm performance and suggests that neither task nor social behavior is likely to have a direct effect on the firm's ability to produce sustainable competitive advantage across a range of contexts, as would be evidenced by superior performance over time" (p. 2). Developing sustainable competitive advantage, of course, is a fundamental organizational goal for virtually any company today but this goal can only be achieved if an organization is willing and able to change according to market demand, innovations in technology and unforeseeable political and economic factors and these issues are discussed further below.

Organizational Change.

Anyone who has attempted to introduce even a modest change in their organization can readily testify to the enormous difficulties associated with the process. Generally speaking, most people detest change and will resist any efforts to modify their daily routines but it is becoming increasingly difficult to postpone or avoid the need for organizational change in the Age of Information. For example, in their book, the 21st century organization: Reinventing through reengineering, Bennis and Mische (1995) report that the speed of organizational change is greater today than ever. According to Bennis, Spreitzer and Cummings (2001), "The corporate culture and values previously revered will not satisfy the needs of the younger generation" (p. 148). Likewise, Weick and Quinn (1999) note that, "Recent analyses of organizational change suggest a growing concern with the tempo of change, understood as the characteristic rate, rhythm, or pattern of work or activity" (p. 361). Finally, Carr and Hard suggest that, "Organizational change means moving from an old way of doing things to a new one that will bring positive outcomes. The transitional stage may be difficult, even painful" (p. 3). The important inclusion of the phrase "will bring positive outcomes" rather than "might bring" is particularly relevant since it makes little sense to change an organization by making it perform less effectively, and the additional observations that the transitional stage is fraught with opportunities for failures is also highly salient.

While some people may be reluctant or downright adamant in their resistance to change because it requires new learning and additional effort on their part, others may view the need for change as a negative reflection on their own performance in the workplace. In this regard, Weick and Quinn emphasize that, "The basic tension that underlies many discussions of organizational change is that it would not be necessary if people had done their jobs right in the first place. Planned change is usually triggered by the failure of people to create continuously adaptive organizations" (p. 361).

Because organizations by definition consist of individuals, they can be notoriously difficult to change in meaningful ways. In this regard, Mills (2003) advises, "An imperative of organizational change is a social construction that is not well understood as such. It is contended that a failure to understand that organizational change is a social construct, that different actors make sense of in divergent ways, has several consequences for managers and the process of organizational change" (p. 74). Indeed, some people naturally resist any type of change because it represents an unknown as well as something they will have to learn about, and will go to great lengths to avoid the change or even actively sabotage it. As Nersesian (2000) emphasizes, "Forced change creates resistance and conflict within an organization. Management should become involved at all levels as they plan for change. Short-term profit goals must give way to long-term performance goals" (p. 125). According to Mills (2003), "However, with every action there is often a reaction within the organizational system. In this case, the reaction to innovation and change may be employee resistance. Failure of employees to be personally creative, or buy into and support planned change can result in a stagnant, or even regressive, organization. Managers must therefore learn to manage innovation, change, and the potential for employee resistance" (p. 104).

Although insulated to some extent from the same market forces driving the larger economy, educational institutions face many of these same organizational change issues as well. As Mills emphasizes, "There have been some influential trends in recent years concerning organizational change that have affected colleges and universities as well. While some aspects of the change discourse are relatively new (e.g., change as imperative, the service focus, the advent of the change package), most have always been part of organizational change theories (e.g., tangible, inevitable, universally understandable)" (p. 105). Mills adds that, "What is significant is not the contours of the discourse itself but the fact that it has become a discourse; that organizational change has moved off of the margins of the business textbook into the thinking and practice of large numbers of managers and business educators; and that it acts as an imperative rather than a dusty theory" (p. 105). Indeed, Bennis and his colleagues emphasize that based on the increasingly rapid pace of organizational change today, the need for leaders who are "willing to try new ideas, seek out new opportunities, and change as needed -- "both within the corporation and the industry" (p. 155).

Some useful insights concerning organizational change can be discerned from the typology developed by Van de Ven and Poole (1995) that involves four basic process theories of organizational change, each of which is characterized by a different event sequence and generative mechanism as follows:

Life cycle theories have an event sequence of start-up, grow, harvest, terminate, and start-up. They have a generative mechanism of an immanent program or regulation.

Teleological theories have an event sequence of envision/set goals, implement goals, dissatisfaction, search/interact, and envision/set goals. They have a generative mechanism of purposeful enactment and social construction.

Dialectical theory has an event sequence of thesis/antithesis, conflict, synthesis, and thesis/antithesis. It has a generative mechanism of pluralism, confrontation, and conflict.

Evolutionary theory has an event sequence of variation, selection, retention, and variation. It has a generative mechanism of competitive selection and resource scarcity (cited in Weick at p. 361).

The foregoing review by Van de Ven and Poole suggests that organizations can proceed with changes in a continuous fashion or in a series of fits-and-spurts, but all of which require an organization that is capable of learning from its past successes and failures. According to Schein (1996), "The field of planned change and organization development is all about learning. Learning is, however, a basically individualistic concept drawn directly from psychology, where it is highly developed, and we have not yet settled on a good definition of what it might mean for an organization to learn" (p. 229). In an academic setting, these concepts assume some especially confounding qualities as well. In this regard, Hoffman and Summers (2000) emphasize that, "The disconnected condition of the academic institution -- where decisions and actions in one part, or at one level, of the institution are isolated from and unharmonized with decisions and actions in other parts or levels suggests a breakdown if not in organizational functioning then in shared meanings about the realities of organizational life" (p. 38). This suggests that academic institutions, like their commercial counterparts, must develop the ability to learn from their past successes and failures in order to remain competitive and relevant in the future. For instance, as Hopkins (2001) emphasizes, "No change would be more fundamental than a dramatic expansion of the capacity of individuals and organisations to understand and deal with change. Everyone within a school needs to become in some sense a change agent, someone who is skilful and knowledgeable about the business of change. Educators should be as skilful in managing the change process as they are in curriculum and instruction" (emphasis added) (p. 51).

These various states of affairs in business and academic settings have contributed to a sense of modern business theories being irrelevant to the operation of these educational institutions in ways that have made effecting substantive change all the more difficult. In this regard, Hoffman and Summers (2000) suggest that it was only recently that educators have come to recognize the benefits that can accrue to all types of organizations that embrace change in the same fashion as the successful examples from the business world. As these authors emphasize, "It is not so much that reality in the academic institution is not what it used to be, but that reality is a challenge to locate beyond its symbols and verbal constructions. While a breakdown of established and accepted practices of the higher education institution was noted in the 1980s, not until the 1990s did the theater of postmodern thought play at colleges and universities" (Hoffman & Summers, 2000, p. 38).

From a postmodern perspective, organizational change is conceptualized primarily in terms of definition: alteration of organizational boundaries, externally, between an organization and its environment and between an organization and other organizations; and internally, by its mission and purpose (Bergquist, 1993). Using this framework as a basis for analysis, organizational change can be seen as ordinarily occurring at the boundaries of definitions involving relationships between entities and within an entity in ways that are important for colleges and universities. For instance, Berquest points out that although the postmodern organization is characterized as having loose, unclear boundaries and clear missions, change in the postmodern organization at the boundaries is frequent and expected; moreover, substantive changes in an organization's mission suggest that a transformation is required that will ultimately result in the creation of a new organization. As this author emphasize, "These attributes are the opposite in a modern organization, where boundaries are clear and mission is vague or ambiguous" (Bergquist 1993, p. 37).

As noted above, the source of the change initiative can have an important impact on the likelihood of its success. There is a vast difference between effecting change through the employee suggestion box and receiving word from "on high" that a change will take place regardless of what anyone has to say about the matter. In this regard, Packard (2000) provides a comprehensive framework that describes the various types of organizational change that groups change approaches into "change from below" (e.g, staff-initiated organizational change), "administrative change," and "organization development"; this author points out that each approach has unique uses, strengths, and weaknesses and their typology is presented in Table 5 below.

Table 5.

Types of organizational change.

Change type

Description

Staff-Initiated Organizational Change

Change from below" or "change from within" is also referred to as "staff-initiated organizational change." process is typically initiated by frontline workers and involves the following five steps:

1. For the initial assessment, a problem is identified; possible solutions are considered; data are gathered; a change objective is set; and driving and restraining forces are considered, with particular attention to the perspectives of the organizational decision makers involved.

2. The pre-initiation stage involves workers developing their influence and credibility and making people more aware of problems so that the problems will be addressed.

3. At the initiation stage, the change goal is defined and arguments are shaped with consideration of the perspectives of those in power. The change proposal is then presented to specific decision makers.

4. Assuming that the change goal is approved, the implementation stage includes gaining support and commitment, and ensuring that implementation expectations are understood.

5. Institutionalization involves developing standardized procedures for the proposal and linking it with other organizational elements.

Administrative Change

Administrative change typically focuses on administrators acting as organizational change agents in their roles as leaders who create new visions or change organizational cultures. The author cites Bennis and Nanus (1985) who note that leaders as change agents articulate a compelling vision for the organization, create shared meaning which can keep staff working together, create trust through ethical behavior and a focus on the vision, and emphasize continual learning and development. Also, the importance of not only vision but also of focusing on desired results, building one's confidence and credibility, maintaining a focus on customers, and energizing and empowering staff.

Organization Development

Organization development is a form of consultation intended to improve an organization's effectiveness through a consultant working collaboratively with staff from all levels of an organization to identify opportunities for improvement and to develop and implement changes. As opposed to other forms of consultation such as industrial engineering, in which consultants provide expert advice, organization development consultants provide expertise on change processes but rely upon members of the organization to assess problems and needs and determine steps to resolve identified problems

Source: Packard, p. 39.

Unfortunately, even in those cases where such organizational development approaches are implemented to good effect, there is the potential that over time, an organization will continue to function in a certain fashion without any current rationale for doing so; as a result, previous organizational development initiatives that provided value at the time are no longer as relevant as before and their value begins to diminish without refinement. This notion is supported by the results of an informal survey conducted by Binney and Williams (1995) of businesses using total quality management initiatives that determined managing directors in almost 75% of the companies surveyed failed to identify any discernable value in these initiatives just 18 months after the quality initiative was implemented (Binney & Williams, 1995, p. 37 cited in Peterson & Mannix at p. 190). In response to these findings, Peterson and Mannix (2003) emphasize, "To be quite clear, the authors are not putting forward an argument against quality initiatives, but an argument saying that if your organization is tying up its resources by doing something difficult, then it would do well to inquire frequently just what benefit is coming from that investment" (p. 190). Clearly, business leaders would be well advised to avoid embracing the "management style du jour" in favor of an organizational development approach that takes advantage of a given organization's strengths while minimizing its inherent weaknesses.

Higher education institutions, particularly four-year colleges and universities, seem to be making the transition from modern organizations to postmodern organizations as they become less bounded internally as well as externally and more focused in their missions (Hoffman & Summers, 2000). Most change efforts meet with some level of resistance from those who must change and consequently fail; moreover, some groups will resist more stubbornly than others, frequently due to such relatively unalterable characteristics such as demographics (Hesselbein, Goldsmith & Beckhard, 1997).

According to Bennis, Spreitzer and Cummings (2001), "Perhaps the most important thing to mention about future managers is that they'll do more than just manage. In many cases, the knowledge work manager is also a knowledge worker. Managers in law, consulting, and accounting firms often have their own clients. University administrators may still teach and do research" (pp. 47-48). Unlike managers who rise to their level of incompetence as suggested by the so-called "Peter Principle," Bennis and his colleagues suggest that academic managers will assume these additional responsibilities but will want to avoid such perceptions by their subordinates: "These managers perhaps enjoy doing nonmanagerial knowledge work, and may feel it necessary to be respected by those they manage" (Bennis et al., p. 48). In this regard, Hesselbein and his colleagues suggest that as formal hierarchies diminish in importance, the level of formal authority that has traditionally been derived from such hierarchies will become less and less important than professional expertise in gaining the respect required for influence and leadership.