|
Changes come more rapidly than ever before—and IT has a lot to do with that. Most organizations today are playing catch up and will continue to do so unless they establish an operating organization that can deal with unplanned and evolutionary change on an ongoing basis.
Also See:
Real Role Of IT In Knowledge Management
Langer Report: Operating IT As 'Driver,' 'Supporter'
By Dr. Arthur M. Langer
This article builds on my previous papers about Responsive Organizational Dynamism defined as a set of integrative responses to the challenges raised by technology-that is, responding to the disruption caused by emerging technologies.
Because technology requires that organizations accelerate their actions, it is necessary to examine how Responsive Organizational Dynamism corresponds to theories in organizational change. Burke (2002) states that most organizational change is evolutionary, however, he defines two distinct types of change: planned versus unplanned, and revolutionary versus evolutionary. Burke also suggests that the external environmental changes are more rapid today and that most organizations "are playing catch up." Many rapid changes to the external environment can be attributed to emerging technologies, which have accelerated the divide between what an organization does and what it needs to do to remain competitive. This is the situation that creates the need for Responsive Organizational Dynamism. The catching-up process therefore becomes more difficult because the amount of change required is only increasing given ever-new technologies. Burke suggests that this catching-up will likely require planned and revolutionary change. Such change can be mapped onto much of my previous research. Certainly change is typically required; you need to plan it, and change does occur. However, ROD supports the eventual establishment of an operating organization that can deal with unplanned and evolutionary change on an ongoing basis. Using technology as the reason for change, it is then important that the components of Responsive Organizational Dynamism be integrated with theories of organizational change.
History has shown that most organizational change is not successful in providing its intended outcomes because of cultural lock-in. Cultural lock-in is defined by Foster and Kaplan (2001) as an organization's inability to change its corporate culture even when there are clear market threats. Based on their definition then, technology may not be able to change the way an organization behaves, even when there are obvious competitive advantages to doing so. My concern with Foster and Kaplan's conclusion is whether individuals truly understand exactly how their organizations are being affected-or are we to assume that they do understand? In other words, is there a process to ensure that employees understand the impact of not changing? I believe that Responsive Organizational Dynamism provides the infrastructure required to resolve this dilemma, by establishing the processes that can support ongoing unplanned and evolutionary change.
advertisement
To best show the relationship of Responsive Organizational Dynamism to organizational change theory, I use Burke's six major points in assisting change in organizations:
1. Understanding the external environment: What are competitors and customer's expectations? This is certainly an issue, specifically when tracking whether expected technologies are made available in the client/vendor relationship. But more critical is the process of how emerging technologies, brought about through external channels are evaluated and put into production. That is, having a process in place. Strategic Integration of Responsive Organizational Dynamism is the infrastructure that needs to facilitate the monitoring and management of the external environment.
2. Evaluation of the inside of the organization: This directly relates to technology and how it can be best utilized to improve internal operations. While evaluation may also relate to a restructuring of an organization's mission, technology is often an important driver for why a mission needs to be changed, e.g., expanding a market due to ecommerce capabilities.
3. Readiness of the organization: The question here is not whether to change but how fast can the organization change to address technological innovations. The Responsive Organizational Dynamism provides the steps necessary to create organizations that can sustain change as a way of operation, blending Strategic Integration with Cultural Assimilation. The maturation of learning: moving towards system-based learning also supports the creation of infrastructures that are vitally prepared for changes from emerging technologies.
4. Cultural change as inevitable: Cultural Assimilation essentially demands that organizations must dynamically assimilate new technologies and be prepared to evolve their cultures. Most important is that such evolution must be accelerated and be systemic within business units to be able to respond effectively to the rate of change created by technological innovations.
5. Making the case for change: It is difficult just to explain why change is inevitable Much of the need for change can be supported using the various reflective practices. However, such acceptance is directly related to the process of time. Major events can assist in establishing the many needs for change as discussed by Burke (2002).
6. Sustaining change: Perhaps the strongest part of Responsive Organizational Dynamism is in its ability to create a process that is evolutionary and systemic. It focuses on driving change to every aspect of the organization and provides organizational learning constructs to address each level of operation. It addresses what Burke calls the "prelaunch, launch, postlaunch, and sustaining" in the important sequences of organization change (286).
Another important aspect of change management is leadership. Leadership takes many forms and has multiple definitions. Technology plays an interesting role in how leadership can be presented to organizations, especially in terms of the management style of leadership, or what Eisenhardt and Bourgeois (1988) have coined as "power centralization." Their study examined "high-velocity" environments in the microcomputer industry during the late 1980's. By "high-velocity," they meant "those environments in which there is a rapid and discontinuous change in demand, competitors, technology, or regulation, so that information is often inaccurate, unavailable, or obsolete" (738). During the period of their study the microcomputer industry was undergoing substantial technological change, including the introduction of many new competitors. As it turns out, the concept of high-velocity is becoming more the norm today given the way organizations find themselves needing to operate in constant fluxes of velocity. The term "power centralization" is defined as the amount of decision-making control wielded by the chief executive (CEO). Eisenhardt and Bourgeois's study found that the more the CEO engaged in power-centralized leadership, the greater the degree of politics, which had a negative impact on the strategic performance of the firms examined. This finding suggests that the less democratic the leadership is in high-velocity environments, the less productive the organization will be. Indeed, the study found that when individuals engaged in team learning, political tension was reduced and the performance of the firms improved.
advertisement
The structure of Responsive Organizational Dynamism provides the means of avoiding the high-velocity problems discovered by the Eisenhardt and Bourgeois study. This is because ROD allows for the development of more individual learning as well as system thinking across the executive ranks of the business. If technology is to continue to establish such high-velocities, firms need to examine the Eisenhardt and Bourgeois study for its relevance to everyday operations. They also need to use organizational learning theories as a basis for establishing leadership that can empower employees to operate in an accelerated and unpredictable environment.
References
Burke, W. W. (2002) Organizational Change: Theory and Practice, London: Sage Publications.
Eisenhardt, K. M. and Bourgeois, L. J. (1988) 'Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments: toward a midrange theory', Academy of Management Journal, 31(4): 737-70.
Foster, R. N. and Kaplan, S. (2001) Creative Destruction: Why Companies that are Built to Last Underperform the Market-and How to Successfully Transform Them. New York: Currency.
Check out previous Langer Reports:
6 Strategies To Help 'Supporter' IT Organizations Succeed
The Langer Report: Are You A Driver, Support, or Both?
Columbia University's Dr. Arthur M. Langer is Senior Director of Technology, Innovation and Community Engagement, Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science; Associate Director, Instruction and Curricular Development, School of Continuing Education; and a faculty member in the Graduate School of Education (Teachers College) and Continuing Education. He also is a member of the CIOZone's advisory board.
|
