Management of

Change
• Chapter - 3
• Organization Change

• Dr. Md. Shamsul Arefin

• Associate Professor
• Dept. of Management Studies
• BSMRSTU 1–1
LEARNING OUTLINE
Follow this Learning Outline as you read and study this chapter.
o This chapter will look at teams, team development and change
from a number of perspectives and will be asking a number of
pertinent questions:
 how organizations really work;
 models and approaches to organizational change

2–2
HOW ORGANIZATIONS REALLY WORK
• Morgan identifies eight organizational
metaphors:
• 1 machines;
• 2 organisms;
• 3 brains;
• 4 cultures;
• 5 political systems;
• 6 psychic prisons;
• 7 flux and transformation; and
• 8 instruments of domination.
2–3
• We have selected four of Morgan’s organizational
metaphors to explore the range of assumptions that
exists about how organizational change works.
• These are:
• • organizations as machines;
• • organizations as political systems;
• • organizations as organisms;
• • organizations as flux and transformation.

2–4
2–5
2–6
2–7
2–8
Organizations as machines
 This picture of an organization implies routine operations,
well-defined structure and job roles, and efficient working
inside and between the working parts of the machine (the
functional areas).
 Procedures and standards are clearly defined, and are
expected to be adhered to. Key beliefs are:
 each employee should have only one line manager;
 labour should be divided into specific roles;
 each individual should be managed by objectives;
 teams represent no more than the summation of individual
efforts;
 management should control and there should be employee
discipline. 2–9
Organizations as machines
 This leads to the following assumptions about
organizational change:
 the organization can be changed to an agreed end state by
those in positions of authority;
 there will be resistance, and this needs to be managed;
 change can be executed well if it is well planned and well
controlled.

2–10
Organizations as machines
 What are the limitations of this metaphor?
 The mechanistic view leads managers to design and
run the organization as if it were a machine.
 This approach works well in stable situations, but when
the need for a significant change arises, this will be
seen and experienced by employees as a major
overhaul that is usually highly disruptive and therefore
encounters resistance.
 Change when approached with these assumptions is
therefore hard work.
 Itwill necessitate strong management action,
inspirational vision, and control from the top down.

2–11
Organizations as machines
 What are the limitations of this metaphor?
 The mechanistic view leads managers to design and
run the organization as if it were a machine.
 This approach works well in stable situations, but when
the need for a significant change arises, this will be
seen and experienced by employees as a major
overhaul that is usually highly disruptive and therefore
encounters resistance.
 Change when approached with these assumptions is
therefore hard work.
 Itwill necessitate strong management action,
inspirational vision, and control from the top down.

2–12
Organizations as political systems
• When we see organizations as political systems we are
drawing clear parallels between how organizations are
run and systems of political rule.
• We may refer to ‘democracies’, ‘autocracy’ or even
‘anarchy’ to describe what is going on in a particular
organization.
• Here we are describing the style of power rule employed
in that organization.

2–13
Organizations as political systems
 The key beliefs are:
 you can’t stay out of organizational politics: you’re already in it;
 building
support for your approach is essential if you want to
make many thing happen;
 you need to know who is powerful, and who they are close to;
 thereis an important political map that overrides the published
organizational structure;
 coalitions between individuals are more important than work
teams;
 the most important decisions in an organization concern the
allocation of scarce resources, that is, who gets what, and
these are reached through bargaining, negotiating and vying
for position.
2–14
Organizations as political systems
 This leads to the following assumptions about
organizational change:
 thechange will not work unless it’s supported by a powerful
person;
 the wider the support for this change, the better;
 it
is important to understand the political map, and to
understand who will be winners and losers as a result of this
change;
 positivestrategies include creating new coalitions and
renegotiating issues.

2–15
 Organizations as political systems
• What are the limitations of this metaphor?
 The disadvantage of using this metaphor to the exclusion of
others is that it can lead to the potentially unnecessary
development of complex Machiavellian strategies, with an
assumption that in any organizational endeavour, there are
always winners and losers.
 This can turn organizational life into a political war zone.

2–16
 Organizations as organisms
• This metaphor of organizational life sees the
organization as a living, adaptive system.
• Gareth Morgan says: ‘The metaphor suggests that
different environments favour different species of
organizations based on different methods of
organizing... congruence with the environment is the
key to success.’
 For instance, in stable environments a more rigid
bureaucratic organization would prosper. In more fluid,
changing environments a looser, less structured type of
organization would be more likely to survive.

2–17
 Organizations as organisms
• This metaphor represents the organization as an ‘open system’.
• Organizations are seen as sets of interrelated sub-systems designed
to balance the requirements of the environment with internal needs
of groups and individuals.
• This approach implies that when designing organizations, we should
always do this with the environment in mind.
• Emphasis is placed on scanning the environment and developing a
healthy adaptation to the outside world.
• Individual, group and organizational health and happiness are
essential ingredients of this metaphor.
• The assumption is that if the social needs of individuals and groups
in the organization are met, and the organization is well designed to
meet the needs of the environment, there is more likelihood of
healthy adaptive functioning of the whole system (socio-technical2–18
systems).
 Organizations as organisms
• The key beliefs are:
 there is no ‘one best way’ to design or manage an organization;
 the flow of information between different parts of the system and its environment
is key to the organization’s success;
 it is important to maximize the fit between individual, team and organizational
needs.
• This leads to the following assumptions about organizational
change:
 changes are made only in response to changes in the external environment
(rather than using an internal focus);
 individuals and groups need to be psychologically aware of the need for change
in order to adapt;
 the response to a change in the environment can be designed and worked
towards;
 participation and psychological support are necessary strategies for success.
2–19
 Organizations as organisms
• What are the limitations of this metaphor?
 The idea of the organization as an adaptive system is flawed.
 The organization is not really just an adaptive unit, at the mercy of its
environment.
 It can in reality shape the environment by collaborating with communities or with
other organizations, or by initiating a new product or service that may change
the environment in a significant way.
 In addition, the idealized view of coherence and flow between functions and
departments is often unrealistic.
 Sometimes different parts of the organization run independently, and do so for
good reason. For example the research department might run in a very different
way to and entirely separately from the production department.
 The other significant limitation of this view is noted by Morgan, and concerns the
danger that this metaphor becomes an ideology. The resulting ideology says
that individuals should be fully integrated with the organization. This means that
work should be designed so that people can fulfil their personal needs through
the organization. 2–20
 Organizations as flux and transformation
• Viewing organizations as flux and transformation takes us into areas
such as complexity, chaos and paradox.
• This view of organizational life sees the organization as part of the
environment, rather than as distinct from it.
• So instead of viewing the organization as a separate system that
adapts to the environment, this metaphor allows us to look at
organizations as simply part of the ebb and flow of the whole
environment, with a capacity to self-organize, change and self-renew
in line with a desire to have a certain identity.
• This metaphor is the only one that begins to shed some light on how
change happens in a turbulent world. This view implies that
managers can nudge and shape progress, but cannot ever be in
control of change.
 Gareth Morgan says: ‘In complex systems no one is ever in a position to control
or design system operations in a comprehensive way. Form emerges. It cannot
2–21

be imposed.’
 Organizations as flux and transformation
• The key beliefs are:
 order naturally emerges out of chaos;
 organizations have a natural capacity to self-renew;
 organizational life is not governed by the rules of cause and effect;
 key tensions are important in the emergence of new ways of doing things;
 the formal organizational structure (teams, hierarchies) only represents one of
many dimensions of organizational life.
• This leads to the following assumptions about organizational
change:
 Change cannot be managed. It emerges.
 Managers are not outside the systems they manage. They are part of the whole
environment.
 Tensions and conflicts are an important feature of emerging change.
 Managers act as enablers. They enable people to exchange views and focus on
significant differences. 2–22
 Organizations as flux and transformation
• What are the limitations of this metaphor?
 This metaphor is disturbing for both managers and consultants.
 It does not lead to an action plan, or a process flow diagram, or an
agenda to follow.
 Other metaphors of change appear to allow you to predict the process
of change before it happens (although we believe that this is illusory!).
 With the flux and transformation metaphor, order emerges as you go
along, and can only be made sense of during or after the event.
 This can lead to a sense of powerlessness that is disconcerting, but
probably realistic!

2–23