Author: Justine Chinoperekweyi
Despite the limitations of n-step (Collins, 1998), goal-directed models of change, the management penchant for these types of tools continue unsated. These change management tools are seductively simple and the labels attached (transforming, power tools, and magic) imply that success is guaranteed if they are followed to the letter. Academicians, theorists, practitioners, and managers agree that n-step models ensure that the change process is controlled “from the top” It is widely believed that management texts and business magazine case studies tend to perpetuate and legitimize rational, leader-centered models of organizational change. It seems that despite the non-holistic nature of the technical-rational approach it still dominates the global marketplace, primarily because of the logical framework that underlies a rational approach. This article predicates that there is a significant mismatch or disconnect between literature and practice regarding change management philosophies.
The contemporary business environment calls for integrative approaches to organizational change management; yet the methods being adopted to achieve change remain by-and-large embedded in rational, analytical orthodoxy about change and change leadership. The rational orthodoxy approach is mainly criticized on the basis of its inability to understand and cope with the centrality of paradox in organizations. Organizational centrality of paradox elaborates Chaos Theory and Complexity of Change as it encompasses the “simultaneous existence of two inconsistent states” (Eisenhardt, 2000) within an organization. It is therefore essential to put on paradoxical lens in order to understand tensions and reactions from different standpoints. According to Lewin & Volberda (1999) successful change requires combining and recombining multiple theoretical lenses to improve the integration of theories and avoid increasing fragmentation.
To read full article: https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P4-2399870916/exploring-philosophical-proclivity-of-change-management