Cameron, K. (2006). Good or not bad: Standards and ethics in managing change. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5, 317-323.

The central thesis of this article is that in such a rapidly changing environment, the best way to manage change is not only through the use of ethical guidelines, but also virtuousness. To manage change in a turbulent environment, there needs to be a fixed reference point from which to make decisions. The great majority of research and practice bases those decisions on some kind of ethical guidelines or laws. Those guidelines or laws generally focus on avoiding harm. However, specifying ways to prevent an undesirable outcome is subject to change as conditions change. Therefore, ethical standards should be supplemented with a virtuousness standard. Virtuousness, as used in the context of this article, refers to what individuals aspire to be when they are at their very best. These aspirations are presumed to be universal and unchanging in most societies, cultures, and religions (e.g. love, courage, integrity, kindness, compassion, fairness, wisdom, curiosity, forgiveness, gratitude, trust, and hope). Although virtuousness should stem from internal motivation, studies have shown that in conditions of high-velocity, turbulent, and complex environments, virtuous firms are more successful than their less virtuous counterparts. There are two possible reasons for the success associated with virtuous firms—the amplification effect, and the buffering effect. The amplification effect suggests that virtuousness is contagious, and the buffering effect suggests that being virtuous protects organizations at both the individual and organizational level from harm.

Cameron does agree with Lowman (1991) that ethical standards are in fact necessary; but that they need to be supplemented with virtuousness standards. The case studies from the Lowman book all refer to ethical guidelines that explicitly state “avoidance” in their names. Cameron’s argument makes me think of 1. goal orientations and 2. organizational citizenship behaviors, where ethical standards seem to be based on performance avoidance goal orientation, while the virtuousness standards seem closer to mastery orientation.

While I appreciate Cameron’s perspective on the changing environment being difficult to manage, I am not sold on the need for a new set of standards. Would those standards be written, or explicitly stated? Who would decide what they are and how they are written? How would those be implemented into practice? Virtuousness sounds like a great idea, but the practical adaptation of it may be more complex than anyone could predict.

Another point of contention I have, is that while much of the APA’s ethics code is in fact phrased in avoidance terms, I’m not sure that they would become obsolete, or even difficult to use as fixed points from which to gauge decisions. Additionally, the General Principles, which precede the Ethical Standards, are all phrased in positive terms: beneficence; fidelity and responsibility; integrity; justice; and respect. Some of the other standards used by SHRM, AoM, and the OD Network, (Lowman, 1991) also have positive language that aren’t simply avoiding harmful results. I wonder if Cameron would view the positively worded standards as examples of virtuousness.

Week 12. Career Paths Of The ODP: Internal Consultant

Schippmann, J., & Newson, D. (2008). The role of the internal consultant: How internal consultants can promote successful change. In J. W. Hedge & W. C. Borman (Eds.), The I/O consultant: Advice and insights for building a successful career (pp. 45-51). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

I chose this particular article to present because it gave very clear and concise steps to take when internal consultants are trying to implement a change within an organization. The steps sound eerily familiar, don’t they (see below)? Much of the article had concepts and ideas that we’ve had in our readings and/or discussed in class, but this article specifies how to incorporate those ideas into organizations as internal consultants.

This article specifically addresses suggestions that are specifically relevant for internal consultants, even though external could also benefit. One of the biggest differences between internal and external consultants, as suggested by this article, is that external consultants can usually wash their hands clean of an intervention when their gig is up. Internal consultants, on the other hand, may have to deal with the consequences and reactions to the change for years. Another obvious difference is that internal consultants are embedded within the organization that they are trying to implement a change. So while those consultants have the emotional trust from stakeholders, they may also have to deal with the baggage of previous change efforts.

Within this context, Schippman and Newson provide some steps to follow. The steps, and the questions they answer, are as follows:

1. 1. Establish Value and Urgency: What is the mandate for change? What happens if we do nothing? Our readings mentioned that this is one step that leaders within an organization need to address. Internal consultants are generally going to be one of the team members leading a change, so it makes sense that internal consultants follow most of the leadership roles suggested by Burke. Internal consultants also need to first establish the value of change and the urgency to the rest of the leadership team.

2. 2. Build the Coalition: Who needs to be involved? To what extent do they need to be involved? What role will they play? I am sure the authors of this article would agree that mavens, salespeople, and connectors would be useful to have as part of the “coalition.”

3. 3. Refine the Vision and Strategy: What needs to change? What doesn’t need to change? How will things work (and be better) after the intervention? Again, as part of the leadership team in an organization leading change, the internal consultant needs to help the leaders of the organization in the pre-launch phase have clarity about the vision and strategy.

4. 4. Communicate for Buy-in: What messages need to be crafted for which populations? What is the frequency and medium for delivery? I think it’s pretty clear that communication is a huge issue; however, it is somehow hugely ignored. Both Burke and Tragash address proper communication as a critical factor in successful change efforts.

5. 5. Create Short-term Wins: What low-hanging fruit can be picked early and fed into the communication machine to build momentum? This particular step is not one that we’ve discussed in class. The authors suggest that the consultant identify low-effort, high-value victories associated with the change initiative, that can be later communicated back to organization members. It seems a little manipulative…but I guess that’s exactly what OD consultants are trying to be!

6. 6. Assimilate the Change: How is the change integrated into the culture and existing systems? How is this integration tracked and evaluated over time? Sustaining the change effort is unique to internal consultants (versus external consultants). Internal consultants must work with leaders to ensure that appropriate change is implemented even after an initial appearance of success.

]]> http://odrp.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/outside-article-3/feed/ 0 odrp http://odrp.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/outside-article-2/ http://odrp.wordpress.com/2008/11/10/outside-article-2/#comments Mon, 10 Nov 2008 01:50:28 +0000 odrp http://odrp.wordpress.com/?p=29 ]]> Week 11. Career Paths Of The ODP:  External Consultant

Ginsberg, A.  (1986). Do external consultants influence strategic adaptation? An empirical investigation.  Consultation, 5, 93-102.

Although consultants have been assumed to be critical in facilitating organizational solutions or bringing about effective change, there had not been any “empirical evidence, other than anecdotal, that external consultants exert any significant influence on strategic adaptation” (p. 94). Thus, the purpose of this paper was to answer two overarching research questions. The first question was whether external consultants influence the relationship between changes in environmental attributes and change in strategic orientation; and, the second question addressed whether the influence of external consultants is associated with the magnitude of change in strategic change orientation. Ginsberg found the correlations between three different measures of changes in environmental attributes (dynamism, heterogeneity, and hostility) and change in strategic orientation were significantly higher when the influence of consultants was high, versus when influence was low; and, that the correlations were non-significant when consultant influence was low. Ginsberg also found that as the magnitude of change increased, so did the influence of the external consultant. These results suggest that external consultants can galvanize top managers to recognize the opportunities for undertaking major strategic changes when there is “misfit” between an organization and its environment. Additionally, external consultants may be able to legitimize change when radical strategic changes have a low likelihood of being supported by other organizational participants.

The study did not make distinctions between revolutionary/discontinuous vs. evolutionary/continuous change—only in the magnitude of strategic change. However, I think it may be reasonable to extrapolate that external consultants may be more critical in times of revolutionary/discontinuous change. A follow-up study examining external consultant influence in the following types of change would be interesting: revolutionary vs. evolutionary; discontinuous vs. continuous, episodic vs. continuous; transformational vs. transactional; strategic vs. operational; and total system vs. local option.

The article also mentioned that there are both cognitive and political perspectives about the role of consultants in facilitating change. From the cognitive perspective, external consultants act as catalysts to change by promoting a change that is obviously necessary, or by stimulating change that was not unforeseen. Additionally, they bring in fresh new perspective that challenges existing notions or frames of references, thus allowing the firm’s managers to focus on the “antiquated or unfashionable nature of past strategies, and the innovativeness and fashionability of the new strategies.” From the political perspective, strategic changes can lead to major conflicts among organizational members because they often involve serious alterations in patterns of resource allocation, dependency, and power. If top managers lack the political muscle to force through a major strategic change, external consultants could help tip the balance of power in their direction, by providing confirmation of, or legitimizing an existing point of view, enhancing the credibility of the management that hires them.  Based on this political perspective, it seems as if external consultants may be more crucial if an organization does not have a transformational leader as perceived by organizational members.

Enns, H. G, & Martin, D. B. (2005). When executives successfully influence peers: The role of target assessment, preparation, and tactics. Human Resource Management, 44, 257-278.

The purpose of this article was to understand the process by which executives gain the support of their peers for new initiatives. While other research focuses on the consequences of influence tactic use, Enns and Martin (2005) consider factors that may impact which influence tactics are used. Behavioral complexity theories—which suggest that successful leaders first assess the target of influence, and then make decisions about how to approach the target—was used to formulate research questions and interpret results. The authors found a relationship between the factors assessed by leaders and the specific influence tactics employed (or not) to influence peers, as well as a relationship between the factors assessed and the kind of preparation undertaken (or not).

This article was chosen in response to the end of Burke’s Chapter 14, where he calls for more research on leadership stemming from behavioral complexity theories of leadership. The article also references the perspective of the “follower,” as perceived by the leader. As we have seen in the last few chapters and discussions in class, good leadership is crucial during times of organizational development (which, incidentally, should always be going on…so leadership is important at all times!) The Enns and Martin article addresses the pre-launch phase, where executives are soliciting lateral support from peers. In line with the behavioral complexity theory, good leaders use their social intelligence to effectively diagnose the target of their influence. Although this is not directly follower research, the executives’ perceptions of their targets’ goals, career aspirations, work demands, stylistic preferences, and functional roles is taken into account during diagnosis.

Some of the specific factors in the assessment/diagnosis step are versions of topics we have covered in class, such as resistance from the target. Burke does mention resistance at the individual level, but his ways of coping don’t address how a leader could respond to that resistance. Motivation was also covered in class, with Rousseau’s article, which discussed particularistic and universalistic rewards. According to behavioral complexity theory, knowledge of follower motivation would help executives better influence their targets. Specifically, the results suggested that executives would be less likely to employ an influence tactic that promotes collaboration, and be less likely to prepare an agenda.

The whole idea of behavioral complexity theories seems like there is a relation to transformational leadership. The social and emotional intelligence that is promoted through behavioral complexity theories fits well with the emotions and values which are emphasized in transformational leadership. It could be that transformational leaders have the social and emotional intelligence to be more influential, because they can assess their targets better; and not only do transformational leaders possess the skills to implement influence tactics, they also know which is the most appropriate tactic for each target in each situation.

1.  The Paradox of Success:  Before this class, I hadn’t really thought about how success could have its disadvantages, but that definitely makes sense.  I can see the relation to one of the first couple of chapters, where Burke discusses the value of “best practices” types of publications from companies.  Not only are they specific to the company in which they were successful, but they might not even be the best for that particular company anymore!  Unless of course, those best practices value change/adaptation/flux. (Is that something Lawler would say?)

2.  In the “Process:  How to Change–Practice Frameworks” section, none of the processes mentioned any kind of needs assessment or evaluation steps.  Maybe the segments weren’t long enough to include those steps, or maybe Burke assumed those were too obvious to include?