Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
in organisations depends on factors apart from technological ones (Johnson, 1996).
Therefore, an alternative and distinctive organisational change model is proposed here.
Like living systems, organisations experience gradual, incremental types of change as
reflected in their growth, maturity, and decline (Miller, 1978). In addition, they experi-
ence an oscillatory type of change due to the operation of feedback mechanisms that
work to achieve a steady state or homeostasis (Bertalanffy, 1973; Kramer and De Smith,
1977; Skyttner, 2001). However, if the environmental changes are so great that they are
beyond the limits within which the homeostatic mechanisms can cope, the organisation
as a system has to transform itself into another form that is more suitable to the new
environment. Thus a pattern-breaking type of change can be expected (Leifer, 1989).
This kind of change does not occur regularly, although evidence reveals that it now
occurs more frequently since the progress in telecommunication and transportation
technology acts as a catalyst in fostering the rapid evolution of economic, social and
political environments (Rosenberg, 1986; Zuboff, 1988; Ohmae, 1991). These developments
are making the world smaller in terms of space and time, and the effects of change in
one part of the world can be felt rapidly in the others.
Changes in an organisation consist of two distinctive kinds, namely 'convergence' which
is typified by an incremental, gradual and adaptive type of change, and 'reorientation'
which is characterised by a disruptive, discontinuous and transformational type of
change (Tushman and Romaneli, 1985, 1994; Tushman and O'Reilly III, 2002). We propose
that neither of these models of types of change is, alone, either adequate to explain
changes in complex organisations, or can completely explain the phenomena that occur
in the change process. Our belief is that the traditional open systems model, which focuses
on incremental change, and the dissipative systems model, which focuses on disruptive
change, should be applied together as a unified model in order to account for all types
of organisational change.
Closed systems and organisational theories
Before an extensive analysis of theories of open systems is conducted, it is useful to
briefly consider some attributes of closed systems. In physics, a closed system is one
where there is no exchange of matter between the system and its environment (Cengel
and Boles, 2002). However, Kramer and De Smith (1977) define a closed system as a
system that has no interaction at all with its environment. But they explain further that
a system can be deliberately considered as a closed one by researchers if the relations
that exist between the system and its environment are disregarded for the sake of sim-
plicity in their analysis. For example, a production or assembly line, which is built on
the theory of scientific management and operations research, can be treated as a closed
system if it is insulated from fluctuations in demand and supply (environmental contin-
gencies) through the stockpiling of raw materials and finished-goods to keep it in a rel-
atively static environment.
Even though it is impossible to treat a work organisation as a completely closed system,
in the past several organisational theories have assumed this view (Robbins, 1990; Scott,
1998). Between 1900 and 1930, the most dominant theories, which were based on closed-
rational system models, were Taylor's scientific management approach, Weber's model
of bureaucracy, and Fayol's administrative theory. From the 1930s through the 1950s,
the most influential theories were based on a new perspective of closed-natural system
models, such as Barnard's theory of cooperative systems and Mayo's human relations
model. It is reasonable to say that the ideas of scientific management and bureaucracy
are rooted in engineering where the system designer believes that, through proper design
Search WWH ::
Custom Search