Reflections: How Studying Organizational Change Lost Its Way

IF 3 Q2 MANAGEMENT JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT Pub Date : 2022-01-02 DOI:10.1080/14697017.2022.2030980
Mark Hughes
{"title":"Reflections: How Studying Organizational Change Lost Its Way","authors":"Mark Hughes","doi":"10.1080/14697017.2022.2030980","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The assumption that organizational change tends to fail continues to stand unchallenged. This is an unsatisfactory situation that impedes not only the evaluation of such change but also studying its management and leadership. The enduring prevalence of this flawed assumption illustrates a failure of scholarship rather than practice. Although failure claims appeared plausible implying objective research and critical scholarship at work, the supporting evidence always eluded the proponents. This paper turns its focus to explain how and why change and transformation have been and continue to be depicted as failing. Seven hopes for future organizational change studies are identified and discussed. These include undertaking further historiographies and moving away from change either tending to succeed or to fail dualisms, towards embracing dualities. As well as, greater acknowledgement of the contextual, processual and dynamic nature of evaluating organizational change. Organizational change lost its way in not appreciating that it was managing change which was depicted as failing. Constructing the authority of change leaders; initially, required the authority of change managers to be corroded. The attribution of failure to managers and success to leaders is currently missing from change agency and change evaluation debates.","PeriodicalId":47003,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT","volume":"22 1","pages":"8 - 25"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2022.2030980","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

ABSTRACT The assumption that organizational change tends to fail continues to stand unchallenged. This is an unsatisfactory situation that impedes not only the evaluation of such change but also studying its management and leadership. The enduring prevalence of this flawed assumption illustrates a failure of scholarship rather than practice. Although failure claims appeared plausible implying objective research and critical scholarship at work, the supporting evidence always eluded the proponents. This paper turns its focus to explain how and why change and transformation have been and continue to be depicted as failing. Seven hopes for future organizational change studies are identified and discussed. These include undertaking further historiographies and moving away from change either tending to succeed or to fail dualisms, towards embracing dualities. As well as, greater acknowledgement of the contextual, processual and dynamic nature of evaluating organizational change. Organizational change lost its way in not appreciating that it was managing change which was depicted as failing. Constructing the authority of change leaders; initially, required the authority of change managers to be corroded. The attribution of failure to managers and success to leaders is currently missing from change agency and change evaluation debates.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
反思:组织变革研究如何迷失方向
组织变革倾向于失败的假设仍然没有受到挑战。这是一种令人不满意的情况,不仅阻碍了对这种变化的评价,而且阻碍了对其管理和领导的研究。这种有缺陷的假设的持续流行说明了学术的失败而不是实践的失败。虽然失败的说法似乎是合理的,这意味着客观的研究和批判性的学术研究在起作用,但支持的证据总是避开支持者。本文的重点是解释变化和转型是如何以及为什么一直被描述为失败的。确定并讨论了未来组织变革研究的七个希望。这些包括进一步的历史编纂,远离趋向于成功或失败的二元论的变化,走向拥抱二元论。同时,更多地认识到评价组织变革的背景、过程和动态性质。组织变革迷失了方向,因为它没有意识到管理变革被描述为失败。构建变革领导者的权威;最初,要求变更经理的权威被削弱。在变革机构和变革评估的辩论中,失败归到管理者,成功归到领导者的观点目前是缺失的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: Journal of Change Management is a multidisciplinary and international forum for critical, mainstream and alternative contributions - focusing as much on psychology, ethics, culture and behaviour as on structure and process. JCM is a platform for open and challenging dialogue and a thorough critique of established as well as alternative practices. JCM is aiming to provide all authors with a first decision within six weeks of submission.
期刊最新文献
Navigating Tensions in the Organizational Change Process towards Hybrid Workspace It’s Not All About the Self: Exploring the Interplay Between Self-leadership and the Social Work Environment ‘Changing the Course of a Super Tanker’: A Study of Senior and Junior Managers’ Enactments of a Transition Narrative What Makes Us See Someone as a Leader? A Field Theory Approach The Fair Share – Multilevel Distributive Justice as Cross-Level Moderator for the Impact of Restructuring Perceptions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1