The seven communication reasons organizations do not changeAbstract Purpose -Management attempts to transform organizations seldom succeed. This paper aims to describe seven common communication behaviors accompanying those failures. Design/methodology/approach -This paper integrates material from three recent communication and organizational change studies, recent change theory, and complexity theory to model communication and change processes. All the studies employed traditional ethnographic methods, but one study employed quantitative methods as well as part of a mixed methods design. Findings -Data describe six common communication behaviors during failed organizational change efforts. The combination of these behaviors suggests a seventh pattern. Communication during failed efforts seldom involves enough communication opportunities, lacks any sense of emerging identification, engenders distrust, and lacks productive humor. These problems are compounded by conflict avoidance and a lack of interpersonal communication skills. Members decouple the system, sheltering the existing culture until it is safe for it to reemerge later.Research limitations/implications -The integration of data from three studies with theory improves transferability, but more studies would improve the veracity of the results. Only one study employed quantitative data along with qualitative data. Organizational change research may need to employ mixed methods and augment results through simulations to understand time-dependent processes. Practical implications -Results point to the limitations of management and impersonal communication. Change is a messy business, and transformational change will not happen unless management is willing to tolerate the ambiguity and the sense that emerges in communication. Results also point to the importance of communication skills in hiring practices. Originality/value -Few essays integrate results from several studies. This paper challenges accepted management practices and extends the growing understanding of the limits of individuals to control social change; it also adds to the literature on and application of complexity theory.
F redrick Taylor's relentless search for the one best way relied on quantification for an assessment of organizational life (Kanigel, 1997). He demonstrated that management could be strategic and that assessment became a central feature of being strategic. However, methods of assessment, organizational theory, and the very nature of organizations have changed since Taylor's time.This essay begins by describing three types of communication assessment. I will argue that these traditional approaches are inappropriate for assessing organizational change. The theoretical and paradigmatic assumptions behind these approaches contain preferences for stability over change, and so assessment may fail to capture the dynamic nature of contemporary organizations. Complexity theory, on the other hand, explicitly focuses on evolutionary processes, so it may be a more appropriate foundation for contemporary organizational communication assessment. This essay concludes by suggesting how knowledge of complexity theory would improve assessment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.