Radical Change
Change is the ONLY Constant
Can Radical Change from a state of organizational malaise and indifference to the pursuit of excellence be achieved using one of the four Sociological Paradigms in Organizational Analysis as outlined by Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan?
Based upon the following case study, I believe that one of the paradigms would suffice. Below is the case study facts, an application of the sociological paradigms to those facts and then my assessment of which paradigms are currently being used to address the research question. Let’s begin!
Case Study Facts
- There are two people – an Individualist and a Collaborator.
- In 1995, the Individualist and Collaborator started a non-profit organization.
- This organization employed family, friends and associates.
- Between 1995 and 2001, the organization experienced significant growth.
- In 2001, the Collaborator is forced to leave the organization as a result of created internal strife by the Individualist. Internal strife included the participants from above.
- Between 2002 and 2007, there is another period of growth; however, this time there is system, policy and culture failures and indifferences. The newly developed and prominent culture was one of personal gratification, elitist personas, selective reporting, non-accountability and mission amnesia.
- During the same period in Number 6, the Collaborator pursued other public service endeavors through government, the profit sector and non-profit organizations.
- In late 2007, after a four-year organization inquiry and review, the Individualist is removed and replaced by the Collaborator.
- As a Change Agent, the Collaborator has been focused on the rebranding of the organization, both internally and externally.
- Through a value of Togetherness, the Collaborator believes in “radical change.”
Sometimes its that Simple...."a NICE word."
Sociological Paradigm Application
Functionalism Paradigm (objective-regulation)
This has been the primary paradigm for organizational study. It assumes rational human action and believes one can understand organizational behavior through speculation and assumption. Based on the facts, under this paradigm rational human behavior would dictate that an organization with a distinct mission, vision and values would have harmonious work environment. The environment would have leaders and followers of fulfilling service to the general public. Notwithstanding, here the question would become who determines rational human behavior. What is the standard? Who set the standard? The appropriate response would be the leaders – Individualist and Collaborator. As the facts states there was strife amongst leadership and rationally it trickled downward.
Interpretivism Paradigm (subjective-regulation)
This paradigm seeks to explain the stability of behavior from the individual’s viewpoint. To better understand individual behavior, people would observe the subset for a period of time. In some situations, an ongoing process allows an intricate review of details, circumstances and situations that are not available from a snapshot in time. From the Individualist’s viewpoint, it could be explained that there was a “Founder’s Syndrome” mentality. The Founder’s Syndrome has been considered a belief that I started this (whatever this is), I am allowed to operate with antonym and there should be any questions. During the period of 2002 through 2007, this viewpoint would explain the stability of the Individualist behavior. I am of the opinion that an explanation or clarification of someone’s behavior (in this case the Individualist) does not make it correct or appropriate. Even through an ongoing process review, this was a period of cultural definition – a culture of selfishness.
Radical Humanism Paradigm (subjective-radical change)
Theorists in this paradigm are mainly concerned with releasing social constraints that limit human potential. They see this paradigm has largely anti-organizational through the separation of people from their true selves. Here, I read this paradigm as organizational restructuring. For example, job descriptions, organization charts and daily responsibilities change. People are no longer stable or comfortable doing the same function and are placed within tasks that reflect abilities. This includes a manager taking on some director level responsibilities. They use this paradigm to justify desire for revolutionary change. The book mentions that this change is instant and unexpected which if for the organization only and not the individuals.
Radical Structuralism Paradigm (objective-radical change)
Based on this paradigm, the inherent structural conflicts within society generate constant change through political and economic crises. As we are fully aware thoughts of political and economic crises are nothing but a “power and money” discussion. The Collaborator would be uncomfortable operating within this paradigm but the Individualist would thrive. The facts dictate that here alliances are required. So I could imagine that there would be promotions with salary adjustments. This satisfies the “power and money” desire. For example, a fiscal director is not the Chief Financial Officer; a secretary is not an Administrative Assistant or a program director is an Executive level staff. There is an argument that alliances are or can be necessary during an organization’s development; but our facts reveal the Individualist possibly used this paradigm.
Conclusion
The facts are limited however the scenario is not unheard or different than what has happen in society. Organizations throughout the profit and non-profit sectors there are countless instances where Executives’ perspectives are altered for reasons that are unknown. These Executive-tipping points leads one to believe that after tenure of service or individual oversight that Executives must be removed from that leadership posture. And as we saw the Individualist was replaced.
Naturally, I would navigate to the “Radical Humanism Paradigm.” When I accepted my current position, I believed that change was a process with a calm, beautiful and participatory involvement. To date, I no longer believe that it works for organizational life. There are times when change has to happen, time is not of the essence nor will everyone be involved. I believe that is what the radical humanism process is the way to go. Let’s be radical and make change happen. Let’s not wait for everyone to get on board and like change. I think that the subjective-radical change is the next wave. The subjectively any change has to be to the benefit of organization progression – the furtherance of the mission, vision and values.
I believe that the Collaborator will be successful. My recommendation to the Collaborator is be a Radical Change Agent.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Burrell, Gibson and Gareth Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, (Ashgate, 1979).
[...] is a convoluted responsibility with demands, limitations and responsibility. Notwithstanding, leadership requires a great commitment to the internal success of the organization. As the facilitator of [...]
[...] think that what Suzanne describes is very typical of radical movements, that when you’re a part of a movement like that, you are incredibly critical of the world and [...]