Four Organizational Perspectives And Implementation Of Planned Organizational Change

FOUR ORGANIZATIONAL PERSPECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANNED CHANGE IN THE PAKISTANI PUBLIC SECTOR

BY

GHULAM MUSTAFA HEC SCHOLAR UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN NORWAY

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 2.0 RATIONAL APPROACH........................................................................................3 3.0 EXPLOITATIVE APPROACH...............................................................................7 4.0 POLITICAL APPROACH……...............................................................................10 5.0 SYMBOLIC APPROACH. .................................................................................... 14 6.0 DISCUSSION...………………… ............................................................................ 16 7.0 CONCLUSION……………………......................................................................... 18 8.0 REFERENCES.....….................................................................................................18

2

1.0 Introduction Theories play a vital role in all kinds of research. They guide research, help the researcher to comprehend and analyze phenomena, and provide a foundation for prediction (Schensul, & LeCompte, 1999). In their most basic sense, they determine which actions and events the researcher will focus on. From a qualitative research point of view, Humphrey and Scapens (1996) define a theory as a “means of interpreting or making sense of a complex and uncertain social world. When conducting a study the researcher has the liberty of either drawing on preordained theories, developing a theoretical framework using a variety of theoretical perspectives or building a new theory during the study based on the analysis of data collected. Layder (1998) notes that most research contains elements of theory testing and theory construction. Some scholars argue that preordained theories can be more robust because they have already been tested on prior occasions. Notwithstanding, there are limitations to using such an approach. For instance, preordained theories or propositions may bias or limit the findings. Glaser and Strauss (1967) state,” Some theories of our predecessors, because of their lack of grounding in data, do not fit, or do not work, or are not sufficiently understandable to be used and are therefore useless in research, theoretical advance and practical application.” A second way is to use the grounded theory approach, which relies on constant comparison and analysis of data to build complex theories that closely resemble the data. Similar to using the preordained theory approach, this approach requires the researcher to test and retest theoretical concepts and hypotheses to ensure a coherent representative model is developed. One of the acknowledged advantages of this approach is that the theories developed can capture the particular conditions surrounding the phenomenon of study (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). The method has been criticized on several levels. First, some scholars argue that the researcher cannot enter the field without some kind of theory, which suggests that there is not a theory that is capable of being built up from data alone, and that all theories are developed based on pre-existing theories (Boston, 2000). Second, the approach has come under criticism because few researchers understand how to develop coherent frameworks from their data. As a result, incoherent

3

frameworks are developed that are not easily understood by other academics and are thus limited in their explanatory power (Layder, 1994). One way to overcome the limitations from adopting a preordained theory or a grounded theory approach is to bring multiple theories into the study. This approach, the theory triangulation approach, is built on the notion that the use of a single theory or perspective produces a restricted view of organizational reality. Layder (1998) argues that through the use of several theories one can build a framework in the course of the study drawing on the relevant ideological assumptions of each of the theories, and any additional evidence noted in the study. This allows the researcher to build and modify existing theories using data generated in their study so that the resulting explanation more closely resembles the data. The organizational change is a complex process and it entails alteration of values, beliefs, and rituals (Schein, 1987). Some researchers suggest using several models or categories, as each sheds light on different aspects of organizational life (Poole, 2004). The advantage to multiple models is that they combine the insights of various approaches. Theory triangulation will, therefore, offer significant benefits over its counterparts in the study of implementation of planned organizational change in the public sector organizations. Four organizational approaches outlined by Thomas (2003) illustrate how assumptions from rational, exploitative, political and symbolic models can be combined to understand the complex phenomenon of implementation of change in public organizations. The author uses a four-frame model (rational, exploitative, political and symbolic), indicating that the same situation can be viewed in at least four different ways. Each of these frames is peculiar, lucid, and powerful, yet when taken together, they help capture a comprehensive picture of an organization’s situation. These four management perspectives are believed to offer greater explanatory power than applying a single preordained theory or building a new theory directly from data analysis. These frames can be used to spot the impact of intra-organizational factors and dynamics in implementation of public sector change in Pakistan and the role of public mangers therein.

4

2.0 Rational Approach The rational approach views management as the rational administration of unitary organizations. This view depicts organizations as social technologies systematically designed in order to attain specific goals. The manger acts as an applied scientist or as a technician whose principal task is to take rational steps, in the light of established knowledge, to achieve efficiency and effectiveness (Thomas, 2003). This frame views outcomes or decisions as the planned and calculated choices that will maximize some function. Classical rational model of decision-making assumes that managers as decision-makers know all the alternatives for dealing with a problem, that they know the utilities and values of all alternatives, and that they have an ordered preference among all alternatives. The goals, values and objectives of the mangers decision-making classified and ranked according to their importance. The various alternatives for dealing with a particular problem along with the consequences that follow from the selection of each alternative are investigated. Finally, the manager chooses an alternative for maximizing organizational goals, values and objectives. The limitation of goal-rational analysis has long been evident in management thought. The most famous correction of the economists’ rational actor is undoubtedly that of Simon (1976). He focuses on the limits of human capabilities, both with regard to the individual’s ability to rationalize, as well as the (personal, social, or organizational) costs of following a rational strategy. This results in his concept of “bounded rationality”; people do not strive for a maximum result, rather, they are satisfied with a sub-optimal situation because of the costs of meeting their aspirations and abilities. Despite Simon’s rejection of the unrealistic assumptions of the economists’ rational actor, he retains the basic criterion of goal-rationality (Rutgers, 1999). Thus, bounded rationality fails to recognize that many rational choice situations are indeterminate and that rational choice can result in irrationality. Simon could not completely divorce himself from the scientific paradigm, however, for recognizing that ‘rational’ man was a myth he nevertheless measured man’s performance according to rational criteria. The hypothesis of the bounded rationality is that human rationality cannot map all environmental variables, create all the deriving alternatives, scan them, and then select

5

the optimal option. In other words, if we are not able to maximize, we can only make an approximation to the optimal option. Therefore, individuals with bounded rationality reach satisfying results, i.e. they can only approximate the optimal result that is not antagonistic to the concept of rational choice. Here the role of search mechanisms is crucial. Individual decision-making is based on seeking alternatives, and selecting them on the basis of a definite set of values. The metaphor Simon uses in order to explain this kind of searching is the decision tree, where each alternative is expressed by a payoff. In principle this mode of decision making is in accordance with the essence of the traditional rational model and no way is a deviation from the tenets of the approach. Simon places great emphasis on the distinction between substantive and procedural rationality. According to substantive rationality, the rational character of decision-making is concerned with the result one could get following the appropriate actions. Whereas procedural rationality points out the procedure and the process by which people make decisions. According to Simon, bounded rationality belongs to the latter category, because it does not look only at the result one could get, but at the way people make decisions (Simon, 1976). In contrast, the traditional model of rationality mixes the two aspects. The model is based on variable maximization (procedure), where we obtain the only possible appropriate behavior as a result (substantive). As mentioned, both the traditional and the bounded rationality model can be viewed as examples of procedural rationality. In addition, from this procedural perspective, differences seem to disappear. The result the so-called optimum is closely connected to the way through which it is achieved. Edwards (2001) suggests a model for policy development that identifies the steps: define problem, articulate problem, collect relevant data and information, clarify objectives and resolve key questions, develop options and proposals, undertake consultation, move towards decisions, implement and evaluate. This model consists of a series of sequential steps which guides policy development — both content of policy and process. Indeed, this model is not dissimilar to the rational decision-making model questioned by Simon (1955) and Lindblom (1959). Interestingly, rationality remains the more structuring reference point in the organizational literature on decision-making, in spite of the permanent attempts of

6

researchers to escape its influence in their description and analysis of decision processes. Laroche (1995) points out the difficulty decision researchers have in escaping from the rational view on decisions and the very strong attractiveness of ‘rationality’. Indeed, integrative models of decision-making, even when they try to account for unstructured or non rational processes tend to reproduce stages of rational decision making processes. Second, empirical studies of non-rational processes often acknowledge the presence of some form of reason (or rationality) organizing or guiding decisions (Hickson, et al 1986).

Finally, the cognitive perspective in strategy could also be interpreted as a

revitalization of a ‘rational’ perspective on decisions ((Walsh 1995). The role of social factors and the political perspective on decision-making (e.g., Allison 1971) indeed tends to over-focus research on social factors to the detriment of the technical organizational sphere. Although some previous research, such as Feldman and March (1981) have studied the formal analysis in organizations and highlighted the different roles they play (e.g. information, communication, control/direction and symbolic), most organizational researchers solely focused on their symbolic role and downplayed the technical functions they performed. However, technological artefacts can strongly shape decision-making processes, framing and supporting managers’ decisionmaking as they do for other organizational phenomena (Trist & Bramforth, 1951). Moreover, the contemporary technological changes create a situation where it becomes virtually possible to reconstruct extended forms of rationalities for decision-making. Rational decision theory has been progressively commodified to be incorporated into services and tools that are exchanged on consulting. Experts on decision-making, practitioners, consultants and researchers, construct rational decision-making tools. Since following the decision analysis procedure is indeed anything but a spontaneous procedure, decision analysts engaged in the development of a series of tools to help managers to decompose decision problems according to the premises of decision theory. All these tools could consequently contribute to reconstruct rational decision-making within organizations by putting mangers in a context similar to the one described theoretically by the rational choice approach. They ensure that decisions can be based on subjective judgments about the likelihoods and the desirability of the consequences (Keeney, 1982) and therefore allow the manager to choose the alternative that maximizes

7

his/her expected utility (Pratt et al. 1964). Consequently, rational decision-making cannot be conceived as evolving in a ‘normative bubble’ completely separated from organizations. Under this approach, the change process starts with the designation of clear goals and objectives, and particular attention is given to the desired output of the organization, the formal

transformation

process,

and

the

related

information

processes.

The

implementation process of planned change takes the form of a special project with a clear course of action or strategy comprising clear-cut targets, and the most appropriate alternatives (Kotter, 1995). Such a strategy serves as a roadmap for implementation of change offering direction on how to arrive at the preferred state, identifying obstacles and proposing measures for those obstacles. Change managers usually treat the change process with an information-processing rationality or an economic-technological rationality. Implementation of change is successful because decisions are made in a predictable and highly structured situation where the problem is known, not too complex, and a solution is within reach. Since the change managers choose the alternative that maximizes expected utility and seek unitary goals for organizational efficiency and effectiveness, no resistance to change initiatives is witnessed. Riggs worked on decision making in developing societies and spotted faulty structures for transmitting communications as a striking feature of such societies, which he believes lead to poor change and policy plans and ineffective implementation. Other scholars have pointed out that the difficulty of making rational calculations and choices in developing countries is because of the unreliable available information and statistical data. Certain others place emphasis on the inefficient bureaucracies and cultural ecology of developing countries which, according to them, are not conducive to rationality. Failure to implement administrative changes in many public agencies in Pakistan, in addition to the aforementioned problems, can be ascribed to ill conceived change strategy and coherent causal thinking about the linkage and the initiative to be implemented and the desired outcomes.

8

3.0 Exploitative Approach The exploitative perspective of management originates in the Marxian theory of exploitation. The Marxist theory is primarily concerned with the exploitation of an entire segment or class of society by another. This kind of exploitation is seen as being an inherent feature and key element of capitalism and free markets. In the Marxist view, the capital is in a dominant position, as a social rather than a physical economic category, to extract surplus value from labor. The workers are exploited in the sense that they lose the full value of the productive labor. The value of the wages paid to the workers is not equal to the value of the commodities they produce, so there is a surplus value that is appropriated by the capitalists. Marxists have utilized a technical definition of exploitation. This technical definition is based upon the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value states, roughly, that the exchange-value (that is, the market price) of an object is a function of the amount of labor time socially necessary to produce that object. Thus, the value of the products marketed by capitalist enterprises is created by the labor of the workers who produced them. The workers are paid a wage in exchange for their labor, but the enterprises make a profit from the sale of its products. Since the value of the product is due to the worker, the source of that profit must be the expropriation of surplus value by the capitalist. Since the worker receives less than the full value of his labor, he is exploited. Workers are literally enslaved to the machine. Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labor, the job of the worker loses all individual character, and consequently, all charm for the workman. The increasingly mechanical and boring nature of work is a state of alienation. The capitalist system is, therefore, one in which the relationship between the employers and employees is basically hostile. This because the workers labor, in essence, is always remains forced labor. Work is organized entirely according to criteria of efficiency without regard to the well being of the worker. Thomas (2003) argues that such a system generates resistance to the demands of capitalist and antagonism between employees and employers but this conflict is not always overtly expressed.

9

The exploitative view looks at organizations as an industrial army of workmen, under the command of a capitalist, requires, like a real army, officers (managers) exercise authority on behalf of the capitalist during the labor process. The work of supervision becomes their established and exclusive function. Managers, on the one hand must continually seek to develop and implement more efficient production processes that will enable the organization to survive in the competitive struggle. On the other; it must continually secure the compliance of work force that is alienated from the system (Thomas, 2003). In the capitalist system the management function is to exploit labor power to the maximum in order to secure profits for the owners of the capital. Management is not a neutral administrative function to embody the interests of all the organization’s stakeholders but a representative and exploitative one chiefly concerned with keeping the lid on a fundamentally volatile smoldering system. Mangers are thus engaged in the maintenance of power and advantage inherent to the structure of capitalist society. The contributions of Brveman (1974) played a crucial role in giving prominence to the neglected aspects of Marx’s work. The focus of Braverman is the processes allegedly leading to the degradation of work, particularly scientific management as espoused by Frederick Taylor. Scientific management, according to Braverman, is the manifestation of the logic of capitalism in the monopoly era. This theory, he argues, is nothing less than the explicit expression of the capitalist mode of production whose fundamental teachings have become the basis of all work design. Braveman (1974) argues that management under capitalism contains logic of deskilling manifested in Taylorism. This involves a two fold process of job fragmentation and the progressive separation of conception from execution in the process of production. Management exercises full control over the knowledge and design of the production process while workers perform increasingly routine, fragmented tasks without understanding the principles underlying the production process. Each step of the labor process is broken down into its simplest elements and it is the domain of the management to determine the most efficient method of performing the task and provide detailed instructions which workers would follow unquestioningly. Braveman views control over labor as the fundamental problem of management in a capitalist system. With regard to labor processes control is sought by many means,

10

initially by subjecting the employees to close supervision and by prescribing detailed rules and regulations. The control mechanism is further intensified by separating planning and execution. Management as the sole incumbent of planning conceives and plans, and workforce with craft skills, execute the conception.

This allows management to

supervise and control the labor force in a systematic manner. Richard Edwards (1979) and Friedman (1977), two exponents of the Marxist perspective have further enriched the concept of management control enunciated by Braveman. Friedman (1977) agrees that employees can be subject to forms of direct control such as Taylorism, but argues that there may be limitations to direct control that ca be partially counteracted by introducing policies of responsible autonomy for sections of the workforce. This is not simply a facade to cover Taylorist practices, which was Braverman’s view of job re-design approaches, but rather attempts to harness the adaptability of labor power by giving workers leeway and encouraging them to adapt to changing situations in a manner beneficial to the firm. Richard Edwards (1979) posits secular trend in control strategies from the "simple control" characteristic of small workplaces to "technical control" in which management seeks to use the control capabilities of machinery and technological innovations such as assembly lines, to the "bureaucratic control" found in the long career ladders and elaborate rule books. In this perspective, the management excludes human resource component with emphasis on close supervision and monitoring of the employee performance. There is a clear demarcation between conception and execution i.e. management possesses scientific, technical and generalist management skills and employees are deliberately confined to some craft skills. Managers in alliance with the owners/shareholders reap the benefits of the capital and employees are dispossessed of economics incentives. Decision making is based on the exclusion of work force and the one-sided realization of interests of management and shareholders. When individuals or groups in the organization realize that their interests are not being served by those who are in control, a sense of antagonism is created for the organizational change initiatives. Actions taken to challenge the domination or to question the proposals of management to change the organization are seen as resistance (Hardy & Clegg, 1996). Implementation of change under such a design approach fails or experience difficulties with the realization of goals (Boonstra & Vink,

11

1996). These problems partly arise because employees who are at the centre of any implementation process are highly de-motivated and fail to develop organizational citizenship. The relationship between superior and subordinates in the Pakistani bureaucracy is a close reflection of assumptions of the labor process theory. Management keeps distance with employees and subjects them to close supervision through different structural tools. There is a big gap between the remunerations of the officers and the lower rank employees. Only officials of middle management level and above are supposed to enjoy government perks and privileges. Civil servants in the officer cadre are always concerned about the pleasure of the bosses and pay no heed to the interests of the sub-ordinate employees. Employees of non managerial cadre are totally deskilled and they are restricted to execute the orders of their superiors like mechanical tools. All skill and capacity building trainings are officer specific. Government employees in non-managerial ranks have been excluded from all sorts of government funded trainings like national strategic training, national executive training, national management training and professional development program. A culture like this testifies the Braveman’s assumption of employee deskilling and clear distinction between conception and execution. Planned change programs are therefore unlikely to get success because a culture of high power distance, lack of human element and absence of economic equity denies equal roles for superiors and subordinates in setting and achieving the organizational goals. This leads to an inequitable work environment and spreads an impression among the employees that the change process is solely based on sectional ends of the managers and policy makers, and they are merely exploited as mechanical tools.

4.0 Political Approach Under political frame, organizations appear as arenas, contests, or jungles. Different interest groups compete for scarce resources and power, producing conflict among individuals and groups. Bargaining, negotiation, coercion, and compromise are part of everyday political life in traditional organizations (Thomas, 2003).

12

One major implication of the idea of bounded rationality is the acknowledgement of different individual preferences for goals and means within organizations. This suggests that in the decision-making process, factors related to power, influence and politics also play a role. March (1962, in Buchanan & Huczynski, 2004) viewed corporations as political coalitions and criticized rational models for failing to take into account individual agendas and preferences within organizations. More recent political models of organizations have questioned the assumptions of organizational rationality and addressed the more or less formal process of negotiation between individuals or departments over the goals to pursue and the appropriate means for pursuing them (Hatch, 1997). The influence processes enacted to defend these multiple interests have been labeled as “organizational politics”. Pfeffer (1981) defined organizational politics as “activities taken within the organizations to acquire, develop, and use power and other resources to obtain one’s preferred outcomes in a situation where there is uncertainty or dissensus about choices.” Explaining the relationship between power and politics, Pfeffer (1992) defined power as “the ability to influence behavior, to change the course of events, to overcome resistance, and to get people to do things that they would not otherwise do”, whilst politics are “the processes, the actions, the behaviors through which this potential power is utilized and realized”. Butcher and Clarke (2002) argue that organizational politics constitute the cornerstone for organizational democracy by allowing the expression of multiple individual and group goals, developed under the umbrella of common corporate goals. Drory and Romm (1990) highlighted three defining elements of organizational politics: influence, informal means and conflict. Having a similar approach, Buchanan and Badham (2007) also point out five defining features of organizational politics: influence, self-interest, damage, backstage and conflict. In a similar manner, Allen et al. (1979) define organizational politics as “intentional acts of influence to enhance or protect the self-interest of individuals or groups”. They identify several political tactics used by managers: attacking or blaming the others, strategic use of information, impression management, support building for ideas, ingratiation, coalition building, associating with influential, and creating obligation. Influence is thus one salient aspect mentioned unanimously in the literature about political behaviors. Mintzberg (1983) considers

13

organizational politics to be influence techniques within a broader repertoire of organizational influence systems such as authority, expertise and ideology. A number of theories in literature have emerged as possible analytical tools for understanding and conceptualizing issues of organizational power and politics. These approaches suggest that there are two ways that a researcher can conceptualize power: (1) that which stems from the individual; and (2) that which is explained by direct attention to conflict and domination. The view that an individual can possess power and use that power to negotiate a consensus underpins the interpretive and functional perspectives such as the resource dependence perspective (Pfeffer, 1981). On the other hand, the view that society is rife with conflict and modes of domination and the disbelief in a consensus view of society accords with critical perspectives such as (Foucault ,1978; and Habermas 1976). It is acknowledged that such theories have the potential to make significant contributions to our understanding of implementation of organizational change. the research objectives of this study state that one objective of the proposed study is to examine the role of the public mangers in the processes of planned change implementation and to understand the ways that intra-organizational dynamics such as power and politics influence the outcomes of change. This objective tallies with the interpretative view of the power and politics. This approach, views organizational processes influenced both by mutual harmonization of parts of the system, and by the way power is structured and used. In organizations, the distribution of power is characterized by stability. In organizations there is a balance of power between the interests of individuals and of the interdependent groups. Sometimes these interests are at odds, which can result in conflicting objectives, power games, and controversies in decision making (Pfeffer, 1992). The tension between interest of individuals and groups is viewed as inevitable and as a normal part of the way getting things done (Pettigrew, 1973). The political view maintains that groups and departments have to co-operate and that agreement between them is necessary for the functioning of the organization and to warrant its continuity. The power process is characterized by negotiation and exchange of resources. Some departments or subunits have more power than others. Subunits become powerful when they contribute critical resources that the organization needs. (Boeker, 1989). If the power of a subunit sustains and stabilized

14

overtime by virtue of its ability to provide critical resources, the power of such subunit becomes institutionalized in the power structure of the organization. Organizational change processes are influenced by the institutionalization of power and the behavior of interest groups in and around organizations (Mintzberg, 1983). Such stability allows subunits for stable coalitions and control over scarce resources through shielding from others. This enables them to resist any efforts to change the organization which is likely to disturb the contours of existing power dynamics. In Pakistani public organizations, certain subunits have more control over scarce organizational resources and stabilize their power over time. They even sometimes develop their own goals at odds with those of their parent agency. Such a situation may become detrimental to the effective implementation of any change effort. The political view recognizes that power and politics pervade organizational dynamics and impact upon organizational effectiveness. Politics can affect the way the object of change is determined. For managers, an examination of the pervasiveness of organizational politics, power and conflict is warranted if rationality and instrumentalism are insufficient to define the organizational behavior. Such an examination is instructive about how things get done in the workplace, why some things are resisted, and who makes things happen. The implementation of change under the political approach is characterized by conflict management and negotiation. All interest groups play their roles in the change process, based on their power, resources and interests. Resistance to change is seen as a result of the exercise of power and can be understood as a struggle to achieve power or to escape from it. The managers focus on preventing conflict in the change process by regulating participation of the groups involved. They examine the organizational stakeholders to determine those that might support or block a change effort. Positive outcomes are predicted to parties who accept the change. Negotiations are directed at smoothing opposition. Management usually possesses a considerable amount of position and personal power. It can use these power bases to win conflicts and to strengthen their position in the negotiation process. This increases the chance that their interests are realized at the expense of the interests of other parties involved in the change process.

15

For effective implementation of any change initiative, mangement must develop and nurture support from major stake holders and organizational members. The level of influence an actor wields to manage conflict and win support is not fully determined by his position in the vertical hierarchy because much of the power emanates from informal sources. Managers having diagnosed the political landscape, the relevant interests and important political divisions use the strategies and tactics to manipulate the behavior of organizational members (Pfeffer, 1992). In the public sector of Pakistan, public managers do not tend to consider intra-organization dynamics of power and politics. Development of internal support is given less importance to implement change programs; rather public mangers are inclined to use structural methods to effect execution.

5.0 Symbolic Approach Symbolic frame focuses on organizational symbols rather than on rules, policies, and formal organizational structure. The symbolic focus is on the meanings individuals give their world, and how they deal with ambiguity and uncertainty by creating symbols to help them resolve confusion, increase predictability, provide direction, and anchor hope and faith. Many events are more significant for what they express than for their outcomes. The image of management derived from this view is that of uncertainty reduction and manager as magician or priest (Thomas, 2003). Symbols are objects, acts, relationships, or linguistic formations that stand ambiguously for a multiplicity of meanings, evoke emotions, and impel men to action (Cohen, 1974). Symbols may be visible, physical manifestations of organizations and indicators of organizational life. Symbols take on important meanings in organizations; meanings that are defined by cultural and social conventions and interactions. Much of human understanding occurs through the use of symbolic processes (Axley, 1984). A symbol can be any sign (an act, event, logo, etc.) that represents some concept; thus, the representation of the concept becomes the symbol's meaning (Geertz, 1973). The most pervasive medium of symbolism is language. In particular, the use of metaphor, wherein one concept is understood in terms of another concept already known. To understand the shared systems of meaning that constructs organizational life and provides its structure and vitality is to understand the reactions, interpretations, and

16

actions of organizational members, and how those actions, thoughts, and feelings are shaped by the collectivity. Such understanding is impossible without careful attention to organizational symbols. Symbols are integral to organizational life. They are not simply by-products of organization, but rather elements that structure members’ active construction of sense, knowledge, and behavior (Rafaeli & Kluger, 1998). In the symbolic approach to management, it is assumed that ideas, the definitions of reality, and shared values are central features of organizing (Alvesson, 1996). Social relations are characterized by language, communication, use of symbols, and definitions of reality that serve as a foundation. Perceptions, cognitions, and preferences of individuals and groups are shaped by culture that prevents them from seeing alternatives. Thus, it seems that parties act out of free will and that conflict of interests is overcome. Conflict does not arise, demands are not made, and managers appear as authorities to whom employees voluntarily obey. Management fulfils a special role in these unconscious power processes because it has the opportunity, more than others, to give meaning to events and in doing so management contributes to the development of norms and values in the organization. Pettigrew (1977) describes this as the management of meaning, which refers to a process of symbol construction and value use designed both to create legitimacy for one’s own demands. Management of meaning involves the ability to define the reality of others. Thus, managers are seen as powerful agents creating shared meanings, ideas, values, and reality through communication and the social construction of meaning. When people of an organization are called upon to enact some change in their existing patterns of thinking and acting, the proposed change must make sense in a way that relates to previous understanding and experience. Johnson (1990) believes that symbols are central for successful outcome of a change, because they foster a sense of continuity by integrating the familiar and the strange. Symbols and metaphors both conceal and reveal facets of change. New symbols show members of the organization what the proposed new culture will be like. Christensen, et al (2007) argues that use of deliberate myths and symbols in public organizations may have an educative function for the organizational members. The symbolic actions taken by management can have consequences for the mobilization and motivation of support, for cooling off or placating

17

opposition either inside or external to the organization, and for focusing and organizing activity within the organization to effectively implement change. Pfeffer (1981) argues that leaders should use symbols to signal to others what the leader's vision is for the organization. In symbolic frame, such a representation on the part of managerial leaders is deemed consecrated and it provides justification for the change initiative leading to a potent execution. When a new experience or concept is to be understood, it is done so by trying to ascribe meaning to it, and the meaning is often most effectively grasped through symbolic or metaphorical representation. Language symbols especially are basic to the process of sense-making.

In an organization where a change is intended, different symbolic

language is used as a precursor of change to sketch its likely features and nature. It is believed that if managers are able to use such symbols and meanings to convey to their subordinates that the change is legitimate and those employees believe that the change is legitimate then resistance to the change will be limited (Hardy, 1991). Viewed from such a perspective, those that are able to define the reality have considerable power over those who accept the reality as their own (Bradshaw, 1998). As noted earlier, use of deliberate symbols and myths in public sector organizations, like their private sector counterparts, may play an educative function for the organizational members. Use of symbolism confers legitimacy to the change efforts and gives a sense of cohesion and collectiveness to the entire organizational membership. It dispels any impression of seeking sectional ends by the management and ascribes unitary interests to all change initiatives being led by the public managers. If mangers in the Pakistani public sector incorporate symbolism through ceremonies, legends, story telling, rituals and use of symbolic language in their change efforts and give meaning to the planned change by linking it with the past and giving a vision for the future, implementation of change may lead to successful results. .

6.0 Discussion In the proposed study, the above framework will focus on a number of aspects of planned change implementation including the facilitating and impeding factors, intraorganizational dynamics of power and politics, interests and values and the role public

18

mangers play. Clearly, all of these aspects can not be studied using a single theoretical approach. The diversity of opinion in the literature suggests, however, that there may be a danger in focusing on any one theory to the exclusion of others (Day and Klein 1992). For instance, focus on the entity reifies the organization and overlooks the social dynamics of relationships that impact on stasis and change. Conversely, a sole focus on social relationships and dynamics of power and politics misses the organizational, professional and personal boundaries, both implicit and explicit, within which organizational action, in this case implementation of change, takes place. As noted earlier rational approach relies on scientific calculation as the sole method for producing valid knowledge which is downplayed by a number of writers in favor of qualitative and organic methods of knowledge production that contextualize, deconstruct and reveal workplace practices, attitudes, values and dynamics as a way of acknowledging, incorporating and managing difference. Decision-making based on fact implies that problems have technical solutions. Solutions may represent least-worst alternatives to irresolvable problems, and involve moral and social justice dilemmas, such as equity of resource allocation or equality of access to services that require value-based judgment. The exploitative approach see organizations as the means to exert control through authority and hierarchy and the workforce is emphasized as an inanimate object and discipline applied to achieve compliance with central objectives. This approach places no importance in the employee well being, commitment and motivation and neglects an imperative element in organizational change that is to know the interests of the people who work in them, and incorporating these interests within the change process. A symbolic view of organizations may run the danger of superficiality, if only the outer layer of popular culture is affected and the inner core of attitudes, beliefs, values and practice is left unaffected. All of these views of organization are useful for analysis, but none alone is sufficient to explain the types of factors that influence the outcome of planned organizational change in the public sector organizations. An alternative approach is to assess the relevance of each theoretical view. The approaches do not exclude each other but can be used in combination in understanding the phenomenon of planned public sector change.

19

7.0 Conclusion The intended study aims to understand the impact of intra organization factors and the role of public mangers in implementation of planned organizational change in the public sector of Pakistan. Thomas (2003) four management approaches will be chosen to inform the findings. It is argued that the above four-frame model provides a suitable analytical approach for understanding the study proposed here. Although no theory is capable of providing a full explanation of organizational phenomenon, this framework provides a useful analytical tool from which to focus the analysis of findings. Each of the theories can be viewed as complementary; each offers a partial explanation for what is going on in the organization while implementing a change program. Each perspective is chosen based on its ability to provide a unique but practical explanation for different aspects of change process.

8.0 References 1. Axley, S. R. (1984). Managerial and Organizational Communication in Terms of the Conduit Metaphor. Academy of Management Review, 9, 428-437. 2. Alvesson, M. (1996). Communication, power and organization. Berlin, Germany: Walterde Gruyter. 3. Allen, R. W., Madison, D. L., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A. and Mayes, B. T. (1979).Organizational Politics-Tactics and Characteristics of Its Actors. California management review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 77. 4. Allison, G.A. (1971). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Little Brown, Boston. 5. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly Review Press. 6. Butcher, D. and Clarke, M. (2002) Organizational politics: The cornerstone for organizational democracy. Organizational dynamics, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 35. 7. Buchanan, D. & Badham, R. (2007). Power, politics and organizational change: winning the turf game. London: Sage Publications (in press).

20

8. Bradshaw, P. (1998). Power as Dynamic Tension and Its Implications for Radical Organizational Change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 7(2), 121-143. 9. Boston, R. (2000). College and Corporation: Institutional Power in the Enterprise University. In S. Marginson & M. Considine (Eds.), The Enterprise University: Power, Governance, and Reinvention in Australia (pp. 96-133). Cambridge: The Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. 10. Boeker, W. (1989) ‘The Development and Institutionalization of Subunit Power in Organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly 34: 388–410. 11. Buchanan, D. & Huczynski, A. (2004). “Organizational Behaviour: An Introductory Text”, Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow. 12. Cliffs, N.J. and

Lindblom, C.E. (1959).The Science of Muddling Through.

Public Administration Review, 19(2). 13. Cohen, A. (1974). Two dimensional man: An essay on the anthropology of power and symbolism in complex society, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 14. Day, P. and Klein, R. (1992). Constitutional and Distributional Conflict in British Medical Politics: the Case of General Practice, 1911-1991, Political Studies, 40, 3, 462-478. 15. Drory, A. and Romm, T. (1990).The Definition of Organizational Politics: A Review. Human Relations, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 1133 16. Edwards, M. (2001). Social Policy, Public Policy — From Problem to Practice, Allen & Unwin, Sydney. 17. Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality. Middlesex: Peregrine Books. 18. Edwards, R. (1979) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. London: Heinemann. 19. Friedman, A. (1977). Industry & Labour: Class Struggle at Work and Monopoly Capitalism. London: Macmillan. 20. Feldman, M.S. and March J.G.. (1981). Information in organizations as signal and symbol. Admin. Sci. Quart. 26(2) 171-186. 21. Geertz, C. (19731). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

21

22. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Press. 23. Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization Theory. Modern Symbolic and Postmodern Perspectives. Oxford University Press. 24. Hardy, C. (1991). Pluralism, Power and Collegiality in Universities. Financial Accountability and Management, 7(3), 127-142. 25. Humphrey, C., & Scapens, R. W. (1996). Methodological Themes: Theories and Case Studies of Organizational Accounting Practices: Limitation or Liberation? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(4), 86-106. 26. Hickson, D.J., R.J. Butler, D. Cray, G.R. Mallory, D.C. Wilson. 1986. Top Decisions. Blackwell, Oxford. 27. Habermas, J. (1976). Communication and Evolution of Society. London: Heinemann Educational Books. 28. Hardy, C., & Clegg, S.R. (1996). Some dare call it power. In S.R. Clegg, C. Hardy, & W.R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (pp. 622–641). London: Sage. 29. Johnson, G. (1990). Managing strategic change; The role of symbolic action. British Journal of Management, Vol. 1, pp. 183-200. 30. Kotter, John P. (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business Review 73 ( 2 ): 59 – 67. 31. Keeney, R.L. 1982. Decision Analysis: An Overview. Oper. Res. 30(5) 803-838. 32. Pratt, J.W., H. Raiffa, R.O Schlaifer. 1964. The foundations of decision under uncertainty: an elementary exposition. J. of the Amer. Statist. Association 59(306) 353-375. 33. Laroche, H. 1995. From decision to action in organizations: Decision-making as a social representation. Organ. Sci. 6(1) 62-75. 34. Layder, D. (1998). Sociological Practice. London: Sage Publications. 35. —. (1994). Understanding Social Theory. London: Sage Publications. 36. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and Around Organizations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood.

22

37. Machina M.J., Parker Ph., Sterman J., Weber E., Wernerfelt B., and Wensley R. (1999). Bounded rationality modeling. Marketing Letters, 10(3), 233-248. 38. Pettigrew, A. (1973).The politics of organizational decision-making. London: Tavistock. 39. —. (1977). Strategy formulation as a political process. International studies of management and organization, 7, 78–97. 40. Poole, M.S. (2004). Central issues in the study of change and innovation. In M.S. Poole and A.H. Van de Ven (eds.), Handbook of organizational change and Innovation (pp. 1-31). New York: Oxford University Press. 41. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Marshall, VA: Pitman. 42. —. (1992). Management with power. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 43. —. (1981).Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of organizational paradigms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3: 1–52. 44. Riggs, F. (1964). Administration in Developing Countries. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. 45. Rafaeli, A., & Kluger, A. (1998). The cognitive and emotional influence of service context on service quality: A model and initial findings. Unpublished manuscript, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ISRAEL. 46. Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Essential Ethnographic Methods: Observation Interviews and Questionnaires. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, Sage Publishing. 47. Schiff, M., & Lewin, A. (1983). The Impact of People on Budgets. In J. Bell (Ed.), Accounting 48. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded Theory Methodology: An Overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 49. Schein, Edgar H. (1987). Process Consultation: Vol. 2. It’s Role in Organizational Development. 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 50. Simon, H.A. (1957). Administrative behavior. Free Press, New York.

23

51. —. (1976). From Substantive to Procedural Rationality. S. J. Latsis, ed. Method and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 129-148. 52. —. (1976). Administrative Behaviour: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organization, 3rd ed., Free Press, New York. 53. Thomas, A. B. (2003). Controversies in management: Issues, debates, answers. 2nd ed. London: Rutledge. 54. Trist, E. and Bramforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations 4(1) 3-38. 55. Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane.Organ. Sci. 6(3) 280-321.

.

24