Gavin M. Schwarz

The Influence of Perceptions of Social Identity on Information Technology-Enabled Change

Growth in the sophistication of information technology (IT) has led to the increasing importance of information accessibility in the workplace. The pervasiveness of the resultant knowledgebased economy has centered attention on issues of employee group identity. In this article we explore how employee perceptions of group membership guide the change outcomes of an organization implementing new information technology. Using a social identity framework, we investigate the salient intergroup relationships of two groups of employees (management and IT implementation teams) and how employees use their different group memberships to reframe positions of authority or knowledge around technology change. We discuss the extent to which perceptions of social identity legitimate institutional structures already in place despite the potential of new technology.

Organizational hierarchy adaptation and information technology

Abstract Current debate on organization change is concerned increasingly with questioning the extent to which different organizational designs are effective. Consequently, many new forms of organizing have been proffered. In particular, new-form theorists acknowledge hierarchy but rarely test it in generating a variety of information technology- (IT) related change outcomes. This paper focuses on the robustness of hierarchy by tracing its characteristics within two public organizations. It provides an understanding of the relationship between IT applications and structural change by examining how the process of IT adaptation unfolds. Specifically, it explores how management’s disposition to IT change discerns the nature of an organization’s structure and the adaptation of that structure. I argue that the nature of management’s application of information systems—and non-management’s reaction to this practice—guides structural modification. Discussion focuses on explaining the continued presence of hierarchy in IT environments where there is an expectation for significant structural change.

The patterning of limited structural change

Purpose – Organizational change theorists tend to focus on substantive changes and frequently ignore or underplay the significance of the features of structural inertia. The effect of this preoccupation has minimized our understanding of frequently occurring patterns of limited structural change. The purpose of this paper is to encourage theorizing and debate about limited structural change.Design/methodology/approach – This paper presents a conceptual explanation of the different patterns of limited structural change that arise in organizations undertaking change. It reviews and comments on how different patterns occur at the organization level as a result of the adjustment of component forces around pattern profiling centers of gravity.Findings – A pervasive finding in change literature is that organizations tend to fall back on more of the same, even when they undergo some major structural change. The paper proposes a framework encapsulating four competencies that synergistically complement each other ...

Challenging Organizational Change Research

The validity of social science theories changes with advances in research methods and tools, with additions to the cumulative body of empirical findings, and with changes in the multiple environments of humankind. Thus social science theories are temporally bounded .S imilarly, and of particular interest to organizational change researchers, the ever-changing nature of organizational adaptations to ever-changing organizational environments (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1998; Huber, 2004) causes the validity of specific organizational change theories to change, usually downward. In contrast to the need for scientists to recognize the changed validity of specific theories, psychologists remind us that changing one’s beliefs is difficult and discomforting, and Kuhn (1996) and Clegg and Hardy (1996) remind us that strong scientific paradigms inhibit development of new theory. Together, these ideas prompted us to propose a Special Issue of this journal that would provide organizational change researchers with (1) a challenge to think about the state of the field and the adequacy of current theories, and (2) a forum in which to challenge the state of the field or the adequacy of current organizational change theories.

Time to Take Off the Theoretical Straightjacket and (Re-)Introduce Phenomenon-Driven Research

Recently, at an Academy of Management meeting workshop, reflecting on the field, Warner Burke asked “where are the new models and theories of change?” This provocative question has been pondered within organization studies and specifically on organization theory for several decades. And yet it persists. Borrowing this debate, in this essay we reverse the question to consider whether theory might be the problem in change research. Specifically, we argue that theory has become a (figurative) straightjacket. Far from advancing debate as significantly as has regularly been assumed, an obsession with theory and a narrow understanding of what constitutes a contribution could be hampering the development of knowledge about change. The criteria for publishing organizational research are increasingly focused on adding to specific and already existing theory. As a challenge to the restrictions that have become convention, we decode what this theoretical straightjacket looks like, and query why change researchers have willingly gone down this path, shutting down other promising opportunities. In response, we present phenomenon-driven research as a possible solution. It is time for change researchers to reclaim our heritage and take off the theoretical straightjacket.

Talking up failure: How discourse can signal failure to change

This article explores the predictive properties of talk as an indicator of failure to change. As part of the exploration of organizational change, researchers regularly focus on how discourse is used and applied to achieve certain processes and outcomes. This position presents change as a function of particular types of communication and its interpretation. Using longitudinal data of an organization’s technology change, we propose that the way employees talk about planned organizational change, as a group, signals and can be used to recognize eventual failure to change. Extending current trends in discursive analyses, we establish talk as a reflective device, in the context of tracking failure while it occurs, by combining social identity theory (SIT) with a language and social psychology (LASP) approach. In doing so, the discourse of failure can be viewed as part of an intergroup phenomenon experienced and interpreted through organizational memberships.

Positioning hierarchy in enterprise system change

There is a widening gulf in change literature between theoretical notions of evolving organisational form and the emerging reality that old and new organisational structures coexist. This paper explores this dichotomy in Enterprise Resource Planning change. It develops a cellular hierarchy framework to explain how different types of hierarchy coexist within the same organisation during the implementation of Enterprise Resource Planning.

Herscovitch and Meyer’s Three-Component model of commitment to change: Meta-analytic findings

Commitment to change has been subject to several qualitative reviews in recent years. As a response to an associated lack of consensus in construct definition, Herscovitch and Meyer introduced a three-component model demonstrating affective commitment to change (i.e., ACC), normative commitment to change (i.e., NCC) and continuance commitment to change (i.e., CCC). Given the growing literature on organizational change, the aim of this paper is to take stock of a decade of research that uses Herscovitch and Meyer’s instrument to measure these three components. To determine the tool’s discriminant validity we conducted meta-analyses evaluating the strength of relations among ACC, NCC and CCC; the relations among the three components and behavioural support for change; and the moderating role of North American context versus non-North American context in shaping these relationships. Findings based on data collected from 17 studies indicate notable differences in the strength of relationships among ACC–NCC, ACC–CCC and NCC–CCC. Also the pattern of the correlations among the three components and behavioural support reveals interesting extensions and insights for further research into the robustness of this model, and on hitherto under-acknowledged discrepancies in behavioural support for commitment to change research.

Shaking Fruit out of the Tree Temporal Effects and Life Cycle in Organizational Change Research

This article moves beyond descriptives of how we “do” change in a test of whether there is an empirical basis for knowing where in its life cycle is organizational change research. Questioning typical assumptions about change, it indicates what progress in the field looks like by plotting the patterning of temporal effects and life cycle in articles published in eight journals between 1947 and 2008 (n = 473). Findings indicate that the publication of more on change has not equated with more developed knowledge. As a community, change researchers are overwhelmingly focused on the most conservative type of progress, resulting in research that replicates rather than extends or develops, which ranks fairly low on a knowledge development scale. This illusion of knowledge development is described and explained by researcher reliance on existing idea mobilization and on belief prisons. The article concludes with discussion of implications for research and publishing practice.

The Logic of Deliberate Structural Inertia

This article responds to criticism that structural inertia theory neglects the internal influences on organizational adaptation. It develops a model exploring the logic of key decision makers in purposely endorsing structural inertia during organizational change. This response is labeled deliberate inertia, which is part of a typology delineating structural inertia. The model depicts a type of deductive reasoning showing the way that the structural status quo is intentionally selected when undertaking change for reasons outside population ecology. In asserting that structural inertia theory generally overlooks stability that stems from subjective sense making, the model indicates how decision makers delineate a belief in inertia (Layer 1 of the model), and then defend (Layer 2) and legitimize (Layer 3) this choice. This endorsement is deliberate and underscores the influence of decision makers in adopting inertia. Consequently, the model highlights why structural inertia is chosen regardless of pressures for and expectations of more fundamental structural change. The article discusses the implications of how this choice affects eventual structural change.