Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

An effort by managers and leaders in organizations to bring about continued and systemic forms of change practiced by teams is essential for organizational learning. Yet change is not comfortable for many organizations, and it does not occur automatically.

Organizations display enormous structural and cultural inertia in response to change. However, the costs of failing to overcome this inertia can be damaging to the organization itself.

Kochan and Useem (1992) and Dean (1999) suggest that continuous systemic organizational change must be integrated and consistent among an organization's major components and designed for the long term to provide a more suitable foundation for cooperation, learning, and innovation. They call these organizations transforming organizations.

The systemic change can take place only when the technological, organizational, and human resources are altered and aligned together. One part of the system can be fully realized only when developed with all other parts. Moreover, systemic change involves more than changes within each of these parts. It challenges the underlying assumptions, tacit knowledge, and standard relationships that link these different organizational parts.

To engage in systemic, continuous change and go beyond the isolated shifts and periodic lurching observed in so many organizations, it is essential to have all organizational parts learning together. This integration results in faster innovation and flexibility to reduce the stress of hierarchic authority, centralized control, and fixed boundaries. Then the organizational designs rely on work teams, decentralized decision making, and informal networks crosscutting formal boundaries. Also there is more reciprocal information sharing, shared commitment to sustained cooperation, and a common set of values. Next, the learning organization must have a learning culture that stresses learning above the bottom line. Finally, the learning organization learns from diversity, and does not simply manage it or value it. This approach lays the groundwork for practice of synergy in an organization.

Synergy and Organizational Change

Weisbord and Janoff (1995) suggest that over the last century a learning curve has been traversed with respect to organizational change. In 1900 any change efforts came about by an expert solving problems. This was a “great person” approach to change: Whether for good or bad or for acceptance or resistance, change occurred and revolved around one person. In the 1950s, the learning was that everybody solves problems, just not all together. In 1965, the attention was around experts improving whole systems, where the system endured, not the expert. And in 2003, the philosophy is that “everybody improves whole systems.” This latest philosophy evolved from the initial attempt of Taylor, the focused work of Lewin, and the workable application of Trist and Emery. Others were involved, but these were the key pathfinders along the journey.

From this philosophy, Weisbord and Janoff (1995, p. 69) recalibrated the principles of Lewin and tips of Trist and Emery into the seven learning practices for organizational change that they use in their action for change in organizations:

  • Each person has a unique learning style. Some learn best by reading, others by doing, still others by discussing or listening.
  • Each person learns at a

    ...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading