ITEM METADATA RECORD
Title: Verborgen krachten in de organisatie: een politiek model van organisatieverandering
Other Titles: Hidden powers in the organization: a political model of organizational change
Authors: Maes, Guido
Issue Date: 27-Sep-2012
Abstract: Starting point of this study was that most changes fail. It seems that change projects are doomed to fail. Numerous studies on the success or failure of change programs show a failure rate of around 70%. Moreover, this failure rate remains constant over the years.The question asked in this study is whether political causes are not the real reason for this failure. The hypothesis was formulated that a political approach to organizational change would be a better explanation for the success or failure of change. Change projects are continually obstructed by all sorts of obstacles and barriers that suspect a political influence to which current change models do not have a proper answer.A scientific answer to this hypothesis was not easy to formulate. Already early in this study it became clear that neither change nor political power can be summarized in a single theory. It also appeared that studies on organizational politics do not fit very well with the change literature. The political literature is often restricted to the finding that changes intensify the political activities in organizations. The change literature for its part, offers a (too) fragmented picture of the role of politics.To cope with this amount of often conflicting theories and ideas, a multidimensional view on the subject was chosen. This view was found in the model of Stanley Deetz that groups the different social theories according to their underlying discourse.Additionally a framework was needed in which change and organizational politics could come together. Such a framework can become very complex. A concept analysis showed that numerous change objects are possible. They were therefore grouped into four types of objects (strategic, structural, behavioral, and cultural). It also emerged that each discourse has its own vision on change, resulting in four possible change processes that can result in three types of effects: individual, organizational and social. All these elements can be influenced by four dimensions of power and politics: power and politics of resources, processes, meaning and of the system. In order to grasp this complexity system theory was appealed upon. Change itself is seen as a complex system. This change system is built according to general systemic principles, looks at the various types of organizational change from different discourses and integrates the political and power aspects.This system makes it possible absorb the complexity while retaining a degree of simplicity. The framework allows for a dialogue between change management and organizational politics. As a result, the characteristics of the change literature were unmasked and the role that power and politics play in these change theories was exposed.The literature analysis revealed the dominance of the normative discourse and specifically of its unitary discipline. In this view power and politics are equated with the management authority and this authority is not questioned. Also in the practice of organizations, consulting firms and consultants the unitary normative discourse dominates. This discourse denies the effect of organizational politics, and as such becomes political itself. By declaring organizational politics taboo a political position is taken in favor of certain groups in the organization. The unitary normative discourse is thus reduced to a political tactic and is therefore in fact useless as a guide for change. Therefore another discourse is needed to achieve deeper insights about the essence of organizational change. The normative pluralist discourse provides additional insights into the role of power and politics in organizational change, but only partially succeeds in its intention, because it does not go deep enough. This discourse provides valuable insights on the episodic effects of organizational politics, but uses these insights mainly to strengthen the dominant position of management during a change. The interpretive discourse indicates the importance of interpretations and the way meaning are created, but hardly links any political consequences to it. The interpretive discourse sees the role of management as given. The potential of this discourse to expose the underlying mechanisms that are at work in organizational change therefore remains largely underutilized. The critical discourse digs deeper into the underlying mechanisms. It focuses on the hegemony of the ruling class and the way that it maintains its dominance. This discourse avoids no political taboo, but was not yet able to get a solid foothold in the change literature. Finally, the same can be said about the dialogical discourse. The dialogical discourse starts from a political concept, but provides little guidance for change. It often uses an abstraction level that seems incomprehensible and whose practical consequences are not always clear. However, the dialogical discourse offers important perspectives for a better understanding of organizational change. By focusing on change as a discursive construction, the dynamics of the change process can be revealed. It can be shown how discursive actions transform the reality during a change process that is fraught with contradictions, uncertainties and polyphony.The four discourses each make an important contribution to a better understanding of organizational change, but every discourse by itself has too limited a view of the complexity of change. Interplay between different discourses allows expanding the field of view so that many more aspects of power and politics in organizational change can be addressed.The main purpose of the model is to provide insights that allow all stakeholders to experience change in a different way. These findings make it possible to enter the political arena better prepared and to play the game of change at a higher tactical level. The powerful will often be the winners, but maybe the powerless have more power than they think. The great merit of this model is that it shows that for no party change needs to be a "losing game". Change need not be implemented systematically by neutralizing or breaking resistance. All stakeholders can gain power and influence through a better understanding of the role of power and politics play in change. This should lead to a more democratic approach to change in the sense that more members of the organization have the ability and capacity to influence the decision-making processes in the organization.
Table of Contents: VOORWOORD & DANKWOORD 9
INHOUDSOPGAVE 11
TABELLEN 15
FIGUREN 17
1. INLEIDING 19
1.1. PROBLEEMSTELLING 19
1.2. POSITIONERING VAN HET ONDERZOEK 21
1.2.1. Organisatieverandering 21
1.2.2. Macht en politiek 24
1.2.3. Macht en politiek bij veranderingen 25
2. ONDERZOEKSMETHODE 27
2.1. DOELSTELLING VAN HET ONDERZOEK 27
2.2. ONDERZOEKSMODEL 27
2.3. ONDERZOEKSVRAGEN 28
2.4. BEGRIPSBEPALING 29
2.5. ONDERZOEKSTECHNISCH ONTWERP 29
2.5.1. Onderzoekstechnisch ontwerp 30
2.5.2. Onderzoeksstrategie 31
3. OPBOUW VAN HET SYSTEEMMODEL VAN ORGANISATIEVERANDERING 33
3.1. THEORIEËN OVER ORGANISATIE EN ORGANISATIEVERANDERING 33
3.1.1. Naar een classificatie van theorieën over organisatie en organisatieverandering 33
3.1.2. Theorieën over organisatie en organisatieverandering 40
3.2. CONCEPTEN VAN ORGANISATIEVERANDERING 41
3.2.1. Definities van Verandering/Veranderen 42
3.2.2. Een werkbare definitie van Organisatieverandering 42
3.2.3. Een werkbare definitie van Veranderingsmanagement 50
3.2.4. Systeemconcepten van organisatieverandering 52
3.3. EIGENSCHAPPEN VAN ORGANISATIEVERANDERING 65
3.3.1. Overzicht van de literatuur 65
3.3.2. Acht eigenschappen van organisatieveranderingen 78
4. EEN SYSTEEMMODEL VAN ORGANISATIEVERANDERING 85
4.1. SYSTEEMTHEORIE EN ORGANISATIEVERANDERING 85
4.1.1. Systeemtheoretische aspecten 85
4.1.2. Voor- en nadelen van een systemische kijk op organisatieverandering 87
4.1.3. Methode voor systeemanalyse 88
4.2. OPBOUW VAN EEN SYSTEEMMODEL VAN ORGANISATIEVERANDERING 89
4.3. HET NORMATIEVE SYSTEEMMODEL VAN VERANDERINGEN: DE UNITAIRE VISIE 92
4.3.1. De aanleiding - De relatie tussen het verandersysteem en haar omgeving 93
4.3.2. Het stappenplan voor veranderingen in het normatieve discours 95
4.3.3. Strategische veranderingen in het normatief unitaire discours 97
4.3.4. Structurele veranderingen in het normatieve discours 105
4.3.5. Gedragsveranderingen in het normatieve discours 109
4.3.6. Culturele veranderingen in het normatieve discours 116
4.3.7. Effecten van veranderingen in het normatief unitaire discours 120
4.3.8. Conclusie 124
5. MACHT EN POLITIEK IN ORGANISATIES 127
5.1. THEORIEËN OVER MACHT EN POLITIEK IN ORGANISATIES 127
5.1.1. Theorieën van macht en politiek in het normatieve discours 128
5.1.2. Theorieën van macht en politiek in het interpretatieve discours 128
5.1.3. Theorieën van macht en politiek in het kritische discours 131
5.1.4. Theorieën van macht en politiek in het dialogisch discours 134
5.2. DE ORGANISATIE ALS EEN POLITIEK SYSTEEM 135
5.3. CONCEPTEN VAN MACHT EN POLITIEK 137
5.3.1. Een werkbare definitie van macht 138
5.3.2. Een werkbare definitie van organisatiepolitiek 143
5.3.3. De vier dimensies van macht en politiek en de toepassing hiervan in de verschillende discoursen 147
5.3.4. Concepten van organisatiepolitiek 148
6. POLITIEKE INTERPRETATIE VAN ORGANISATIEVERANDERING – KRITISCHE REFLECTIES VANUIT DE VERSCHILLENDE DISCOURSEN 159
6.1. INLEIDING 159
6.2. POLITIEKE INTERPRETATIE VAN ORGANISATIEVERANDERING VANUIT HET NORMATIEVE DISCOURS 162
6.2.1. Positie van macht en politiek in het normatieve discours 162
6.2.2. Macht en politiek in het normatieve veranderingssysteem 169
6.2.3. Conclusie 179
6.3. POLITIEKE INTERPRETATIE VAN ORGANISATIEVERANDERING VANUIT HET INTERPRETATIEVE DISCOURS 181
6.3.1. Positie van macht en politiek in het interpretatieve discours 181
6.3.2. Macht en politiek in het interpretatief veranderingssysteem 182
6.3.3. Conclusie 196
6.4. POLITIEKE INTERPRETATIE VAN ORGANISATIEVERANDERING VANUIT HET KRITISCH DISCOURS 198
6.4.1. Positie van macht en politiek in het kritisch discours 198
6.4.2. Macht en politiek in het kritische veranderingssysteem 201
6.4.3. Conclusie 209
6.5. POLITIEKE INTERPRETATIE VAN ORGANISATIEVERANDERING VANUIT HET DIALOGISCH DISCOURS 210
6.5.1. Positie van macht en politiek in het dialogisch discours 210
6.5.2. Macht en politiek in het dialogisch veranderingssysteem 211
6.5.3. Conclusie 217
7. CONCLUSIE 219
8. REFERENTIES 223
SOMMAIRE 301
SUMMARY 303
9. BIJLAGEN 305
9.1. BIJLAGE 1 - VERBAND TUSSEN VERANDERING EN MACHT EN POLITIEK
9.2. ORGANISATIEVERANDERING
9.2.1. Bijlage 2 – Definities van en visies op organisatieverandering
9.2.2. Bijlage 3 – Aspecten van organisatieverandering
9.2.3. Bijlage 4 – Fasen van organisatieverandering
9.3. ORGANISATIEPOLITIEK
9.3.1. Bijlage 5 – Definities van macht & politiek
9.3.2. Bijlage 6 – Concepten
9.4. DOCTORATEN IN DE SOCIALE WETENSCHAPPEN
Publication status: published
KU Leuven publication type: TH
Appears in Collections:Centre for Sociological Research
Departement Economisch Hoger Onderwijs - KHLeuven

Files in This Item:
File Status SizeFormat
Phd Verborgen krachten in de organisatie.pdf Published 11193KbAdobe PDFView/Open

These files are only available to some KU Leuven staff members

 


All items in Lirias are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.