Research in Organizational Change and Development: Volume 22

This chapter explores the role that coercion plays in the educational process, looking at it both from the point of view of the teacher and from the perspective of the student/learner. The primary focus will be on coercion but inevitably manipulation and seduction enter the picture as well. I have observed that when learners get really motivated, or, as I prefer to call it, animated, they seem to learn more and certainly enjoy it more. What has come to be called experiential education has become very popular as a way of animating learners, which raises the question of whether this form of learning rests on fundamentally different assumptions than traditional teaching formats. This analysis and implications applies primarily to the learning of interpersonal, group, and interorganizational relationships and the “human side of enterprise,” that is, management and leadership. The need to explore the design of alternative experiential learning settings that animate learners and/or invent new modes of learning without the intense face-to-face contact – that animation seems to be depended on – is advocated.

This paper is about extraordinary performance in organizations. Our specific focus is unusual. We examine a context with which many readers are deeply familiar, the public school classroom. We consider the work of highly effective teachers and generate a framework of hypotheses about how they get extraordinary results. These hypotheses may contrast with the reader’s assumptions of what a public school teacher does. The framework may therefore provoke insights about how to create and lead high performing organizations in other contexts.

Extending the argument made in Bushe and Marshak (2009) of the emergence of a new species of Organization Development (OD) that we label Dialogic, to differentiate it from the foundational Diagnostic form, we argue that how any OD method is used in practice will be depend on the mindset of the practitioner. Six variants of Dialogic OD practice are reviewed and compared to aid in identification of a Weberian ideal-type Dialogic Mindset, consisting of eight premises that distinguish it from the foundational Diagnostic Mindset. Three core change processes that underlie all successful Dialogic OD processes are proposed, and suggestions for future research offered.

Much has been theorized about what change strategies to employ given particular types of organizational change. Organizational theorists have linked participative strategies with culture change, strategies based on logic and reason with new technology implementations, and power strategies with the introduction of new laws and legislation. However, to what degree are these suggested recommendations carried out in organizations? In this paper, we explored the extent to which change recipients perceive the use of theorist recommended strategies when undergoing specific types of organizational changes. Using survey research (N = 88), we investigated the perceived relationship between two components of change: change content and change strategy. The results partially follow the ideals proposed by previous theorists, but they also highlight a significant relationship between power-coercive strategies and episodic change events that is contrary to those ideals. For practitioners, our findings draw attention to the connection between change content and change strategy in the hope of offering some guidance to those change agents who must determine how to lead a particular change initiative. Additionally, since our investigation is original and exploratory, we incite future research aimed at understanding the congruency between change content and change strategy formulation.

This article brings a new, broad conceptual framework to the quest for understanding dynamic capability in organizations (i.e., “managing on the edge of chaos”). This approach rests on two major ideas: (i) a duality–paradox perspective and (ii) new typologies of organizational learning (OL) and individual action/thinking. A case of radical innovation at Microsoft provides a multilevel stimulus. Understanding it requires a focus on two dualistic challenges. For use in future ODC research and practical assessment, this broad new conceptual framework includes: (i) collaboration as a central concept; (ii) duality–paradox as a key source of conflicts that can threaten collaboration; (iii) five types of OL, (iv) four types of individual action/thinking, including paradoxical thinking, and (v) the proposition that “golden dualities” can be created from once-troubling duality situations (where critical collaboration was in danger) which have been transformed from the metaphorical “odd (contentious) couple” into a “productive (collaborative) partnership.”

This article explores the symbolic aspects of change agency on a learning platform designed to facilitate system-wide transformation in cancer care. A sensemaking–sensegiving perspective is adopted to analyze the construction of meaning in interaction between the leader of a regional cancer center, senior physicians, and an action research team in relation to patient-centered care. The analysis suggests that the physicians, as change agents, made sense of the vision from three quite distinct discourses in relation to the development effort. We argue that although meanings reconstructed in development initiatives may well be far from shared, this by no means implies that they are dysfunctional.

This chapter describes the change efforts and action research projects at a Dutch multinational which, over a period of 25 years, produced in one of its businesses a zigzag path toward collaborative leadership dynamics at the horizontal and vertical interfaces. The chapter also identifies the learning mechanisms that helped achieve this transformation. Changing the patterns at the vertical interfaces proved to be a most tricky, complex, and confusing operation. The data show that organizations need hierarchical interfaces between levels, but are hindered by the hierarchical leadership dynamics at these interfaces. The data furthermore show that competitive performance requires more than redesigning horizontal interfaces. A business can only respond with speed and flexibility to threats and opportunities in the external environment when the leadership dynamics at agility-critical vertical interfaces are also changed.

Organizational agility is becoming a critical component of organization development and change due to the increasingly continuous and iterative nature of change. This explanatory mixed methods study demonstrates the effect of collective thriving on change agility and positions collective thriving as a psychological state that contributes to organization agility. Attunement is hypothesized to be a point of leverage to increase the state of collective thriving and was found to moderate the relationship between collective thriving and change agility. The qualitative study investigates characteristics of high- and low-thriving teams and furthers the understanding of collective thriving and change agility.

Current trends such as a steadfast movement toward globalization, increased connectivity and use of networks in business relationships, rapidly changing technology, increased pressure for economic profitability, and economic concern create an environment where a focus on global team effectiveness is imperative. This study provides greater clarity on the workings of global hybrid team effectiveness including an examination of accelerators and decelerators. It also proposes a new model of Global Working behaviors to be applied systematically to all McKinsey 7-S areas – Strategy, Structure, Systems, Shared Values, Style, Skills, and Staff – in order to accelerate global hybrid team effectiveness.