Implementing change in the Asia-Pacific region: the contextualist framework

Citation

Steane, Y.D.a.P. (2014), "Implementing change in the Asia-Pacific region: the contextualist framework", Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 6 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJBA-03-2014-0038

Implementing change in the Asia-Pacific region: the contextualist framework

Article Type: Editorial From: Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Volume 6, Issue 1

The contextualist framework emphasises the inter-play between three different groups of factors:

1. the contexts of change;

2. the process of change; and

3. the content of change, together with skills regulating the relations between the three.

The what of change is encapsulated under the label content, much of the why of change is derived from an analysis of inner and outer context, and the how of change can be understood from an analysis of the process.

Although the analytical separation of these three clusters of factors may make them appear to be structural entities, the contextualist framework is designed to be understood as composed of dynamic processes with mutually contingent inter-relationships over time. No single component of the model is expected to account for the success or failure of implementation. Focusing on one or the other of these three categories of factors as the key to understanding implementation of change in Asia Pacific is bound to promote neglect of the other levels that are equally vital influences on implementation outcome.

The content refers to the particular area of change. Various aspects of the content might have an impact on the kind of activity stimulated by the implementation process. For instance, the implementation process may vary depending on two key characteristics:

1. the amount of change involved; and

2. the extent to which there is goal consensus among the various participants.

An implementation gap is more likely to be found when the benefits provided by the proposal are divisible than when collective benefits are realised. Change that is designed to achieve long-range objectives, which requires considerable behavioural adaptation, and that depends upon a network of widely dispersed decision units would be far more difficult and onerous to implement than change whose advantages are immediately apparent, change depending on a small number of key powerful decision units and change requiring little in the way of changed behaviour patterns. In addition, the form in which goals are stated may also have a decided impact on implementation. Whether they are stated clearly or ambiguously and whether the key actors are in agreement about them can be decisive for the change, especially at the local level. Furthermore, the speed, the quantity, the quality and the consequence of the change being implemented on the receptivity of the context to future change are also important features of content. Some changes will be radical, others incremental. Some changes will involve contraction, others development. The degree of uncertainty, of risk and the availability of models from which cues can be taken can also be important.

Clearly then, various features of the content can have a significant impact on the process and outcome of change initiatives. However, the context controls (or at least heavily conditions) the implementation of change; proposals similar in content may still be implemented differently if the context in which they are pursued differs substantially.

Analytically the context is usually divided into outer and inner context. The outer context refers to the global environmental dimensions which influence concurrently on all Asia Pacific countries at a given time. Usually, these dimensions are not within the direct control of the government albeit part of the managerial action could be to amplify some of them in order to develop concern and to legitimate the content of change. The outer context could also include a set of local features which could impinge on the process and outcome of change implementation. These encompass various dimensions such as the history and state of formal and informal relationships between the local governments and the central government, the political tradition of the locality and the status of the services that is being change in the local political agenda, the geography of the country and the competing centres of population, the social fabric of the local community and the network of powerful local groups.

By contrast, the inner context refers to the characteristics of the each country. It comprises various features such as the size of the country, the history of the change issue in the country and the skill of the key politicians and public managers, the leadership and the championing of the change proposal, and the like. These factors and features of the country set the scene for implementation, but part of the action could aim at securing change to the inner context itself in order to set more receptive conditions for implementation; both the local outer context and the inner context have a critical impact on the genesis, development, and conclusion of change.

One of the main pillars of the contectualist framework is its processual approach. It avoids the trap of concentrating either on decision-making, structure, people, or power at the expense of how the process itself is managed through time. The process refers to the path of actions, reactions and interactions of the various interested parties involved in promoting or resisting the change. Critical at that level of analysis are the attempts by the proponents and by their opponents to redefine the issue, the types of action that are regarded as legitimate by each side in contest, and the process used by the protagonists to create legitimacy for their demands and to de-legitimise the demands of others. That is sometimes refers to as the "management of meaning". The management of meaning refers to a process of symbol construction and value use designed both to create legitimacy for one’s actions, ideas and demands and to delegitimise the demands of one’s opponents. Key concepts for analysing these processes of legitimisation and de-legitimisation are symbolism, language, belief and myth.

Several analysts of change have stressed the benefit of examining processes in a number of stages or sub-processes. This segmentation of the implementation processes can be useful particularly for translating descriptive processes of change into prescriptive analytical statements about the various managerial tasks, constraints and challenges at each of the stages in creating strategic change. A central thesis of the contextualist framework is that implementation of change ultimately involves a whole set of factors, features, and processes in interaction over time. The overall challenge is to connect up the context, content, and process levels of analysis in developing a holistic explanation for the success and failure of implementation of change.

Yvon Dufour and Peter Steane