Car Launch: The Human Side of Managing Change

Citation

Dabbs, J. (2001), "Car Launch: The Human Side of Managing Change", Personnel Review, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 240-246. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr.2001.30.2.240.2

The book Car Launch: The Human Side of Managing Change is, in itself, unique. First, it is unique in terms of its presentation, style and content. The majority of the chapters read like a fly‐on‐the‐wall documentary, its “cast of characters” (distinguished only by job title to protect their identities) acting out dramatic, unscripted roles. Second, it is unique in terms of style. It introduces the concept of the “learning history”, a novel way of presenting the story of a project (how learning occurred and the critical incidents that took place during the project) using a series of narratives. These narratives are made up of participants’ comments in what Roth and Kleiner call “jointly‐told‐tales”. These “tales” document the behavioural changes that occurred as a result of a large automobile company’s attempt to introduce a new car to its existing fleet.

The book is structured into 16 sections (including a very detailed contents page, cast of characters, acknowledgements and endnotes). The Preface essentially introduces the book, its rationale and reasoning. It attempts to set the scene for the rest of the book and also tries to justify the use of pseudonyms to protect the identity of both the company “AutoCo” and its car launch project “Epsilon”. The authors maintain that the book is not about the launch of a groundbreaking car per se but about the actual groundbreaking car launch process and the emotion, problems and behaviours that characterise any organisational change programme. From reading the Preface, I got the impression that this was going to be no “ordinary” book about managing change; that in many ways it promised to be a groundbreaking exposé of how a large company introduced change through the agency of its project team. As soon as I saw the initials “MIT” (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), the names “Peter Senge” and the “Center for Organisational Learning”, my instincts (coupled with my experience of teaching and researching organisational learning and learning organisations) told me I was in for a treat – that my interest in and passion for such matters would be fuelled and fed by the advocacy of thinking holistically and strategically about the learning process, both in an individual and organisational context. However, as I read the succeeding chapters, my enthusiasm and passion were somewhat dampened by the lack of coverage and depth of not only managing change but also organisational learning and learning organisations. Consequently, Peter Senge, Director of the Center for Organisational Learning based at MIT, gave monthly presentations in AutoCo’s Executive Development Seminars. This eventually led to a partnership between AutoCo managers and MIT researchers.

The Preface also challenged readers to view the learning history as a “cultural journey”, and compare their own organisation’s culture to AutoCo’s. It invited readers to think about how they would challenge their underlying basic beliefs and taken‐for‐granted assumptions. I found this rather difficult to do because, although AutoCo is a pseudonym for a bona fide automobile company, I felt that the “reality” had somehow been stripped away and I could not really identify with the symbols, stories, etc. that make up an organisation’s cultural web. I also found that there was not a great deal of background information about AutoCo’s culture to enable this “cultural journey” to take place. Therefore, I did not see the book or its imagery in the way the authors had intended: as a cultural journey. Sadly, instead, I saw it as merely a narrative about the behavioural implications of introducing change.

Chapter 1 introduces the theme of the learning history, how to read it and make sense of it. It also supplies fragmented information about “AutoCo” and the Epsilon project. Chapter 2 outlines aspects of learning in the core team, systems thinking, information sharing and creating a culture of inclusiveness. Chapter 3 outlines aspects of leadership and the elements involved in changing individuals’ behaviour and modelling new behaviour. Chapter 4 concentrates on learning laboratories and how techniques were taught for “thinking differently”. This chapter also includes details of how the labs were designed (in collaboration with MIT) and the various tools that were used to facilitate learning and understanding, including the “ladder of inference” (Argyris, 1990) and “mental models skills” (Senge, 1990).

Chapters 5, 6 and 7 cover aspects of combining engineering innovation with human relations, partnerships and communication between functions, process innovation and gaining the support of senior management in the overall learning process. Chapters 8, 9 and 10 offer commentaries by Senge, Moss Kanter, and Roth. First, Senge’s commentary (Chapter 8) offers an overview of the main organisational learning lessons learnt through the Epsilon project, in particular the use of the learning history. He charts aspects such as leadership, behaviours, relationships, strategy and innovation as important to overall organisational learning and the changes that can be implemented as a result of altering mental models/mindsets. If, according to Senge, organisations are to transform themselves, they must adopt “more systemic ways of thinking”. This, he says, requires the creation of new working environments that not only support but also help to sustain a variety of learning processes.

Senge’s chapter provides a much‐needed academic bent that finally steered me towards an organisational learning/learning organisation (OLLO) framework that the previous chapters did not. However, it was disappointing that Senge, who has been such a proactive supporter of OLLO since the late 1980s, did not make a stronger link between individual and organisational learning. In his flagship book The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation, Senge maintained that “organisations learn only through individuals who learn. Individual learning does not guarantee organisational learning but without it, no organisational learning occurs” (p. 32). It is a pity that this axiom was not used by the authors to support the strong organisational learning theme that ran throughout the vein of their book.

Second, Moss Kanter’s commentary (Chapter 9) praised the authors for their learning history, insofar as it gave an account of how people were systematically taught, how they were empowered to take more responsibility, etc. However, she criticised the learning approach (in terms of the organisational change paradigm) as being limited. She also criticised the fact that the learning history and many of the tools mentioned did not address organisational learning or organisational change – but rather that it placed an emphasis on individual learning and individual change. According to Moss Kanter, AutoCo would hope that the individuals mentioned in the book would transfer their learning back into a team environment, change the team’s behaviour and empower them to “magically figure out how to change an organisation” (p. 139). Moss Kanter also identified the lack of input in teaching learning lab participants to be change agents. Her parting shot was aimed at Senge’s Society for Organisational Learning (SOL). She concluded “the Society for Organisational Learning does not want to be the Society for Individual Learning Inside Organisations”. She maintained that readers of the learning history, who may be introduced to this style of reflective learning for the first time “want to learn to actually build learning organisations”, therefore empowering individuals to be “better organisational change agents rather than converted cultists” (p. 146).

Finally, Roth’s commentary (Chapter 10), presents an action science perspective of the Epsilon project. Action science was developed by Argyris and Schon (1974), its main goal being to increase the confidence and skills of individuals working in groups, leading to long‐term organisational effectiveness. Using the action science perspective, Roth charted that no organisational learning can be sustained unless internal beliefs that guide individual actions towards facilitating and implementing organisational change are challenged. The chapter also challenges the process involved in the movement from single loop learning (detecting errors and correcting them) towards double‐loop learning (challenging the organisation’s paradigm and its very reasons for existence) and the role that action science plays in this. This was, by far, one of the best chapters in the book.

To conclude the chapter round‐up, Chapter 11 offers a readers’ guide for using the learning history in classrooms and in organisations. It gives more in‐depth information about how to read and use the learning history, how single and double‐loop learning impact on organisations and outlines the various levels of culture that exist in organisations. A major problem with this chapter is that it contains really meaty information that ideally should have been presented in the earlier chapters. It elucidates theories and concepts and reviews the impact of change in terms of the alteration of mental models. Had this chapter been presented at the beginning of the book, it may have enabled me to take the cultural journey the authors hoped I would. The chapter also gives an insight into how important reflection is in considering feelings, thinking and actions and how all these, when thrown into the collective melting pot, contribute to influencing and levering change.

On reflection, several concepts ran throughout the vein of this book. First, systems thinking (“a discipline for seeing wholes. It is a framework for seeing interrelationships … for seeing patterns of change …” (p. 68); Senge, 1990). Second, organisational learning (“the process of improving actions through better knowledge and understanding”, Fiol and Lyles, 1985). Third, learning organisations (“a company that facilitates the learning of all its members and consciously transforms itself and its context” (p. 3); Pedler et al., 1991). Fourth, process consultation (“where an external consultant helps a group to examine its behaviour, understand it and replace it with alternative behaviour if appropriate” (p. 272); Cole, 1998. Consequently, Roth, co‐author of the book and an initial advisor to the Epsilon project, is trained in process consultation). Finally, managing change (“change implies that a situation, person or thing has altered in some way … it implies difference, adaptation, innovation and renewal” (p. 255); Cole, 1998). Although these concepts formed a key part of the overall Epsilon project and the title of the book implies that managing change would be an important theme, I felt disappointed that they were not explored in greater detail. This exploration would have benefited readers exposed to these concepts for the first time.

To conclude, Roth and Kleiner maintain that the book is not “just intended to be read by individuals it is a tool for collective learning and for on‐going study and practice” (p. xv). I agree to a certain extent with their declaration, insofar as the book would definitely benefit on‐going study and practice – but only as an “underpinning text” rather than an introductory text. Rightly or wrongly, the book assumes readers have had some previous exposure to its concepts and models. This may have accounted for the lack of definitions. As I mentioned above, the book would support study and practice if readers had read other texts first such as The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation by Senge (1990); The Learning Company: A Strategy for Sustainable Development by Pedler et al. (1991); Organisational Learning by Argyris and Schon, (1981) and Managing Change in Organisations by Carnall (1999) before moving onto this one. The book is fine for seasoned practitioners, tutors and researchers with an established background in these areas. It might also prove useful to students on more “advanced” HRM programmes such as masters and research degrees. However, students or readers who are new to these topics, might struggle to grasp their meaning and message, particularly as many of these topics lacked a certain degree of definition and elucidation.

Practitioners, tutors and students might also derive a great deal of benefit from the learning history because of its inherently reflective approach to learning and learning from experience. Organisations might also find its “unique” style beneficial in terms of how activities such as process consultation can help to implement change programmes and how behavioural change can ultimately lead to both individual and organisational learning.