Dr Neil Béchervaise

NB Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd

In search of a practical communication based theory on transformational organisational change

Scott Michael Bourke
Australian Graduate School of Entrepreneurship
and
Dr. Neil E. Béchervaise
Managing Director Global Research Business

Paper presented to Hawaii International Conference on Business June, 2002

Abstract

The distinction between "first order" and "second order" change (Watazlwick, Weakland & Fisch 1974), also referred to as "incremental" and "transformational" change (Nutt & Backoff 1997), continues to guide research inquiry in the field of organisational science (Weick & Quinn 1999). Van de Ven (1995:p367) defines transformational change as "radical (second-order) change, which creates novel forms that are discontinuous and unpredictable departures from the past". In contrast, "incremental (first-order) change channels an organisational entity in the direction of adapting its basic structure and maintaining its identity in a stable and predictable way" (Van de Ven 1995: p367).

The capacity of organisations to adapt in a transformational fashion - to continuously adapt to a radically dynamic and evolving competitive landscape - has assumed prominence in the discourse of academics and practitioners (Huff & Huff 2001). It is widely perceived to be a source of competitive advantage and a principal determinant of organisational survival (Hamel & Prahalad, 1994, Bohl & Slocum 1996, Greenwood and Hinings, 1996).

Although there is an expansive change literature (Nutt & Backoff 1997, Bartenuk 1993, Weick & Quinn 1999, Van de Ven 1995), there is little consensus on the process required to support transformation (Huff & Huff 2001, Bartenuk 1993, Weick & Quinn 1999, Wruck 2000). This lack of consensus has added weight to the concern that change research is not "developing as a cumulative and falsifiable body of knowledge" (Weick & Quinn 1999) that is of relevance in organisational practice. A number of explanatory thematics or general arguments that highlight perceived weaknesses in the extant literature are finding recognition within the inter-disciplinary literatures on change outside management and business school research. Three of these thematics are considered to be of particular interest in the context of the proposed research.

The first explanation relates to the complexity of change and the dangers of attempting simplification and abstraction in pursuit of the decision-making certainty and timeliness demanded by practitioners. The possibility exists that in seeking to understand the phenomenon of transformation, researchers failed to come to grips with its abstraction due to the complexity of the subject (Rumelt, Schendel & Teece 1994, cited in Huff & Huff 2001). In effect, researchers have been unable attend to "a number of the complex dynamics associated with change" (Bartenuk 1993) precisely because change is so complex and the variables so variable.

A second explanation advanced is that those philosophical persepectives employed by researchers in the conception and, in turn exploration, of organisations and their transformations have hindered and obscured rather than assisted the academic investigative research and practical learning processes (Ford 1995). Concerns here centre on the ontological and epistemological perspectives that dominate organisational science research and in turn restrict the ways in which the public firm can change (Ford 1999, Huff & Huff 2001).

These rhetorical philosophies define and bound our conception of organisation and the way its constituents behave (Seth & Thomas 1994 cited in Huff & Huff 2001) including the way transformations are affected (Beer & Nohria 2000). Each of these explanations identifies managerial inability or incomprehension as a root-cause for the high failure rate in transformational change implementation. In finding it difficult to imagine that so many managers should be so incapable of recognising what should be recognised as basic steps in change implementation, this paper proposes that there may be more complex issues awaiting identification.

A third explanation is that the philosophical perspectives [or underpinning beliefs] employed by researchers in the conception, and in turn exploration, of organisations and their transformations have hindered and obscured rather than assisted the research and learning process (Ford 1995). Concerns here centre on the ontological and epistemological perspectives that dominate organisational science research (Ford 1999, Huff & Huff 2001). Perspectives from which findings can be quantified, actions simply identified and from which linear links between cause and effect can be accurately ascribed to accessible and measurable data. These rhetorical philosophies, it is argued, define and bound our conception of organisation and the way its constituents behave and affect the way transformations are achieved (Beer & Nohria, 2000).

New theories of transformational change grounded in the disciplines of communication (Ford 1999, Faber 1999) and transformational leadership (Bass 1985, Sarros, Densten & Santora 1999) offer the potential to reinvigorate the debate surrounding transformational change. These new theories typically conceive of organisations as socially constructed realities (Czarniawska 1997) where the role of the leader is to "construct, de-construct and reconstruct existing realities so as to bring about different performances" (Ford 1999). Understanding mental models (Senge 1990) and the way in which organisational members - including leaders - experience, interpret, construct, respond to and make sense of (Weick 1996) a transformational change through their communication is central to these theories.

This paper explores the nature of transformational change from a communication perspective and progresses towards an integration of our theoretical and practical understanding of the phenomenon. As a work-in-progress, it seeks to respond to calls to extend our knowledge and understanding of organisations as "phenomena of language" (Ford 1999). As a basis for ongoing discussion, it provides an exploration of the ways in which managers enter the change cycle, how they conceptualise the role of communication concerning the change and how their communications are received through the organisation.

The study employs a case study approach (Yin, 1994) to investigate in a mid-sized Australian corporation how the reality of a proposed transformation, and the associated mental models of the organisational members, is constructed conceptualised by the central organisational actors. Data collection, which takes the form of semi-structured interviews, concentrates on capturing participantÕs perceptions of the transformation as it unfolded in historical reflection and narrative. It is anticipated that the study will provide insight into actorÕs conceptions and mental models of the transformation and inter alia the role of best practice communication creating and reinforcing mental models and generally in the transformation process.

Key words: Transformational organisational change, transformational change, organisational change, communication, change management, human resource management, management, organisational communication

Introduction

The principal objective of this paper is to develop an improved practical understanding of organisational transformation by seeking to build on new theories that conceptualise transformation as a communication problematic (Ford 1999, Faber 1999, Lewis 1999). The research seeks to inform theory building by investigating the value of epistemological perspectives on change as an alternative to the structuralist functionalist paradigm that currently dominates organisational science literature (Ford 1999).

Our starting point is that the failure to produce a useful applied theoretical understanding of change (Gordon 2000, Weick & Quinn 1999, Huff & Huff 2001) cannot be explained by reference to the understanding produced by much of the extant literature. Instead, we argue the need for new and perhaps different theoretical perspectives that reflect the importance of language, communication and sense-making and the explication of relations of power in the context of leadership and management. Our focus is on explicating a number of explanatory thematics or perspectives that we feel are finding a voice within the various change literatures as sources of the failure of transformational organisational change. Three thematics are of particular interest in this context.

The first explanatory perspective relates to the complexity of change and the dangers of attempting its simplification and abstraction in pursuit of the decision-making certainty and timeliness demanded by practitioners. We suggest the possibility that in seeking to understand the phenomena of transformation, researchers failed to come to grips with its abstraction due to the complexity of the subject (Rumelt, Schendel & Teece 1994, cited in Huff & Huff 2001). In a sense researchers have yet to attend to "a number of the complex dynamics associated with change" (Bartenuk 1993).

A second explanatory perspective we explore relates to the philosophical approaches researchers have adopted in the conception and in turn exploration of change. Our concern here centres on epistemological perspectives dominant within organisational science (Mir & Watson 2001, Ford 1999, Huff & Huff 2001). They include the philosophy that defines and bounds our conception of the public firm (Seth & Thomas 1994 cited in Huff & Huff 2001)

A third explanatory perspective is that executive management, regarded in structuralist functionalist research as the "principal actor", has not absorbed, understood and/or been interested or capable of applying learning insights from the relevant literatures (Nutt & Backoff 1997, Reinsch 1996). This thematic raises questions about the role of management in the change process, managerial sub-cultures, transformational leadership (Bass 1985, Ford 1999) and the presentation form and content of academic research as practical theory (Reinsch 1997, Cronen 1995, Pearce & Pearce 2000). ). More problematically, it appears to blame the victim. It assumes that change is actually initiated by, and devolves, from senior management in an identifiable and linear cause-effect manner that can be tracked and measured because the paths have been clearly established from previous research.

In explicating these thematics, our research draws upon the contribution of interdisciplinary perspectives on change from a range of research fields. They include communication (Ford 1999, Lewis 1999, Lewis & Seibold 1998, Faber 1999), philosophy (Gergen and Thatchenkary1996) and industrial psychology (Weick 1979, 1996) that have hitherto not attracted great prominence in practitioner discourses.

Organisational change

We are constantly reminded that change in the business environment and, in turn, for organisations operating within it, is an objective fact (Taylor 1999). Much of the responsibility for dynamic societal and institutional change has been attributed to the pace of technological change (Tofler 1971) and globalisation (Bartlett & Goshal 1993). In a sense, advances in technology have had the effect of shortening time and reducing the space between people and places through rapid improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of communication technologies such as the Internet and e-mail.

The concept of "thinking locally, acting globally" has become for many organisations a reality more than a necessity largely as the result of technologically supported developments. As Huff and Huff (2001) note, in drawing from and supporting the stance of Bartlett & Goshal (1993:), "a globalizing world is changing the nature and needs of organisations by requiring them to be more quickly responsive to evolving circumstances". In short the thesis implicit, if not explicit, in this research is that organizations must be more adaptable to change in order to survive in the contemporary business environment.

Change has been conceptualised as an important, necessary and inevitable result of the technologically wrought changes in organisational activity in a globally competitive environment in both the academic and public discourse (Chapman 1996). As Vibert (2000:p6) has observed, "few issues capture the attention of researchers, managers, and consultants as an awareness of the profound structural changes occurring around us and the need to organize effectively to deal with them". In seeking to respond to dynamic environmental change, there has been an increasing trend for organizations to "seek to continually learn and foster learning in both their employees and the methods by which they conduct their affairs" (Vibert 2000:p1).

The capacity to change - to adapt to a radically dynamic and evolving competitive landscape - has come to be regarded today as "a key determinant of competitive advantage and organizational survival" (Greenwood and Hinings 1996 citing D'Aveni 1994). In the "information" economy, there are grounds for arguing that an organisationÕs communication abilities, reflected by the capacity to share knowledge (see Drucker 1999), will become an important source of competitive advantage (Bohl and Slocum 1996, Hamel & Prahalad 1994).

As Noel Tichy (1996:p45) puts it, "as we enter the latter half of the 1990s, it is clear that to be winners in the 21st century, companies must master revolutionary change with enthusiasm". Hamel & Prahalad (1994) and Bohl & Slocum (1996) posit that the capacity to transform and adapt to the dynamically changing competitive business environment will be an important determinant of an organisation's survival and enduring competitive advantage in the future.

Practitioner interest in organisational change, with particular reference to how organisational transformations (Bartenuk 1993, Nutt & Backoff 1997, Weick & Quinn 1999) "can be engineered", has grown in parallel with the academic attention afforded to change. The concern of practitioners, to understand and harness the power of change, have been influenced in part by the emergence of populist 'management gurus' and a management consulting industry (Mazza and Alvarez 2000, Micklethwait & Woolridge 1996).

Evidence that the popular change rhetoric of Hamel & Prahalad (1994) and notable others (Bohl & Slocum 1996, Brown & Eisenhardt 1997, 1998) has been influential in organisational thinking can be found in the pronouncements of organisational leaders (Huff & Huff 2001). It has also manifested itself in the trend to outsourcing of perceived non-core organisational activities.

In spite of academic and practitioner attention, the intra-organisational dynamics (Greenwood and Hinings 1996) and human behaviours that characterise organisational change remain confusingly problematic (Rajopaplan and Spreitzer 1999, Weick & Quinn 1999, Huff & Huff 2001). As Huff & Huff (2001:pvi) suggest, "there is convincing evidence that organisations do not change easily".

The failure of change initiatives

More often than not, organisational transformations fail (Cornett-deVito & Freeman 1994, Hodge 1998). They fail for a multiplicity of reasons that do not necessarily show consistency across studies or time (Huff and Huff 2001). They produce complex political dynamics (Cyert & March 1963, March & Simon 1958) and crises the resolution of which more often than not proves to be beyond the capacity of most organizations to resolve successfully.

Although the change research literature has become "theoretically richer and more descriptive" (Weick & Quinn 1999) over time, a conundrum of sorts exists. Whilst change is recognised as critically important to organisational survival and competitive advantage (Hamel & Prahalad 1994, Brown & Eisenhardt 1997, 1997, 1998) there remains little broad agreement on why successful and sustainable organisational change has proven so problematic (Wruck 2000).

The question that persists through both the research and its surrounding rhetoric is why "a cumulative and falsifiable body of knowledge" concerning organisational change has yet to emerge (Weick & Quinn 1999, p362) and better organisational outcomes. Importantly, practical theories that have relevance to practitioners are required (Cronen 1995).

The question as to why and how organisations pursue transformational change remains a central concern of researchers in the field (Nutt & Backoff 1997, Weick & Quinn 1999). Van de Ven (1995:p367) echoes similar sentiments when he comments that " [E]xplaining how and why organizations change is a central and enduring quest of scholars in management and many other social science disciplines". Van de Ven (1995) continues to affirm this position when he comments that the "processes or sequences of events that unfold in these changes are very difficult to explain, let alone to manage".

In the face of such concern, it seems reasonable to inquire, albeit timorously, whether the very academic inquiry processes being employed to discover Ôthe answerÕ might not be obscuring it from view. In the sense that academic research may only be applied within the constraints of its parent discipline, the construct validity of that discipline must inevitably constitute a source for potential misinterpretation.

Transactional and Transformational Change

What is regarded today as the modern, though not modernist, perspective on organisational change emerged out of the Organisational Development movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s (Bartenuk 1993). This movement initially drew much of its research direction from the social science discipline of social and industrial psychology. Beckhard's (1969) early definition of change, which represented a more conservative interpretation, nevertheless remains a useful starting point for an assessment of the conceptualisation of change (cited in Bartenuk 1993:p324):

"an effort (1) planned, (2) organisation wide, and (3) managed from the top, (4) to increase organisational effectiveness and health through (5) planned interventions in the organisations processes using behavioural science knowledge".

Van de Ven (1995:p366) has defined organisational change broadly as "a difference in form, quality, or state over time in an organizational entity". Weick and Quinn (1999) suggest that at its most general level, change is merely a phenomena or function of time. They comment that "change involves difference[s] in how an organization functions, who its members and leaders are, what form it takes, or how it allocates its resources" (Huber et al 1993:216)".

Organisational science has subsequently shifted in several diverse directions from its early concern with the interpersonal dynamics of change and their impact on organisational effectiveness (Bantenuk 1993). Contemporary research has pragmatically conceptualised change as "much more than the presence of new procedures, ideas, people, and machinery. It also often involves new organizational structures, new rules, new roles, new values, new rewards, and new ways of doing work" (Lewis 1999:p60).

The pragmatic concern with improving organisational effectiveness implicit in BeckhardÕs early definition has progressed to reflect a more holistic perspective that recognises two different forms, being first and second-order change (Watzlawick, Weakland & Fisch 1974, Nutt and Backoff 1997, Bartenuk 1993). The distinction between the two modes has become so "pervasive and central [to] the conceptualisation of change" that it provides a useful framework around which to structure a review of the contemporary change literature (Weick and Quinn 1999:p361).

Second-order change, often referred to as organisational transformation, is concerned with something more than improvements in an organisation's efficiency and effectiveness (Nutt & Back0ff 1997). In contrast with incremental change that is typically associated with organisational effectiveness, transformation implies a fundamental and radical shift in "traditional practices and ways of doing business" (Nutt & Backoff 1997).

Researchers have used various terms to refer to two distinct modes, including incremental and transformational, episodic and continuous, convergent and radical change (Weick & Quinn 1999, Vibert 2000, Nutt and Backoff 1997). Van de Ven & Poole (1995) define the two modes of change as follows:

1. incremental (first-order) change which channels an organizational entity in the direction of adapting its basic structure and maintaining its identity in a stable and predictable way as it changes, and

2. radical (second-order) change, which creates novel forms that are discontinuous and unpredictable departures from the past (see review by Meyer, Brooks, and Goes, 1990).

Goodstein & Burke (1991) adopt a similar distinction between the two modes of change though they appear to value the change modes completely differently. They conceive of:

..fundamental, large-scale change in the organization's strategy and culture--a transformation, refocus, reorientation, or "bending the frame," as Nadler and Tushman have referred to the process and fine-tuning, fixing problems, making adjustments, modifying procedures, etc.; that is, implementing modest changes that improve the organization's performance yet do not fundamentally change the organization.

Van de Ven (1995: p366-7) defines transformational change as:

radical (second-order) change, which creates novel forms that are discontinuous and unpredictable departures from the past". In contrast, transactional or incremental (first-order) change channels an organisational entity in the direction of adapting its basic structure and maintaining its identity in a stable and predictable way.

In effective extension, Kilman and Covin (1988:pxii) define "corporate transformation"-- or organizational transformation, as:

... a process by which organizations examine what they were, what they are, what they will need to be, and how to make the necessary changes ...The term corporate is used to convey the comprehensive effort required, in contrast to a piecemeal or single-division effort. Transformation indicates the fundamental nature of the change, in contrast to a mere linear extrapolation from the past. Corporate transformation is serious, large-scale change that demands new ways of perceiving, thinking, and behaving by all members of the organization.

More recently, Nutt and Backoff (1997:p236), in their attempt to summarise the transformational change literature, conceptualised an organisational transformation as creating:

..a sustainable metamorphosis from a vision that produces radical changes in an organization's products/services, consumers/clients, market channels, skills, sources of margin, competitive advantage, and persona, integrating these changes with core competencies.

Although an agreed conception of transformational change remains problematic, it appears to require, at least:

• a radically different vision, strategy and culture;
• a process of not dissimilar to LewinÕs (1952) three phase model of change;
• the wholehearted support and commitment of executive management; and
• broad-based organisational participation in all critical aspects of the process.

Managers charged with the implementation of radical shifts in organisational policy, structure and operation, however, remain sceptical of apparently impractical academic solutions. Instead, in an effort to remove the Ôchange-monkeyÕ from their backs, they incline to the Ôquick-fixÕ operationally focused solutions offered by the gurus of the management consultancy industry (Dulmanis, 2002). The hope here is that they will be delivered into "a fundamentally new and different organisation from that which once was" (Nutt and Backoff, 1997:p236). The 'reality', reflected in the research on the success of transformational change initiatives that embrace this philosophical approach, unfortunately suggests otherwise.

Modernist and postmodernist conceptions of the organisation

Industrial modernism

The traditional conception of organisation, constructed from the work of Taylor (1911) Weber (1947, 1968), and Etzioni (1964) and built on by researchers in economics and finance (e.g. Jensen and Meckling 1976) implies a rational view of the organisation. It implies a deliberate, stable and certain construct Ð Ôa monument to human achievementÕ. In this world view, often referred to as formal, structural or modernist, organisations are characterised as having an identity and a life that is autonomous, separate, distinct from organisational stakeholders and actors (Brunsson 1999) and, most comfortingly, knowable and predictable.

In the modern/structural interpretation of organisation, interactions between and among actors are assumed to be linear and "prediction and control are paramount" (Lissack & Roos 1997). Modern organisations are places where rational managers make rational choices in relation to well-defined problems that reflect an objective reality (Brunsson 1999). Managers are responsible in the modern organisation for all organisational decisions and, by implication, can exercise control over them.

In consequence, managers are able to be accountable for the results of their decisions and their productivity (Argyris 1976, Brunsson 1999). In this paradigm, this structuralist mental model, the organisation behaves predictably and responds accurately and promptly to direction provided in an established fashion by management through a hierarchical "chain of command".

In the modernist conception of organisation, language and communication have a subordinate role to thought and action (Cayer and Minkler 1998). Communication is considered a "colourless, odourless and tasteless vehicle for thought and action" where "words have only singular meanings and communication provides a neutral tool for describing the world" (Pearce & Pearce 2000:p412-3).

The traditional/formal interpretation of organisation gives primacy to the role of managers in the process of change and the creation, as opposed to the discovery, of culture. In this modernist interpretation of the change process, managers issue or transmit directives and instructions to employees. They then apply coercive power and authority to force employees to carry out these instructions as directed: managers are the central co-ordinating actors in what is seen to be a ÔnaturalÕ hierarchical structure.

Definitions of organisation that are different from, in opposition to or defiant of the traditional definition offer more open possibilities for the role, function and model of communication. Weick (1979, 1996) and others (eg Lissak & Roos 2000, Ford 1999) suggest that "organisation" and "organising" are best understood in terms of systems of language and communication. Organisation, in this sense, becomes simply a function of language and communication. When the term "organisation" is conceptualised in this way, the assumptions that guide our understanding of organisations as exclusively formal (cf. March & Simon 1958) are naturally called into question (Brunson 1999), as are the dominant models of general communication in which they find form.

Empirical evidence provides support for the view that organisations may not have separate identities, they may not act autonomously, their boundaries may not be well defined and their decision-making processes may be characterised by conflict and irrationality (Brunsson 1999). This evidence also suggests that organisational actors do not behave or act rationally in an organisational context in the way modernist theories of organization would have use believe they should (Gergen and Thatchenkary 1996, Mintaberg 1973, Brunsson 1999).

Empirical research reveals a very real weakness within the generally accepted conception of the formal organisation (Brunsson 1999). Contradicting a fundamental presumption of the formal model, empirical evidence reveals that managers spend much of their time communicating and dealing with people, trouble-shooting problems and reacting to developments in an emergent way (Mintzberg 1973, Taylor 1999, Brunsson 1999). The decisions managers make tend to involve issues which are complex and over which they have very little control or influence (Argyris 1976), which is a very different presumption than that assumed by modernist theories of organization.

Post-modern conceptions of the organisation

The alternative, postmodernist or post-structuralist conception of organisation is rooted in the assumption that organisations are socially constructed realities (Berger & Luckman 1966, Weick 1979, 1996, Czarniawska 1997). In the constructivist paradigm (von Glaserfeld 1988, Mir and Watson 2000), reality is not some objective 'thing' that exists independently of our knowledge of it. Rather, the organisational reality we know "is interpreted, constructed, enacted and maintained though discourse" (Ford 1999:p480) which Ford describes in terms of conversationally constructed reality. Research is in turn, according to the constructivist perspective, theory driven (Mir and Watson 2000).

In this post-modernist or post-structuralist paradigm, models of communication are concerned with non-linearity and concepts of sense-making (Weick 1996) and the mental models of organisational participants (Senge 1990, Weick 1979). These models are designed to assist our understanding of how people interpret communication to make sense of and, in turn, socially construct their private versions of reality (Lissak & Roos 1997, Ford 1999).

Research embedded in the structuralist functionalist paradigm presents a communication perspective on organisational transformation that is grounded in the formal model of organization (Ford 1999, Burrell & Morgan 1979). This research invariably finds that communication is a tool that enhances managerial capacity to control and engineer desired organisational change outcomes (Mumby and Stohl 1996). Within this paradigm, the role of the change agent " is to align to align, fit or adapt organisations through interventions to an objective reality" (Ford 1999:p481).

As Mumby (1997:p343) has noted,

..one of the principal contributions of critical communication studies to our understanding of human behaviour [has been its] exploration of the complex relations amongst communication, power, and the social construction of reality.

Nowhere is the convergence and interplay of these three constructs more acute than in the context of institutional or organisational life, in particular, in the implementation of transformational change. A constructivist perspective on organisation rooted in dialogic communication suggests a very different understanding of how a transformation might actually occur than is suggested in traditional structuralist functionalist research (Ford 1999, Czarniawska 1997, Thatchenkary 1993, Weick & Quinn 1999).

Seizing on EinsteinÕs observation that it is not possible to solve tomorrowÕs problems with the thinking that created those problems, post-structuralists argue that change only occurs when the language used to create the narratives that describe the organisation have changed. Communication is only effective when the stories describing the change are told and heard in the shared language of the organisation.

Culture as the object of organisational transformation

In most proposed change initiatives, including the creation of knowledge organisations, management typically regards the investigation and use of culture as too soft and imprecise to be valuable - an inexact art. This is in contrast to "management", which practitioners tend to curiously privilege with the status of being a "science", unfortunately without explication or justification. In change initiatives, culture is often dealt with as an afterthought. Senior executives frequently "talk the talk" on organisational culture, but rarely do they "walk the talk" when it comes to recognising the possibility that culture could play a constitutive role in determining the possibilities of organizational transformation. As Dulmanis (2002) observes, modern managers are too busy trying to maintain their position in the organisation politic to rethink it. Instead, they seek quick fixes, seven way solutions and ten step stoppers to contain bottom-line blow-outs.

There is emerging, however, evidence that the substantive gains from transformational change are not the product of operationally based change processes. To the contrary, evidence suggests that fundamentally changing the cultural orientation of organisational members is at the heart of successful organisational transformations, in turn promoting value creation.

What this emerging practitioner driven research is implying, in effect, is that whilst operational processes are manifest within any form of organisational change, they are not the essence of it. Furthermore, achieving the objective of introducing cultural change by application of an operationally driven process produces an Objective/Process Mismatch, which almost inevitably leads to systemic break down and the failure of the change implementation. Through metaphor, Objective/Process Mismatch reflected by managerial attempt to create transformations through can be conceptualised as the agricultural equivalent of using a combine wheat harvester to plant carrots.

Machine operators may be able to identify the declining performance of their machines; this does not imply that they will be able to diagnose what is causing the performance drop, let alone how it might be fixed. Transformational change demands the capacity to think beyond the accepted operations of the organisation. Processes must be aligned to meet changed objectives. New stories must be shared to describe the changed reality in which everyone works differently. If we conceptualise the creation of organisational transformations as a phenomena of culture, the next obvious step is to inform our theoretical understanding of how cultural and other organisational behaviours successfully change and are changed.

Definitions of culture abound in the academic and practitioner literatures. An often quoted, but nevertheless simplistic definition posits in apparently practical terms, that organisational culture is "the way things get done around here" or "the way we understand things around here" (Dent 1991:p26). One of the more widely quoted academic references in the area of culture is to Edgar Schein (1985). Schein argued that culture manifests itself and hence is defined by reference to the three distinct levels at which it operates: basic assumptions, values and artefacts.

Ronald Clement (1994) provides a useful summary and re-interpretation of Schein's definition and analysis of culture. Clement's (1994) review of Schein's definition and articulation of culture is consistent with the works of other leading authors in the field including Trice and Beyer (1993).

Basic assumptions are regarded by Schein (1985) as the well accepted, "givens" of behavioural practice. They are Ôbeyond challengeÕ; they are Ôthe way things get done around hereÕ. Military adherence to Ôthe chain of commandÕ provides a classic and purposeful illustration of a basic assumption. In all circumstances as a member of the military forces, you follow the 'chain of command' because Ôit's the way things get done around hereÕ.

In some respects though, the 'chain of command' example is not particularly helpful because it evidences an explicit and overt 'basic assumption'. More often than not, basic assumptions are implicit and covert, even subvert in nature. As we highlight in the context of our exploration of organisational cultures and the managerial subcultures, the subversive and thus less obvious nature of many cultural 'basic assumptions' can be problematic in the context of organisational change.

For Schein, values represent a higher order of culture in that they deal with aspirational beliefs, not "what is" but, as Ronald Clement (1994) puts it, "what ought to be". Efficiency savings, profit increases, workplace safety, passionately involved staff are all noble objectives. Each can be associated with an enlightened approach to organisational management. Some values, like some assumptions, however, need to be tested for their universality. Clement (1994) provides a useful example of valuing "the belief that on-the-job experience is the best form of training. Given this value, and assuming employees successfully learn their jobs this way, there would be little reliance on structured training programs". For senior executives, perhaps, playing by the well established "rules" of transformational change tends to ensure predictability and profit maintenance while subverting the potential for change to improve profits. What 'ought to beÕ becomes a hostage to Ôthe way we do things round hereÕ.

ScheinÕs third level of culture, the artefacts, are physical and explicit manifestations of an organisation's culture and include, as Clement (1994) notes, everything from procedures, manuals and the technology employed through to the various tools and forms of communication. ScheinÕs levels of culture are not uniformly resistant to change Ð in fact they range in ascending order from most resistant (basic assumptions) to least resistant (artefacts) (De Long and Fahey 2000). Moreover, basic assumptions and values exert a powerful influence on the behaviour of most organisational members, which can be either positive or negative for organisational value creation.

The Ôwar storiesÕ that employees Ð from senior management to the most recent appointee Ð tell each other, form the basis for understanding what the organisation is and the "way things get done around here". Formed through past experience, they include tangible artefacts ("the old lunch-room where you could smoke during a break"), learned values (the only good press is a Humble) and frequently unquestioned beliefs (don't expect to be listened if youÕve got an idea).

Furthermore, the process of identifying and defining existing organisational cultures is not possible through managerial dictation and directive. The identification of culture must by definition involve a process of discovery of what "is there" rather than what management believes should be there or would like to delude itself into believing should be there.

Power, politics and transformation

In the context of transformational change, power and politics play crucial and pervasive roles in the shaping of cultural attitudes to change, in particular transformational change. Management, as a particular organisational sub-culture, deserves particular attention in this regard. Machiavelli's observations on the problematic of institutional change in the context of politics and power, remain as poignantly relevant today as they undoubtedly were when first articulated.

As Machiavelli put it, circa 1513, in The Prince:

There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm (indifferent, uninterested) defenders in those who may do well under the new.

The terms power and politics are noticeably absent from the lexicon of most organisational management teams and also, due perhaps to issues of power politics, from organisational discourses more generally (Clement 1994). What is equally surprising is that power and politics rarely find their way into mainstream academic investigations of organisational behaviour and transformational organisational change (Mumby 1997).

The lack of attention afforded to power and politics in change research is surprising, perhaps naively so, not least because of the obvious, fundamental and well-recognised role that they play in all forms of organisational change, or in the present context, cultural change. A number of possible explanations for the absence of power and politics from the discourses of management and organization can be advanced. The insights they provide hold great importance for our understanding of the legitimacy of the way change initiatives are conceptualised and conducted in organizations.

Power, in its popular definition, still retains and conveys an impression of illegitimacy in the organisational context. In this sense, there is the sneaking presumption that those organisational actors with positional power Ð typically management Ð if compelled to rely on their position power are acting illegitimately and out of self-interest rather than in the organisational interest. Related to this proposition is the expectation, derived from the economic theory of the firm (eg Jensen and Meckling 1976), that all organisational actors Ð in particular management Ð are rational. Then, because power is a non-rational concept, "managerial decisions should be based on reason and legitimate authority rather than something as "non-rational" as power" (Clement 1994).

Extending this argument, when power is excluded as a topic of managerial and organisational discourse, it provides further evidence and reassurance to the general (and more importantly, the investing) public that organisational decision making "is based on efficiency and logic" (Clement 1994). Recent response to the Enron collapse, and to the exaggerated reporting of profits and losses suggests that organisational culture may be forced into transformational change to satisfy the demands of increasingly informed shareholders for actual efficiency and logic.

The implications of the inter-relationship of power and culture for transformational changes designed to create knowledge organizations extend well beyond the need to obtain top-level managerial support or "buy-in" and participation. It becomes fundamentally important for the early leaders of cultural transformations who, we argue, are typically mid-level managers, to recognise explicitly the existing politics and power structures dominant within their organizations. They must then take the existing political and power structures into account in formulating their own and, in turn, their organizationÕs, ultimate strategy to transform the practices of the organization (Bradshaw-Campbell 1989).

The politics of power in every organisation conceal as much of the undesirable reality as possible from the researcher because admission that an existing structure is untenable is an acknowledgement that it must be changed. Which, in the linear paradigm of the modernist, structuralist manager, demands that the change implementation be successful. Stories of managers who do not manage to achieve change implementation within an existing cultural framework are not pretty stories. They are war stories of battles lost, not battles won. Rather than representing opportunities for learning, they are almost invariably characterised negatively and repressed, swept under the carpet by those responsible and their superiors, neither of whom perceive personal value in celebrating, recounting or Ð dare we suggest it Ð learning from them.

In this context, it is arguable that to be useful, texts and frameworks describing particular organisational activities need to meaningfully represent the reality of those activities they seek to describe. Making a critical assessment of organisational change research in the 1970s, which Weick & Quinn (1999) argue remains relevant today, Kahn (1974) wryly opines that:

[A] few theoretical propositions are repeated without additional data or development; a few bits of homey advice are reiterated without proof or disproof; and a few sturdy empirical observations are quoted with reverence but without refinement or explication (Kahn (1974), cited in Macy & Izumi, 1993:p237).

Criticism of the translation of Ôacademic researchÕ into "practitioner friendly speak" by management gurus and management consultants, has emerged to support KahnÕs view. As Micklethwait and Wooldridge (1996) comment, in relation to the "guru business", in their "witheringly popular book on the change business" (Weick & Quinn 1999:p362):

..it is constitutionally incapable of self-criticism; its terminology usually confuses rather than educates; it rarely rises above basic common sense; and it is faddish and be-devilled by contradictions.

In the face of such criticism, and perhaps in justification of the guru business, Hunter S. Thompson, the infamous "gonzo" journalist, is alleged to have written that, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" (Mathews and Wacker 2002). However, gurus become gurus because they respond to a chord of that same Ôbasic common senseÕ that Micklethwait and Woolridge (1996) ridicule. They match the reality of the moment with apparently un-researched Ð and therefore academically unacceptable Ð explanations of organisational reality. Most importantly, perhaps, they are able to ÔopineÕ on the basis of data that they could never gain permission to publish because it is based on experiences they would never be permitted to research.

To summarise the arguments advanced in this section, it is clear that culture has a fundamental influence on the activities of organizations. What is also clear is that organisational culture Ð and in particular managerial subcultures Ð can be rigid, tight and resistant to new thinking and hence represent a negative or resistant influence to change. The reality of culture for the vast majority of organizations is that it needs to be understood as representing a form of "organisational prophylactic" that not only protects "business-as-usual businesses from new opportunities" (Mathews and Wacker 2002), but also and at the same time entrenches existing organisational power structures and interests. In consequence, it is unlikely that researchers can look forward to access to explore the intricate maze of contradictory paradigms and illusions that form the basis for management action in many otherwise exemplary organizations.

If a hypothesis suggests the possibility for the research investigation to produce data that could cast the dominant and most powerful organisational actors Ð typically though not exclusively management - in an unflattering light, common sense tells us the question will never be asked with the consent and support of management. The managerial corollary to the well-worn legal one-liner, "never ask a witness a question you donÕt already know the answer to", is "never allow a research question to be researched where the data might produce anything other than a ringing endorsement of existing the managementÕs performance". Where there is no evidence there is no crime.

The constitutive role of communication and language in transformations

In much the same way that knowledge cannot be "managed", we argue that it is not possible to "manage" cultural transformations. Both terms Ð Ôknowledge managementÕ and Ôchange managementÕ Ð represent classic oxymorons; they are rhetorical expressions in which incongruous or contradictory terms are combined. This is intended as more than a Ôthrow awayÕ observation given the meaning and constitutive power we ascribe to the way language and communication are employed in creating, sharing and applying knowledge and in facilitating cultural transformations.

Our research is guided by a reliance on recent theories of transformational change grounded in the disciplines of communication (Ford 1999, Faber 1999) that offer the potential to reinvigorate our understanding of transformational organisational change. These newer communication theories conceive of organisations as socially constructed realities (Czarniawska 1997) where, as we have previously noted, communication is the medium employed to "construct, de-construct and reconstruct existing realities so as to bring about different performances" (Ford 1999).

Daft (1997:p560) has defined organisational communication as "the process by which information is exchanged and understood by two or more people, usually with the intent to motivate or influence behaviour". For the purpose of this paper, organisational communication is the Ôlanguaging processes through which organisational actors facilitate or co-ordinate organisational activityÕ (Brunsson 1999, Weick 1979, 1996). It is the way individuals make sense out of what is happening in their workplace, how they construct a social reality that makes sense of their workaday world in the context of their reality (Ford 1999).

Four principal organisational contexts are inter-related and interdependent in the way that they influence the nature of communication in organisations - interpersonal, group, institutional and inter-institutional. Organisational communication practices, such as the dyads of sender/receiver, are embedded in and in turn impacted by group, institutional and societal "networks". This linear and dyadic conceptualisation, however, is far too simple to explain what actually happens when a change strategy is implemented within an organisation. Group and institutional beliefs, value sets, personal and organisational cultures can and do shape the way in which any two people communicate in an organisational context.

Our research investigation in this context centres on an exploration of two dynamics. The first dynamic involves the way that language and communication practices within the subject organization create and shape the meaning of organisational change. The second and perhaps higher order dynamic involves the way in which the cultural change strategy and process employ the use of language and communication to interpret the proposed strategy.

As Lewis (1999:p43) notes, "organizational scholars have long acknowledged the importance of communication in explanations of organizational change processes". However, with rare exception, scholars have focused on an exploration and understanding of organizational communication from the managerial perspective and very little research on the subject of internal organizational communication has actually been published (Argenti 1996). Similarly, there appear to be few theories or models that incorporate and address practical communication ÔprocessÕ considerations. Examples of these process considerations include communication channels (Larkin & Larkin 1996, Lewis 1999), formality (Young & Post 1993), two-way communication (Lewis 1999) and participation (Lewis 1999 citing Cameron, Freeman and Mishra 1993, Sagie & Elizur 1990, Blumberg 1976).

One of the many difficulties with both organisational communication and with organisational behaviour in general, is that the dominant managerial voice reduces the need of the employee for flexibility in making sense of the communication (Mumby and Stohl 1996). It also disrupts matching of the proposed or required change to the demands of the workplace and the fitting of the change to the organisational culture (see generally Lissack and Roos 1997). Change continues to be seen, from a managerial perspective, to be implemented from the top because:

First, intelligence is located at the top; Leadership is the head, organization is the body. Second, change is predictable. That is, when you design a change effort, there's a reasonable degree of predictability and control. Third, there is the assumption of cascading intention: Once a course of action is determined, initiative flows from the top down, and the only trick is to communicate it and roll it out through the ranks. Those three assumptions are deeply baked into the minds of most executives. Those assumptions are so fundamental to how we think about business that it's hard even to be aware of how they govern the way that organizations are run. (Pascale 2001)

In the face of the certainty identified by Pascale (2001), the role of the ÔintelligentÕ leader is to work unwittingly against their own best interests, becomes evident:

Change can be blocked by the dominant "elite" where they continuously [and often unwittingly, in partial ignorance or for apolitical reasons] affirm the importance, efficiency, and effectiveness of the current archetype. (Pascale, 2001)

Equally importantly, the employeesÕ need to respond to the managerial demand while maintaining their place within the changing professional and social context provides an added stricture to the effective implementation of change. The story may be changing at management level but it still has to be accommodated at the coalface. For a long-term employee, therefore, the demand to change stories incorporated over invariably lengthy periods requires significant readjustment. Organisational initiatives may require rethinking of promotional paths, training demands, personal finances and even location.

It was Schein (1993) who so poignantly highlighted the perpetuating myth that "all management speaks the same language". He also highlighted the implications that this misleading portrayal has for change, learning and, we would argue, for the creation of organizational cultures where change is embedded. Not surprisingly, it remains common to hear uncomprehending observations of CEOs that,

..even though they have a lot of power and authority, they [still] have great difficulty getting their programs implemented - things are not understood, that goals seem to change as they get communicated down the hierarchy, or that their subordinates "screw up" because they don't really understand what is wanted. (Schein 1993)

Modernist management strategies demanding postmodernist organisational responses create tensions in every individualÕs sense-making strategies (Weick 1996, Ford 1999). The mythology of the organization is thrown into question and threats to the organisational culture, and the uncertainty that will inevitably follow it, are resisted with increasing effect as they are distributed through the firm.

Changing the narratives - transformational and transactional change

Although there is little consensus on the process required to support a transformation (Huff & Huff 2001, Bartenuk 1993, Weick & Quinn 1999, Wruck 2000), we argue that transformational adaptation cannot occur until the organisational culture is changed. The narratives (stories that people in the organisation use to establish how the place works, how you get ahead, how change occurs) must first be opened to change and then the communication must be promoted as desirable, acceptable, necessary. Language and communication are considered from this perspective to be critical variables in the process of transformational change (Czarniawska 1997, Ford 1999).

On the basis of the findings of our research and reading to date, we argue that transformational change is possible through a continuous series of small steps which are evolutionary and transformative in their totality, rather than one frantic all embracing quantum leap. Necessarily, however, these small steps must be taken into a deliberately changing social context. Moreover, the steps must be accompanied by methodical shared changes in the narratives that accompany them.

In this respect, transformational change steps differ from the small steps associated with transactional change - which more closely resemble the frantic steps of that infamous cartoon character Ð Wylie E Coyote, who runs off a cliff chasing the Roadrunner but does not plunge into the ravine until he looks down and sees that he is no longer supported by the ground/surface (narrative) he thought he was running across. For Wylie E., the edge of the cliff can be held up as a reality only until he sees it is not there anymore. At this point the construct of reality breaks up, the narrative (I am running on a solid surface) cannot be maintained and, as night follows day, Wylie E. then plunges into the ravine - usually after waving - yet again.

Transactional change accommodates incremental change because it is limited to extension, in small steps, of the existing narrative that "is" the organisation. Metaphorically, it can be used to describe Joseph Flinders circumnavigation of Australia. Never far from land, Flinders mapped places never seen before and established a new understanding of the shape and size of Australia. His achievement, like that of explorers seeking the Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans as a trade route, remains transactional.

The voyages of Columbus or Magellan, by comparison with the coast-hugging Flinders, risked sailing off "the end of the world". The vessels of discovery in an organisational context are no different, but the stories the captains tell themselves are couched in different terms. They sail no faster but they sail for entirely different reasons. They operate from different assumptions and their achievements create vastly different understandings of what can be achieved and how it might be achieved.

Traditional approaches to organisational change where outcome expectations are consistent with a transformation in organisational performance typically rely on an implementation plan or strategy that is rooted in re-engineering the existing organisation without regard for the narratives which are used to establish the organisational culture. In typical organisational change processes, members are treated as objects to be acted on and made amenable to "command and control' style coercive directives that reinforce the desired change outcomes.

Members treated in this manner are seldom the cast members in a successful transformational change because their own identity is threatened by implementation of the change. The reality they have constructed Ð of what the organisation is, how it fits within the community and how they play their own valuable and valued part in that organisation Ð is threatened. Survival instincts are aroused and the change Ð or more accurately the uncertainty it produces - is resisted. A battered management retreats to evaluate the difference between change theory and practice and the organisation smooths its ruffled feathers to face another (transactional) day.

Leadership communication and its transformative role

Almost without exception, CEOs learn a lesson in communication. "We find people at the heart of every organization who know exactly what's right and what's wrong with it," says Thirkell. "But between them and the bosses is a layer of people -- those whose careers depend on sanitizing that information. Bosses are always surprised at how much knowledge exists further down the ladder". (Extract from BBC Documentary "Back to the Floor", BBC, 2001)

Leadership has traditionally been conceptualised in terms of leader's personality characteristics or traits, behavioural styles and contingencies (Burns 1978). Whilst the concept of leadership is not well defined, there appears to be some endorsement of the proposition that leadership is concerned with change (Bass 1990; Sarros, Densten and Santora 1999). In turn, there is strong support in the literature for the proposition that successful transformational change is dependent on leadership (Kotter 1990, 1996).

Chester BarnardÕs ÔFunctions of the ExecutiveÕ (1938) represents the origin of much of our contemporary knowledge and understanding of leadership in contrast with management. BarnardÕs treatise is noteworthy for its recognition that organizations are inherently social constructs and that the motivation and proclivities scientific management abstractedly attributed to employees leads to sub-optimal organisational decision-making. In the context of leadership, BarnardÕs work challenged "TaylorÕs control notion of management by offering a theoretical ground for participative leadership" (Azbug and Phelps 1998:p208). In this respect, he presents an early conceptualization of the postmodern approach to management.

Anecdotal evidence in the emerging area of leadership education reinforces the recognition that practitioners are becoming aware of the possibility of a distinction between the concepts of ÔleadershipÕ and ÔmanagementÕ. Power-laden notions of "command and control", the maintenance of "order" and "formal authority", and coercive communication are increasingly reserved as notions of ÔmanagementÕ (Senge 1990, Kotter 1990) or transactional leadership (Bass, 1985, Kouzes and Posner 1995).

In contrast, leadership, in particular transformational leadership, is increasingly conceptualised as involving a greater reliance on participative decision-making, informal authority and inclusive open dialogic communication. The distinction between management and leadership is generally made according to the different forms of change that each is typically associated with (e.g. Kouzes and Posner 1995, Marotto, Roos and Victor 2001).

The emerging distinction between transformational and transactional leaders (Burns 1978, Bass, 1985) parallel's the distinction between incremental and transformational change. The term ÔmanagementÕ in the lingua franca of the academic journal commonly refers to transactional leadership and is about decision-making directed towards the operationalisation of organisational activities. Managers are concerned with maintaining the existing organisational order through domination of their subordinates, employment of "command and control" directives and by linking rewards contingently with specified outcomes. Managers seek to maintain rather than constitute, or reconstitute, the status quo (Kotter 1996, 1996, Ford 1999).

In contrast with the concept of management, leadership is rooted in the notion of transformational, as opposed to transactional, change (Marotto, Roos and Victor 2001, de Araugo 2001, Bass 1985). Modern leaders are concerned with and motivated to envision new futures for their organisations and then to guide everyone including himself or herself in the process of transformation to achieve the new organisational reality contemplated by the vision (Kotter 1996).

Leadership and management suggest different forms of power are required to achieve desired outcomes and objectives. Managers tend to rely on formal authority: they issue instructions that apparently are clearly capable of being understood and acted on by their followers. Leaders, in contrast, rely on influential or social power to achieve their desired outcomes. They create the new ÔtalkÕ and then they Ôwalk the talkÕ until the new narratives have become accessible across the organisation.

Transformational leaders (cf Burns 1978, Bass 1985, Kouzes and Posner 1995) distinguish themselves from transactional managers through both their issues of concern and the methods they employ to shape organisational life. Leaders rely on influential and personal power to symbolically shape and manage meaning in a way that constitutes and reconstitutes organisational reality as part of the process of transformation (Ford 1999, de Araugo 2001, Kouzes and Posner 1995). In contrast, managers attempt to impose their version of reality on subordinate members of the organisation and then to have subordinates act in accordance with their version of reality.

Contemporary - and we would argue, post-modern - theories of leadership suggest that leadership is neither positional nor concentrated at the top of the organisation (Senge 1990, Gronn 2000). In part, this is because power employed by the leader in the modern organisation is increasingly influential rather than authoritative (Spreitzer and Quinn 1996). Leadership is thus capable of dispersion or distribution throughout the organisation and is ÔconferredÕ rather than ÔassumedÕ (Senge 1990, Spreitzer and Quinn 1996). In contrast, the concept of management remains based on authority derived from positional power that is concentrated at the top of hierarchical organisations (Klein 1998).

The inherent problems of authoritative power exercised within hierarchical structures (see Klein 1998) and the possibility of new forms of organisation and leadership emerging have been around for some time (eg Gibb 1958, 1968, Weick 1979, Orton and Weick 1990). In many respects the increasing importance of transformational leadership, as opposed to management / transactional leadership, is more likely a reflection of the shift in the balance of power in many organisations, from executive management to the knowledge worker (Drucker 1999). This shift foreshadows inter alia the possibility that leadership could result not from the top of the organisation or one person but from the "collective virtuosity" of all members of an organisation (Marotto, Roos and Victor 2001). Leadership in this sense is a function of capability rather than position and is therefore possible at all levels of the organisation (Gibb 1958, Gronn 2000).

The new and emerging conceptualisations of leadership suggest it is more about "being capable of managing and ordering the meanings that people give to their actions" (Davel 2001). Conceptualised in this way, leadership is a relationship between one and many that is constituted through the creation of a shared organisational reality which all parties regard as meaningful (Spreitzer and Quinn 1996, Marotto, Roos and Victor 2001). Transformational leadership, by extension, involves fundamentally and radically reconstituting rather than reordering organisational reality.

Communication and language are the natural vehicles through which we recognise that leaders can constitute and reconstitute organisational reality in the process of transformational change. In this context, the leader does not distinguish transformational communication from other forms of communication. Marotto, Roos and Victor (2001:p5) identify the transformational leadership process as involving three stages:

a heightening of followers' awareness about the importance and value of designated goals and the means to achieve them, (2) they induce followers to transcend their self-interests for the good of the organization and its goals; and (3) they stimulate and meet their followers' higher order needs through the leadership process and the mission (Conger, 1999).

The question that persists is how does the transformational leader use communication within this process to create a vision of reality that is meaningful to his/her followers. Does the leader recognise the cycle of communication he or she must employ to create new realities? Nearly all processes in organisational science are linear in theory but in practice are found often to be otherwise. Is the transformational communication process linear?

Organisations are comprised of multiple and complex interpretations of reality and in turn they generate multiple conversations leading to the telling of multiple narratives - which would suggest that leaders have to be capable of shifting "stages" in their multiple conversations to suit different audiences. This communication represents a stark contrast to the sequential, ordered and staged progression of a typical conversation between ÔrealÕ people in a radio or television drama where the narrative line is clear but the end result remains unconvincing.

Nevertheless, leadership literature is rather silent how leaders use transformational communication to transform organizations. What we do know is that communication tends not to conform very easily to change models that are closed and linear in structure (Marotto, Roos and Victor 2001). Leadership tends to be more consistent with an emergent open non-linear model of communication. To create meaning for their followers, leaders need to use meaningful language and forms of communication that are consistent with this meaning (Ford 1999, Faber 1999). They also need to create environments where these new languages are allowed to "flourish and manifest themselves" (Marotto, Roos and Victor 2001).

Borrowing from the arguments of Cecil Gibb (1954), we can posit that in the context of transformational change, leadership is likely to pass from one individual to another as circumstances change. Leadership in Gibbs conception might be regarded as distributed. In a similar vein, Orton and Weick (1990) have also articulated a similar proposition in suggesting that groups reconstitute as the dynamics of an organisation change develop. This in turn implies the possibility that the roles of leader and follower are not fixed, but maintain a form of transient status (Gibb, 1954).

In the same vein, Jill De Araguo (2001) has suggested that:

In the paradigm of the leaderless organisation, leadership resides in the relationship that exists among the people in the team who are seeking change. This relationship is both dynamic and based on consensual influence amongst collaborators intending change. Leadership becomes episodic, with different individuals having the answers or providing the initiative at different times. In this scheme, leadership is about change, while management refers to the maintenance of current good order.

This line or argument leads us to conclude that leadership can be as Gibb (1954) has suggested vested in and exercised at any every level of the organization (Gronn 2000). This reality of organizational leadership then denies the possibility that one person or group of people can possibly be the source of all influence and leadership insight. It also become clear that the requirements and resources to perform the work and the address the problems of leadership are beyond the capacity of any one individual or group (De Araugo, 2001).

The study

The research investigation employed a two-stage case study approach (Yin, 1994) in a mid-sized Australian organisation to discover how the 'reality" of a proposed organisational cultural transformation was interpreted by its organisational members. Stage 1 data collection took the form of a Likert style on-line survey supported by a series of semi-structured interviews, concentrated on capturing participantÕs perceptions of the transformation as it unfolded in historical reflection. The data obtained from surveys and interviews was subjected to a modified content and discourse analysis to identify areas of commonality in response to, and interpretation of the change, as it was implemented. Stage 2 of the study involved second round interviewing of a selected group of key informants from the Stage 1 interview group to determine the extent to which the language in which the change implementation was presented affected its interpretation. Based on our analysis of the research literatures referenced, four principal research questions were developed to frame the study.

The first set of questions considered the general level of awareness, on the part of senior and mid-level executives, of the role that culture plays both in relation to the mediation of culture's significance in the context of the change process itself.

The second set of questions addressed the dichotomy between transformational and transactional change and sought to determine whether, in practice, managers or other executives with responsibility for strategising or implementing organisational change initiatives differentiate between the two constructs. In this context, we also sought to identify the existence of what we have termed Process / Objective Mismatch.

The third set of questions investigated conceptions of leadership and management in the context of a proposed cultural change. Here we were interested to explore how top-level and mid-level management viewed and understood responsibility for originating and then implementing change and whether this aligned with modern or post-modern conceptions of management and leadership respectively. We were particular interested to ascertain the informants perception of the importance of communication within the leaders repertoire of skills.

The final set of questions examined within the context of the change process the way that language was both used and understood through the change communication practices. Our focus here was to explore the way that language and communication practices within the subject organisation created and shaped the meaning of the proposed change including its motives and objectives. Our questioning also investigated how communication and language then combined to influence the interpretation of the change by organisational members.

Findings

Preliminary findings are reported in summary in this section in the order that the principal research questions are posed:

Awareness and understanding of the impact culture has for change

The data revealed a collective and high-level awareness among senior executives of, and rhetorical or espoused support for, the importance of culture in the process of organisational change. Of particular interest was that the interview data from the mid-level executives revealed dissonance between the senior executives espoused views on the importance of culture and their actual enactment of those views (Argyris 1976).

Mid-level executives interview responses strongly suggested that culture was largely paid "lip service" by senior executives. This finding is consistent with the fact that senior executives demonstrated only a limited appreciation and commonality in understanding of their organisation's culture. We found that senior executives interview responses revealed little meaningful appreciation of how culture shaped and influenced the their own and other organisational members conceptualisation of change.

The distinction between transformational and transactional change

Both senior executives and mid-level managers interview responses failed to draw a meaningful distinction between the two constructs of transformational and transactional change. In consequence, all married their intended transformational change objective with a transactional change process. This provides a strong indication of the potential for Process / Objective Mismatch.

Leadership, management and their relationship to change

The interview responses of senior executives evidenced an arguably rhetorical support for a postmodernist definition of leadership involving participative decision-making, best practice communication, an inclusive organisational culture and individual empowerment. Again, however, interview responses from mid-level managers provided a contrary picture. They strongly suggest dissonance (Festinger 1957) evidenced by senior executive's espoused views on leadership and their enactment of those views in practice conflicting. Middle management provides an image of senior executive practice largely consistent with the mental model of a modernist management.

Organisational conceptions of the role of language and communication

Interview responses from all levels of management within the study sample indicate very low consciousness of the potentially important role that language plays in the creation of change and the framing of meaning that supports effective intra-organisational change discourse. Both senior executives and mid-level managers demonstrated limited awareness of the capacity of language and communication practices to shape the meaning of, and give legitimacy to, the proposed organisational change.

Senior executives espoused the importance of communication in the context of the change process. Mid-level executives, however, provided a contrasting picture of communication in practice. A substantial level of dissonance was identified between the espoused beliefs of senior executives in relation to the importance of "best practice" communication during change and the way these beliefs were manifested in practice.

Conclusion

Traditional approaches to organization and management arose in the industrial revolution, which was the beginning of the modern age where organisational structure first became more important than people. Organisational discourse subsequently and progressively became more polarised reflected in language such as productive / non-productive, right or wrong, black or white, male or female, management or employees. In contrast, in the post-structural paradigm we move beyond structure to focus on a less polar view of the world. In the post-modern view, due to the possibility of multiple realities and rationalities, organisational experiences and realities may be more or less defensible rather than more or less right, gendered rather than more or less male and so-forth.

This differentiation helps in identifying the paradigm shift as a phenomenon of language. Here the 'loss of certainty' (Kline 1980) that arrived in the scientific community with the detonation of the first nuclear device in the New Mexico desert becomes the means for understanding how change is effected at an individual level before it becomes a narrative that can be shared across a community called "the organization". The early research findings reported in this paper substantiates the value of a postmodernist view of the organisation and in turn the pivotal role of language and communication in successful transformational change implementations. The process of cultural transformation required to create a knowledge organization is but one related example of this substantiation. It suggests approaches to the effective implementation of cultural change and it emphasises the centrality of language in creating shared narratives for the description of the transformed organization.

We argue that many of the assumptions that underpin the modernist conception of organisation, zealously guarded and reinforced by senior executive managements, need to be exposed, explicated and opened up to the possibility of constructive contest and corrigibility. Until this occurs, and receives reflexive consideration in the public / professional arena, the transition of organisational practitioners to new post-modern ways of thinking about organisations will continue to be frustrated.

There is a rather unfortunate irony obscured by the espoused managerial mantra of "we're exclusively focused on shareholder wealth creation and total shareholder value" that tends to be overlooked by both academic researchers and practitioners. It is that there is a compelling theoretical justification for believing that organisational change, conceivably in the best interests of shareholders, is often blocked by the managerial "elite" (Pascale 2001). Research has yet to seriously investigate, let alone determine, whether the managerial adherence to and support of an outdated academic organisational philosophical perspective and 'science' thinking on change is a function of self-interest or ignorance, born out of outmoded cultural indoctrination.

The interim conclusions to this research are not particularly flattering for managements. Nor are they encouraging for other affected organisational stakeholders, a group that again ironically, includes sophisticated institutional shareholders. Given the well-documented structure of power within organisations that favours perhaps even entrenches the power and domination of senior managements, the lack of research in these areas is perhaps hardly surprising. Somewhat paradoxically, it is the apparent managerial disinterest in progressing beyond their extant conception and understanding of organisations as modernist that is quite possibly at the heart of the high failure rate for transformational organisational change initiatives (Pascale 2001). In combination, these observations suggest the need for a revised view of the complexity of communication and organisational culture at the level of practitioners in order to achieve a higher rate of successful transformational organisational change initiatives in the immediate future.

Selected References

Argyris, C. 1976. Increasing leadership effectiveness. New York: John Wiley. Bartenuk, J.M. 1993. The multiple cognitions and conflicts associated with second order organisational change. In Murnighan J.K. (Ed.), Social Psychology in Organisations: Advances in Theory and Research, (1993) Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bartlett, C.A., and Ghoshal, S. 1993). Beyond the M-form: Toward a Managerial Theory of the Firm." Strategic Management Journal. Volume 14.
Bass, B. M. 1985 Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectation, New York: Free Press.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review.
Berger, P. L. and Luckman T. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Bohl, D. and Slocum, J.W. 1996. Ideas that will shape the future of management practice. Organizational Dynamics Vol. 25 Issue 1.
Bradshaw-Campbell, P. 1989. "The Implications of Multiple Perspectives on Power for Organizational Development," Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Volume 25. Brown, S., and Eisenhardt, K. 1998. Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos, Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.
Brown, S. L. and K. M. Eisenhardt. 1997. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 42.
Brunsson, N. 1999. Standardisation as Organization. Paper published by the Stockholm School of Economics available at http://www.unibw-hamburg.de/MWEB/nif/fnm/alt/ws99/brunsson-abstr.html.
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate Publishing. Burns, M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.
Cayer, M. and Minkler, L. 1998. Dualism, Dialogue and Organizations: Reflections on organizational transformation and labour managed firms. Journal of Socio-Economics, Volume 27 Issue 1.
Clement, R. 1994 Culture, leadership, and power: the keys to organizational change. Business Horizons, Volume 37.
Cornett-DeVito, M.M. and Friedman, P.G. 1995. Communication processes and merger success. Management Communication Quarterly, Volume 9 Issue 1.
Cronen, V.E. 1995. Co-ordinated management of meaning: The consequentiality of communication and the recapturing of experience. In S.J. Sigman (Ed.), The consequentiality of communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cyert, R.M. and March, J. G. 1963. A behavioural theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Czarniawska, B. 1997. Narrating the organisation: Dramas of institutional identity. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Deal, T.E., and Kennedy, A.K. 1982. Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
de Araugo, J. (2001) Principals in Practice: A Study of the Development of Leadership Understanding in context. Unpublished EdD thesis. Faculty of Education: University of Sydney.
De Long, D. and Fahey, L. 2000. "Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management", Academy of Management Executive, Volume 14 Issue 4.
Dent, F. J. 1991. Reality in the making: a study of organizational transformation. (Making History/Breaking History: The Dynamics of Organizational Transformation). International Studies of Management & Organization, Volume 21 Issue 4.
Drucker, P.F. 1994. The Age of Social Transformation. The Atlantic Monthly (November Edition).
Dulmanis, P. (2002) Personal communication. Faber, B. 1998. Organizational change. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, Volume 12 Issue 2.
Ford, J. D. and Ford, L. W. 1995. The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organisations. Academy of Management Review, Volume 19.
Ford, J. D. 1999. Organizational change as shifting conversations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, Volume 12 Issue 6.
Gergen, K and Thatchenkary, T. 1996. Organisation science as social construction: post-modern potentials. Journal of Applied Behavioural Analysis, Volume 32.
Gibb, C. (1954) Leadership. In G. Lindzey (Ed) Handbook of Social Psychology. Cambridge, MA:Addison Wesley.
Goodstein, L.D., Burke, W.W. 1991. Creating successful organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, Volume 5.
Gronn, P. (2000) A realist view of leadership. Practising Administrator. Volume 22, Issue 1.
Greenwood, R & Hinings, C. 1996. Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, Volume 21 Issue 4.
Hodge, K. 1998. The art of the post deal. Management Review, Volume 87 Issue 2. Huff, A. S., Huff, J. O. and Barr, P. 2000. When firms change direction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jensen, Michael C., and William H. Meckling, 1976, Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, Volume 3
Kilman, R.H.,1988. Toward a Complete Program for Corporate Transformation. In: Corporate Transformation: Revitalizing Organizations for a Competitive World. Kilman, R.H., Covin, T.J. (ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Klein, G. 1998. Sources of Power. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kline, M. 1980. Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty, Oxford University Press: New York.
Kotter, J.P., 1990. A Force for Change: How Leadership Differs from Management. New York: The Free Press.
Kotter J. P. 1996. Leading Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kouzes, J. M. and Posner, B. Z. 1995. The Leadership Challenge, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lewis, L.K. 1999. Disseminating Information and Soliciting Input During Planned Organizational Change. Management Communication Quarterly, Volume 13 Issue 1. Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. 1998. Reconceptualizing organizational change implementation as a communication problem: A review of literature and research agenda. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook 21. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lissack, M. and Roos, J. 1997. Words Count: Viewing organizations as emerging systems of languaging. Paper submitted to the Academy of Management Review. Macy BA, Izumi H. 1993. Organizational change, design, and work innovation: a meta-analysis of 131 North American field studies--1961-1991. Journal of Organizational Change Development, Volume 7.
March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions. The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: The Free Press.
March, J. G. and Simon, H.A. 1958. Organizations. New York: John Wiley.
Marotto, M., Roos, J. and Victor, B. 2001. Leadership as Collective Virtuosity. Paper delivered to the 2001 EGOS Conference. Lyon, France.
Mazza, C. and Alvarez, J.L. 2000. Haute Couture or Pret-a-Porter: Creating and Diffusing Management Practices through the Popular Press", Organization Studies, Volume 21 Issue 3.
Mathews, R. and Wacker, W. 2002. The Deviant's Advantage: How Fringe Ideas Create Mass Markets. Fast Company, Issue 56.
Micklethwait, J. and Woolridge, A. 1996. The Witch Doctors. New York: Times Books.
Mir, R. and Watson, A. 2000. Strategic Management and the Philosophy of Science: The Case for a Constructivist Methodology. Strategic Management Journal, Volume 21 Issue 9.
Mumby, D. and Stohl, C. 1996. Disciplining organizational communication studies. Management Communication Quarterly, Volume 10 Issue 1.
Mumby, D. K. 1997. The problem of hegemony: Rereading Gramsci for organizational communication studies. Western Journal of Communication, Volume 61 Issue 4.
Orton, R.D., and Weick, K.E. Loosely Coupled Systems: A Reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 1990, Volume 15 Issue 2.
Pascale, R. 2001. How business is a lot like life. Fastcompany (Interview by Alan Weber). Issue 45.
Pearce, W. B. and Pearce, K. 2000. Extending the Theory of the Co-ordinated Meaning of Management (CMM) Through a Community Dialogue Process. Communication Theory, Volume 10 Issue 4.
Rajagopalan, N. and Spreitzer, G.M. 1997. Toward a theory of strategic change: a multi-lens perspective and integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, Volume 22 Issue 1.
Sarros J. C., Densten, I. & Santora, J. C. 1999. Leadership and Values: Balance of Power, People and Politics. Sydney: Harper Business.
Schein, E. 1993. On dialogue, culture, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, Volume 21.
Schein, E. 1985. Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization, London: Random House.
Spreitzer, G. M. and Quinn, R. E. 1996. Empowering middle managers to be transformational leaders. J. Applied Behavioral. Science. Volume 32 Issue 3.
Taylor, J. R. 1995. Shifting from a heteronomous to an autonomous worldview of organisational communication: Communication theory on the cusp. Communication Theory Volume 5.
Tichy, N. (1996). Organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, Volume 25 Issue 1.
Tofler, A. 1971. Future Shock. Bantam Books: New York.
Trice H, M. and Beyer J, M. 1993. The Culture of Work Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tushman ML, and Romanelli E. 1985. Organizational revolution: a metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Journal of Organisational Behavior, Volume 7.
Van de Ven, A. 1995. Organizational Change. Published in Nigel Nicholson (Ed.), Encyclopedic Dictionary of Organizational Behaviour, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Van de Ven, A. H, and Poole, M. S. 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of. Manage Review, Volume 20 Issue 3.
Vibert, C. 2001. Understanding Lessons of Organizational Learning and Transformational Change. Paper delivered at the 28th Annual Atlantic Schools of Business Conference, USA.
Watzlawick, E., Weakland, J. and Frisch, R. 1974. Change. New York. Norton.
Weber, M. 1947. The theory of social and economic organization. (A.H. Henderson & T. Parsons Eds & Trans.) Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Weber, Max, 1968/1924, Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Weick. K. 1979. The social psychology of organizing. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Weick, K. 1996. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Weick K, & Quinn, R. E. 1999. Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology. Annual Edition.
Wruck, K. 1997. A Clinical Exploration of Value Creation and Destruction in Acquisitions: Organization Design, Incentives, and Internal Capital Markets - Working Paper No. 450. The Centre for Research in Security Prices: University of Chicago Graduate School of Business.
Young, M and Post, J. E. 1993. Managing to communicate, communicating to manage: How leading companies communicate with employees. Organizational Dynamics. Volume 22 Issue 1.
Yin, R. K. 1993. Case Study Research: Design and methods 2e. Newbury Park, California: Sage.

Websites developed - Academic index - Biography - Contact