Introduction
Organizational change is a complex process that often challenges traditional managerial thinking. While executives may approach change with concrete plans and structures, the reality of organizational dynamics, influenced by human behavior, can lead to unexpected outcomes. This paper delves into the evolution of managerial thinking during organizational change, highlighting the limitations of mechanistic perspectives and advocating for a more holistic approach rooted in understanding human behavior and systemic dynamics. Mechanistic Thinking and Its Limitations Historically, organizations have been viewed as machines, with management focused on control and efficiency. This mechanistic paradigm, popularized by Frederick Taylor as scientific management, emphasized operating rules and hierarchical control, hoping to reduce the many uncertainties inherent in organized social life. Relying on task standardization and the sequential division of labor, management sought to maximize work productivity and efficiency, and certainly succeeded in doing so. The metaphor of the machine as a way of approaching organizations has thus endured and is still dominant today in many business environments — largely unconsciously. Rationalization and the desire to control as many variables as possible drive these organizations. However, this approach often fails to take into account the complexity of human behavior and can hinder effective change management. Challenges of Mechanistic Thinking During Change Mechanistic approaches run into several challenges during periods of organizational change. Reality generally appears “messier” than usual, and executives are then confronted with the fact that organizations are not just structures and techniques, but also and above all what people do on a day-to-day basis. Despite advances in robotics and AI, organizations are still first and foremost made up of human beings. Whether executives like it or not, everything that happens is always influenced by the way people think, feel and act — individually, as a team, as a group and as an organization. Standardized procedures may then prove inadequate to deal with unforeseen disruptions, leading to organizational inertia or resistance on the part of employees. In addition, the top-down micromanagement that anxiety tends to generate during periods of change breeds animosity and hinders innovation, ultimately undermining the success of change initiatives. Shifting Perspectives: Embracing Complexity and Trust When faced with major change, the assembly of designed structures and processes inevitably clashes with the organization’s living individuals and communities, for whom change cannot be designed. Despite the old and still widespread myth that employees resist change, this is not the case. People don’t resist change, they resist having change imposed on them. Individuals and their communities are both stable and open to change and development — they are alive — but their natural change processes are often different from the organizational change processes usually devised by “re-engineering” experts and mandates from the top. To navigate organizational change successfully, it finally seems time for managerial thinking to evolve beyond the mechanistic paradigm, and a major organizational change could well be the trigger for this evolution, the opportunity to rethink how the organization perceives itself and its relationship with a machine-like reality. When organizational change shakes the core of the organization, and the lived experience succeeds in not being repressed in the “emotional archives of the organization”, it can be a wake-up call to tackle future transformations. Leaders may feel ready to embrace complexity, recognizing the organizations as a living system, capable of adaptation and regeneration. Trust-based management thus has a chance to emerge as an alternative to coercive control, betting on the intelligence of internal stakeholders, an intelligence that adapts, cooperates and counters the proliferation of norms and standards. Hopefully, the organization realizes that the frenetic pace that prioritizes action over results, that favors urgency, has consequences, and it begins to give way to a renewed sense of purpose. All this is not to say reasonable organizations don’t need a certain degree of predictability and that well thought-out deadlines are not necessary. To achieve an optimum level of efficiency and flexibility, a production system certainly needs some formal constraints, but also and above all a relative autonomy of action (which is not independence of action). This autonomy gives the players involved — managers and employees — room for manoeuvre, enabling them to react and innovate according to opportunities and circumstances. This degree of initiative creates a healthy “indefinite space” that thrives on the trust placed in individuals, a space where creative solutions can take root and develop, where the ability to be proactive can once again flourish. Understanding Human Behavior and Emotions Within A Systems Psychodynamics Perspective By acknowledging the interconnectedness of individual behavior and organizational context, considering systemic forces and collective emotions, not just rational and practical considerations, executives can better understand potential hidden motivations and promote meaningful engagement, while coping better with work challenges. If organizations aspire to change, “what people do” has to change, and this is obviously much more complicated and, above all, much riskier than the implementation of a set of managerial and change techniques. In order to change, leaders can’t afford to ignore what the behaviors they want to change correspond to, and therefore answer the dreaded question: Why do the members of the organization do what they do? And if you want to learn what those around you really think, feel, and know, there’s only one reliable strategy: asking them. Promoting Dialogue and LearningTo deal effectively with change, it now appears necessary to dare address and ask questions, and to listen to the answers. This will facilitate learning and foster a better understanding of organizational dynamics, especially since leaders tend to underestimate how unsafe the people around them can be. It will help create a culture of curiosity and psychological safety, where individuals feel they can share their views and are welcomed and valued. From Problem-Solving to Problem Understanding By reframing challenges as opportunities for learning and adaptation, organizations could develop nuanced responses that address the root causes of issues. Rather than rushing to implement solutions, managerial thinking could surely benefit from practicing more problem understanding. In other words, let’s stop proposing solutions without knowing what the problem is. Managerial thinking tends to be solution-oriented, but it can sometimes reach absurdity, for example the common saying “there is no problem, there are only solutions”. But if there are no problems, why are we looking for solutions? In fact, to paraphrase the famous French organizational sociologist Michel Crozier, the problem is the problem… Embracing Complexity and Knowledge Renewing managerial thinking may well involve daring to embrace complexity and valuing experiential knowledge. Rather than seeking simplistic solutions, executives would surely benefit in engaging in patient observation and continuous learning, recognizing the unique context of each organizational situation. Conclusion Managerial thinking during organizational change is evolving towards a more holistic and adaptive approach. By embracing complexity, better understanding human behavior and prioritizing knowledge over simplistic, quick-fix solutions, corporate executives can navigate change more effectively and foster resilient, thriving human organizations. References Capra, F. (2004). The Hidden Connections — A Science for Sustainable Living. New York: Anchor Books. Dupuy, F. (2023). La faillite de la pensée managériale. Constructif, 66, 20–22. Garcia, E.-J. (March 25, 2024). Managers, n’ayez plus peur du flou ! Retrieved from : https://theconversation.com/managers-nayez-plus-peur-du-flou-225694 Wetzler, J. (December 18, 2023). How to Get the Honest Input You Need from Your Employees. Retrieved from : https://hbr.org/2023/12/how-to-get-the-honest-input-you-need-from-your-employees?ab=HP-hero-latest-text-1 Comments are closed.
|
Bagutti Executive Coaching & Consulting
|
Boulevard des Philosophes 16 1205 Genève, Suisse Boulevard des Philosophes 16 1205 Geneva, Switzerland |
Politique de confidentialité | Réalisé par webromand.ch
Privacy policy | Réalisé par webromand.ch