Search results

We explore how scholarly understandings of and the practice of organizational transformation have evolved since Bartunek and Louis’s (1988) Research in Organizational Change and Development chapter. While Bartunek and Louis hoped to see strategy scholarship and OD approaches to transformation inform each other, strategy literature has drifted away from transformation toward more continuous change. OD practice has focused on the implementation of its own versions of transformation through Large Group Interventions, Appreciative Inquiry, the new dialogic OD, and Theory U. Based on a discussion of Theory U, we call attention to the importance of individuals as an important source of new ideas in understanding and practicing large-scale change.

The inconsistency between the appearance of incoherence and chaos in the US policymaking process bringing about a historic record of legislative achievements in the 1960s and 1970s, on the one hand, and the emergence of hierarchical order bringing about a prolonged period of legislative impotence in the early 2000s, on the other hand, has led legislative scholars to revisit strongly held prior beliefs about legislative organization. Similar reevaluations of the garbage can model that emphasize the potential for conflict-ridden and chaotic organizations to be adaptively rational are ongoing in organizational theory. This paper adapts recent research on organizational design to explore the conditions under which decentralized, chaotic decision making facilitates more desirable legislative outcomes than centralized decision making controlled by a benevolent dictator. The author demonstrates that normative claims about legislative organization – much like normative claims about organizational design – should vary depending on the task environment faced by the legislature. In the face of rugged uncertainty in the mapping from policies to outcomes, decentralized decision making among modestly polarized legislators with fluid participation in decisions facilitates a functional mix of exploitative and exploratory search.

Despite the breadth of knowledge on self and identity formation across the study of organizations, the field of organizational development and change has limited research on the construction of professional identity. Much has been written to describe the “self-concepts” of those practicing and researching in the field, but there have been no investigations that have explored how these “self-concepts” form. In addition, although women have contributed to defining the “self” in the field, men have held the dominant perspective on the subject. Thus, in this chapter, we address a disparity in the research by exploring the construction of professional identity in the field of organizational development and change, and we give voice to the renowned women who helped to build the field. Using the profiles of 17 American women included in The Palgrave Handbook of Organizational Change Thinkers, we perform a narrative analysis based upon the concepts and models prevalent in the literature on identity formation. By disentangling professional identity formation of the notable women in the field, we can begin to see the nuance and particularities involved in its construction and gain deeper understandings about effective ways to prepare individuals to work in and advance the field.

Early paradox research in organization theory contained a remarkable breadth of inspirations from outside disciplines. We wanted to know more about where early scholarship found inspiration to create what has since become paradox theory. To shed light on this, we engaged seminal paradox scholars in conversations: asking about their past experiences drawing from outside disciplines and their views on the future of paradox theory. These conversations surfaced several themes of past and future inspirations: (1) understanding complex phenomena; (2) drawing from related disciplines; (3) combining interdisciplinary insights; and (4) bridging discourses in organization theory. We end the piece with suggestions for future paradox research inspired by these conversations.

Technology is often defined as a valuable firm resource particularly relative to marketing functions in the organization (Barua, Kriebel, & Mukhopadhyay, 1995; Bharadwaj, 2000; Christensen, Johnson, & Rigby, 2002). When resources are customized to match a marketing strategy, they become firm specific, and thus central to firm performance. Marketing employees also may be defined as an essential resource, in the context of key marketing activities that need to be accomplished (Barney, 1986, 2001; Coff, 2002; Dess & Picken, 1999). Because both employees and technology play key roles, we ground this study in the resource-based view (RBV) of the firm (Barney, 1991, 2001; Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfelt, 1984).

Recent research in cognitive and social psychology finds that individual change is more emotional than rational. Further evidence suggests that the contagious power of emotions explains how groups may overcome obstacles and behave in unified ways. We offer a neuropsychological model of emotion-driven change in organizations that explains these findings and predicts conditions in which contagion effects will be successful in facilitating rapid change. Our model posits that emotive precursors to conscious action enable goal alignment and overcome cognitive resource limitations necessary to sustain organizational change over time. Our model adapts the findings from social and cognitive neuroscience to bring new insights into the mental mechanisms underlying the change process. The chapter concludes with tentative suggestions for developing new methods for research and practice that improve our predictive capability for creating rapid large-scale organizational change.

The focus of this paper is to provide an overview and conceptual summary of various contributions made by Professor Harry Triandis of the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Known throughout the world as a preeminent scholar in the field of cross-cultural psychology, Triandis has achieved the status of a founding father in this field extending his work into related disciplines including management and business, sociology, political science just to name a few. I address these contributions through the rhetoric of five questions, namely, how has his work – (1) shaped a field (self in context), (2) integrated a field (analysis of subjective culture), (3) extended a field (INDCOL), (4) populated a field (students and colleagues), and (5) ensured the future of a field.