The contribution of the processual approach to the theory and practice of organizational change

Abstract

The contribution of the processual approach in providing a methodology for studying the dynamics of change, in offering a conceptual framework that facilitates theorization and in generating practical guidelines on change management is the focus of this chapter. It commences by discussing the longstanding debate over whether we view organizations as generally stable entities consisting of identifiable objects, resources and structures of control and coordination or whether we view organizations as fluid entities in a constant state of flux. A brief explanation of what we mean by processual research and how it relates to studying change in organizations is then presented. This is followed by a history and critique of the approach. The historical overview charts processual research from some of the early studies in workplace industrial sociology through to more recent contributions. The chapter then provides a brief reappraisal and examines concerns about the practical dimension of processual research to understanding complex change processes. But first let us turn our attention to the debate on whether organizations exist as stable entitiesor whether they are continually in motion consisting of processes of becoming (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002). Theories of change often take as their starting point either a notion of fluidity or stability and then use this to develop a particular theoretical explanation of change. For example, punctuated equilibrium theory (Anderson and Tushman, 1990; Romanelli and Tushman, 1994) views stability as the normal state of play but recognizes that industries and organizations can experience major shocks within their business environments that necessitate major change. In contrast, chaos theory assumes a continuous dynamic interplay between forces that create a constant state of flux within which organizations achieve temporary periods of stability (Dubinskas, 1994; Stacey, 1992). Taken from the physical sciences, the basic argument of chaos theory is that disequilibrium is an essential condition in the development of dynamic systems as it promotes internal resilience (see also Burnes, 2005; Hayes, 2007). Processual approaches also assume fluidity in the continual and multifaceted flow of factors in organizations. As a result, proponents have argued that the terms organizing and strategizing (verbs) are preferable to the terms organization and strategy (nouns) as they more usefully capture the dynamic nature of processes of change (see, Pettigrew et al., 2003). This introduction illustrates that these and othertheories of change, hold different ontological views about the nature of organizations and, consequently, disagree about the appropriate methods for studying change in organizations. Van de Ven and Poole (2005) examine alternative approaches for studying organizationalchange and argue that many of the disagreements evident can be traced back to the differing philosophies of Heraclitus and Democritus. Process was central to Heraclitus’ view of the world and was later taken up by the processual philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead and John Dewey. As Van de Ven and Poole (2005: 1378) note: ‘They viewed reality as a process and regarded time, change, and creativity as representing the most fundamental facts for understanding the world.’ In contrast, Democritus ‘pictured all of nature as composed of stable material substance or things that changed only in their positioning in space and time’ (Langley, 2009; Mohr, 1982). In support of this view, Whetten (2006) argues that the study of organizations should focus on entities, such as structure and culture, rather than on social processes. This distinction between an emphasis on organizing as a process (or verb) and organization as a thing (or noun) has generated considerable debate within the academic literature (see Van de Ven and Poole, 2005). As two alternative and competing views of the world, these debates and issues can never be fully resolved, but perhaps each may serve to address different questions. The quantitative researcher is likely to take a more static worldview in studies on the relationships between variables; whereas, the qualitative researcher is more likely to be oriented to a process-world view in studying the processes of change in context and over time. That both approaches can contribute to knowledge on change is not in doubt. However, in this chapter the focus is on those scholars who conceptualize change as an ongoing dynamic process. After providing an overview of the processual approach, the chapter turns its attention to historical developments and some longstanding controversies.