ACADEMIA Letters Decision-making, Innovation and Organizational Change: The Need for New Paradigms Sydney Engelberg A Google Scholar search of the term “organizational change”, from 2017 to the present, provides no less than 464,000 results. “Organizational change models” reduces this number only to 395,000. Despite the vast number of references, “the research over the last 50+ years (unfortunately) has not fundamentally developed anything completely new; rather, the research has provided us with clarity to better understand what was developed many years ago…” (Rosenbaum, More and Steane, 2018). With a changed world, enhanced tenfold by Covid-19, surely the time has come for new thinking in the field. What is required to achieve such new thinking? Over fifty one years ago, one of the most influential books of the 20th century was published. Many, if not most, lay people have probably never heard of its author, Thomas Kuhn, or of his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, but their thinking has almost certainly been influenced by his ideas. Kuhn’s central claim is that a careful study of the history of science reveals that development in any scientific field happens via a series of phases. The first he christened “normal science” – business as usual, if you like. In this phase, a community of researchers who share a common intellectual framework – called a paradigm or a “disciplinary matrix” – engage in solving puzzles thrown up by discrepancies (anomalies) between what the paradigm predicts and what is revealed by observation or experiment. Most of the time, the anomalies are resolved either by incremental changes to the paradigm or by uncovering observational or experimental error. As philosopher Ian Hacking puts it in his preface to the new 50th anniversary edition of Structure: “Normal science does not aim at novelty but at clearing up the status quo. It tends to discover what it expects to discover.” The trouble is that over longer periods, unresolved anomalies accumulate and eventually get to the point where some scientists begin to question the paradigm itself. This is the Academia Letters, February 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0 Corresponding Author: Sydney Engelberg, sydneye@hotmail.com Citation: Engelberg, S. (2021). Decision-making, Innovation and Organizational Change: The Need for New Paradigms. Academia Letters, Article 324. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL324. 1 paradigm shift of modern parlance and after it has happened the scientific field returns to normal science, based on the new framework. And so it goes on. A more recent book, that adds to our understanding of scientific thinking, Thinking, Fast and Slow (Kahneman, 2011), deals with how we think, react, and reach - rather, jump to - conclusions in all spheres. What most interests Kahneman are the predictable ways that errors of judgment occur. Synthesizing decades of his research, as well as that of colleagues, Kahneman lays out an architecture of human decision-making - a map of the mind that resembles a finely tuned machine operating on the basis of two systems with, alas, some notable failures. System 2, in Kahneman’s scheme, is our slow, deliberate, analytical and consciously effortful mode of reasoning about the world. System 1, by contrast, is our fast, automatic, intuitive and largely unconscious mode. System 1 uses association and metaphor to produce a quick and dirty draft of reality, which System 2 draws on to arrive at explicit beliefs and reasoned choices. People construe the world in large part through conceptual metaphors, which enable them to understand abstract concepts using knowledge of superficially dissimilar, typically more concrete concepts. So, “My surgeon is a butcher” becomes “My surgeon is sloppy,” or “My surgeon is like a butcher,” or “My lawyer is a shark” becomes “My lawyer is aggressive.” System 1 proposes, System 2 disposes. “Although System 2 believes itself to be where the action is,” Kahneman writes, “the automatic System 1 is the hero of this book.” System 2, it seems, is all too ready to acquiesce to System 1. Unfortunately, currently popular metaphors, models and paradigms of organizational change present organizational change as simple, linear models. Organizational change, however, is complex, and anyone knowledgeable about Complexity Theory is well aware that complexity is never linear. Almost all the change literature, nonetheless, including Kotter’s “Leading Change” (2012) presents change as linear (just follow these 8 steps). The thesis that new paradigms can and should be found is not speculative. A number of potential candidates suggest themselves. Organizational improvisation conceptualized using jazz musicianship (Barratt, 1998) and improvisational theatre (Vera & Crossan, 2004) metaphors are examples. Two further fledgling, initial candidates, based on two artistic metaphors, are presented below. Firstly, in Tom Peters’ use of the metaphor of a film production to highlight the ’virtual organization’ - how project teams of independent professionals assemble for a major work, execute brilliantly, and then disband. There’s no doubt that the ’film’ metaphor has great merit - in painting the pictures of what super project work is like. It crystalizes how more and more ’work’ may be in the future. The film production metaphor is relevant - but it’s a little bit Academia Letters, February 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0 Corresponding Author: Sydney Engelberg, sydneye@hotmail.com Citation: Engelberg, S. (2021). Decision-making, Innovation and Organizational Change: The Need for New Paradigms. Academia Letters, Article 324. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL324. 2 ’out there’ for many of us who are still dealing with a more permanent looking organization structure - and yet need to infuse new thinking to energize the enterprise. In his book “Change is the Rule” Dr. Winford E. ’Dutch’ Holland provides a second metaphor, the organization as a theatre company. It clarifies understanding – translating the complexities of organization change to common sense with a very clear ’picture’ to relate to. It is a very powerful metaphor that is very easily understood by anyone who has ever been to any type of theatre presentation. The Organization as a Theatre Company The mission is give a satisfying performance to an audience of paying customers. Every morning we put on our work clothes (costumes), travel to our company (the theatre), walk into our office (the set), and execute our job (role) according to the organization’s goals and objectives (the script) to deliver products and/or services to customers (the audience) - until it’s time to go home to start all over the next day. In the theatre metaphor, organizational change would be the equivalent of a theatre company moving from an existing play to a new one, requiring the transition of company roles, costumes and sets. “In the theatre, change mastery is critical because no play lasts forever. Change is the rule.” Let’s examine several typical ideas about organizational change and see how the theatre metaphor simplifies thinking and provides an immediate common sense solution. A convenient, albeit somewhat simple, frame for this analysis is effective/ineffective. Ineffective idea: Organizational change is primarily a social process There is no doubt that organizations are social systems - but seeing organizations as primarily a social structure has led to an over emphasis on sociological and psychological models to understand change. This focus attempts to change people. Effective idea: Organizational change is primarily a systematic process with social implications “Organizational change is about realigning the behaviours of people around work processes without changing who they are as individuals. The director knows that the driver of new behaviours can only be the script and her mission for the new play. There are social implications, Academia Letters, February 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0 Corresponding Author: Sydney Engelberg, sydneye@hotmail.com Citation: Engelberg, S. (2021). Decision-making, Innovation and Organizational Change: The Need for New Paradigms. Academia Letters, Article 324. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL324. 3 however, employees can be cordially invited to take part in the change (new play) or not.” Ineffective idea: Successful organizational change is driven primarily by excitement and enthusiasm This view holds that the excitement or urgency level of the members of the organization is a key driver for success. If people know and understand the change required and why it is important the change will happen successfully. “Imagine if the theatre director who raises the initial excitement of cast and crew to a fever pitch …. And then yells “show time” as though some magic would cause all of the transition steps between old and new performance to get done in time for the opening.” Effective idea: Excitement and enthusiasm grow from clear plans and actions “The competent theatre director yells “show time” only after each and every detail of the new performance has been worked through, and each and every cast member is thoroughly prepared, rehearsed, and in position for the curtain to go up.” Ineffective idea: Organizational change is an art, not a science This approach has individuals convinced they must feel their way along, experimenting as they try to align with some new theme or concept. Imagine a theatre director without a concrete game plan to transition cast members, costumes, musical scores, and sets to meet a definite opening night schedule. Effective idea: Organizational change is science and engineering, done with social finesse “Theatre directors facing the transition to a new play are well schooled in the need for precise action steps executed on time and on budget to get an acceptable performance ready for a planned opening night. And they execute those steps with the social finesse needed to get the cast and crew on board and ready.” Academia Letters, February 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0 Corresponding Author: Sydney Engelberg, sydneye@hotmail.com Citation: Engelberg, S. (2021). Decision-making, Innovation and Organizational Change: The Need for New Paradigms. Academia Letters, Article 324. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL324. 4 Ineffective idea: Organizational change is inevitably chaotic “This ineffective idea…is that organizational change is an uncoordinated social adventure with practically none of the parties involved having any idea of what the future will hold for them or the organization.” Imagine a theatre director attempting to transition to a new play without a plan, detailed schedule or budget to work with. Effective idea: Organizational change is complex but not chaotic unless it is out of control “Organizational change is, in most cases, complex because of the sheer number of moving parts that must be altered for the transition to be complete. But complex is not chaotic. Complexity can be managed, scheduled, and coordinated with management tools that have been around for decades. Chaos can enter the picture if the organization loses control of the change process by not following schedules, not doing planned things in order, or not replanning and rescheduling as actions are needed beyond the existing plan.” We can think differently about organizational change. The sparks exist, as shown above, now it is up to us, academics and practitioners, to fan the flames of our creative thinking. Bibliography Barrett F.J. (1998) Creativity and Improvisation in Jazz and Organizations: Implications for Organizational Learning Organization Science Vol. 9 No. 5 pp. 605-622 Winford E. Dutch Holland and Dutch Holland. (2000), Change Is the Rule: Practical Actions for Change: On Target, on Time, on Budget. Dearborn Trade Publishing. Daniel Kahneman. (2011), Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, ISBN 9780374275631. John Kotter. (2012), Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press. Thomas S. Kuhn. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Tom Peters. (1992), Lessons From the Movie Makers. Retrieved from https://tompeters.com/ columns/lessons-from-the-movie-makers/ Academia Letters, February 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0 Corresponding Author: Sydney Engelberg, sydneye@hotmail.com Citation: Engelberg, S. (2021). Decision-making, Innovation and Organizational Change: The Need for New Paradigms. Academia Letters, Article 324. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL324. 5 David Rosenbaum, Elizabeth More and Peter Steane, (2018) “Planned organisational change management: Forward to the past? An exploratory literature review”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 31 Issue: 2, pp.286-303. Vera D. & Crossan M. (2004) Theatrical Improvisation: Lessons for Organizations Organization Studies Vol. 25 No 5 pp. 727-749. Academia Letters, February 2021 ©2021 by the author — Open Access — Distributed under CC BY 4.0 Corresponding Author: Sydney Engelberg, sydneye@hotmail.com Citation: Engelberg, S. (2021). Decision-making, Innovation and Organizational Change: The Need for New Paradigms. Academia Letters, Article 324. https://doi.org/10.20935/AL324. 6