Stories about organizational change in
a Regional Water Authority
When external pressures are pushing for organizational change in
Regional Water Authority HHNK in the Netherlands.
An interview study of how actors in the Regional Water Authority
Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier are coping with external pressures for change analysed using three different theories of organizational change.
Name: Sofie Kreté
Student Identification Card Number: 10820795 In partial fulfilment of the requirements for MSc degree in:
Conflict Resolution and Governance
Supervisors: Dr. David W. Laws Second reader: Anne Loeber
Amsterdam, July, 21, 2018 University of Amsterdam
Acknowledgements
To all policy developers, administrators of the organization and members of the General, and Executive Assembly of Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier
that made time for an interview.
To Marieke Ritzema, Jos Kerssens, and Mart Kamphuis for helping me with questions whenever I was lost in the building of the HHNK, needed documents,
contact information, and for securing me that this was a learning process where failures would lead to useful insights that would help me later in life.
Dr. David Laws, thank you so much for your support and help. You inspired me to write about organizational change and organizational learning. Without your help I would not have been able to trigger my mind in the way I did these past few months.
A lesson you taught me was that 'The problems and confusion will not go away, but they will get more practical'. This sentence helped me to look at my thesis more as a
process than as an accumulation of knowledge.
Michiel and Marc from the Full Potential institute, thank you for giving me the chance to observe and learn from your work.
To my mother and father, my sisters and my brother, thank you for always supporting me in this process. Trying new ideas and presenting myself in front of you helped a
lot in clearing my mind, and having faith in myself.
Thank you to my friends, who have been helping me to maintain a positive mind-set, for giving feedback and for supporting me every step of the way, sending lovely
messages, always helping me where possible.
Finally, thank you Casper; You helped me so much by asking critical questions, making sure I slept enough, always believing in me and pushing my ideas to next
Table of Contents
Part I………..…1
Chapter 1 - Introduction………...2
1.1 First observations……….2
1.2 External pressures pushing for change……….3
1.3 This study……….5
Chapter 2 - Theoretical Framework…………...6
2.1 Organizational change………..6
2.2. Theory 1 – DiMaggio and Powell………..…………...…………...9
2.2.1 Situating the theory………...9
2.2.2 Theory that will be used………..12
2.2.3 Conclusion theory DiMaggio and Powell………...14
2.3.1 Theory 2 – Weick………...………15
2.3.1 Situating the theory……….15
2.3.2 Theory on sensemaking………...16
2.3.3 Theory that will be used………..18
2.3.4 Conclusion Theory Weick………...20
2.4 Theory 3 – Argyris and Schön ……...………...…...21
2.4.1 Situating the theory……….21
2.4.2 Theory on organizational learning………..22
2.4.3 Theory that will be used………..24
2.4.4 Conclusion theory Argyris and Schön………27
2.5 Chapter summary………...28
Chapter 3 - Research Design……….30
3.2 Case study: Regional Water Authority Hollands Noorderkwartier (HHNK)……31
3.1.1. Hoogheemraadschap Hollands Noorderkwartier (HHNK) ………...32
3.2 Research methods………...34
3.2.1 Interviews………....34
3.2.2 Ethnographic data collection………...36
3.2.3 Discourse analysis………...…37
3.3 Ethical statements………...37
3.4 Limitations……….39
Part II………..40
Chapter 4 – Story 1 – External pressures pushing for change………...…………43
4.1 An uncertain position in society……….…43
4.2 Change towards adaptive delta management……..………...44
4.3 Change in electoral system……….47
4.3.1 Electoral change Part I………48
4.3.2 Electoral change Part II………...50
4.4 Change in citizen’s attitude towards the Regional Water Authority………..52
Chapter 5 – Story 2 – Turning inside the organization….…………...……….….56
5.1 Making sense in a functional democracy.…….…..………...57
5.2 Making sense of changing structures……….59
5.3 Social construction of meaning in different layers of the organization………….61
5.3.1 Political character (list system)………...62
5.3.2 Participatory policy-making………66
5.3.3 Adaptive Delta management………...68
5.4 Chapter summary……..……….………70
Chapter 6 – Story 3 – Making change intentional.…….………...………...72
6.1 Errors………..…73
6.2 Facing double-loop problems.…….…..………...74
6.3 Defensive Mechanisms……….……….…75
6.3.1 ‘Everybody is so nice’ as a defence mechanism……….77
6.3.2 The impact of the Assembly’s defence mechanisms on the organization……...80
6.4 Transitioning towards Model 2………..82
6.5 Chapter summary…………...………83
Chapter 7 – Conclusion………...………..85
7.1 Revisiting the questions………...85
7.1.1 Story 1...………..86 7.1.2 Story 2……….86 7.1.3 Story 3..………...87 7.2 Recommendations………..89 7.3 Practical implications……….92 7.4 Theoretical limitations………92 7.5 Further research………. References………...94
Abstract:
This research project is designed to examine the impact of external pressures pushing for organizational change, in particular how Regional Water Authority Hollands Noorderkwartier copes with external pressures pushing for change. The central question in this research is: How does the Regional Water Authority (HHNK) cope
with external pressures pushing for organizational change?
Organizational change within the Regional Water Authority will be analysed using three different theoretical frameworks. First, DiMaggio and Powell's theory on isomorphism (1983) will construct an environmental context in which the Regional Water Authority operates. Next, Weick's theory on sensemaking (1995) will be used in order to understand how people working within the Regional Water Authority make sense of these external pressures pushing for change. And finally, Argyris and Schön’s theory (1996) on organizational learning will be adopted to make coping with change more intentional. Three stories will be told independently, each one of them highlighting different aspects of organizational change and contributing pieces to the never-ending puzzle of organizational change.
1.
Introduction: Pressures for change in Regional Water Authorities
1.1 First ObservationsFigure 1 -Photo exhibition HHNK, Hensbeker. Figure 2 - Drinking from the Hensbeker,
Day 1 Today was the beginning of my three-month internship at Regional Water
Authority Hollands Noorderkwartier (HHNK1). While waiting on the ground floor of
the headquarters for someone from my department (Governance, Direction, and Strategy) to pick me up, I decided to walk into the open exhibition present on the ground floor. The exhibition was filled with luxurious tableware: golden cups, glass that is notched with all kinds of beautiful images and figures, and Delft Blue and porcelain plates with golden edges.
The ‘Hensbeker’, a silver cup, engraved with all types of meaningful images about water management history, was at the exhibition’s centre of attention [Figure 1]. According to the description, the Assembly used this cup during meals [Figure 2], after for instance the yearly inspection of the dikes and waterways. This inspection was a unique moment where administrators travelled from far to discuss water quality and safety after a day of visiting the dikes and watercourses by carriage. Having a meeting afterwards while eating from this luxurious tableware was a way to create
solidarity between the administrators. The Hensbeker in particular would circulate with the purpose of creating brotherhood between the administrators against the enemy ‘water’ (Karel V en de waterstaat n.d.). Also, every new administrator got the
Hensbeker and had to fill it with wine and drink it all at once, then give a toast
flawlessly. When failing to do so, they would get the punishment cup containing at least two more glasses of wine (Karel V en de waterstaat n.d.).
Day 3 A few days later, I attended my first official meeting of the General
Assembly. I decided to be present early to make a good impression. One administrator after another arrived. Most of them were casually dressed. A few administrators still had to eat and took place in the canteen of the HHNK. Others waited in the hallway with paper cups in their hands, which they filled with coffee from the machine. One of the administrators came up to me and expressed his excitement for my research. Before I knew it, it was 19:00 and the meeting was about to start. All administrators took place at the table. During the meeting, administrators passed on the jugs with water.
The change from fraternally drinking wine from the Hensbeker to passing on water jugs in a formally set-up meeting were the first (slightly disappointing) signs of change I encountered. Soon it would become clear that the Regional Water
Authorities have been dealing with drastic changes these last couple of centuries.
1.2 External Pressures Pushing For Change
Regional Water Authorities (RWA) are decentralized governing bodies in the
Netherlands. They differ from municipalities and provinces in that they have one core task, which is managing water. More specifically, this includes taking care of flood protection and fresh water supply (in a specific region) (Unie van Waterschappen). Ever since the 12th century RWA’s have taken this task very seriously and created institutions around the performance of this task (OECD 2014).
In 2014 a report of the OECD (2014) stated that the environment in which RWA’s operate is changing. This is both the result of ‘climate change, economic and demographic trends, socio-political trends illustrated by European water policies, and innovation and technologies’ (OECD 2014: 17). These future challenges generate uncertainty for the position of RWA’s and ask for a new way of dealing with water-related issues. This new way of dealing with water-water-related issues involves a focus on uncertainty, flexibility, and innovation. This focus differs from what RWA’s are used
to since their way of working is based upon a century-old model of
water-management funded in scientific research and expertise that proposed stable solutions to water-related problems (OECD 2014).
The external environment is changing and a different type of water-management is demanded. Not only did the environment and the challenges they consequently face change, but also the set-up of the organization changed a lot these past couple of decades. RWA have drastically decreased in scale through mergers, with 3500 RWA’s in 1850 to 2500 in 1950 (Van Steen & Pellenbarg 2004: 593), to 21 in 2018. Besides, also the political system was changed in 2008, because of the perceived lack of democratic legitimacy. This introduced political parties into the arena of water management (Lazaroms & Poos 2004)
Where before members of the Assembly were driven around in carriages, and drank wine during meetings held in beautiful manors, they now have to make their own coffee and drink from paper instead of silver cups. You could say ‘the glory days are over’ when considering glory days as being treated as royalty. When talking in terms of water-management however glory days may as well lie ahead of the RWA’s since they are in a crucial moment in time where their role within society is changing and water-management is transforming and becoming even more important due to climate change. The way in which Regional Water Authorities are going to deal with and cope with on-going pressures for change will be crucial for their future position in society. While not having a crystal ball, nor a time machine to go back a few
centuries, I will not be able to answer the question of whether glory days lie past or ahead of the RWA’s. Since the aim of this research is to contribute to the future of RWA’s and elicit useful mechanisms of coping with external pressures pushing for organizational change in water-management, my research question is: How does the
Regional Water Authority (HHNK) cope with external pressures pushing for change?
The research question will be answered using three different theories to tell different stories about organizational change. The theories that are used are: DiMaggio and Powell’s theory (1983) on isomorphism, Weick’s theory (1995) on
sensemaking, and Argyris and Schön’s theory (1996) on organizational learning.
These theories have different understandings towards what change constitutes,
therefore every story adds pieces to the never-ending puzzle of organizational change. Specifically these three theories are chosen because each one of them in their own way has contributed to the literature on organizational change and has (re)introduced
concepts that continue to be used.
1.3 The Study
This thesis is divided into multiple sections. Chapter 2 discusses the theoretical framework that is used to frame this research. Organizational change is a complex research topic and therefore instead of having an overarching theory that is used for analysis, three different stories about organizational change will be told, using three different well-established theories in the field of organizational change. The theories used are; DiMaggio and Powell’s theory (1983) on isomorphism; Weick’s theory (1995) on sensemaking; and Argyris and Schön’s theory (1996) on organizational learning. These three stories will address the research question: How does the
Regional Water Authority (HHNK) cope with external pressures pushing for change?
Every theory follows a different understanding of answering this question. Every theory uses sub-questions that inform the research design of that particular theory and help to asnwer the research question in three different ways. Chapter 3 elaborates on the methodology that is used and introduces the HHNK as a case study. Chapter 4,5, and 6 discuss research findings and tell different stories about
organizational change through the framework of three different theories. In story 1 the concept of isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell 1983) is used in order to outline the contextual environment the RWA is operating in and present external pressures impinging on the Regional Water Authority. This chapter focuses on the structural level of organizational change. In Story 2 different levels of sensemaking (Weick 1995) will be discussed in order to better understand the relationship between these changing structures and individuals coping with those changes. Story 3 makes the process of organizational change more intentional, showing what defensive
mechanisms are present that resist change, arguing for another way of organizational learning in order to deal with these changes in a more effective way (Argyris & Schön 1996). In the final section of this chapter, these stories will be summarised,
highlighting their significance for coping with organizational change in the HHNK. Finally, chapter 7 is a concluding chapter, where theory and empirical data will be summarized, followed by recommendations for the Regional Water Authority for coping with change and final theoretical and practical implications of this research.
2.
Theories on organizational changeIntroduction
In this theoretical chapter I will expound my research question, constructing a solid framework through which the empirical data will be analysed. The research question is: How does the Regional Water Authority (HHNK) cope with external pressures
pushing for organizational change?
As is always the case, a theoretical framework allows you to learn about the elements your framework sheds light on, meaning other elements are given less attention. This research can thus most certainly not provide a holistic framework that will enable all to be seen and understood. To widen the scope of the research and the subjects of inquiry, I will use three established theories within the field of
organizational change, hoping to add to a more elucidated three-dimensional story of organizational change (in the Regional Water Authorities). These three theories support different stories about organizational change.
I will draw these stories upon three theories: DiMaggio and Powell's theory (1983) on institutional isomorphism (Section 2.2); Weick’s theory (1995) on
sensemaking (Section 2.3), and Argyris and Schön’s theory (1996) on organizational learning (Section 2.4). These theories are used because they all have influenced the
field of organizational change in an exceptional way. DiMaggio and Powell are two of the founding fathers2 of new institutionalism and have added a valuable
understanding of the process of organizational homogenization (Van der Straeten 2004: 42). Weick has contributed to the shift in organizations viewed as stable entities towards an understanding of organizations as processes (Tsoukas & Chia 2002: 573). Finally, there are not many more authors whose names are more closely related to organizational change as organizational learning than the names of Argyris and Schön (Lipshitz 2000: 456). Before these three theories are discussed, I will shortly
introduce the subjects of inquiry that is: organizational change (Section 2.1).
2.1 Organizational change
Everybody has an idea of what change comprises. You might think of change in terms of appearance when growing up; e.g. the fact that as a 21-year old you are taller than your 10-year-old self. You might think of change as moving from one place to
another, or switching from schools. Perhaps when thinking about change, you think about change from within: such as being more outspoken than you were before, or feel more stressed or happier than before.
Change is a widely disputed topic that has occupied scholars and philosophers through history. Within research the most obvious contrast is that of viewing change as ‘episodic, discontinuous, and intermittent’ or change as ‘continuous, evolving, and incremental’ (Weick & Quinn 1999: 362). The field of organizational change is characterized by this distinction. Generally speaking, rationalists view organizations 'as tools designed to achieve pre-established ends' (Wischnevsky & Damanpour 2006: 108), where organizational change 'flows from purposeful actions in accordance with an objective, external reality' (Quattrone & Hopper 2001: 403) and must contribute to achieving goals such as becoming more effective and increasing positive performance outcomes (Wischnevsky & Damanpour 2006: 108). Change in this case is
exceptional, with a strong focus on stability and order and questions dominated by this discourse (Tsoukas & Chia 2002: 567). Studies representing this view focus on the macro-level of analysis and take into account structures, routines and repetitive action. From this perspective, change is something that happens when these forms of stability are interrupted (Weick & Quinn 1999: 362).
William James (1909/1996) dismissed this theory and was one of the first known scholars to express his dissatisfaction with 'the Platonic and Aristotelian belief that fixity is more valuable than change', arguing that 'the essence of life is its
continuously changing character' (Tsoukas & Chia 2002: 569). Consequently, ever since the 90's scholars have embraced change 'more openly and consistently' (Tsoukas & Chia 2002; Weick 1993). Change is not treated as 'an epiphenomenon' but its centrality 'in the constitution of socio-economic life' is more acknowledged (Tsoukas & Chia 2002: 569). Studies focusing on the continuity of change focus on the micro-level of analysis and see change as an on-going act of adaptation and adjustment. These on-going acts can seem to be insignificant. An organizational member can for instance decide to sit somewhere else when working. Since change is continuous, small changes are capable of reshaping structure and strategy (Weick & Quinn 1999: 362). Deciding to sit somewhere else for instance can lead to more people sitting in other places, which again can lead to more communication between departments. Hence, according to this process-based perspective, change is not necessarily something that is mandated by external factors, or top-down, but involves actual
people that are active agents influencing and transforming their (organizational) environment.
This change in focus on organizational actors also led to a change in how people responded when faced with change. Theories on resistance to change, an often-accepted part of organizational change, also shifted towards a focus on the individuals within the organization. Rationalists are not very focused on people responding to change, often viewing actions by organizational members as strongly informed by the institution in question, meaning they are acting correspondingly to their environment (Markvart 2009: 19). Whenever people resist change it is regarded as a result of rational choices that are not benefitting the organization’s survival. Resistance in this sense is understood on a structural level, occurring when
‘institutions persist in the presence of (sometimes extreme) external and or internal pressures for change’ (Markvart 2009: 29).
In accordance with changes in thinking about organizational change, organizational actors have become more important in thinking about coping and resisting change since the 90’s. There was a shift in focus towards studies finding new ways to understand the relationship between individuals within the organization and the environmental structures they are working in, both considering individual
elements as well as the social context and the interplay between individual cognition and social setting. Emphasis was placed upon how individuals construct meanings that inform their actions and lead to resistance or other ways of coping with change (Andersen & Andersen 2014: 1).
The structure of the sections below -from DiMaggio and Powell (1983) to Weick (1995) to Argyris an Schön (1996)- can be understood in light of these debates of approaches towards organizational change in this field of research. Though
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) adhere to a rationalist view on change, using a macro-level of analysis, in their work they do acknowledge that individuals within the
organization challenge and reconfirm structures. Because these individuals are used to the structures of the organization their thoughts and actions have become informed by the organization, which limits their ability to act in a different way because the
organizational context is what they know. This is why in DiMaggio and Powell’s theory (1983) the emphasis remains on the organization as subject of inquiry, rather than the individuals that inform the organization. Weick (1963) on the other hand takes on a perspective of change as being continuous, in which the core of the
organization is made up of the interplay between structures within that organization and individuals challenging and reinforcing that structure. As opposed to DiMaggio and Powell, in Weick’s analysis (1995) the individuals’ way of coping with change is informed by more levels of sensemaking than only macro-structures. According to Weick (1995), these different levels of sensemaking are continuously in an interplay affecting one another. Finally, Argyris and Schön (1996), similar to Weick’s
perspective on change as a continuous process, see change as a process that is making up organizational everyday life. Differing from Weick, Argyris and Schön, the focus now shifts towards the individual and their ability to change structures and underlying assumptions in an intentional way, focusing even more on the role of organizational agents in challenging and reinforcing structures. In the sections below (2.2,2.3, and 2.4) I will elaborate on these different theories that adhere to different perspectives and approach organizational change in different, but all valuable ways.
2.2 Theory 1 - DiMaggio and Powell: coercive, mimic, and normative isomorphism
Introduction
As discussed, DiMaggio and Powell (1983) adhere to a rationalist point of view, in which emphasis is placed on structure and changes are understood through macro-level analysis. A large part of the organizational studies done by rational scholars focus on the ‘diverse and differentiated world of organizations’, trying to clarify the differences between organizations both in its structure as well as in its behaviour (DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 148). DiMaggio and Powell (1983) present another perspective on organizational change and differentiate themselves from the
mainstream by focusing on how ‘rational actors make their organizations increasingly similar as they try to change them’ (DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 147), focusing on the question: Why is there ‘such startling homogeneity of organizational forms and practices’ (DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 148)?
2.2.1 Situating the theory
The title of their article ‘The iron cage revisited’ feeds back into Max Weber’s
famous work on bureaucratization. Weber (1930) was the first to describe the features of a bureaucracy, arguing that it is the most effective way for organizations to ensure economic effectiveness in a world where capitalism and its technological and
economic relationship that followed from it, are the structuring forces driving society forward. This consequently meant that when people are born into this new system, where there is a specific hierarchical structure and division in labour, people tend to follow the system because their ideas are shaped by what they have always known. In this way people entering this system learn to reinforce the system by following what they already know. This is what he refers to as the iron cage. Weber argues:
Bureaucracy, the rational spirit’s organizational manifestation, was so efficient and powerful a means of controlling men and women that, once established, the momentum of bureaucratization was irreversible (Weber, 1968 quoted in DiMaggio & Powell 1983)
According to DiMaggio and Powell bureaucracy continues to be the common
organizational form, though ‘the engine of organizational rationalization has shifted’ (DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 147). Weber (1968) argues that the three main related causes for bureaucratization are ‘competition among capitalist firms in the
marketplace; competition among states, increasing ruler’s need to control their staff and citizenry; and bourgeois demands for equal protection under the law’ (DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 147). DiMaggio and Powell on the other hand state that nowadays, structural changes seem to be less driven by the need for efficiency or competition but are progressively becoming the result of a process that makes organizations
increasingly similar to other organizations in their field without these structures necessarily adding to the level of efficiency (DiMaggio and Powell 1983: 147).
These processes of bureaucratization and homogenization according to DiMaggio and Powell appear from structuration (Giddens 1979) of highly structured fields that present an environment wherein individuals attempt to handle uncertainty and pressure in a rational way that often induces its accumulation to structures and outputs that are similar to other organizations (DiMaggio & Powell 1993: 147). Giddens explains structuration as following:
the structuring of social relations across time and space, in virtue of the duality of structure (Giddens 1984: 376), concerning 'conditions governing the
continuity or transmutation of structures, and therefore the reproduction of social systems (Giddens 1984: 25).
With this term (structuration) Giddens (1984) tried to overcome the binary way of thinking about structure and agency. He acknowledged individuals exist and inform organizational action. But because organizational agents are socialized within a specific organizational field, they tend to follow organizational structures, which causes their acts to be informed by what they have learned. An extensive amount of research in different organizational fields has shown that when organizations are founded, they are more diverse than when they are established in a specific organizational field3. After some time, the process of structuration develops and makes them increasingly similar to others both in terms of structure as well as
behaviour. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) argue that this process exists of four parts. In the first part, the interactions between organizations in the concerned field increase. In the second part, new ‘inter-organizational structures of domination and patterns of coalition’ are clearly defined (DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 148). In the third part, there is more input in information the organization has to deal with. And in the fourth part, organizational members within that field are aware of each other’s roles within their common undertaking. (DiMaggio & Powell 1983). Even more, after a longer period of time spend in an organization, rational actors construct a context around
themselves that restrains their capability of changing these structures at a later stage. This relates back to the construction of an iron cage that restricts organizational agents’ capability of learning other forms of behaviour than the ones learned in the organizational field.
To describe this process of homogenization DiMaggio and Powell (1983) use Harley’s definition of the concept ‘isomorphism’, understanding isomorphism as ‘a constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions’ (DiMaggio & Powell 1993: 149). Meyer (1979) and Fennell (1980) distinguished two types of isomorphism:
competitive and institutional isomorphism. Competitive isomorphism is ‘assuming a
system rationality that emphasizes market competition, niche change, and fitness measures’ (DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 150) and in that sense is similar to Weber’s thoughts. Institutional isomorphism, as Kanter (1972) argued, is about the ‘pressing
3 There has been an enormous amount of research on this change in push towards homogenization
when an organizational field became more established, whether it is in the field of legal education (Rothman: 1980), hospitals (Starr, 1980), public schools (Tyack, 1974; Katz, 1975) or the radio industry (Barnouw, 1966).
forces communes toward accommodation with the outside world’ (Kanter 1972 in DiMaggio & Powell 1983). Other organizations are not only important for ‘resources and customers’, but are relevant for ‘political power and institutional legitimacy’ on a social as well as an economic level (DiMaggio and Powell 1983: 150).
2.2.2 Theory that will be used
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) have identified three mechanisms in order to understand the process through which isomorphic change happens: coercive isomorphism,
mimetic isomorphism and normative isomorphism.
Coercive isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell 1983) originates from political
pressures, and most importantly concerns upholding a degree of legitimacy. Both formal and informal demands by other organizations that the organization is dependent on influence the organizational structure, as well as cultural pressures in society. While this is not necessarily done by persuasion, isomorphism can be the result of governmental mandates. Although these mandates are often ‘ceremonial’, they are not necessarily ‘inconsequential’, (DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 152). Especially when organizations face strong interdependence, organizations pursue ‘greater power of the larger social system and its government’ in order to eradicate complications or grant security in needs (DiMaggio & Powell; Pfeffer & Salancik 1978).
Pfeiffer and Salancik (1978) state that environments that are politically constructed have two important characteristics; people making decisions, especially on a national level, often do not face the effects of their decisons directly and decisions are applied to numerous organizations at the same time, making these decisions ‘less flexible and adaptive’ (DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 150). Meyer and Rowan (1977) argue that when rational states or organizations increase their dominance over social life, the structures within organizations and institutes to a greater extent follow the same rules that are standardized and legitimized within the state, meaning more homogeneity within fields that are operating in their
interdependence and more and more organized following acts of conformity to wider organizations and institutions (DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 151-152).
Mimetic isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell 1983) is a product of uncertainty,
a process that again increases modifications. Whenever for instance the goals of an organization or the given technologies or laws are unclear, or the environment
‘creates symbolic uncertainty’, organizations mimic themselves according to other organizational structures that are perceived as successful or as having a high level of legitimacy, and other organizations are used as a ‘convenient source of practices that the borrowing organization may use’ (DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 151). The
organization that is copied is not necessarily aware of this. Practices that stem from these conforming activities are often diffused intentionally or unintentionally and indirectly ‘through employee transfer or turnover’, or explicitly ‘by organizations such as consulting firms or industry associations’ (DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 151). Alchian (1950) notes that this imitative process sometimes leads to innovation due to imperfect attempts of copying.
Finally, normative isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell 1983) is the result of professionalization. Larson (1977) and Collins (1979) define professionalization as follows:
the collective struggle of members of an occupation to define the conditions and methods of their work, to control ‘’the production of producers’’ (Larson 1977: 49-50), and to establish a cognitive base and legitimation for their occupational autonomy’ (DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 152).
Professionalization is a social process in which any type of industry or business constructs an image of what those industries or businesses and the people within should look like in the most correct and appreciated way. Coercive as well as mimetic isomorphic processes shape professions. The professional power is both determined by the state as well as by the actions of organizational actors.
DiMaggio and Powell (1983) demonstrate this with an example of hospitals. Hospitals often increase a range of services in order to be ranked as ‘fit’ and to be able to provide all services other hospitals can provide in order to attract
professionals, because hospitals include a lot of well-educated professionals. Those are often driven primarily by status competition (Pp. 154).
Professionalization that influences isomorphic processes is characterized by formal education and self-descriptions of universities that are situated in a cognitive base created by universities (DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 152). Universities produce certain organizational values and norms. Employees are filtered and organizations only hire people within the same field. People who work in a specific field are
socialized within this field, shaping their ‘expectations about their personal behaviour, appropriate style of dress, organizational vocabularies’ (Cicourel 1970; Williamson, 1975) and standard methods of speaking, joking, or addressing others (Ouchi 1980 in DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 153). This socialization often increases the recognition of hierarchy because people learn how to behave and act in this specific environment and profession.
2.2.3 Conclusion
DiMaggio and Powell argue that isomorphic processes make organizations
increasingly similar, while not always increasing organizational efficiency. Becoming more similar is often beneficial for organizations, working together with other
organizations becomes easier, it strengthens legitimacy and reputation (Meyer & Rowan 1977) and it attracts more professional people and organizations ‘fit into administrative categories that define eligibility for public and private grants and contracts’ (DiMaggio & Powell 1983). But structures that are rational for one organization are not necessarily ‘rational if adopted by large numbers’ in other organizations. According to DiMaggio and Powell (1983), although organizations try to change constantly, after a point of structuration in the organizational field, ‘the aggregate affect of individual change is to lessen the extent of diversity within the field’ (DiMaggio & Powell 1983: 148). This again reinforces Weber’s idea of bureaucracy as an iron cage in which people behave and act.
This theory relates organizations to their organizational field and in this way enables to understand change in light of external pressures that push for change such as the need for an amount of legitimacy, or attracting expertise and fitting into administrative categories. The first story will use this theory to lay out the context in which the Regional Water Authorities are operating in, asking the question: What changes are currently happening in the RWA? In light of the concepts of coercive, mimic, and normative isomorphism a second question will be asked, which is: What types of pressure do these changes create for change?
2.3 Theory 2 – Weick’s - sensemaking
Introduction
Story 2 adopts Weick’s theory (1995) on sensemaking and approaches organizational change differently from DiMaggio and Powell (1983) in that it understands change as an on-going interplay between different levels of sensemaking. In 1979, Karl Weick published his well-known book called ‘The Social Psychology of Organizing’ (Weick 1979). Using the term ‘organizing’ instead of organizations was - and still is- a remarkable choice that displays Weick’s perspective on organizations as being dynamic and always changing, emphasizing change in organizations as the normal state of being.
2.3.1 Situating the theory (1979)
Weick follows William James (1909/1996) line of thinking, regarding change as a continuous process and making change itself the central subject of study. Weick (1979) understands the relationship between individuals and organizations differently from DiMaggio and Powell, but both draw their understanding of the relationship between organizational members and organizational structures on Gidden’s
structuration theory (1984). Giddens (1984) understands organizational actors as to some extent ‘on the level of discursive consciousness under some description’
knowing what they are doing (Giddens 1984, quoted in Mutch 2014). This awareness appears in the form of ''practical consciousness', in which actors know the specific rules, roles, structures, and tactics that reproduce social life. Structure in this sense should be understood as ‘the medium and outcome of the conduct it recursively organizes’ (Giddens 1984 quoted in Mutch 2014).
Weick (1979) also adheres to a process-based view on organizational change and derives on process-based philosophers and ethno-methodologists in
understanding the relationship between structure and agency. Ethno-methodologists have placed emphasis on the context-dependent character of people’s agency and highlighted the importance of social interaction as ‘primary locus of social order’ and categorization (Boden 1994: 35-36). Following this line of process-based thinking, in contrast with rationalists, organizational phenomena should not be studied as if they are entities, or ‘accomplished events’, but as ‘enactments - unfolding processes
involving actors making choices interactively, in escapably local conditions, by drawing on broader rules and resources’ (Tsoukas & Chia 2002: 577).
Weick (1979) in the same way approaches organizational change as being a social dynamic process, in which interaction is a crucial part of what an organization constitutes (Tsoukas & Chia 2002: 577). According to Weick (1979), interactions and human action make up the organization, and these everyday actions and interactions form the subject of inquiry in his theory.
2.3.2 Sensemaking as a theory
According to Weick (1995), the organization compromises both multitude processes and the ways in which the organizational actors make sense of these processes. Understanding these processes in totality is quite difficult for individual actors due to their complexity. This causes them to divide these processes into individual events, or stages that are then ‘connected, threaded into sequences, serially ordered, and related’ (Weick 1979: 148). This is part of a process that Weick refers to as ‘sensemaking’. Taylor & Van Every 2000) describe sensemaking as following:
a way station on the road to a consensually, constructed, coordinated system of action (Taylor & Van Every 2000: 275 quoted in Weick, 1995), (…), At that way station, circumstances are turned into a situation that is
comprehended explicitly in words and that serves as a springboard to action (Taylor & Van Every 2000: 40 quoted in Weick, 1995).
Sensemaking is also interpreting these single events that are broken up and then retaining those events again that according to Taylor & Van Every (2000) forms a ‘springboard to action’ (Taylor & Van Every 2000: 275). Sensemaking is explicitly acknowledged when expectations are not met and people perceive the world
differently from what they expected it to look like, or when there is not one clear way ‘to engage the world’ (Weick 1995: 409). When this happens, the world becomes incomprehensible and, in order to restore this disruptive incoherence, people examine reasons ‘that will enable them to resume the interrupted activity and stay in action’ (Weick et al 2005: 409). These reasons are informed by organizational framework that is made up of ‘institutional constraints, organizational premises, plans,
(Weick et al. 2005: 409).
Whenever organizing processes are assembled they are very similar to the processes of natural selection, which is why Weick uses these resemblances (Weick 1979: 130). Weick differentiates four elements that produce organizing mechanisms: ecological change, enactment, selection, and retention (Weick 1979: 130). Enactment, selection, and retention are related to Weick’s sentence that summarises the
sensemaking process ‘How can I know what I think until I see what I say?’ (Weick et al. 2005: 416) This question suggests that the individual’s knowledge is acquired and context is understood by these individuals after action is taken. Here action and saying comes before seeing and understanding what has been said. Seeing then leads to the acquiring of knowledge and an understanding of what is going on. Again, this new knowledge is added to the database human beings carry within them, and will affect what will be said and seen in the future. Sensemaking thus has a strong focus on retrospect, since ‘actions are known only when they have been completed, which means we are always a little behind or our actions are always a bit ahead of us’ (Weick 1995: 26).
Ecological changes ‘provide the enactable environment, the raw material for sensemaking’ (Weick 1979: 130). Ecological change is about the set of relationships that exists between organizational actors and their environment. Within everyday life change is something that is always there. Within every flow of experience there are new differences and discontinuities. Most people are not aware of these changes while it often is ‘a specific moment of change when people’s attention is drawn' (Weick 1979: 130).
Individuals undertake action, which is what enactment stands for. This feeds back into the ‘saying’ part of Weick’s summarising question. There are two forms of enactment in organizations. The first form is bracketing: when something differs from the ‘normal’ stream of experience, the actor may take some action to isolate those changes for closer attention' (Weick 1979: 130). The second form of enactment happens when the actor is doing something that causes an ecological change. This change consequently restrains what the actor will do afterwards. This again produces new ecological changes. This process happens over and over again (Weick 1979: 131).
The process of enactment only produces ‘the equivocal raw materials’ (Weick 1979: 130). These materials are then captured or removed by the selection process.
Selection ‘involves the imposition of various structures on enacted equivocal displays in an attempt to reduce their equivocality’ (Weick 1979: 131). These equivocal displays are structured on the basis of interconnected variables constructed through past experiences. Weick refers to these interconnected variables with schemes of
interpretation as cause maps that are already present and always developing in each
actor. These cause maps could be understood as Clifford Geertz declared ‘man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun’ (Geertz, 1973 quoted in Weick 1969). This process of selection feeds back into the ‘seeing’ part of Weick’s summarising question. This part follows from action and is about how this action is seen and understood.
Retention then stores ‘the products of successful sensemaking’ (Weick 1979: 131). These products are called ‘enacted environments’, which are punctuated and connected summaries of ‘previously equivocal displays’(Weick 1979: 131). Reviewing Weick’s summarising question, this makes the circle complete.
Knowledge that originates from action is once again retained in people’s minds. As a consequence, this (again) affects actions undertaken and interpretations given in the future.
Sensemaking is understood as 'a process that is grounded in identity
construction' (Weick 1976: 17). The construct of an identity largely influences how people make sense and understand the world. Albert and Whetten (1985) defined organizational identity as ‘that which is core, distinctive and enduring about the character of the organization’ (Weick et al. 2005: 416). According to Weick,
sensemaking is filtered through issues of identity (Weick et al. 2005: 416) Identities are created through social interaction. This means that when switching among interactions, people change their definition of what they are and ‘self’ constitutes. This again suggests that the one making sense can be understood as an ‘on-going puzzle undergoing continual redefinition’, which is happening collectively with how people present themselves to others (Weick 1995: 20). Depending on this self-definition, people change how they see and understand what they see (Weick 1995: 20).
2.3.3 Theory that will be used
In the previous section, I argued that sensemaking is grounded in
(1995) these different definitions of ‘self’ are created in a constant interplay between different levels of sensemaking. Weick distinguishes four levels of sensemaking, using Wiley’s (1988; 1994) levels of social analysis.
The extra-subjective level focuses on the organisation culture, and understands this generalisation of social reality as the background against which meanings are created; a reservoir where from organizational members acquire their meanings, although unconsciously while often not aware of the knowledge within this reservoir (Cecez-Kecmanovic & Jerram 2002: 896). This level considers a stock of implicit, self-evident ‘beliefs, assumptions, values and experiences’ that organizational
members build upon when trying to make sense of a situation. This type of knowledge is communicated through ‘language, symbols, metaphors, rituals and stories’ (Cecez-Kecmanovic & Jerram 2002: 896).
The level of generic subjectivity stands for ‘generic meanings and social structures that emerge in and reproduce the organisation’ (Cecez-Kecmanovic & Jerram 2002: 896). This for instance includes rules, roles, structures, standard plots or patterns of action. An organizational set of meanings such as these makes up the stable character of an organization while organizational knowledge contains
‘structuring property’ that reproduces social structures and regulates the environment in which action is taken, impinging upon agency (Cecez-Kecmanovic & Jerram, 2002: 896).
Because organizational knowledge is applied in everyday practices and actions, organizational members are also able to contest (or justify) this knowledge. This means that these structural forms of knowledge are continuously in tension with the inter-subjective level. Inter-subjective meanings are constructed in social
interactions. These social meanings are the result of individuals that construct meanings and in that way share and construct new meanings with other people. Here the self-definition is transformed from I into we (Weick 1995: 71).
Intra-subjective meanings are meanings constructed by individuals that give
sense to what they are experiencing by drawing upon their own experiences, skills, values, and beliefs (Cecez-Kecmanovic & Jerram 2002: 896). I will not go into detail of this category in my analysis of my findings, as I focus on the organization and not per se the specific individual within that organization. It is important however to note this level: while according to Weick individuals are the ones who acquire knowledge,
interacts, and acts in the organizational environment which enables organizational actions and all other levels of meaning to exist.
2.3.4 Conclusion
In this chapter I used Weick’s theory to look into organizational change. According to Weick, change must be understood as a process of sensemaking. Sensemaking is most often referred to as involving ‘the on-going retrospective development of plausible images that rationalize what people are doing’ (Weick et al. 2005: 409). This rationale was summarised in the question 'How can I know what I think until I see what I say?’ (Weick et al. 2005: 416). This question presumes that knowledge and understanding follow from action. Therefore, actions are important subjects of inquiry when trying to understand how people make sense of organizational change.
Weick (1995) distinguishes multiple layers of sensemaking that will be used to answer the research question. A question that helps thinking about the research
question and adopts Weick’s concept of sensemaking is: In order to answer the research question the story will focus on the question How do organizational
members make sense of these pressures pushing for change? In order to answer this
question the different levels of sensemaking will be used in order to understand how different levels of sensemaking influence people’s understanding of change. Weick (1995) uses four levels of sensemaking, of which I will use the first three. Extra-subjective meanings form a reservoir from which other meanings are given. These for instance consist of values and assumptions in the cultural environment the
organization is operating in. Democratic values are an example of values
underpinning the organization. Generic-subjective meanings are meanings that consist of structuring property for the organization. These meanings constitute rules,
structures, organizational hierarchies and so on. Inter-subjective meanings are meanings constructed as a result of interactions, where ‘we’ determines what is out there. These levels of sensemaking are used to structure Story 2 and will help me look into organizational change in a dynamic way, enabling me to shed light on the
relationship between structures organizational actors are living in and organizational actors ability to affect these structures and cope with organizational change.
2.4 Theory 3 - Argyris and Schön – Organizational Learning
Introduction
Story 3 adopts Argyris and Schön’s theory (1995) on organizational learning. Similar to Weick (1979), Argyris and Schön also view change as a dynamic and on-going process with action as the central focus of inquiry when studying organizational change. According to Argyris and Schön individual processes underlie organizational behaviour and attention to this level is thus important (Argyris and Schön 1995). Weick is very useful in understanding the interplay between different levels of reality that shape the organization. His theory however remains somewhat abstract because of his focus on the interplay between different levels of reality. Argyris and Schön make organizational change more intentional and practical and focus even more on the individuals within the organization and their ability to cope with change in a meaningful way.
2.4.1 Situating the theory
Consistent with William James (1909/1996), Argyris and Schön also approach change as a continuous process, placing emphasis on everyday organizational actions. Weick, Argyris and Schön all view organizational action prior to understanding it and in the case of Argyris and Schön prior to organizational learning, while learning itself ‘thinking-knowing, or remembering’ is also an action (Kim 1993: 37-38). Therefore according to Argyris and Schön, in order to learn new actions, actions that have occurred will have to be studied in a retrospective way.
Argyris and Schön’s (1996) work is concerned with unconscious and conscious processes in learning. In distinguishing conscious from unconscious
processes they draw upon psychological studies on the process of individual learning, which scholars in this field have been studying for a long time (Kim 1993: 37). In special, psychologists such as Freud (1918) and Jung (1953), who have studied the relationship between consciousness and unconsciousness, are precedents of Argyris and Schön’s work.
Freud (1918) and Jung (1953) have studied the relationship between the two, consciousness and unconsciousness, in a different way. Freud (1918) created
psychoanalysis, which is an interpretative process that assumes people are eventually capable of acquiring knowledge about the unconscious motives that affect people’s
behaviour (Eriksson 2013: 663). Where Freud placed emphasis on the role of childhood experiences, Jung highlighted that people are also shaped by their future aspirations. Jung (1953) distinguished three interacting systems in the psyche instead of two: ‘the ego, the personal unconscious, and the collective unconscious’ (McLeod, 2014). The ego represents the conscious part of the mind. This part makes up the thoughts, actions, emotions, and memories that people are aware of. Different from Freud, Jung stated the unconscious part of the mind consists of more layers. The personal unconscious is a level closer to that of the conscious and contains memories and information that is repressed and or temporarily forgotten, while the collective unconscious is a level that lies deeper and is unconsciousness that is shared with other people, consisting of inherent memories from people’s ‘ancestral and evolutionary past’ (McLeod, 2014). As Jung stated: ‘The form of the world into which [a person] is born is already inborn in him, as a virtual image’ (Jung 1953: 188), meaning that when a person is born, specific unconscious patterns of action and thoughts are already imprinted on him.
2.4.2 Organizational learning as a theory
In a similar way Argyris and Schön distinguish conscious and unconscious behaviour by differentiating between theories of action. Theories of action refer to micro-theories that people create in their minds in order to ‘design and carry out their actions’ (Argyris 1976: 638). The goal of these theories is to compose a model that can be used in order to know what you have to do ‘in situation S in order to achieve consequence C‘ (Argyris & Schön 1994: 3). In practice however, the actions people say (and think) they are doing are not necessarily consistent with what they are actually doing. According to Argyris and Schön (1978) there is a gap between intentions that are described and behaviour that is required to get to the intended result of the interaction (Argyris & Schön 1978: 135). This is often because people are unaware of (parts of) their behaviour. In order to understand this, Argyris and Schön distinguish two theories of action: espoused theories and theories-in-use. They define espoused theory as ‘the theory of action which is advanced to explain or justify a given pattern of activity’ (Argyris & Schön 1996: 13). This theory stems from people’s understanding of what they are doing when they talk about it. Often however what people are doing is not something they are aware of, which means parts of their actual behaviour are missing in these given explanations of what
they are doing. These parts of actions that people are unaware of are captured in the term theory-in-use, which refers to ‘the theory of action which is implicit in the performance of that pattern of activity’ (Argyris & Schön 1995: 13). An example is that when people explain their job to their successor, they often forget crucial
information such as how to deal with surprises and how hierarchical relationships are structured and reproduced. Theories-in-use exist of two components. The first one is the governing variables that people attempt to satisfy, consisting of values and norms such as the emphasis on rational over emotional behaviour or the emphasis on
winning. These governing variables give purpose to events. The second component is the ‘behavioural strategies that people use’ in order to satisfy these governing
variables (Argyris 1976: 367). A strategy is for instance a specific hierarchical order that functions as a controlling mechanism over others (Argyris 1976: 639). Argyris and Schön (1976) argue that people’s actions are based upon ‘theories of action’, stating that in order to have actions based upon valid information, it is important to make the implicit explicit (Argyris 1976: 367).
This however is not that easy and common while according to Argyris and Schön (1995), most people are programmed in a way that does not promote reflection upon theories-in-use. This is also the case for individuals within organizations. These individuals often represent their organization without really knowing it and they ‘embody strategies for performing complex tasks’ that are embedded in structures, routines and practices (Argyris & Schön 1995: 13).
Knowing what an organization is and does is so complex that all
organizational members construct incomplete pictures of what the organizations is and does. Because of these missing pieces individuals try to constantly complete the image 'by redescribing himself in relation to others in the organization' (Argyris & Schön 1996: 15). Whenever conditions change, the description of this picture changes. In this regard, Argyris and Schön compare an organization to an organism, ‘each of whose cells contains a particular, partial, changing image of itself in relation to the whole’ (Argyris & Schön 1996: 15-16). In the same way as in an organism, organizational performance is the result of these images people present of the organization. Therefore it is important to address how individuals within the organization learn to discover their theories-in-use in order to represent the organization in a way that leads to more effective action.
established in 'the images of organization held in its member’s minds and in the epistemological artefacts’ such as maps, programs, and memories (Argyris & Schön 1996: 16).
2.4.3 Theory that will be used
Figure 3 – Explaining single-loop learning and double-loop learning
Whenever organizational members face a mismatch in expected outcomes and actions a new possibility for learning presents itself. This mismatch, or ‘error’, breaks the ‘flow of spontaneous activity and gives rise to thought and further action aimed at re-establishing that flow’ (Argyris & Schön 1996: 11). For example: a store sells iPods and faces an enormous drop in people buying this product. People working in the store face a mismatch between expected results and actual outcome. Errors such as these may alter in the way individuals think and act. This can consequently change the design of organizational practices
When those mismatches are addressed, most of the time they are dealt with through single-loop learning [Figure 3]. Single-loop learning means 'instrumental learning that changes strategies of action or assumptions underlying strategies in ways that leave the value of theory of action unchanged' (Argyris & Schön: 20). The single feedback loop connects the detected mismatch to organizational strategies. Though the organizational strategies and sometimes assumptions are changed, values and norms that underpin this behaviour (governing variables) are kept in tact (Argyris & Schön 1996: 21). In the case of the iPod shop dealing with a decrease in the amount of customers, management would for instance improve the product; produce new
colours, or new designs in order to match customer’s needs. This change may be the change that was needed in order to increase sale, but it could also happen that a few months later, similar and other errors occur again. When the error is corrected in the same way as before; by changing the iPod colours, or even the store design and people working there, the actual error has not corrected. Therefore double-loop learning is needed.
Double-loop learning [Figure 3] adds an extra step (or loop) to single-loop
learning and refers to learning that results in a change in strategies, assumptions and values of theory-in-use. Here the double loop is an extra feedback loop that connects ‘the observed effects of action with strategies and values served by strategies'
(Argyris & Schön 1996: 21). Coming back to the example of the iPod shop, changing the product’s design and colour may increase the amount of people buying it, but after a while the same error occurs again. In order to address the actual problem, managers have to look deeper and ask the question whether they should be selling this product in the first place, and start developing a new product or service that better fits
people’s needs. Lower sales could for instance be due to people being able to listen to music on their mobile phones, which makes the iPod obsolete. Increasing the
effectiveness of what they have always done in this sense does not help. Double-loop learning is needed when increasing the efficiency under the same existing norms and values does not correct occurring errors (Argyris & Schön 1996).
Model Demands for single-loop
learning
Demands for double-loop learning
Model 1 Works Problematic
Model 2 Works Works
Figure 4 –Summary on what combinations between Model 1 and 2 and demands for learning work.
Argyris and Schön have developed two types of organizations that match different ways of learning: Model 1 and Model 2. Organizations that are categorized as Model 1 are characterized by loop learning. Model 1 is most common because single-loop learning is present in everyday life because the goal of organizations is to ‘decompose difficult and complex problems into simpler ones so that they can be
performed in a routine matter’ (Argyris 1980: 207). Also, because of this established routine people learn what it means to ‘do a good job’ by adhering to this routine which has proven in the past to lead to the routine’s outcome. Model 1 is also characterized by defensive conditions that keep people from giving and receiving valid and honest feedback. On an organizational scale, this means that the
organization does not perceive valid information about what is going on (and possibly going wrong) and thus cannot test information in a way that leads to an increase in the organization’s effectiveness. Learning is often self-sealing, people learn what they are expected to or expect to learn (Argyris 1976: 639).
People working within Model 1 have learned to act for any situation in a way that represents the most accepted explanation and solution that is compatible with the values and norms (governing variables) of the organization. These governing
variables for instance place emphasis on rationality or suppressing negative feelings (Argyris 1976: 367). Though people may say that the organization values feedback (espoused theory), in reality people are exploited or criticized when being open about feelings and information (Argyris & Schön 1978: 140). These defensive mechanisms withhold people from transforming the organization towards Model II, even if they espouse to transform the organization. People who do not receive valid information or feedback are unlikely to reflect upon their own behaviour, inabilities or incongruities in the organization (Argyris: 140)
Model 2 organizations embrace double-loop learning as part of organizational life. The governing variables of this model are ‘valid information, free and informed choice, and internal commitment’ (Argyris & Schön 1978: 136). This model is characterized by a focus on open communication. People working in this model are stimulated to articulate and advocate their views and confront other views when the information they have suggest something different or adds to others’, in this way creating an organization that functions ‘on the most complete valid information’ (Argyris & Schön 1978: 138). People within the organization that are competent to decide and implement action should share power over decisions in order to increase people’s commitment to the organization (Argyris & Schön 1978: 138). Sharing power decreases defensive conditions and increases feelings of ‘internal commitment and essentiality’ (Argyris & Schön 1978: 139).
When organizations face single-loop learning it is no problem if they work in a Model I environment. Single-loop learning can also still happen when organizations
function in Model II environments because Model II adds to the understanding of learning instead of opposing single-loop learning. Also, Model II is useful when dealing with double-loop problems, while open communication stimulates the reflection upon governing variables. Whenever an organization adopts Model I behaviour and faces external demands that ask for double-loop learning, it is problematic because the organization’s survival is depending on the organizational ability to correct errors in a more existential way and transforming an organization into Model II is not that easy. This means that they have to learn what it means to learn, and learn to ‘discover, invent, produce and generalize’ in an organization (Argyris & Schön 1978: 140).
2.4.5 Conclusion
In this sub-chapter I outlined Argyris and Schön’s theory (1996) on organizational learning and Argyris and Schön’s (1996) models of behaviour. Argyris and Schön (1996) both focus on individuals within the organization and make change more intentional by showing people how it is possible to change organization. They distinguish two types of learning: single-loop learning and double-loop learning. Single-loop learning refers to learning that changes the strategies and sometimes assumptions that have caused the error, where double-loop learning refers to a change the values and norms underlying the strategies of action. The question ‘What kind of changes is the Regional Water Authority facing?’ will be answered in light of these type of errors related to single or double loop learning? Argyris and Schön (1996) argue that in order for organizations to deal in a more efficient way with changes, they should adopt Model II behaviour, which is a model that incorporates double-loop learning by emphasizing open communication and expression of feelings. Asking the question ‘How does the Regional Water Authority respond to these changes?’ will be answered in understanding through these models what types of behaviour and
2.5 Chapter summary
Theory Organization Change Coping with change
DiMaggio and Powell (a) Organization as an iron cage (b) Change as a result of imitation - ensuring legitimacy and political power
(c) Professions are also the product of isomorphic processes, which is why people do not resist easily.
Weick (d) Organization as organizing; a process
(e) Change as the normal state of being.
(f) Organizations are constantly trying to adjust and implement new changes through a process of sensemaking
Argyris and Schön (g) Organization as
a product of learning processes. (h) Change as a way and/ or opportunity of learning (i) Organizational members can cope with change through single-loop and/ or double-single-loop learning. Defensive conditions however protect people from learning.
Figure 5 – Summarizing three theories – DiMaggio and Powell, Weick, and Argyris and Schön.
In this chapter I have constructed a framework through which I will analyse
organizational change in the Regional Water Authorities (RWA’s). In my analysis I focus on three theories that help me understand different aspects of change
(DiMaggio & Powell; Weick; Argyris & Schön). Figure 5 summarises these theories. DiMaggio and Powell (1983) talk about organizations in a way that is inspired by Weber, both seeing organizations as ‘iron cages’ that restrain organizational members in their actions and behaviour (a). Different from Weber, who argues this process is the result of capitalist ways of thinking, DiMaggio and Powell argue that
