What is the meaning of Radical Change ?

 

Every large Organization comes face to face with the need for fundamental change. The decision to act may be prompted by a variety of circumstance a sharp side in profitability, enticing new prospects in distance markets, the gathering threats of fleet-footed competitors. Whatever the motive, leaders seldom meet greater demands on their skills then they do when they embark on a major change effort.

(The Mckinsey Quarterly,Driving Radical change , Page No 1)               

According to Radical Change theory suggests that many of the changes in information resources and human behavior in this digital age can be explained through these core concepts: connectivity, interactivity, and access. While the theory is currently being used to investigate both resources and behavior, it was originally developed to explain changes in youth literature. The theory’s explanatory power to study human behavior was revealed later by research studies that applied the theory across disciplines, such as library and information studies, education.

Change is as omnipresent as emotions. It is a way of living that has become the natural state of condition for many companies. The perception of change differs among scholars and a range of definitions exist. However, most definitions describe change as a process to move the organization from stage A to stage B or just from an old way of doing things to a new one with a positive outcome (see Gustavsen et al, 1996; Carr and Trahant, 1996). Further, these definitions imply a desire for a change from one condition to another that is better, more effective or more suitable for the organization. Mintzberg (McCarthy, 2000) views strategic change as the direction of an organization but even so, it is incremental to its character – it is a ‘process of synthesis’, where the synthesis is the result of ideas and creativity from all over the Organization. He also suggests that we skip the word strategy and just talk about new markets, new products and how to match the two. To Van de Ven and Poole (1995) change can be classified along two dimensions: mode of change, ranging from prescribed to constructive, and unit of change, ranging from the involvement of a single entity to multiple entities. By combining these four different types emerge.

• The life-cycle approach which views change as almost programmed through different stages from ‘birth’ to ‘death’ (or decline/reconstruction);
• The teleological approach which views change as a means to obtain goals, where the goals as well as the way to reach them can vary over time and between organizations;
• The dialectical approach building on the assumption those organizations strive for a state of stabilization. When this state is challenged and needs to be brought back to equilibrium it represents the change process;
•  And the evolutionary approach, viewing change as proceeding “through a continuous cycle of variation, selection, and retention” (p. 514). The intensity of the change differs between them, where the teleological approach represents, with some exceptions, a high intensity of change, as well as the dialectical and they would then represent the terminology of radical in this thesis. According to Garud and Van de Ven (2002), the teleological perspective includes social construction, giving references to Berger and Luckmann, Latour and Weick, thereby implying that social interaction and sensemaking are part of this perspective. However, even if the four approaches are clearly separated theoretically, this is probably not the case empirically. Admit tingly, Garud and Van de Ven (ibid) suggest a dynamic interaction between the four change process theories.

References:

• Riches, V. C. and Green, V. A. (2003) ‘Social integration in the workplace for people with disabilities: An Australian perspective’, Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 19(3), pp. 127–142.
• Volmer, D., Mäesalu, M. and Bell, J. S. (2008) ‘Pharmacy students’ attitudes toward and professional interactions with people with mental disorders’, International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 54(5), pp. 402–413. doi: 10.1177/0020764008090427.
•  Isern, J. and Pung, C. (2007) ‘Driving radical change’, McKinsey Quarterly, (4), pp. 25–35. doi: 10.1057/9781137492319_5.