Management development: a new role in social change?

Traditional approaches to organizational change are of little use in the bid for increased innovation as they reinforce top-down predictability. An alternative approach is through the creation of pockets of good practice which act as role models of change. These pockets need to be subversive of existing practices but simultaneously deliver organizational success criteria. The success of this approach is dependent upon managers developing a critical perspective about organizational control systems. Contrary to received wisdom the foundation for this critical perspective may be most usefully developed from the manager's own cynical experience of organizational life. In building this critical perspective management development may begin to fulfil a wider educational role in society. management development. This paper will examine an emerging approach to change management in which the role of the individual is central to the starting point for such change. This approach potentially provides a platform for management development to enhance greater individual autonomy, facilitate better organizational adaptation to changing environments, and encourage a more healthy society through questioning the institutionalised status quo. The identification of these outcomes for management development is not new. What is different, however, is that this paper will describe how these goals may be best achieved by management development becoming an agent of subversion and critical questioning rather than `̀ trust, truth, love and collaboration'' (Buchanan and Boddy, 1993). The paper will first set the context for this by examining some of the drawbacks to traditional change management and its wider impact in exacerbating organizational cynicism. New approaches to change will be explored as a backdrop for considering the value of critical reflection which a cynical perspective can stimulate. The paper will conclude by considering how this critical and potentially subversive approach could form the basis for a future role for management development in stimulating not just organizational but ultimately, wider social change. The intention here is not to provide a detailed manifesto for change, but to widen the debate about the potential role of management development as a key feature on the education agenda of the next century. OD at the organization level The rate of change currently experienced by organizations is forcing a substantial shift in organizational form and must, therefore, force a change in the way we manage these organizations. In traditional hierarchical forms senior managers set direction through strategy and the control of resources etc. (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1997). But such approaches are so full of inner contradictions that they kill the innovation and motivation those organizations require to remain competitive (Argyris, 1998). Hierarchical organizations breed hierarchical behaviours (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1997). It has almost become almost an established organizational principle that such hierarchies are unlikely to be able to respond quickly or effectively enough to rapid change. A hierarchical organizational form is seen to be so riddled with conflicting layers of self-interest and differing agendas that issues are blurred and decision making is slowed down and dissipated in the favour of those different competing interest groups. Accordingly, a template for more emergent and organic, even apparently chaotic structures, is coming to be seen as more appropriate in the future if organizations are to be able to respond to the demand for almost continuous innovation ((Tetenbaum, 1998; Miles et al., 1997). Therefore, there will be an increasing need for senior managers to move their focus from one of control to one where their role is to foster entrepreneurial initiative and support radically decentralized operations (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1997) where people are capable of acting creatively and autonomously toward their specific markets opportunities. But how far away is this future template for senior management from current practice? If hierarchical organizations breed hierarchical behaviours, then a culture of command and control which enabled those senior managers to reach their senior positions in the first place is likely to prevail and this can place a number of blockers on organizational and individual effectiveness. For example, contemporary managerial culture in Western capitalist society has been described as a combination of `̀ social Darwinism'' and `̀ functional rationality'' which can produce a competitive paradigm in which employees come to be manipulated, codified and catalogued, rather than freed to assume greater autonomy (Bowles, 1997). Furthermore, within this paradigm, the need for managers to be seen as successful and worthy of promotion, sometimes places them under pressure to bend to existing norms rather than innovate (Coopey, 1995, p. 66). It is also doubtful that these institutionalized power relations within organizations can easily be changed through traditional processes of corporate transformation. The point is clearly demonstrated in a recent survey by Worrall and Cooper (1997). Their findings gathered from members of the Institute of Management called into question `̀ whether the objectives of change management programmes . . . have actually been convincingly achieved'' (1997, p. 30). But, more importantly, the survey revealed that junior managers were likely to view senior management style as being authoritative, bureaucratic, cautious, reactive, secretive, traditional and vacillating. In many ways, a programme of change set at the organizational level, is predicated on the degree of certainty and control it appears to provide but is often unlikely to create autonomy and innovation precisely because of that degree of control and certainty. [ 768 ] Martin Clarke Management development: a new role in social change? Management Decision 37/10 [1999] 767±777 `̀ When employees actions are defined almost exclusively from the outside, the resulting behaviour cannot be empowering and liberating'' (Argyris, 1998, p. 101). Far from empowering individuals, OD managed at the organizational level implicitly reinforces institutional control and often, through a process of `̀ cultural doping'' (Alvesson and Willmott, 1996), encourages dependency on existing organizational values rather than challenge them. Ironically therefore many change initiatives undermine the employee autonomy they purport to create. This creates considerable cynicism and demotivation as employees experience these inherent contradictions and paradoxes of organizational life. Such is the extent of this cynicism that it has attracted considerable academic concern in recent years (Andersson, 1996; Reichers et al., 1997; Dean et al., 1998). The pervasive nature of cynicism will now be briefly explored as an alternative starting point for management development. Organizational cynicism Most of the work in this area defines cynicism in negative terms, as an `̀ attitude of contempt, frustration, and distrust toward an object or multiple objects, susceptible to change by exposure to factors in the environment'' (Andersson, 1996, p. 1397). Therefore, as an attitude, cynicism comprises a combination of: beliefs that organizations betray a lack of fairness, honesty, and sincerity; affect, an emotional response toward their organization; and behaviour which may comprise critical observation, presenting pessimistic views etc. (Dean et al., 1998). Many of the antecedents of cynicism can be found in the shortcomings of top-down change management. Andersson (1996) has identified the roots of such cynicism in the increasing number of organizational `̀ contract violations''. These may include psychological, implied or formal contractual violations between individuals and their employer. Based on this analysis, Andersson identifies three potential predictors of workplace cynicism: 1 Environmental ± higher executive pay, harsh layoffs, unjustified corporate profits, corporate irresponsibility. 2 Organizational ± infrequent or inadequate communication, limited voice expression, discourteous interpersonal treatment, management incompetence, use of management techniques. 3 Job/role characteristics ± role ambiguity, role conflict, work overload. The changing nature of organizational forms toward more fluid and ambiguous structures would suggest that a great many characteristics of jobs and roles are likely to continue to become ambiguous and generate conflict in the future (Worrall and Cooper, 1997; Holbeche and Glynn, 1998). Similarly, if the prevailing approach to change management is continuing to fail, if managers have yet to experience change programmes that really work, we must also consider the extent to which Andersson's (1996) second category is also likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Lack of adequate information about change and experience of unsuccessful change programmes were also identified as determinants of cynicism by Reichers et al. (1997). Dean et al. (1998) are careful about determining whether organizational cynicism is justifiable in any given situation. This, being a matter of opinion, is no basis for theory (1998, p. 347). However, given the view that the determinants of organizational cynicism are likely to increase, perhaps a more relevant observation is whether cynicism is an inevitable condition of contemporary organizational life. Is it an aberration to be controlled, or a precondition for surviving in organizational life? While for some this analysis to date may present a bleak picture of organizations, it can also actually provide a real point of departure for reframing approaches to organization development and the role of management development in facilitating this change. Rather than pursuing a naõÈvely optimistic approach to management development let us accept the manager's own starting point. The rationale for this is clear when you consider that `̀ if motivation, control and leadership are problem areas in an organisation then the political reality underlying these issues must necessarily be one of struggle, conflict and lack of consensus'' (Bacharach and Lawler, 1980). So rather than trying to stimulate change through open, collaborative relationships which only produce limited success (Buchanan and Boddy, 1993), it may be more practical to start with a manager's own cynically informed view of organizations. In order to appreciate the real value of this starting point, the next section will deal with some of the emerging trends in OD. These trends will be then related to how cynicism may form a useful starting place for management development to foster greater managerial autonomy and social responsibility. OD at the individual level In response to this need for ever-increasing change and innovation and the growing [ 769 ] Martin Clarke Management development: a new role in social change? Management Decision 37/10 [1999] 767±777 disillusionment with traditional approaches to organization change, alternative approaches have been emerging with individuals and groups as the starting point for organization development interventions (Beer, 1990; Butcher et al., 1997; Clarke and Meldrum, 1999; Frohman, 1997; Hendry, 1996). In this approach, change is seen as a `̀ jointly, analytical, educational/learning, and political process'' (Pettigrew and Whipp, 1991), in which organization contexts are open to redefinition by powerful individual actors. These actors create pockets of good practice, groups of people and activities who `̀ share tacit knowledge and through dialogue bring this to the surface; they exchange ideas about work practice and experiment with new methods and ideas; they engage in discussions which affirm or modify theories in use; they innovate new problem-solving routines and simultaneously manage and repair the social context'' (Hendry, 1996, p. 628). Through linked pockets of good practice `̀ knowledge, rules for action, and culture are spread'' (Hendry, 1996, p. 628). In this way organization change is an emergent, organic process created by individual action, somewhat akin to Morgan's (1993) `̀ strategic termites''. The role of senior management then becomes one of detecting and supporting these emergent pockets of good practice (Beer et al., 1990). But as we have seen, this is unlikely within existing organizational power relations. Therefore, a necessary pre-condition for the successful creation of pockets of good practice, lies in the need for such strategic termites to be critical, to challenge and even subvert the status quo. In this context being critical focuses on `̀ asking questions of purpose and of confronting the taken-for-granted, concealed interests and ideologies which inform managerial thought and action'' (Reynolds, 1998, p. 184). The capacity to engage in critical reflection requires considerable self-awareness, cognitive capabilities, emotional resilience, political skill etc. The need for these high order capabilities poses two important issues for the development of managers. First, why should managers wish to engage in such subversive activity in the first place and why would they then see this approach as more likely to be effective? Second, how can individuals be subversive and credible? How can managers learn to read organization context, power relations and political activity? Some of the answers to these questions can be found in the way we develop managers. The assertion here is that one way of developing a critical perspective may be most usefully found and nurtured within the domain of organizational cynicism, which on first sight, is contrary to much of the received wisdom in management development. Another part of the answer rests with the inescapable truism that new theories may be convincing because they work (Berger and Luckman, 1996, p. 137). Change initiated by pockets of good practice are essentially both real, and realistic for practising managers because it accords with their everyday experience of managerial life. Both of these potential answers will now be explored in more detail followed by an assessment of the impact of these ideas on the future role of management development. The positive value of cynicism As we have seen there is plenty of evidence to support the view that organizational life is increasingly experienced in a cynical way by actors (Dopson and Nuemann, 1994; Denham et al., 1996; Hope and Hendry, 1995; Reichers et al., 1997). But this cynical perspective does have other possibilities too. Cynicism can help make sense of puzzling events in the environment (Reichers et al., 1997). It can prevent being taken advantage of and put a check on expediency over principle, should those seeking expediency believe that selfinterest might go undetected (Dean et al., 1998). But, above all, cynicism can help managers see the institutionalized power relationships at work in organizations. It recognises that choices of organizational direction are influenced by self-interest (Dean et al., 1998) and that there are often hidden motives for actions.. At one level, therefore, cynicism can provide value because it explicitly surfaces the influence of management self-interest and of the repeated failure of management to introduce effective top-down organizational change. In other words it encourages a critical perspective which challenges the assumptions that foster the inevitability of such authoritarianism in organizations (Reynolds, 1998). Cynicism provides a good starting point for developing managers because it is so much part of their everyday reality and lived experience of organizations. However, the idea of using cynicism as a starting point for management development clearly faces many difficulties as it is so embedded as a negative attitude. What makes cynicism so dysfunctional is the affective dimension recognised by Dean et al. (1998) and its tendency to promote entirely selfserving behaviour. The affective domain is revealed in the emotion, anger, shame, distress etc., caused by contract violations, when expectations are not met and [ 770 ] Martin Clarke Management development: a new role in social change? Management Decision 37/10 [1999] 767±777 disillusionment prevails (Andersson, 1996). In an effort to protect the self from further harm the individual will pursue an entirely self-serving agenda. It therefore follows that if managers are able to rise above the emotional consequences of contract violations they will need to acquire greater emotional resilience. This resilience will enable them to see events without personalising them (Butcher et al., 1997), and maintain a balanced view of events and motives without the temptation to blame or be judgmental. This balanced view should provide a starting point from which managers could engage in a more critical analysis, to develop perceptual acuity in interpersonal relationships and to see failures in communication etc., as an inevitable outcome of competing interest groups rather than attributing it to an unfair system. If the system is not seen as unfair, it provides an opportunity for managers to consider ways in which self-interest might become congruent with organizational interest. Accepting managerial cynicism as a basis for developing a critical perspective and as inevitable rather than an aberration, provides some challenges for management development but also potentially re-frames its role in organizations and society. These ideas will be discussed shortly. But why should starting with a cynical approach be any more valuable than traditional approaches to stimulating change? This brings us to the second part of our answer and may be most usefully explored by examining the ways individual actors perceive their change context. The managers' experience of organizational life We have examined traditional approaches to organizational change as being contradictory, paradoxical and often seen as de-humanizing by organizational actors because the underlying paradigm reflects rational, topdown control. Expecting planned outcomes from organization-wide change in a context open to multiple interpretations by those involved, seems remote. Using a critical perspective of organizations immediately surfaces issues of managerial power and control. Accepting the socially constructed realities of power, the manager then has choices whether to accept, bend or subvert the rules that are perceived as concomitant with that power. Whether the manager sees these choices as real will be dependent on a function of the individual's beliefs concerning the personal consequences of reinterpreting those rules. It will also be dependent on the individual's perceptions of the need to comply with referent group expectations about the enactment of those rules (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975). So decision-by-decision, meeting-by-meeting, managers are engaged in a process of negotiating the rules of the game. Not only will actors accept or bend the rules but can also subvert them in ways which can have a powerful impact on the formal and informal rules of organizational life. Research by Johnson et al. (1997) into institutional change demonstrates that initiating subversive behaviour from within established organizational power relations is common and achievable. Change initiated from below, therefore, has much more resonance with managers' real experiences of organizational life; of daily conflicts, resistance, competitive positioning of causes, local needs versus organizational mandates etc. It is this type of experience which feeds managerial cynicism. Therefore, change which starts with individuals' own critical perceptions of self-interest, ambition, reward and interpretations of organizational power bases etc., is much more likely to be enacted because it is real and immediate for those involved. Managers working in this way can see that they can make a difference to their own circumstances and to the organization (however small). The key question is the extent to which those actors are able or willing to engage in behaviour which may be construed as subversive and how can this be closely aligned with organizational needs. This brings us to the role of management development in stimulating such change. A future role for management development? If organizations need new approaches to change and these approaches will need to be inherently critical of the status quo, management development might have a new role in developing managers to be subversive by building pockets of good practice. In this way, individual and organizational agendas can become congruent. If pockets of good practice are to flourish as a viable approach to organizational change then they will implicitly challenge the assumptions behind existing power relations because they question the primacy of corporate, top down control. In this respect they run the risk of being interpreted as evidence of organizational misbehaviour in that they will run counter to shared organizational norms and expectations (Vardi and Weiner, 1996). The ability of managers to undertake this type of [ 771 ] Martin Clarke Management development: a new role in social change? Management Decision 37/10 [1999] 767±777 subversion requires considerable interpersonal, political and cognitive skills. Clarke and Meldrum (1999) have identified five key personal attributes needed for the development of such pockets in ways which reduce this possibility: 1 political astuteness, the ability to read organizational contexts; 2 ability to `̀ position'' intentions, the way individuals and departments represent themselves in order to gain credibility and act as a role model for change; 3 envisioning, creating a vision that is differentiated, yet meets key organizational success criteria; 4 subversive, being able to stand outside organizational rhetoric, questioning organizational norms whilst still meeting organizational success criteria; and 5 taking personal risk, understanding the personal and developmental implications for oneself in taking these actions. Each of these attributes reflects a critical perspective. For example, in order to `̀ position'' a pocket to deliver its differentiated vision, a manager must be able to read the formal and informal organizational success criteria, in order to be credible to the dominant majority. In other words, managers must be able to read the unwritten rules of the game (Scott-Morgan, 1994) about `̀ what it takes to get on around here''. If a minority is to be seen as credible it may need to be flexible in its positioning depending whether it is on the inside or outside of the majority which provides the dominant definition of reality (Mugny, 1984). Political astuteness is, therefore, necessary in order to be able to determine the existing power relations within different organizational groups which may interpret the action of such pockets in different ways. A critical perspective is, therefore, a prerequisite for the execution of these attributes. All of this has considerable implications for the development of managers. While the need for such a critical perspective has been widely discussed in academic journals, so far little attention has been given to formulating an educational methodology which can foster such a critical perspective among practising managers (Reynolds, 1998). So, how might this critical perspective and its contingent cynical viewpoint be developed in managers to enable the deployment of these attributes? In discussing cynicism, Andersson (1996) identifies a number of `̀ dispositional moderators'' which can predispose individuals to act negatively in situations which are seen to be unjust. These moderators are: self-esteem, locus of control, equity sensitivity, negative affectivity, work ethic, machiavellianism and demographic characteristics. With the exception of the last item, the list provides a good indicator of those factors which directly influence the dysfunctional affective domain of cynicism discussed earlier. The development of managers so that they are able to increase or decrease the impact of these traits can enhance the emotional resilience needed to help move from cynicism to criticism. Many existing personal development activities attempt to influence the attitudes and behaviours which underpin these personality traits, but many are developed irrespective of the organizational context of the manager (Atkinson, forthcoming). In addition, much existing organizationallymotivated management development is based on a competency approach which reflects a reductionist template for development (Willmott, 1994). A process which helps to develop a critical perspective must take account of the manager as a whole complex being acting in a dynamic environment with other complex people (Burgoyne, 1998). This can be achieved through the development of underlying `̀ meta-abilities'', those personal, acquired abilities which underpin and determine how, and when, knowledge and skills will be used (Brown, 1993). These include capabilities such as self-understanding, cognitive skills, personal drive and emotional resilience. These are most effectively surfaced through a development process which creates a disconnect or disjoint in previously held mindsets forcing a significant personal transition which allows managers to step aside from previous frames of reference and to see the world `̀ afresh''. In turn this facilitates an increase in the managers' cognitive complexity and thus their capacity for critical reflection. The exact detail of this approach is beyond our discussion here but the major building blocks for these ideas can be found in Butcher et al. (1997), Conger and Xin (1996), and Clarke (1998). Most importantly, this type of process can enable managers to glimpse moments of `̀ micro-emancipation'' (Alvesson and Willmott, 1996). Micro emancipation concerns those situations in which managers, through a process of critical reflection, are able to make partial, or even just temporary movements, in developing greater autonomy and responsibility for others (Alvesson and Willmott, 1996). In essence these moments of micro emancipation enable managers to see the political realities of organizational life. Enabling such glimpses helps identify the socially constructed nature of reality and, therefore, the opportunity for its re-definition. This results in managers [ 772 ] Martin Clarke Management development: a new role in social change? Management Decision 37/10 [1999] 767±777 being able to see choices in what they do and this choice is central to the managers' motivation and ability to engage in subversive action. This possibility of encouraging moments of micro-emancipation for individuals provides for a new and more impactful role for management development. In essence, in raising micro issues of control and autonomy for individuals, management development would be fulfilling a broader educative role, not merely providing skills training. Education cannot exist independently of its social context, and is rightly open to the influence of government, community and interest groups. However, despite this influence, one of the core values of education remains that of enabling people to explore alternative points of view, as free from bias as possible. This core value remains dominant in Western education despite the ongoing conflict with community control that this can create (see Worsley, 1970, p. 178 for example). The process of enabling critical reflection is a key ingredient in management development fulfilling a wider educative role as it provides a basis for exploring alternative views, challenging assumptions and identifying bias and covert interests. By enabling managers to critically explore issues of power and politics, managers will inevitably raise fundamental questions about themselves and their own role in organizations. By managers reflecting critically about careers, the division between work and non-work, and their responsibility to consider the wider social impact of managerial decisions, management development begins to assume a more substantial role in society. If organizations are the dominant influence in society, then management development's educative role of challenge and critique is of paramount importance. This is especially so if one considers how secondary and higher education activities are necessarily focused on developing people who will enter their careers with little organizational influence. The power of managerial ideology that we have explored is too great for an employee's critical facilities to survive the early years of organizational life. Therefore, the greatest impact on the status quo may be best made (initially at least) from within organizations by management development. The role of management development, therefore, becomes one of challenging normative control rather than reinforcing it. All this represents a sophisticated management development process, which is far removed from the competency approach which occupies much of the current resources in management development. It is, therefore, necessary to ask some serious questions about whether this is remotely achievable or not. How might this new role for management development emerge? What are the forces which might encourage a change in the prevailing institutional template? What will happen if management development is unable to respond to these challenges? It is not the intention here to create a manifesto which is able to answer all these questions precisely, but to create a `̀ glimpse'' into the future of what might be and to encourage further debate and pockets of good practice. It is, therefore, useful to look forward to the emerging social, technological and economic conditions which might influence the role of management development in the next century to highlight some of the choices open to us.