STRATEGIC CHANGE:Pettigrew & Whipp’s Typology, Context on X-axis (Why of change)

<< SYMBOLIC PROCESSES:Political Processes, COMMUNICATING CHANGE, Change Tactics

STRATEGIC CHANGE:Attributes of SOC Model, Implications for Management >>

Change Management MGMT625

LESSON # 29

STRATEGIC CHANGE

The concept of change and strategic change can be interpreted and understood from different

perspective. Here I will discuss the concept will be discussed from an organizational transformation

perspective. One such perspective is given by Andrew M Pettigrew, one of the leading management

scholars, who proposed that change should not be considered only in terms of the processes, but should

also be considered from the historical, cultural, and political features of the organization. His model

reveals a continuous interaction between the context of change, process of change and content of

change. He defines context as why and when of change, and is constituent of outer context and inner

context. The outer context refers to prevailing economic circumstances whereas inner context is

concerned with internal influences such as resources capabilities, structure, culture, and politics.

Content is defined as what of change, and is concerned with areas of transformation. While "process' is

described as how of change. This refers to actions and interactions of the various stakeholders as they

negotiate proposal for change. The model is useful for understanding complexities of organizational

change even for smaller and ordinary level of change.

Pettigrew & Whipp's Typology

In his article, "Context and action in the organizational transformation", Pettigrew gave the partial

review on the literature for leadership, and then tried to develop the linkage between leadership and

organizational transformation. According to Pettigrew and Whipp the essential dimensions of strategic

change are context, content and process of change. Let us deal with them in details one by one:

1. Context on X-axis (Why of change)

There are some authors like for instance Berg, Kervasdoue & Kimberly who consider change as an

ahistorical, aprocessual and acontextual in character. This is also because of the methodological

problems associated with social sciences in general and the organization and management studies in

particular. Very few studies reveal that change process is studied substantially from the temporal and

contextual perspective. For example you might have observed that management principles we study are

most of the time are sweeping generalisations devoid of context in which they are evolved. This is also

important to see whether change project is studied as a single event or as a set of discrete episodes

separated from immediate and more distant antecedents. Such episodic views give only a snapshot view

and fail to provide data on the mechanisms and processes through which changes are created. He

suggested contextual analysis for observing the transformational change meaningfully. See the

figure below for this.

Change Management MGMT625

The figure above reveals that strategic change or major organizational transformation would involve

questions about the content, context and process of change, and interaction amongst these broader

categories of change. The starting point for this analysis of strategic change is the notion that

formulating the content of any new strategy inevitably entails managing its context and process. Outer

context refers to the social, political, economic, business and competitive environment in which the

firm operates. Inner context refers to the structure, corporate culture and political context within the

firm through which ideas for change have to proceed. Thus the firm may be seeking to change

technology, manpower, products, geographical positioning, or indeed corporate culture. The process of

change refers to the actions, reactions and interactions from the various interested parties as they seek to

move the firm from its present to its future state.

According to Pettigrew the frame of reference used to guide this research on strategic change is a

continuation and development of the author's (consultant's) previous work on organizations as political

and cultural systems. While Andrews, King and Cleland believe that here is no pretence to see strategic

change as a rational analytical process of analysing environments, resources , and gaps, revealing and

assessing strategic alternatives, and choosing and implementing carefully analysed and well thought

through outcomes. Rather in the manner of Bower and Mintzberg the transformation of the firm is seen

as an iterative, multilevel process, with outcomes emerging not merely as a product of rational or

boundedly rational debates, but also shaped by the interest and commitment of individuals and groups,

the forces of bureaucratic momentum, gross changes in the environment, and the manipulation of the

structural context around decisions.

Pye and Pettigrew revealed important aspects of inner and outer context in another article titled,

"Studying Board Context, Process and Dynamics: Some Challenges for the Future". For them important

aspects of the outer context include: the extent of regulation in the industry in which an organization is

located; its ownership structure and investor relationships with the board; the presence of other

influential stakeholders e.g. lobby groups outside the organization; and the potential for mergers and

acquisitions activity.

While the nature of the industry and business, besides other important elements of the inner context

include the: commercial requirement of the organization to develop new core competencies or strategic

direction; level of perceived trust in the board, as viewed by insiders and outsiders; life cycle of the

company and of the board and its culture/ stage of board development.

The inner context can further be classified into two variables: tangibles and intangibles. The tangibles

are structure and resources of organization while organization culture and organization politics.

Intangibles govern tangibles. In the words of technology it is the software (organization culture and

politics) which governs hardware (structure & resources)

2. Content on Y - axis (What of change)

The content of strategic change is dependent upon managing its context and process. The process skills

at the most general level involve the legitimation of the content of strategy in the evolving inner and

outer context of the firm. The content of change refers to the particular areas of transformation under

examination. Thus the firm may be seeking to change technology, manpower, products, geographical

positioning or indeed corporate culture. The process of change refers to the actions, reactions, and

interactions from the various interested parties as they seek to move from its present state to future

state. This may include change in the following aspects of organization:

- Assessment and choice of products and market

- Objectives and assumptions

- Fixation of targets and evaluation criteria

Change Management MGMT625

3. Process on Z-axis (How of change)

Two points are essential to understand the process aspect of change. The first is that structures, cultures

and strategies are not just being treated as neutral, functional constructs connectable to some system

need such efficiency and adaptability; those constructs are viewed as as capable of serving to protect

the interests of dominant group. Second the biases existing in structures and cultures can protect

dominant groups by reducing the chances of challenge, and features of inner and outer context can be

mobilized by dominant or aspiring groups to legitimate the existing order, or indeed to help create a

new order. These points are as pertinent to understanding processes of strategic change as they are to

achieving practical outcomes in strategic change.

The political and cultural view of processes gives a central place to the processes and mechanisms

through which strategic changes are legitimated or delegitimated. The content of strategic change is

thus ultimately a product of legitimation process shaped by political/cultural considerations, though

often expressed in rational/ analytical terms. This recognition that transformation in the firm may

involve a challenge for the dominant ideology, cultures, systems of meaning and power relationships in

the organization makes it clear why and how the processes of sensing, justifying, creating, and

stabilizing major change can be so tortuous and long.

We can also talk of various formal and informal on-going organizational processes like communication,

decision making, objective setting and controlling etc. The process in organization in turn depends upon

the followings:

Change managers

Models of change

Formulation/ implementation process

Pattern through time

The three are interdependent with each other for instance context and process define the content of

change. The structures, cultures and strategies are not treated as neutral and functional constructs high

on efficiency and adaptability. In overall analysis the strategic change should not be considered as a

rational analytical process of analysing environments and resource allocations etc.

References

Pettigrew Andrew M., Context and Transformation of the Firm, Journal of Management Studies Vol.24

No.6 November (1987)

Pye, Annie and Andrew Pettigrew, Studying Board Context, Process and Dynamics: Some Challenges

for the Future, British Journal of Management, Vol. 16, S27S38, 2005

Table of Contents: