Summary
Summary
Chapter 7 of the book is titled A Multi-theory Approach to Change. This chapter provides the readers with five cases. In the first case, Ken, as associated dean of faculty, is developing an international branch campus in Saudi Arabia. Though it is a first-order change, it requires work at multiple levels. Thus, speaking about the type of change there is no need for the second-order change. As to the context of change, it is necessary to consider the political and economic forces, which stand against Ken’s change. Ken may use his leadership qualities and authority through scientific management theories. Ken is expected to apply political theories of change, evolutionary and cultural theories. Thus, Ken will utilize a multi-theory approach to change (Kezar, 2013, p.130-138). In the second case, Phyllis, the provost at a college, was tasked with external mandate for improved graduation rates. The content of change is external threat. The context of change is public and legislative accountability concerns. Phyllis is expected to apply political and evolutionary theories. In the third case, Jeff, a technical member of a technical college who is concerned with implementing family-friendly policies. The content of change is politically charged. The context for change is social pressure from business. Approaches to change are social cognition theory, political and evolutionary theories. Case 4 discusses using social media to reach diverse students, which requires the utilization of political theory and scientific management. The last case deals with disseminating process-oriented guided inquiry learning and requires the application of the social-cognition theory, political and evolutionary theories, as well as scientific management (Kezar, 2013, p.138-159).
In my opinion, chapter 7 clearly explains the use of the multi-theory approach to change. This is mainly due to the distinct examples used in this chapter. Here a question arises.
1. Is the ultimate goal of the chapter simply to review theories?
Chapter 8 is titled Change Implementation. This chapter provides the reader with the information that the process of change is time-consuming. As a rule, change has three phases. They are mobilization, implementation, and institutionalization. Most of the examples described in the previous chapter have been in the mobilization phase or in the early implementation phase. Jeff, for instance, understood that it would be difficult to mobilize his colleges without explaining to them the necessity for change. Ken and Jeff have entered the implementation phase. There is a great possibility that different obstacles will emerge at each phase of the process of change, as well as different types of resistance. They are most likely to emerge at the implementation phase of the change process. There always will be people on campus who do not clearly understand the initiative. These and other issues appear on an ongoing basis. If the change agent from the previous chapter are lucky, they will institutionalize the change efforts they made (Kezar, 2013, p.171-175). Chapter 7 also reviews theories of change and obstacles that come with these theories. Social cognition theories of change suggest that obstacles emerge because people do not understand the change initiative. Cultural theories state that obstacles emerge when change initiatives violate cultural norms. According to the scientific management theory, obstacles emerge because of the lack of reward, which support change. Political theory suggests that obstacles are connected with political strategies. Evolutionary theories suggest that the reason for obstacles emergence is change initiatives originating outside organizations (Kezar, 2013, p.161-165).
Having read this chapter, I now understand that the process of change is not sustained unless it has undergone all three phases. Another important thing that I now realize is that the change agents have to carry change to institutionalization.
Chapter 10 of the book is titled The Ethics of Change. It presents the literature that examines such important questions as whose interests are presented in the change initiative; does this change initiative meets all standards; ethical dilemmas; the role of resistance in ethical basis of change; ethical processes and leadership styles (Kezar, 2013, p.223).
The question ‘Whose ethics?’ is an important one, as there are people from different parts of the world in the college campus. Thus, change agents always have to consider ethical issues, as well as discuss the change initiative and examine other sets of values (Kezar, 2013, p.204).
The three main approaches to ethics are ends-based or teleological thinking, rules-based thinking, and care-based thinking. Ends-based or teleological thinking is an approach, which aims at assessing the consequences of the action. It follows the rule “the greatest good for the greatest number”. However, following this rule can sometimes hurt the interests of the minority group (Kezar, 2013, p.205-206).
In the process of change, many ethical dilemmas emerge. Change agents often oversell the benefits of change. They often misuse the data that is also an ethical dilemma. The lack of full disclosure also appears to be a dilemma in the change process. If the organizations hold back information, it brings the uncertainty, which can lead to stress among employees (Kezar, 2013, p.209).
After reading this chapter, I have better understanding of the importance of ethical issues that appear in the process of change. This chapter and the examples used, stress some touchstone points, which change agents have to consider. The question that has appeared is the following.
1. Why the interest in the organizational justice is connected to the organizational change?
References
Kezar, A. (2013). "How colleges change: understanding, leading, and enacting change".
