Organisational reform is a battle of ideologies
Organisational culture is often described using the shorthand, ‘the way we do things around here’. Culture is built into the systems of an organisation. It emerges from the traditions of practice and the stability of function. The 'way we do things around here' is the enemy of reform.
The American writer and media theorist Neil Postman argued that all change is a battle between new and old ideologies. The battle is not rational or intellectual, but emotional. An emotional commitment to the current ideology slows the progress of change and renewal.
The prize in the battle of ideologies is the authority to establish a new organisational culture—the right to establish new rules and new traditions. It is the right to define and establish a new stability. However, victory is never quick, clean or total. Ultimately, the parties, old and new, will fight to a compromise. The old will remain in a reduced form and the new will grow around it. Or the old will persist and the new will be accommodated in colonies.
In the clash it is not uncommon to equate the old with ‘bad’ and the new with ‘good'. Consequently, those that choose to defend the organisation from change are often positioned as obstructionist, backward or lacking in imagination. Is that a fair assessment?
Not all reform leaves the organisation in a better state. Not all new ideas are better. The history of invention is littered with failure. Organisational change is not a task to be undertaken lightly. It is risky, dangerous and difficult. Small decisions can have big consequences for capability-good and bad.
A large body of research supports the view that most organisational change interventions fail. The famous assertion, ‘the brutal fact is that about 70 per cent of all change initiatives fail’ rings true for practising leaders and managers. A review focusing of organisational efforts to institute cultural change concluded the success rate was low—around 19 percent. Cause and effect here is difficult to establish but it does suggest this organisational renewal is not a task to be undertaken lightly or thoughtlessly.
‘Change’, ‘reform’ and ‘new’ are words and actions that have become intimately associated with the word ‘positive’. The strength of this association can leave ‘new’ ideas less open to challenge, critical reflection and examination. 'New' provides an intellectual armour for an idea and its advocates. The fear of being seen as not 'on-board' reduces the prospect for a true contest of ideas.
‘New’ does not necessarily equate to better nor does ‘old’ mean wrong. Defending the existing culture may not stem from a desire to obstruct but rather from the desire to protect--a desire to do the ‘right’ thing. It may be the defenders have the clearest view of the risks and are rightly seeking to protect the organisation from unnecessary instability.
The conservatism that resides at the heart of most organisations means that reform will inevitably be incremental, adaptive and differential rather than radical and complete in character. So, those leading reform from the centre must decide on the internal ground rules against which reform will be considered and the speed at which it will be implemented. They must also anticipate the impact of this on management at the boundaries of the organisation. The boundaries are where day-to-day performance are managed and delivered. The boundaries are where the organisation is judged by a customer.
Typically, neither technological nor cultural reform progresses in response to an expression of grand centralised strategic design; rather, it is the result of a constant battle over administration, resources and harm minimisation. Above all, the success of any reform stems from ebb and flow of internal philosophy and politics.
Too often pragmatic leaders and managers focus on the mechanics of change at the expense of the philosophical questions of reform. But every decision made in a reform program carries within it colliding philosophical positions. Resistance to reform will always be, at its core, be a matter of philosophical difference—a struggle over the necessity for reform.
Essential to this struggle is the need to settle the ‘rules of the game’ that will in turn establish how change will be implemented. Once these rules are agreed, the struggle then shifts to a competition for resources within the new boundaries. The way these internal struggles are managed is central to success.
At every level, reform is a battle of ideologies and perspectives.
