FOUR ORGANIZATIONAL PERSPECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PLANNED CHANGE IN THE PAKISTANI

PUBLIC SECTOR

BY

GHULAM MUSTAFA

HEC SCHOLAR UNIVERSITY OF BERGEN NORWAY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

2.0 RATIONAL APPROACH........................................................................................3

3.0 EXPLOITATIVE APPROACH...............................................................................7

4.0 POLITICAL APPROACH……...............................................................................10

5.0 SYMBOLIC APPROACH. .................................................................................... 14

6.0 DISCUSSION...………………… ............................................................................ 16

7.0 CONCLUSION……………………......................................................................... 18

8.0 REFERENCES.....….................................................................................................18

2

1.0 IntroductionTheories play a vital role in all kinds of research. They guide research, help the

researcher to comprehend and analyze phenomena, and provide a foundation for

prediction (Schensul, & LeCompte, 1999). In their most basic sense, they determine

which actions and events the researcher will focus on. From a qualitative research point

of view, Humphrey and Scapens (1996) define a theory as a “means of interpreting or

making sense of a complex and uncertain social world.

When conducting a study the researcher has the liberty of either drawing on preordained

theories, developing a theoretical framework using a variety of theoretical perspectives or

building a new theory during the study based on the analysis of data collected. Layder

(1998) notes that most research contains elements of theory testing and theory

construction. Some scholars argue that preordained theories can be more robust because

they have already been tested on prior occasions. Notwithstanding, there are limitations

to using such an approach. For instance, preordained theories or propositions may bias or

limit the findings. Glaser and Strauss (1967) state,” Some theories of our predecessors,

because of their lack of grounding in data, do not fit, or do not work, or are not

sufficiently understandable to be used and are therefore useless in research, theoretical

advance and practical application.”

A second way is to use the grounded theory approach, which relies on constant

comparison and analysis of data to build complex theories that closely resemble the data.

Similar to using the preordained theory approach, this approach requires the researcher to

test and retest theoretical concepts and hypotheses to ensure a coherent representative

model is developed. One of the acknowledged advantages of this approach is that the

theories developed can capture the particular conditions surrounding the phenomenon of

study (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). The method has been criticized on several levels. First,

some scholars argue that the researcher cannot enter the field without some kind of

theory, which suggests that there is not a theory that is capable of being built up from

data alone, and that all theories are developed based on pre-existing theories (Boston,

2000). Second, the approach has come under criticism because few researchers

understand how to develop coherent frameworks from their data. As a result, incoherent

3

frameworks are developed that are not easily understood by other academics and are thus

limited in their explanatory power (Layder, 1994).

One way to overcome the limitations from adopting a preordained theory or a grounded

theory approach is to bring multiple theories into the study. This approach, the theory

triangulation approach, is built on the notion that the use of a single theory or perspective

produces a restricted view of organizational reality. Layder (1998) argues that through

the use of several theories one can build a framework in the course of the study drawing

on the relevant ideological assumptions of each of the theories, and any additional

evidence noted in the study. This allows the researcher to build and modify existing

theories using data generated in their study so that the resulting explanation more closely

resembles the data.

The organizational change is a complex process and it entails alteration of values, beliefs,

and rituals (Schein, 1987). Some researchers suggest using several models or categories,

as each sheds light on different aspects of organizational life (Poole, 2004). The

advantage to multiple models is that they combine the insights of various approaches.

Theory triangulation will, therefore, offer significant benefits over its counterparts in the

study of implementation of planned organizational change in the public sector

organizations.

Four organizational approaches outlined by Thomas (2003) illustrate how assumptions

from rational, exploitative, political and symbolic models can be combined to understand

the complex phenomenon of implementation of change in public organizations. The

author uses a four-frame model (rational, exploitative, political and symbolic), indicating

that the same situation can be viewed in at least four different ways. Each of these frames

is peculiar, lucid, and powerful, yet when taken together, they help capture a

comprehensive picture of an organization’s situation. These four management

perspectives are believed to offer greater explanatory power than applying a single

preordained theory or building a new theory directly from data analysis. These frames

can be used to spot the impact of intra-organizational factors and dynamics in

implementation of public sector change in Pakistan and the role of public mangers

therein.

4

2.0 Rational ApproachThe rational approach views management as the rational administration of unitary

organizations. This view depicts organizations as social technologies systematically

designed in order to attain specific goals. The manger acts as an applied scientist or as a

technician whose principal task is to take rational steps, in the light of established

knowledge, to achieve efficiency and effectiveness (Thomas, 2003). This frame views

outcomes or decisions as the planned and calculated choices that will maximize some

function.

Classical rational model of decision-making assumes that managers as decision-makers

know all the alternatives for dealing with a problem, that they know the utilities and

values of all alternatives, and that they have an ordered preference among all alternatives.

The goals, values and objectives of the mangers decision-making classified and ranked

according to their importance. The various alternatives for dealing with a particular

problem along with the consequences that follow from the selection of each alternative

are investigated. Finally, the manager chooses an alternative for maximizing

organizational goals, values and objectives.

The limitation of goal-rational analysis has long been evident in management thought.

The most famous correction of the economists’ rational actor is undoubtedly that of

Simon (1976). He focuses on the limits of human capabilities, both with regard to the

individual’s ability to rationalize, as well as the (personal, social, or organizational) costs

of following a rational strategy. This results in his concept of “bounded rationality”;

people do not strive for a maximum result, rather, they are satisfied with a sub-optimal

situation because of the costs of meeting their aspirations and abilities. Despite Simon’s

rejection of the unrealistic assumptions of the economists’ rational actor, he retains the

basic criterion of goal-rationality (Rutgers, 1999). Thus, bounded rationality fails to

recognize that many rational choice situations are indeterminate and that rational choice

can result in irrationality. Simon could not completely divorce himself from the scientific

paradigm, however, for recognizing that ‘rational’ man was a myth he nevertheless

measured man’s performance according to rational criteria.

The hypothesis of the bounded rationality is that human rationality cannot map all

environmental variables, create all the deriving alternatives, scan them, and then select

5

the optimal option. In other words, if we are not able to maximize, we can only make an

approximation to the optimal option. Therefore, individuals with bounded rationality

reach satisfying results, i.e. they can only approximate the optimal result that is not

antagonistic to the concept of rational choice. Here the role of search mechanisms is

crucial. Individual decision-making is based on seeking alternatives, and selecting them

on the basis of a definite set of values. The metaphor Simon uses in order to explain this

kind of searching is the decision tree, where each alternative is expressed by a payoff. In

principle this mode of decision making is in accordance with the essence of the

traditional rational model and no way is a deviation from the tenets of the approach.

Simon places great emphasis on the distinction between substantive and procedural

rationality. According to substantive rationality, the rational character of decision-making

is concerned with the result one could get following the appropriate actions. Whereas

procedural rationality points out the procedure and the process by which people make

decisions. According to Simon, bounded rationality belongs to the latter category,

because it does not look only at the result one could get, but at the way people make

decisions (Simon, 1976). In contrast, the traditional model of rationality mixes the two

aspects. The model is based on variable maximization (procedure), where we obtain the

only possible appropriate behavior as a result (substantive). As mentioned, both the

traditional and the bounded rationality model can be viewed as examples of procedural

rationality. In addition, from this procedural perspective, differences seem to disappear.

The result the so-called optimum is closely connected to the way through which it is

achieved.

Edwards (2001) suggests a model for policy development that identifies the steps: define

problem, articulate problem, collect relevant data and information, clarify objectives and

resolve key questions, develop options and proposals, undertake consultation, move

towards decisions, implement and evaluate. This model consists of a series of sequential

steps which guides policy development — both content of policy and process. Indeed,

this model is not dissimilar to the rational decision-making model questioned by Simon

(1955) and Lindblom (1959).

Interestingly, rationality remains the more structuring reference point in the

organizational literature on decision-making, in spite of the permanent attempts of

6

researchers to escape its influence in their description and analysis of decision processes.

Laroche (1995) points out the difficulty decision researchers have in escaping from the

rational view on decisions and the very strong attractiveness of ‘rationality’. Indeed,

integrative models of decision-making, even when they try to account for unstructured or

non rational processes tend to reproduce stages of rational decision making processes.

Second, empirical studies of non-rational processes often acknowledge the presence of

some form of reason (or rationality) organizing or guiding decisions (Hickson, et al

1986). Finally, the cognitive perspective in strategy could also be interpreted as a

revitalization of a ‘rational’ perspective on decisions ((Walsh 1995).

The role of social factors and the political perspective on decision-making (e.g., Allison

1971) indeed tends to over-focus research on social factors to the detriment of the

technical organizational sphere. Although some previous research, such as Feldman and

March (1981) have studied the formal analysis in organizations and highlighted the

different roles they play (e.g. information, communication, control/direction and

symbolic), most organizational researchers solely focused on their symbolic role and

downplayed the technical functions they performed. However, technological artefacts can

strongly shape decision-making processes, framing and supporting managers’ decision-

making as they do for other organizational phenomena (Trist & Bramforth, 1951).

Moreover, the contemporary technological changes create a situation where it becomes

virtually possible to reconstruct extended forms of rationalities for decision-making.

Rational decision theory has been progressively commodified to be incorporated into

services and tools that are exchanged on consulting. Experts on decision-making,

practitioners, consultants and researchers, construct rational decision-making tools. Since

following the decision analysis procedure is indeed anything but a spontaneous

procedure, decision analysts engaged in the development of a series of tools to help

managers to decompose decision problems according to the premises of decision theory.

All these tools could consequently contribute to reconstruct rational decision-making

within organizations by putting mangers in a context similar to the one described

theoretically by the rational choice approach. They ensure that decisions can be based on

subjective judgments about the likelihoods and the desirability of the consequences

(Keeney, 1982) and therefore allow the manager to choose the alternative that maximizes

7

his/her expected utility (Pratt et al. 1964). Consequently, rational decision-making cannot

be conceived as evolving in a ‘normative bubble’ completely separated from

organizations.

Under this approach, the change process starts with the designation of clear goals and

objectives, and particular attention is given to the desired output of the organization, the

formal transformation process, and the related information processes. The

implementation process of planned change takes the form of a special project with a clear

course of action or strategy comprising clear-cut targets, and the most appropriate

alternatives (Kotter, 1995). Such a strategy serves as a roadmap for implementation of

change offering direction on how to arrive at the preferred state, identifying obstacles and

proposing measures for those obstacles. Change managers usually treat the change

process with an information-processing rationality or an economic-technological

rationality. Implementation of change is successful because decisions are made in a

predictable and highly structured situation where the problem is known, not too complex,

and a solution is within reach. Since the change managers choose the alternative that

maximizes expected utility and seek unitary goals for organizational efficiency and

effectiveness, no resistance to change initiatives is witnessed.

Riggs worked on decision making in developing societies and spotted faulty structures

for transmitting communications as a striking feature of such societies, which he believes

lead to poor change and policy plans and ineffective implementation. Other scholars

have pointed out that the difficulty of making rational calculations and choices in

developing countries is because of the unreliable available information and statistical

data. Certain others place emphasis on the inefficient bureaucracies and cultural ecology

of developing countries which, according to them, are not conducive to rationality.

Failure to implement administrative changes in many public agencies in Pakistan, in

addition to the aforementioned problems, can be ascribed to ill conceived change strategy

and coherent causal thinking about the linkage and the initiative to be implemented and

the desired outcomes.

8

3.0 Exploitative Approach The exploitative perspective of management originates in the Marxian theory of

exploitation. The Marxist theory is primarily concerned with the exploitation of an entire

segment or class of society by another. This kind of exploitation is seen as being an

inherent feature and key element of capitalism and free markets. In the Marxist view, the

capital is in a dominant position, as a social rather than a physical economic category, to

extract surplus value from labor.

The workers are exploited in the sense that they lose the full value of the productive

labor. The value of the wages paid to the workers is not equal to the value of the

commodities they produce, so there is a surplus value that is appropriated by the

capitalists. Marxists have utilized a technical definition of exploitation. This technical

definition is based upon the labor theory of value. The labor theory of value states,

roughly, that the exchange-value (that is, the market price) of an object is a function of

the amount of labor time socially necessary to produce that object. Thus, the value of the

products marketed by capitalist enterprises is created by the labor of the workers who

produced them. The workers are paid a wage in exchange for their labor, but the

enterprises make a profit from the sale of its products. Since the value of the product is

due to the worker, the source of that profit must be the expropriation of surplus value by

the capitalist. Since the worker receives less than the full value of his labor, he is

exploited.

Workers are literally enslaved to the machine. Owing to the extensive use of machinery

and to division of labor, the job of the worker loses all individual character, and

consequently, all charm for the workman. The increasingly mechanical and boring nature

of work is a state of alienation. The capitalist system is, therefore, one in which the

relationship between the employers and employees is basically hostile. This because the

workers labor, in essence, is always remains forced labor. Work is organized entirely

according to criteria of efficiency without regard to the well being of the worker. Thomas

(2003) argues that such a system generates resistance to the demands of capitalist and

antagonism between employees and employers but this conflict is not always overtly

expressed.

9

The exploitative view looks at organizations as an industrial army of workmen, under the

command of a capitalist, requires, like a real army, officers (managers) exercise authority

on behalf of the capitalist during the labor process. The work of supervision becomes

their established and exclusive function. Managers, on the one hand must continually

seek to develop and implement more efficient production processes that will enable the

organization to survive in the competitive struggle. On the other; it must continually

secure the compliance of work force that is alienated from the system (Thomas, 2003). In

the capitalist system the management function is to exploit labor power to the maximum

in order to secure profits for the owners of the capital. Management is not a neutral

administrative function to embody the interests of all the organization’s stakeholders but

a representative and exploitative one chiefly concerned with keeping the lid on a

fundamentally volatile smoldering system. Mangers are thus engaged in the maintenance

of power and advantage inherent to the structure of capitalist society.

The contributions of Brveman (1974) played a crucial role in giving prominence to the

neglected aspects of Marx’s work. The focus of Braverman is the processes allegedly

leading to the degradation of work, particularly scientific management as espoused by

Frederick Taylor. Scientific management, according to Braverman, is the manifestation

of the logic of capitalism in the monopoly era. This theory, he argues, is nothing less than

the explicit expression of the capitalist mode of production whose fundamental teachings

have become the basis of all work design.

Braveman (1974) argues that management under capitalism contains logic of deskilling

manifested in Taylorism. This involves a two fold process of job fragmentation and the

progressive separation of conception from execution in the process of production.

Management exercises full control over the knowledge and design of the production

process while workers perform increasingly routine, fragmented tasks without

understanding the principles underlying the production process. Each step of the labor

process is broken down into its simplest elements and it is the domain of the management

to determine the most efficient method of performing the task and provide detailed

instructions which workers would follow unquestioningly.

Braveman views control over labor as the fundamental problem of management in a

capitalist system. With regard to labor processes control is sought by many means,

10

initially by subjecting the employees to close supervision and by prescribing detailed

rules and regulations. The control mechanism is further intensified by separating planning

and execution. Management as the sole incumbent of planning conceives and plans, and

workforce with craft skills, execute the conception. This allows management to

supervise and control the labor force in a systematic manner.

Richard Edwards (1979) and Friedman (1977), two exponents of the Marxist perspective

have further enriched the concept of management control enunciated by Braveman.

Friedman (1977) agrees that employees can be subject to forms of direct control such as

Taylorism, but argues that there may be limitations to direct control that ca be partially

counteracted by introducing policies of responsible autonomy for sections of the

workforce. This is not simply a facade to cover Taylorist practices, which was

Braverman’s view of job re-design approaches, but rather attempts to harness the

adaptability of labor power by giving workers leeway and encouraging them to adapt to

changing situations in a manner beneficial to the firm. Richard Edwards (1979) posits

secular trend in control strategies from the "simple control" characteristic of small

workplaces to "technical control" in which management seeks to use the control

capabilities of machinery and technological innovations such as assembly lines, to the

"bureaucratic control" found in the long career ladders and elaborate rule books.

In this perspective, the management excludes human resource component with emphasis

on close supervision and monitoring of the employee performance. There is a clear

demarcation between conception and execution i.e. management possesses scientific,

technical and generalist management skills and employees are deliberately confined to

some craft skills. Managers in alliance with the owners/shareholders reap the benefits of

the capital and employees are dispossessed of economics incentives. Decision making is

based on the exclusion of work force and the one-sided realization of interests of

management and shareholders. When individuals or groups in the organization realize

that their interests are not being served by those who are in control, a sense of antagonism

is created for the organizational change initiatives. Actions taken to challenge the

domination or to question the proposals of management to change the organization are

seen as resistance (Hardy & Clegg, 1996). Implementation of change under such a design

approach fails or experience difficulties with the realization of goals (Boonstra & Vink,

11

1996). These problems partly arise because employees who are at the centre of any

implementation process are highly de-motivated and fail to develop organizational

citizenship.

The relationship between superior and subordinates in the Pakistani bureaucracy is a

close reflection of assumptions of the labor process theory. Management keeps distance

with employees and subjects them to close supervision through different structural tools.

There is a big gap between the remunerations of the officers and the lower rank

employees. Only officials of middle management level and above are supposed to enjoy

government perks and privileges. Civil servants in the officer cadre are always concerned

about the pleasure of the bosses and pay no heed to the interests of the sub-ordinate

employees. Employees of non managerial cadre are totally deskilled and they are

restricted to execute the orders of their superiors like mechanical tools. All skill and

capacity building trainings are officer specific. Government employees in non-managerial

ranks have been excluded from all sorts of government funded trainings like national

strategic training, national executive training, national management training and

professional development program. A culture like this testifies the Braveman’s

assumption of employee deskilling and clear distinction between conception and

execution. Planned change programs are therefore unlikely to get success because a

culture of high power distance, lack of human element and absence of economic equity

denies equal roles for superiors and subordinates in setting and achieving the

organizational goals. This leads to an inequitable work environment and spreads an

impression among the employees that the change process is solely based on sectional

ends of the managers and policy makers, and they are merely exploited as mechanical

tools.

4.0 Political ApproachUnder political frame, organizations appear as arenas, contests, or jungles. Different

interest groups compete for scarce resources and power, producing conflict among

individuals and groups. Bargaining, negotiation, coercion, and compromise are part of

everyday political life in traditional organizations (Thomas, 2003).

12

One major implication of the idea of bounded rationality is the acknowledgement of

different individual preferences for goals and means within organizations. This suggests

that in the decision-making process, factors related to power, influence and politics also

play a role. March (1962, in Buchanan & Huczynski, 2004) viewed corporations as

political coalitions and criticized rational models for failing to take into account

individual agendas and preferences within organizations. More recent political models of

organizations have questioned the assumptions of organizational rationality and

addressed the more or less formal process of negotiation between individuals or

departments over the goals to pursue and the appropriate means for pursuing them

(Hatch, 1997). The influence processes enacted to defend these multiple interests have

been labeled as “organizational politics”.

Pfeffer (1981) defined organizational politics as “activities taken within the

organizations to acquire, develop, and use power and other resources to obtain one’s

preferred outcomes in a situation where there is uncertainty or dissensus about choices.”

Explaining the relationship between power and politics, Pfeffer (1992) defined power as

“the ability to influence behavior, to change the course of events, to overcome resistance,

and to get people to do things that they would not otherwise do”, whilst politics are “the

processes, the actions, the behaviors through which this potential power is utilized and

realized”. Butcher and Clarke (2002) argue that organizational politics constitute the

cornerstone for organizational democracy by allowing the expression of multiple

individual and group goals, developed under the umbrella of common corporate goals.

Drory and Romm (1990) highlighted three defining elements of organizational politics:

influence, informal means and conflict. Having a similar approach, Buchanan and

Badham (2007) also point out five defining features of organizational politics: influence,

self-interest, damage, backstage and conflict. In a similar manner, Allen et al. (1979)

define organizational politics as “intentional acts of influence to enhance or protect the

self-interest of individuals or groups”. They identify several political tactics used by

managers: attacking or blaming the others, strategic use of information, impression

management, support building for ideas, ingratiation, coalition building, associating with

influential, and creating obligation. Influence is thus one salient aspect mentioned

unanimously in the literature about political behaviors. Mintzberg (1983) considers

13

organizational politics to be influence techniques within a broader repertoire of

organizational influence systems such as authority, expertise and ideology.

A number of theories in literature have emerged as possible analytical tools for

understanding and conceptualizing issues of organizational power and politics. These

approaches suggest that there are two ways that a researcher can conceptualize power: (1)

that which stems from the individual; and (2) that which is explained by direct attention

to conflict and domination. The view that an individual can possess power and use that

power to negotiate a consensus underpins the interpretive and functional perspectives

such as the resource dependence perspective (Pfeffer, 1981). On the other hand, the view

that society is rife with conflict and modes of domination and the disbelief in a consensus

view of society accords with critical perspectives such as (Foucault ,1978; and Habermas

1976). It is acknowledged that such theories have the potential to make significant

contributions to our understanding of implementation of organizational change. the

research objectives of this study state that one objective of the proposed study is to

examine the role of the public mangers in the processes of planned change

implementation and to understand the ways that intra-organizational dynamics such as

power and politics influence the outcomes of change. This objective tallies with the

interpretative view of the power and politics.

This approach, views organizational processes influenced both by mutual harmonization

of parts of the system, and by the way power is structured and used. In organizations, the

distribution of power is characterized by stability. In organizations there is a balance of

power between the interests of individuals and of the interdependent groups. Sometimes

these interests are at odds, which can result in conflicting objectives, power games, and

controversies in decision making (Pfeffer, 1992). The tension between interest of

individuals and groups is viewed as inevitable and as a normal part of the way getting

things done (Pettigrew, 1973). The political view maintains that groups and departments

have to co-operate and that agreement between them is necessary for the functioning of

the organization and to warrant its continuity. The power process is characterized by

negotiation and exchange of resources. Some departments or subunits have more power

than others. Subunits become powerful when they contribute critical resources that the

organization needs. (Boeker, 1989). If the power of a subunit sustains and stabilized

14

overtime by virtue of its ability to provide critical resources, the power of such subunit

becomes institutionalized in the power structure of the organization. Organizational

change processes are influenced by the institutionalization of power and the behavior of

interest groups in and around organizations (Mintzberg, 1983). Such stability allows

subunits for stable coalitions and control over scarce resources through shielding from

others. This enables them to resist any efforts to change the organization which is likely

to disturb the contours of existing power dynamics. In Pakistani public organizations,

certain subunits have more control over scarce organizational resources and stabilize their

power over time. They even sometimes develop their own goals at odds with those of

their parent agency. Such a situation may become detrimental to the effective

implementation of any change effort.

The political view recognizes that power and politics pervade organizational dynamics

and impact upon organizational effectiveness. Politics can affect the way the object of

change is determined. For managers, an examination of the pervasiveness of

organizational politics, power and conflict is warranted if rationality and instrumentalism

are insufficient to define the organizational behavior. Such an examination is instructive

about how things get done in the workplace, why some things are resisted, and who

makes things happen.

The implementation of change under the political approach is characterized by conflict

management and negotiation. All interest groups play their roles in the change process,

based on their power, resources and interests. Resistance to change is seen as a result of

the exercise of power and can be understood as a struggle to achieve power or to escape

from it. The managers focus on preventing conflict in the change process by regulating

participation of the groups involved. They examine the organizational stakeholders to

determine those that might support or block a change effort. Positive outcomes are

predicted to parties who accept the change. Negotiations are directed at smoothing

opposition. Management usually possesses a considerable amount of position and

personal power. It can use these power bases to win conflicts and to strengthen their

position in the negotiation process. This increases the chance that their interests are

realized at the expense of the interests of other parties involved in the change process.

15

For effective implementation of any change initiative, mangement must develop and

nurture support from major stake holders and organizational members. The level of

influence an actor wields to manage conflict and win support is not fully determined by

his position in the vertical hierarchy because much of the power emanates from informal

sources. Managers having diagnosed the political landscape, the relevant interests and

important political divisions use the strategies and tactics to manipulate the behavior of

organizational members (Pfeffer, 1992). In the public sector of Pakistan, public managers

do not tend to consider intra-organization dynamics of power and politics. Development

of internal support is given less importance to implement change programs; rather public

mangers are inclined to use structural methods to effect execution.

5.0 Symbolic Approach Symbolic frame focuses on organizational symbols rather than on rules, policies, and

formal organizational structure. The symbolic focus is on the meanings individuals give

their world, and how they deal with ambiguity and uncertainty by creating symbols to

help them resolve confusion, increase predictability, provide direction, and anchor hope

and faith. Many events are more significant for what they express than for their

outcomes. The image of management derived from this view is that of uncertainty

reduction and manager as magician or priest (Thomas, 2003).

Symbols are objects, acts, relationships, or linguistic formations that stand ambiguously

for a multiplicity of meanings, evoke emotions, and impel men to action (Cohen, 1974).

Symbols may be visible, physical manifestations of organizations and indicators of

organizational life. Symbols take on important meanings in organizations; meanings that

are defined by cultural and social conventions and interactions. Much of human

understanding occurs through the use of symbolic processes (Axley, 1984). A symbol can

be any sign (an act, event, logo, etc.) that represents some concept; thus, the

representation of the concept becomes the symbol's meaning (Geertz, 1973). The most

pervasive medium of symbolism is language. In particular, the use of metaphor, wherein

one concept is understood in terms of another concept already known.

To understand the shared systems of meaning that constructs organizational life and

provides its structure and vitality is to understand the reactions, interpretations, and

16

actions of organizational members, and how those actions, thoughts, and feelings are

shaped by the collectivity. Such understanding is impossible without careful attention to

organizational symbols. Symbols are integral to organizational life. They are not simply

by-products of organization, but rather elements that structure members’ active

construction of sense, knowledge, and behavior (Rafaeli & Kluger, 1998).

In the symbolic approach to management, it is assumed that ideas, the definitions of

reality, and shared values are central features of organizing (Alvesson, 1996). Social

relations are characterized by language, communication, use of symbols, and definitions

of reality that serve as a foundation. Perceptions, cognitions, and preferences of

individuals and groups are shaped by culture that prevents them from seeing alternatives.

Thus, it seems that parties act out of free will and that conflict of interests is overcome.

Conflict does not arise, demands are not made, and managers appear as authorities to

whom employees voluntarily obey. Management fulfils a special role in these

unconscious power processes because it has the opportunity, more than others, to give

meaning to events and in doing so management contributes to the development of norms

and values in the organization. Pettigrew (1977) describes this as the management of

meaning, which refers to a process of symbol construction and value use designed both to

create legitimacy for one’s own demands. Management of meaning involves the ability to

define the reality of others. Thus, managers are seen as powerful agents creating shared

meanings, ideas, values, and reality through communication and the social construction

of meaning.

When people of an organization are called upon to enact some change in their existing

patterns of thinking and acting, the proposed change must make sense in a way that

relates to previous understanding and experience. Johnson (1990) believes that symbols

are central for successful outcome of a change, because they foster a sense of continuity

by integrating the familiar and the strange. Symbols and metaphors both conceal and

reveal facets of change. New symbols show members of the organization what the

proposed new culture will be like. Christensen, et al (2007) argues that use of deliberate

myths and symbols in public organizations may have an educative function for the

organizational members. The symbolic actions taken by management can have

consequences for the mobilization and motivation of support, for cooling off or placating

17

opposition either inside or external to the organization, and for focusing and organizing

activity within the organization to effectively implement change. Pfeffer (1981) argues

that leaders should use symbols to signal to others what the leader's vision is for the

organization. In symbolic frame, such a representation on the part of managerial leaders

is deemed consecrated and it provides justification for the change initiative leading to a

potent execution.

When a new experience or concept is to be understood, it is done so by trying to ascribe

meaning to it, and the meaning is often most effectively grasped through symbolic or

metaphorical representation. Language symbols especially are basic to the process of

sense-making. In an organization where a change is intended, different symbolic

language is used as a precursor of change to sketch its likely features and nature. It is

believed that if managers are able to use such symbols and meanings to convey to their

subordinates that the change is legitimate and those employees believe that the change is

legitimate then resistance to the change will be limited (Hardy, 1991). Viewed from such

a perspective, those that are able to define the reality have considerable power over those

who accept the reality as their own (Bradshaw, 1998).

As noted earlier, use of deliberate symbols and myths in public sector organizations, like

their private sector counterparts, may play an educative function for the organizational

members. Use of symbolism confers legitimacy to the change efforts and gives a sense of

cohesion and collectiveness to the entire organizational membership. It dispels any

impression of seeking sectional ends by the management and ascribes unitary interests to

all change initiatives being led by the public managers. If mangers in the Pakistani public

sector incorporate symbolism through ceremonies, legends, story telling, rituals and use

of symbolic language in their change efforts and give meaning to the planned change by

linking it with the past and giving a vision for the future, implementation of change may

lead to successful results.

.

6.0 Discussion In the proposed study, the above framework will focus on a number of aspects of planned

change implementation including the facilitating and impeding factors, intra-

organizational dynamics of power and politics, interests and values and the role public

18

mangers play. Clearly, all of these aspects can not be studied using a single theoretical

approach. The diversity of opinion in the literature suggests, however, that there may be

a danger in focusing on any one theory to the exclusion of others (Day and Klein 1992).

For instance, focus on the entity reifies the organization and overlooks the social

dynamics of relationships that impact on stasis and change. Conversely, a sole focus on

social relationships and dynamics of power and politics misses the organizational,

professional and personal boundaries, both implicit and explicit, within which

organizational action, in this case implementation of change, takes place.

As noted earlier rational approach relies on scientific calculation as the sole method for

producing valid knowledge which is downplayed by a number of writers in favor of

qualitative and organic methods of knowledge production that contextualize, deconstruct

and reveal workplace practices, attitudes, values and dynamics as a way of

acknowledging, incorporating and managing difference. Decision-making based on fact

implies that problems have technical solutions. Solutions may represent least-worst

alternatives to irresolvable problems, and involve moral and social justice dilemmas, such

as equity of resource allocation or equality of access to services that require value-based

judgment.

The exploitative approach see organizations as the means to exert control through

authority and hierarchy and the workforce is emphasized as an inanimate object and

discipline applied to achieve compliance with central objectives. This approach places no

importance in the employee well being, commitment and motivation and neglects an

imperative element in organizational change that is to know the interests of the people

who work in them, and incorporating these interests within the change process. A

symbolic view of organizations may run the danger of superficiality, if only the outer

layer of popular culture is affected and the inner core of attitudes, beliefs, values and

practice is left unaffected.

All of these views of organization are useful for analysis, but none alone is sufficient to

explain the types of factors that influence the outcome of planned organizational change

in the public sector organizations. An alternative approach is to assess the relevance of

each theoretical view. The approaches do not exclude each other but can be used in

combination in understanding the phenomenon of planned public sector change.

19

7.0 Conclusion The intended study aims to understand the impact of intra organization factors and the

role of public mangers in implementation of planned organizational change in the public

sector of Pakistan. Thomas (2003) four management approaches will be chosen to inform

the findings. It is argued that the above four-frame model provides a suitable analytical

approach for understanding the study proposed here. Although no theory is capable of

providing a full explanation of organizational phenomenon, this framework provides a

useful analytical tool from which to focus the analysis of findings. Each of the theories

can be viewed as complementary; each offers a partial explanation for what is going on in

the organization while implementing a change program. Each perspective is chosen based

on its ability to provide a unique but practical explanation for different aspects of change

process.

8.0 References1. Axley, S. R. (1984). Managerial and Organizational Communication in Terms of

the Conduit Metaphor. Academy of Management Review, 9, 428-437.

2. Alvesson, M. (1996). Communication, power and organization. Berlin, Germany:

Walterde Gruyter.

3. Allen, R. W., Madison, D. L., Porter, L. W., Renwick, P. A. and Mayes, B. T.

(1979).Organizational Politics-Tactics and Characteristics of Its Actors.

California management review, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 77.

4. Allison, G.A. (1971). Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Little Brown, Boston.

5. Braverman, H. (1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital. New York: Monthly

Review Press.

6. Butcher, D. and Clarke, M. (2002) Organizational politics: The cornerstone for

organizational democracy. Organizational dynamics, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 35.

7. Buchanan, D. & Badham, R. (2007). Power, politics and organizational change:

winning the turf game. London: Sage Publications (in press).

20

8. Bradshaw, P. (1998). Power as Dynamic Tension and Its Implications for Radical

Organizational Change. European Journal of Work and Organizational

Psychology, 7(2), 121-143.

9. Boston, R. (2000). College and Corporation: Institutional Power in the Enterprise

University. In S. Marginson & M. Considine (Eds.), The Enterprise University:

Power, Governance, and Reinvention in Australia (pp. 96-133). Cambridge: The

Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge.

10. Boeker, W. (1989) ‘The Development and Institutionalization of Subunit Power

in Organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly 34: 388–410.

11. Buchanan, D. & Huczynski, A. (2004). “Organizational Behaviour: An

Introductory Text”, Financial Times Prentice Hall, Harlow.

12. Cliffs, N.J. and Lindblom, C.E. (1959).The Science of Muddling Through.

Public Administration Review, 19(2).

13. Cohen, A. (1974). Two dimensional man: An essay on the anthropology of power

and symbolism in complex society, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London

14. Day, P. and Klein, R. (1992). Constitutional and Distributional Conflict in British

Medical Politics: the Case of General Practice, 1911-1991, Political Studies, 40,

3, 462-478.

15. Drory, A. and Romm, T. (1990).The Definition of Organizational Politics: A

Review. Human Relations, vol. 43, no. 11, pp. 1133

16. Edwards, M. (2001). Social Policy, Public Policy — From Problem to Practice,

Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

17. Foucault, M. (1978). The History of Sexuality. Middlesex: Peregrine Books.

18. Edwards, R. (1979) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in

the Twentieth Century. London: Heinemann.

19. Friedman, A. (1977). Industry & Labour: Class Struggle at Work and Monopoly

Capitalism. London: Macmillan.

20. Feldman, M.S. and March J.G.. (1981). Information in organizations as signal

and symbol. Admin. Sci. Quart. 26(2) 171-186.

21. Geertz, C. (19731). The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.

21

22. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory:

Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine Press.

23. Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization Theory. Modern Symbolic and Postmodern

Perspectives. Oxford University Press.

24. Hardy, C. (1991). Pluralism, Power and Collegiality in Universities. Financial

Accountability and Management, 7(3), 127-142.

25. Humphrey, C., & Scapens, R. W. (1996). Methodological Themes: Theories and

Case Studies of Organizational Accounting Practices: Limitation or Liberation?

Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 9(4), 86-106.

26. Hickson, D.J., R.J. Butler, D. Cray, G.R. Mallory, D.C. Wilson. 1986. Top

Decisions. Blackwell, Oxford.

27. Habermas, J. (1976). Communication and Evolution of Society. London:

Heinemann Educational Books.

28. Hardy, C., & Clegg, S.R. (1996). Some dare call it power. In S.R. Clegg, C.

Hardy, & W.R. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organizational studies (pp. 622–641).

London: Sage.

29. Johnson, G. (1990). Managing strategic change; The role of symbolic action.

British Journal of Management, Vol. 1, pp. 183-200.

30. Kotter, John P. (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail.

Harvard Business Review 73 ( 2 ): 59 – 67.

31. Keeney, R.L. 1982. Decision Analysis: An Overview. Oper. Res. 30(5) 803-838.

32. Pratt, J.W., H. Raiffa, R.O Schlaifer. 1964. The foundations of decision under

uncertainty: an elementary exposition. J. of the Amer. Statist. Association 59(306)

353-375.

33. Laroche, H. 1995. From decision to action in organizations: Decision-making as a

social representation. Organ. Sci. 6(1) 62-75.

34. Layder, D. (1998). Sociological Practice. London: Sage Publications.

35. —. (1994). Understanding Social Theory. London: Sage Publications.

36. Mintzberg, H. (1983). Power in and Around Organizations. Prentice-Hall,

Englewood.

22

37. Machina M.J., Parker Ph., Sterman J., Weber E., Wernerfelt B., and Wensley R.

(1999). Bounded rationality modeling. Marketing Letters, 10(3), 233-248.

38. Pettigrew, A. (1973).The politics of organizational decision-making. London:

Tavistock.

39. —. (1977). Strategy formulation as a political process. International studies of

management and organization, 7, 78–97.

40. Poole, M.S. (2004). Central issues in the study of change and innovation. In M.S.

Poole and A.H. Van de Ven (eds.), Handbook of organizational change and

Innovation (pp. 1-31). New York: Oxford University Press.

41. Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in Organizations. Marshall, VA: Pitman.

42. —. (1992). Management with power. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School

Press.

43. —. (1981).Management as symbolic action: The creation and maintenance of

organizational paradigms. Research in Organizational Behavior, 3: 1–52.

44. Riggs, F. (1964). Administration in Developing Countries. Boston: Houghton

Mifflin.

45. Rafaeli, A., & Kluger, A. (1998). The cognitive and emotional influence of

service context on service quality: A model and initial findings. Unpublished

manuscript, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, ISRAEL.

46. Schensul, S. L., Schensul, J. J., & LeCompte, M. D. (1999). Essential

Ethnographic Methods: Observation Interviews and Questionnaires. Walnut

Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, Sage Publishing.

47. Schiff, M., & Lewin, A. (1983). The Impact of People on Budgets. In J. Bell

(Ed.), Accounting

48. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded Theory Methodology: An

Overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative

Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

49. Schein, Edgar H. (1987). Process Consultation: Vol. 2. It’s Role in

Organizational Development. 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

50. Simon, H.A. (1957). Administrative behavior. Free Press, New York.

23

51. —. (1976). From Substantive to Procedural Rationality. S. J. Latsis, ed. Method

and Appraisal in Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 129-148.

52. —. (1976). Administrative Behaviour: A Study of Decision-making Processes in

Administrative Organization, 3rd ed., Free Press, New York.

53. Thomas, A. B. (2003). Controversies in management: Issues, debates, answers.

2nd ed. London: Rutledge.

54. Trist, E. and Bramforth, K. W. (1951). Some social and psychological

consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Human Relations 4(1) 3-38.

55. Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip

down memory lane.Organ. Sci. 6(3) 280-321.

.

24