Structuring collective change agency internally. Transformers, enforcers, specialists and independents

DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/ER-10-2016-0194
Date12 February 2018
Published date12 February 2018
Pages313-328
AuthorNick Wylie,Andrew Sturdy
Subject MatterHR & organizational behaviour,Industrial/labour relations,Employment law
Structuring collective change
agency internally
Transformers, enforcers, specialists
and independents
Nick Wylie
School of Marketing and Management, Coventry University, Coventry, UK, and
Andrew Sturdy
School of Economics, Finance and Management, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify, describe and evaluate the different ways in which formal
collective change agency is structured in specialist units inside 25 diverse organisations. As such it is oriented
towards a range of practitioners operating in HR, project management or with responsibility for delivering
change in public and private sectors.
Design/methodology/approach Using a qualitative design, exploratory interview and case study
research was conducted in organisations across the UK public and private sectors to explore how different
change agency units operate within organisational structures.
Findings Four dominant types of internal change agency unit are identified, varying in terms of their
change impact scope and degree of structural embeddedness in the organisation. These units are described as
transformers, enforcers, specialists and independents and share key concerns with securing client credibility
and added value, effective relationship management and the use of consulting tools. Their roles and the
tensions they experience are outlined along with hybrid forms and dynamic shifts from one type to another.
Research limitations/implications The study could be extended outside of the UK and conducted
longitudinally to help identify outcomes more precisely in relation to context.
Practical implications Each of the four types of change agency unit identified is shown to be suited to
certain conditions and to present particular challenges for collective change agency and for specialist
management occupations engaged in such work. The analysis could usefully inform organisation design
decisions around internal change agency.
Originality/value The authors extend debates around the nature of internal change agency which has
typically focussed on comparisons with external change agents at the level of the individual. Developing the
work of Caldwell (2003), the authors reveal how emergent, team-based or collective approaches to change
agency can be formalised, rather than informal, and that structural considerations of change need to be
considered along with traditional concerns with change management.
Keywords Change management, Organizational structure, Change agency, Internal consultancy
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
As organisations in both the private and public sectors pursue rationalisation and reform,
the need for effective change management to secure organisational benefits and retain
positive employment relations is critical. Almost regardless of performance outcomes,
change management can either establish support for new ways of working or erode trust
(Vakola and Nikolaou, 2005). Given such importance, organisations typically look to
change agentsto deliver often complex and large-scale programmes. Change agency has
its origins in the work of Kurt Lewin and the emergence of organisational development (OD)
and consequently has traditionally been equated with an individual expert capable of
supporting or facilitating processes of planned change. Such individuals can be based
within or outside the organisation (e.g. external consultants) and research has consistently Employee Relations
Vol. 40 No. 2, 2018
pp. 313-328
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/ER-10-2016-0194
Received 19 October 2016
Revised 19 October 2016
21 August 2017
Accepted 22 August 2017
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of research participants and the support of the
UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), Grant No. RES 000 22 1980A.
313
Structuring
collective
change agency
outlined their relative advantages, around insider/outsider knowledge, cost and
independence, for example (Armbrüster, 2006; Buono and Subbiah, 2014; Scott, 2000).
However, as organisational change has become normalised or business as usualin many
contexts, change agency has itself changed.
In particular,Caldwell (2003, 2005) has arguedthat change agency as a form of expertise is
no longer just the preserve of the OD specialist, but is being dispersed across management
roles in general (also Sturdy et al., 2015). Furthermore, to fully profit from the potential of
internal change agency, there is evidence that organisations are looking to go beyond seeing
change skills as an individual management/leadership competency and adopt a more
organisational approach through the establishment or further development of specialist
internal change units(Christensen et al., 2013). Surprisingly, there have been few attempts to
identify how these units might be organised and incorporated within existing structural and
change contexts. Indeed, the notion of collective change agency more generally has received
little attention with the exception of Caldwells (2003, 2005) analysis. In this paper, we draw
from and seek to develop this work in two ways. First, by presenting a model of different
types of change agencyunits, we suggest that team-based or collective approaches are often
more formalisedthan in Caldwells conceptualisation. Second, andrelatedly, we argue that this
formalisationcoincides with the persistenceof rationalist assumptionsabout the possibility of
planned andstructured approaches tochange. In so doing, we questionthe extent to which the
practice ofchange agency has shifted awayfrom these assumptions towardsan acceptance of
change management processes as more fragmented and incoherent.
While based upon a large-scale academic research project (see Sturdy et al., 2015), this
paper is primarily focussed on practitioner concerns. In particular, we set out different
structural and functional options for collective internal change agency. This should be of
general interest, but is of special relevance to those wishing to extend or change internal
capabilities, including those looking at alternatives to using external management
consultancy. Our model identifies four different types of internal change agency units:
transformers, enforcers, specialists and independents (TESI). We describe how they are
used within organisations, giving examples of where they have been successful. We also
consider some of the shared characteristics and importantly, where they are likely to face
tensions and challenges. In doing so, the paper seeks to make an important contribution to
extending debates around the nature of change agency as well as providing
practitioners, especially in HR, project management and strategic change roles as well as
employee representatives, with some options over how to organise the management of
change internally. We begin with a brief examination of the debates around the role of the
change agent before setting out some of the core features of our research. We then focus in
more detail on the model and conclude by considering some of the broader implications for
collective change agency.
Change agency
Most mainstream change management texts discuss the role of the change agent in some
form, often asserting its critical importance in the delivery of any change project
(e.g. Cameron and Green, 2012). Despite this, there have been few attempts to examine
explicitly underlying theories of change agency. Caldwell (2005) is an exception, arguing
that change agency has experienced a prof ound and increasingly disconcertin g
transformation( p. 85) from an activity unde rpinned by rationalist assumptions
about the possibility of planned change, to one characterised by more constructivist
perspectives that question the notion of a coherent and unified understanding of how
change processes work (e.g. Stacey, 1995). For Caldwell, a rationalist discourse on change
agency has a number of attributes. It tends to assume that change is undertaken with
groups or systems that are otherwise stable meaning that change is unfamiliar, can be
314
ER
40,2

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT