Getting the Story Straight: Illusions and Delusions in the Organizational Change Process[1]

Tamara: Journal of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 2003 by Buchanan, David A

ABSTRACT

This paper considers the methodological implications arising from competing narratives of an organizational change process in a large acute city teaching hospital. This qualitative case study was informed by a processual-contextual perspective, and relied on an interpretive, constructivist epistemology. Two forms of contradiction are revealed. First, differing accounts were offered of substantive dimensions of the change programme. second, the impact of change on organizational effectiveness was indeterminate. This study suggests that the unitary, authentic narrative is illusory. Political motivations underpinning account-giving, and phenomenological variations in the lived experience of change, make competing narratives a naturally occurring phenomenon, not a methodological aberration. These findings have two main implications. First, case narrative validation through triangulation should be abandoned in favour of the pursuit of polyphony and ambiguity. second, the researcher faces the choice of being either an arbiter of accuracy, or of holding the less comfortable, more challenging, but creatively constructive role of exposing organizational tensions, disputes and contradictions.

SINGULARITY AND POLYVOCALITY

The point of social science is not to get it right but to challenge guidingassumplions, fixed meanings and relations. (Alvesson and Deete, 2000, p. 107)

Postmodern perspectives challenge singular or 'totalizing' theories or 'grand narratives' explaining social, political and economic phenomena, arguing instead for socially constructed views of reality based on multiple voices and interpretations (Reed, 1996; Clegg and Hardy, 1996). Lincoln and Denzin (1994, p.584) argue that we are listening to 'not one "voice" but polyvocality; not one story, but many tales, dramas, pieces of fiction'. Alvesson and Deetz (2000, p.34) observe that interpretive research increasingly questions, 'the logic of displaying a consensual unified culture', focusing instead on 'fragmentation, tensions, and processes of conflict suppression', and noting that, 'much more attention has been paid to the politics of representation and the role of the report author'. Clegg and Hardy (1996, p.696) argue that research should expose competing narratives of organizational phenomena, and not silence views that do not conform to conventional norms, or which threaten political positions.

The aim of this paper is to consider the nature and implications of competing narratives at the level of the organization, in the context of an attempt to understand strategic change within a processual-contextual perspective. Processual-contextual perspectives are probably the most influential (but not uncontested; Morgan and Sturdy, 2000) theoretical accounts of change (Pettigrew, 1985; 1987; 1988; Pettigrew and Whipp, 1991; Wilson, 1992). The unit of analysis is the process of change in context, which includes the external environment as well as the internal history, culture, structure, goals and politics of the organization. The process of change viewed through this lens is complex and untidy, shaped by interactions between the substance and process of change, and internal and external context factors. Processual-contextual perspectives advocate multi-layered longitudinal research, reported as rich case study narratives, such as Pettigrew's (1985) account of organization development and change in the chemicals company ICI. The work of Dawson (1994; 1996) and Clark (1995) follows in this tradition, depicting the non-linear, politicized and iterative nature of change. These perspectives contrast sharply with what Collins (1998) calls the '?-step guides' typical of the oversimplified, practitioner-focused managerial literature of change.

The notion of polyvocality is clearly recognized, but does not appear to have been adequately explored, by researchers studying organizational change using processual-contextual perspectives. In particular, the identification and reporting of competing narratives involve for the researcher awkward methodological issues which this paper seeks to address.

Dawson's work has been selected as the focus for critique in this paper for four reasons. First, Dawson's case accounts of change processes are methodologically rigorous, sensitive to differing stakeholder perceptions, and are consequently rich and detailed. second, Dawson's model explicitly highlights the shaping role of organization political factors in change. Third, Dawson consistently observes that change is characterized by 'competing histories'. While evident in the work of other commentators working with processual-contextual perspectives, these three features find particular emphasis and coherence in Dawson's work. Fourth, however, Dawson's empirical case accounts do not appear to expose or demonstrate clearly the competing histories emphasized in his theoretical perspective.

Dawson (1994; 1997) describes the use of complementary research methods to generate a 'chronology of events' (1994, p. 190) in each organization under analysis. The research underpinning this paper also relied on a multi-methods chronological narrative strategy (Langley, 1999). One strength of 'fine grain' qualitative case research, Langley argues, lies with accuracy. Dawson (1994, pp.188-9) thus describes how his processual-contextual accounts were systematically validated through a combination of regular organizational visits, observation notes and interview transcripts, cross-checked with annotated summaries of findings prior to producing'the final analysis' (1994, p.190; 1997, pp.399 and 402). This strategy reflects an overriding concern with 'getting the story straight', producing a singular account, relating 'what really happened' in the change process in all its complexity.