Dispersing change agency in high velocity change

organisations: issues and implications

Mike Doyle
Senior Lecturer, Department of Human Resource Management, School of
Business and Law, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK

Keywords

Organizational change,
Empowerment,
Organizational development,
Human resource management

Abstract

Across the UK organisations are

experiencing high-velocity,
discontinuous, radical change
scenarios. As part of their
strategic response, many are
introducing more flexible and
empowering structures and
cultures. One outcome of this
strategy has been the dispersal of
change agency to a more diverse
``cast of characters''. Traditional
models of the singular, mandated
change agent are now juxtaposed
with the notion that ``everybody
is/can be a change agent''.
Reveals some of the wider issues
associated with change agency
dispersal. Argues that the
dispersal of change agency to a
wider ``cast of characters''
creates strategic risk for
organisations and has
implications for strategic
leadership and the way change
agents are managed in the future.
Discusses some of the dilemmas
facing those seeking to control
and manage change agents.
Concludes with a discussion of the
theoretical and practical
implications facing those who
have responsibility for managing
those who find themselves cast in
the role of ``change agent''.

Submitted: August 2000

Revised/accepted:
June 2001

Leadership & Organization

Development Journal
22/7 [2001] 321329
# MCB University Press
[ISSN 0143-7739]

The aim of this paper is to explore the way

that responsibility for innovating and
managing change is being dispersed in ``high
velocity'', discontinuous change contexts
(Tichy and Devanna, 1986; Eisenhardt and
Bourgeois, 1988; Hambrick et al., 1998). An
analysis of recent empirical research
confirms that as part of their strategic
response to radical change conditions, many
organisations are resorting to structural and
cultural initiatives such as total quality
management (TQM) and business process reengineering (BPR). They believe that such
initiatives will provide the increased
flexibility and commitment they perceive is
needed to help them to adapt and transform
in hostile and uncertain change
environments.
But to be effective, such initiatives must
invoke a strong empowering philosophy
which permits and enables managers and
non-managerial employees to ``make a
difference'' not only within the boundaries
of their specific area of responsibility but
increasingly in areas that lie beyond that
boundary (Bailey, 1993; McLoughlin and
Harris, 1997; Wilkinson, et al, 1998; Sparrow
and Marchington, 1998; Mabey et al., 1998).
For example, it is claimed that not only must
managers and employees be encouraged and
motivated to come forward with ideas and
innovations to improve existing work
processes, organisations themselves must
generate an appropriate cultural climate
within which existing ways of operating and
functioning can be openly questioned and
challenged. Managers and employees are
urged to adopt new visions and mental
models in which innovation and change is
actively sought and welcomed (Eccles, 1994;
Jackson, 1997; Frohman, 1997). The

ubiquitous ``learning organisation'' comes of

age (Senge, 1990).
The findings to be discussed shortly will
suggest that many organisations have indeed
become imbued with this empowering
philosophy. As a consequence they have, as
one of their strategic imperatives, a desire to
disperse the responsibility for innovating
and implementing change beyond the
traditional confines of the singular,
mandated change agent normally
caricatured by the full-time consultant or
project manager role. The need is to
encompass a wider multiplicity of
organisational actors who will occupy a
variety of dynamic and transient roles and
will readily accept and adapt to a change
agent role as part of their professional or
operational task, and will seek to innovate,
participate in and manage change within and
beyond their area of responsibility they will
seek to obtain and exercise ``change agency''
on behalf of the organisation to deliver its
strategic goals (Ottaway, 1983; Hutton, 1994;
Buchanan and Storey, 1997).
However, whilst there may be positive
benefits to be gained from dispersing change
agency to a wider ``cast of characters''
(Hutton, 1994), the findings to be discussed in
this paper will suggest that there are
potential risks and threats to the overall
organisational change process. Moreover, the
evidence suggests that these issues have not
received adequate recognition and attention
in the strategic change literature and that
there is little evidence of effective human
resource (HR) strategies and policies to
manage the risks posed by change agency
dispersal.
Two core issues are identified from the
findings and explored in detail in this paper.
First, when individuals and teams exercise
change agency on behalf of the organisation
(with or without its approval or sanction)

The research register for this journal is available at

http://www.mcbup.com/research_registers

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emerald-library.com/ft

Introduction

[ 321 ]

Mike Doyle
Dispersing change agency in
high velocity change
organisations: issues and
implications
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
22/7 [2001] 321329

they do so for a variety of complex and

interrelated motives and these have to be
considered and managed as an integral part
of an overall organisational change strategy.
For example, it cannot be assumed that when
individuals are motivated to accept or take
change agency they will automatically
exercise that responsibility in a way that
directly contributes to and furthers the goals
of the organisation. In certain situations they
may, for example, seek to innovate and
manage change in a way that meets their
personal or political goals to a greater or
lesser extent, and in some situations even
subverts the goals of the organisation.
Second, in seeking to disperse change
agency across the organisation to motivate
and encourage teams and individuals, the
findings confirm that organisations may face
a paradox of control as they seek to balance
the empowering benefits of dispersing
change agency with the need to maintain the
necessary and required degree of leadership
and control that enables effective
management within tight resource limits and
constraints. Too much control and managers
and employees become inhibited by the
bureaucracy and performance monitoring.
Too little control and the organisation is
faced with change initiatives that lack
strategic fit and the potential for overlap and
duplication of effort (Kanter, 1983).
Conclusions to be drawn from the
findings suggest that both of these issues
create considerable ambiguity and
contradiction, and this may be undermining
the positive benefits that the dispersal of
change agency has the potential to bring to
organisations. The paper closes with an
assessment of the implications for the
strategic leadership of change suggested by
the research findings.

Method
The paper draws on the findings of a major
research project that commenced in 1997 and
involved a team of researchers working in
close collaboration with a ``forum'' of some 30
public and private sector organisations from
across the UK East Midlands region. The
findings are drawn from a detailed
questionnaire-based survey sent to the forum
organisations in April 1997. The survey
sought to elicit the views of senior and
middle managers with significant change
responsibilities about a range of change
issues that they had identified in previous
forum workshops as being significant for
them in their change role (for more detail see
Buchanan, et al., 1999). Questions were

[ 322 ]

framed around issues such as change

planning and implementation strategies,
communication and culture, managing
change, and the political dimensions of
change. Named contacts were asked to
distribute questionnaires to four of their
managerial colleagues. A total of 370 senior
and middle managers were surveyed and 90
usable responses were received. An analysis
of the findings was fed back to all
participating organisations and debated at
length in subsequent forum workshops
during 1998.
The survey findings gave important
insights into the complex nature of
organisational change, but more
significantly, they highlighted a number of
inconsistencies and ambiguities. Following
the survey and feedback sessions, two of the
forum organisations who participated in the
survey agreed to allow the researchers to
explore these issues in more detail through a
programme of in-depth qualitative
interviewing. These organizations were:
1 A privatised water utility. Since
privatisation in 1989, this organisation
has experienced continual change and
restructuring as it has sought to shed
overheads, increase efficiencies, improve
customer service and water quality and
meet shareholder and OFWAT
expectations.
2 A large regional NHS teaching hospital.
Since the earlier 1990s, this hospital has
sought to re-engineer many of its key
medical and administrative processes
with the aim of improving patient care
and better utilisation of scarce resources.
It is about to embark on a major
amalgamation programme involving a
number of trusts in its locality.
Interview respondents were selected through
a process of joint discussion with the
organisations concerned. They consisted of a
broadly representative cross-section of
senior and middle managers who, as part of
their past or current role, had extensive
responsibility for planning change strategy
and/or a significant involvement for
initiating and managing the change process.
During 1999, 37 in-depth interviews were
conducted across both organisations (20 in
the NHS trust and 17 in the Water Company).
The interview questions were designed to
explore organisational and individual
experiences of change and the issues and
problems that had arisen during the 1990s.
Each interview was tape-recorded and
transcribed and the average duration was
1.5 hours.

Mike Doyle
Dispersing change agency in
high velocity change
organisations: issues and
implications
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
22/7 [2001] 321329

To supplement the primary interview data,

both organisations permitted the researchers
access to organisational literature, records
and archives. The data were further
supplemented by information drawn
from observations and notes taken during
forum meetings, workshops and focus
groups.

Dispersing change agency

The findings from both survey and interview
data confirm that forum organisations are
experiencing what has variously been
described as ``transformational'', ``highvelocity'', ``discontinuous change'' contexts
(Tichy and Devanna, 1986; Eisenhardt and
Bourgeois, 1988; Hambrick et al., 1998). In
other words, environmental forces such as
the privatisation of public utilities and
changes in economic and political policies
towards public sector institutions such as the
NHS are triggering major organisational
upheavals, which in turn are triggering a
complex internal multiplicity of overlapping,
concurrent, initiative streams.
So how have forum organisations
responded to these upheavals and the
complexity of the change process? It is clear
from the evidence that their organisational
change strategies have at their heart a desire
to involve the workforce in the change
process. For example, in the survey, 75
percent confirmed they had embarked on
``significant culture change programmes''
such as BPR and TQM and within those
programmes, 65 percent confirmed they had
``empowered their non-managerial
employees''. The impact of these upheavals is
also clearly evidenced in the views of survey
respondents. For example, 99 percent agreed
that ``effective change management was
central to the performance of the
organisation''. The pervasive nature of
change into organisational life was also
revealed by the 96 percent (76 percent
strongly) who agreed that ``we need to be able
to manage continuing change not just
discrete projects''. And change as a feature of
organisational life was further confirmed by
62 per cent who agreed that ``most people in
my organisation now take continual change
for granted'' (Buchanan et al., 1999).
However, the introduction of greater
responsibility for change and its
implementation and management poses a
challenge to more orthodox and conventional
models of change agency especially those
premised on notions of responsibility
residing with the singular change agent. For
example, with the introduction of

empowering initiatives such as TQM and

BPR it makes little logical or rational
sense to confine responsibility for
managing the process of change exclusively
to a group of officially appointed change
agents or elitist notions of ``change
champions''.
In other words, the responsibility for
implementing change can no longer be
viewed as the sole province of the singular
change agent. It has to involve ``a plurality of
actors or players'' (Buchanan and Storey,
1997). It has to be driven from the ``bottom
up'' through ``micro-approaches'' in which
``movers and shakers'' take a responsibility
for change (Frohman, 1997). In this sense,
this dispersal of change agency connotes a
necessary but positive strategic development
as it facilitates the adaptation of those
organisations facing a turbulent and
uncertain environment. But it also
carries risk and if change is to be
successfully managed, a review of current
patterns of strategic leadership may be
required
However, while there may be a definable
trend towards a more dispersed notion of
change agency, the role of the singular
change agent is still a significant one. In the
survey findings 30 percent of managers said
their organisations appointed full-time
internal change specialists and 40 percent of
respondents claimed they found external
consultants ``useful''. These findings were
confirmed later in the interviews. A number
of individuals were seconded to fulfil fulltime roles in both the Water Company and
the NHS trust with job titles such as business
change manager, team coach and change
consultant clearly in evidence.
Despite a confirmation that the singular,
mandated change agent role is still an
important one, it is clear that perceptions are
changing. For instance, 79 percent of
respondents disagreed with the statement
that ``change management is a specialised
area of expertise that should be left to full
time specialists''.
The integrative nature of change
management was recognised by 87 percent of
respondents, who said they now combined
change responsibilities with their normal
job. In response to the statement ``all
managers required a good understanding of
change management principles and
practice'', 92 percent responded positively.
But significantly, 91 percent of those
surveyed confirmed that ``change
management knowledge and skills were
relevant to people at all levels in the
organisation'' (emphasis added).

[ 323 ]

Mike Doyle
Dispersing change agency in
high velocity change
organisations: issues and
implications
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
22/7 [2001] 321329

[ 324 ]

Dispersing change agency: issues

of perception, motivation and
control
Whilst seeming to confirm that in high
velocity organisations there is a general shift
towards dispersing change agency across the
organisation, the findings show evidence that
at times there can develop a complex and
conflicting range of perceptions about the
extent and manner in which dispersal is
being achieved. For instance, only 30 percent
of respondents agreed with the statement
that ``we have an organisational culture that
provides support and encouragement to
those who are empowered to take on a change
management role''. Whilst 51 percent of
respondents agreed that ``change has meant a
welcome increase in empowerment for many
people in my organisation'', a higher
proportion, 65 percent, indicated they felt
that more involvement was needed in their
organisation. And whilst there may be
organisational perceptions that change is
essential for survival, 60 percent highlighted
the tensions inherent in high velocity change
contexts when they agreed that ``change
created conflict between organisation and
individual goals''.
It is clear that whilst empowerment in the
form of change agency may be seen as the key
to organisational transformation,
perceptions of the rhetoric about the need to
disperse change agency may not be matched
by the reality experienced by those who it is
claimed are being empowered. This poses
clear challenges to the motivation and
commitment of those who are being
encouraged to become change agents,
especially (as we shall see later) if in seeking
gain or accept change agency, individuals are
presenting a risk to their career and/or their
wellbeing or that of other stakeholders. For
example, change agency dispersal may
undermine operational priorities such as
patient care or customer service by
deflecting resources into change initiatives
at the expense of core functions.
But on top of this seeming ambiguity
between the rhetoric of agency dispersal and
actual practice, another layer of strategic
complexity is introduced when the motives
for accepting or seeking to acquire change
agency are explored more deeply. Buchanan
and Storey (1997, p. 28) point out that
individual actors will ``consciously take up
and switch roles depending on their
perception of needs, personal competences
the positions of other actors and personal
self-interest''. For example, some employees,
through their status or expertise, may
willingly acquire or take agency with or

without the approval of the organisation in

order to ``make a difference'' to
organisational functioning or their personal
situation (Frohman, 1997; Katzenbach, 1995).
This desire to make a difference is clearly
indicated in the qualitative data. For
instance, in the NHS trust, many respondents
cited their desire to ``make a difference'' as a
prime motivator for acquiring change agency
especially if it held out the potential to
improve patient care. In the privatised Water
Company, there was also evidence of an
apparent willingness to accept or take agency
through an individual's involvement in
wider strategic projects or self-generated
initiatives to bring about change within a
defined area of responsibility.
In both organisations, this desire to ``make
a difference'' was actively encouraged and
reflected in the structural and cultural shifts
that had been made. For example, there was a
suggestive cultural message in both
organisations that the exercising of change
agency would make teams and individuals
more ``visible'', thereby creating
opportunities to join fast-track pathways for
career advancement. More pointedly, in a
time of radical restructuring, the desire to
``make a difference'' was also a way of
signalling their ``flexibility'' and commitment
to the organisation, thereby avoiding or
minimising any threat to their job security.
However, as the findings suggest, there
appeared to be a considerable gap between
the rhetoric of dispersal and what was
actually occurring.
Self evidentially, the successful dispersal of
change agency is therefore reliant to some
extent on a willingness of individuals and
teams to accept or acquire change agency in a
way that benefits them or the organisation or
both. But equally, the findings suggest there
may be situations and circumstances where
employees may be reluctant to accept or take
change agency. The qualitative findings
suggest that this reluctance may in part stem
from a fear that an involvement in a change
management role might expose personal
weaknesses that will damage career
prospects as well as rendering them
politically vulnerable or undermining their
credibility. But in some cases, it may also
stem from a fundamental disagreement over
the purpose and direction of the change
approach and a resistance to its
implementation. Whatever the reason, both
organisations found themselves having to
persuade, or even on occasions, coerce,
individuals into exercising change agency on
their behalf.
For example, an NHS trust operations
manager who was not directly involved in

Mike Doyle
Dispersing change agency in
high velocity change
organisations: issues and
implications
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
22/7 [2001] 321329

the initial business re-engineering change

project felt coerced into introducing changes
recommended by the process re-engineering
project team. He felt that the proposed
changes which he was not involved in or
consulted about were ill-conceived and
objectionable. Despite his protestations, he
was instructed by senior management to
accept and implement changes in his area of
responsibility even though he felt they would
have adverse effects on employee morale and
motivation. It was implied that a failure to
implement the changes might threaten his
position in the organisation. Another clinical
practitioner was ``invited'' to become part of a
re-engineering project team. When she
expressed reservations, she too was made
aware of the negative consequences her nonparticipation might have for her career
progression. In both cases the individuals
concerned were left anxious about their
future and slightly angry at being coerced
into doing something they felt was both
unreasonable and unethical to do.
In the case of the Water Company, less
direct but nevertheless equally persuasive
and coercive methods were used. Since
privatisation, significant efforts have been
made by senior managers to engender a
strong, business-focused, learning
organisation culture in which concepts such
as empowerment, total quality management,
teamworking and continuous improvement
all featured prominently. For example, in the
mid-1990s, the company launched the
``Transformation Journey''. This was a major
culture change initiative in which employees
were invited to participate in a broad range
of self-managed activities both within and
beyond the company. Participation was
voluntary and the expectation was that most
employees would become involved in some
capacity and learn from their experience. As
the CEO at the time remarked ``We see the
Journey as the way to change from an old,
rigid stifling culture into one where the
business thrives and so do employees,
customers and shareholders''. The company's
commitment and seriousness about the
Journey's intent was signalled by the finance
director, who in a company news letter
warned:
I won't forgive people who put obstacles in
other people's way [those on the journey] or
take the Mickey out of their mates for trying
to take part. That isn't on. It isn't part of [the
company's] culture. People who don't join in
are sending a very clear signal about their
commitment.

Examples of the projects undertaken by those

on the Journey included employees helping
underprivileged children or building a toilet

block on top of the highest mountain in

England. The company also invested in other
culture change exercises, most notably its
``Vision and Values'' initiative in the late
1990s aimed at changing attitudes. The
significance attached to this initiative by
senior management can be gleaned from the
following statement by the then new CEO in
response to an employee's question about job
security published in the company's
newsletter in 1998.
V and V sets out our clear guidelines for all
employees to demonstrate the core values to
be effective, competitive, responsible,
friendly and responsive in the day jobs. Those
employees who live these values will
contribute to the growth of [the company] and
be rewarded accordingly. By contrast, those
people who do not take account of V and V
will be shown the door.

Interestingly, there were also strong

suspicions aired by respondents in both the
NHS trust and the Water Company
organisations that certain managers and
employees were actively seeking to create an
impression that they were willing to take
agency on behalf of the organisation and
``make a difference''. Why might this be? One
explanation could be that during a time of
radical change and insecurity, the stark
cultural messages mentioned above, coupled
to examples of overt coercion and sanctions
against those who were not willing to display
the required degree of flexibility, meant that
any apparent willingness to take agency had
more to do with a Darwinian quest for
survival rather than any desire to improve
themselves or the organisation (Claydon and
Doyle, 1996).
On the basis of the research findings
discussed so far, it has been argued that
organisations appear keen to facilitate the
empowerment of their employees by
encouraging them to accept or take change
agency and further the goals of the
organisation. For example, to facilitate
privatisation through culture change in the
case of the Water Company or to aid a
fundamental re-engineering of key processes
in the case of the NHS hospital trust.
However, this presents organisations with
something of a paradox and dilemma in
respect of the degree of control they should or
can exert over the dispersal and utilisation of
agency whilst maintaining a sufficient level
of power and freedom to manage change
consistent with innovation, flexibility and
employee motivation. Too much control and
innovation and motivation suffer (Kanter,
1983), too little control and the whole change
process may spin out of control with

[ 325 ]

Mike Doyle
Dispersing change agency in
high velocity change
organisations: issues and
implications
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
22/7 [2001] 321329

uncertain and unintended consequences

(Stacey, 1996).
This paradox of organisational control
versus the freedom to innovate is confirmed
in the findings. During interview, a number
of senior managers in both the Water
Company and the NHS trust recounted how
they felt they were losing control over the
dynamics of the change process. In the case of
the Water Company, senior managers became
alarmed when a spot check revealed 147
separate change initiatives that were operating
simultaneously. Further investigations
revealed duplication, overlap, unclear goals
and outcomes, poor planning and a lack of ``fit''
with the overall strategic direction of the
business. In the NHS trust a similar pattern
emerged. There had been considerable efforts
to implant a continuous improvement culture
following re-engineering. This was
disseminated in the trust's current business
plan as a strategic HR goal with enthusiastic
support from the HR director and his team.
However, an audit revealed in excess of 100
initiatives running simultaneously.
With this volume of initiatives, there is
clearly a risk that a significant proportion of
change initiatives will be managed outside
the normal boundaries of strategic control,
and this was the basis of concern amongst
senior managers in both case organisations.
But this presents a serious organisational
dilemma. On the one hand, significant cost
and resource implications will lead to an
understandable rational fear that a
continuation of existing policies to disperse
change agency with little control or sanction
will threaten the financial and managerial
stability equally. However, precipitate action
by senior managers may undermine the
empowering culture that is seen to be
essential for the change process to function
effectively and deliver anticipated benefits,
and which they themselves are actively
promoting!
The next section attempts to pull together
some of the lessons and implications that the
findings present to those who manage change
at a strategic level.

Discussion
The findings indicate that individuals and
teams are now being positively encouraged to
accept or take change agency as it is
dispersed and to deploy it in mutually
beneficial ways. This message is supported
by subtle (and not so subtle) symbolic
artefacts and communicated patterns of
behaviour. Indeed, the implied, even on
occasions the explicit, message was that any

[ 326 ]

display of reluctance to participate in a

change project may identify the individual as
a ``deviant'' or ``organisational terrorist'' and
place their future career prospects and even
their job security in jeopardy.
With this in mind, this penultimate section
explores some of the messages that the
dispersal and management of change agency
might be sending to strategic leaders in ``high
velocity'' organisations.
First, the strategic imperative of
empowerment and a culture of dispersed
change agency through initiatives such as
TQM and BPR is superficially attractive in
terms of the flexibility and adaptability it
gives organisations to cope with significant
environmental forces (Delbridge et al., 1992;
Marchington, 1996). However, considerable
ambiguity surrounds the term
``empowerment'' and the related notion of
``change agency''. Whilst for some it might
connote a greater freedom to innovate and
make changes, for others it becomes a
synonym for tighter control and work
intensification (Cunningham et al., 1996;
De Cock and Hipkin, 1997; Rees, 1998). But the
findings reveal a further issue. There is
evidence that in some cases, dispersing
change agency is placing intolerable burdens
on individuals who are suffering high levels
of ``initiative fatigue''. More pointedly, a
number of respondents reported that, apart
from the added stress, too much involvement
and responsibility for change was deflecting
attention and robbing resources from
mainstream operational activities. This was
exemplified in the case of the NHS trust,
where instead of a dispersal of change agency
improving patient care, there was a deep
concern that the scale and impact of the reengineering change process was seriously
undermining patient care by diverting scarce
expertise and resources.
Second, the findings strongly suggest that
those who lead change in organisations
cannot make oversimplified assumptions
about, nor take for granted, the motives that
surround the dispersal of change agency to a
wider ``cast of characters'' (Hutton, 1994;
Buchanan and Storey, 1997). Paradoxically,
whilst the introduction of empowering
structures and cultures encourages an
involvement in change, it also broadens the
choices and opportunities afforded to
individuals. That choice may extend to
decisions about whether they wish to deploy
change agency for the benefit of the
organisation or themselves, and on what
terms. This in itself presents a strategic issue
in that organisations must identify and
manage the complex range of motives and

Mike Doyle
Dispersing change agency in
high velocity change
organisations: issues and
implications
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
22/7 [2001] 321329

ensure they are integrated as an important

part of the overall change strategy.
Third, and linked to the previous point, by
approving the unilateral taking of agency
through the introduction of empowering
structures, strategic leaders may lose a
degree of control over those who manage the
change process on their behalf. For instance,
empowerment may permit individuals to
self-select themselves into the change process
without organisational sanction or approval,
e.g. they introduce an idea or initiative and
then assume responsibility for
implementation. This raises the prospect that
some individuals and teams may be
encouraged or persuaded to embark on
projects or initiatives for which they are
ill-suited and ill-equipped, with concomitant
risks for the whole organisational change
process. In addition, by self-selecting
themselves, individuals may preclude access
to formal mechanisms for training
development, which they require to support
them in their change management role.
Fourth, the problems of trying to reconcile
strategic leadership and control with greater
dispersal of change agency may, in part, be a
function of the perceptions and management
styles of those who are attempting to exert
control. In the case of the Water Company,
the findings point to the strategic
management of change being engineered, led
and controlled by a ``change elite'' whose
highly rationalistic, mechanistic, technical
orientation to change was often at odds with
the messy and chaotic situations that
predominated below them. Unfortunately,
this rational orientation created an illusion
of control and a ``Lego-brick'' mentality to the
way they engineered and managed the
change process rather than the need to adopt
a more behaviourally oriented approach to
change which acknowledges the complexity
and messiness of change. As one senior
Water Company manager admitted, ``we can
flowchart our way out of most problems but
our performance in dealing with people has
not been satisfactory''.
In the NHS, although there was nominally
a change elite seeking to lead and control the
change process, in practice a far less
centralised, more laissez-faire form of
strategic leadership prevailed. This may be
explained in part by the relative autonomy
induced by clinical structures and
professional allegiances, and also by the
early, painful lessons of applying business
process re-engineering in a non-industrial
context. This appears to have led to a more
behaviourally-centred approach in which
the messiness and complexity of change
was acknowledged.

So how were these different perceptions of

control over the change process reflected in
practice by organisational strategists? The
Water Company, frustrated and alarmed at
the apparent loss of control over the strategic
change process and driven by its apparently
rational-technical view of change, sought to
establish a ``programmes control office'' to
act as a mechanism for monitoring all
existing and emergent change initiatives.
The aim was to control the change process by
co-ordinating effort and promoting the
sharing of knowledge to avoid repeat
mistakes. To this end, strategic leadership
took the form of a complex bureaucracy to
oversee the whole change process. However,
the potential for conflict between an
empowering philosophy from the top and a
desire to exert tight control is only now
becoming apparent to senior managers. For
instance, there are concerns expressed that
the programmes office might interfere or vet
individual change initiatives. The risk is that
this would undermine the organisation's
empowering culture by creating frustration
and disillusionment amongst managers and
employees. As one senior manager remarked
``I'm worried that this programme office that
we've set up to actually vet initiatives before
they see the light of day may become a wet
blanket''. In other words, by seeking to
impose a rational methodology in an effort to
reassert control over goals, outcomes,
expectations and performance measures
which in a high velocity change context will
always be uncertain and vague strategic
leaders are in danger of rendering the change
process confrontational and politicised.
Indeed, in the Water Company, respondents
identified increased political activity as
being necessary to circumvent this
``administrative roadblock''. As one
respondent cryptically remarks, ``I think we
have to be very careful that the control
office does not become the enemy for people
to target''.
In the NHS trust there was a seemingly less
overt and mechanistic approach to
controlling the dispersal of change agency.
Indeed, the general feeling appeared to be
that dispersal was a key factor in
contributing to an emergent learning culture
with a potential to deliver long term benefits.
To act as a focal point for managing and
controlling its process re-engineering project
in the mid-1990s the trust created a Centre for
Best Practice. However, rather than acting as
gatekeeper, the Centre staffed by
experienced change agents who had driven
change in the hospital for a number of years
has been retained and now acts as a
repository for change knowledge and skills.

[ 327 ]

Mike Doyle
Dispersing change agency in
high velocity change
organisations: issues and
implications
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
22/7 [2001] 321329

The Centre's primary role is now to

disseminate ``good'' change practice across
the NHS and beyond but more significantly,
it has captured and retained the collective
change experiences of the trust. The Centre is
now available in the form of an advisory
service to help develop and support other
staff who are now implicated and involved in
the redesigning their structures and
processes. Rather than impose restriction,
the trust has also created a cadre of team
coaches who, in practical terms, are
operating as internal OD consultants.
Experienced in the softer elements of change
management, these individuals are available
to assist line managers and others to both
develop themselves and their area of
responsibility. In this way they turn relative
novice change agents into experts who then
transfer that expertise to others. In effect
the organisation is being ``seeded'' with
change expertise.
These contrasting approaches to the issues
of empowerment, agency, control and the
strategic management of change may reflect
the exigencies of their respective contexts. In
the Water Company, with shareholders and
regulatory bodies to consider, some degree of
strategic control may have to be imposed to
bear down on costs and ensure efficient use
of resources. However, in the NHS different
priorities may prevail. It may be that seeking
to control the dispersal of change becomes
secondary to the need to introduce a new
cultural orientation to remove traditional
cross-functional boundaries and restrictions
that inhibit patient care.

Conclusion
In closing this discussion, it is interesting to
note the extent of ambiguity and inconsistency
that surrounds the perceptions, motives and
degree of control that surrounds the dispersal
of change agency in high-velocity change
contexts. In some senses, this raises the
intriguing possibility that, rather than
improve the overall efficacy of the change
process, the dispersal of agency may actually
serve to destabilise it. For instance, we have
seen that whilst an empowering culture is
leading to greater dispersal of change agency,
the extent to which the organisation can or
would want to exercise control and the
mechanisms becomes a strategic issue. Too
much coercive, bureaucratic control risks
creating frustration and de-motivation
amongst managers and employees and stifling
innovation. Too little control and there is a risk
of initiative anarchy, overload and fatigue.

[ 328 ]

Part of the reason for this paradox of

control may be explained by the complex
motives and mechanisms by which teams
and individuals seek to take or accept change
agency, and the degree of willingness or
reluctance they display in doing so. We might
conclude, therefore, that is neither sensible
nor reasonable for organisations to assume
that change agency can be dispersed
uniformly and with the same degree of
enthusiasm across an organisation when it
comprises diverse groups and sub-cultures.
Each individual maintains their personal
interpretation of change and what it means to
them. Any strategy for dispersal has
therefore to acknowledge and accommodate
the range of motives that coexist with any
overarching empowering philosophy and
this may mean compromise and negotiation
with a range or stakeholders about change
benefits and outcomes. But this suggests that
strategic leaders may have to adopt a less
rational, more behaviourially-centred
outlook to controlling and managing the
change process.
However, what is clear from the findings is
that many strategic leaders appear unaware
of a need to develop a discrete and proactive
strategy for managing those who manage
change on their behalf. This in itself appears
somewhat paradoxical given the
responsibilities invested in teams and
individuals and the potential risks to the
whole change process that poor management
may induce.

References

Bailey, J. (1993), Managing People and

Technological Change, Pitman Publishing,
London.
Buchanan, D. and Storey, J. (1997), ``Role taking
and role switching in organisational change:
the four pluralities'', in McLoughlin, I. and
Harris, M. (Eds), Innovation, Organisational
Change and Technology, International
Thomson Business Press, London.
Buchanan, D., Claydon, T. and Doyle, M. (1999),
``Organization development and change: the
legacy of the nineties'', Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2.
Claydon, T. and Doyle, M. (1996), ``Trusting me,
trusting you: the ethics of employee
empowerment'', Personnel Review, Vol. 25
No. 6, pp. 13-25.
Cunningham, I., Hyman, J. and Baldry, C. (1996),
``Empowerment; the power to do what?'',
Industrial Relations Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 143-54.
De Cock, C. and Hipkin, I. (1997), ``TQM and BPR:
beyond the myth'', Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 659-75.
Delbridge, R., Turnbull, P. and Wilkinson, B.
(1992), ``Pushing back the frontiers:

Mike Doyle
Dispersing change agency in
high velocity change
organisations: issues and
implications
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
22/7 [2001] 321329

management control and work intensification

under JIT/TQM factory regimes'', New
Technology, Work and Employment, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 97-106.
Eccles, T. (1994), Succeeding with Change:
Implementing Action-driven Strategies,
McGraw-Hill, London.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and Bourgeois, L.J. (1988),
``Politics of strategic decision making in high
velocity environments: towards a mid-range
theory'', Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 737-70.
Frohman, A. (1997), ``Igniting organisational
change from below: the power of personal
initiative'', Organisational Dynamics, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 39-53.
Hambrick, D., Nadler, D. and Tushman, M. (1998),
Navigating Change: How CEOs, Top Teams
and Boards Steer Transformation, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Hutton, D. (1994), The Change Agent's Handbook:
A Survival Guide for Quality Improvement,
ASQC Quality Press Publications,
Milwaukee, WI.
Jackson, D. (1997), Dynamic Organisations: The
Challenge of Change, Macmillan,
Basingstoke.
Kanter, R.-M, (1983), The Changemasters:
Corporate Entrepreneurs at Work, George
Allen and Unwin, London.
Katzenbach, J. (1995), Real Change Leaders,
Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.
Mabey, C., Skinner, D. and Clark, T. (1998),
Experiencing Human Resource Management,
Sage, London.

Marchington, M. (1996), ``Fairy tales and magic

wands: new employment practices in
perspective'', Employee Relations, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 51-66.
McLoughlin, I. and Harris, M. (Eds) (1997),
Innovation, Organisational Change and
Technology, International Thomson Business
Press, London.
Ottaway, R. (1983), ``The change agent: a
taxonomy in relation to the change process'',
Human Relations, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 361-92.
Rees, C. (1998), ``Empowerment through quality
management: employee accounts from
inside a bank, a hotel and two factories'', in
Mabey, C., Skinner, D. and Clark, T. (Eds),
Experiencing Human Resource Management,
Sage, London, pp. 33-53.
Senge, P. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and
Practice of the Learning Organisation,
Century Business, London.
Sparrow, P. and Marchington, M. (1998), Human
Resource Management: The New Agenda,
Financial Times/Pitman Publishing, London.
Stacey, R. (1996), Strategic Management and
Organisational Dynamics, 2nd ed., Pitman
Publishing, London.
Tichy, N. and Devanna, M. (1986), The
Transformational Leader, Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Wilkinson, A., Redman, T., Snape, E. and
Marchington, M. (1998), Managing with Total
Quality Management, Macmillan Press,
Basingstoke.

[ 329 ]