C 2005)

Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 18, No. 5, October 2005 (

DOI: 10.1007/s11213-005-8484-4

A Systemic View of Change Management

and Its Conceptual Underpinnings
Guangming Cao1,2 and Marie McHugh1
Received October 15, 2004; accepted June 30, 2005
This paper presents a critical analysis of a systemic view of change management
and its conceptual underpinnings. It reflects upon the systemic view from perspectives of modernism and postmodernism. The understandings so developed are then
synthesised in terms of structuration theory. It is argued that organisational change
is characterised by diversity and interactions, which necessitates a systemic approach
using multiple methods in one intervention. By making transparent the conceptual
underpinnings, it is shown that this systemic view can help build an improved understanding of organisational change characterised by diversity and interactions, and
it can support the use of multiple methods to manage organisational change in one
intervention.
KEY WORDS: change management; systemic view; modernism; postmodernism;
structuration theory.

1. INTRODUCTION
Change management becomes increasingly important for organisations in an
environment where competition and globalisation of markets are ever intensifying. It could be argued that many organisations face a problem situation
in which they either change or die (Beer and Nohria, 2000). However, the
success of organisational change programmes and the effectiveness of change
management have been questioned, evidenced by very high failure rates (Stanton
et al., 1993; Spector and Beer, 1994; Crowe and Rolfes, 1998; Marjanovic,
2000).

1 School

of Business Organisation and Management, University of Ulster, Jordanstown, Shore Road,

Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim, BT37 0QB, United Kingdom.
2 To whom correspondence should be addressed at School of Business Organisation and Management,
University of Ulster, Jordanstown, Shore Road, Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim, BT37 0QB, United
Kingdom; e-mail: g.cao@ulster.ac.uk.
475
C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.
1094-429X/05/1000-0475/0

476

Cao and McHugh

To help understand organisational change better, and manage the process

more effectively, a systemic view of change management has been suggested as
a way forward (Flood, 1995; Cao et al., 1999, 2003; Cao, 2001). The essential
argument is that, within many organisations, change is characterised by diversity
and interactions. For example, the implementation of business process reengineering (BPR) often leads to fundamental change within an organisations structure,
culture and management process (Fowler, 1998; Stebbins et al., 1998; Al-Mashari
and Zairi, 1999). BPR is not just an isolated type of process change; it goes in
tandem with other types of organisational change. This implies that BPR is unlikely to succeed when it is managed as an isolated process change. For any BPR
programme to be successfully implemented, the challenge is how to manage the
diversity and the interaction of organisational change.
It is argued that any change programme characterised by diversity and interaction of organisational change should be managed as a whole by using multiple
methods in one intervention. For example, it is argued that since total quality
management (TQM) often leads to major changes in people, culture, technology
and structure, resulting in a transformed organisation (Almaraz, 1994; Waldman,
1994; Spector and Beer, 1994; Hill and Collins, 1998), it has been suggested that
a holistic perspective is needed for TQM to be applied successfully (Gull, 1995;
Bennett and Kerr, 1996; Cao et al., 2000). In short, to manage organisational
change more effectively, a systemic view of change management would seem to
be useful. Actually this systemic view of change management has been used as a
conceptual framework to help critique and develop understandings of, for example,
total quality management (Cao et al., 2000), business process reengineering (Cao
et al., 2001), electronic commerce implementation (Cao and Humphreys, 2002),
and change management in a university (Cao et al., 2004). Each of these can be
considered as a change management intervention in its own way. If this systemic
view of change management is indeed useful and viable under certain problem
situations, rather than an ad hoc solution in specific instances, then it must have
theoretical foundations. Otherwise, it would be very difficult to explain why this
or any view of change management could be of value in helping understand and
manage organisational change, and why it should be transferable to other problem
situations.
It is therefore the intention of this paper to critically evaluate the theoretical underpinnings of this systemic view of change management, and to outline the implications for future change management practice. The paper begins
with a brief introduction to the systemic view of change management. A critical analysis of the systemic view is then presented in terms of the principles of
modernism and postmodernism. Finally, this analysis developed from the viewpoints of both modernism and postmodernism will be synthesised in terms of
structuration theory (Giddens, 1993). These critical evaluations provide the theoretical underpinnings for the systemic view of change management, leading to

A Systemic View of Change Management and Its Conceptual Underpinnings

477

an improved understanding of organisational change and the process of change

management.
2. THE SYSTEMIC VIEW OF CHANGE MANAGEMENT
The systemic view of change management, informed by systems perspectives,
develops and uses a conceptual framework. This involves a four-dimensional
view of organisational change and approaches to change, to help specify the
main components of change management. It orders the relationships between
these components, and provides insights into how organisational change might be
managed more effectively.
Based on Flood (1995), it has been argued (Cao, 2001; Cao et al., 1999,
2003) that organisational change can be classified into four types. Firstly, there
are changes in organisational process that transform certain inputs into outputs
of value to customers, for example product development and order fulfillment.
Process change can refer to operational sub-process improvement, intra-process
improvement, inter-process relationship improvement, process redesign and total
process reconception (Peters, 1994). It may fundamentally transform the ways
of raw materials flowing to finished products, investments to profits, raw data
to information and knowledge, and other inputs to outputs. This may involve
activities across boundaries of functional departments and organisations.
Secondly, there are changes in organisational functions, their organisation,
co-ordination and control. For example, there may be changes in horizontal and
vertical structures; in the decision systems or policy and resource allocation mechanisms; and in the criteria used for recruitment, appraisal, compensation and
career development. In developed industrial societies, for example, there is evidence that organisational forms tend to be changing from the rational bureaucratic
structures to a flexible, network-based configuration, characterised by a flat authority structure and multiple horizontal linkages between the inner core of a
firm and its outside suppliers, contractors and customers (Reed, 1992; Tapscott,
2001).
Thirdly, there are changes in organisational culture, such as traditions, values,
beliefs and human behaviour in terms of relationships to social rules and practices,
shaping business practices in widely varying ways. Organisational culture had
been considered an important factor for major US and UK companies in a range of
industries throughout the 1970s (Collins, 1996; Morgan, 1997, p. 119). It became
a popular topic in management in the 1980s and early 1990s (Collins, 1996) and
has been cited as pivotal in successful change by many, for example, Brooks and
Bate (1994), McHugh and Bennett (1999).
Fourthly and finally, there are changes in power distribution and the factors that influence decision making in organisations. Understanding where power
comes from and how these sources of power can be developed is a key concern

478

Cao and McHugh

in change management (McHugh, 2001). In this regard, an organisation might be

seen as coalition of interest groups in tension, or a particular balance of forces,
continually subject to modifications.
Within the context of the present paper it is argued that these four different
types of organisational change are interconnected and interacting. Organisational
change can be seen as a dynamic process: Change in any one dimension will probably result in compensatory change in other dimensions. For instance, Shifts in
the large culture influence individuals, who influence organisational culture, which
in turn affects organisational structure (DeLisi, 1990). Similarly, Reed (1992) argues that organisational culture is shaped by organisational politics, and will direct
long-term structural development. Another example is that drastic process-focused
changes affect virtually all aspects of the organisation, with multiple change initiatives being evolved in tandem (Stebbins et al., 1998). From these, the inference
to be drawn is that any attempt to carry out change without addressing the interactions of organisational change and organisational subsystems is likely to contribute
to the incidence of failure. Change management needs to address effectively the
diversity and the interactions of different types of organisational change.
If classifying change into the four categories of process, structure, culture
and politics is to be of value, it should be possible to take key approaches to
change and fit them to the different dimensions of this categorisation, helping to
examine their strengths and weaknesses in relation to the diversity and interactions
of organisational change. Starting with process change, typical approaches might
include total quality management and business process reengineering, which are
considered to be the most influential approaches to process change (Burnes, 1996,
p. 172; Siegal et al., 1996; Genus, 1998). However, such approaches are seen to
be less effective when dealing with other types of change, such as cultural and
political (Cao, 2001; Cao et al., 2000, 2001;).
Typical structural approaches may include contingency approach and transaction cost economics. Contingency approach argues that organisational structure
and performance is contingent on the situational variables it faces, such as organisational environment (Thompson, 1967), technology (Woodward, 1965) and size
(Pugh et al., 1969a,b). It follows that if the key variables of an organisation can be
determined, then organisational change can be effectively managed. Transaction
cost economics (Williamson, 1975), it could be argued, explains organisational
change by exclusively seeking causes originating in markets, which are assumed
to determine the course of organisational change, focusing on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the more tangible sides of an organisation. It can be
argued, however, that such approaches assume the set of values and beliefs underlying structures and systems as unproblematic. It has little to say about conflicting
values, beliefs and interests, and whether or not the configuration is the preferred
outcome of certain individuals and groups over others. Consequently, this kind of
approach is characterised by a de-politicised view of organisational change.

A Systemic View of Change Management and Its Conceptual Underpinnings

479

Cultural approaches direct peoples attention to the human side of organisations rather than to processes, structures, markets and technologies. They show the
importance and the possibility of culture in creating and shaping organisations by
influencing values and beliefs. However, care must be taken to ensure that cultural
approaches are not used in ways leading to potential negative consequences. For
example, convinced by the benefits of a strong culture, managers might attempt to
create a new value system, believing this will be good for all in the organisation.
However, this is potentially dangerous as the new culture could be developed into
a process of ideological control (Morgan, 1997, p. 150). Another danger is that
culture is often reduced to, and managed as, a set of variables (White and Jacques,
1995; Morgan, 1997, p. 151). Also, cultural approaches do not tell managers how
to structure complex organisations (Flood and Jackson, 1991a, p. 12).
Finally, there are political approaches that use various sources of power to
enable or resist organisational change that may not be possible otherwise. However,
this in turn might increase the possibility of people behaving politically for their
own personal interests, resulting in cynicism and mistrust (Morgan, 1997, p. 212).
Further, political approaches may also overemphasise the need to handle political
issues, whilst downplaying the importance of other organisational factors such as
organisational structures and responding to market changes (Flood and Jackson,
1991a, p. 14).
Based on the four-dimensional view of organisational change and approaches
to change, there are important implications for change management. Thus:
r Organisational change is characterised by diversity and interaction, which
can be distinguished from the diversity of different approaches to change.
r Different types of organisational change need to be managed by different
approaches. Currently, each type of approach to change is primarily focused
on specific dimensions of organisational change, to which each can be
pertinent and effective. But there is no one best way to manage change.
r Different types of organisational change are interrelated; they need to be
managed together as a whole. Current approaches seem unable to address
situations where more than one type of organisational change is present,
or to understand and manage organisational change holistically.
r If the interactions of different types of organisational change are to be
effectively managed, the use of mixed methods and methodologies is necessary. However, current approaches seem to have little to offer beyond a
single method focusing on a specific problem.
r Finally, how is it to be known that the most appropriate decisions are
made? Current change approaches provide little explicit guidance as how
to reflect critically on the decisions made.
In short, the most significant characteristic of organisational change is diversity and interaction. This contrasts with the diversity of current approaches

480

Cao and McHugh

to change and their inability to provide guidance on managing change

holistically.
In search of methodological guidance for managing diversity and interaction
in organisational change more effectively, Cao (2001) suggests that critical systems
thinking (CST) (for a detailed summary, see Flood and Jackson (1991b)) can
provide general systemic principles to guide any change programme. In particular,
CST can help to understand the diversity and interaction in organisational change,
encourage the creative use of mixed methods, and critically reflect upon the
management of change. However, CST does not provide specific suggestions such
as how to reduce business cycle time, reengineer business processes, improve
product quality, organise electronic commerce applications, develop a network
structure, develop a multicultural organisation or stimulate change politically.
Therefore, to manage any change programme holistically, systems perspectives
must be integrated with the knowledge of change management.
This systemic view has been used to critique and develop understandings
of change management in relation to, for example, total quality management,
business process reengineering, electronic commerce implementation and change
management in a university. However, if this systemic view is to be more than an
ad hoc approach in specific instances and to contribute to the understanding of
change management in an informed way, it must make transparent its conceptual
assumptions and it must have theoretical underpinning. Without the support of a
theory, it would be impossible to know why this view might be useful under certain
change contexts, what could be learnt from using it and how its applications might
be communicated effectively to others.
What theory, then, is to be used to underpin the systemic view of change management? A preliminary analysis of the systemic view indicates that modernism,
postmodernism and structuration theory are most relevant. Modernist beliefs is
seen to be appropriate for evaluating the systemic view because part of the systemic view is about tangible organisational processes and structures that are often
associated with rationality and efficiency assumptions. Postmodernism, seen by
many researchers to provide insightful analytical approaches to, and understandings of, organisational practices (see, for example, Casey, 2004; Addleson, 1996;
White and Jacques, 1995; Clegg, 1992; Willmott, 1992), is deemed to be pertinent to the critique of the systemic view because part of the systemic view refers
to organisational cultures and politics. Such critical evaluations based on either
modernism or postmodernism, while seen to provide insightful understandings
of the systemic view, however, may run the risk of being somewhat one-sided or
incompatible. In order to form a fuller comprehension of the systemic view, those
understandings developed in relation to modernism and postmodernism must be
synthesised to provide a more coherent judgement about the conceptual assumptions of the systemic view. For this purpose, the theory of structuration is seen to
be able to provide a valuable conceptual framework to relate all aspects of the four

A Systemic View of Change Management and Its Conceptual Underpinnings

481

dimensions of organisational change and approaches to change. By triangulating

modernism, postmodernism and structuration theory, it is hoped that the systemic
view can be conceptually underpinned and insights into change management can
be gained.
3. THE SYSTEMIC VIEW IN RELATION TO MODERNISM
Modernism believes in linear progress, absolute truths and rational planning
of ideal social orders under standardised conditions of knowledge and production
(Giddens, 1990; White and Jacques, 1995). Consistent with this belief is the view
that objective knowledge can be produced by empirical positivism. History is seen
in terms of a definite past and a predictable future, that is, the concept of grand
narrative (Giddens, 1993, p. 1). Language is seen to be an objective transmitter of
meaning, assuming a singular identifiable relationship between what is being said
and the language used to express what is being said (White and Jacques, 1995).
As far as organisation is concerned, modernism is characterised by the following
four ways of reasoning (White and Jacques, 1995):
r A way of dichotomising thinking, i.e. two distinct and opposed
positions, processes or entities (Weaver and Gioia, 1994). This is
expressed for example in contrasting goods production with service
provision, machine technology with intellectual technology and Fordist
technologies of mass production with post-Fordist technologies of flexible
specialisation.
r A de-politicised view of organisation is generally assumed, which does
not problematise the role of power. Whenever mentioned at all, power
is the legitimate authority whereby change is rationally planned and
effected. Its epistemological position still believes in an objective reality,
and power is therefore understood in relation to objective truth.
r The course of organisational change is believed to be determined by
market and economic assumptions.
r Universal theorising is presumed by claiming classification of reality to
be natural.
Based on these modernist tenets, what inferences are likely to be drawn
from critiquing the systemic view of change management? Firstly, it might be
argued that the systemic view cannot be characterised by a way of dichotomising
thinking. The systemic view classifies organisational change into dimensions of
process, structure, culture and politics, which is in stark contrast to understanding
organisational change in terms of, for example, strategic versus non-strategic,
incremental versus radical, or planned versus emergent, which are obviously based on two distinct and opposing positions. Furthermore, the systemic
view also focuses on the interactions of different types of organisational change.

482

Cao and McHugh

Similarly, classifying change approaches as process, structural, cultural and political is also far from being dichotomous.
Secondly, is the systemic view a de-politicised view? Making political change
as one of the four dimensions means that the systemic view recognises the importance of understanding where power comes from, and how these sources of
power can be used to stimulate change. This directs attention to various interests
in tension, and the balance of various forces such as legitimate authority, widely
accepted beliefs, officially certified expertise and other processes and behaviours
through which potential power is utilised and realised. Furthermore, the systemic
view emphasises understanding organisational change from the interrelatedness
of process, structural, cultural and political dimensions rather than from isolated
individual views. In this sense there is no objective reality. Businesses processes
and organisational structures are thus understood as the results of earlier cultural
and political processes, which were underpinned by certain value systems that may
or may not be relevant to the present organisational contexts. As far as approaches
to change are concerned, it can be argued that the epistemological position of
the systemic view simultaneously believes in, objective truths and multiple understanding of organisational phenomena. Accordingly, the systemic view encourages
managing each change programme by using multiple methods: simultaneously the
objective truths, multiple and politicised perceptions, and their interactions are to
be addressed by creatively using approaches to process, structure, culture and
politics.
Thirdly, is the systemic view based primarily on market and economic assumptions? Again for similar reasons, this is unlikely to be the case. However,
there might be change situations in which process and structural dimensions would
dominate to such an extent that only systematic techniques and methods, optimisation, and goal-seeking processes might be tempted to determine the course of
organisational change. This is likely to result in change with serious undesired
consequences, or contribute to the instances of failure. To manage change more
effectively, the systemic view always focuses on the diversity and interactions
of all four types of organisational change, appreciating market and economic
assumptions, multiple and politicised views at the same time.
Fourthly and finally, there is a question of whether or not the systemic view
of change management attempts universal theorising, in other words claiming
classification of reality to be natural. By classifying organisational change into
four different types, the systemic view actually implies that organisational change
does have distinctive properties or dimensions, which consequently should be
addressed differently by using different approaches. Otherwise, if organisational
change did not have characteristic properties, there would be no need for different
methodologies because they would be equally efficient and effective (Mingers,
1992). Similarly, the categorisation of the four types of approaches to change
assumes that each type has distinguishable attributes and is more appropriate under

A Systemic View of Change Management and Its Conceptual Underpinnings

483

some conditions rather than others. If they were equally important and capable,
each would be effective enough to manage any type of change contexts: there would
be no need for understanding and classifying organisational change. Therefore,
the systemic view, which is not exactly to be taken as universal theorising, is seen
to be more pertinent where change contexts are characterised by diversity and
interactions.
In conclusion, the systemic view is aiming to provide a characterisation
of change management by identifying the conceptual components, a coherent
conceptual structure by specifying and ordering the relationships between these
components, and a way of helping to understand and manage the diversity and interactions in organisational change systemically. Organisational change has been
perceived as logical and orderly to the extent that it can be usefully characterised and effectively managed. Approaches to change are also perceived as
logical and orderly to the extent that they can be usefully distinguished and
employed under suitable change contexts. In this sense, it is certainly possible to conceive of the systemic view being developed in a modernist direction. However, the systemic view is certainly nowhere near seeking objective
truth and unquestionably far from totally accepting the principles of modernism.
It takes a four-dimensional view, rather than two distinct and opposed positions, of organisational change and approaches to change. It does not take the
role of power for granted. As far as order and logic are concerned, it understands organisational change as the dynamic result of cultural and political
processes.
4. THE SYSTEMIC VIEW IN RELATION TO POSTMODERNISM
Being contrary to modernism, postmodernism is characterised by an acceptance of ephemerality, fragmentation, discontinuity and chaos. It refers to a shift
away from attempts to ground epistemology and from faith in humanly engineered
progress. History is no longer seen as having a definite past and a predictable future, science does not have a privileged place in relation to knowledge, whilst
a plurality of heterogeneous claims to knowledge is seen to be just as valuable
(Giddens, 1990, p. 2). Regarding organisation, postmodernism focuses on perpetual transformation, a politicised view, linguistic assumptions and diverse and
local theorising (White and Jacques, 1995). Postmodernism views organisation as
constantly shifting reality that is the product of social interaction, represented
in language codes. Objective criteria for legitimacy are understood not to exist.
Accordingly, power is a central issue in organisational studies. For instance, who
is included in or excluded from proposing categories? Whose purposes are served
by adopting one schema over another? What is excluded by the schema chosen?
This form of questioning at least potentially opens up spaces for different possibilities. Universal knowledge is no longer seen to be adequate to the multifaceted

484

Cao and McHugh

organisational phenomena. Pluralism is more likely to be appropriate to meet the

diverse needs locally and temporarily.
From the viewpoint of postmodernism, the systemic view of change management accepts multiple subjective understandings of an organisation. It assumes
that organisational change is a phenomenon depending on individuals understandings and definitions of problem situations. It accepts multiple beliefs, values, and
thus multicultural organisations. It recognises the importance of understanding
an organisation in terms of a particular balance of various forces such as legally
approved authority, widely accepted beliefs, officially certified expertise and other
political behaviours. This is an effort towards making it possible to challenge the
ideas, beliefs and values underpinning the processes and the design of an organisation, to challenge dominant ideas, values and beliefs, and to reveal possible
coercive influences and effects, thereby improving the positions of the disadvantaged. This politicised view of organisational change emphasises conceiving
of an organisation as the product of intentional interaction and making power
a central issue. In agreement with these essentially subjective assumptions, the
cultural and political approaches will have to be qualitative, value-laden, focusing
on meanings, trying to understand what is happening, looking at the totality of
each situation and developing ideas through induction from data. In this sense, it
is certainly possible to say that the systemic view takes organisational dimensions
as constantly shifting reality that is the product of social interaction.
However, understanding process and structural dimensions in such a way
might be problematic. These dimensions were, and perhaps still are, unquestionably underpinned by certain value systems, or the balance of various power sources.
However, the designing and functioning of these organisational dimensions will
have to be in accordance with market and economic assumptions. These are frequently associated with technical interests and addressed by using systematic
methods for the purpose of optimisation. They are certainly far away from searching for subjectivity. In short, as far as the subjective aspects of an organisation are
concerned, the systemic view of change management seems to be congruent with
postmodernism, which denies a totally presumed objective or physical organisational order. However, the systemic view also accepts and appreciates the physical
aspects of an organisation in relation to objective truths.
With regard to pluralism, postmodernism and the systemic view of change
management have much in common. Both agree that organisational phenomena
are multi-dimensional. Thus, different approaches are needed to develop a comprehensive understanding of organisational issues. In accordance with this, the systemic view advocates the simultaneous use of four different types of approaches to
change together, to address the diversity and interactions of organisational change.
However, whilst postmodernism sees that universal knowledge is no longer adequate and that alternative approaches are just as valuable, the systemic view
sees that some approaches are more appropriate than others under certain change

A Systemic View of Change Management and Its Conceptual Underpinnings

485

contexts. For example, the systemic view emphasises managing the diversity and
interactions of different types of organisational change by using multiple methods
in one intervention.
Therefore it can be concluded that this systemic view accepts the value and
inevitability of multiple understandings of change management, and the necessity
and appropriateness of methodological pluralism. Whilst this is not exactly and
totally accepting the beliefs of postmodernism, it is certainly possible to conceive of this systemic view being developed in a postmodernist direction. The
main components of the systemic viewclassifications and relationshipsare
certainly in no sense understood as real, corresponding to a presumed objective
or physical organisational order. They are understood as possible alternatives of
perceiving change management. Additionally, the politicised view of change management is unquestionably closer to some of the main beliefs of postmodernism.
However, the systemic view also perceives organisational change as logical and
orderly to the extent that it can be usefully characterised and effectively managed. As far as process and structural changes are concerned, the systemic view
accepts the importance of appreciating market and economic factors by using systematic methods, without necessarily ignoring the value systems and politicised
assumptions behind the designing and functioning of organisational processes and
structures.
So far, it might be concluded that the systemic view of change management
is partly in accordance with, and partly in disagreement with, the beliefs of either
modernism or postmodernism. Modernism mostly helps explain the process and
structural elements of the systemic view, with little substantive answer to explain
multiple values and political dynamics. Postmodernism is quite the contrary: it
helps elucidate the cultural and political elements of the systemic view, but rarely
accounting for physical organisational orders. The understandings so developed
in relation to either modernism or postmodernism are seen to be somewhat onesided and conflicting, which can explain only part of the systemic view. A fuller
comprehension of the systemic view, however, can be gained if those evaluations
based on modernism and postmodernism are synthesised in relation to the theory
of structuration.
5. THE SYSTEMIC VIEW IN RELATION TO THE THEORY
OF STRUCTURATION
Structuration refers to the dynamic process whereby structures come into
being, whilst structures refer to systems of generative rules and resources, or sets
of transformation relations (Giddens, 1993, pp. 128134). Structuration theory
offers a set of dualities, single positions, processes or entities whose various
aspects may be temporarily bracketed, rather than dichotomies, two distinct
and opposed positions, processes or entities (Weaver and Gioia, 1994). Giddens

486

Cao and McHugh

(1984, 1987) views structures as both created by human beings and yet at the same
time influencing peoples actions in duality of structure.
From the viewpoint of historical development, organisational structures may
be understood as the results of human actions and some set of attitudes, that are
subject to change. However, human beings are not completely autonomous and
free-willed at a given point of time. Once organisational structures are in place,
the patterns and relationships will in turn either enable or constrain, but cannot
completely determine, human actions at a given point in time.
Consequently, there are two typical approaches to understanding organisational issues. If the research interest is in the ongoing, intentional human actions,
the structuring process diachronically, then the enquiry is inevitably historical and
interpretive. Alternatively, if the research interest is in the nature of the operation of
organisational structure synchronically, then a more quantitative view, focusing on
statistics and formal models is appropriate (Giddens, 1984, pp. 355368; Weaver
and Gioia, 1994). The more the focus tends to be diachronic, the less structural
and more historical and interpretive inquiry becomes. The more the focus tends
to be synchronic, the less historical and interpretive and more structural inquiry
becomes (Giddens, 1984, p. 327). Thus, there may be a continuum of appropriate forms of enquiry, which are not exclusive divisions among different styles.
Together they provide a more comprehensive view of an organisation, explaining
and legitimising the actual diversity of organisational studies (Weaver and Gioia,
1994).
Following the reasoning of structuration theory, it is certainly possible to see
modernism and postmodernism as reflecting different aspects of one position. The
former focuses more on the structural aspects whilst the latter focuses more on
the intentional aspects of organisational issues. Given this line of reasoning, it is
argued that the previous perceived contradictions between the understandings of
the systemic view in relation to either modernism or postmodernism will no longer
exist in terms of structuration theory. The systemic view can be seen as reflecting
different dimensions of organisational phenomena. The process and structural
dimensions can be understood to relate to the physical and structural aspects:
temporally a modernist position; whilst the cultural and political dimensions on the
intentional aspects of organisational issues: temporally a postmodernist stand.
Together, the diversity and the interactions of these four dimensions might be able
to provide a more comprehensive appreciation of the multifaceted organisational
phenomena: the modernist and postmodernist positions are bracketed. From the
stand of the systemic view of change management, it would be unbelievable to
conceive of an organisation as merely an objective reality that is totally logical
and orderly, or a subjective phenomenon that cannot be logically characterised
and effectively managed. Therefore, it can be argued that the systemic view is
undoubtedly in agreement with the theory of structuration, that the subjective and
objective phenomena of an organisation are interrelated and interacting.

A Systemic View of Change Management and Its Conceptual Underpinnings

487

If a multifaceted organisation is to be assumed, then it seems that a fuller

understanding of an organisation can only be possible if methodological pluralism
is welcomed. In accordance with this, the systemic view takes a four-dimensional
view of approaches to change. Approaches to process and structural changes can
be seen to mostly support the physical dimensions, whilst approaches to cultural
and political changes mainly support the subjective dimensions of an organisation.
Together, the four types of approaches to change might be able to provide ways
of adequately managing the diversity and interactions of organisational change.
To recap, the arguments presented within this paper support the contention
that the systemic view of change management is in line with structuration theory. Firstly, structuration theory emphasises the importance of understanding both
the structural and intentional aspects of an organisation. In a likely manner, the
systemic view signifies the importance of appreciating the four types of organisational change and approaches to change. Process and structural changes can be
seen as focusing on structural or technical or truth aspects of an organisation, whilst cultural and political changes on intentional or subjective aspects
of an organisation. Secondly, structuration theory emphasises the interconnectedness of structural and intentional aspects of an organisation, whilst the systemic
view highlights the diversity and interactions of different types of organisational
change. Finally, structuration theory legitimises a continuum of appropriate forms
of organisational inquiry and justifies the need of using them together to provide
a more comprehensive view of an organisation. Similarly, the systemic view contends that a fuller and richer understanding of change management can only be
developed by simultaneously employing four types of approaches to change.
6. CONCLUSIONS
The critique presented within this paper suggests that the systemic view of
change management may find its conceptual roots in several sources. From the
viewpoint of modernism, the value of the systemic view is seen to be in providing a
characterisation of, and a coherent conceptual structure for, change management.
Organisational change is seen to be logical and orderly to the extent that it can
be usefully characterised and effectively managed. Meanwhile, approaches to
change are seen to be logical and orderly to the extent that they can be usefully
distinguished and employed under suitable change contexts. However, the systemic
view rejects the idea that there is an objective reality that is totally logical and
orderly.
From the stand of postmodernism, the usefulness of the systemic view is in
accepting multiple and politicised perceptions of an organisation, and in promoting
the use of multiple methods in understanding organisational phenomenon. In this
regard, the systemic view takes its classifications and relationships as possible
alternatives of appreciating change management. It does not, however, concede

488

Cao and McHugh

that all alternatives are equally valuable and important to change management:
the systemic view is seen to be more pertinent to change contexts characterised
by diversity and interactions.
In relation to structuration theory, the systemic view is seen to be valuable
because it focuses simultaneously on both the objective and subjective dimensions
of an organisation, or the interactions of organisational process, structure, culture
and politics. It also promotes the creative use of different types of approaches
to change together in one intervention. By making transparent its conceptual
assumptions through triangulating modernism, postmodernism and structuration
theory, it can be concluded that the systemic view of change management is
not an ad hoc solution in specific instances; it is a sound and viable conceptual
framework that can be used to develop an improved understanding of problem
situations characterised by diversity and interactions of organisational change.
REFERENCES
Addleson, M. (1996). Resolving the spirit and substance of organizational learning. J. Organ. Change
Manag. 9(1), 3240.
Almaraz, J. (1994). Quality management and the process of change. J. Organ. Change Manag. 7(2),
614.
Al-Mashari, M., and Zairi, M. (1999). BPR implementation process: An analysis of key success and
failure factors. Bus. Proc. Manag. J. 5(1), 87122.
Beer, M., and Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Bus. Rev. 78(3), 133141.
Bennett, L. M., and Kerr, M. A. (1996). A systems approach to the implementation of total quality
management. Total Qual. Manag. 7(6), 631665.
Brooks, I., and Bate, P. (1994). The problems of effecting change within the British Civil Service:
A cultural perspective. Brit. J. Manag. 5(3), 177190.
Burnes, B. (1996). Managing change, Pitman, London.
Cao, G. (2001). Contemporary Systems Thinking and Organisational Change Management, PhD thesis,
University of Luton.
Cao, G., Clarke, S., and Lehaney, B. (1999). Towards systemic management of diversity in organisational Change. Strateg. Manag. 8(4), 205216.
Cao, G., Clarke, S., and Lehaney, B. (2000). A systemic view of organisational change and TQM. The
TQM Mag. 12(3), 186193.
Cao, G., Clarke, S., and Lehaney, B. (2001). A critique of BPR from a holistic perspective. Bus. Proc.
Manag. J. 7(4), 332339.
Cao, G., Clarke, S., and Lehaney, B. (2003). Diversity management: Towards a systemic framework.
Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 20(3), 231242.
Cao, G., and Humphreys, P. (2002). The application of systems Perspective to organisational change
in electronic commerce. OR Insight 15(3), 2328.
Cao, G., Clarke, S., and Lehaney, B. (2004). The need for a systemic approach to change management
a case study, Syst. Pract. Action Res. 17(2), 103126.
Casey, C. (2004). Contested rationalities, contested organizations: Feminist and postmodernist visions.
J. Organ. Change Manag. 17(3), 302314.
Clegg, S. R. (1992). Postmodern management. J. Organ. Change Manag. 5(2), 3149.
Collins, D. (1996). New paradigms for change? Theories of organisation and the organisation of
theories. J. Organ. Change Manag. 9(4), 923.

A Systemic View of Change Management and Its Conceptual Underpinnings

489

Crowe, T., and Rolfes, J. (1998). Selecting BPR projects based on strategic objectives. Bus. Proc.
Manag. J. 4(2), 114136.
DeLisi, P. S. (1990). Lessons from the steel axe: Culture, technology, and organisational change. Sloan
Manag. Rev. 32(1), 8393.
Flood, R. L. (1995). Solving Problem Solving, Wiley, UK.
Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (1991a). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention, Wiley,
UK.
Flood, R. L., and Jackson, M. C. (ed.) (1991b). Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings,
Wiley, UK.
Fowler, A. (1998). Operations management and systemic modelling as framework for BPR. Int.
J. Operat. Prod. Manag. 18(9/10), 10281056.
Genus, A. (1998). The Management of Change: Perspectives and Practice, International Thomson
Business Press, Oxford.
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society, University of California Press, Berkely, CA.
Giddens, A. (1987). Social Theory and Modern Society, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Giddens, A. (1993). New Rules of Sociological Method, Polity Press, Cambridge.
Gull, G. A. (1995). In search of TQM success. Exec. Excell. 7, 1718.
Hill, F. M., and Collins, L. K. (1998). The positioning of BPR and TQM in long-term organisational
change strategies. TQM Mag. 10(6), 438446.
Marjanovic, O. (2000). Supporting the soft side of business process reengineering. Bus. Proc. Manag.
J. 6(1), 4353.
McHugh, M. (2001). Organisation Change Management: Regenerating the Business. (Commissioned
by the Chartered Institute of Marketing), CIM Books, Maidenhead.
McHugh, M., and Bennett, H. (1999). Introducing team working within a bureaucratic maze. Leadersh.
Organ. Dev. J. 20(2), 8193.
Mingers, J. (1992). Recent development in critical management science. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 43(1),
110.
Morgan, G. (1997). Images of Organi sation, new edition of the international best-seller, Sage, London.
Peters, J. (1994). Operationalizing total quality: A business process approach. TQM Mag. 6(4), 2933.
Pugh, D., Hickson, D., Hinings, C., and Turner, C. (1969a). The context of organisation structures.
Admin. Sci. Qtly. 14, 91114.
Pugh, D., Hickson, D., and Hinings, C. (1969b). An empirical taxonomy of structures of work organisation. Admin. Sci. Qtly. 14, 115126.
Reed, M. I. (1992). Introduction. In Reed, M. I., and Hughes, M. (eds.), Rethinking Organization: New
Directions in Organisation Theory and Analysis, Sage, London, pp. 115.
Siegal, W., Church, A. H., Javitch, M., Waclawski, J., Burd, S., Bazigos, M., Yang, T., AndersonRudolph, K., and Burke, W. W. (1996). Understanding the management of change: An overview
of managers perspectives and assumptions in the 1990s. J. Organ. Change Manag. 9(6), 5480.
Spector, B., and Beer, M. (1994). Beyond TQM programmes. J. Organ. Change Manag. 7(2), 6370.
Stanton, S., Hammer, M., and Power, B. (1993). Reengineering: Getting everyone on board. I.T. Mag.
25(4), 2227.
Stebbins, M. W., Shani, A. B., Moon, W., and Bowles, D. (1998). Business process reengineering
at Blue Shield of California: The integration of multiple change initiatives. J. Organ. Change
Manag. 11(3), 216232.
Tapscott, D. (2001). Rethinking the internet rethinking strategy in a networked world. Strategy Bus.
(24), 18.
Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Waldman, D. A. (1994). Designing performance management systems for total quality implementation.
J. Organ. Change Manag. 7(2), 3134.

490

Cao and McHugh

Weaver, G. R., and Gioia, D. A. (1994). Paradigm lost: Incommensurability vs structurationist inquiry.
Organ. Stud. 15(4), 565590.
White, R. F., and Jacques, R. (1995). Operationalizing the postmodernity construct for efficient organisational change management. J. Organ. Change Manag. 8(2), 4571.
Williamson, O. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications: A Study in the
Economics of Internal Organization, Free Press, New York.
Willmott, H. (1992). Postmodernism and excellence: The de-differentiation of economy and culture.
J. Organ. Change Manag. 5(1), 5868.
Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial Organisation: Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press, London.