Partners
Categories
The Hard Graft of Change: Why some ideas don’t connect
A quick glance in the business section at the local book shop and you would think that stories of transformation are the norm. There is no shortage of heroic leaders with guidelines for success to turn your backward-looking Jurassic organization into a top-flight enterprise. An increasingly common approach to organizational transformation is “grafting†new knowledge onto existing ones – taking best practices from another organization or division, and integrating them into one’s own. As tempting as this surgical model is, however, experience is showing it to be a very challenging approach to change, that often leads to organizational pain and even death. A team of researchers - Rajiv Nag, Kevin Corley and Dennis Gioia* - decided to explore why.
An Attempted Graft
“Organizational Name†(“TekMar Incâ€) was facing a big problem – its environment had changed and to survive it needed a different range of skills and knowledge. In the past it had been sheltered as part of a large American electronics group, but was now facing the harsh reality of competing on its own. Whereas it had previously focused on designing and developing cutting edge technology, often without commercial application, this strategy was no longer a viable – they had to become more “business-like†or die.
The company recruited experienced business development professionals from outside, and relied on them to inject new business ideas into the organization. The new executives were given top jobs and quickly got to work establishing a series of new “ventures†to translate ideas into commercial success. The company invested in processes to enhance collaboration between scientists and researchers, and – most critically – established mechanisms to systematically assess the commercial potential of new ideas.
This seemingly logical and typical strategy failed – the graft was rejected. The new initiatives didn’t sustain the organization. The new executives left. And, the company abandoned its “Venture Management†approach.
What happened?
Nag, Corley and Gioia argue that what happened at “Organizational Name†(“TekMar Inc†was neither simply a case of individuals resisting change (link), nor just a matter of organizational inertia. Instead they argue that the answers lie in understanding how the need to manage three key organizational elements: knowledge (what we know); identity (who we are); and practice (what we do).
The relationship between organizational knowledge and identity is an intimate one – not only does what we know shape who we believe we are, but our self-concepts fundamentally shape what we believe is true and right. Similarly, organizational identity and practices are also powerfully connected: who we are and what we know is often only meaningful to the extent that they are embedded in the routine practices of organizational members. In other words, knowledge isn’t something out there that stands alone but it is brought into existence and made sense of in our daily activities. It is through these activities that a collective sense of identity is created and shaped.
So, when new knowledge is introduced into an organization, it can challenge an organization’s identity, especially when it affects routine practices that embody organizational members’ sense of who they are. So what does this mean? For any new idea or initiative to be successfully integrated into an existing organization, managers will need to work to connect it to the knowledge and identity already embedded in existing practices. But, while introducing new knowledge be relatively easy, changing valued practices that offer a sense of identity to organizational members is incredibly difficult.
The Problem at “Organizational Name†(“TekMar Incâ€)
For the leaders of â€Organizational Nameâ€, the situation must have been very puzzling. Based on expert advice, they set up formal business development systems which should have enhanced collaboration and performance. The problem was that they failed to see how those systems undermined organizational identity and practice. Scientists were suddenly required to pitch their ideas to business executives in order to secure funds, which should have provided greater transparency and opportunity to share new ideas, but, in practice, undermined the scientist’s identities as world class researchers working in an informal, creative organization. It also led to researchers producing smaller, safer ideas in order receive funding, which undermined the organization’s capacity for truly groundbreaking innovation.
Terminal Transformations?
Are all knowledge grafts doomed? Not necessarily. But, successful grafts require manages to not only consider the content of new ideas, but also recognize that their application might disturb deeply held values. So, before the surgical graft, managers need to become organizational anthropologists, developing an understanding of the core identities and practices that will be affected by the injection of new ideas.
*Nag, R., Corley, K. G., & Gioia, D. A. (In press). The intersection of organizational identity, knowledge and practice: Attempting strategic change via knowledge grafting. Academy of Management Journal.
Comments
Leave a Reply
Featured
Change Post-its: Cultural Intelligence & Change
Change Post-its are ideas we come across as we scan the internet and other sources for new ideas that... read more →
Communicating Strategic Change? Get Sensitive.
A key question in managing strategic change is how best to communicate that change to external stakeholders. It may... read more →
Our Community
Tom Lawrence, our editor, is the Weyerhaeuser Professor of Change Management at SFU.Read Tom's Posts
Graham Dover is a Doctoral student in the Business Faculty at SFU. Read Graham's Posts