MPA 8002
Organization Theory

Learning to "play games":

PATHS OF CHANGE (Part 2):
Conceiving of a path
for organizational change

The model for organizational change proposed by McWhinney et al. (1997) is constructed upon a phenomenological view of organization.  That is, this particular model addresses the organizational phenomena (viz., "problems") cropping up in daily operations.  But, rather than focus directly upon these phenomena, this model constructs a conceptual foundation and offers a theory for effective and sustained resolution of the issues driving organizational phenomena.  What this phenomenological model of organizational change requires of managers/leaders is an understanding of organizational theory, in general, a clear awareness of how organizational members assess and judge organizational phenomena, and the refined capacity to integrate organizational theory and multiple perspectives into what McWhinney et al. call a "path of change."

As previously noted, because people hold strikingly different perspectives about organizational phenomena, the ability to understand how self and others view reality and enact it (Weick, 1995) is crucial as managers/leaders set about the challenging work of specifying a path of organizational change.  This ability makes it possible for managers/leaders not only to appreciate how others in their organizations experience change but also, and perhaps more importantly, to anticipate the conflicts that managers/leaders will unleash no matter what path of organizational change they select.  If only because people hold such strikingly different perspectives about reality, even the slightest organizational change(s) will inevitably lead to conflict and prevent people from resolving organizational problems as they crop up.  The challenge for managers/leaders, then, is to function as a "catalyst" for organizational change, that is, to "work the issue" embedded in organizational problems in order that others may "work the problems" for themselves.

This model of organizational change not only indicates that managers/leaders have a specific focus and responsibility (namely, issue resolution) but that followers also possess their own specific focus and responsibility (namely, problem solution).  Success hinges upon the ability of managers/leaders to build a team of diverse people who understand and appreciate how each member brings to the table an important though not all-encompassing view of reality, forges a common purpose and set of shared values (Barnard, 1968; Vaill, 1986, 1989), and empower team members to resolve organizational problems as they arise through the type of self-learning typified in reflective practice (Schön, 1991; Sergiovanni, 1986) and organizational learning (DiBella & Nevis, 1998; Senge, 1990).

Organizational change and "playing games"...

It might strike many people as a rather odd concept, but identifying a path of change involves engaging in "playing games."  For McWhinney et al. (1997, p. 57), this metaphor characterizes how human beings engaged with other in bringing about change.  Sometimes the games are conscious; at other times, they are less so.  Of more significant moment, however, this metaphor captures the notion there are many types of games and different sets of rules associated with each game.

Switching games in the middle of the game---and the change of rules implied---can prove daunting for managers/leaders and followers alike.  Indeed, switching games may well be at the heart of most organizational problems.  At same time, however, marshaling the power to switch games can effect substantive organizational change as managers/leaders make small but potent "high leverage" moves that engender conflict and enable the organizational learning which is the precursor for organizational change to occur (Senge, 1990).  To do so, however, managers/leaders need to be skilled at playing games which serve to advance team members along a previously defined path of organizational change.  Otherwise, games playing may well be nothing more than a cleverly disguised form of Machiavellian politics (Machiavelli, 1985).

McWhinney et al. identify six games of change or "boards of change."  Each has different rules, stakes, customs, and environments.  And, since each game clarifies how the six modes of change can be used in everyday organizational problem solving, the different games attract people of different perspectives.  Learning to play on the appropriate boards is "the game of change" (1997, p. 57) that requires managerial/leadership expertise.

The six games of change...

McWhinney et al. ask their readers to envision of six-tiered game of chess as a framework for considering a path of organizational change.  The operative concept in this metaphorical description is that a play on a superior board impacts play on subordinate boards.  The challenge, then, is for managers/leaders to make small moves on the appropriate superordinate board that will exert the greatest amount of leverage of subordinate boards.  The six boards of play include the action, power, value, environment, worldview, and truth boards (1997, p. 59).

The action board is where most organizational members play.  The board is well-defined, the rules are clear, and objectives set the direction of the game.  Skill and expertise are required as successful play exhibits knowledge of the rules of the game, the capacity to analyze what is transpiring as the game unfolds, and the expertise to apply the rules by carefully choosing one's actions so as to achieve one's goals.

The power board is the second board.  Play on this board requires establishing new rules which govern play on the first board.  By taking charge of the rules and maintaining order, players on the second board gain advantage (i.e., power) for play on the subordinate action board.

Play on the third board, the values board, is less obvious because players are endeavoring to influence organizational policies.  This game is won as players establish, modify, or re-establish the values which underlie organizational policies, rules, procedures, etc.  Success in this endeavor makes it possible for an individual (or group) to limit the games played on the subordinate power and action boards.  Not to be overlooked is how successful play on this board also defines what is and is not "ethical."

The environment board guides action on the subordinate three boards.  The attention of players on this fourth board is directed toward evaluating the genuine worth of things from the viewpoint of the marketplace.  The game involves communicating, bargaining, and allocating so that people will be motivated to use resources more effectively because their objective worth has been established.  This provides the normative framework influencing what is to be valued, the rules, policies, and procedures that will be implemented, and how people will act.

For McWhinney et al., the fifth game---played on the worldview board---involves focusing on the experience of the game.  For them, this game "transcends limitations set by the game board metaphor by inventing new games.  Present games and rules of play are reshaped, creating radically new enterprises" (1997, p. 59, italics added).  In reality, however, play on this board requires engaging in reflective practice (Schön, 1991) and, in particular, contemplating how one's antecedents, theories of practice, and practice episodes coalesce (Sergiovanni, 1986).  The purpose for engaging in reflective practice is to become more critical concerning where one's view of reality enables (or renders one incapable) of discerning "what is" accurately.  Play on this board---for example, engaging in self-change---exerts substantive influence upon play on the lower four boards.

The truth board clarifies the civilization's Zeitgeist, that is, those oftentimes unquestioned and unchallenged beliefs, assumptions, and values that give meaning and purpose to human existence.  Play on this board can portend widespread change and impact a culture's vitality as play creates new visions and designates new symbols (Schein, 1992).

For managers/leaders, issue resolution within an organization requires that attention be given to play on all six boards.  Knowing how and when to play on each board enhances the probability for productive play and healthy competition on subordinate boards.  All of this suggests that competent enactment of the symbolic and cultural aspects of management/leadership (Bolman & Deal, 1997) is crucial for a successful organizational change effort.

Some implications of "playing games"...

Moves on superordinate boards by managers/leaders exert greater leverage upon subordinate boards than does playing the game on the same board with followers.  For McWhinney et al. this is because "the higher...boards provide a broader and deeper range of solutions, and thus more opportunities for achieving long term resolutions" (1997, p. 63).  The authors caution, however, that although play on every board has an essential role in organizational change, "it is not necessary to rebuild an entire house to fix a leaky roof."  This is why managers/leaders may select tools of organizational change rather than one of the two grand pathways of organizational change.

In light of this, McWhinney et al. offer six implications for managers/leaders to consider as they engage in playing games.

1) Play on a lower game board is restricted by play on a
    higher board. "Solutions to the problems on any given
    board are generally designed within the restrictions of
    the game 'above' it" (p. 63). Consequently,
    managers/leaders cannot win games by violating the
    rules. Violations of the restrictions set by superordinate
    boards upon subordinate boards are typically
    destructive of a path of change.
2) Conflicts on subordinate boards can be dissolved by plays
    on superordinate boards. Superordinate boards offer the
    greater freedom and perspective to resolve apparent
    problems on subordinate boards. "This is Einstein's rule
    that we can not solve problems at the same level on
    which they were posed" (p. 63).
3) Play on one board gives little guidance as to how to play
    on other boards. Knowledge and expertise on each
    board involved is prerequisite for managers/leaders to
    initiate moves on a superordinate board.
4) Some people sense that, for them, play on some boards is
    taboo (p. 64). Subordinates typically are not encouraged
    to play on superordinate boards and yet so many of them
    do! One crucial management/leadership challenge is to
    enable all players to engage in play on a variety of
    boards in order that they may become capable of solving
    organizational problems as they emerge and to contribute
    their knowledge, learning, and expertise to organizational
    improvement (DiBella & Nevis, 1998; Senge, 1990).
5) Few people enjoy playing on more than one board at a time
    (p. 64).  Taken at face value, this makes eminent sense.
    Beyond its face values, however, this implication sheds
    light upon a fundamentally important point that
    managers/leaders might overlook. That is, the capacity
    to play on multiple boards simultaneously requires great
    skill not only because the rules change from board to
    board but also because the fundamental dilemmas
    exposed by play on each board necessitates being able to
    deal with multiple conflicts of values simultaneously.  Few
    people possess the refined capacity to cope with the
    stresses and tensions associated with play on one board
    not to mention the complexity of stresses and tensions
    associated with play on multiple boards.
6) Switching boards without announcing the change produces
    conflict.  "Switching boards adds goal conflicts to whatever
    other problems are already on the table," McWhinney et al.
    note (p. 64).  The authors caution that managers/leaders
    should stop play when they sense a switching of boards and
    negotiate the change.  Perhaps that is what managers/leaders
    should do, especially in the instance that followers are
    changing games.  But, in most instances, managers/leaders
    are the ones who are changing the games.  It is not at all
    clear that managers/leaders engaging in organizational
    change should expose their moves prior to or as they
    change games.

A path of change must account for the different games that can be played as well as how these games reveal particular perspectives upon organizational reality.  Play on various boards requires that managers/leaders possess the capacity to deal with the fundamental dilemmas each board exposes as well as in dealing with the conflict unleashed as one embarks upon a path of change.  Ethically, this means that management/leadership concerns bearing personal responsibility for the games one plays and outcomes associated with them.

References

Barnard, C. I. (1968). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership (2^nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

DiBella, A. J., & Nevis, E. C.  (1998).  How organizations learn.  San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Machiavelli, N. (1985). The prince (H. C. Mansfield, Jr., Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

McWhinney, W., Webber, J. B., Smith, D. M., & Novokowsky, B. J. (1997). Creating paths of change: Managing issues and resolving problems in organizations (2^nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, Inc.

Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2^nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schön, D. A. (1991). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1986). Understanding reflective practice. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 1(4), 353-359.

Vaill, P. B. (1986). The purposing of high-performing systems. In T. J. Sergiovanni & J. E. Corbally (Eds.), Leadership and organizational culture (pp. 89-104). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

Vaill, P. B. (1989). Managing as a performing art: New ideas for a world of chaotic change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Weick, K. E.  (1995).  Sensemaking in organizations.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.