The future of action learning

Action learning is an approach to individual and organisational development whereby people working in small sets tackle important organisational problems and learn from their attempts to change it (Pedler, 2008, pp. 3). Lately an increasing number of organisations have included action learning in their organisational development programmes. But it is important to challenge this dichotomy between action learning which emphasises the sociological rather than the psychological aspects of learning and that of organisational learning which seeks to maintain the status quo and improve delivery to shareholders (Leavy, 1998).

So given the current infatuation with this type of learning, is there a risk that the growth of action learning within education and management learning creates dilutions, deviations and departures (Pedler et al, 2005) which has the potential to undermine Revan’s classical principles (Revan, 1980).

Since the 1980’s, the concept of action learning has had a huge impact in business schools and particularly in post graduate programmes. Indeed one could argue that academics and management education institutions have led the way in developing management theories based on traditional liberal humanist approach which focus on self awareness and personal tolerance. They have influenced thousands of graduates who are just as likely to promote this type of learning (Kharuna, 2007). The graduates of these liberal institutions have in turn attempted to put their mark on Revan’s original idea and came up with some radical interpretations of what Revan envisaged. Wilmot’s (1997) critical action learning, Learmonth et al (2004) auto action learning, Pedler’s (2005) online and remote action learning, Bourner et al (1997) self-managed action learning and Boshyk’s (1999) business-driven action learning are important adaptations of Revan’s classical principles.

One must acknowledge that Revans always maintained there is no single form or version of action learning. Pedler (2008) argues that action learning has a philosophical connotation about it as ‘it is concerned with profound knowledge of oneself and the world and cannot be communicated as a formula or technique (pp. 3-4)’. Furthermore Marquadt (1999) postulates that within the action learning process, individuals create both knowledge and solutions for the organisations whilst forming social networks that can continue generating knowledge.

Revan articulated that action learning is based on the premise that action and learning are interlinked as defined by his seminal equation; Learning (L) = P (programmed knowledge) + Q (questioning insight). Revan however subordinated the P to the Q to emphasise the importance of critical reflection. This is further supported by Reynold’s (1999) call for the questioning of ‘common sense and the way these should be done in organisation (pp. 198)’.

These latter day adaptations of the original concept of action learning are all holistic and enthusiastic visions that tend to overcome the messy and imperfect organisational problems. So long as the process is not prescribed and forced upon individuals, there will always be opportunities to learn through influence and by the actions and intentions of others. After all, learning is context specific and what comes out of the various methods of action learning is a cluster of context specific approaches that emphasise learning through action or during the action itself.

References

Pedler, M (2008). Action learning for managers, Gower Publishing, England

Leavy, B. (1998),’The Concept of learning in the strategy field’, Management Learning, Vol.29, No. 4, pp. 337-66

 Revans, R.W (1980) Action learning: new techniques for managers (London, Blond and Briggs)

Pedler, M., J.G Burgoyne and C. Brook (2005), what has action learning learned to become? Action learning research and practice 2, no. 1, pp. 49-68

Kharuna R. (2007), From Higher aims to hired hands: the social transformation of American business schools and the unfulfilled promise of management as a profession, Princeton university press, Princeton.

Wilmott, H. (1997) Critical Management learning, in J. Burgoyne and M. Reynolds (eds) Management learning: integrating perspectives in theory and practice (London, Sage), 161-176

Learmonth, A and Pedler, M (2004) Auto action learning: a tool policy change? Building capacity across the development regional system to improve health in the North East of England, Health Policy, 68(2), 169-181

Bourner, T., Beaty, L. And Frost,P (1997) Participating in action learning ,in : Pedler(ed) Action learning in practice (London, Gower), 279-290

Boshyk, Y (199) Business- driven action learning: global best practices (London, Palgrave, McMillan)

Marquadt, M.J. (1999) Action learning in action: transforming problems and people for world class organisational learning, Palo Alto, CA, Davies-Black

Reynolds, M. (1999) Grasping the nettle: possibilities and pitfalls of a critical management pedagogy, British journal of management, 10(2), 171-184

Circular organising

I came across an interesting article which attempts to counterbalance the extreme polarities of domination and self determination. In this article, Georges and Romme (1999) describe a concept which they call the circularity of power. Accordingly, they argue that this concept ‘involves the co-existence and integration of hierarchical and self organising control’, pp. 802-814. Georges and Romme (1999) use the following three rules as the structural basis of the circular model, pp. 808-810:

Decision making about policy at all levels is governed by consent.

Every member of the organisation belongs to at least once circle.

Double linking between hierarchically ordered circles.

It is worth noting that several authors have previously attempted to define the issues surrounding organisational democracy and governance. Weber (1968) articulated that in organisations ‘certain persons will act in such a way as to carry out the order governing the organisation’, pp. 48-49. This view posits the need for order and stability in organisations and how power is used to build legitimacy and social order for those who are to be governed in organisations. Coicaud (1997), cited in Courpasson (2000) also supports Weber’s view by arguing that ‘legitimacy is the recognition of the right to govern’, pp. 13-14.

Weber’s framework of domination is contradicted by one adopted by Friedberg (1993), cited in Courpasson (2000) which he calls ‘social entrepreneurship’. This opposing view argues that domination is limited by the concentration of power in the hands of select few. According to Friedberg (1993), domination ignores how organisational governance is produced by a set of local games and not by a political centralisation capable of ruling and imposing people’s stakes and people’s strategies’ (Courpasson 2000, pp. 145-150)

Whilst this latter view seems to be sympathetic to the concept of the circularity of power, I have some reservations about its effectiveness in distributing organisational power. For example Nonaka (1994) argues that ‘while hierarchical formal organization mainly carries out the task of combination and internalization, self-organizing teams perform the task of socialization and externalization. This also improves the ability of an organization to survive, pp. 30-32. This view is however situational on the type of national cultures and appetite for risk. A high uncertainty avoidance and masculinity (Hofstede, 1991) culture like the Japanese may not necessarily take to a system with ambiguous responsibilities and boundaries around the decision making process. There is also the risk of teams developing a groupthink mentality and not necessarily viewing decisions from a variety of perspectives.

The idea of making decisions by consent is bound to create delays and paralysis in the organisation as some decisions will require more discussion to get the full consent of everyone. Admittedly some individuals in the circular unit may struggle to freely make decisions.

The concept of circularity does not tackle potential conflict of interest as defined by Jensen’s et al (1976) agency theory. After all who is to say employees will not be seeking to maximise their own wealth and security at the expense of financial stakeholders. Whilst the article uses a case study based in the Netherlands, which has a strong preference for stakeholder capitalism, it is severely limited by the lack of a similar comparator case study based in a country that espouses shareholder capitalism where the emphasis is on maximising shareholder value.

Overall the concept of circularity is a novel one that counter balances the traditional command and control structure. But the juxtaposition of domination and self determination show that simply putting forward an alternative form of organisation is not enough. There must be a more robust demonstration of its application in a wide variety of sectors and industries before it can be taken seriously.

References

Courpasson, D. ‘Managerial strategies of domination. Power in soft bureaucracies’, Organisation studies, 2000, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp.141-158

Georges, A. Romme, L. (1999), ‘Domination, Self determination and Circular organising’, Organisation studies, 1999, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp. 801-832

Hofstede, G. (1991), ‘Cultures and organisations’, London, McGraw-Hill

Jensen, Michael, and William Meckling (1976),’Theory of the firm: managerial behaviour, agency costs and ownership structure’, Journal of financial economics, Volume 3, pp. 305-360

Nonaka, Ikujiro (1994),’a dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation’, Organisation science, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp. 14-37

Weber, M. (1968),’Economy and society: an outline of interpretive sociology, edited by G Roth and C Wittich, New York, Bedminster press

Power and Politics

The issue of power and politics is important to managers in both the private and the public sector. We are all players in this field whether we are in total denial or ignorant of our external context. Pfeffer (2011) argues that ‘consciously seeking power is related to both managerial performance and career success’ pp. 101- 103. Hardy and Clegg defined power (1996, p.623) ‘as the ability to get others to do what you want them to do’. Power is closely related to politics which Pfeffer (1992) compares with control over resources and formal authority.

 The field of power and politics has in the past been subject to criticism from Pfeffer’s (2011) recent mistrust of modern day leadership literature and its disregard for broader social theory as well Mintzberg’s (1983) misplaced assumptions about the legitimacy of organisational politics.  

 Pfeffer (2011) argues that most leaders are great at self preservation; telling people what they want to hear; and in coming cross as noble and good. He notes that what most leadership books fail to mention frequently is the path of power and the role power played in enabling these individuals to get to the top. Furthermore the tendency for leaders to overemphasise (Pfeffer, 2011) their positive attributes need to be taken with a pinch of salt. An example is seen in Jack Welch’s winning which describes the management wisdom that Welch built during his reign at GE and how he transformed it successfully into a $4 billion operation. But the book also overlooks Welch’s self quest for power and prestige through a strategy ofmergers and acquisitions that was sometimes not in the interest of GE shareholders.

 Mintzberg’s dislike for organisational politics is seen in the way he describes it as ‘illegitimate, sanctioned neither by formal authority, accepted ideology, nor certified expertise'. pp. 172. Mintzberg however seems to confuse personal behaviour with organisational politics as later studies by Ferris et al (1996) articulated that self serving behaviour was a common theme in the definition of organisational politics. It will therefore be reasonable to argue for the separation of ‘self -serving behaviour’ and its attendant negative connotations from organisational politics which takes place around questions of priorities, policies and practices (Blackler, 2011).

 Other authors note the necessity of organisational politics. Morgan (1997) explains the importance of politics in providing ‘a means of allowing individuals to reconcile their differences through consultation and negotiation’, pp. 154.  Ammeter et al (2002) described political behaviour as activities designed to minimise the ambiguity that occurs in organisations and gives meanings to organisational life where uncertainty exists. In other words, politics enables one to navigate the complex corridors of organisational life which comes with a degree of messiness.

 Ultimately politics is power in action, Hardy (1996) cited in Hope (2010). Whilst it is tempting to jump on the politics bashing bandwagon, it is important to acknowledge the role of politics in influencing stakeholders and enabling managers to practice sensemaking (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991). Without a political process in organisational life, it is highly probable that individuals will be unable to resolve conflicts.

References

 Pfeffer, J. (2011) ‘Power: why some people have it – and others don’t’, Rotman Magazine, spring 2011, pp. 101-103.

 Pfeffer, J. (1992) Managing with Power: politics and influence in organizations, Cambridge, MA, Harvard Business School Press

 Hardy, C., & Clegg, S. (1996). Some dare call it power. In C. Hardy, S. Clegg, & W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of organization studies (pp. 622–641). London, UK: Sage

 Mintzberg, H. (1983), Power in and around organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 Ferris, G.R., D.D., Galang, M.C, Zhou, J., Kacmar, K.M and Howard, J.L. (1996) ‘Perceptions of organisational Politics: Prediction, Stress-Related Implications and Outcomes’, Human Relations, Vol 49, Issue 2, pp. 233-266.

 Blacker, F. (2011) ‘Power, politics, and intervention theory: Lessons from organization studies’, Theory and Psychology, October 2011, Vol 21, Issue 5, pp. 724-734

 Morgan, G. (1997), Images of organisations, Sage. London.

 Ammeter, A.P., Douglas, C., Gardner, W.L., Hochwarter, W.A and Ferris, G.R (2002), ‘Towards a political theory of leadership’, The Leadership quarterly, Vol 13, pp. 751-796

 Hope, O. (2010), ‘The politics of middle management sensemaking and sensegiving’, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 10, No.2, pp. 195-215

 Gioia, D.A and Chittipeddi, K. (1991), ‘Sensemaking and Sensegiving in strategic change initiation, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 12, Issue 6, pp. 433-448.

The limits of transformational leadership

According to Bass (1990), transformational leaders are characterised by charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration. These leaders influence their followers to go beyond their immediate goals and believe as if they are contributing to something greater than their individual goals and interests.

There are many examples of transformational leaders who have successfully influenced their followers via visions, dreams, constancy and through strong self awareness (Bennis, 1998).

Nelson Mandela became the president of South Africa after successfully fighting apartheid and despite the fact that he was incarcerated in an isolated island for more than twenty years. He went on to become the president of South Africa and unified the country. Mr Mandela strongly used symbolism and compelled his countrymen to follow him to a place where many thought was nonexistent. Today despite its structural problems of poverty and crime, South Africa is a thriving country when compared to other basket case examples like Zimbabwe. Mr Mandela’s dogged refusal to nationalise the economy and confiscate wealth from white South Africans laid the foundations for a stable economy and reassured international investors. Many may argue that this was a misguided policy that did not address the underlying issues of social injustice and poverty. This cynicism may even have some truth in it as there is always a risk of such high profile policy not working. But it will be hard to ignore the fact that South Africa will be a different country today were it not for the leadership of Mr Mandela and his believe in a rainbow nation.

Other examples of such leaders include Bill Clinton, MahatmaGandhi, Martin Luther King, Michael Collins and many more others. These were positive examples of transformational leaders who inspired their followers and changed policies, nations and borders.

But it must also be noted that there is a darker side to transformational leadership. Given that transformational leaders influence our emotional state and our idealised projection of the world around us, it is no wonder that history is littered with examples where followers were deliberately misguided. Kets de Vries (1997) describes how ‘the emotional legacy of the past pushes followers into displacing many of their historic hopes and fantasies onto the present leader’ (pp. 262). In this way, followers abandon their self direction and meaning and become emotionally and intellectually de-skilled. In the story of ‘the owl who was God’, Thurber (1965) describes how the animals’ inadequate investigations led to the Owl’s values not being accurately assessed. The author alerts us to the danger of taking too many things at face value without looking at the alternatives to our own peril. Needless to say the followers of David Koresh and Adolf Hitler were influenced by a dark side of transformational leadership.

So what does this mean for the concept of transformational leadership and how can it overcome these criticisms.

Transformational leadership has potential to promote organisational effectiveness. Meta analytic review of this subject by Judge and Piccolo (2004) shows that transformational leadership had an augmentation effect over transactional leadership and how this was related to performance at the team and organisational levels. Moreover, transformational leadership appeared to display stronger relationships with criteria that reflect follower satisfaction and motivation than with criteria that reflect performance (pp. 760-768).

Given the importance of this type of leadership, it is no wonder that some writers are proposing a continuation and perhaps a renewal of this type of leadership. Sanders, Hopkins and Geroy (2003) propose what they call ‘transcendental theory of leadership’. They argue for the integration of transactional and transformational leadership through the spiritual dimensions of consciousness, morality and faith. Whilst this theory is relatively new and not yet fully subjected to thorough reviews, it is wise to question how the concept of spiritually fits in with the dynamic and agile environment of the business world.

Despite its weaknesses and potential for abuse, transformational leadership appears to be well suited for dealing with complexity, ambiguity, uncertainty, tensions and risk. So long as it is subjected to adequate checks and balances, organisations and individuals will probably benefit from this type of leadership.

References

Bass, B.M. (1990) ‘From transactional to transformational leadership – learning to share the vision’, Organisational Dynamics, 18(3), pp. 19-31

Bennis, W. (1998) On becoming a Leader, Reading, Arrow

Judge, T. A. & Piccolo, R. F. (2004), Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 755-768.

Kets de Vries, M. (1994) Academy of Management Executive, 8(3), pp. 73-92 (Reprinted in Grint, 1997)

Sanders, J.E.(3^rd), Hopkins, W.E. & Geroy, G.D. (2003). From transactional to transcendental: toward an integrated theory of leadership. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9(4), pp. 21-31.

Thurber, J. (1965) Vintage Thurber, London, Hamish Hamilton.

Reflection and Learning

TMA02 requires a consideration of the learning that my proposed initiative is intended to give me. I have reviewed a number of theories including Kolb’s experiential learning cycle, Ramsey’s reflective learning and Johnson’s action learning framework.

Kolb’s cycle involves paying careful attention to a recollection of what happened, trying very hard not to rule out those parts of a situation that are uncomfortable to recall for whatever reason. The problem I have with this theory is that it assumes humans are rational and that thoughts can be rebuilt in a logical way that makes sense. Furthermore it tends to ignore the inherent human bias of projecting what we think people want (Covey, 1989) and in the process reinforcing our worldview through this mindset.

I found Ramsey’s reflective framework, cited in Pedlar et al (2001) interesting as it brings in the important dimension of our feelings and asks us to reconsider why we acted as we did in particular circumstances. This also requires adopting a long term ‘journaling’ technique with individuals being encouraged to use learning logs and journals. I must say this is a preferred way of learning for me as it gives me the opportunity to reflect on my experiences by taking time out from everything rather than the impulsive Kolb’s cycle. The feelings dimension also recognises the importance of tacit learning and forces one to question deeply held assumptions without shouting from the top of the tree. It makes me appreciate why I react in a certain way and enables me to control or redirect disruptive impulse and think before acting (Goleman, 1998).

An important critique of both these models is that they assume learning is an individualistic endeavour and ignore the tendency of human beings to cling to a particular way of viewing the world and not necessarily tolerating the ambiguity of holding multiple and sometimes conflicting perspectives of a situation. What is required to nature a true learning experiencing is a Janusian way of looking at situations and being comfortable with uncertainty.

It was for these reasons that I embarked on further research and came across the action learning model cited by Johnson (1998) in the Journal of workplace learning. Johnson argues that the critical aspect of this model is the action learning set where between four and six learners come together by talking through their problems and personally taking action. Johnson also emphasises that each problem may have a number of different answers due to the individual’s value systems and past achievements.

 I strongly relate to this notion of talking through problems as I am currently engaged with a group of fellow students where we discuss issues on a weekly basis. We use social media and internet telephony to connect virtually. I also find that this arrangement replicates the Open University environment and in a way resembles the tutor group forum but in a rather active way. Each participant reflects on his or her past actions and the group provides an opportunity for the individual to unravel their problems. The individuals then take action to change and learn from experience. For me this has enabled me to gain new perspectives on making sense of some difficult theories. Talking to these colleagues has also given me the opportunity to bounce off ideas in a relatively safe environment without being subjected to criticism by my some of my managers. It has also enabled me to structure my thoughts in a more disciplined way by spending more time on my reflections.

Undoubtedly the action learning model has some shortfalls in terms of disagreements between the participants due to their cultural and organisational contexts. There may also be issues around group dynamics and how some members may not ‘fit’ in with others. Despite these potential flaws, the model works as it is meant to challenge assumptions and push individuals to come up with solutions to their own problems.

References

Covey, S.R (1989) ‘The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People’ Simon and Schuster, London, p. 252.

Goleman, D. (1998), ‘How to become a leader’ in Henry (2001)

Johnson, C (1998), ‘The essential principles of action learning’, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 10, issue 6, pp. 296-300

Kolb, D. (1984), Experiential learning, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall

Ramsey, C. (2006) ‘Introducing Reflective Learning, Open University, Thanet Press, Kent

The future is bright !

Today, I met with a significant organisational actor and really pleased with the support and offer of assistance in pushing forward my EBI. Whist there are some powerful elements who are committed to the status quo, it is encouraging to see commitment coming from such a high level corner within the organisation. This was an important hurdle to cross and reminds of the article on tipping point leadership where Bill Bratton reformed the New York Police department. Whilst the circumstances and the context is clearly different, my organisation is similar to the NYPD in that it is financed by the public and has also vested interests committed to maintaining the status quo.

Reference

W. Chan Kim, Renee A. Mauborgne
Source: Harvard Business Review
14 pages. Publication date: Apr 01, 2003. Prod. #: R0304D-PDF-ENG

        

Creative Leadership

I have been distracted by last week’s exam for a module on creativity, innovation and change! I am so glad to have written that exam.

To top off the theories of leadership, I feel that it will be appropriate to look at this important issue from the viewpoint of creativity and in particular what it means to be a creative leader. B822 is full of examples of creative leaders that have contributed so much to their organisations from the reclusive Darwin Smith of Kimberley Clark to the extraverted Steve Jobs. One thing is for sure, these leaders shared determination and drive to make enduring changes in their organisations and industry.

 A number of authors have commented on the special status of creative leaders and how they manage differently from other leaders. Kanter (1991) argues that these individuals’ posses what she calls a ‘kaleidoscope view’. She compares this to their ability to possess a number of viewpoints, question assumptions, rearrange their thinking and most importantly be comfortable with holding conflicting perspectives.

 Ross (2005) articulates the concept of ‘distributed leadership. This is in stark contrast to the traditional command and control supervision with its emphasis on control and monitoring of staff. The author underlines the relevance of this type of leadership in today’s knowledge economy where the work of professionals is not amenable to traditional supervision. Barry (1991) further cautions against what he calls ‘person centred approaches’ of leadership and how they can undermine knowledge workers by injecting group dynamics and politics into the workplace.

 Creative leaders are however not without critics. Reich (1989) disparages what he calls ‘heroic individual’ as the typical stereotype of creative leadership. He calls for a different mode of leadership in this circumstances; one based on a state of collective entrepreneurship and multi -professional teams relying upon the talent and creativity of all employees in the organisation. Collins and Porras (2001) caution against what they refer to as ‘great leaders making great stories'. These authors however compare leadership using a number of levels with the best leaders achieving a ‘level 5 leadership'. They argue that level 5 leaders combine’ intense personal humility with extreme professional will’. For example they use the example of how Darwin Smith turned around the fortunes of Kimberly Clark whilst staying away from the limelight. This was in contrast to the publicity seeking Lee Iacoca who became too important to leave his post at Chrysler but eventually ignored the company whilst he pursued personal fame.

 Ultimately these authors underline the importance of vision, charisma and drive in leadership but they also offer a simplified view to the complexity of what makes a creative person provide leadership in a successful organisation. More research is required in how this type of leadership is different from the hard nosed notion of managing business performance and whether this is simply a type of fad that disguises the difficult leadership style of entrepreneurs.

References

Barry, D. (1991) ‘Managing the Bossless Team: Lessons in distributed Leadership’, Organisational Dynamics, Vol.20, No. 1.  

 Collins, J.C (2001) ‘Level 5 Leadership’, Harvard Business Review, 79, 1 (January)

 Kanter, R.M (1991) ‘Change-master skills: what it takes to be creative’ in Henry, J. and Walker, D (1991)

 Reich, R.B. (1987) ‘Entrepreneurship reconsidered: the team as hero’, Harvard Business Review, May-June.

 Ross, L., Rix, M and Gold, J (2005) ‘Learning Distributed Leadership: Part 1, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 37, No. 3.

Leadership

As part of TMA02, I have been researching theories of leadership and surprised to discover that Fielder's (1976) contingency theory of leadership is still relevant in the present day. This theory posits that the relationship between a leadership style and leadership is contingent upon the situation. The deficiency of this theory is however in its assumption that the situation determines who will emerge as a leader. Furthermore Fielder's theory uses the LPC measure and it is unclear what how this really measures the aspects of leadership. Whilst this theory has significantly contributed to the development of leadership as a subject, more research is required to understand how attitudes and behaviours affect leadership.

Reference

Fiedler, F. E. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Meeting with important stakeholders

I have had a number of productive meetings with a number of influential actors over the last few days. Due to the sensitive nature of my initiative, I am unable to say a lot about what happened but it looks extremely promising.

Stakeholders

Today I reviewed an article by Ackermann and Eden (1998) where they argue stakeholders only matter when they have influence and power to directly affect the organisation's future. This reminds me of the resource dependence theory (Mitchell et al, 1997) during my Strategy course (B820). This theory argues that organisations should only pay attention to those stakeholders that contribute significant resources to the organisation. This has however all sorts of ethical dilemmas for all types of stakeholders. Hosmer (1994) suggests that by bringing ethics back into the strategic planning process; stakeholders’ interests and rights will be ethically addressed by senior executives in the decision making process.


I realise that Freeman's (1984) definition of stakeholders as 'any group or an individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organisation's objectives' is far more appropriate for the purpose of my project. This is to enable me build long term support and commitment from a diverse range of stakeholders in my organisation. For example Lippit and Lippit (1984) categorise what they call the 'client' as target, leverage and beneficiary clients. Here the focus is on prioritising which stakeholders to engage with during different times of a project. On the other hand, Neuman et al (1997) emphasise involving what they term as 'significant organisational actors' during the planning and negotiation stage of a project to reduce resistance to change and build a coalition of supporters. However this assertion fails to capture the views of other equally important 'actors' whose influence and importance can change over time.


Ultimately, an organisation must develop a range of strategies to engage with different stakeholders irrespective of their importance to ensure long term success and survival.


Reference


Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. (1998) Making Strategy: The journey of strategic management. London


Freeman, R.E (1984) Strategic Management: A stakeholder approach, Boston, MA, Harpers Collins


Hosmer, L.T. (1994) 'Strategic planning as if ethics mattered', Strategic Management Journal


Lippit, R. and Lippit, G. (1984) 'Consulting roles' in R.J. Lee and A.M. Freedman (eds) Consultation Skills Reading, Arlington. Virginia.


Mitchell, R.K., Agle, B.R. and Woods, D.J (1997) 'Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts', Academy of Management Review


Neumann, J.E (1997) in (eds) Neumann, J.E., Kellner, K. and Dawson-Shepherd, A., Developing Organisational Consultancy, Routledge

Hierarchy of objectives

I have just read an interesting article by Granger(1964) on the importance of viewing objectives as a whole framework or complex aims and other guiding considerations. This article provides the basis for validating the objectives of my EBI and how they link with the overall objectives of my organisation.

Of thoughts and Reflections

The purpose of this blog is to capture my journey as I progress in the final stages of my Open University MBA. This will also enable me to critically reflect on my own learning and development as a manager.

I have previously been recording my thoughts and reflections using a personal diary but I found that this was a cumbersome and inconvenient way of capturing my experiences. I hope this will be a more useful medium as I intend to use this for the duration of my course.