Search

The new organizational forms literature argues that in a dynamic business environment, new ways of organizing are required to ensure speed, flexibility and innovation. Originally it was asserted that the new organizational practices, after a period of transition, would replace the old practices, such as formalization and centralization. An alternative view has emerged recently which argues that old and new practices are compatible and can co-exist. The focus of this study was to test the emerging compatibility view by surveying Australian human resource managers. We found that organizations utilize new organizational practices but that traditional practices such as formalization and centralization remain important features of organizational design. Comparing our findings to an earlier study by Palmer and Dunford (2002) provides longitudinal support in favour of the compatibility argument. The key to understanding the use of new organizational forms may lie in the interaction between old and new practices: their co-existence appears to be an enduring rather than a transitory feature of Australian organizational design.

We pick up a current challenge in the change management literature - whether change can be managed. The answer to this question depends upon the underlying image one has of both managing and change. We develop a model based upon two images of managing (management as controlling; management as shaping) and three images of change outcomes (intended, partially intended and unintended). From this we identify six views on managing change: directing, navigating, caretaking, coaching, interpreting and nurturing. We outline different theories associated with each of these views. Theorists and practitioners hold differing images of what managing change actually means - which leads them to talk past each other when attempting to engage in dialogue around how change can be managed.