By Shadreck Zangairai
Some change scholars argue that over the past 20 years, emergent change appears to have outdated the planned change as the most appropriate approach. I believe that, within such complex, competitive and unpredictable business environment, decision makers often struggle to stabilize their enterprises and select change alternatives due to uncertainty of using planned change and the need for flexibility and dexterity to leverage emergent change. Thus the continued environmental turbulence forces decision makers to discard planned change as it is perceived to be out of sync with the environmental changes.
My other critical analysis of planned change is that there is a strong assumption that an organization’s environment is known and change can then be prescribed to facilitate movement from one state to another. However, considering that the contemporary environment is unpredictable and requires continued scanning, such a view warrants adoption of emergent change as the logical alternate to planned change since it allows for flexibility to offer a different remedy when the situation so demands. Emergent change emphasizes on the need to be adaptive and responsive to change that revolves around the business, which change is environmentally driven. Some change is on-going in nature and planned change in that case becomes a wrong prescription since the nature of change is unpredictable making emergent change a coherent alternative to planned change.
In addition, I concur with some scholars who posit that the natural change that has been recorded on earth (evolution of man) has been as a result of emergent change as no one planned for it. Biblically, when Adam and Eve discovered that they had no clothing, they had to put on some tree branches because of the emergent need for dignity and cover due to shy which had evolved. That change was not prescribed but just emerged. Therefore modern dressing can be traced back to creation and there has been some evolutionary process which discarded the old dressing. This is emergent change which without prescribing, naturally forces everyone to adapt. Another example related to that will be the transformation of communication systems from paintings, script writings, type writing, computing to modern e-mail platforms. All this is testimony that our communication system underwent some emergent or evolution. The recipients also changed in line with the evolving transformations which were not planned. This bears testimony that one cannot plan for natural change thereby making emergent change an alternate to planned change.
Furthermore, I also agree with Peters’ assertion that emergent change is also not production oriented. Product changes are planned by research and development teams based on the anticipated taste changes of the targeted consumer. In such cases, emergent change only comes when fulfilling the new product demands. An example will be Apple’s IPods and ITunes which are products being driven by planned change where there is need to come up with new gadgets that satisfy consumer needs. These gadgets lead to the market disappearance of records, compact disks and other providers of physical media and a new order would emerge as to how to access music. There will be some coherence on the need to move towards the new order without anyone being pushed towards it hence no need for planning. This makes emergent change a substitute as one cannot plan for the new order.
In addition, emergent change must not be construed to refer to short term. A new order may emerge over long term requiring continued monitoring and revision of the change approaches. If one sticks to a planned change approach, it may fail to correctly respond because of its inflexibility. One example would be if all natural resources are used up, a new order will certainly emerge which is difficult to plan for now. In such a case, emergent change will take its toll because the future is unknown at the moment though there are arguments of sustainable use of the resources. Solutions to the problems that emerge then will only be availed when the change has happened and when the situation so demands. In such a case, emergent change would have substituted planned change because that change was not planned for.
There are a number of factors that keeps on changing in the environment which include the political, economic, technological, social, legal to mention a few. Such factors are externally driven and may not be in sync with planned change making need to adopt the alternative emergent approach. An organization may find itself in a mis-fit with the environment which demands re-alignment. With the environment becoming so unpredictable, change has to emerge from time to time making emergent change an alternate to planned change. The environmental system is too complex making it difficult for organizations that do not respond to the environment fail to adapt and their survival is therefore threatened.
Emergent change is often needed when an organization gets out of sync with itself. The organization will just sense that something is wrong and re-alignment may be required. This type of change cannot be addressed by a planned change since it was not pre-emptied and known. This may be due to complexities associated with organizational size, loss of critical skills. This misalignment only calls for restructuring of the organization such that it gets back to its footing. In such a case, emergent approach becomes an alternative to planned change.
I am impressed by Buchanan and Storey’s view that those who advocate planned change are attempting to impose an “order and linear sequence on processes that are in reality messy and untidy, and which unfold in an iterative fashion with much backbreaking. The Executives who are able to align the organization to adaptive changes would certainly advocate for emergent change as an alternate to planned change since it allows for flexibility in the changing environment. This shows that the planned approach by virtue of it being prescriptive would not work in a slump situation making emergent change a coherent alternate to planned change. Many organizations thus do not accept that they are in a chaotic situation which inhibits them from realizing competency. This explains why most organizations prefer planned change as opposed to emergent change since emergent change is deemed to expose leaders as it resembles incompetence. However, emergent change is the only prescription which works in a chaotic situation as it allows for fire fighting. It is therefore an alternate to planned change in a disastrous situation.
To be continued next week!
