View/Open - Naval Postgraduate School

approaches are teleological. Huy (2001) further elaborates the teleological model by
outlining four different engines (or intervention theories) and, correspondingly, different kinds
of change agents that are called for: 1) commanding approaches which are directed toward
formal work structures; 2) engineering approaches directed towards work processes and job
design; 3) teaching approaches that are directed toward beliefs; and 4) socializing
approaches directed toward social relationships. These are ideal type models, and most
large-scale change efforts involve combinations, if not inclusion, of all four intervention
approaches. Therefore, we also seek to understand the importance of the order and
combination of these approaches as we apply these types to DoD organizations.
Commanding Interventions: are aimed at changes in formal structures. Much of
the strategic management literature assumes a commanding change model. Change agents
tend to take on the role of commander engaging in activities like strategic planning,
competitive analyses, and portfolio management. These efforts are traditionally directed by
“top team.” Efforts are directed to get the rest of the organization to comply with the
dominant coalition’s plans. This is an appropriate mode when change targets are tangible
(Theory E), such as changing people, downsizing, restructuring. This is not the kind of
approach that would be successful if the goal was to change beliefs or values. When
change needs to be quick and produce an immediate effect, commanding approaches are
appropriate. As we hinted earlier and explore more fully below, commanding interventions
are almost always the initial model in DoD systems.
Engineering Interventions: tend to be focused on work processes. Re-engineering
efforts, total quality efforts, socio-technical and job-design changes are engineering
interventions. They include efforts to redesign business processes; efforts directed at cost,
quality, service and speed are engineering interventions. Change agents tend to focus on
analyzing detailed work specifications and redesigning work processes to improve quality of
production. Change targets are seen as rational (motivated by economic self-interest).
Change agents tend to be task analysts who diagnose work processes and organizational
designs. In engineering intervention, efficiency is the most important goal.
Teaching interventions: tend to be focused on changing beliefs. This often involves
teaching about ideas, values, points of view, how to motivate people, decision-making
capacity, awareness of mental models, similar to what Chin and Benne called a normativere-educative
method. Efforts are made to uncover participants’ values and beliefs. Much of
this work is cognition based; targets are often cognitive dysfunctions and culture change.
Change agents tend to have a-priori models. (As we explore more fully below, teaching
holonistic organizing principles to people in DoD organizations is a sizable challenge).
Socializing interventions: Socializing interventions pertain to changes in social
relationships and involve power distribution and alterations in decision-making patterns.
Examples of socializing interventions include team building and semi-autonomous work
groups. The assumption here is that changes in roles and behaviors precede changes in
beliefs. Following socio-technical systems theory, the assumption is that social learning
processes occur mostly within groups. Most of these interventions are efforts to create semiautonomous
work groups; empowered decision-making in an effort to adapt to unpredictable
environments or changing circumstances; to permit decisions to be made at the point where
action is needed (as opposed to referring decisions to others who have authority but lack
intimate knowledge of problems needing to be addressed). Change agents tend to be
facilitators and coaches.
=
==================^Åèìáëáíáçå=oÉëÉ~êÅÜW=`ob^qfkd=pvkbodv=clo=fkclojba=`e^kdb====- 95 -
=
=