The following post is a review/critique of :
Luscher, S.L. & Lewis, M.W. 2008. Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking: Working through Paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 51: 221-240
Luscher & Lewis go into a somewhat different and unique investigation of the organizational change process by applying action research to Lego which was undergoing a profound change. In a much more dynamic and involving process of close interactions with change actors – mostly mid-level managers – the researchers engaged in multi-level observations, interactions and interventions, which allowed for a vibrant process in which researchers both offered support to the organization and managers while learning and theorizing about the organizational change as it is taking place.
Critic on this article probably has to first address the action research method described. Personally, I’ve always thought action research to be a fascinating qualitative process that allows for richness and depth not easily achieved by other qualitative and especially quantitative approaches. From a practitioner perspective, action research is perhaps comparable to clinical psycho-therapy at the organizational level, also involving applied learning into the next cycle of the ongoing process. While psychiatric drugs and behavioral cognitive treatments have their own place in patient treatment, there’s no real substitute for the meaning and significance psychotherapy offers, for both individuals and organizations. As such, it is also a powerful approach to gain an in-depth valuable insight into organizational life, focusing on the human aspect rather than the sometimes cold traditional research variables. And so, outcome variables that are essential in most qualitative inquires take a different form here, as researchers were not concerned with the likes of performance measures, but rather allowing managers – and the organization – to deal with the uncertainty and pressure of change. Many question the “profit in” or even general contribution of action research and psychotherapeutic approaches to bottom line, but I personally have no doubt in their importance.
This article, as far as my limited understanding of action research allows, does a superb job of outlining the approach, the process, the methods and the researchers’ conclusions. The paradox theme, probably familiar to all of us from our organizational experiences, is very nicely demonstrated and addressed. Triangulation with multiple and external observers allowed the researchers to try achieve more balance and objectivity in what is undoubtfully a very involving and emotional process.
Although my training and understanding of organizational life has mostly been on the quantitative side, I would personally like to see more of such research in top-tier journals. I believe this article, as well as some of the top-tier journals, all show that we have slowly been moving towards a direction suggesting that we might be in need of a fresh perspective into organizations and that the clear boundaries once set between research and practicing, between mere scientific observations and practical involving contributions, should perhaps be challenged for us to be able to move forward in our role as academic researchers. As with the organizational change described in the paper, this change probably involves a lot of work and uncertainty and doesn’t offer a deterministic clear future for academy, but at the end – I have a feeling both the organizational world and academicians are to gain.
