Paradigm shifts in training and development : naturalistic study of management change during organization transformation

Graduation date: 1994The need for organizational transformation is a response to a larger\ud paradigm shift occurring in science and society. It represents a shift from the\ud mechanistic model to a systems, holistic model. The purpose of this study was\ud to determine patterns and practices that limit training effectiveness when\ud facilitating a major organizational paradigm shift. A literature survey\ud identified major clashes between those values and tools of organizational\ud models based on the new paradigm and those of bureaucracy, bureaucratic\ud management and training relationships, domains and dynamics.\ud Participant observation and interviews were the methods used to collect\ud data from a study group of 15 upper middle managers involved as a pilot\ud management team in the first year of TQM implementation at a public\ud university. The group was closely observed during five months of training\ud and 10 participants were interviewed at the end of the first year of\ud implementation.\ud Their stories revealed four obstacles to transformation: 1) managers were\ud coerced into complying, change was imposed from above, there were no\ud appropriate support systems and fear was endemic; 2) the management team\ud had more difficulty than non-management TQM teams learning the mechanics\ud of TQM, claiming they didn't have necessary learning skills; 3) managers\ud protected themselves by rewriting the rules of TQM to fundamentally preserve\ud the status quo; 4) managers defined the TQM effort a success without\ud substantive personal change, pushing responsibility down and praise up in the\ud organization.\ud These obstacles were inherent in the bureaucratic system that effectively\ud protected the managers from substantive change. The conclusion was drawn\ud that four conditions were missing for a major organizational paradigm shift:\ud 1) a willingness to risk, coupled with organizational support; 2) deep learning\ud skills that provide personal context for learning: 3) shared vision, and; 4)\ud personal mastery. Training patterns and practices reflected the same missing\ud conditions.\ud The training program was powerless in the transformation effort because:\ud 1) it modeled and reproduced the old instead of the new wisdom, values, tools\ud and ways of thinking and talking, during the transformation process; 2) the\ud learning capacity implicit in the training program was limited in the same\ud ways management was, by missing support structures, willingness and ability\ud to change, and shared vision; 3) it depended on traditional relationships and\ud dynamics, despite new domain, and was not seen as a credible transformation\ud agent