Change management: who can fix the new system?
During organisational change, deployment responsibilities are generally more explicit than users' rights to correct problems. The management question is precise: what can a team do when the new system prevents it from handling a work situation properly?
What the literature establishes
Paul S. Adler and Bryan Borys (1996, Administrative Science Quarterly) distinguish between two forms of formalisation: one supports the performance of work, while the other prioritises control over compliance. In their theoretical framework, the ability to repair breakdowns is a characteristic of enabling formalisation. Applied to change, this distinction invites scrutiny not only of the rules introduced, but also of the means available to users to address malfunctions.
A routine is more than its description
Martha S. Feldman and Brian T. Pentland (2003, Administrative Science Quarterly) propose distinguishing the general pattern of a routine from its concrete performances. Their analysis explains how routines can produce stability, but also variation and change. A difficulty encountered in carrying out the work can therefore reveal a mismatch that the official description could not anticipate.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that everyone should be allowed to modify the system as they see fit. These papers do not justify that prescription: being able to report, understand and obtain a correction for a defect does not mean being free to depart from a requirement. In the food industry in particular, any correction must remain compatible with safety and traceability obligations. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these papers do not demonstrate
Both articles develop theoretical frameworks rather than trials comparing different correction policies during a transformation. They therefore cannot establish an optimal level of autonomy or promise a performance gain. In practice, an officially available correction channel may also remain unusable if nobody has the time or authority to respond.
A practical check in Fribourg
Within the SHR — Swiss Human Resources programme « Conduite du changement », one possible practical exercise in Fribourg is to test the correction process for a new system in a food company, a bilingual industrial site or a service within the university sector. Over an observation period defined in advance, record each reported defect, the language of the report, the person responsible who was contacted and the response provided. Then calculate the proportion of reports receiving a traceable response within the announced deadline: an authorised correction, an approved temporary solution or a reasoned refusal. Reviewing the French- and German-language cases allows the accessibility of the process to be checked, without confusing response speed with solution quality. To go further: explore the Change Leadership training in Fribourg in the canton of Fribourg, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Change Leadership in Fribourg
- change leadership
- Fribourg
- research
- training fribourg