Michael Beer and Nitin Nohria.

Michael Beer and Nitin Nohria, ed Boston: Harvard Business place of education Press, 2000, 507 pp. $4500

Breaking the collection of laws of Change is the published issue of a research conference through the same name held at Harvard Business teach during 1998. The volume's editors, Michael Beer and Nitin Nohria, note in the preface that the participants consisted of a relatively small assign places to of leading academics, consultants, and senior managers brought together to address the issue of wherefore corporate change efforts are in such a manner often unsuccessful.

If there was a "code" that could unfasten our understanding of how change might best be managed, it had not still been broken. . . We felt these outstanding minds might enable us to take an important first degree in developing an integrative conceptual framework that would inform the question being asked according to managers around the world: for what cause do I go about managing change effectively? (pp x-xi)

The interview had an unusual design that is contemplateed in the book's structure. The first day of the meeting for consultation was organized around three case studies of major corporate changes--Scott Paper, Champion International, and ASDA (a large British groceries chain subsequently acquired by Wal-Mart)--that are referr to completely through the book's chapters. The remaining pair days of the conference were organized around a place of debates about best practice that form the core of the book

The first chapter, at Beer and Nohria, "Resolving the Tension between Theories E and O of Change," fixs the stage for the debates through outlining two opposing views forward organizational change. Theories E and O parallel Douglas McGregor's classic distinction between theories X and Y Theory E change focuses upon the creation of economic value by means of formal strategies, structures, and regularitys Theory 0 change, in contrast, is a high-commitment example that focuses on developing an organization's human capability to implement strategy and learn. Beer and Nohria note that the approaches to change embedded in the one and the other theories are valid but that "too frequently these theories are mixed without the resolution of the inherent tension between them. This leads, we argue, to the maximization of take away froms and the minimization of the potential benefits of each theory" (p 4) They indicate that the inherent tension between the approaches might be resolv at sequencing them, as is ofttimes done in turnaround efforts when single management team is brought in to make chops and strategically reposition an organization (Theory E) and then another management team succeeds to heal the organizational and human damage (Theory 0) Alternatively, they insinuate that it is possible to integrate the brace approaches, which is a more difficult course, usually with different management team members representing the different change originals The danger, as the authors note, is that neither archetype of change initiative is implemented well and that "half measures are equally ineffective; they are likely to obtain the worst issues of both strategies and none of the benefits of either" (p 30)

These tensions are explored from top to toe the remaining chapters of the part in a series of seven debates among leading scholars, managers, and consultants. Each of the seven debates contains a chapter arguing from a Theory E perspective and another from a Theory O perspective. The debates are organized around seven themes: Michael Jensen and Peter Senge square opposite to over the purpose of change and whether managers should be be of importance toed primarily with increasing shareholder value or an organization's capacity to learn. Warren Bennis and Jay Conger debate the parts of top-down versus participative leadership in change efforts. Jay Galbraith and Larry Hirschhorn focus in succession whether change efforts are best l by dint of structural or cultural change initiatives. Sumantra Ghoshal and Christopher Bartlett face along with Karl Weick to explore whether planned or emergent change efforts are more effective. Karen Wruck and Gerald Ledford near arguments about whether changes in compensation hypothesiss should lead or lag a change effort. Terry Neill and Craig Mindrum debate Robert Schaffer across the role of consultants in change efforts. Should they forward as expert advisors in designing and implementing large-scale change programs or guide an organization's members within the process of initiating smaller plans aimed at achieving measurable results? Finally, Andrew Van de Ven and Chris Argyris debate the issue of for what reason change research should be leadershiped as a scientific endeavor that creates generalizable knowledge or as action research focusing onward actionable results.

As you might suspect, given the caliber of the authors, the quality of the individual chapters is quite high, each author arguing cogently a position for which he or she is well known. The single in kind exception is Warren Bennis, a noted author onward leadership, who was cast in the character of arguing against the proposition that prosperous change must be led from the top. Bennis apparently didn't find the part too arduous. He opens his chapter through noting that "getting impaled in succession the horns of a false dichotomy was rather more drollery than I had anticipated" (p 113) Overall, each chapter provides a clear and persuasively argued statement onward organizational change.