Duality Theory and Organizing Forms in Change Management

This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of Newfoundland]On: 09 October 2014, At: 11:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Change ManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjcm20

Duality Theory and Organizing Forms inChange ManagementFiona Graetz a & Aaron C. T. Smith ba School of Management & Marketing , Deakin University ,Burwood, Australiab RMIT Business , RMIT University , Melbourne, AustraliaPublished online: 20 Apr 2009.

To cite this article: Fiona Graetz & Aaron C. T. Smith (2009) Duality Theory and Organizing Forms inChange Management, Journal of Change Management, 9:1, 9-25, DOI: 10.1080/14697010902727146

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697010902727146

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjcm20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/14697010902727146

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697010902727146

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Duality Theory and Organizing Formsin Change Management

FIONA GRAETZ� & AARON C. T. SMITH��

�School of Management & Marketing, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia, ��RMIT Business, RMIT

University, Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT This paper employs the results from a survey of organizing forms in Australia’s largestpublic companies between 2000–2004 to demonstrate the salience of duality theory in changemanagement. The survey sought to identify trends in forms of organizing and the extent to whichthe uptake of new forms led to a decrease in traditional forms of organizing as measured across theorganizational dimensions of structures, processes and boundaries. The results indicate that thekey coordinating and control features of traditional bureaucracy continue to play an essential role,providing stability and ensuring accountability, uniformity and quality. However, managing theambiguities of a rapidly changing and volatile environment is beyond bureaucracy’s traditionalrepertoire of routines. More flexible, responsive forms of organizing, able to cope with change anduncertainty, are required. That these new, more flexible forms can operate successfully withinlarger, bureaucratic structures testifies that bureaucracies are dynamic entities, able to adapt andaccommodate new forms of organizing. Duality theory is operationalized in terms of five dualitycharacteristics, employed as principles to explain the composition and balance of traditional andnew forms of organizing that was observed empirically. The paper culminates with the propositionthat a dualities aware perspective offers a potential way forward in managing the balance betweenwhat have traditionally been viewed as the contradictory forces of continuity and change.

KEY WORDS: Forms of organizing, dual forms, dualities aware perspective, structural dualities,process dualities, boundary dualities

Changing Forms of Organizing

In the context of an environment characterized by complexity, turbulence andvolatility, the popular message through the last two decades of the twentiethcentury was for the overhaul of traditional, functionally specialized, hierarchical

Journal of Change Management

Vol. 9, No. 1, 9–25, March 2009

Correspondence Address: Fiona Graetz, School of Management & Marketing, Faculty of Business and

Law, Deakin University, Melbourne Campus, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia.

Email: [email protected]

1469-7017 Print/1479-1811 Online/09/010009–17 # 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/14697010902727146

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

systems and structures. New forms of organizing were singled out as pivotalcomponents in change management interventions. Management attention nowhad to consider forms of organizing that would foster innovation, flexibility andorganizational capabilities. Traditional bureaucratic forms of organizing workedto ensure stability and order within an environment that was relatively benignand predictable. However, in a complex, highly competitive and increasinglyglobal environment, simply having the right planning systems and structures inplace was no longer enough.

At the same time, amidst the criticisms of bureaucracy, a growing body ofresearchers suggested that both traditional and new forms of organizing have acritical role to play in ‘twenty first century’ organizations. The suggestion wasthat organizations must learn to manage the concomitant need for both old andnew organizational practices: nurturing innovation alongside rigorous financialand operational systems, and balancing formalized, central controls and policieswith decentralized decision-making that would support more flexible forms oforganizing. This led to a conceptual problem in that organizing forms and theirunderpinning change philosophies had tended to be viewed as mutually exclusive.Stability comes at the price of flexibility, with rapid organizational change repre-senting a preparedness to relinquish certainty. However, as the empirical data pre-sented in this paper show, organizations have not responded to environmentalturbulence by surrendering their traditional structures in favor of new organizingforms. Despite radical calls to dismantle traditional bureaucracy, this did notrepresent a realistic response for organizations. The key coordinating andcontrol features of traditional bureaucracy continue to play an essential role,ensuring accountability, uniformity and quality, and, ironically, providing reassur-ing continuity and stability in a world of change. The data suggest that Australianorganizations adopted a range of new forms of organizing while continuing tooperate traditional forms in an innovative hybrid composition. It is our propositionthat this emergent organizing form composition and the organizational changes itinstigated can be better understood when conceptualized with duality theory.

Drawing on the findings of an Australian study investigating the extent ofchange in forms of organizing taking place in Australia’s largest public companiesbetween 2000–2004, this paper explores organizing form dualities and theorizesabout their composition and subsequent management. First, the evolution of formsof organizing is explored to provide a context for the subsequent discussion ofdualities, their defining characteristics, and their relevance in the managementof organizing forms. Second, following from the discussion of dualities, the con-ceptual framework and research method are outlined and results of the study arepresented. The findings are then discussed and evaluated against the character-istics of a dualities aware perspective. In conclusion, theoretical and practicalimplications are discussed and duality theory offered as a mechanism for animproved understanding of organizing forms and change management.

Evolving Forms of Organizing

The application of structure and hierarchy to create order and set direction hascharacterized institutional forms of organizing for hundreds of years. However,

10 F. Graetz & A. C. T. Smith

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

the early twentieth century industrialists, operating in an era governed by a rigidclass structure, and with a largely uneducated, disempowered working class attheir disposal, took hierarchy to new levels (Limerick and Cunnington, 1993;Ashkenas et al., 2002). The classical management perspective has its basis in scien-tific management, classical organization theory, classical economics, and bureau-cratic theory (Volberda, 1998; Pettigrew and Fenton, 2000). Taylor’s principlesof scientific management propounded a systematic approach to the managementof organizational activity based largely on the efficiencies of specialization.Scientific management’s contribution to the classical management approach wasa perspective on job design that separated thinking from doing, and stressed econ-omic incentives as the chief source of motivation. Classical organization theory,however, took a broader view of organization design (Volberda, 1998) arguingthat size, role clarity, formalization, specialization and control were critical tosuccess (Morgan, 1997; Palmer and Hardy, 2000; Ashkenas et al., 2002).

While scientific management and classical organizational theory have played acentral, enduring role in the shape and structure of organizations, it was classicaleconomic theory and Weber’s theory of bureaucracy, in particular, that providedintellectual legitimacy for the classical management perspective (Volberda,1998). The focus was on ‘precision, speed, clarity, regularity, reliability, and effi-ciency achieved through the creation of a fixed division of tasks, hierarchical super-vision, and detailed rules and regulations’ (Morgan, 1997, p. 17). As criticism ofthe dehumanizing, impersonal and autocratic nature of Weber’s bureaucraticideal (Whyte, 1956; Etzioni, 1964) intensified, the focus shifted from the economicto the social dimensions of work organizations (Limerick and Cunnington, 1993).

The human relations movement and subsequent behavioral humanist studiesfocussed on understanding the needs of the individual in the group context,encouraging a more democratic, participative and interactive approach that recog-nized the importance of incorporating the human dimension in organization design(Graetz and Smith, 2006). The graduation from simple, functional forms to morecomplex divisional and matrix structures was driven initially in the mid-1960s byfirm growth and maturity and as rapidly expanding conglomerates pursued bothrelated and unrelated diversification strategies. This increase in complexitydrove a concomitant need for more sophisticated coordinating and control mech-anisms for organizing work, bringing together the structural and humanist dimen-sions of organization design (Graetz and Smith, 2006).

The nexus between structure, environment, technology and the relationaldimensions of organization intensified with the work of the contingency theoristsduring the late 1950s and 1960s. In contrast to the classical view of organizationsas closed systems, contingency theory proponents viewed organizations as opensystems interacting with, and responding to, changes in their environments. Forexample, Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) proposed that the rate of environmentalchange should determine the degree of structural differentiation and integrationwithin an organization. They noted that modern organizations must learn tocope with heterogeneous environments that simultaneously comprise highlydynamic and relatively stable sectors.

Burns and Stalket (1961), another two influential writers on contingency theory,distinguished between two polar systems of organizing: mechanistic and organic.

Duality Theory and Organizing Forms in Change Management 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

In a relatively stable, predictable environment using routine technology, themechanistic system, geared for efficiency through uniformity, specialization,high formalization and clear lines of authority, would function most successfully.However, in more turbulent and uncertain environments, superior performancewould be gained from a more flexible and organic approach (Graetz and Smith,2006).

Efficiency, achieved through standardization and specialization, was thebyword for success through the 1950s and 1960s. The focus shifted in the1970s to quality and a customer-first approach. By the mid-1980s, globalization,deregulation and advances in communications technology demanded greater flexi-bility and responsiveness, qualities found lacking in the highly formalized,mechanistic nature of the functional configuration approach. To overcome thecentralized rigidities of function, organizations graduated to divisional structures.However, as Groth (1999) noted, each business division in itself remainedcomplex, hierarchical, and procedural, a replication of the central organizationwith its own functionally specialized departments.

The matrix configuration was an attempt to combine the efficiencies of the func-tional structure with the responsiveness of the divisional structure. However,weaknesses inherent in the matrix structure, such as conflicting lines of responsi-bility and authority, and friction between central headquarters and divisions saw,the gradual rise of smaller, networking business units. These ‘loosely coupledsystems’ were designed to break down divisional boundaries and encouragecross-functional collaboration and communication (Limerick and Cunnington,1993).

Flexibility, in conjunction with speed, agility and adaptability, is seen as inte-gral to harnessing effective, responsive forms of organizing (Hamel and Prahalad,1994; Kanter, 1996; Dijksterhuis et al., 1999; Jonsson, 2000). However, whileflexibility is intuitively understood to encompass mobility, responsiveness andadaptability (Volberda, 1998), this represents only one side of the flexibilityequation. Bahrami (1992) argued that organizational flexibility, an amalgam ofagility and versatility, robustness and resilience, encompasses both the dynamicand stable features of organizational form. Stability provides the anchor, the plat-form from which experimentation and exploration can safely proceed, whileexperimentation and exploration provide insights into how existing organizationalpractices can be altered or improved (Graetz and Smith, 2006).

The problem with traditional bureaucratic structures was the focus on ensuringstability and control which disregarded the growing need for flexibility andresponsiveness. Managing ambiguity and uncertainty were beyond the scope ofbureaucracy’s traditional problem solving routines. Consequently, in rapidlychanging environments, traditional bureaucratic systems and structures on theirown were not realistic or sustainable. The real challenge for organizations, there-fore, was in recognizing and accepting that the tension between stability andchange is natural and legitimate, and that each side of the paradox has merit(Morgan, 1997). Sanchez-Runde and Pettigrew, for example, referred to theseries of ‘endemic and inescapable’ dualities that organizations need to recognizeand attend to ‘because, even if they are seen as paradoxical or contradictory, infact they are complementary’ (2003, p. 245).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Dualities in Forms of Organizing

Dual forms of organizing, or dualities, represent an organizational design builtaround the advantages of bringing together seemingly contradictory forces suchas a short- and long-term focus, differentiation and integration, external and internalorientation, and continuity and change (Evans, 1999). While there are similaritiesbetween duality theory and the concept of dualism, there are key distinguishingcharacteristics. In dualism, the object of study is divided into paired and oppositeelements, such as mind/body and theory/practice (Jackson, 1999). Dualities alsocomprise two elements, the difference being that the two elements are ‘interdepen-dent and no longer separate or opposed’ (Jackson, 1999, p. 549). The differentiationis an important one as all organizations possess both traditional and new structuralforms in varying degrees and balances, but few approach the configuration with theperspective that: (1) both should exist, and (2) both can be simultaneously low orhigh. Dualities theory, therefore, presents a novel interpretation of organizingforms. Where the conventional approach views traditional and new forms of orga-nizing as opposite sides of the same coin, the dualities approach views traditionaland new forms of organizing as two complementary, contiguous coins.

The term ‘dualities aware perspective’ is used to understand and interpret thedualistic forces within organizations. By this term we mean that organizationalmembers not only have the ability to identify the two oppositional poles, butalso understand the importance of managing and exploiting these simultaneously.A dualities aware perspective, therefore, does not favor one side of the organizingduality pole over the other but recognizes that both have merit, thus encouraging acreative tension between opposing forces such as flexibility and control, freedomand accountability. As complexity theorists would argue (Eisenhardt and Brown,1998; Tsoukas, 1998; Pascale, 1999), it is at this point of dynamic tension, ‘whenorganizations are neither so structured that change cannot occur, nor so unstruc-tured that chaos prevails’ (Evans, 1999, p. 335), that innovation is most likelyto take place (Lewin et al., 1999).

Seo et al. (2004) noted that attempting to manage dualities is a difficult task forpractitioners as it contradicts the logical tendency to reduce ambiguity. Whileambiguity needs to be recognized as a ‘valued asset’, Seo et al. noted thatorganizations ‘are not generally equipped to cope with fragmentation and highambiguity’ (2004, p. 102), and have limited knowledge of how to attend to thedualities and tensions in organizational change. The duality characteristics out-lined in the following section represent a means of investigating more innovativeand effective ways to manage the push/pull of competing forces in plannedchange (Seo et al., 2004). The authors argue that duality theory helps to resolvethe ostensible contradictions inherent in organizing forms by providing a concep-tual explanation for its presence. Contingent to the successful extension of dualitytheory is the exposition of its defining characteristics.

Our exposition of dualities used here is based upon five underpinning dualitycharacteristics described by Graetz and Smith (2008): (1) simultaneity; (2) rela-tional; (3) minimal thresholds; (4) dynamism; and (5) improvization.

To begin with, dualities represent the simultaneous presence of what conven-tionally have been considered opposites or competing elements (Cameron and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Quinn, 1988; Van de Ven and Poole, 1988). As a result, the duality characteristicsimultaneity in organizing forms represents the simultaneous presence of oppo-sites such as stability and change (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989), explorationand exploitation (March, 1996), controllability and responsiveness (Raynor andBower, 2001), and conformity and differentiation (Deephouse, 1999).

Closely allied to simultaneity, the relational characteristic represents theinteractive, push-pull dynamic between two duality poles such as accountabilityand freedom, global focus and local responsiveness (Heckscher and Donellon,1994; Mastenbroek, 1996; Wang and Ahmed, 2003). Developing interactive,synergistic links between traditional and new forms of organizing is thereforethe objective.

The third characteristic, minimal thresholds, captures the essence of the simul-taneity and relational characteristics. As Hedberg et al. argued, there needs to be adynamic balance ‘between extremes of adaptive and manipulative acts’ (1976,p. 55). Organizations need to ensure a dynamic balance between chaos andorder where both can be relevant organizational properties rather than acting asnullifying agents. It is useful to consider the characteristic minimal thresholdsin terms of structures, processes and boundaries. Recognizing the importance ofminimal thresholds, for example, would help ensure a dynamic relationshipbetween ‘loose’ and ‘tight’ controls such as empowerment and authority, andaccountability and responsiveness, thus avoiding the risk of spiralling out ofcontrol.

The fourth duality characteristic, dynamism, underscores the flexible firm, ableto switch ‘dynamically’ between forms of organizing (Eisenhardt and Brown,1998) that represent distinct ends of the organizing continuum (flexibility vs.control, for example). This ability to ‘switch’ dynamically between organizingforms relies on an understanding of the simultaneity and relational characteristicsbecause flexible firms ‘facilitate creativity, innovation and speed while maintain-ing coordination, focus and control’ (Volberda, 1998, p. 75). Dynamism, there-fore, is an important consideration in the context of environmental uncertaintyand turbulence as it recognizes that survival depends on both exploration andexploitation. This draws on the simultaneous, related need to balance operationalefficiencies with dynamic capabilities. A firm’s dynamic, explorative capacity canbe mapped through changing structures, processes and boundary activities. Thismight include increased use of geographic configurations, the adoption of newhuman resources practices, IT investment, increased cross-functional interactions,and a move towards outsourcing and strategic alliances.

The final duality characteristic improvization represents the medium for inter-action across the other four characteristics. Weick defined improvization as ‘amixture of the precomposed and the spontaneous’ (1998, p. 552) such as theblend of control with innovation, and exploitation with exploration. By recogniz-ing these duality characteristics and the overarching, mediating role of improviza-tion, managers are more likely to appreciate the importance of both intended andemergent actions, and avoid the temptation of favoring one form of organizing inchange interventions over the other (Weick, 1998). It is suggested that dualitycharacteristics facilitate an understanding of the relationships between indicatorsof change within the structures-processes-boundaries framework.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Organizing Form Change: Structures, Processes and Boundaries

To investigate the contradictions apparent in organizing forms, a national mailsurvey of Australia’s largest public companies was conducted. The INNFORMframework provided the conceptual basis for the analysis of changing forms oforganizing and the NewForms questionnaire developed for this study was mod-elled on the questionnaire used in the INNFORM study. This represented alarge-scale standardized survey that investigated organizing forms practices inthree different geographic locations (Europe, Japan and the United States) andat two different time points: 1992/1993 and 1996/1997 (Whittington et al.,1999; Pettigrew and Fenton, 2000; Pettigrew et al., 2003).

The INNFORM survey design was originally based upon a comprehensivereview of organizing forms literature designed to specify indicators of change(Pettigrew et al., 2003). The nine indicators of organizational change whichemerged from this review were clustered under three organizational design dimen-sions: changing structures, changing processes, and changing boundaries.

Changing structures measured delayering, decentralizing of operational andstrategic decision making, and project-based organizing. Changing processesmeasured investment in information technology infrastructure, horizontal and ver-tical communications linkages, and new human resource practices. Changingboundaries measured downscoping, outsourcing and strategic alliances.

The structures-processes-boundaries framework was seen as a useful diag-nostic tool to investigate changing forms of organizing in Australian organiz-ations. For example, the extent to which social relationships and ‘networkorganizations’ are gaining in importance can be explored by looking atresponses concerning not only processes (the uptake of new human resourcespractices, horizontal and vertical communications and IT investment, forexample) but also structures (the move to cross-functional, project-basedorganizing) and boundaries (outsourcing and strategic alliances). In addition,the model not only allowed an examination of the extent of changes withineach of the structural indicators, but also how changes in one structural indi-cator (delayering) related to changes in the other two structural indicators(decentralization and project-based organizing). It was subsequently also poss-ible to examine whether changes within structures impacted upon boundaryand/or process changes. Changes to processes and boundaries were examinedsimilarly.

As with the INNFORM Survey, the Australian NewForms Survey measuredchange by mapping organizing forms at two points in time, in this case 2000and 2004, across the three change dimensions and nine indicators.

The population for this study comprised the highest grossing Australian-ownedpublic companies. Using the BRW-Top 500 public list and the IBIS World Top500 companies list, companies were ranked by employee size and delimited tothose companies with more than 100 employees. From these databases, a list of611 companies was compiled. The effective population size, omitting ineligible(not-for-profit) and non-contactable companies, was 535. The questionnaire wasmailed to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) or Managing Director of each organ-ization in March 2005. Numerous follow-ups by mail and telephone were


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

conducted over the following five months. Completed questionnaires werereceived from 108 eligible organizations, representing a response rate of 20%,comparing favorably with response rates achieved in the original INNFORMstudy. In addition, differences between respondents and non-respondents on keycriteria such as type of company, company size, industry sector and revenue arenot statistically significant, so respondents are treated as a random sample forthe purposes of statistical inference.

The type of company represented by respondents, non-respondents and thetotal population is presented in Table 1. Just over half of Australia’s 611largest companies are Australian owned (57%) and a further 37% are proprie-tary companies. The remainder are spread thinly between the remaining cat-egories: partnerships (3%), co-operatives (2%) associations (1%) and trusts(1%). In comparison, just under half of the companies which respondedto the survey were Australian owned (10% less than the population), and44% were proprietary companies, some 7% more than the correspondingpopulation figure. Only minor differences occur with the remaining companytypes. The chi-square test results reported at the foot of the table suggestthat these differences, overall, are minor and not statistically significant. Inother words, the companies which responded to the survey are broadly repre-sentative of the different types of companies to whom the NewForms question-naire was sent.

Table 2 provides a comparative breakdown of percentage of employees forrespondents and non-respondents against total population. According to the popu-lation data, 63% of Australian companies have less than 1,000 employees;approximately 19% have between 1,000 and 2,499 employees; around 8% havebetween 2,500 and 4,999 employees; and just over 9% employ more than5,000. Overall, the non-respondent and respondent samples are similar to thenumber of employees for the population under study. While 67% of the respondentsample represents companies with less than 1,000 compared to 63% of the popu-lation under study, the chi-square test confirms there is no significant differencebetween respondents, non-respondents and the population.

Table 1. Respondent, non-respondent and population attributes: type of company

Type of Company Non respondent Respondent Population

Australian owned 58.8 46.6 56.7Proprietary 35.8 43.7 37.2Association 0.8 1.9 1.0Co-operative 1.2 2.9 1.5Partnership 2.6 3.9 2.8Trust 0.8 1.0 0.8Total 100.0 100.0 100.0Number of cases 508 103 611

Notes: x2 ¼ 7.17, df ¼ 5, p . .01


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

An abbreviated version of the study’s findings on the nature and extentof change in Australian public companies are presented in order to construct aplatform for the discussion of organizing form dualities, introduced shortlythereafter.

Results revealed differing scales of change occurring across the structures,processes and boundaries of Australian companies. While organizational layersdecreased only marginally, there were significant shifts in the locus of decision-making. Operational decision making at the subunit level decreased significantly,with responsibility for operational decision making becoming more concentratedin central headquarters. In contrast, strategic decision making at the subunit levelincreased significantly. These results also suggest a challenge to traditional linesof reporting, and coordination and control mechanisms. While the general trendwas towards flatter, decentralized organizational structures, Australian firmsappeared to favor centralizing control of operational decision making, whiledecentralizing control of strategic decision making (see Table 3).

Table 2. Respondent, non-respondent and population attributes: number of employees

Number of employees Non-respondent Respondent Population

,250 18.4 20.2 18.7250–499 23.1 25.3 23.5500–999 20.6 21.2 20.71000–2499 20.1 16.2 19.42500–4999 8.5 8.1 8.45000þ 9.3 9.1 9.3Total 100.0 100.0 100.0Number of cases 472 99 571

Notes: x2 ¼ .998, df ¼ 5, p . .01

Table 3. Changing structures (means, percentages and significance tests)

Structures 2000 2004 Change t Sig1

Organizational layers (mean) (3.05) (3.02) (20.02) 20.289 nsNo of CEO Reports (mean) (6.96) (6.88) (20.08) 20.239 ns0 to 4 reports 31 26 255 to 10 reports 53 63 þ1011þ reports 16 11 25

No of profit centres (mean) (17.3) (24.2) (þ6.9) 2.23 �

0 to 5 48 43 256 to 10 23 23 011 to 20 10 14 þ421þ 19 20 þ1

Structural configurationsProject-based structure 17 23 þ6 1.453 nsProduct/services structure 54 64 þ10 3.455 �

(Continued)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The findings for delayering and decentralization differed significantly fromINNFORM findings. The INNFORM study reported widespread delayering anda dramatic rise in operational decentralization, but a more modest increase in stra-tegic decentralization. One suggestion for this outcome is that in tandem withdelayering, operational decentralization was well underway in Australian firmsby 2000. In addition, the reduction in operational decentralization reported in2004 suggests that the expected benefits that operational decentralization initiallypromised were not realized.

Australian companies demonstrated their attachment to traditional structuralconfigurations. While firms were implementing new project-based forms oforganizing, they appeared equally intent on continuing with existing, traditionalforms such as those by function (marketing, finance) and by products and/orservices, with significant increases reported between 2000–2004 for both ofthese dimensions. The data, therefore, suggest an interest in experimentingwith a mix of structural configurations, rather than favoring one structure overanother.

Boundary changes were also underway, but these changes were not spreadevenly across outsourcing, downscoping and strategic alliances (see Tables 4and 5). The findings indicated that Australian firms were interested in developingexternal partnerships and strategic alliances, but were paying only modestattention at this stage to outsourcing and downscoping. In contrast to therelatively modest structural and boundary changes, the changes across theprocesses dimensions were significant with increases in vertical and horizontalcommunications and new human resource practices as firms made significantinvestments in IT and IT infrastructure. The findings, therefore, indicated thatwhile change was taking place across the three dimensions, Australiancompanies concentrated their efforts in key areas such as increasing strategicdecentralization and decreasing operational decentralization (changingstructures), and developing strategic alliances (changing boundaries). Only inthe processes dimension was the focus of activity equally intense across allthree process forms of organizing (that is, horizontal/vertical linkages, ITinvestment and HR practices).

Table 3. Continued

Structures 2000 2004 Change t Sig1

Geographic structure 60 51 29 22.163 �

Functional structure 54 62 þ8 2.873 �

Operational decentralization 23.811 �

Subunit managers have some or no discretion 26 35 þ9Subunit managers and HQ equal responsibility 15 23 þ8Subunit managers have high to total discretion 59 42 217

Strategic decentralization 3.66 �

Subunit managers have some or no discretion 79 68 211Subunit managers and HQ equal responsibility 13 17 þ4Subunit managers have high to total discretion 8 16 þ8

Notes: 1. Statistical significance using paired t-tests. An asterisk denotes statistically significant differences at

p , 0.05; ns ¼ not statistically significant.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Applying a Dualities Aware Perspective

The findings outlined above suggest that Australian companies were intent onenjoying the benefits to be gained from aspects of new forms of organizingsuch as flexibility, adaptability and speed of response, whilst still retaining signifi-cant elements of traditional forms of organizing to ensure conformance, coordi-nation and control. Perhaps most notable was the fact that even though newforms of organizing were introduced, there was no expected corresponding dim-inution of traditional forms of organizing. Instead, it is suggest that rather thanview this as anomalous, it signals the presence of a different kind of organizingform paradigm where traditional and new are viewed as complementary ratherthan contradictory; a dualities aware perspective. Increases in decentralizationand centralization, for example, reflected the presence and activity of dualitycharacteristics such as simultaneity, relationality, dynamism, the need forminimal thresholds and a mediating influence between the two forms of organiz-ing through improvization. The continuing presence and reliance on traditionalbureaucratic forms suggest that while bureaucracy was not set up to deal with dua-lities, it has proved able to adapt and accommodate new forms of organizingwithin its traditional configurations and work practices.

Table 5. Changing boundaries (percentages and significance tests)

Boundaries 2000 2004 Change t Sig1

Strategic alliances:Total assets deployed in partnerships/alliances

,1% 49 21 228 5.115 �

1 – 20% 49 70 þ2121 – 40% 0 4 þ4. 40% 2 6 þ4

Downscoping/diversification:Range of businesses:

Single core business 44 35 29 1.48 nsDominant core 35 40 þ5Set of related businesses 15 22 þ7Wide range of businesses 6 3 23

Notes: 1. Statistical significance using paired t-tests or, in the case of the variable ‘range of businesses’, the

marginal homogeneity test for categorical variables. An asterisk denotes statistically significant differences at

p , 0.05; ns ¼ not statistically significant.

Table 4. Changing boundaries: outsourcing (percentages)

Boundaries %

OutsourcingChange in company-wide outsourcing, 2000–2004

Decrease 8No change 45Increase 48


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

The following analysis explores the presence and role of duality characteristicsacross structures, processes and boundaries. By looking at duality characteristicsacross the structures-processes-boundaries framework, our aim is to bring intofocus the relevance of co-existing contradictory organizing forms in order tobuild in ambidexterity and encourage a creative tension between opposing poles(Evans, 1999; Benner and Tushman, 2003). We present dualities as part of aconceptual explanation for the presence of contradictory organizing forms and,subsequently, as an advantageous theoretical mode of thinking in the managementof change to organizing forms.

Structural Dualities

Radical calls in the late 1990s for organizations to delayer, decentralize anddebureaucratize their structures failed to deliver the promised performance gains.This slash and burn approach failed to recognize the nuances of structure and itsrelatedness to other aspects of organizational form (Graetz and Smith, 2006).Pettigrew et al., for example, noted that ‘structure is inextricably linked to actionas both its medium and its outcome’ (2003, p. 45). Reflecting the characteristicssimultaneity, relational and dynamism, this structure-action duality hints at thecomplex, dynamic nature of structuring as both an enabling and constrainingforce for change. If one accepts that ‘action is not simply fettered by structure, itpositively relies on it’ (Whittington and Melin, 2003, p. 45), the role of structureappears to be central, enduring and evolving, with action through structuring asthe improvizing medium. It also underlines the resilience and evolutionary capacityof traditional bureaucratic forms, able to adapt and work synergistically with moreflexible forms of organizing. A ‘dualities aware perspective’ where organizationalmembers recognize the presence and nature of duality characteristics provides atheoretical platform for capturing the dual forces at play.

Hodgson, for example, observed that the complex requirements of project man-agement had led to the ironic ‘rediscovery of a very 19th century pre-occupationwith comprehensive planning, linked to a belief in the necessity of tight manage-rial discipline’ (2004, p. 86). Paradoxically, decentralization – the devolution ofauthority and responsibility – has reinforced the importance of hierarchical linesof authority and accountability. Nowhere is this highlighted more clearly in thepresent study than in the strong correlation between the increase in strategicdecision making and the decrease in operational decision making at the sub-unitlevel, indicating that companies were striving to improve uniformity andaccountability in their operational deployments whilst, at the same time,seeking to delegate a sense of strategic ownership. In other words, despite thepropaganda suggesting that organizations can do without bureaucracy, there isno evidence to suggest that this is the case or that it ever will be.

Process Dualities

Process changes, in particular IT investment and new HR practices such ascross-unit collaboration to share knowledge, skills and resources, had a significantcontributing impact on structural and boundary changes. Sanchez-Runde et al.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

pointed out that ‘since it is people who get things done in the organization,the question of how individuals themselves are managed, through a given setof HRM practices, is of the utmost importance’ (2003, p. 258). Processesappear to play a central, integrating role in the structures-processes-boundariesequation, with changes to structures and boundaries impacting on differentprocess elements and vice versa. A dualities aware perspective, therefore, thatrecognizes the need for simultaneity across structures, processes and boundariesmay help organizations adopt a more interdependent, systemic approach toorganizational change interventions.

In addition, the relational characteristics of organizing forms would allow scopefor recognizing the distinctive yet complementary nature of actions within thestructures-processes–boundaries framework. The ‘networking’ across structures,processes and boundaries also reflects the minimal thresholds characteristic thatseeks to encourage both coherence and flexibility in forms of organizing.

The characteristic dynamism provides the medium for ongoing ‘dialogue’between structures, processes and boundaries. With processes serving as thelinkage between the other two dimensions, dynamism monitors environmentaltrends and their potential impact on structures-processes-boundaries interactions.Improvization, in turn, mediates changes across structures, processes and bound-aries as organizations respond to environmental shifts and perturbations.

The significant process changes reported by Australian companies reflect notonly a response to the changing face of Australia’s labor market (such as theincreasing number of contractors, part-timers and self-employed), but alsogrowing recognition that developing a knowledge-rich organization demands ashift in focus from the hard, more tangible elements of work organizations tothe soft, intangible elements encapsulated in the processes dimension of organ-izational design. This supports the argument that in a global economy, whichrequires organizations to operate in multiple environments simultaneously, itis an organization’s ability to focus on its distinctive skills and capabilitiesthat will provide the competitive edge, rather than easily copied new technol-ogies, new products, or market position. In this context, traditional workplacepractices, devised to coordinate and control a largely unskilled, compliant work-force operating in a relatively stable and predictable external environment, arenot enough. Hence the need for an inclusive, bi-directional approach includingboth duality poles. Moreover, it underpins the requirement for a relational,systemic approach to organization design to ensure the full spectrum oforganizational skills, resources and capabilities are recognized, captured andexploited. Understanding the relational characteristics of organizing formswould allow organizations to recognize the distinctive but complementarynature of actions within the organizing forms dimensions of structures, processesand boundaries.

Boundary Dualities

The findings for changes to boundaries indicate that Australian companies werekeen to pick and choose new work practices (such as entering into strategicalliances and partnerships) that would allow them to adapt and respond more


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

readily to new market opportunities. Companies were, however, more cautiousabout adopting what are perceived as less assured work practices such asdownscoping and outsourcing. Whittington et al. (1999) observed that whilethere has been a movement toward new boundaries, there are nuances whichrecommend caution. Adler noted, for example, that the zeal with which manyorganizations have embarked on ‘bureaucracy busting’ through delayering andoutsourcing has, in many cases, come back to haunt them as they discover toolate that they have removed repositories of ‘precious skills and experience’(1999, p. 36), which were also very effective in ‘diffusing lessons learned inone part of the organization to others’ (1999, p. 37). In practical terms, outsourcingmay diminish boundaries and increase flexibility, but it may also relinquish theknowledge and concentration needed to drive performance.

Conclusion

A central theme running through much of the organizing forms literature is that inhighly competitive and volatile environments, the key to survival is flexibility,responsiveness, agility and adaptability. Against these odds, traditional forms oforganizing, characterized by stability, hierarchy, specialization, formalization andcentralization, have failed to deliver. On this basis, it would seem reasonable tofind evidence of extensive changes to organizational structures, processes andboundaries with organizations discarding these traditional characteristics infavor of flatter, decentralized, project-based forms. That this was not the case istestimony to the resilience of traditional bureaucratic forms and their capacity tocomplement and sustain more flexible, and ostensibly contradictory, forms oforganizing. However, these benefits are only manifested when ambiguity anduncertainty are recognized as natural and legitimate components of dynamic,heterogeneous organization environments. As Stark (2001, p. 78) stated, ‘heterar-chies make assets of ambiguity’. The Australian findings underline the importanceof allowing heterogeneity in forms of organizing. Performance gains come froma healthy mix of traditional, stabilizing, direction-setting mechanisms in concertwith flexible, permeable forms, rather than a fixation on one or the other.

This paper has highlighted the complex nature of organizing forms, in particularthe challenge of managing the presence of contradictory forms in the simultaneousquest for continuity and change. These Australian findings suggest that whilechanges were clearly taking place within the structural elements, there was no evi-dence to suggest the imminent demise of hierarchy. It was clear, for example, thatorganizations were not simultaneously removing layers of management, unilater-ally devolving decision-making activity, or discarding their product and function-based structures in favor of project-based organizing. In other words, Australianorganizations appeared to be experimenting with dual forms of organizing,looking for the best mix of traditional and new forms. As a consequence, dualitiescan be seen to represent a standard operation system that works. Organizations,through a process of trial and error experimentation and evolution, find theirway to this mode of operating.

The principal lesson from dualities is that resolution or reconciliation betweentwo mutually exclusive poles is no longer the end goal. Instead, a dualities aware


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

perspective, through the medium of the five duality characteristics, offers a con-ceptual platform for arbitrating the tension between the two organizing poles byencouraging an acceptance of ambiguity and contradiction as natural and legiti-mate. This highlights an important distinction between traditional and newforms of organizing. Traditional bureaucratic structures were not set up as dualis-tic entities. The focus was on ensuring efficiency and stability, achieved throughhighly formalized, standardized systems and structures. Managing the ambiguitiesof a rapidly changing and volatile environment was beyond traditional bureau-cracy’s repertoire of routines. More flexible, responsive forms of organizing,able to cope with change and uncertainty, were required. That these new moreflexible forms can operate successfully within larger, bureaucratic structuressuggests that bureaucracies are dynamic entities, able to adapt and accommodatenew and diverse sets of work practices.

Dismantling structure has been presented as a key to unlocking innovationand adaptability. However, our data demonstrated that endeavors to delayer,empower and decentralize did not live up to expectations. The acceptance ofduality assumes that organizing acts as both an enabling and constraining forcefor change, where organizing forms are pivotal vehicles through which changecan be implemented. Duality pressures are a constant presence in the public organ-izations examined here. Managing dualities as competing organizing forms wherechange is a function of the movement between centralization and de-centraliza-tion, loose and tight structures, and stability and chaos, will lead to a circuitousand never-ending set of reactive interventions. The authors have argued thatgetting ‘stuck’ in the middle of the organizing forms issue is a counter-productiveway of responding to environmental turbulence. The axis between freedom andcontrol is not ideally managed by increasing one at the expense of the other. Inorganizational change terms, dualities align with the notion of ambidexteritywhere loosely coupled, flexible and even experimental teams and units workalongside or within tightly coupled traditional units. It is the very tension itselfthat drives change where pockets of innovation can emerge within the safety ofa robust structure.

The nature of dualities implies that a dichotomous, either/or mindset thatpitches hierarchy against empowerment, centralization against decentralizationand project-based organizing against functional independence is not only ineffec-tive, but also a high-risk, zero-sum approach to change management. Evans(1992) underlined this problem, arguing that excessive focus on one pole of aduality ultimately leads an organization into decline through stagnation, whilethe corrective swing to the opposite pole leads to disruptively excessive change.Too many formal systems, structures and procedures curtail innovation, whiletoo many informal systems of communication, unstructured project groups andbudget flexibility diminish an organization’s ability to capitalize on any inno-vations it might have created. In contrast, a bi-directional approach that recog-nizes and facilitates the relationships between the two structural poles serves‘to square the circle of innovation and control’ (Hodgson, 2004, p. 98). Itallows an organization to develop a relational synthesis between traditionalprocess, planning and coordination requirements and the need for flexibility andresponsiveness.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

References

Adler, P. S. (1999) Building better bureaucracies, Academy of Management Executive, 13(4), pp. 36–47.

Ashkenas, R., Ulrich, D., Jick, T. and Kerr, S. (2002) The Boundaryless Organization: Breaking the Chains of

Organizational Structure (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

Bahrami, H. (1992) The emerging flexible organization: perspectives from silicon valley, California Management

Review, 34(4), pp. 33–52.

Benner, M. J. and Tushman, M. L. (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity

dilemma revisited, Academy of Management Review, 28(2), pp. 238–256.

Burns, T. and Stalker, G. M. (1961) The Management of Innovation (Tavistock: London).

Cameron, K. S. and Quinn, R. E. (1988) Organizational paradox and transformation, in: R. E. Quinn and K. S.

Cameron (eds) Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and

Management, pp. 1–18 (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company).

Deephouse, D. L. (1999) To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of strategic balance,

Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), pp. 147–166.

Dijksterhuis, M. S., Van den Bosch, F. A. J. and Volberda, H. W. (1999) Where do new organizational

forms come from? Management logics as a source of coevolution, Organization Science, 10(5),

pp. 569–582.

Eisenhardt, K. M. and Brown, S. L. (1998) Competing on the edge: strategy as structured chaos, Long Range

Planning, 31(5), pp. 786–789.

Etzioni, A. (1964) Modern Organizations (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall).

Evans, P. (1992) Balancing continuity and change: the constructive tension in individual and organizational

development, in: S. Srivastva and R. E. Fry (eds) Managing the paradoxes of stability and change,

pp. 253–258 (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers).

Evans, P. (1999) HRM on the edge: A duality perspective, Organization, 6(2), pp. 325–338.

Graetz, F. and Smith, A. (2006) Critical perspectives on the evolution of new forms of organizing, The Inter-

national Journal of Strategic Change Management, 1(2), pp. 127–142.

Graetz, F. and Smith, A. (2008) The role of dualities in arbitrating continuity and change in forms of organizing,

International Journal of Management Reviews, 10(3), pp. 265–280.

Groth, L. (1999) Future Organizational Design: The Scope for the IT-based Enterprise (Chichester: John Wiley

& Sons Ltd).

Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. K. (1994) Competing for the Future (Boston: Harvard Business School Press).

Heckscher, C. and Donnellon, A. (eds) (1994) The Post-Bureaucratic Organization: New Perspectives on

Organizational Change (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications).

Hedberg, B., Nystrom, P. and Starbuck, W. H. (1976) Camping on seesaws: prescriptions for a self designing

organization, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, pp. 41–65.

Hodgson, D. E. (2004) Project work: The legacy of bureaucratic control in the post-bureaucratic organization,

Organization, 11(1), pp. 81–100.

Jackson, W. (1999) Dualism, duality and the complexity of economic institutions, International Journal of Social

Economic, 26(4), pp. 545–558.

Jonsson, S. (2000) Innovation in the networked firm: the need to develop new types of interface competence, in: J.

Birkinshaw and P. Hagstrom (eds) The Flexible Firm: Capability Management in Network Organizations,

pp. 106–125 (New York: Oxford University Press).

Kanter, R. M. (1996) Beyond the cowboy and the corpocrat, in: K. Starkey (ed) How Organizations Learn,

pp. 43–59 (London: International Thomson Business Press).

Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. (1967) Differentiation and integration in complex organizations, Administra-

tive Science Quarterly, 12(1), pp. 1–47.

Lewin, A. Y., Long, C. and Carroll, T. (1999) The coevolution of new organizational forms, Organization

Science, 10(5), pp. 535–550.

Limerick, D. and Cunnington, B. (1993) Managing the New Organisation (Sydney: Business and Professional

Publishing).

March, J. G. (1996) Continuity and change in theories of organizational action, Administrative Science Quarterly,

41(2), pp. 278–287.

Mastenbroek, W. F. G. (1996) Organizational innovation in historical perspective: change as duality manage-

ment, Business Horizons, July–August, pp. 5–14.

Morgan, G. (1997) Images of Organization (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Palmer, I. and Hardy, C. (2000) Thinking about Management: Implications of Organizational Debates for

Practice (London: Sage Publications).

Pascale, R. (1999) Surfing the edge of chaos, Sloan Management Review, 40(3), pp. 83–94.

Pettigrew, A. M. and Fenton, E. M. (eds) (2000) The Innovating Organization (London: Sage Publications).

Pettigrew, A. M., Whittington, R., Melin, L., Sanchez-Runde, C., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., Ruigrok, W. and

Numagami, T. (2003) Innovative Forms of Organizing (London: Sage Publications).

Poole, M. S. and Van de Ven, A. H. (1989) Using paradox to build management and organization theories,

Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp. 562–578.

Raynor, M. E. and Bower, J. L. (2001) Lead from the center: how to manage divisions dynamically, Harvard

Business Review, May, pp. 93–100.

Sanchez-Runde, C. J. and Pettigrew, A. M. (2003) Managing dualities, in: A. M. Pettigrew, R. Whittington,

L. Melin, C. Sanchez-Runde, F. A. J. Van Den Bosch , W. Ruigrok and T. Numagami (eds) Innova-

tive Forms of Organizing, pp. 243–250 (London: Sage Publications).

Sanchez-Runde, C. J., Massini, S. and Quintanilla, J. (2003) People management dualities, in: A. M. Pettigrew, R.

Whittington, L. Melin, C. Sanchez-Runde, F. A. J. Van Den Bosch , W. Ruigrok and T. Numagami (eds)

Innovative Forms of Organizing, pp. 251–276 (London: Sage Publications).

Seo, M. G., Putnam, L. L. and Bartunek, J. M. (2004) Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change, in:

M. S. Poole and A. H. Van de Ven (eds) Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation, pp. 73–107

(Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Stark, D. (2001) Ambiguous assets for uncertain environments: heterarchy in postsocialist firms, in: P. DiMaggio

(ed) The Twenty-First Century Firm, pp. 69–104 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Tsoukas, H. (1998) Chaos, complexity and organization theory, Organization, 5, pp. 291–313.

Van de Ven, A. H. and Poole, M. S. (1988) Paradoxical requirements for a theory of organizational change, in: R.

E. Quinn and K. S. Cameron (eds) Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organiz-

ation and Management, pp. 19–63 (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company).

Volberda, H. W. (1998) Building the Flexible Firm (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Wang, C. and Ahmed, P. (2003) Structure and structural dimensions for knowledge-based organizations,

Measuring Business Excellence, 7(1), pp. 51–62.

Weick, K. E. (1998) Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis, Organization Science, 9(5),

pp. 543–555.

Whittington, R. and Melin, L. (2003) The challenge of organizing/strategizing, in: A. M. Pettigrew, R. Whitting-

ton, L. Melin, C. Sanchez-Runde, F. A. J. Van Den Bosch , W. Ruigrok and T. Numagami (eds) Innovative

Forms of Organizing, pp. 35–48 (London: Sage Publications).

Whittington, R., Pettigrew, A., Peck, S., Fenton, E. and Conyon, M. (1999) Change and complementarities in the

new competitive landscape: a European panel study, 1992–1996, Organization Science, 10(5), pp. 583–600.

Whyte, W. H. (1956) Organization Man (New York: Simon Schuster).

Notes on Contributors

Dr Fiona Graetz is a lecturer in the School of Management and Marketing,Faculty of Business and Law at Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. Shehas published articles and co-authored a book on change management. Fionawas recently awarded her PhD which investigated changing forms of organizing.

Dr Aaron Smith is a Professor with RMIT Business, Melbourne, Australia, andhas research interests in the management of psychological, organizational andpolicy change in organizations.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mem

oria

l Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ewfo

undl

and]

at 1

1:09

09

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Duality Theory and Organizing Forms in Change Management