Conceptions of agency - scl 4 SMART Leadership Consulting By: Daryl Horney

1. ©
SMART Leadership Consulting
a SMART way of doing business
May 28, 2014
Daryl Horney
SMART Leadership Consulting
Discuss which type of Caldwell’s (2003) conceptions of
agency (leadership, management, consultancy, team) is
most likely to be generated by: 1) Van de Ven and
Poole’s (1995) models of change (life cycle, evolution,
dialectic, teleology, (2) Gioia and Chittipeddi’s (1991)
models of sense-making and sense-giving, (3) Dooley’s
(1997) complexity theory, and (4) Weick and Quinn’s
episodic and continuous change (1999),).
Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) article provide four theories that explain
change in organizations. They are, life-cycle theory, evolution theory,
teleological theory and dialectic theory.
The theory of the four that best describes a change agent for an organization
is the teleological theory. The teleological theory encompasses vision,
strategic planning and the attainment of goals (Van de Ven and Poole’s 1995).
The teleological theory can be incorporated into any Caldwell’s (2003) models
of change such as the leadership model, consultancy model, management
model or the team model.
The other theories such as the evolution theory can explain strategy making,
but is limited as the theory is restrictive to changes in structure. The life-cycle
model is only directed to change from start to finish and does not offer
specifics of change during the process. Lastly, the dialectic theory breeds
conflict of two opposing sides. The theory does not demonstrate functional
change, it does however, offer stability to organizations where one opposing

2. side wins a power struggle and then controls the other side without internal
conflict.
Gioia and Chittipeddi’s (1991) paper focuses exclusively on the leadership
model. The paper details the CEO’s role and function as a change agent. The
responsibility of the CEO is to perform the visioning, strategy making and
implementation of change in their organizations. Their position is very
individualistic and the weight of change is fully dependent upon their
decisions.
Dooley’s (1997) complex theory illustrates three components in “management
thought” (Dooley 1997). They are the systems theory, population ecology, and
information processing.
The systems theory is best represented of Caldwell’s consultancy model as the
system theory establishes outside intervention to maintain balance and like
the consultancy model system theory functions from the outside looking in
without bias to offer best solutions.
Dooley’s description of population ecology is very closely linked to
Caldwell’s management model. However, one can argue that there is also a
relation to Caldwell’s leadership model. Population ecology establishes
change that a manager would implement because of their position in an
organization. Both population ecology and the management model view
traditional traits of change and both value the need for individual infusion of
decision-making and innovation (Dooley 1997).
Dooley’s analysis of information processing provides the best representation
of Caldwell’s team model. Information processing is cognitive in
organizational learning. The dynamics of information processing encompass
the gaining of knowledge and involve adapting this knowledge. The learning
from this knowledge is used to provide individuals with the know how to
become and perform as change agents. These individuals can be paired into
subgroups thus creating the essence of Caldwell’s team model (Dooley 1997).
Weick and Quinn’s (1999) paper provide two agents of change, episodic
change and continuous change.
The consultancy model best represents episodic change. As Weick and Quinn,
state episodic change is “relevant when it is necessary to create change.” One
of the five assumptions (Marchak, 1993 cited in Weick and Quinn 1999) is the
separateness assumption. The separateness assumption is understood by
providing an outside influence. Consultant change agents accomplish this
outside influence in organizations.
The leadership model best represents Weick and Quinn’s (1999) analysis of
continuous change. The authors clearly state organization change takes place
because the leader is the model of change. Continuous change is provided by

3. a leader who personally changes in behavior in order to direct change in an
organization (Weick and Quinn 1999).
Which model gives the most agency to employees and which gives the
least? Why?
Caldwell (2003) offers four models of change agents. Each change agent
model exhibits dynamics that offers the best options for organizations to elect
from. However, some of the models offer more participation from employees
while others do not.
The change agent model that gives the most agency to employees is the team
model. The team model allows members of an organization on all levels to be
representatives of change. Employees from various divisions with different
responsibilities can join together to discuss what changes need to be
implemented. However, Caldwell did not say whether the team
recommendations of change is actually carried out by themselves or whether
their recommendations have to go through a final review by the decision
makers of the organization (Caldwell 2003).
The change agent model that offers the least agency to employees would be
the leadership model. The leadership model demonstrated by Caldwell (2003)
only allows for one person or a small group of select persons in top
management to be the representative of change. Their position adapts a
hierarchal formation where he/she decides what is best for the organization
and delivers it down to lower management. Employees do not have a choice
in respect to change thus, not allowing for representation.
Reference
Caldwell, R. (2003) ‘Models of change agency: A fourfold classification’, British Journal of
Management, 14 (2), pp.131–142. Available
from: http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lpu?title=British+Journal+of+M
anagement&volume=14&issue=2&spage=131&date=2003
Dooley K.J. (1997) ‘A complex adaptive systems model of organizational change’, Nonlinear
Dynamics, Psychology, and Life Science, 1 (1), pp.69–97. Available
from:http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ecn&AN=0
582857&site=eds-live
Gioia, D.A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991) ‘Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change
initiation’,Strategic Management Journal, 12 (6), pp.433–448. Available from:
http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lpu?title=Strategic+Management+Jour
nal&volume=12&issue=6&spage=433&date=1991
Van de Ven, A.H. & M.S. Poole (1995) ‘Explaining development and change in
organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 20 (3), pp.510–540. Available from:
http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lpu?title=Academy+of+Management+
Review&volume=20&issue=3&spage=510&date=1995

4. Weick, K.E., & Quinn, R.E. (1999) ‘Organizational change and development’, Annual Review of
Psychology, 50, pp.361–386. Available
from: http://sfxhosted.exlibrisgroup.com.ezproxy.liv.ac.uk/lpu?title=Annual+Review+of+P
sychology&volume=50&issue=&spage=361&date=1999