• Breadcrumb navigation uses Javascript

---

Rapid change in society

by Simon Longstaff

Although change has been a constant feature of the human condition, modern societies now experience the phenomenon as a relentless process of such rapidity that even moments of consolidation are washed away by a tide whose volume seems to grow exponentially.

At present there seems to be no reason to believe that these circumstances will alter. Indeed, Peter Drucker has stressed that an ability to manage change is going to be the defining characteristic of the successful organisation of the future. Even where change is designed to simplify structures and processes, its initial impact is to make lives more complicated.

While such comments are widely accepted - even to the extent of being regarded as something of a truism, there is still a tendency to overlook some of the less obvious features of the change process. Amongst those features overlooked is the relationship between patterns of change and the ethical climate of organisations.

One of the most common responses to the experience of change is to reinforce a core framework of certainty. If circumstances require a person (or a group) to be flexible in their response, then a firm foundation will provide for greater comfort (and success) than a base of shifting sands. Having said this, one should also acknowledge the existence of an almost habitual streak of conservatism that sees people favour the familiar (and therefore comfortable) over the novel.

While much of the change that takes place only ever affects the superstructure of experience, truly radical change takes place whenever it is of a kind that disturbs the foundations on which people rely for ultimate security. As such, radical change is characterised either by a direct attack on those foundations (as in the Enlightenment and Reformation) or indirectly (and usually unintentionally) as when the rate of change fails to allow for periods of consolidation and re-grounding. To use a physical analogy - in one case the river bank is deliberately undermined in order to change the direction of its flow, in the other a flood erodes the foundations. Particularly in the latter case, the eventual collapse of the foundations comes as a shock to many.

Some respond to the phenomenon of radical change by seeking to shore up the foundations. Others will seek a new framework on which to build a stable platform. As noted above, the best way to cope with change is to be connected to a firm anchor point that allows for flexibility. Although both responses would seem to indicate stark alternatives (conservatism vs innovation), the difference is only superficial when compared to the common processes most likely employed by each group.

One way of combating change (and the increased level of uncertainty) is to place great weight on the application of processes that have been seen to be successful in the past. In earlier times this may have led to a resurgence in religious observance of various kinds (sacrifice, ritual, prayer etc.). In post-Enlightenment conditions of modernity, there is a greater tendency to look to processes that are broadly technological in character. After all, the application of technology (broadly construed) seems to have solved many problems.

Technology is as much about a way of thinking as it is about particular devices and techniques. At its root, a technological approach to the world is one in which a kind of 'calculative rationality' is at work. Such a way of thinking supports a view of the world as a place to be controlled. It should be noted that the progenitors of this approach, people like Sir Francis Bacon, believed that all of nature (including man) would eventually be subject to the control of technique.

Quasi-technical approaches to the social world include the application of control mechanisms such as regulations and laws. Hence, in times of uncertainty there is a tendency to look to technique as a way of reconstituting the foundations on which people rely for support. The most familiar response is therefore one in which people seek to address problems by increasing the mechanisms of surveillance and control.

In organisations this tendency is frequently manifested in a decision to provide a framework for certainty through the provision of a Code of Conduct (frequently mis-named as a Code of Ethics). While many codes are developed by people who sincerely believe that they can do all of the work expected of them, it should be noted that some are attracted to the process because of the perception that codes offer a relatively inexpensive ‘quick fix’. As Lynn Sharp Paine recently noted in The Harvard Busines Review:

... providing employees with a rule book will do little to address the problems underlying unlawful conduct. To foster a climate that encourages exemplary behaviour, corporations need a comprehensive approach that goes beyond the often punitive legal compliance stance...Those managers who define ethics as legal compliance are implicitly endorsing a code of moral mediocrity for their organisations

This is not to suggest that there is no role for Codes, nor is it being suggested that normal compliance based processes don't play an important role. Rather, attention is being drawn to the fact that these responses are inadequate if they are all that is done by way of response. This is especially evident when the ethical dimension of daily practice is taken into account. In part, this is because an ineliminable element of uncertainty is an obvious feature of human experience of the ethical dilemma. But of even greater significance is the fact that there is a limit to which quasi-technical solutions can be applied to the problem of managing change and complexity.

discuss this article

---