The Use of Social Paradigms in the Analysis of Team Behaviour During Organisational Change

  • Roger Stewart


The nature of the environment in which many organisations are currently operating can be characterised by rapidly changing markets and customer requirements, with increasing complexity in the technologies being utilised. This turbulent and continuously changing demand is reflected in the different strategies adopted by management to ensure the survival and growth of their companies. Waterman (1987) observed that, “Somehow there are organisations that effectively manage change, continuously adapting their bureaucracies, strategies, systems, products, and cultures to survive the shocks and to prosper from the forces that decimate their competion.”


Customer Requirement Cognitive Dissonance Total Quality Management Feedforward Control Flexible Organisation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barczak, G., Smith, C., Wilemon, D., 1987, Managing Large-Scale Organisation Change, Organizational Dynamics, Summer, 1987.Google Scholar
  2. Blauner, R., 1964, “Alienation and Freedom”, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  3. Brehm, S., Brehm, J. W., 1981, “Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control”, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Bronner, N., Moberg, S., 1990, Organizational Development of Vattenfall Engineering Group, “Management by Projects Vol. 1”, Internet 90, Vienna.Google Scholar
  5. Durkheim, E., 1952, “Suicide: A Study in Sociology”, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. First pub. 1897.Google Scholar
  6. Estibals, D., 1990, Artificial Intelligence to Improve Project Management Flexibility, “Management by Projects Vol. 1”, Internet 90, Vienna.Google Scholar
  7. Festinger, L., 1957, “A theory of cognitive dissonance”, Stanford University Press, Stanford.Google Scholar
  8. Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., Newcombe, T., 1952, Some consequences of deindividuation in a group, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology., 47.Google Scholar
  9. Froonhof, H., 1990, Total Quality Management in a Flat and Flexible Organizational Structure, “Management by Projects Vol. 1”, Internet 90, Vienna.Google Scholar
  10. Isozaki, M., 1984, The effect of discussion on polarization of judgements, Japanese Psychological Research. 26.Google Scholar
  11. Janis, I. L., 1982, “Groupthink”, 2nd ed., Houghton Miffin, Boston.Google Scholar
  12. Kanter, R. M., 1989 The New Managerial Work, Harvard Business Review, Nov.Google Scholar
  13. Marx, K., 1963, Alienated labour, T. B. Bottomore (ed.), in “Karl Marx: Early Writings”, Penguin, Harmondsworth.Google Scholar
  14. Maslow, A., 1954, “Motivation and Personality”, Harper and Row, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Merton, R. K.,1957, “Social Theory and Social Structure”, Free Press, Glencoe.Google Scholar
  16. Ouchi, W. G., 1981, “Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge”, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.Google Scholar
  17. Peters, T., 1987, “Thriving on Chaos”, Alfred A. Knopf Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  18. Schein, E. H. 1988, “Organizational Psychology”, 3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Google Scholar
  19. Touraine, A., 1971, “The Post-Industrial Society”, Random House, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Waterman Jr. R. H., 1987, “How the Best Get and Keep the Competitive Edge, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Watson, T. J., 1987, “Sociology, Work & Industry”, 2nd ed., Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roger Stewart
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Information SystemsKingston PolytechnicKingston upon Thames,SurreyUK

Personalised recommendations