Raymond Caldwell: Agency and Change in Organizational Theory

Living reference work entry

Abstract

How we conceive our capacity for “agency” in the world has enormous implications for how we think about the possibilities and limits of our ability to manage change in organizations and society. For Raymond Caldwell, agency is the prism through which we think about change. If we conceive ourselves as things, as “substances” that simply think and act intentionally or rationally, we will end up with extremely limited epistemologies for understanding agency. For Caldwell the old models of knowledge and power, rationality and control, and agency and structure in organizations have fallen apart. The idea of “distributed agency” partly captures this reality by treating change as an ongoing process defined by practices, which in turn questions explanations of change that rely on intentional action or abstract notions of organizations as entities that change from one relatively fixed state to another. In sum, he treats agency as a practice and change as a process. But Caldwell’s recent work, partly under the philosophical influence of Whitehead, takes these ideas further by including the nonhuman in how we define distributed agency: agency is potentially everywhere in a social-material world in which the ontological divide between the social and the natural world no longer makes much sense. Always provocative, always challenging, Caldwell’s work is an important contribution to redefining the boundaries of how we think of agency and change in organizations. After briefly noting some early influences on Caldwell’s work, the chapter organizes his contributions into three major phases: agency and change, agency as practice, and change as a process. A key insight section then reflects on how his early contributions have influenced others. The chapter concludes with legacies and new directions in Caldwell’s search for a process-in-practice perspective on organizational change.

Keywords

Process Practice theory Agency Organizational change 

References

  1. In terms of further reading, my own personal recommendation would be to start with Agency and Change (Caldwell, 2006). It is a difficult read, but it brings together Caldwell’s passions about the value of philosophy and social theory in critically advancing organizational change theory, and it is busting with research questions. If, however, one wants to explore the three phases of Caldwell’s work, then his separate articles on Foucault, Schatzki, and Whitehead are useful signposts (2007, 2012, forthcoming 2018). Finally, two insightful articles on Senge published in 2012 are also worth highlighting, because they cover an aspect of Caldwell’s work on “system thinking” which preoccupied him in Agency and Change and which, I suspect, may reappear, given his long-standing interest in complexity theory as a theory which allows for self-organizing disequilibrium and system change, simultaneously (Caldwell, 2006, p. 99).Google Scholar

Selected References

  1. These are organized by research focus.Google Scholar

Agency and Change

  1. Caldwell, R. (2003a). Models of change agency: A fourfold classification. British Journal of Management, 13(1), 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caldwell, R. (2003b). Leading and managing change: Different or complementary? Journal of Leadership and Organizational Development, 24(5), 285–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caldwell, R. (2005). Things fall apart? Discourses on agency and change in organizations. Human Relations, 58(1), 83–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caldwell, R. (2006). Agency and change: Rethinking change agency in organizations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Caldwell, R. (2009). Change from the middle: Exploring middle manager strategic and sensemaking agency in organizations. In R. T. By and C. MacLeod (Eds), Managing organizational change in public services (pp. 74–95). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Caldwell, R. (2012). Reclaiming agency, recovering change: An exploration of the practice theory of Theodore Schatzki. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 42(3), 283–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Secondary Sources

  1. Abbott, A. (2016). Processual sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buchanan, D. A., Addicott, R., Fitzgerald, L., Ferlie, E., & Baeza, J. I. (2007). Nobody in charge: Distributed change agency in healthcare. Human Relations, 60(7), 1065–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carroll, B., Levy, L., & Richmond, D. (2008). Leadership as practice: Challenging the competency paradigm. Leadership, 4(4), 363–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Charles, K., & Dawson, P. (2011). Dispersed change agency and the improvisation of strategies during processes of change. Journal of Change Management, 11(3), 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., & Brown, K. G. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human Relations, 69(1), 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Demers, C. (2008). Organizational change theories: A synthesis. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Ford, J., & Harding, N. (2007). Move over management: We are all leaders now. Management Learning, 38(5), 475–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. California: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hernes, T. (2014). A process theory of organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hughes, M. (2006). Change management: A critical perspective (1st ed.). Wimbledon: CIPD Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Hughes, M. (2010). Managing change: A critical perspective (2nd ed.). Wimbledon: CIPD Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Hughes, M. (2015). The leadership of organizational change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. Hughes, M. (2016). Leading changes: Why transformation explanations fail. Leadership, 12(4), 449–469.Google Scholar
  14. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Raelin, J. D., & Cataldo, C. G. (2011). Whither middle management? Empowering interface and the failure of organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 481–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Schatzki, T. (2002). The site of the social: A philosophical exploration of the constitution of social life and change. Penn State: Penn State University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Schatzki, T. (2010). The timespace of human activity: On performance, society, and history as indeterminate teleological events. Lanham: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  19. Schatzki, T. (2011). Where the action is (on large social phenomena such as sociotechnical regimes), SPRG Working Paper 1, www.sprg.ac.uk
  20. Sutherland, F., & Smith, A. C. T. (2013). Leadership for the age of sustainability: A dualities approach to organizational change. In R. T. By & B. Burnes (Eds.), Organizational change, leadership and ethics: Leading organizations towards sustainability (pp. 216–239). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Thompson, M. (2011). Ontological shift or ontological drift? Reality claims, epistemological frameworks and theory generation in organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 754–773.Google Scholar
  22. Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2011). Philosophy and organization theory (Vol. 32). Bradford: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  24. Whitehead, A. N. (2010). Process and reality. New York: Free Press (Simon & Schuster).Google Scholar

HR Research

  1. Caldwell, R. (2001). Champions, adapters, consultants and synergists: New change agents in HRM? Human Resource Management Journal, Special Issue, 11(3), 39–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caldwell, R. (2003c). The changing roles of personnel managers: Old ambiguities, new uncertainties. Journal of Management Studies, 40(4), 983–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caldwell, R. (2004). Rhetoric, facts and self-fulfilling prophecies: Exploring practitioners’ perceptions of progress in implementing HRM. Industrial Relations Journal, 35(3), 196–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caldwell, R. (2008). HR business partner competency models: Re-contextualising effectiveness. Human Resource Management Journal, 18(3), 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caldwell, R. (2011). HR directors in UK boardrooms: In search of strategic influence or symbolic capital? Employee Relations, 33(1), 40–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caldwell, R., & Storey, J. (2007). The HR function: Integration or fragmentation? In J. Storey (Ed.), Human resource management: A critical text (pp. 21–38). London: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar

Secondary Sources

  1. Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alfes, K., Truss, C., & Gill, J. (2010). The HR manager as change agent: Evidence from the public sector. Journal of Change Management, 10(1), 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gerpott, F. H. (2015). The right strategy? Examining the business partner model’s functionality for resolving human resource management tensions and discussing alternative directions. German Journal of Research in Human Resource Management, 29(3–4), 214–234.Google Scholar
  4. Marchington, M. (2015). Human resources management (HRM): Too busy looking up to see where it is going longer term? Human Resource Management Review, 25, 176–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Truss, C. (2008). Continuity and change: The role of the HR function in the modern public sector. Public Administration, 86(4), 1071–1088.Google Scholar
  6. Wright, C. (2008). Reinventing human resource management: Business partners, internal consultants and the limits to professionalization. Human Relations, 61(8), 1063–1086.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Wylie, N., Sturdy, A., & Wright, C. (2014). Change agency in occupational context: Lessons for HRM. Human Resource Management Journal, 24(1), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Weber Scholarship

  1. Caldwell, R. (2002). Between Scylla and Charybdis: Reinhard Bendix on theory, concepts and comparison in Max Weber’s historical sociology. History of the Human Sciences, 2002, 15(3), 25–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caldwell, R. (2016). The Weberian legacy: Revisiting Reinhard Bendix’s intellectual portrait of Max Weber. Journal of Classical Sociology, 1(22), 196–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Secondary Sources

  1. Scaff, L. (2014). Weber and the Weberians. London: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice (Vol. 16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Caldwell, R. (2007). Agency and change: Re-evaluating Foucault’s legacy. Organization: Interdisciplinary Journal of Organization, Theory and Society, 14(6), 769–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caldwell, R. (2012a). Systems thinking, organizational change and agency: A practice theory critique of Senge’s learning organization. Journal of Change Management, 12(2), 145–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caldwell, R. (2012b). Leadership and learning: A critical re-examination of Senge’s learning organization. System Practice and Action Research, 25(1), 39–55. Reprinted in Dumas, C., & Beinecke, R. H. (2015). Change leadership. London: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Caldwell, R. (2018). Whitehead and organizational change theory: Rethinking process, becoming and agency. Organization Studies (under review).Google Scholar
  6. Raelin, J. (2016). Imagine there are no leaders: Reframing leadership as collaborative agency. Leadership, 12(2), 131–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Schatzki, T. (2013). The edge of change: On the emergence, persistence, and dissolution of practices. In E. Shove & N. Spurling (Eds.), Sustainable practice: Social theory and climate change (pp. 31–46). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brighton Business School/CROMEUniversity of BrightonBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations