Jeffrey Ford and the Seemingly Invisible Made Obvious: Pushing Change Scholars and Practitioners to Rethink Taken-For-Granted Truths

Living reference work entry

Abstract

In an academic career spanning over 40 years, Jeffrey Ford has repeatedly questioned taken-for-granted truths or recognized something so obvious it begs further thought and study. Seminal contributions on change management from the second period of his career (starting in 1989) are the focus of this chapter. Management, networks, and conversations are the commonalities of his scholarship, and each is evident in a body of work that enhances our understanding of intentional change management through his scholarly contributions – with his wife, Laurie Ford – on the logics of change, the role of conversations in producing intentional change, and the resistance to change. For managers and leaders, Ford’s work continues to focus our attention as scholars and practitioners on the ongoing day-to-day efforts to bring about organizational change.

Keywords

Resistance Conversations Change Logics Networks 

References

  1. Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2013). Has management studies lost its way? Ideas for more imaginative and innovative research. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashforth, B. E. (2005). Becoming vanilla pudding: How we undermine our passion for research. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 400–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bobbitt Jr., H. R., & Ford, J. D. (1980). Decision maker choice as a determinant of organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 5, l3–23.Google Scholar
  4. Ford, J. D. (1980a). The administrative component in growing and declining organizations: A longitudinal analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 615–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ford, J. D. (1980b). The occurrence of structural hysteresis in declining organizations. Academy of Management Review, 5, 589–598.Google Scholar
  6. Ford, J. D. (1985). The effects of casual attributions on decision makers’ responses to performance downturns. Academy of Management Review, 10, 770–786.Google Scholar
  7. Ford, J. D. (1994). Management education: Shifting our assumptions. Journal of Management Education, 18, 212–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ford, J. D. (1999a). Organizational change as shifting conversations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12, 480–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ford, J. D. (1999b). Conversations and the epidemiology of change. In W. Pasmore, & R. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 12, pp. 480–500). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Ford, J. D., & Backoff, R. W. (1988). Organization change in and out of dualities and paradox. In R. Quinn & K. Cameron (Eds.), Paradox and transformation: Towards a theory of change in organization and management (pp. 81–121). Boston: Ballinger Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Ford, J. D., & Baucus, D. A. (1987). Organization adaptation to performance downturns: An interpretation based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 12, 366–380.Google Scholar
  12. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1994). Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review, 19, 756–785.Google Scholar
  13. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995a). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 541–570.Google Scholar
  14. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995b). Getting caught in our point of view: A response to Carini et al. Academy of Management Review, 20, 785–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2008). Conversational profiles: A tool for altering the conversational patterns of change managers. Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 44, 445–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2009). Decoding resistance to change. Harvard Business Review, 87, 99–103.Google Scholar
  17. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (2010). Stop blaming resistance to change and start using it. Organizational Dynamics, 39, 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ford, J. D., & Ford, L.W. (2012). The leadership of change: A view from recent empirical evidence. In W. Pasmore, R. Woodman, & A. Shani (Eds.), Research in organization change and development (Vol. 20, pp. 1–36). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Ford, J. D., & Hagerty, W. H. (1984). Decision makers’ beliefs about the causes and effects of structure: An exploratory study. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ford, J. D., & Schellenberg, D. A. (1982). Conceptual issues of linkage in the assessment of organizational performance. Academy of Management Review, 7, 49–58.Google Scholar
  21. Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & McNamara, R. (2002). Resistance and the background conversations of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15, 105–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33, 362–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & Polin, B. (2014). Leadership in the conduct of organization change: An integrative view. Paper presented at the 2014 annual meeting of the academy of management. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  24. Gergen, K. J. (1978). Toward generative theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1344–1360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodman, P., & Kurke, L. (1982). studies of change in organinsations: A status report. In P. Goodman (Ed.), Change in organisations (pp. 1–46). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. House, R. J., & Aditya, R. N. (1997). The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management, 23, 409–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment. Homewood: Irwin.Google Scholar
  28. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). New York: Macmillian.Google Scholar
  31. Spreitzer, G. M., & Sonenshein, S. (2004). Toward the construct definition of positive deviance. The American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 828–847.Google Scholar
  32. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  33. Watzlawick, P. (1978). The language of change: Elements of therapeutic communication. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  34. Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interpersonal patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  35. Yukl, G., Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half century of behavior research. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Mawhinney, T. C., & Ford, J. D. (1977). The path goal theory of leader effectiveness: An operant interpretation. Academy of Management Review, 2, 398–451.Google Scholar
  2. Schrage, M. (1989). No more teams! Mastering the dynamics of creative collaboration. New York: Currency Paperbacks.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations