Content area
Full Text
Episodic attempts at organizational change have proven to be unable to keep pace with continuous change. The challenge of emergent and continuous change calls for new ways of understanding time, particularly with regards to knowing the future. This article begins by reviewing classic organizational change theory in terms of its underlying temporal assumptions along with its epistemological stance toward effecting change in time. Drawing on the ideas of Henri Bergson, an alternative view of time as a dynamic flow-or duration-is presented, suggesting that linear, detached, and episodic methods lack knowledge of the future as a temporal dynamic and that popular visioning approaches that rely on future perfect assumptions fail to engage that dynamic directly. The authors propose that the future is unconditioned, what they refer to as the future infinitive. Knowing the future directly through deep improvisation bypasses sense making in favor of cultivating presence and acting in real time.
Keywords: organizational change; time; future orientation; vision; sense making; action inquiry
Despite the intense focus on the management of organizational change, little attention has been given to considering the temporal dimension that underlies and informs such theorizing. Burrell (1992) argues that "the whole notion of change relies heavily upon a conception of temporality," yet he finds it "remarkable that the philosophy of time has been a neglected issue" (p. 165). At first glance, as Burrell observes, the emphasis on constant change, turbulence, and chaos suggests that a Heraclitean view of time ("one can never step into the same river twice") has become a metatheoretical principle for organizing. Alvin Toffler's (1970) popular book, Future Shock, produced in the public consciousness a sense that the world seemed to be entering a state of continuous flux, evidenced by the unrelenting dynamic of change and incessant emergence of novelty in every segment of society. Yet despite the emphasis on the pervasiveness of change and flux, organizations continue to struggle with the challenges of anticipating and responding to rapid and unexpected change in their industries. Indeed, in modern organizations, change/flux is not embraced as a natural and universal condition in the Heraclitean sense but is seen more as a potential threat to an organization's existence.
The field of organization development has focused on "change processes," yet few theorists have...