Suchergebnisse

Abstract

We pick up a current challenge in the change management literature — whether change can be managed. The answer to this question depends upon the underlying image one has of both managing and change.


We develop a model based upon two images of managing (management as controlling; management as shaping) and three images of change outcomes (intended, partially intended and unintended).


From this we identify six views on managing change: directing, navigating, caretaking, coaching, interpreting and nurturing.


We outline different theories associated with each of these views.


Theorists and practitioners hold differing images of what 'managing change' actually means — which leads them to talk past each other when attempting to engage in dialogue around how change can be managed.

Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Sensegiving constitutes a key process in the management of strategic change. Often this takes the form of narratives that provide a portrayal of events surrounding the change. This article reports the findings of research into the strategic change narratives that emerged in three organizations in which the senior management were seeking to respond to deregulation of the economy in which they were operating. The results illustrate both the existence of such narratives and the variation in form that they can take.

Preface -- Groundwork : understanding and diagnosing change -- Managing change : stories and paradoxes -- Images of change management -- Why change? : contemporary drivers and pressures -- What to change? : a diagnostic approach -- Implementation : the substance and process of change -- What changes (and what doesn?t)? : current concerns and developments -- Learning objectives -- Vision and the direction of change -- Change communication strategies -- Resistance to change -- Organization development and sense-making approaches -- Change management, processual, and contingency approaches -- Running threads : sustainability, and the effective change manager -- Sustaining change versus initiative decay -- The effective change manager : what does it take? -- Index

This article examines economic and legal constraints that determine whose losses are included in natural resource damages as a result of an oil spill or hazardous‐substance release. For example, the article describes the circumstances under which use losses experienced by young children would not be included in natural resource damages. With respect to nonuse damages, the article advocates excluding the expressed losses of people who have no knowledge of the specific natural resources affected by a spill/release and who are unaware that the natural resources were injured. In the absence of such knowledge and awareness, these people could not have experienced a welfare loss. Finally, the article discusses legal constraints on whose losses count in natural resource damages with respect to statutory exclusions, public versus private uses of natural resources, uses of natural resources by foreigners, and damages in the absence of injuries.

Measuring nonuse values is one of the most controversial topics facing environmental economists today. One important issue that has received little attention is determining who has economic standing with respect to nonuse losses from natural resource injuries. In this paper, a conceptual model for determining compensable nonuse losses is developed that is consistent with the Kaldor‐Hicks principle of potential Pareto improvement, and then that model is applied to the results of a telephone survey on industrial water pollution in the lower Passaic River in northern New Jersey. One proposition from this model indicates that only people who have knowledge of the injured resource (i.e., 10 to 44 percent of respondents) can incur a compensable nonuse loss. A second proposition from the model indicates that demand for information about an injury to a familiar resource is a necessary condition for compensable nonuse losses. It was found that 81 percent of the respondents who were familiar with the lower Passaic River were likely to read, listen to, or watch a news story about the river. However, far fewer respondents familiar with the lower Passaic River were willing to engage in more active, and costly, information‐acquisition activities (such as conducting research at the library and attending public meetings). Finally, the model suggests that geographic proximity to nondescript resources may affect nonuse values, information costs, or both, helping define the potentially affected population. The empirical results for the lower Passaic River support this third proposition. The overall conclusion is that only a small fraction of the population in New Jersey and New York might reasonably experience a nonuse loss as a result of industrial water pollution in the lower Passaic River.