What is change?

What is it about?

What constitutes change is often taken for granted and itsdefinition is avoided. Many studies based on individuals’ rational choice imply assume that change flows from purposive actions in accordance with an objective, external reality. Others argue that change results from institutional pressures, isomorphisms and routines. Both depict change as the passage from one identifiable and unique status to another. Despite their differences over whether reality is independent, concrete and external, or socially constructed, both assume that actors (or researchers) can identify a reality to trace the scale and direction of changes. This reflects modernist beliefs that organizational space and time are unique and linear. The paper takes issue with this and argues that ‘a-centred organizations’ and ‘drift’ should replace conventional definitions of organizations and change. The arguments are based on the sociology of translation and constructivism, and insights from two case studies of Enterprise Resource Planning system implementations in large multinational organizations.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

The paper challenges conventional depictions of change in most organisational, accounting and business studies and instead advocates a different approach based on actor network theory.