AI - Rethinking society and organisations, part 2
Breaking away from the constraints of convention – wired for change
Dr Reg Butterfield © 2024
11-minutes read and 3.5 minute video.
On August 8, 2024, we introduced the first part of this discussion, exploring how shifting from a "symbolic" to a "connectionist" approach can open up a range of different strategies and outcomes for both society and organisations. We discussed how traditional change models, which are typically hierarchical, linear, and driven by top-down directives, might work well in stable environments with predictable changes. However, in today’s more dynamic, fast-paced world, these models often fall short. The first part proposed the connectionist approach as an alternative model for change. Unlike the traditional models, connectionist approaches are decentralised, iterative, and adaptive, making them ideal for environments where rapid innovation and responsiveness are crucial, a reality that increasingly defines the future of society and work.
In this second part, we provide a brief overview of the evolution of change methodologies, starting with the organisational development (OD) approach and leading up to the present-day landscape. Today, change management (CM) and project management (PM) often seem to struggle to keep pace, underlining the need for a different approach.
We suggest that it is important to understand this history when creating a more detailed connectionist model that avoids or resolves the current issues around change management models.
The shift from OD to CM
The transition from Organisational Development (OD) to Change Management (CM) represents a significant shift in how organisations approach change, and it has altered the way people are viewed within these processes. For change professionals and students grappling with the current focus on people in change because of their lack of engagement, and resistance to change itself, it's essential to understand the historical backdrop and how we arrived at this point.
From Lewin and Trist to Kotter and Prosci
Organisational Development, which emerged in the mid-20th century, was deeply rooted in social science, particularly in the work of figures like Kurt Lewin and the Tavistock Institute’s Eric Trist. This school of thought emphasised human-centric change, focusing on how individuals, teams, and organisations could grow and adapt in a way that balanced both technological and social factors. OD was fundamentally about the long-term development of people and Organisational Behaviour (often referred to as culture), with change being an ongoing, participatory process. It sought to foster environments where employees were not just contributors to organisational success but key stakeholders in shaping that success.
However, by the 1980s, business environments were becoming more turbulent, driven by globalisation, technological advancements, and increased competition. These forces brought about a shift in organisational priorities. There was a growing demand for faster, more tangible results, and this urgency began to reshape how change was managed. The humanistic, slower-paced approaches of OD started to seem out of sync with the needs of businesses that were now focusing on efficiency, measurable outcomes, and short-term performance.
Enter Change Management, which gained prominence as a more structured, results-oriented discipline. CM models like John Kotter’s 8-step process or Prosci’s ADKAR framework emerged, offering a clear, step-by-step approach to managing transitions within organisations. While these models still recognised the importance of people, their focus was largely on ensuring that employees adapted to new systems and processes in a way that aligned with strategic business goals. The aim was to manage resistance and drive compliance with the change, often reducing the human element to a variable that needed to be controlled. The broader, participatory nature of OD was increasingly sidelined in favour of approaches that could deliver more immediate, measurable outcomes.
The relationship between CM and PM
This shift was further reinforced by the rise of Project Management, which became closely linked with Change Management during the 1990s. As Organisations tackled large-scale, project-based changes, whether it was the implementation of new technology or corporate restructuring, PM and CM were treated as complementary tools. Project Management frameworks like PMI’s PMBOK offered the technical structure to guide projects, while Change Management focused on aligning the workforce with the new objectives. However, this alignment often meant focusing on getting people to comply with the change, rather than engaging them in shaping it. Employees were increasingly seen as part of the project workflow, with their adaptation treated as just another task to be managed.
The impact of efficiency programmes
Over time, this emphasis on efficiency, results, and project-based outcomes contributed to a growing disconnect between organisations and their people. As business pressures intensified, the human aspects of change began to take a backseat to performance metrics and short-term objectives. Where OD had seen people as central to organisational success, CM and PM tended to view them as resources to be optimised, aligned, or adjusted in service of broader strategic goals. This transactional view of employees contributed to a sense that people were getting lost in the process.
Part of the reason for this shift lies in the evolution of leadership practices. Many CM models, particularly those with a top-down structure like Kotter’s, emphasised the role of leaders in driving change, often framing employees as potential resistors who needed to be managed. This framing positioned people as obstacles to be overcome, rather than key players in co-creating the future of the organisation. While the process of managing resistance is undoubtedly important in any change effort, this approach can undermine the deeper, more collaborative engagement that OD sought to foster. It reduced the conversation to how to get people on board with the change, rather than how to meaningfully involve them in shaping the direction of that change.
The arrival of the Technocrats
Another factor that contributed to this marginalisation of people in change processes was the rise of technocratic approaches. The rapid advancement of technology during the 1990s and 2000s brought a belief that organisational success could be engineered through process improvement and automation. Human input, while still necessary, was often seen as less critical than the technical execution of projects. This was compounded by the “projectification” of change efforts, where people were treated as just another resource to be scheduled and managed, rather than central agents in the change process.
Success is all about metrics – isn’t it?
The growing reliance on short-term performance metrics also played a role. As businesses became more results-driven, employees were increasingly viewed as costs to be managed or optimised. The idea of long-term investment in people and culture, which was central to OD, became less of a priority. Instead, there was a greater focus on aligning employees with immediate business needs, often through structured training or compliance programs designed to bring them in line with the new goals.
Apologies to Schrödinger…”does change happen if no one is there?”
As a result, people began to experience what is often referred to as “change fatigue.” With the constant stream of new initiatives and transformations, employees grew weary of change processes that seemed disconnected from their own development or well-being. Change became something that was done to them, rather than something they actively participated in. This disconnect often led to a loss of trust and a sense that their voices weren’t being heard in the broader organisational conversation.
In today’s landscape, there is a growing recognition that this imbalance needs to be addressed. While Change Management has succeeded in providing organisations with the tools to manage transitions efficiently, the emphasis on compliance and outcomes has sometimes come at the cost of employee engagement and well-being. Many change professionals and students today are grappling with how to reintroduce the people-cantered values of OD into the faster, more structured world of CM and PM.
The key challenge is finding ways to blend the humanistic, long-term focus of OD with the need for rapid, results-driven change. It requires a shift away from treating people as obstacles or resources to be managed and toward recognising them as the core drivers of organisational success. This means rethinking how we engage employees in change processes, not just as passive recipients of new systems and strategies but as active participants in shaping the future of their organisations. By doing so, we can create change initiatives that are not only successful in terms of outcomes but also in terms of fostering a deeper, more sustainable connection between organisations and their people.
Today’s challenge of change
In today’s environment, there is a growing recognition that the imbalance between structured, results-driven Change Management and the human-centric focus of Organisational Development needs to be addressed. While CM has provided organisations with tools to manage transitions efficiently, its emphasis on compliance and outcomes has sometimes come at the cost of employee engagement and well-being.
The challenge today, is how to reintroduce OD’s people-centred values into the faster-paced, structured world of CM and Project Management.
The “Futocracy Change” way forward lies in adopting a “connectionist” approach to change, which emphasises continual, iterative, and organisation-wide processes. This approach resonates more closely with the OD tradition by treating organisations as interconnected systems rather than collections of individual processes in operational silos. In a connectionist model, change is viewed as a constant, adaptive process that occurs across the entire organisation, responding dynamically to the needs of both the internal and external environment.
Unlike traditional, linear models of change, which rely on clear stages and milestones, the connectionist approach aligns with the realities of today’s hybrid, fast-evolving workplace. Linear causation models like Kotter’s or ADKAR, while effective in stable environments, are often ill-suited to the current pace of technological advancement, globalisation, and the growing complexity of work patterns. These models operate under the assumption that change follows a clear, predictable path. However, in the hybrid and dynamic workplace of today and tomorrow, change is constant and multi-directional, requiring a more adaptive, fluid approach.
The Futocracy Change connectionist approach integrates the decentralised, participatory aspects of OD while acknowledging that change is no longer confined to discrete, manageable phases. Instead, change is an ongoing, iterative process that involves the entire organisation; its people, structures, and strategies working together to adapt and innovate continuously. This method emphasises collaboration, learning, and elements of systems thinking, ensuring that changes are not simply imposed from the top but emerge from within the organisation itself, making them more sustainable and aligned with the broader organisational behaviour, skills and capacity.
Given the uncertain, volatile nature of today's business environment, this approach also reflects a shift towards decentralised decision-making and rapid responsiveness, which are essential in complex, fast-changing industries. The Futocracy Change model encourages a non-linear understanding of how change occurs, allowing organisations to become more resilient, agile, and adaptive. This also helps reintroduce the human dimension to change, as it requires ongoing engagement, distributed authority (which is more than traditional forms of empowerment), and input from employees at all levels, fostering a sense of ownership and alignment with the purpose of the organisation and associated organisational goals.
By shifting from rigid, step-based models to more system-oriented, continuous change frameworks, organisations can better navigate the complexities of the modern workplace. This approach allows for more fluid, people-centric adaptation, making it better suited to addressing the demands of today’s workforce while remaining agile in the face of future internal and external challenges.
This shift toward a connectionist approach represents an opportunity to bridge the gap between the process-driven efficiency of CM and the people-driven ethos of OD, ultimately creating a model of change that is both responsive to organisational needs and deeply aligned with human well-being.
Technology and the Futocracy Change model
A major element of an organisation’s ability to remain successful today is their access to, and use of technology. The Futocracy Change model emphasises the importance of real-time data and coordinated action across the organisation.
In today’s fast-paced business world, many organisations are turning to cloud-based platforms to help them leverage artificial intelligence (AI) and other advanced technologies. This is particularly important for smaller companies (SMEs) that may struggle to afford the infrastructure needed to support these advancements. Fortunately, there are many services available today that help bridge these gaps by offering AI and other analytical capabilities through the cloud, similar to how “Software as a Service (SaaS)” works.
Cloud-based AI services are a great solution for businesses that need to harness the power of AI without having the budget for high-tech infrastructure. While data privacy and security are real concerns, companies like Google Cloud AI, Microsoft Azure AI, AWS AI, and others have built comprehensive security measures to ensure that sensitive data is protected. By encrypting data, following global regulations, and offering strong access controls, these platforms help businesses stay secure while adopting cutting-edge AI technologies.
For example, a company might use Google Cloud’s AI tools to better understand customer behaviour or AWS to analyse massive amounts of data for decision-making. Microsoft Azure can be used for predictive analytics, which helps businesses anticipate trends, while IBM Watson offers powerful tools for customer support automation. These and other forms of cloud-based platforms democratise AI, and other technology making it accessible even to small organisations.
We cover this and more in detail in our Futocracy Change documents for clients.
Summary and Next Steps
This second piece in our series on rethinking society and change aimed to help readers appreciate why it's essential to return to an organisational development (OD) perspective on change. We’re now living in a time when artificial intelligence (AI) plays a crucial role in gathering information and supporting decision-making through data analysis and real-time updates. This modern approach helps transform OD from a concept that many see as outdated into a powerful tool for driving change throughout entire organisations; think of it as “OD on steroids.”
In the next part of this series, we will dive into the reasons for re-evaluating the traditional “commercial” view of systems thinking. By “commercial view,” we refer to the often-simplistic perspective that treats systems as just a way to adapt linear change models for managing complexity. We’ll explore how this limited view can hinder our understanding of the intricate, interconnected nature of organisations, the people and the constant changes they undergo, consciously and unknowingly.
If you missed the video link at the beginning, you can view it here.