Master Thesis Change management and Serious Games

8/13/2019 Master Thesis Change management and Serious Games

1/68

Simulation Games &Postmodernist Change Management

Supporting Postmodernist Change Interventions

Abram Janse

[email protected] University 2011


2/68

2

Table of contents

Summary ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 2 Characteristics of postmodern change ................................................................................... 9

2.1 Societal paradigms and organizational change management ..........................................................9 2.1.1 Modern society ............................................................................................................................9 2.1.2 Globalization................................................................................................................................ 9 2.1.3 Postmodernist society ...............................................................................................................10 2.1.4 Society and change management .............................................................................................10

2.2 Postmodernism translated in organizational change management ...............................................12 2.2.1 Characteristics of both paradigms translated in change theories............................................12 2.2.2. Postmodernist theories of chaos and complexity ...................................................................13 2.2.3 Changing relationships employee - organization .................................................................... 15 2.2.4 Postmodernism and change management, intermediary conclusions ....................................16

2.3 Focusing on postmodernism from Homans theory ........................................................................18 2.3.1 Homans (2005) postmodernist theory of change management.............................................18 2.3.2 Connecting various theories with Homans change dimensions............................................19

2.4. Conclusion: five characteristics of PC ........................................................................................... 22

Chapter 3 Characteristics of simulation games .....................................................................................23 3.1 Introducing simulation games ..........................................................................................................23 3.2 Research and concept of simulation games .....................................................................................23

3.2.1 Conceptual background of simulation games ..........................................................................24 3.2.2 Research focus ........................................................................................................................... 25

3.3 Experiential learning and simulation games ................................................................................... 26 3.4 Simulation game characteristics and phases ................................................................................... 27

3.4.1 Characteristics of simulation games.........................................................................................27 3.4.2 Phases of simulation games ......................................................................................................29 3.5.1 Elements necessary for effective simulation games................................................................30 3.5.2 Functionalities of simulation game .......................................................................................... 32

3.6 conclusions: 6 characteristics of simulation games ........................................................................35

Chapter 4 Comparing PC & SG ..............................................................................................................37 4.1 Complexity, dialectics and interconnection .....................................................................................37

4.1.1 Complexity in postmodernism and simulation games ............................................................37 4.1.2 Multiple realities & dialectics...................................................................................................38 4.1.3 Interconnections and empowerment ........................................................................................39

4.2 Experiential learning ......................................................................................................................... 40 4.2.1 Connecting postmodernist change with SG.............................................................................40 4.2.2 Frameworks of experiential learning .......................................................................................41

4.3 Effect of simulation game in postmodernist change processes454.3.1 Implementing process ...............................................................................................................42 4.3.2 Phases of change and simulation game usage .........................................................................44

4.4 Conclusions of fit postmodernist change and simulation games ...................................................... 45

Chapter 5 connecting theory with case studies ......................................................................................48 5.1 Heart of postmodernism....................................................................................................................48


3/68

3

5.1.1 LNV and Control-IT ................................................................................................................. 48 5.1.2 MN Services and klant-erger-je-niet ........................................................................................48 5.1.3 conclusions................................................................................................................................. 49

5.2 How does the SG support (post)modern change? ........................................................................... 50 5.2.1 LNV and Control-IT ................................................................................................................. 50 5.2.2 MN Services and klant-erger-je-niet ........................................................................................50 5.2.3 Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 51

5.3 Effect of SG in the implementation process .....................................................................................52 5.3.1 LNV and Control-IT ................................................................................................................. 52 5.3.2 MN Services and klant-erger-je-niet ........................................................................................54 5.3.3 Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 56

6. Final conclusions..................................................................................................................................... 58

7. Future research directions ....................................................................................................................62

Literature ..................................................................................................................................................... 64


4/68

4

Summary

Globalization marks the start of a new paradigm, Postmodernism. Organizations are

affected by the paradigm shift, although more slowly than their environment. The

cultural reality is only slowly being transferred to change management theory, which

is why there are so many practical answers instead of more scientific answers to

organizational change. Organizational reality is more effectively changed using

postmodern theory to understand and a postmodern instrument to intervene.

Homan uses postmodernist concepts such as complexity and chaos theory to give

meaning to organizational reality. Simulation games are able to translate these

concepts into a fitting intervention method. What is more, simulation games areuseful bridging (often still) modern organizational design with postmodern change

management.

Five characteristics of postmodernist change (PC) are distilled from the contextual

analysis of postmodernism. These are: PC is a bottom-up participatory process, with a

framework to guide interaction, to channel and support feedback flows within the

organization at all levels. The focus is on behavior, of individuals or small groups,

because change is understood as an incremental process, spreading like an oil stain.

Simulation games (SG) have many aspects, as they are compressing reality, of

which there are six to mention in particular. These are: Simulations mimic complex

systems, whereas games focus on behaviour and interaction. SG are easy to use next

to other intervention methods, and they create a flexible and controllable experience.

Benefits can be numerous, but effect size of SG depends on presence of specific

standards such as sequence of the game and the facilitator; and influence of contextualfactors such as organizational buy-in, and participants motivation before the game.

To what degree could simulation games support postmodernist organizational

change? SG support understanding complex realities, help empower participants and

teach them skills, knowledge and behavior including insight, cooperation, interaction.

SG are thus highly able to support PC. Yet, SG standards and contextual factors have

to be met to intervene effectively. It seems beneficial to conduct practical researchinto the effects of simulation games in change trajectories.


5/68

5

Chapter 1: Introduction

Business success in a globalized world heavily depends on the ability to come to

terms with fast flows of communication, finances and technology. Adaptability, the

(in)ability to adapt to change is an important shaper of organizational reality.

Unfortunately, it seems, when change is carried out in organizations, it often fails to

live up to expectations.

In this thesis a distinction is made between modern and postmodern approaches to

change. Modern approaches to organizational change prove unsatisfactory in range

(too narrowly focused on one specific change and therefore short term lived) and

success rate (consistent failure rates of 70%). Times have changed, as globalizing postmodern society needs different answers. Organizations also need a new approach

to cover economic and societal demands. Simulation games are useful bridging

modern organizational design and postmodern change management.

Many authors propose a dichotomy of change management characteristics belonging

to modernism and postmodernism. Modernism is equated with planned, top-down,

programmatic, economic value-driven change, whereas postmodernism with

emergent, bottom-up, participatory, capability-driven change (e.g. Russ, 2010; Ten

Have and Visser, 2004; Strh, 2005; Beer and Nohria, 2000; Homan, 2005). The

societal context is very useful in understanding this dichotomy as modernism and

postmodernism bear heavily on change management theories. That the societal

changes have their effect on organizational reality and the consequent intervention

strategies and styles should not come as a surprise. However, organizations change

more slowly than environments (Leavitt, 1996).

This study gathers characteristics of postmodernist organizational change from

literature and employs a focus on Homans theory of organizations and change

management to exemplify postmodernist change (PC) management theory. A main

framework used is Homans (2005) figure of four dimensions of organizational

change. One continuum translates the degree of planning; a second distinguishes the

amount of participation in change interventions. At extremes, PC is spontaneous and

participated in, while modernist change is a management plan.


6/68

6

Characteristics of postmodernist society trickle down into organizations, which are in

turn no longer governed by modern laws of change management. The application of

simulation games in postmodernist organizational change processes promises to be

very useful. Whereas the simulation part ensures a modelling of organizational reality,

the gaming part empowers employees to participate, opening usage of previously

disengaged soft-skills for organizational strengthening.

This research describes characteristics of PC and SG from literature and describes the

degree to which they match. It then presents two case studies to exemplify the theory.

Within the field of simulation games the focus is on real life, serious games with a

process component Control-IT (Simagine) and Klant-erger-je-niet (Customer

Games). Necessary for the argument of this research is the consequent juxtaposing of

PC management and SG characteristics.

In the end, there will be an answer to the question: to what degree are simulation

games - real life, with serious purposes and a process component- useful for

intervening in the postmodernist organizational landscape (Homan, 2005). The

degree of usefulness is an interdependency of characteristic fit between postmodernist

change management and simulation games with minor focus on the phases of

organizational change in which simulation games are employed. This research only

briefly touches upon the phases of organizational change, using the DOVE-cycle as

used in the study of Van de Westelaken (2002).

The argument that simulation games are useful in PC processes begs for further

research answering the question: can the argued usefulness of simulation games be

measured in practice? This will be discussed in the end of the thesis.

To sum up, this research explores the literature that aims to contribute to the

understanding of the consistent failure rates of 70% of (modern) organizational

change reality, proposing the benefits of PC management. Furthermore, this study

argues that simulation games are a very useful tool in the change managers toolbox

to help creating the desired (post)modern organizational change. These benefits areshown, juxtaposing characteristics of simulation games with postmodernist change


7/68

7

management - bridging the postmodernist approach to change (game element) with

the modern character of the target service oriented organizations (simulation element).

However, both subjects are too vast in depth and breadth to cover in their entirety.

Therefore, borders of research are determined: Homans (2005) theory of change

management will serve as focused example of PC management. In similar fashion, for

simulation games is zoomed in on simulation games played in reality, with serious

purposes and a process component.

The main research question is: To what degree could simulation games support

postmodernist organizational change?

Four minor questions adding up to a final answer to the research question:

1. What are the characteristics of postmodern organizational change?

2. What are the characteristics of simulation games and what makes them able to

support change management in general?

3. What are the opportunities and points of attention of using simulation games for

postmodern change processes?

4. How are simulation games experienced by participants? Adding understanding to

the broader question: how do simulation games (real life, serious, process component)

support postmodernist organizational change (service oriented, mostly modern

characteristics) in practice?

A clear approach to answering the research question is used, first explaining PC

management, then simulation games, consequently opportunities and points of

attention in theory and practice.

The second chapter attempts to create understanding of postmodernist change

management, best achieved by sketching a societal background. In this chapter, the

articles of Singh (2001) and Strh (2005) as well as the book of Homan (2005) are

used as main source.

The third chapter is composed of knowledge on the subject of simulation

games from many articles, often of fellow students such as Bekebrede (2010), Van deWestelaken (2002), Van Gils (2008), and of course also of well-established


8/68

8

researchers such as Klabbers (2009), De Caluw (e.g. 2007), Wenzler (1999), and

Geurts (e.g. 2000).

The fourth chapter combines both bodies of knowledge, adding work on experiential

learning and change methods from authors Russ (2010) and Wenzler (2008).

The fifth chapter connects theory with practice through two case studies. After

this fifth chapter, the conclusions can be drawn answering to the research questions.

As this research mostly accounts for the theoretical background, further research into

the realistic and achieved effects of simulation games in postmodern change

management in practice is necessary.

Picture 1: Sigmar Polke, Object Kartoffelhaus (Potato House Object), 1967.

The house in modern terms stands for the organization as a planned project, with clear

boundaries and forms. In postmodernist terms we focus on the potatoes (teams/employees)

where the environment touches the organization, potentially creating networks. The house is a

simplified form of reality, a simulation; and naming multiple realities is both a postmodernist

approach to reality and a game we can play to understand the sometimes difficult concepts

mentioned in this research.


9/68

9

Chapter 2 Characteristics of postmodern change

2.1 Societal paradigms and organizational change management

How can we frame the concept of postmodernist society as a phenomenon and how

does it influence organizational change management in general terms?

2.1.1 Modern society

The 20 th century started with two big wars. The consecutive build-up period was

characterized by a strong belief in a rational and better world. Organizations such as

NATO would help spread peace and justice around the world and organizations

would prosper finding the most rational production methods. One fine definition ofmodernity: the progressive economic and administrative rationalization and

differentiation of the social world (Sarup 1993). This material rationalization

developed in the context of capitalist society and industrialization. Tomlinson (1991)

and Castoriadis (1987) mention that capitalist modernity is technologically and

economically powerful, but culturally weak. Giddens (1987) adds that there is a lack

of moral legitimacy (Giddens, 1987).

2.1.2 Globalization

To some, the modern period ended together with imperialism in 1960, and with it the

belief in a purposeful project faded (Tomlinson, 1991 p. 175). As capitalist modernity

advanced, globalization emerged spurring change around the world communication,

information and financial flows. Globalization as a change force is less directed

compared to imperialism and was clearly distinct from 1972 (Harvey, 1989 p. vii).

Globalizing forces mix and mingle people and flows at a higher speed than before.

The interconnections of finance, information and communication confront

government and organizations with multiple realities. While the increasing ease and

speed of flows spurs global competition, local people are pushed in a defensive

position to protect themselves from the negative impact of globalization. Workers,

minorities, cultural and ethnic groups organize to defend themselves from further

exploitation in the changing labor process first locally, later, via media globally.


10/68

10

The global issues get politicized from the local and personal points of view. In the

event of downsizing, local and personal issues as well as issues related to self-

actualisation get exacerbated and, consequently, much has been written about how

managers can plan and implement various aspects of downsizing. Thus, globalization

presses on local realities, forcing leaders of society (e.g. politicians and managers) to

come up with answers and solutions (Giddens, 1991).

2.1.3 Postmodernist society

The period following imperialism is rendered ambiguous. The late modernity or

postmodernity contains uncertainty, paradox and cultural indirection (Tomlinson,

1991 p. 175). Like globalization, postmodernity can be understood as emerging from

modern capitalist society. Postmodernity is a movement in advanced capitalist

culture, indicating diversity of individual and social identity.

Instead of a coercive totality, postmodernism has a pluralistic and open democracy

and awareness of ambivalence and contingency (free interpretation from Lyotard,

1984). Postmodern authors such as Derida, Faucault and Lyotard reject the Marxist

idea that material reality determines social forces, proposing rather that society is

determined by information through the media a consciousness industry (Cova,1996 p. 15; Mickey, 1997 p. 271&272).

In a way, the cultural void left by capitalist modernity is filled by many voices during

postmodernity e.g. of supposed leaders, random individuals, but also the voice of

globalizing brands and organizations. Reality is being reconstructed through a clash

of viewpoints; discourse through the media is the new way to progress. Whereas

globalization is the name of the forces driving the change, postmodernity is the nameof the resulting societal reality.

2.1.4 Society and change management

The modern society showed faith in material reality and organized development,

which translates into change management as logical process and adjustment of

systems. It comes as no surprise that single best solutions and meta-approaches are

adopted in this paradigm, because the world is viewed as comprehensible and

malleable by logic. Postmodernism is the negation of the rationalist approach and the


11/68

11

one-stop solutions. The shift away from a mechanistic into a more dialectic world-

view can be marked by the globalization of the capitalist society. For individuals to

change, they need to see or debate the meaning of new behaviour; and meaning is

dynamic here, not purely rationalist and mathematical.

Yet, organizations are changing more slowly than environments (Leavitt, 1996). And

in turn, management theories of change develop even slower. The paradigm shift of

modernity to postmodernity has not been completed in organizations and the

management of change. Organizations are formed to somehow control aspects of their

environment, which might explain their being stuck on comprehendible rationalist

approaches instead of emotional, individualist meaning giving. Theorists have

criticized the body of management knowledge that is repeatedly taught and used in

industry and training as deeply flawed, and not producing the returns promised

(Jackson & Carter, 1992, p. 2). The figure of about 70% of change management

failures should perhaps not come as a surprise taking into account the contextual

factors. Because the scientific methods are still attuned to the modern paradigm, the

necessity of more fitting (dynamic) models is recognized by practitioners.

Nowadays, even popular literature on organizational experience is accepted as valid

depictions of reality (Kreiner, 1992 p. 38).

Picture 2: Neo (postmodernist) stopped believing material reality posing questions of identity, and

meaning. He discovers his uniqueness, and understands that material reality is only the frontier ofmultiple realities, a complex network, a simulation game (hence, the matrix).


12/68

12

2.2 Postmodernism translated in organizational change management

2.2.1 Characteristics of both paradigms translated in change theories

Both societal paradigms mentioned in the overview of Table 1 bear heavily on change

methods. The what (substance) of change management has roughly shifted from

system to behaviour oriented; the how (method) of change management on many

levels has also underwent development. It is important to note though, most

organizations tend to follow a combination of planned and emergent approaches to

change management, depending on circumstances and objectives of the organization

(Strh, 2005 p. 71; Burnes, 1996 p. 338; Beer & Nohria, 2000).

Table 1: Characteristics of modern and postmodernist change management theory

Modernism PostmodernismChange theory One reality; teleological, life-cycle, episodic change

Multiple realities; evolutionary,dialectic, continuous change

Goal Theory E, economic value-driven, shareholder

Theory O, organizational capability-driven, stakeholder

Focus Hard-systems, rational, objective Soft-systems, people issues, subjective Direction Top-down, directive leadership Bottom-up, participative leadershipTarget Structure and systems Culture

Approach Planned and programmatic Emergent and non-programmatic Agents Consultants + top management Small process-oriented consulting

General systems theory:Unfreeze move refreeze (Lewin, 1947)

Socio-technical approach: Interaction human-technology (Trist e t al, 1960)

Organizational development (based on Lewinswork): Behavioral science and system improvement(McGregor, 1950s)

Learning organization: Organizational structure &culture focused on multiple loop learning (Senge, 1994)

Lean production: Cutting the waste in organizations Toyota, Kaizen models (Womack et al, 1990)

Total quality management: Like lean, but with focus on quality and customer requirements (Kaoru, 1985)

Business process reengineering, best practice, high performance work organization :Focus on core business & building workforce commitment

Complexity theory Self-organization and connectionism.Compare: Game (Homan, 2005)

Chaos theoryThe study of complex, dynamic systemsthat reveal patterns of order out of

seemingly chaotic behaviours...so complexand dynamic, in fact, as to appear chaotic(Overman, 1996, p. 487). Compare: Play(Homan, 2005)


13/68

13

To modernity belong the systemic, financially measurable approaches to change

management. From 1960, a shift towards including human behaviour and quality for

the customer can be noted. However, including behaviour here still means to plan,

organize and change it rationally according to the top down conceived change models.

Change management is almost a mathematical skill preserved for the big minds in

top management and consulting firms.

According to Chia (1995), the modernist understanding of a process refers to a

discrete, linear and sequential static process. Contrasting this view, postmodernists

understand a process as intricate patterns, networks of interactions and relationships.

Moreover, whereas modern management includes employee behaviour in the change

equation as a factor to mould in the right shape, postmodernism celebrates humanistic

values of creativity and quality of life as focus point of change. Postmodernism

criticizes capitalist practises and management based on rational objectivity, offering a

holistic approach to management (Jackson & Carter, 1992; Kreiner, 1992).

For example, postmodernists pursue courses of action that are advantageous in

the long term to the organiser including environmental issues criticizing the chasing

of profit at the detriment of the ozone layer etc. Change, in postmodernist terms, is

not willed or designed as in modernism, but is a natural result of learning,

understanding and knowing. Organizations should be brave enough to discard an idea

if it is outdated, despite its past usefulness (Sherman & Schultz, 1998, p.27). Chia

(1995 p. 579) argues that because organizations are in constant flux and are thus not

representable in a cross-sectional point in time or state, instead of looking at

organizational structures, attributes and outcomes (material form), they should be

approached in terms of interactions, relationships and complex changes (soft system).

2.2.2. Postmodernist theories of chaos and complexity

Postmodernism proclaims that meaning is created via interaction (dialectic theory)

and systems are diverse. According to Cilliers (1998) postmodernism has an implicit

sensitivity to complexity, acknowledging self-organization and connectionism which

all are important factors influencing chaos and complexity theories. Complexity and

chaos theory appreciate reality as being constantly reconstructed while the diversity

and interaction of systems is necessary for the quality of the flow (figure 2). Another

common denominator is the use of scenarios, where different (dis)courses are

selected, changes introduced and then criticised again.


14/68

14

Within postmodernism, complexity and chaos theory, building relationships is the

key. The development and maintenance of relationships is more important than the

outcomes, players or objects themselves because relationships spur development of

meaning. Supporting and diversifying the existing flow and flexibility of living

systems thus contributes to greater access to and renewal of information, power, new

technology and developments. Isolating a system and stopping the flow will cause

disintegration, free flow, however, allows for creativity and growth (Youngblood,

1997 p. 71).

The term complexity refers to the fact that in a system there are more possibilities

than can be actualized (Luhmann, 1985, p.25) while the interactions of components

of a system and the environment are too intricate to understand just by studying the

components (Cilliers, 1998 p. viii). Moreover, the interrelationships shift, change and

transform, denying definition of absolute patterns and borders. Summing up,

complexity refers to the ever-changing patterns of interactions of a system, which

make the systems difficult to study as an entity. Examples of complex systems are

societies, the brain, organizations and language (Laszlo & Laugel, 2000).

To add to the complexity, a system both influences and is influenced by its

environment and changes do not occur because of one single intervention. For

example, if a single intervention has caused a change in a systems current state, the

system will only keep this state as long as the environment is stable. And finally, the

process of self-organization makes behaviour prediction in complex systems almost

seem impossible. One could feel as though the interrelations and self organisation is

completely random, chaotic. However, chaos and complexity differ on the patterns of

interactions whereas chaos assumes that no pattern can be distinguished, complexity

assumes patterns and models if viewed from a distance or over time. According to

Sherman and Schultz (1998) chaos and complexity might be a confusion in

terminology as chaos and order are two ends of the same continuum, complexity

being the path in between the two extremes.

Chaos can be described as change periods in an organization when people get

confused or overwhelmed and cannot make sense of anything (compare play , Homan

2005). These change periods in organizations force people to move from a state ofcomfort (compare game , Homan 2005) to something new. This state of confusion


15/68

15

helps reorganise systems so that they are better adapted to the new environment.

Change basically becomes a self-ability to transform only made possible when

systems are willing to move into confusion, chaos, and change (Flower, 1993 p.51).

As mentioned before, the commonly assumed body of management

knowledge does not produce the returns promised, because the scientific methods are

still attuned with modernity. Models need to fit reality better in order for management

of change to be more effective. If chaos and complexity theories represent

postmodern reality correctly, the modern approach with one stop change and future

prediction cannot hold, strategies will have to be modified constantly. The

postmodern/complex approach however offers solutions focussing on behavioural

skills and interactive patterns. In order for a system to survive it has to be allowed to

utilise its self-organising abilities effectively (Cilliers, 1998).

Self-organization and power are closely connected. Giving power to the actors

within the system (employees) instead of letting a small group (management) control

the flows may generate conflicts through discourse, but resolutions may also be found

through the interactions of the elements of complex systems.

2.2.3 Changing relationships employee - organization

The shift in society is causing organizations to change, with globalization as a forceexpressing the intensified speed and variation of flows. As environments and

organizations are changing, demands on behaviour are too. Whereas the modern

approach includes behaviour as part of a mathematic equation of the change plan

(behaviour manipulation), postmodernism celebrates behaviour putting interaction

and creative skills in the centre of organizational development.

Noer (1993) gives an interesting overview of how relationships between employeeand organizations have shifted (table 2). The shift entails faster flows within

organizations, which presses on jobs and livelihoods of individual employees. Forces

of globalization are often linked with downsizing. The postmodernist answer to keep

being profitable as organization requires building employee skills such as improved

communication and networking skills (Homans theory); and also awareness of and

responsibility for the processual flow. Building behavioural skills helps organizations

notice and respond to changes at local (team) level more adequately.


16/68

16

It is remarkable to see the shift in relationship between employee and

employer mentioned by Noer (1993). While the way of managing shifts from process

to behaviour (in line with postmodernism), employees themselves are increasingly

treated like things rather than beings (in line with globalization). The hardened

approach to employees is necessary if seen from a modern standpoint, changes are

addressed mechanically. A postmodernist approach would keep focus on the

employee as asset; yet, individuals hold responsibility to cater for their own

development. Further reflection and research promises to be useful but lies outside of

the scope of this research.

As organizations want to survive, self-organizing utilities need to be addressed

and build. First, the organization needs to understand the changed laws of social

reality and build participative frameworks. Second, employees have to become aware

of the need to develop and understand their surroundings in order to be able to

adequately respond to changes in the environment. Third, a postmodernist perception

of processes needs to be translated into action, first and foremost enriching

interpersonal relationships.

Modernity Postmodernity Employee Asset to be developed Cost to be reduced Language of hire andcut

An almost nurturing way oftalking: develop, help, grow

Violent language: take out, shoot, terminate

Orientation Focus on long term careers Hiring for the job to bedone

Size Synergistic build and develop Reductionist small size andcut

Manager Machine like, old ings: planning, coordinating,evaluating

Organic, new ings:helping, empowering,coaching

Table 2: organization employee relationship shift

2.2.4 Postmodernism and change management, intermediary conclusions

Both modernist and postmodernist paradigms heavily bear on change methods. The

what of change management has roughly shifted from system to behaviour oriented;

the how of change management on many levels has also underwent development

(table 1). As globalization spurs flows, the tempo of change has also up-scaled. Most

changes in organizations reflect simple responses to demographic, economic, social,

and political forces (March, 1981). Failed responses to change are often blamed on

employees who resisted doing what was expected of them. However, from a


17/68

17

contextualist point of view first organizations failed to respond to change initiatives

(postmodern: bottom up) or changed in ways that were inappropriate (Gross,

Giaquinta, and Berstein, 1971; Nelson and Yates, 1978). More specifically,

organizations change in response to their environments, but rarely change in ways that

fulfils the intentions of a particular group of actors (Attewell and Gerstein 1979).

Continuous change cannot be meaningfully managed with a modern (mechanist,

singular) approach, it has to be managed more organic and sustainable.

Although most organizations follow combinations of planned and emergent

approaches, often a pre-conceived (cognitive) idea of the end state is proposed

organizations are seen as entities instead of flows and interrelations. Essentially, all

models are wrong, some models are useful (Box, 1987, p. 424). Models refer to

static states of being, in postmodern times changes are continuous which makes

models only useful for specific moments and contexts in time.

A few suggestions to deal with change in the postmodernist era are: create a

free flow of information; emphasize relationship management; empower people to

engage in appropriate activities, for a quick change response; cultivate diversity in all

roles, forming accurate perception of system and environment; encourage a

participatory approach, promoting internal interaction, commitment and direction.

Participation calls for creativity, allows diversity of interrelationships and helps enrich

the flows. The goal of change in postmodernism would be that changes in the

organisation are constantly monitored (by the system) in parallel with changes in the

environment. No management board could do this alone (many authors mentioned,

adapted from Strh, 2005).

PostmodernismModernism

Join up


18/68

18

2.3 Focusing on postmodernism from Homans theory

2.3.1 Homans (2005) postmodernist theory of change management

Homan (2005) describes implementation of change around the concept of the so-

called organizational landscape . Homan juxtaposes organizations on paper with

organizations as constellation of (micro diverse) communities (p. 95) while including

complexity theory. His central point of argumentation is that implementing action

cannot automatically bring about desired behavioural changes as the landscape works

in more complex ways. The practical application of complexity theory to change

management is found in describing the mechanisms of interrelation of communities

within organizations.

Homan proposes organizations to be viewed as social fabrics where a. organizations

are formed out of elements existing more or less apart from each other b. behaviour of

these elements is based on locally available information and realities, and c. these

elements interact in a multitude of forms. Interactive patterns between communities

can recreate reality constructions and merge them into one larger shared community.

The diversity within and between communities is necessary for creative and

innovative flows (the recreation of realities). Managing the collective patterns is notnecessary as it is a self-organizing process without order from management.

According to Homan this should not lead to uncontrollable waste of time and means.

In order for collective constructions of reality to appear, a certain degree of stability

needs to be present. However, too much stability (similarity of realities) makes the

organization inapt for absorbing environmental change. Homan speaks of an optimal

situation in which the communities change around a stable identity formed bycollective narratives. The relations and interaction patterns within and between

communities (K-factor) combined with the interaction rules (R-factor referring to

power) dictate the sort of regime within an organization.

Are communities too much alike, then change stagnates and the community is in the

Game stadium (clear identity and clear guards of the regime). Are there distinct

differences between communities and are the rules flexibly changed to the

environment, then the community is in the Play stadium. Management of change for


19/68

19

rigid organizations could then be proposed as bringing them from a state of game into

play in order to help them becoming able to adapt to the environmental changes (and

then it is up to the organization to either create a game again or stay in constant state

of play).

2.3.2 Connecting various theories with Homans change dimensions

Before explaining how simulation games are useful for supporting PC processes,

Homans four dimensions of organizational change (figure 1) are connected to various

models of change. Homan has one continuum translate the degree of planning; a

second distinguishing the amount of participation in change interventions. Most

importantly, the combinations of the dimensions each correspond to a particular

degree of participation as proposed by De Wilde and Geverink (2001, p. 41 in Van de

Westelaken, 2002, p. 30).

Ten Have and Visser (2004) basically describe the treadmill of failure as an outcome

of management driven change, whereas success is reached by broader understanding

of the change situation, a dynamic and contributory perspective of change with the

knowledge that incremental steps add up to larger long term results. This puts an

expectation of failure on the planned-monovocal and spontaneous-monovocalapproaches to change.

Russ (2010) describes experiential learning methods as either programmatic or

participatory, the first corresponding to planned monovocal change, the latter to the

other three combination of dimensions. He also seems to suggest that programmatic

change is outdated in a world where organizations have to be ready to change on a

continuous basis. He is realistic enough to mention drawbacks of both systemsthough. More about these experiential methods is explained in chapter 3. Also,

compare the overview of modern and postmodern change management theory in table

1 with the dimensions of Homan (2005). With the theory of Homan (and the

participation stages of De Wilde and Geverink), the modern and postmodern

approaches can be placed on a continuum explaining how modern and postmodern

approaches are used simultaneously.


20/68

20

Figure 1: Homans (2005) figure of organizational change dimensions

1. Planned Monovocal: modern planned change trajectories where

management and consultants has the dominant say. The top of the

organization sells the necessity and benefits of change, and the bottom has to

buy in. Decisions are not subject of discussion. The change trajectory is

divided in clear-cut programmatic parts, with clear responsibilities. The

content or what of change are central. Thinking and doing are separated,

should there be unexpected variations during the implementation phase, the

management will be surprised or irritated (why dont they do it correctly).

2. Planned Polyvocal: modern planned change trajectories are mingled with a

form of validating participation. A small group conjures up an idea, asks for

presents the idea in a small part of the organization and then evaluates the

idea. The perspective of the change situation becomes broader and deeper so

that chances and threats are better identified. Some sort of dialectics are taking

place starting with a movement of diverging open talks, followed by aconvergent closure, a decision of management.

3. Spontaneous Polyvocal: In the spontaneous changes, the motor of change

are the employees in the organization, not the board or management. What is

most important for this type of emergent organizational change is the diversity

of the interactive network as change emanates from a varying perception of

organizational reality. This type of local change starts for example with animprovement in the work process or communication towards customers.

Monovocal

Planned

Polyvocal

Spontaneous


21/68

21

Larger changes are co-created: an employee picks up a tendency in the market,

which becomes a topic of talk, management organizes some form of meeting

and everyone is asked to develop and share their view on the matter.

Behavioural diversity and learning at this level is very important for flexibility

of the system and consequently for making of real changes within the system.

4. Spontaneous Monovocal: local communities within the organization infect

each other with some idea for change. This idea is put up for discussion and

can become an official change initiative. In modern understanding the idea for

change starts at the top of the organization, postmodern understanding does

not discriminate where this idea originated. In any case, there is enough space

for feedback and consultation from employees, and management fosters

development of the spontaneous change plans.

Figure 2: The constellation of communities placed in the change dimensions (adapted from Homan,2005). Many communities with their own view of organizational reality together form the

organizational landscape. The colored ovals depict these varying realities, would they have been all the

same color, the organization would be static, hard to change. The lines between communities represent

the communication between them (and the outside world), would there be less, or more structured

patterns, organizational strength and consequent ability to change would be lower. Homan seems to be

proponent of polyvocal and spontaneous changes, corresponding to the postmodern paradigm.

Monovocal

Polyvocal

Spontaneous

Change motor

Planned


22/68

22

2.4. Conclusion: five characteristics of PC

Five distinguishing characteristics of postmodernist change should be mentioned. In

these characteristics the following postmodernist concepts play a role: complexity,

interconnections, multiple realities, dialectics between them, and empowerment. Postmodernist change is a bottom-up process, which is an effective answer to

a constantly changing environment. Multiple actors from their respective positions

can more effectively notice change indicators (vibrations environment-organization)

than the management alone. However, as resources are scarce, not every single

picture of change/reality can elicit an organizational response.

This is why boundaries have to be placed in the form of an organizational

framework of interaction (Simons, 1995), an active policy and structure in support of

innovation. Next to a fertile soil, innovation requires innovators also known as

intrapreneurs (Pinchot, 1985). Third, organizational strength in postmodernist

understanding is largely determined by the amount and variety of communication

between organizationenvironment and the collective will to serve the needs of actors

within this environment. This counts for financial stakeholders, but ultimately also for

more social stakeholders e.g. government, Greenpeace.

Furthermore, it is important to stress that (small groups of) individuals carry

out the bottom up process, supported by an organizational framework. PC demands

organizational attention on the behaviour of these individuals.

Finally, postmodernist change processes are incremental (dialectic and

evolution theory), spreading like oil stains -small to larger scale. However, setting up

the organization to the postmodernist model can be difficult: the management should

take the lead spreading their power through the company -starting with a planned,

top-down framework, actively and increasingly leaving space for spontaneous, bottom

up initiatives.

Characteristic Postmodernist change

1. Bottom-up

2. Framework for interaction

3. Constant organizationenvironment feedback loops at all levels

4. Focus on behaviour of individuals and small groups

5. Incremental steps, oil stain


23/68

23

Chapter 3 Characteristics of simulation games

3.1 Introducing simulation games

On 10 August 2010 project Backoffice Servicecentre started, the aim of this

project is to re-form the organization so that three services are unified. Points of

attention are the redirection of processes, implementation of new software and

shaping the flows of communication and attitudes of employees. The project leader

would like to test the future situation to learn about possible obstacles and how to

solve them, supporting managers to getting the bigger picture and employees to get

acquainted with their new style of working. Therefore, the organization is playing a

simulation game, Control-IT.

This game supports testing future situations in a metaphoric way, helps

understanding the bigger picture and employees acquire insights for new behaviour.

Some themes touched upon by this game are, business process management, ICT

service management organization, service level management. During the game,

participants simulate working in an industrial harbour, playing a role according to

their play card & place in the room. They have to be themselves, not acting out a role.

During the game, players can discover through interaction which behaviour pays off

most. After each round, they can evaluate and discuss freely with each other, then

implement their proposed changes to the process in the next round. After minimally

three rounds, the game is evaluated with the game facilitator to create parallels

between the metaphoric game reality and the organizational reality better retention.

3.2 Research and concept of simulation games

When we grow up, simulating (adult) behaviour and playing take up a large

proportion of our time, and with benefiting results. Why not using our ability to learn

through interaction in a business setting? Much has to do with the belief in the method(does it really pay off?). Although seemingly apparent in real life, these principles are


24/68

24

not always easy to proof scientifically. In scientific language, games represent playing

while simulation is the mimicking of the environment to be able to learn in a

purposeful way. These concepts are explained in more detail in this chapter in order to

create understanding of what simulation games are and what they can do in a business

setting. Below you can read about the conceptual background of simulation and

gaming and the chosen research focus.

3.2.1 Conceptual background of simulation games

Gaming and simulation have been linked since the introduction of the term gaming

around the 1950s. However, the terms game or play were not easily accepted for

scientific usage (Klabbers, 2009a). While simulation emerged as a tool for serious

contexts simulating reality for educational purposes it was easily accepted as

scientific. Gaming on the other hand emerged from entertainment and gradually got

used for educational purposes, which blurred its scientific usefulness.

The discussion whether games are scientifically useful can be traced back to

the function of games: entertainment or serious. The seriousness of gaming relates to

the outcome or purpose of the game and not to the intention of playing. Serious

games have a thought-out educational purpose and are not intended primarily for

amusement (Abt, 1970, p. 9). When play is a planned learning tool it is serious;when intentions of use are serious the game can be considered scientifically useful.

Klabbers (2009a) further mentions elements of both functions of games. Present in

both entertainment and serious games: a. competition by players/decision makers

pursuing different objectives b. chance through events affecting the ongoing process.

Other purposes specifically for serious functionality are: c. enhancing interaction

between people and engage them in a way that is more productive than otherscientific methods, and d. putting people in unfamiliar situations forcing them to learn

because of the related uncertainty and ambiguity.

Finally, gaming derived its academic status from its connection to simulation

(Klabbers, 2009, p. 453). In this later stage, social behaviour and interactions became

a large proportion of the simulations when they represented social, complex systems.

Gaming expressed the active social part within the simulation system. Both concepts

were used to help clarify complex social situations, focussing on policy and decision-

making.


25/68

25

Duke (1980) describes simulation as an attempt to abstract and reproduce core

features of a complex system aiming to understand, experiment and predict behaviour

of the system. Others followed this general line of thinking, posing that simulation is

the method of experimentation (Caluw et al., 1996, p. 21) or the process of

conducting experiments on a model, instead of attempting to experiment with the real

system (Klabbers, 2009, page 451).

Gaming refers to the part of simulation, which is not computerized, dealing

with both cognitive and non-cognitive learning. A game is an activity amongst two

or more independent decision-makers seeking to achieve their objectives in some

limiting context (Abt, 1970 p.6). The gaming part refers to activities and decisions of

players, such as playing roles, achieving goals and results (positive & negative),

carrying out activities and experiencing limitations. The activities and decisions are

made in relation with other players and elements (Caluw et al., 1996, p. 20). It is

generally agreed upon that the goals of gaming and simulation are pedagogic

(learning and training), communication, and research.

3.2.2 Research focus

There are many sorts of simulation games (SG). In this research the choice is to

divide SG by their nature. On the one side are interactive SG, where participants caninteract within the borders of instructions, role descriptions and game rules. The

interaction between people, informal behaviour and non-verbal communication is

inherently connected to interactive SG. On the other side are computer based SG,

where one or more participants are playing against each other, or the computer. In

computer games it is not necessary that participants are in the same physical space or

take part of the game simultaneously (Gils, 2008, p. 7).

Low-tech role-playing games are used and are effective for the simulation ofsocial systems (Bekebrede, 2010, p. 79). Serious gaming simulates a socio-technical

system in which there is a strong interaction between the decisions of an actor

network and the simulated environment (Mayer, Bekebrede and Van Bilsen, 2009).

This research focuses on simulation games with an objective outside the game

(serious), simulating the social reality (interactive), without the usage of digital

technology (real life), and with process elements. As the concept implies, simulation

games in this research are understood as having both process (game rules and set up)

and social (free to act) components.


26/68

26

3.3 Experiential learning and simulation games

A simulation game is a powerful experiential learning tool supported by the well-

known phrase "I see and I forget, I hear and I remember, I do and I understand." -

Confucius . Games and simulations have been closely connected to experientiallearning, which is also known as problem based learning (Klabbers, 2006).

Learning merely by listening does not enable full development of important

higher order learning tasks (Lee, 2010). Important higher order tasks touched upon by

simulation games, through experiential learning, are for example, decision-making,

creativity, integration of cross functional materials, problem solving, risk-taking and

interpersonal skills (Thorne et al., 1999; Cadotte, 1995). Simulation games built for

social systems and policies help improving communication, support consensus,

commitment to action and stimulate creativity and understanding of complexity

(Duke & Geurts, 2004).

According to Kolb (1984), the main function of the learning process is knowledge

creation. He introduced the experiential learning cycle (figure 3), which outlines the

objective of learners to achieve the final stage of Active Experimentation. Research

from Kolb (1984) on simulation games vs. other learning methods, showed that

learning outcomes of listening methods are geared towards Reflexive Observation

and Abstract Conceptualisation stages, while simulation game methods also

reproduce emotional, perceptual, and symbolically complex environments, geared

mainly towards Specific Experience and Reflexive Observation and the final stage

Active Experimentation. Among the benefits of simulation games is the ability to see

consequences of decisions and test alternative proposals. Simulation games have the

potential to improve learning experience and knowledge acquisition (Lee, 2010).

Simplifying the reality in a simulation game can create a learning environment

in which participants can practice with (old and new) rules and habits. Simulation by

playing is first and foremost a way of communication. Participants explore each

others ideas, meanings and opinions not only by debating, but especially through

exploration of simulated reality in rapid tempo. A simulation game is a simultaneous

dialogue (multilogue) between players, aimed to get a broader understanding of the

subject and tasks at hand (Duke, 1974).


27/68

27

Figure 3: Kolb's 1984 learning styles adapted (Chapman, 2005).

3.4 Simulation game characteristics and phases

The concept simulation game has been discussed and connected to experiential

learning. What have SG in common? Characteristics and phases are here described in

order to lay the basis for discussing effectiveness.

3.4.1 Characteristics of simulation games

According to De Caluw et al. (1996, p. 26) simulation games share five basic

characteristics. Below these are briefly discussed.

1. A simulated but simplified reality. The goal of the game design is to

recreate reality and present this in simplified form to players of the game (figure 4).

Certain elements and relations of reality are emphasized to create a controlled

experience (Lynton and Pareek, 2000, p. 174).

2. Roles, rules and goals form the elements of the simulation game.

Participants of a SG interact with each other using their real selves, bound by pre-

mentioned rules of simulation. The rules help guide the gaming experience, e.g.

describing a role, which is a specific set of tasks in relation to the subject of the SG.Although there are rules, the behaviour is authentic, not prescribed like in a role-play.


28/68

28

In their role participants can bring their own knowledge and experience from daily

reality into the simulation game in order to reach certain goals (Peters & Van de

Westelaken, 2008, p. 21).

3. Activities, interaction, decisions and results form the relations between the

elements. SG are all about behaviour, social relationships and interaction (Van der

Meer&Mastik, 1993). Decisions, activities and interactions have mutual effect, on the

environment and the evolution of the simulation game (Elgood, 1993, p. 11).

4. Timeframe. Activities in the SG may last longer or shorter than they would

in reality. This zooming in or out, shows short and long term effects of actions

(Geurts & Van Wierst, 1991, p. vii; Peters & Van de Westelaken, 2003, p. 3). The SG

timeframe may represent past, current or (possible) future time (Duke, 1974, p. 50).

5. Safe environment. There are several aspects to the safe environment. First, unlucky

choices or decisions have no direct consequences in reality, which is referred to as the

magic circle (Klabbers 2006). Second, participants experience the game as more or

less safe to experiment. Ambiguous feelings before the game serve as motivation to

embark on the SG; however, while playing the simulation has to be safe to experiment

in order not to form a barrier to learning (Caluw et al., 1996, p. 181). A third

understanding of the safe environment is that SG can replace expensive or dangerous

experiments of reality (Abt, 1970, Kirriemuir, 2002).

Figure 4 Peters and Van de Westelaken (2011). Translating organizational reality to simulation game.


29/68

29

3.4.2 Phases of simulation games

SG can be bought in standard format (off-the-shelf-games), adjustable format (frame-

games) or free-format (tailor-made-games). However, in all cases, the development

and use of the SG typically contains four phases: game design, game preparation, playing the game, and game debriefing in the future there should perhaps be

included a test and reporting phase covering the game experience.

Game design aims to construct a SG by translating elements and relations of reality

into game elements (figure 4). Three concepts explain the translation process of

reality into SG: Reduction, through which relevant elements and relations are being

enlarged in the SG. Abstraction: elements of reality are depicted less detailed in SG

compared to reality. Symbolising, which malls elements from reality into another

form in the SG e.g. running a tourist agency symbolizes running financial

administrations in bank and insurance (Peters & Van de Westelaken, 2008, p. 6).

During preparation, the facilitator checks the materials, prepares the introduction,

invites participants and divides them into groups. During the SG interaction between

participants is central. By their interactions and decisions participants mirror a

situation in reality (Peters & Van de Westelaken, 2011). Playing the game gives

participants insight into the (problematic) situation and they become aware of how

they can contribute to improvement thereof.

Playing a simulation game creates insight into the nature of (simplified) complex

problems and participants can train new behaviour. The Kolb cycle of learning (figure

3) has to be repeated four to five times to create a lasting effect on participants (De

Caluw, 2002). The debriefing stage is necessary for the retention and the actual

consciousness process of the participants, so that they can translate the simulated

reality into the everyday reality (Duke, 1987, p. 16; figure 4). Thiagi (2000) places

even more importance on this phase mentioning to always conduct a debriefing. The

game is just an excuse for having a discussion among the participants.


30/68

30

3.5 Effect of simulation games

Tying the concept SG to experiential learning gave hints about the effectiveness. The

characteristics and phases further shaped a picture of what effective simulation games

look like. Yet, surely not every SG that shares the five characteristics and contains

four phases is an equally effective tool. We take some time to discuss elements

necessary for effectiveness and short- and longer-term effects of simulation games.

3.5.1 Elements necessary for effective simulation games

First, outcomes of SG depend on the functionality of simulation games (see 2.3.2). In

general, at least three aspects positively contribute to the effect of SG for serious

purposes (Bekebrede, 2010): A high motivation (internal and external factors), a safe

environment and cognitive engagement (better retention). A prominent issue

encompassing these aspects is the degree to which the game reflects reality (figure 4).

Various views exist on how to keep a balance between game and organizational

reality. E.g. there are different approaches to facilitating SG. Where one praticitioner

explicitly wishes to keep participants in the game reality during the game only

reflecting on organizational reality in the debriefing stage; another facilitator focuses

more on making participants feel comfortable, debriefing shortly between every

(Kolb) learning cycle (Saganet seminar 22 September 2011).

Nevertheless, it is shared that the validity of a SG as training instrument depends on

the realistic representation of organizational reality (Peters and Van de Westelaken,

2011). Peters, Vissers en Heijne (1998) give more detailed criteria to the realistic

environment. A SG is valid when a. the game environment is deemed realistic to

participants, when b. there is congruence between elements and relations in the game

and reality, when c. there is congruence between processes in both systems and thesimulation game is valid to the degree a good estimation or prediction can be made of

what happens in reality. When the SG has to be used for training of future situations,

acquiring skills for acting in a very complex situation or when possibilities are to be

tested, the reality of the SG is important. The level of reality directly influences the

effectiveness and validity of any content, conclusions and generalisations.

Game reality has to mimic organizational reality. For effect and validity, participants

need to belief in the game reality (see also chapter 4). When they experience the rules


31/68

31

players, and behaviour in the game, it needs to correspond to organizational reality of

agent, interaction and system behaviour. Duke (1980) devised a pyramid where the

base stands for a perfect representation of reality and the top for perfect metaphor /

abstraction. This cone shares striking similarities with Dales cone of experience

(1969, p.107; figure 5) where Dale proposes teaching methods from most abstract

(verbal) to most realistic (direct experience). According to Duke (1980) and Caluw

(1996) simulation games have to represent a relatively large proportion of daily

reality of participants. A. Game reality needs to represent something real because

participants have to be invited to show competitive behaviour and become motivated,

b. the game environment needs to be abstract enough in order to be safe for

experimentation with new behaviour, and c. the game environment needs to resemble

reality enough because new behaviour has to be retained in combination with

problems encountered in reality.

On the one hand, participants need to have freedom to make decisions within the

game that represent something for them in the real world (outcomes /consequences of

decision making). On the other hand, the freedom to express and experiment safely

has to be without consequences in real life. Simulated reality has to create challenges

for people in order for them to learn new behaviours (complex), but not so

challenging that they get over-confused and stop altogether (chaos). Variation in the

functionality of the SG demands variation in the mimicking of reality. E.g. the SG has

to be more realistic when next to consciousness raising, learning becomes a goal

(Caluw, 1996, p. 161).

Figure 5, Dales cone 1969, p.107


32/68


33/68

33

Simulation games train knowledge, skills and behaviors with an eye on the short-term

(modernist, specific goals) and the long-term (postmodernist, empowerment,

interaction etc.). To illustrate this an example is giving of organizational intervention

of short- and long-term. A short-term focus is for example implementing a shared

service centre or intervening in a process requiring staff to respond in a specific

different way. Long-term focus can be for instance setting up an interaction

framework or support skill training to be used in various circumstances -educating a

workforce to be more responsive to the environment of the organization. Strategy

simulation belongs to both goals; creation of strategy is a short-term goal, whereas the

enactment of strategy necessitates behavioral assimilation. Parallel to modernist

change, the intention of short-term change is to attain a predetermined precise goal

after which change stops, whereas the intention of long-term change is similar to PC:

attaining general skills through which process understanding increases and interaction

patterns are enriched to support continuous change. For both, short- and long-term,

simulation games are effective tools.

Pertaining to the short-term focus of change is the concept of valley of despair

(graph 1). Simulation games short cut the valley of despair because they practice a

new approach before its actualized. Training beforehand builds understanding of the

big picture, helps creating a leap of consciousness with visions of the future, enables

shared intelligence and builds confidence in being successful. Most importantly,

training (failing and learning) before the real change is cheaper (Wenzler, 1999).

The long-term focus of change has a focus on behavioral learning, aiming at

general improvement of organizational functioning. Van de Westelaken (2002)

distinguishes detailed impacts of simulation games in this category. Training

knowledge about systems or problems in the systems; consciousness raising about the

organizational situation; learning from each others opinions; (communication) skill

training; experimenting with ideas as a way to come to get insight into possible reality

(visions of the future); improving cooperation and interaction (of teams); improving

decision taking; and clarify or integrate visions.


34/68

34

Graph 1 : Valley of Despair. Prestentation R. Deenen, Accenture 2010. Based on Wenzler (1999).

3.5.3 Detrimental elements of SG As unfavourable conditions for the use of gaming are mentioned little motivation and

acceptance of the change, feeling of loss of status due to the change, no active or a not

accepted leadership, hidden agendas or conflicts, uncertainty about the future,

disenchantment in practice or overestimating ones own abilities (De Caluw, 2007).

An underlying problem to many of these conditions is cynicism of participants about

organizational change and the use of interventions in general. Cynicism about

organizational change often combines pessimism about the likelihood of successfulchange with the blame of those responsible for change as incompetent, lazy, or both

(Reichers et al., 1997, p. 48). As change is highly behavioural, a SG is on the one

hand a blessing, on the other hand a curse. The effect of the SG depends for a large

part on the attitudes and behaviour of participants towards the game and change in

general actions of facilitator and organization in turn affect participant behaviour.

Major factors that contribute to cynicism include a history of change programs that

are inconsistently successful, lack of adequate information about change and simply

predisposition to cynicism. Cynicism affects commitment, satisfaction and motivation

of employees, making it an important factor of failure of change processes (Reichers

et al., 1997). This failure leads again to more cynicism on behalf of the employees

and renewed attempts of management to implement changes with the help of new

models and methods. Ten Have and Visser (2004) accurately describe this vicious

circle of failure. The failure rates of change implementation consistently soar around

70%, showing that organizations do not learn enough from previous failure.


35/68

35

The so-called treadmill of failure starts with incomprehension of the situation and

necessary change, creating disorientation, acceptance of outside consultants and

magic methods. These methods are only partly understood and implemented, creating

disillusion. Consequent reports analyse the failure, and point fingers to blame. A way

out of this vicious circle would be to remark the progression points. In order to curb

failure into success, organizations should shift from obsession with the change goal

itself to becoming aware of the change situation; adopt a dynamic instead of static

perspective of change; implement change from contributory perspective instead of

making change a precise assignment; create total, long term and incremental instead

of partial, short term and planned results. These success criteria are very similar to the

characteristics of a postmodernist approach mentioned in chapter 1.2, table 1.

3.6 conclusions: 6 characteristics of simulation games

Six distinguishing characteristics of simulation games should be mentioned. First,

simulations mimic organizational reality by reduction, abstraction and symbolizing.

Thereby simulations create insight into the nature of complex problems and make it

possible for participants to see consequences of decisions and test alternative

proposals within a safe environment the simulation.

Second, the game part of SG allows participants to act more or less free within the

simulated organizational reality. The gaming focuses on behaviour and interaction,

training to let go of old and learn new behaviour. Interaction patterns are shown, and

new communication is facilitated; such as the simultaneous multilogue. This is done

via experiential learning, which is more productive than other methods.

Third, SG are easy to used next to other intervention methods which make them a

good instrument to place into a change program/process. Fourth, it is relatively easy

to adjust circumstances: a SG is flexible, a controlled experience. It caters for short-

and long-term goals, a broad variety of functionalities and mimics all sorts of realities

for a realistic effect. Fifth, there are strict/specific standards to adhere to in order for

a SG to give a valid and effective outcome. E.g. phases and characteristics such as

level of reality-depending on the functionality; Kolb cycles need to be repeated; a safe

environment and debriefing need to be present to have a lasting effect.


36/68

36

Last, the contextual factors or environmental influences. Next to having a good

simulation game (point 5), these include the facilitator who functions in multiple roles

supporting the participants in creating the magic circle of game reality. Another factor

is the participant, who has a specific background of experience, motivation etc.,

which may interfere with the effect of the SG. Importantly, the organization is a factor

and it has to ensure that a coherent change process supports the effect of the SG.

Characteristic Simulation game

1. Simulations mimic complex (organizational) systems

2. Games focus on (old and new) behaviour and interaction

3. SG is easy to use next to other intervention methods.

4. SG is flexible, a controlled experience.

5. Specific standards to create a valid, effective and lasting result.

6. Contextual factors influencing the effect of the SG


37/68

37

Chapter 4 Comparing PC & SG

In the first chapter, the concept of postmodernism and its influence on organizations

and the management of change have been clarified with 5 characteristics as a result.

In chapter two, the conceptual background, link with experiential learning, factors

necessary for effect and the short/long-term effects of simulation games are discussed.

6 characteristics as a result. In order to answer the research question, the two need to

be combined, sketching a postmodernist context of simulation game usage. Therefore,

in this chapter SG are connected with PC and the phases of change.

In advance of the theoretical fit and limitations of simulation games in

postmodernist change management, some practical experience is shared supporting

the idea that change management and simulation games are a good match. In the

experience of Wenzler, with 25 years of experience in both business and academics

simulation games have proven to be a valuable contribution in helping organizations

improve their performance by helping them change and adapt more effectively and

efficiently (Wenzler, 2009). According to him, ten commandments guide using

simulation games in change management. Simulation games can support effective

change interventions depending on: understanding the client need (whether

postmodernist or not), the envisioned results, stakeholders being involved in the

iterative development of the simulation game as intervention (interaction during

employment), ensuring organizational support so that found improvements can be

implemented in reality, the validity of simulation games in support of the learning

goals, and the focus on learning being translated into action (Wenzler, 2009). Let us

regain focus on specifically PC keeping this practical experience and considerations

in mind.

4.1 Complexity, dialectics and interconnection

The substance of PC can be traced from concepts closest to the heart of

postmodernism. These concepts are intricately intertwined with simulation games.

This finding is a compelling argument for using simulation games in PC trajectories.

4.1.1 Complexity in postmodernism and simulation games

New techniques such as computer- or interactive simulation and gaming were found

useful to scientifically cope with complexities and uncertainties. Games are open, in


38/68

38

the sense that the players have freedom to act within the space provided. Simulation is

more confined in its freedom with regard to modelling social systems. Complex and

dynamic systems can be expressed and made tangible thereby allowing experiments

on these social realities without actual interference. Games and simulations are useful

a. in order to understand the functioning of these systems and b. to transmit

knowledge (Klabbers, 2010a). Simulation games could thus be used as a tool to

understand and train people to act within complex systems (complexity theory and

dialogue).

Simulation games and related design methodologies offer effective approaches to the

framing and better understanding of social systems, to the generation of ideas, and the

shaping of action repertoires for change (awareness, understanding, action). Games

can thus be designed for dual purposes: a) to generate a practical tool (artifact) for

supporting the design-in-the-large, or b) to devise a method or model in the analytical

science tradition for developing and testing theories. In both cases SG are being used

to model existing (complex) social systems (Klabbers, 2009b).

Simulation games help creating a holistic understanding of complex (problems

in) reality. This is also expressed by the functionalities of understanding the big

picture and visions of the future (Wenzler, 1999). By playing the game, participants

become part of the system and experience its complexity (Bekebrede, 2010 p. 74).

Experiencing complexity helps in consciousness-raising; what is more, learning to

deal with this complexity is also reached.

4.1.2 Multiple realities & dialectics

The simulation approach presumes a commonly shared reality and one formal

language. It has been suggested that participants eventually construct common imagesof reality and achieve common objectives shared among coordinators and

subordinates (Duke, 1974). However, Greenblat (1981b) questioned the common

reality underlying game design and use. She argues that participants bring their own

goals and interests moulding multiple realities into the gaming situation; experiences

of relevant aspects differ between people, time and context.

The (postmodernist) idea of multiple realities all applicable to one simulation game

necessitates that each social actor should have at least some points of similarity


39/68

39

regarding the reality to be simulated and the game to play. The sense making has to be

steered somehow in order for simulation games to be useful as a tool understanding

complex realities. These common points of reality can be achieved by a process called

problem framing , in which participants interactively name the elements and attributes

to which they will pay attention, eventually framing the contexts of the simulation

game (Schn, 1983).

At least as important as a common framework to begin with, is the evaluation

of the game in which the multiple realities are expressed, heard by all and blended

into stories of what happened and what can be learned from it. This is then the

dialectic process arriving at shared intelligence and creating a more or less common

vision of the future. Against this background, the behavioural component (gaming)

shows more potential compared to the static design (simulation) in dealing with social

and political issues in the private and public domains.

4.1.3 Interconnections and empowerment

In the process of a common start and evaluation, there is a guided exchange of voices

which helps learning, understanding and strengthening the organizational network

(compare social fabric, Homan, 2005). The simulation game is a simplified stage for

understanding interconnections between individuals, departments, customers andsuppliers.

The interconnections and flows that are enacted during the game not only

provide a test case for participants and organization (visions of the future), it also

enhances the interconnections in daily reality participants meet each other in a

different environment, connect with different people in a different way than in daily

reality. Evaluation (discourse) during and after the simulation game potentially

strengthens the learning effect. According to Klabbers (2009b), the switch of position between spectator (observing the systems behaviour) and inside player (making the

system happen) implies a switch from problem solving to problem framing

enhancing understanding and learning. Problems are here defined a

Documents

Master Thesis Change management and Serious Games