Master Thesis Change Management and Serious Games

Simulation Games &
Postmodernist Change Management

Supporting Postmodernist Change Interventions

Abram Janse
Janse@simagine.nl
Open University 2011

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 processes45
4.3.1 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
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
5.2.3 Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 51
5.3 Effect of SG in the implementation process ..................................................................................... 52
5.3.3 Conclusions................................................................................................................................ 56
6. Final conclusions..................................................................................................................................... 58
7. Future research directions .................................................................................................................... 62
Literature ..................................................................................................................................................... 64

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 are
useful 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 contextual
factors 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 research
into the effects of simulation games in change trajectories.

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

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 are
shown, juxtaposing characteristics of simulation games with postmodernist change

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 de
Westelaken (2002), Van Gils (2008), and of course also of well-established

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
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 of
modernity: 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
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 name
of 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
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 of
multiple realities, a complex network, a simulation game (hence, the matrix).

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 Postmodernism
Change 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 leadership
Target 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 et al, 1960)

Organizational development (based on Lewins
work): 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 theory
The study of complex, dynamic systems
that reveal patterns of order out of
seemingly chaotic behaviours...so complex
and dynamic, in fact, as to appear chaotic
(Overman, 1996, p. 487). Compare: Play
(Homan, 2005)

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
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 of
comfort (compare game, Homan 2005) to something new. This state of confusion

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 force
expressing 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 employee
and 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
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 and
cut
An almost nurturing way of
talking: develop, help, grow
Violent language: take out,
shoot, terminate
Orientation Focus on long term careers Hiring for the job to be
done
Size Synergistic build and develop Reductionist small size and
cut
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
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).

Postmodernism

Modernism

Join up

Join up

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 not
necessary 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 by
collective 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
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-monovocal
approaches 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 systems
though. 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

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 a
convergent 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 an
improvement in the work process or communication towards customers.
Monovocal
Planned
Polyvocal
Spontaneous

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
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
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
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 other
scientific 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
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 can
interact 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 of
social 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
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 experiential
learning, 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
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
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
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
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 the
simulation 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
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
To give an idea of what effective (realistic) simulation games might be, let us
consider Dales cone, bearing in mind that his cone presents teaching methods, not
simulation games or tools for change management. A range from Study trips to
contrived experiences would fit the description of mostly realistic measures. Outside
the range are then exhibits and direct purposeful experiences. Going with this sketchy
comparison, simulation games would not be realistic enough if only props/exhibits
remind participants of their real working environment, whereas a direct purposeful
experience is a copy of their work, not leaving space for any simulated abstraction.
Contrived experiences would best correspond to the simulation part, whereas
dramatized experiences and demonstrations best correspond to the gaming part.
3.5.2 Functionalities of simulation game
According to Caluw (1996, p. 30) simulation games fulfil six functions: a.
consciousness raising & motivation, b. skilltraining, c. knowledge & insight, d.
communication & cooperation, e. integration of learning experiences, f. functional
flexibility. Peters and Van de Westelaken (2011) put together literature about the
validity of SG posing there are basically two functionalities of a simulation game -
that is, as research- or traininginstrument. Although organizations could use both
learning and experimental functions of SG, De Caluw seems to focus on the latter.
Wenzler (2008) proposes that the general purpose of simulation games is to
experiment with or practice a situation, which delivers a measurable and more
sustainable improvement in knowledge, skills, and behaviours (table 5). SG help build
an understanding of the bigger picture; while assessing the impact of future
scenarios; enhancing and facilitating communication between stakeholders creating
shared intelligence (about the new situation) and to let participants experience new
ways of working which gives them confidence in success. This results in higher
retention of content (better performance) in a compressed time (faster improvement).
Ten commandments how to actually achieve these results are described in chapter 4.

Table 5: Effects of simulation games. Adapted from Wenzler (2008)
Knowledge

Skills Behaviours
Situational awareness
Allocation of meaning
Mental models
Contextual awareness
New ways of working
Business skills
Social skills
Cognitive skills
Psychomotor skills
Decision making skills
Attitude
Motivation
Commitment
Confidence
Action

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

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 successful
change 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

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

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
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
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 images
of 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
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 and
suppliers.
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 as situations where
one has a good idea about what to accomplish (end goals and rules of the simulation)
but no clear idea about how to accomplish it (playfulness of doing, gaming).
Full-fledged games consist of interconnected actors, rules and resources. In games,
the social actors play roles and co-construct the social organization while utilizing the
available resources according to the rules. The simulations are rationalist; generating

40
knowledge that relates to the way in which the system functions over time, the
resulting explicit knowledge gained is accumulative, used to describe a factual state,
referring to what the system is doing. The evolving playfulness in gaming surpasses
the rigidity of the simulation approach. It has the potential to open new horizons, also
probably unforeseen by the gaming designers and facilitators (Klabbers, 2009b, p.
459). This playful experimentation and learning builds a belief in success, which is
helpful if not absolutely necessary for change programs to succeed. The simulation
game empowers the organization (employees and groups) in simulated time, which
leads to a much steeper learning curve and improved business performance (Wenzler,
1999).

4.2 Experiential learning
The substance of postmodernist change is supported by simulation games. Yet, how is
change reached in postmodernism? PC focuses on soft-skills, empowerment of
individual (or small group) behaviour, with learning as approach.
4.2.1 Connecting postmodernist change with SG
Change, in postmodernist terms, is not willed or designed as in modernism, but is a
natural result of learning, understanding and knowing (Sherman & Schultz, 1998,
p.27). Postmodernist learning is a process of meaning and knowledge creation via
interaction, requiring soft skills such as interpersonal skills, creativity and problem
solving. Simulation games support the skills necessary for this active discourse as
discussed in chapter 2. Experiential learning, or learning by doing, is a superior tool
e.g. engaging higher order learning.

According to Russ (2010), a growing body of literature focuses on experiential
methods to implement organizational change. There are numerous measured benefits,
most importantly, high interactivity levels including cognitive, affective and
kinaesthetic engagement. This engagement in turn is said to reduce resistance to
change, elevate motivation, and enhance commitment to implement organizational
change (among others: Geurts et al., 2000 p. 49). Other benefits mentioned are
improved job performance, enhanced organizational learning, increased
organizational openness, shared organizational culture and values, enhanced decision-

41
making based on organizational policies and procedures, strengthened organizational
structures, exploration of organizational dynamics, and modification of mental models
(for studies and authors per benefit see Russ, 2010, p. 768).
4.2.2 Frameworks of experiential learning
In an attempt to classify experiential implementation methods, Russ (2010) proposes
two overarching conceptual frameworks: programmatic and participatory. Both are
planned learning experiences, which is interesting considering that Homan (2005)
proposes that there are spontaneous organizational changes possible. The differences
between the frameworks of Russ are shown in Table 3. There are remarkable
similarities with the characteristics of modern and PC management compare table 1.
As written in chapter 1.2, Russ (2010) mentions that these two frameworks/models
can be and are used in combinations. To gain insight in these combinations Homans
organizational change dimensions amount of planning and participation is useful
(figure 1). Furthermore, short- and long-term change goals can be connected.

Table 3: Fundamental differences between the frameworks. Adapted from Russ (2010, p. 769)

Programmatic Framework

Participatory Framework
Fixed implementation Flexible implementation
High direction from leadership Low direction from leadership
Low/no stakeholder collaboration High stakeholder collaboration
Autocratic organizational climate Democratic organizational climate
High communication efficiency Low communication efficiency
A priori evaluation of successful
change
Retroactive evaluation of
successful change

The objective of programmatic method is to make the target population comply with
the right vision of change. This makes them content oriented; top down; and the
experiential methods seek to achieve specific externally predetermined outcomes
supported by fixed roles, goals and rules. Important limitations are decreased personal
judgement and motivation of employees, a split between thinkers and doers fostering
negative attitudes, top down conformity creating rigid responses.
The objective of participatory methods on the other hand, is to stimulate
dialogue between communities so as to elicit involvement with the change
implementation process. They invite input by empowering methods (stakeholders are
asked to help shape the change instead of merely receiving orders), are internally

42
parametered, focus on collaboration and processes of change, and have open-ended
debriefing sessions with a variety of right answers. Important limitations are
painstaking democratic process, overload of employee feedback, employees may feel
distracted from their job, unpredictability and immeasurability of communication
effects and change outcomes.
Programmatic approaches are expected to bring about short-term compliance
and behavioural change. When employees are no longer rewarded for producing the
learned/desired workplace outcomes, they are likely to slip back to old behavioural
patterns (Russ, 2010). Contrarily, participatory approaches help build overarching
change objectives by supporting employee behaviour of discovery. They increase
organizational ability to deal with change in the long term. In other words, they build
skills of individuals and small groups, empowering them to change spontaneously.

4.3 Effect of simulation games in postmodernist change processes
The substance of postmodernist change is supported by simulation games and
experiential learning methods have a superior effect to other methods in supporting
postmodernist change. SG spurs postmodernist change basically because they bring
about behavioural change. As the organizational landscape works in complex ways,
Homan argues that implementing action cannot automatically bring about desired
behavioural changes. How does the implementation process work precisely?
4.3.1 Implementing process
Postmodernism organizations should be approached in terms of interactions,
relationships and complex changes (Chia (1995 p. 579). When complex systems
change it may seem like chaos peoples sense making during change periods is
often confused (compare play, Homan 2005). These change periods in organizations
force people to move from a state of comfort (compare game, Homan 2005) to
something new planning behavioural output seems impossible. However, this state
of confusion 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). The strength to absorb and resolve changes (sense-making through diverse
interaction) then seems a determinant of successful postmodernist changes.

43
A system survives when it is allowed to utilise its self-organising abilities
effectively (Cilliers, 1998). Freedom is necessary, or else, change is stifled in
structure and strict requirements. As environments and organizations are changing,
demands on behaviour are too. Organizations that want to survive need to address and
build self-organizing utilities. PC demands a constant monitoring of environment-
organization changes. No management board could do this alone (many authors
mentioned, adapted from Strh, 2005). Participation calls for creativity, allows
diversity of interrelationships and helps enrich the flows.

Homan proposes organizations to be viewed as social fabrics where members interact
in a multitude of forms. The diversity within and between communities is necessary
for creative and innovative flows (the recreation of realities). He argues that managing
the collective patterns is not necessary as it is a self-organizing process without order
from management. However, someone has to start the ball rolling: empowerment.
Empowerment of the organizational members and enhancing their skills is a planned,
but long-term approach to change, which still allows for spontaneity of change
initiatives. Management of change for rigid organizations could then be proposed as
bringing the members from a state of game into play and building their behavioural
and interaction skills in order to help them becoming able to adapt to the
environmental changes -then it is up to the organization to either create a game again
or stay in constant state of play.

Basic behavioural skills can be addressed and build. First, employees will have to
become aware of their surroundings in order to be able to adequately respond to
changes in the environment (consciousness raising). Second, the perception of
processes needs to be translated into action, first and foremost enriching interpersonal
relationships (learning, network strengthening). These goals can be deemed
postmodernist and are well supported by intervention with simulation games. The SG
needs to be more realistic when next to consciousness-raising, learning becomes a
goal (Caluw, 1996, p. 161). Measured effects of SG on behaviour (table 4), match
described necessities of PC.

44
Knowledge
(Consciousness raising)
Skills
(Learning)
Behaviours
(Determinants of
successful change)
Situational awareness
Allocation of meaning
Mental models
Contextual awareness
New ways of working
Business skills
Social skills
Cognitive skills
Psychomotor skills
Decision making skills
Attitude
Motivation
Commitment
Confidence
Action
Table 4: Effects of simulation games. Adapted from Wenzler (2008)

4.3.2 Phases of change and simulation game usage
Postmodernist change aims at behavioural skills and building stronger networks. SG
can support skill building and brings people in dialogue. SG is a very useful method
in reaching PC. When should simulation games be employed? This can be shown
with the help of the DOVE-cycle. The four phases of the DOVE-cycle are: diagnosing
the problem, design of solution, implementing the change and evaluate the change.
These phases can be sequenced independent of each other as applied to change
processes. A rough division of phases and the usage of simulation game can be made
comparing the participation forms and is proposed as following.

During the diagnostic phase members of the organization are asked to give their input
about their picture of the current and possible future situations. SG have an important
role here to raise consciousness of organizational issues (e.g. showing how processes
are interconnected) and place groups of people together to get dialogue and insights.

The design phase aims to translate ideas into concreteness, culminating in the change
plan. Alternatives of parts of the plan are discussed or experimented with and visions
are exchanged. SG in this phase also support the dialogue, but now with an emphasis
on behavioural experiences based on the game experiments. The insights in how old
behaviour is dysfunctional and new behaviour wished for can be discussed forming
visions of the future and paths of how to come there. This phase seems most
appropriate for the sort of SG described in this thesis real life, serious, with a
process component.

45
The third phase is the implementation phase when the change plan is applied to the
organization. It is important in this stage to inform members of the organization and
help organizational members to experiment with the new situation and required skills.
SG, perhaps in an earlier stage available only to decision makers / managers, could in
this phase become available for team members, the general employees. They still can
experience the freedom and experimentation; however, there are clear boundaries
within which their actions are confined.

A fourth is the evaluation phase where feedback knowledge is required from
organizational members. Also important are exchange of vision and the discussion of
activities and measures to stay on course. SG could be used to gather opinions or
(re)create a strong vision of the future. Another way of evaluating the whole change
process is to emphasise by simulation the Deming cycle of improvement -plan, do,
check and act. The description of the DOVE-cycle in connection with participatory
forms of change is adapted from Van de Westelaken, 2002.

4.4 Conclusions of fit postmodernist change and simulation games
What is there to say about the demand of postmodern change methods and the offer of
simulation games? How do they overlap and what are points of attention? Chapter
three has been divided into a. a comparison of the heart of postmodernism and SG, b.
a description of how SG support PC and c. in clear manner pointing out the effect of
SG in the postmodernist implementation process.
Postmodernist change Simulation games
Complex network Simplifying complex networks
Multiple realities Arena for starting dialogues
Interconnections of environment -
organizations
Realistic simulation of and play with
environment-organization network
Postmodernism confuses communication Empowering members of organization
Postmodernism proposes the world to be a complex network; SG are simplified
versions of complex networks within which can be experimented and learned.
Consequent to the world as complex network there are many voices and multiple

46
realities, which are in constant dialogue. SG support dialogue and help mending a
common understanding, which is necessary to a certain degree to reach effective
change (Homan, 2005 certain stability as prerequisite for effective change). The
heart of PC and SG is the myriad of interconnections (enacted through game
elements) in an environment, which is realistic and complex (simulation elements).
SG, in short, benefit insight into postmodern reality, and empower members of
organizations to shape effective behavior.
Postmodernist change Simulation games
Learning is the road to change SG operate via experiential learning
Long-term change purposes via
incremental steps
SG have both short-term as well as long-
term change effects.
Monovocal and polyvocal For any degree of participation within the
organization, SG support the change
Planned and spontaneous change Starting planned to become skilled and
empowered to change spontaneously

Learning is the way to reach postmodernist change (Sherman & Schultz, 1998, p.27).
Within different styles of learning, action or experiential learning is most effective for
changing behaviour. Employing simulation games as an experiential learning tool has
multiple purposes; short-term as well as long-term effects are mentioned in chapter 2.
It can be argued that employing the experiential method, SG support Homans
proposed planned (monovocal or polyvocal) as well as spontaneous change.

Postmodernist change Simulation Game Attention
Bottom-up Easy to use (flexible)
behavioral empowerment
through game play
Management has to give power
away: its more than game play.
Framework for interaction Simulations mimic visions of
the future. SG powerfully
support the test phase. The
new structure is inhabited by
new behavior.
Interaction framework set-up needs
participation from bottom-up. Not
everyone fits the transition or
become innovator, e.g. HRM policy
needs to be adjusted too.

47
Constant organization
environment feedback
loops at all levels
SG can raise consciousness of
changes and strengthen
behavior to show feedback
loops.
SG is only one method for
intervention. Behavior needs to be
stimulated (framework for
interaction + empowerment)
Focus on behaviour of
individuals and small
groups
SG is perfect for this focus
through experiential learning.
Contextual factors influence the
effect (e.g. motivation); standards
of valid & effective SG need to be
adhered to.
Incremental steps, oil stain SG can be used throughout the
DOVE-cycle for various
purposes; easy to use next to
other interventions; creating
flexible and controlled
experiences with changes.
The PC implementation is a
different approach to the
environment, organization and
employees; it is a long-term and
lasting change with consequences.

We can conclude that simulation games, through experiential learning, are not only
reserved for postmodernist (long-term, spontaneous) change management, but are
simultaneously effective for modern (short-term, planned) change management. For
postmodernist change purposes, intervention with the help of simulation games can
best be adopted in the phases of design (including those who participate in designing:
e.g. management + body of employees) and implementation (including those who
need to use the design: e.g. create consciousness of and learn to effectively cope with
postmodernist changes within the participatory framework). For a valid and long-term
effect of the simulation game, in- and external factors have to be taken into account.

48
Chapter 5 connecting theory with case studies
Let us delve deeper into the practice of simulation games and the experiences of
participants with the two simulation games from chapter two. How do simulation
games (real life, serious, process component) support postmodern organizational
change (service oriented, modern characteristics) in practice?
5.1 Heart of postmodernism
The first phase is the design phase, which properties are woven into the games? This
touches upon the concepts of the heart of postmodernism (first table 3.4).
5.1.1 LNV and Control-IT
Simagine has a clear view on how to approach the design of their SG. They use a
layered structure of tasks the participants carry out, problems they experience and a
third layer of solutions with which to experiment. This layered structure makes the
simulation flexible. Furthermore, the simulations are realistic organization and
business cases and problems are relevant as well as recognizable in relation to
participants own organization and work processes.
The SG is not a role play as participants are asked to do what is comes to their
own mind; three to five rounds are played; every round is evaluated briefly; it is a fair
simulation without build-in inconsistencies, sudden events which couldnt be
predicted, and the game-leader answers honestly; the SG is a metaphor of an ICT
Service management organization, which brings the focus on the problems/solutions
not the detail from reality. Finally, the games is evaluated with the facilitator to
transfer learning of the game to reality. This is done asking three kinds of questions:
what struck your attention (raising consciousness)? What has it got to do with
(creative thinking & logic links)? What would you do differently (creating overview
& concrete actions)?
5.1.2 MN Services and klant-erger-je-niet
Customer Games has created an interactive workshop in the form of a game. The SG
aims to give an experience of, and insights into customer directedness and satisfaction
to use the lessons learned in the own work reality. Participants are divided between
customers (some role play required as described in the cards) and company staff of
various divisions such as Marketing, Sales support, Accountmanager and Cashier.

49
The game starts with an explanation of the goals, than a preparation phase (reading
the cards of the game) than the game itself with, if possible, two teams fighting
against each other. In between the rounds a team can pay for the time out card to
adjust the strategy, which simultaneously gives a free time out to the other team. After
each round an evaluation takes place and a team can buy the CRM system. Also a
final and larger evaluation takes place.
The SG is lasts 3 to 8 hours depending on the package chosen; does not
cover more than two rounds but time for evaluation will be increased (to learn more
and create action plans) and in the fully extended version introduces more CRM
principles; it is furthermore possible to create a tailor made version; touched upon are
customer satisfaction, customer value, -loyalty, and -ambassadorship.
5.1.3 conclusions
Both games use the simulated reality of an organization: an industrial harbor versus a
tourism agency (simplifying complex networks). Both games require active
participants, with a little more role-play in the latter game (multiple realities). Role-
play standardizes the multiple realities of participants which is more controllable on
the one hand, but less realistic on the other hand. Both games enact interconnections
of environment-organizations, but where Control-IT replays an industrial environment
with a focus on processual flows, Klant-erger-je-niet replays a tourism environment
focussing on the interactive flow. The first game has a strong content oriented
component, which necessitates interactions of all participants; the second game is
strongly communication oriented, with an optional focus on how this communication
process can be organized (option to buy a CRM package).

Although both games are potentially strong in supporting postmodernist change, the
second game is narrower in its application options compared to the first game. In the
first game, communication related to processes in general is enacted whereas in the
second game mainly communication related to customer focus is enacted. This shows
how important the functionality of the SG is an SG cannot be used for every
purpose, its design allows for a certain range of flexibility.

50
5.2 How does the SG support (post)modern change?
During the preparation phase representatives of organization and SG have to match
functionality of the game with the goals of the organization. This phase also entails
choosing participants and physical preparation of the game room.
The ministry of LNV restructured their service Voedsel en Waren Autoriteit through
project Backoffice bedrijfsvoering. Three services contained in the VWA had to be
rebuilt into one service, jumbling the required products, services and quality thereof.
All employees of VWA needed to know how the new organization looks like and
works and they had to be able to refind each other. A service office had to be set up to
make this happen this new reality is simulated with the SG.
The project leader and SG representative had contact with each other, and the
project leader participated in a try-out version of the game. He cooperated to make the
implementation of the intervention with SG a success first a group of managers
would try out the SG, after which they decided together upon the usefulness for the
rest of the company. This fitted in an eight step specific change process planning. The
game effect would be tested with a questionnaire before, after and one month later
with a report as result.
The change contained the (short-term) realization of the new reality and
(short-term) behavioural adjustment to the new reality. The simulation would support
the first goal, the game supports the latter with extra incremental results of building
consciousness and a more flexible approach to problem solving in general (long-
term). These incremental results interact with the political/power structure of the
organization, as empowered people need more space to act than a top-down
bureaucratic organization generally offers.
MN Services has increased in size as they bought a new pension company. Their
original plan was to multiply all the existing support systems such as Back-office,
Front-office, IT services etc. Reality however, proved more resilient as the new
company a. came from another city (dispersed communication: culture shock between
employees of the company; physical distance of head-office) and b. had other, more
precise regulations (IT applications were too general or varied more than expected).

51
In rapid tempo the newly acquired organization had to comply to many rules and
regulations such as a. service level agreements (pressure on and competition between
team-managers caused them to work unethically and egoistically) b. basic information
giving tasks (frequently failing systems made this hard: used as defence against work
pressure), c. SAS70/ISAE3402 type I and II (late notification and implementation by
management). Many interventions were launched within the organization among
which (plans) was using a SG.
The islands within the company had not reached an overall plan but worked
from various sides e.g. if the game would work as voted by managers who played
first, still the budget needed to be discussed with the vice director of the business unit;
at the same time the initiative of het nieuwe werken prompted a coordinator in the
head-offices to play a game without connecting this with other change currents; also,
the pressure on teams, time and work quality were enormous while change goals were
abundant and sometimes incoherent. The initiative taker within the organization (HR
coordinator) had an orienting talk with the SG representative before the SG was used.
The main aims of the game were to boost interaction between teams -finding
each other in informal settings and seeing what impact cooperation has on end results.
Another goal was to somehow create a matrix organization as the official structure
was functional without proper process chain managers the game would be one way
to make people feel responsible for processes instead of only the teams added value.
The first goal can be identified as long-term / postmodernist, whereas the second goal
is more short-term / modernist.
5.2.3 Conclusions
In both occasions learning is part of the change goal, although in the first change
situation the explicit goal of behavioural adjustment is rather modernist. Incremental
extra results of building consciousness and a more flexible approach to problem
solving are a benefit of playing a simulation game. In the second change situation, the
learning is broader defined to: more and better interaction, and consciousness of total
processes.
In both clearly defined (modernist) as broader defined (postmodernist) goals,
experiential learning with SG offers great potential for support. It is important to note
however, that the first organizations has no explicit goal to empower employees and
build their general behavioural skills but does focus on reaching a clearly defined goal

52
in future; whereas the second organization does explicitly focus on empowering
people to interact and become conscious of their surrounding, but does not explicitly
focus on reaching a specific future situation. A possible opening for the SG
representative in both situations would be to help the organizations in formulating
explicit postmodernist goals raising awareness of the split between modernist and
postmodernist goals and their influence on the organizational strength.
As for now the former organization LNV would retain a monovocal, top-down
change approach; whereas the latter organization MN Services seems to pursue an
increased participation degree and bottom-up approach this is in line with their goal
to transfer responsibility (and decision-making power?) downwards
1
. In both
occasions there is a certain degree of planning involved, expectedly more so in the
former modernist case.

5.3 Effect of SG in the implementation process
During the play and evaluation phases the participants experience and give feedback
on the simulation game. In both games they evaluate after each round (one full Kolb
cycle) and after the whole game is finished. In both occasions I was present, receiving
feedback about the SG at the time of playing and minimally one month later.
The effect measurement of of the simulation game showed that employees were
relatively positive about previous SG experiences, while feeling connected and
comfortable during playing Control-IT. The facilitator played his role very well and
2/3 of participants felt the SG had clear connections with their everyday working
reality.
Participants expected to learn insight in process, cooperation or interaction and
afterwards say they learned process understanding and making concrete
appointments. According to employees has playing the SG made a distinguished
contribution to improved cooperation within the restructured organization; what is
more, they felt empowered to work with the new structure of Service centre-Back
office.

1
Annual report MN Services 2009, p. 36.

53
Participants gave the following feedback about their experience: the game and reality have
marked similarities, yet the action afterwards remains human efforts. It is therefore important
to keep following the agreed upon line -instead of tossing questions around in the
organizations, seek for solutions if youre responsible. Another participant: there was a
lack of structuring regulations between units, causing much unclarity and creating
expectations based on nothing. This again causes disappointment. We have to agree on
regulations so that every party involved gains clarity. A third: the simulation game is
useful for everyone who cooperates, moreover, teambuilding is fun! Fourth: it is helpful
that we have been using a SG for explaining the change proposal and the connected casus of
problems and solutions.
A fifth: to my feeling, the management is too busy with marketing
themselves, while the general employee is awaiting too much what is to come.
Communication therefore does not reach its target, unsupportive of cooperation
outside of teams. The consequence is that like-minded people within teams search for
each other and cooperate/communicate more and better. Let us consider the official
group evaluation of what happened during each round:

Organisation

Customer reality
Round1: Lack of communication
and cooperation with other units.
No rules or regulations were made
with the service centre. A system
bug has an impact on the whole
system / process.
- Fixing a bug costs time because Back Office had no idea about
customer reality, they were busy fixing the bug.
- Disproportionate confrontation of bugs over customers, creating very
unhappy customers and bad production rates.
- The service centre does not give feedback to customers about their
questions causing insecurity and mutual feeling of misunderstanding.
- A lot of words, little concrete acts.
Round2: Internal communication
of teams, cooperation limited.
Rules are made for through-put
times and bug communication with
service centre and customer.
- Customer feels misunderstood, service centre does not distinguish
between small/large bugs.
- Yet, through-put times go faster (result of rules) and more efficient for
the customer. The customer feels taken more seriously, as the service
centre tries harder gaining information.
- Words are followed up by acts.
Round3: this time communication
between teams. Front and back-
office take a personal look at
situation of the customer asking
how they can improve the process
for the customer. Bugs get clear
priority codings.
- Service centre is able to keep
agreed upon though-put times and
there are priority lists.
- Customer feels helped by
feedback about bug issues.
- High production volumes with
efficient and effective support for
process and customer gives a
boost to all teams.

54
Communication, concrete appointments and willingness to listen to the customer were
found of utmost important targets after having played the simulation game. The
official evaluation of the change initiative confirmed this, naming three CSFs
(Kaplan and Norton) necessary for success: communication, working together/
cooperation and making concrete appointments. Clarity and concreteness in
communication helps prevent misunderstanding, which supports process flow. It is
important to define concepts to make sure everyone speaks about the same things.

Practicing with a future situation has helped employees to deal with problems and
solutions that were to come in reality. They also felt empowered by successes they
gained and learned to see which behaviour served their common goal the most.
Almost one year after playing this game, the results are the following:
The service centre is activated; employees can call for internal services and
products with the centre on working days. Also there is an internet page available
24/7. However, not all services and products are put into the centre/webpage. The
glass is half full, to be continued after the reorganization is completed. The previous
months shaped the fundaments, but in so far the project manager can judge the
simulation series (first managers, then employees) have hardly had any effect size.
The game started with an elaborate introduction, followed by individually reading the
game cards. This process lasted at least 1.5 hour before actually starting the game.
And, feedback giving during the game by some players: now the facilitator has
talked for so long -which was too long if you ask me; and we have read all these
cards, but I still dont understand what to do in the game! In total not more than 1/6
th

of the total time had been spent on the actual playing, while the rest went to
introduction (facilitator talking), preparation (participants individually) and evaluation
(participants as group).
The two rounds were each lasting for about 20 minutes; the first round
delivered a cacophony of communication and approaches, which created thoughts for
improvement for the second round. The improvements were helpful in the game
reality but not applicable to real life situations one manager dubbed as fake the roles
and activities central to the game (such as negotiating with the customer). The
productivity in the game rose with the clutching together in one group, ignoring

55
differences between other functions such as marketing. Moreover, players felt that
rules were not fair: a time out bought by 1 team automatically gave a time out to
both teams; and similar cards of customers/organization about market prices did not
always match causing a feeling of dishonesty of the game and consequently a flight
out of the game reality.
There were two groups competing with each other. The group that called for a
time-out and later bought the CRM system lost the game (less overall points and
output). The group without the CRM system won the race which gave the impression
that CRM was not necessary, but another bureaucratic tool to fill in (costing time
otherwise spent on real customer understanding). Most likely this CRM system could
pay off in the longer term, but there was not third round to show this.

Organisation

Customer reality
Round1: Chaotic communication,
hardly any goals or results getting
used to rules and roles of the game.
Functions were explored but no real
structure in communication.
- Getting to understand the roles of the customers represented by one
person (cards described a customer and the accompanying service /
feelings this had to be enacted in the game).
- Customers as well as organization didnt know how to interact with
each other properly but tried to get the game more clear.
- Customers felt misunderstood; complained, still werent understood.
Round2: As the basic goals of the
game were understood, certain
functions were tossed out (data
analyst/marketing) and one group of
organization took orders from
customer service (one-on-one).
- Customer started to feel at ease in the one-on-one contact with
customer service. Orders were pouring in and out the organization.
- Bugs were fixed or presents offered to keep customers happy.
- There was no management system but the simple one-on-one
attention did the trick.

As one participant put it, the game was too complicated and elaborated,
which distracted. The facilitator was unnoticed and not inspiring. He did not motivate,
what could be seen in the way the game was played. People felt as though the
facilitator talked too much for introduction, supported participants during the game
with information (but did not motivate), yet lacked in supporting the evaluative
communication, which was clearly a copy of working reality and would have been a
great stage to improve the participation amongst the managers showing that solving
problems is better reached via cooperation, not dictated by higher management. Now,
basically one manager took the lead and told others what was the problem and the
solution in the organization while the facilitator stood on the sideline.

56
The participants were all managers from within the organization, which was in itself a
very good setting to create common reality about all the changes within the company.
However, as one participant said in hindsight: I learned that for a game to achieve
any results, the set-up (architecture) has to be right. From the evaluation we learned
some good points for the organization, but these conclusions did not come through the
game. It was simply because management sat together in groups which could also
have taken place in another setting. So, the only thing that was good was that all the
management was gathered together. Unfortunately we couldnt profit from it despite
the simulation game. I feel as though nothing changed through the game.
Another participant mentioned that he recognized the components such as
structure in organization, necessity of facilitation (CRM techniques), making rules
and appointments known to everyone. Yet, he recently had played a Lean game which
showed more opportunities of learning with these elements. A game offers learning
opportunities, but I feel as though they always are based on production processes
instead of a dynamic service environment. Static products assembled into one end
product is not my business reality; a customer question or application needs added
value in a dynamic way. During these games (klant-erger-je-niet / Lean) we all
somehow feel its not going to bring change, we dont belief in it and consequently do
not take the time to start making a difference in business reality (blaming others).
5.3.3 Conclusions
The bottom-up process was in both SG not a focal point as the groups consisted
mainly of managers. In the LNV case there were also employees playing the game in
a later stage who felt empowered, yet the change goals were set top-down in a
modernist way, not typically empowering bottom-up participation process. Here the
game functioned more as a learning tool for specific behaviour.
Both simulations were aiming for experiencing the organization in a
metaphoric way (industrial / tourism); the former had a real goal of envisioning the
future; whereas in the second SG it was more the current organization that was
enacted. Envisioning a future organization including more customer friendliness
could have been a goal beforehand, yet this was only partly expressed playing the
game. Keeping a close relation with the customer by having organization listen to the
customer was the gist of envisioning the future organization (no real future problems
or solutions were found during the game). Contrarily, doubt of CRM systems grew.

57
Feedback loops were created in both SG from customer to organization (demand and
supply) and in the former SG also in the internal organization (between service centre
and back office). In both games this raised consciousness about listening to the
customer, while in addition this led to increased consciousness of clear rules and
communication of internal organization in the former case.
In both games there was a focus on behaviour of small groups and individuals,
although the role playing customers and unfacilitated evaluation in the latter game
somewhat hampered transiting the learning from SG to everyday working reality. In
the behaviour of individuals was well-seen in the former case during the evaluation
when some were very enthusiast while others werent which culminated into a
debate about how they experienced SG reality which the facilitator lifted into a debate
how individuals saw their team in organizational reality (specifically in the changing
future situation).
Finally, in both games it was recognized that evaluation after rounds helped
growth. Changes should consist of these phases including reflection points and rules
of communication. In first case the SG was used next to other interventions all part of
one change plan and the SG was later used to support employees during change: oil
stain effect. On the other hand, in the second case the SG was used alongside many
interventions, some of which were aiming at similar change goals, without one clear
phased plan or change manager.

58
6. Final conclusions
Simulation games can be used in modernist as well as postmodernist change
trajectories. Specifically they are useful in the pre-implementation phase, to spread
effects of learning quicker. Modern and postmodern change goals are usually blended,
as also the case studies in chapter 5 show. Simulation games are able to support
change bridging the modern way many organizations are still organized, to reach the
postmodern, more fitting approach to organizational change. In order for SG to have
any valid effect, they need to adhere to standards; and the contextual factors need to
be taken into account. The practical experience of the Ten commandments
(Wenzler, 2009) may help guide implementation of SG to create effect.
6.1 a good fit
From this research we can conclude that there is a fit between the postmodernist
approach to change management and the intervention simulation games. This fit can
be found at the conceptual heart, the implementation approach and the results.
Postmodernism is about building behavioural skills and interactive patterns
instead of building systems and structures. SG affect knowledge, skills and behaviour
of participants, through experimental learning. At the heart of PC we find interaction
and behaviour; the multiple realities of people and the myriad of interconnections
between environment and organizations is comparable to a complex almost chaotic
network, communication from multiple realities is easily clouded. In order for such
system to survive it has to be allowed to utilise its self-organising abilities effectively
(Cilliers, 1998). Yet, self organization cannot come about without empowerment,
sharing power from the few to the many.
In a way, postmodernism, which demands empowerment of organizational top
to bottom, is a culmination of the French revolution a natural development,
Zeitgeist. Giving power to the many may generate conflicts through discourse, which
necessitates a framework for interaction between the elements of the complex system.
Simons (1995) levers of control may guide organizations allowing for more free
interaction without creating flux and chaos. People need to learn from each other,
have access to information, power and technology in order to keep a free flow, which
in turn spurs creativity and growth. The goal of free flow is to allow reality to be

59
constantly monitored, reconstructed, and adapted to the environment enabling the
organization to handle continuous change.
SG inherently bring the combination of system and behaviour and are at least
a platform for interaction and relationships building which is the key to complexity,
chaos theory and postmodernism. SG help reducing, abstracting and symbolizing
complexity allowing clear focus on important elements, interactions and ultimately,
the individual, group and organizational behaviour. In both PC and SG, development
and maintenance of relationships is more important than the outcomes, players or
objects themselves because relationships spur development of meaning growth in
consciousness, enriching local realities and thereby interaction patterns (Homan).
Through the use of scenarios, changes can be introduced, experienced, and
criticized, to adjust strategy before changes become organizational reality SG help
participants to experiment more freely, safely and cost effectively. PC is a natural
result of learning, understanding and knowing, and SG are a strong tool for active
experimental learning. The flexibility of simulation games gives them potential to
mimic specific organizational reality, yet it is also a pitfall as the flexibility needs to
be actively steered by the facilitator in order to have effect on participants.
The recommendations for successful PC management mentioned in 2.2.4 are
very well supported by simulation games which is not to say that by playing
simulation games alone organizations will become successful or even postmodernist.
Using simulation games in your change trajectory is no magic switch to success. This
brings us to the limitations of the fit, or rather, the points of attention when one tries
to reach any postmodernist change with the help of simulation games.

6.2 Limitations
Simulation games need to well designed (characteristics, validity), prepared (ten
commandments), used and evaluated (interaction between facilitator, participants and
organization) in order to sort effect in change trajectories. Specifically, design needs
to keep its flexibility in order to fit specific organizational needs; the preparation
phase is of utmost importance for reaching results through organizational SMART
goal formulation, understanding and support of the change initiative; finally,
facilitators need to adapt game reality to participant reality, participants need to be
open for learning experience and organizations have to cater the consequent new
behaviour of participants.

60
The heart of postmodernist change and simulation games fit in theory but need
to be enacted during implementation to create lasting results. Simulation games
should not function as a hammer in search of (postmodernist) change trajectories to
hit. Simulation games provide the change manager with a tool in his toolbox,
powerful to use next to other intervention methods. The design and implementation
can be guided by the ten commandments described by Wenzler (2009) as they are a
pragmatic approach to the question of how learning from a simulation can be
ensured in change management trajectories. Although simulation design is a
complex process, it can be a very rewarding experience when it is managed with the
focus on both recognizing the needs of stakeholders and delivering value (p.109).

Simulation games are a great way to experiment with new scenarios while supporting
the education of employees to learn postmodernist behaviour that is empowerment
to participate; consciousness raising and problem solving tasks (higher order
learning). Employees can exchange ideas and practices in a fun and experimental
environment, giving them the opportunity to grasp the gap between current and future
situation, and help them adapt adequately or build long-term knowledge, skills and
behavior. However, like in all change trajectories, not everyone may be able to handle
this postmodernist, participatory changed reality.
On the other hand, organizational attitudes or intentions need to be focused on
creating a participatory environment. In reality this is a mutual process instead of a
chicken or egg story. Employees have to behave responsibly, taking into account the
interests of the organization; the organization has to be willing to invest in the
empowerment of their employees. Cynicism and power play are the result of
disbalance in relations, the real challenge is to start organizational change with a keen
eye on behaviour. The role of the change manager / game facilitator are important in
guiding organizations through this process.
The facilitator can use the game to give a boost to change, especially just
before implementing the envisioned change - game to play Homan. This move from
game to play has to be acknowledged by the organization, and supported in structure
and rules in order to create a lasting effect. The change manager should interact with
the organization to keep the goals clear. It would, for example, be hard for employees
to start an innovative project when the organization is bound to cut processes short,
lean and mean, offering no chances for initiatives to be heard. This would harm the

61
organization in postmodernist understanding, because the spitzen gefhl / active
participation of the organization is cut off. Leaving space for the multiple voices and
creating a way of incorporating these voices in the organizational structure may build
a stronger body to interact with outside world and foresee immanent change more
adequately continuous change.
Important to note is that postmodernist change processes are incremental
(dialectic and evolution theory), spreading like oil stains rather than being overnight
transformations. Setting up the organization to the postmodernist model can be
difficult, as is all change, especially when it is focussed on individual behavior. As
most organizations are operated top-down, it is recommended that 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.

Research question: To what degree could simulation games support postmodernist
organizational change?

Fit Limitation
WHAT of postmodernist change:
complex realities: create big picture and
vision of the future
Simulation games create simplified but
still complex realities: the power depends
on design and manner of implementation.
HOW of postmodernist change:
empowerment and learning: experiencing
success
Apart from game content and usage,
participants motivation and abilities &
organizational readiness influence results.
Enactment of postmodernist change:
Interactive, networking strength: shared
intelligence action.
Next to game design, usage, participants
and organization the facilitator is of
utmost important in enabling multilogue
(case study MN Services).

62
7. Future research directions

Writing this thesis was a journey centered on the connection of organizational theory
with the functioning of simulation games. The theoretical fit of postmodernist
organizational change with simulation games that are played in reality, with serious
purposes and a process component. To some extend the case studies showed how
theory is practiced, while also the theory included in the thesis often has a basis in
(organizational change) practice. Nevertheless, little is known of the practical value of
the theory what is the (size of) effect of SG in (post)modern change trajectories?
On the one hand, the difficulty of the distinction between various kinds of change
(modern, postmodern) is that in reality there is no clear distinction between modern
and postmodern change behavior. In the first place because organizations use both
change approaches mixed. In the second place, perhaps more importantly, because
this rather sociological phenomenon is hard to put a finger on postmodernism
cannot clearly be caught with the eye. The theory of Homan makes this concept more
tangible, talking about the organizational landscape where communities interact on
each others reality constructions.
On the other hand, during the process of researching about SG, it has struck me how
often gut-feeling effects of games (on behavior) are mentioned often by companies,
but also in official literature. This is the point Kreiner (1992) makes when talking
about the current state of research. Practitioners thus fill the gaps of science, perhaps
because they have no time (because too busy executing games), interest (what if no
effect is found?) or idea of how to start. There are too many perceived obstacles to
measuring direct effects of simulation games on employee behavior. To mention just
a few: the Hawthorne effect would possibly influence all effect results, which has to
be ruled out to discover the game result; the contextual factors are said to play a with
time increasing role, interfering with the simulation game effects on behavior.
Various approaches to measuring simulation game effect on behavior can be conjured
up. In a rough split these are an all-inclusive approach where the external environment is
somehow controlled. This could be in a laboratory or with a model to approach and
measure the environmental factors, such as the commandments of Wenzler (2009).
Another approach would be to create a large chain of experiments where the simulation

63
game is somehow controlled. This includes measurement of key simulation game
elements before, during and after the game, and observation of key contextual elements.
In this way the contextual factors would be filtered out.

A cognitive psychologist gave his opinion about the idea to measure game effects on
behavior. To his mind, social science research in the field can never rule out other
factors. For instance, before a meeting doling out cake generally makes people
drowsy and susceptible for big (change) messages. Sometimes though it makes people
feel irritated. Why? Brain synapses work habitual, when previous experiences within
certain contexts (i.e. cake, good weather, a red wall) have been good, circumstances
surrounding the now will have their effect on the brain reaction and therefore the
behaviour of people (to changes).
Another example is that of eye movement tracking, while people sit with their chin in
a water basin. Unshaven people, at a certain moment feel an itchy chin and react
restless, creating distinct patterns of eye movement. Of course, one can
counterbalance this in the results, however, the exact naming of the cause gives more
grip on future scientific measurements. Similarly, sharp insight in the details of
change contexts, be it a grey wall behind the director, warm weather while
implementing changes, cake before important meetings, or unshaven chins can be
important for a grip on the outcomes of the envisioned change. In case of spontaneous
bottom-up change, these contextual factors might be created in order to start/boost
spontaneous bottom-up change.
Instead of regarding measuring the effect of SG in organizational change trajectories
as a sheer undoable task, it is my conviction that with trial and error we can improve
our interventions in organizations through scrutiny. Not in the modern way to
mathematically encroach upon the one economic reality. Postmodernism has many
faces, many realities, and many interactions. Effective interventions empower
individuals or small groups of people, preparing each other to see and cooperate more
effectively: SG spur personal improvement, throughout the organizational divisions.

64
Literature
lcLure chapLer 2.2.4: lnLeracLlon neLworks: 1he connecLed company - deallng wlLh complexlLy. Cnllne! LnLered 16
AugusL, 2011 hLLp://lconoclasL.Lypepad.com/blog/eLenen-drlnken/

AbL, C. (1970). Serlous Cames. new ?ork: vlklng ress.

ALLewell, . CersLeln, u.8. (1979). CovernmenL ollcy and Local racLlce," Amerlcan Soclologlcal. 8evlew 44 (Aprll
1979): 311-327

8eer, M. and n. nohrla (2000). Cracklng Lhe code of change. !"#$"#% '()*+,)) -,$*,. (May-!une): 133-141.

8ekebrede C. (2010). Lxperlence complexlLy, a gamlng approach for undersLandlng lnfrasLrucLure sysLems,
roefschrlfL 4 [ull 2010.

8llsen, A. van, 8ekebrede, C., Mayer, l.S. (2009). undersLandlng complex lnfrasLrucLure sysLems by playlng games: ls
lL posslble? 8agdonas, L., aLaslene, l. (eds). Cames: vlrLual worlds and reallLy. SelecLed papers of lSACA 2008.
kaunas, 1echnologl[a. p. 263-270

8urnes, 8. (1996). Managlng change: A sLraLeglc approach Lo organlzaLlonal dynamlcs, lLman ubllshlng, London. ln
SLrh, u.M. (2003).

CadoLLe, L.8. (1993) 8uslness SlmulaLlons: 1he nexL sLep ln managemenL Lralnlng'. 1he Magazlne of Lhe CraduaLe
ManagemenL Admlsslon Councll, AuLumn. ln Lee (2010).

Caluwe, L. de, !. CeurLs, u. 8uls en A. SLoppelenburg (1996), /"0*+12 3#1"+*)"4*,$,#"+%,#*+1 0,4 )5,6)*0(6"4*,,
uelwel, uen Paag

CasLorladls, C. (1987). 78, 90"1*+"#: 9+)4*4(4*;+ ;< =;>*,4:. Cambrldge: ollLy ress. ln Slngh A. (2001).

Chla, 8. (1993). 'lrom modern Lo posLmodern organlzaLlonal analysls', CrganlzaLlonal SLudles, vol. 16, no. 4. p.
379-603. ln SLrh, u.M. (2003).

Cllllers, . (1998). ComplexlLy and posLmodernlsm: undersLandlng complex sysLems, 8ouLledge, London. ln SLrh,
u.M. (2003).

Cova, 8. (1996) '1he osLmodern Lxplalned Lo Managers: lmpllcaLlons for MarkeLlng', 8uslness Porlzons 39
(november/uecember): 13-23.

uale, L. (1969). Audlo-vlsual meLhods ln Leachlng. new ?ork: uryden. uescrlbed accuraLely aL:
hLLp://www.wlllaLworklearnlng.com/2006/03/people_remember.hLml

uuke, 8.u. (1974). 1oward a Ceneral 1heory of Camlng. 8oocock, S.S., lennessey, C.M., SlmulaLlon & Cames. An
lnLernaLlonal !ournal of 1heory, ueslgn and 8esearch, !une 1974, volume 3, no.2, p. 131-146

uuke, 8.u. (1980). A aradlgm for Came ueslgn. SlmulaLlon & Cames. An lnLernaLlonal !ournal of 1heory, ueslgn,
and 8esearch, SepLember 1980, volume 11, no. 3, p. 364-377

uuke, 8.u. (1987). 1he hexagon game: a game on human seLLlemenL managemenL, operaLor's manual. 8lchard u.
uuke an AssoclaLes lnc.: Mlchlgan.

uuke, 8.u., CeurLs, !.L.A. (2004). 1he ulsclpllne of Lhe ollcy Lxerclse. ln: krlz, W.C., Lberle, 1h. (eds). 8rldglng Lhe
Cap: 1ransformlng knowledge lnLo AcLlon Lhrough Camlng and SlmulaLlon. roceedlngs of Lhe 33Lh Conference
of Lhe lnLernaLlonal SlmulaLlon and Camlng AssoclaLlon (lSACA), pp. 112 - 123.

Llgood, C. (1993). Pandbook of ManagemenL Cames. ubllshed by Cower ub Co.

65
Llgood, C. (1993). Pandbook of ManagemenL Cames. ubllshed by Cower ub Co.

llower, !. (1993). '1he power of chaos', PealLhcare lorum !ournal, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 48-34. ln SLrh, u.M. (2003).

CeurLs, !.L.A., Caluwe, L. de (2000). Changlng organlsaLlons wlLh gamlng / slmulaLlons. Llsevler bedrl[fslnformaLle
bv / 1wynsLra Cudde.

CeurLs, !.L.A., WlersL, . van (1991). SpelslmulaLle: oefenen meL complexlLelL. Cplelders ln organlsaLles, CaplLa
SelecLa. Cxford: ergamon ress, p. 1-16.

Clddens, A. (1987). ln 8ourne, Llchler, v., and Perman, u. (eds.). ?;*>,)2 @;%,#+*4: "+% *4) A;+4,+4).
noLLlngham: Spokesman, pp. 113-113.

Clddens, A. (1990). 78, A;+),B(,+>,) ;< @;%,#+*4:. Cambrldge: ollLy ress.

Clls A. van (2008). SpelslmulaLle, een psychologlsch spelleL[e? Len verkennend onderzoek naar heL concepL
velllge omgevlng ln spelslmulaLles. nl[megen school of managemenL, 8adboud unlverslLelL nl[megen.

CreenblaLL, C.S. and 8. uuke. (1981) rlnclples and racLlces of Camlng SlmulaLlons. Sage ubllcaLlons.

Cross, n., ClaqulnLa !.8., and 8ernsLeln M. (1971). lmplemenLlng CrganlzaLlonal lnnovaLlons. A Soclologlcal
Analysls of lanned LducaLlonal Change new ?ork

Parvey, u. (1989). 78, A;+%*4*;+ ;< C;)40;%,#+*4:. Cxford: 8asll 8lackwell. ln Slngh A. (2001).

Poman 1. (2003). CrganlsaLledynamlca, Lheorle en prakLl[k van organlsaLleveranderlng 2009. Sdu ulLgevers bv.
uen Paag.

!ackson, n., & CarLer, . (1992). osLmodern managemenL: pasL-perfecL or fuLure-lmperfecL? lnLernaLlonal
SLudles of ManagemenL & CrganlzaLlonal SLudles, 22(3), 11-17.

klrrlemulr, !. (2002). vldeo Camlng, LducaLlon and ulglLal Learnlng 1echnologles, 8elevance and opporLunlLles. u-
Llb Magazlne vol. 8, nr. 2.

klabbers, !.P.C. (2009a). 1ermlnoloclgal amblgulLy: game and slmulaLlon. SlmulaLlon & Camlng. An
lnLerdlsclpllnary !ournal of 1heory, pracLlce and 8esearch, 40 (4), 446-463.

klabbers, !.P.C. (2009b). 1he Maglc Clrcle: rlnclples of gamlng & slmulaLlon. Sense ubllshers.

kolb, u.A. (1984) LxperlenLlal Learnlng: Lxperlence as Lhe source of learnlng and developmenL. renLlce-Pall lnc.
new !ersey. ln Lee (2010).
kolb's 1984 learnlng sLyles adapLed (2003). AdapLaLlon and deslgn Alan Chapman, 2003-06, based on kolb's
learnlng sLyles, 1984. Cnllne! LnLered 22 AugusL, 2011:
hLLp://www.buslnessballs.com/freemaLerlalslnword/adamsequlLyLheorydlagram.doc

krelner, k. (1992). 1he posLmodern epoch of organlzaLlon Lheory. lnLernaLlonal SLudles of ManagemenL &
CrganlzaLlonal SLudles, 22(2), 37-43.

krlLz, W.C. (ed.) lansplele fur dle CrganlsaLlonsenLwlcklung. Wv8, 8erlln.

Laszlo, C. & Laugel, !. (2000). Large-scale organlzaLlonal change: An execuLlve's gulde, 8uLLerworLh-Pelnemann,
Woburn, MA. ln SLrh, u.M. (2003).

LeavlLL, Parold, !. (1996). 1he Cld uay, PoL Croups, and Managers Llb. D%0*+*)4#"4*$, =>*,+>, E("#4,#6:, vol. 41,
no. 2, !une, pp. 288-300

Lee, A. (2010). =*0(6"4*;+ /"0,)2 =8*<4*+1 <#;0 A;+>,54("6 F,"#+*+1 4; ,G5,#*,+4*"6 6,"#+*+1H I+*$,#)*4: ;<
!,#4<;#%)8*#,H

66
Lee, A. (2010). =*0(6"4*;+ /"0,)2 =8*<4*+1 <#;0 A;+>,54("6 F,"#+*+1 4; ,G5,#*,+4*"6 6,"#+*+1H I+*$,#)*4: ;<
!,#4<;#%)8*#,H

Leon de Caluwe (2007): uslng slmulaLlon gamlng for change of organlsaLlons and for change of corporaLe culLure.
ln: Wllly krlz (2007): Camlng SlmulaLlon and CrganlzaLlonal Change. 8erlln: WlssenschafLllcher verlag.

Leon de Caluwe en Annemleke SLoppelenburg (2002): Camlng: een krachLlg leermlddel. ln P8u magazlne,
Lhemanummer PeL vak Lralner, nummer 03, 2002.

Luhmann, n. (1983). A soclologlcal Lheory of law, 8ouLledge & kegan aul, London. ln SLrh, u.M. (2003).

LynLon and areek, (2000). 1ralnlng for organlzaLlonal LransformaLlon, Sage ubns vL LLd.

LyoLard !.l. (1984). 1he osLmodern CondlLlon, A 8eporL on knowledge. Mlnneapolls: unlverslLy of MlnnesoLa
ress. ln Slngh A. (2001).

March, !.C. (1981). looLnoLes Lo organlzaLlonal change, "%0*+*)4#"4*$, )>*,+>, B("#4,#6:J vol. 26, no. 4 1981, pp.
363-377.

Meer, l.8. van der, & MasLlk, P. (1993). 1ransference Lo real-llfe conLexLs: CondlLlons for experlenLlal learnlng
from slmulaLlon. ln l. erclval, S. Lodge, & u. Saunders (Lds.). 78, )*0(6"4*;+ "+% 1"0*+1 :,"#K;;L MNNO2
P,$,6;5*+1 4#"+)<,#"K6, )L*66) *+ ,%(>"4*;+ "+% 4#"*+*+1 (pp. 73-83). London: kogan age.

nelson, 8., and ?aLes, u. (1978). lnnovaLlon and lmplemenLaLlon ln ubllc CrganlzaLlons. LexlngLon, MA:
LexlngLon 8ooks.

noer, uavld M. (1993). !,"6*+1 48, Q;(+%)H 3$,#>;0*+1 48, 7#"(0" ;< F":;<<) "+% -,$*4"6*R*+1 P;.+)*R,%
3#1"+*R"4*;+). San lranclsco: !ossey-8ass ubllshers. ln Slngh A. (2001).

Cverman, L.S. (1996) 1he new Sclences of AdmlnlsLraLlon: Chaos and CuanLum 1heory, unlverslLy of Colorado aL
uenver, ubllc AdmlnlsLraLlon 8evlew, SepLember/CcLober 1996, vol 36, no. 3, pp. 487-499.

eLers, v. and van de WesLelaken, M. (2011). urle arLlkelen over de valldlLelL van spelslmulaLles, ="0,+)5#""L
)5,6)*0(6"4*,). Cnllne! 8 sepLember 2011:
hLLp://www.samenspraakadvles.nl/lndex.php?page=conLenL/publlcaLles

eLers, v., vlssers, C. and Pel[ne, C. (1998). 1he valldlLy of Cames, SlmulaLlon and Camlng, 29(1).

eLers, v., WesLelaken, M. van de (2011). SpelslmulaLle - een beknopLe lnleldlng ln heL onLwerpproces.
nl[megen: Samenspraak Advles. lnLerne publlcaLle.

eLers, v.A.M., WesLelaken, M.P. van de (2008). 1he managemenL approach: Lhlnklng ln sysLems. ln: Caluwe, L.
de, PofsLede, C.!., eLers, v. (eds.). Why do games work? ln search of Lhe acLlve subsLance. uevenLer: kluwer, p.
131-164.

lnchoL, C. (1983). lnLrapreneurlng: why you don'L have Lo leave Lhe corporaLlon Lo become an enLrapreneur.
!"#5,# S -;.J C(K6*)8,#)J 9+>HJ T,. U;#L.

8elchers A.L., Wanous !.. and AusLln, !.1. (1997). undersLandlng and managlng cynlclsm abouL organlzaLlonal
change, 78, ">"%,0: ;< 0"+"1,0,+4 ,G,>(4*$, VMNNOWXYYZ[J vol. 11, no.1 (leb., 1997), pp. 48-39.

8uss 1.L. (2010). rogrammaLlc and arLlclpaLory: 1wo lrameworks for Classlfylng LxperlenLlal Change
lmplemenLaLlon MeLhods, SACL ubllcaLlons 2010, SlmulaLlon & Camlng, 41(3) 767-786

SaganeL semlnar 22 SepLember 2011 (faclllLaLlon)

Sarup M. (1993). An lnLroducLory Culde Lo osL-SLrucLurallsm and osLmodernlsm 2nd ed., new ?ork: ParvesLer
WheaLsheaf, pp. 130-131. ln Slngh A. (2001).

67
Sarup M. (1993). An lnLroducLory Culde Lo osL-SLrucLurallsm and osLmodernlsm 2nd ed., new ?ork: ParvesLer
WheaLsheaf, pp. 130-131. ln Slngh A. (2001).

Schn, u. (1983). 1he reecLlve pracLlLloner: Pow professlonals Lhlnk ln acLlon. new ?ork, 8aslc 8ooks.

Sherman, P. & SchulLz, 8. (1998). Cpen boundarles: CreaLlng buslness lnnovaLlon Lhrough complexlLy, erseus
8ooks, 8eadlng, MA. ln SLrh, u.M. (2003 .

Slmons, 8. (1993). ConLrol ln an age of empowermenL. !"#$"#% '()*+,)) -,$*,. (March-Aprll): 80-88.

Slngh A. (2001). 8eflecLlve noLes on modernlLy, changlng organlzaLlons and Leacher educaLlon, laculLy of
LducaLlon, Cnllne! hLLp://www.mun.ca/educ/faculLy/mwaLch/wln21/slngh.hLm

SLaLlsLlclan Ceorge 8ox. \05*#*>"6 @;%,6W'(*6%*+1 "+% -,)5;+), =(#<">,) (1987), co-auLhored wlLh norman 8.
uraper, p. 424

SLrh, u.M. (2003). Change managemenL sLraLegles and approaches, chapLer 3, approaches Lo Change
ManagemenL, unlverslLy of reLorla eLd. Cnllne! upeLd.up.ac.za/Lhesls/avallable/eLd-03092003-
123748/.../03chapLer3.pdf.

1.!. @*>L,:, A 5;)40;%,#+ vlew of publlc relaLlons: Slgn and reallLy, ubllc 8elaLlons 8evlew 23 (MNN]),

1en Pave S. and vlsser, C. (2004). naar een producLlef veranderperspecLlef - van mlslukklng naar succes, Polland
managemenL revlew, nummer 98, 2004.

1hlagl (2000). laylng wlLh Lhe rules, AS1u, november/uecember 2000.

1horne, L.u., larrell, L., MonLuorl, L. and Wlllems, C. (1999) 1he use of a behavloural slmulaLlon Lo Leach buslness
eLhlcs. 1eachlng 8uslness LLhlcs. vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 283-96. ln Lee (2010).

1omllnson, !. (1991). A(64(#"6 905,#*"6*)02 D A#*4*>"6 9+4#;%(>4*;+. 8alLlmore: 1he !ohn Popklns unlverslLy
ress. ln Slngh A. (2001).

Wenzler l. (2009). 1he Len commandmenLs for 1ranslaLlng SlmulaLlon 8esulLs lnLo 8eal-Llfe erformance.
SlmulaLlon & Camlng, vol. 40 nr. 1, lebruary 2009, p. 98-109 Sage ubllcaLlons.

Wenzler, l., CharLler, u. (1999) Why uo We 8oLher WlLh Cames and SlmulaLlons: An CrganlzaLlonal Learnlng
erspecLlve. SlmulaLlon and Camlng, vol. 30 no. 3, 373-383. new ?ork, Sage ubllcaLlons.

Wenzler, lvo (2008) 1he role of slmulaLlon games ln LransformaLlonal change. ln

WesLelaken, M.P. van de (2002). Spe(e)lrulmLe ln veranderlngsprocessen, Len onderzoek naar op welke wl[zen
spelslmulaLles parLlclpaLle ln veranderlngsprocessen kunnen ondersLeunen. uocLoraalscrlpLle
8edrl[fsweLenschappen, nl[megen School of ManagemenL, kaLholleke unlverslLelL nl[megen

Wllde 8. de and Ceverlnk, A. (2001).'ue Large Scale lnLervenLlon, heL organlseren van duurzame veranderlng'.
Samson kluwer, aprll 2001, reeks rofessloneel Advlseren. ln van de WesLelaken (2002).

?oungblood, M.u. (1997). Llfe aL Lhe edge of chaos: CreaLlng Lhe quanLum organlzaLlon, erceval ubllshlng,
uallas. ln SLrh, u.M. (2003).

68

Master Thesis Change Management and Serious Games

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master Thesis Change Management and Serious Games

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Simulation Games &

Postmodernist Change Management

You might also like