Content uploaded by Richard C Laughlin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard C Laughlin on Jul 27, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
209-
Environmental
Disturbances
and
Organizational
Transitions
and
Transformations:
Some
Alternative
Models
Richard
C.
Laughlin*
Richard
C.
Laughlin
Sheffield
University
Management
School,
Sheffield,
U.K.
Abstract
This
paper
is
built
on
the
premise
that
organizational
change
can
only
be
under-
stood
by
tracing
the
process,
track
or
pathway
a
disturbance/kick/jolt
takes
through
an
organization.
Its
dominant
concern
is
to
build
alternative
processual
models
of
organizational
transitions
and
transformations
which
occur
following
different
environmental
disturbances.
Four
models
of
organizational
change
are
developed
(models
of
’rebuttal’,
’reorientation’,
’colonization’
and
’evolution’)
derived
from
the
literature
on
organizational
change
and
developed
using
some
aspects
of
Habermas’
critical
theory.
These
models
are
intentionally
embryonic
and
skeletal,
requiring
detailed
case
studies
to
amplify
their
nature.
As
a
start
to
this
amplification,
aspects
of
two
case
studies
are
presented
which
illustrate
respectively
’reorientation’
and
’colonization’
change
pathways.
Finally,
given
the
rudimentary
stage
in
our
understanding
of
the
dynamics
of
change,
pointers
to
future
research
are
given
in
the
conclusion.
Introduction
It
is
now
widely
accepted
in
the
literature
on
organizational
change
that
studies. can
no
longer
be
devoted
to
context-free
descriptions
of
change
techniques
and
effects
(whether
generated
either
by
the
environment
or
through
change
agents)
but
rather
must
explore
the
processual
dynamic
of
these
changes
(cf.
Goodman
and
Kurke
1982;
Kahn
1982;
Pettigrew
1985
1987;
Greenwood
and
Hinings
1987
1988).
Much
of
the
early
literature
is,
as
Pettigrew
(1985:
xix)
suggests,
’ahistorical,
acontextual
and
aprocessual’
and
fails
to
capture
the
dynamics
involved.
The
new
orthodoxy
is
to
concentrate
on
understanding
the
’content,
context
and
process’
(Pettigrew
1987)
of
organizational
change.
These
dynamics
are
increasingly
being
conceptualized
in
relation
to
an
environmental
disturbance
or
jolt
or,
as
Bartunek
(1984)
suggests,
an
’environmental
impetus’
(p.
356).
In
other
parts
of
the
literature
this
is
expressed
as
’kicks’
(Morgan
1986:
249)
or
’noise’
(Smith
1982:
362-363).
Even
though
the
title
is
uncertain,
the
view
is
that
this
disturbance
trig-
gers
alternative
organizational
’transitions’
and
’transformations’
(Kim-
berley
and
Quinn
1984;
Pettigrew
1985)
along
different
’tracks’
(Greenwood
and
Hinings
1988:
294)
or
pathways.
The
assumption
is
that
organizations,
for
possible
psycho-social
reasons
(cf.
Jacques
1955;
at Kings College London - ISS on July 11, 2015oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
210
Menzies
1970),
are
naturally
change-resistant,
with
a
strong
tendency
to
’inertia’
(Miller
and
Friesen
1984)
and
will
only
change
when
forced
or
’kicked’,
or
disturbed
into
doing
something.
However,
once
disturbed,
the argument
is
that
the
’track’
which
the
disturbance
takes
through
the
organization
and
the
degree
of
transformation
it
will
generate
in
the
pathway
it
follows
will
differ
over
time
and
across
different
organizations.
Put
generally,
there
is
no
single
end
result
for
any
disturbance,
but
a
number
of
possibilities.
This
paper
pursues
this
theme
by
developing
the
work
that
has
already
been
undertaken
on
the
possible
tracks
environmental
disturbances
can
take
through
any
organization.
The
paper
will
develop,
in
particular,
the
work
of
Greenwood
and
Hinings
(1988)
and
Hinings
and
Greenwood
(1988)
building
as
it
does
on
the
work
of
Miller
and
Friesen
(1980a
1980b
1984),
Ranson
et
al.
(1980a
1980b)
and
Walsh
et
al.
(1981).
Whilst
the
paper
uses
this
work
extensively,
it
adds
a
new
dimension
to
the
ideas.
The
remainder
of
this
paper
is
divided
into
three
sections
followed
by
a
conclusion.
In the
next
section,
a
number
of
prior
methodological
and
theoretical
points
are
discussed.
The
second
major
section
is
devoted
to
exploring
four
different
models
of
tracks
or
pathways
of
organizational
change
drawn
from
a
wide
range
of literature._
The
third
substantive
section
draws,
from
two
case
studies,
ideas
concerning
the
application
of
these
models.
Finally,
the
concluding
section
summarizes
the
argument
and
gives
pointers
to
future
research.
Methodological
and
Theoretical
Priors
There
are
four
prior
issues
which
need
to
be
borne
in
mind
whilst
examin-
ing
the
models
of
change
in
the
following
section.
The
first
two
are
related
to
methodological
issues
and
the
third
and
fourth
relate
to
the
conceptu-
alization
of
organizations
which
will
be
used
in
the
paper.
The
first
methodological
point
is
that
any
of
the
empirical
examples
discussed
in
the
final
substantive
section
are
not
intended
to
be
read
as
a
way
to
test
the
validity
of
the
models
being
advanced.
These
models
are
intentionally
pitched
at
a
highly
general
level
allowing
both
variety
and
diversity
in
any
empirical
outworking.
In
fact,
these
models
need
empiri-
cal
examples
to
demonstrate
and
amplify
their
nature.
They
can
be
like-
ned
to
’skeletons’
which
need
the
(empirical)
’flesh’
to
make
them
meaningful
’whole
beings’.
Just
as
there
is
a
diversity
of
human
beings,
so
is
it
expected
that
there
should,
and
will,
be
a
variability
in
the
empirical
details
surrounding
the
skeletal
models.
The
examples,
therefore,
have
been
chosen
because
of
their
ability
to
provide
the
start
towards
produc-
ing
rather
richer
pictures
of the
models,
rather
than
being
chosen
as
some
random
examples
to
see
whether
the
models
’fit
reality’.
Second,
again
from
a
methodological
viewpoint,
the
models and
their
empirical
amplification
need
to
be
seen
as
a
discursive
argument,
con-
at Kings College London - ISS on July 11, 2015oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
211
sistent
with
a
methodological
approach
derived
from
Habermas’
critical
theory
(see
Laughlin
1987
for
a
detailed
understanding
of
this
approach)
about
the
various
ways
organizations
change,
and
can
be
changed,
which
is
open
to
challenge
and
rebuttal.
It
is
this
argument,
as
a
totality
(using
many
additional
empirical
examples),
which
is
open
to
challenge
through
carefully
defined
critical
discursive
processes
following
the
dictates
of
this
methodology.
At
this
stage,
though,
the
following
should
be
read
as
both
tentative
and
exploratory,
rather
than
in
any
way
definitive.
It
is
offered
to
allow
this
discursive
process
to
commence.
Third,
organizations,
for
the
purpose
of
this
paper,
will
be
conceptualized
as
being
an
amalgum
of
’interpretive
schemes’,
’design
archetypes’
and
’sub-systems’
as
depicted
in
Figure
1.
The
view
expressed
in Figure
1
is
that
organizations
contain
certain
tangible
elements
about
which
inter-
subjective
agreement
is
possible
(e.g.
the
phenomena
that
we
call
build-
ings,
people,
machines,
finance
and
the
behaviours
and
natures
of
these
elements)
and
two
less
tangible
dimensions
which
give
direction,
mean-
ing,
significance,
nature
and
interconnection
to
these
more
tangible
ele-
ments
and
about
which
intersubjective
agreement
is
very
difficult.
This
less
tangible
part
is
divided
into
two
progressively
invisible
parts:
a
design
archetype
and
interpretive
schemes,
both
of
which
are
created
and
sustained
by
the
past
and/or
current
organizational
participants.
The
design
archetype
element
is
drawn
directly
from
Hinings
and
Green-
Figure
1
A
Model
of
Organizations
at Kings College London - ISS on July 11, 2015oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
212
wood
(1988)
and
Greenwood
and
Hinings
(1988)
building
on
the
work
of
Miller
and
Friesen
(1984).
They
define
a
design
archetype
as:
’...
compositions
of
structures
and
(management)
systems
given
coherence
and
orientation
by
an
underlying
set
of
values
and
beliefs.’
(Hinings
and
Greenwood
1988:
4)
Such
organizational
structure
and
management
processes
are
taken
to
possess
a
certain
pattern
and
coherence
both
internally
as
well
as
in
relation
to
the
’underlying
set
of
values
and
beliefs’.
They
are
the
inter-
vening
variable
between
the
higher
level
values
and
the
tangible
sub-
systems
and
are
intended
to
guide
the
design
of
the
latter
to
express
the
perspective
of
the
former.
They
thus
have
a
common
purpose
and
a
resulting
pattern
and
coherence.
Ranson
et
al.
(1980a),
building
on
the
work
of
Schutz
(1967)
and
Giddens
(1979),
call
these
values
and
beliefs
’interpretive
schemes’.
As
Bartunek
(1984)
indicates,
such
a
phenomena
has
many
different
names
in
the
literature
(e.g.
’ideology’,
Brunsson
1985,
or
’culture’
Smircich
1983;
Allaire
and
Firsiruto
1984)
although
she
captures
the
essence
of
the
meaning
of
this
multifaceted
concept
when
she
says
that
interpretive
schemes
operate
as:
’...
the
cognitive
schemata
that
map
our
experience
.of
the
world,
identifying
both
its
relevant
aspects
and
how
we
are
to
understand
them.
Interpretive
schemes
operate
as
shared
fundamental
(though
often
implicit)
assumptions
about
why
events
happen
as
they
do
and
how
people
are
to
act
in
different
situations.’
(Bartunek
1984:
355)
These
all
important
interpretive
schemes
are
often
difficult
to
articulate,
let
alone
understand.
Smith
(1982)
and
Morgan
(1986)
maintain
that
we
need
a
linguistic
’prop’,
namely
metaphors,
to
help
us
to
clarify
the
nature
of
these
invisible
elements.
To
understand
the
more
tangible
ele-
ments
of
organizations,
we
do
not
need
a
sophisticated
and
speculative
language
set,
since
it
seems
obvious
to
say
that
this
is
a
building
or
a
machine
which
has
particular
characteristics.
Similar
points
apply,
to
a
considerable
extent,
to
the
structural
and
managerial
elements
of
the
design
archetype.
However,
when
it
comes
to
looking
at the
underlying
relations
between
these
various
parts
and
the
rationale
which,
in
some,
way,
moulds
their
respective
natures,
then
not
only
is
it
difficult
to
perceive
of
these
variables,
but
it
is
also
complex
to
articulate
their
nature.
In
this
situation,
according
to
Smith
and
Morgan,
we
invariably
resort
to
metaphors
(and
the
contextual
’metonyms’
which
give
the
metaphors
greater
meaning),
even
though
they
may
be
fraught
with
error
and
disagreement.
The
.interpretive
schemes
can
be
subdivided
into
different
levels
of
abstraction
and
centrality,
as
Figure
1
suggests.
Although
the
levels
are
uncertain
and
ill-defined,
the
contents
of
Figure
1
encapsulate
a
model
of
a
set
of
possibilities.
Levy
(1986),
for
instance,
divides
up
the
interpretive
schemes
(although
he
doesn’t
call
it
such)
into
four
levels,
entitled:
core
processes
(at
the
periphery),
culture,
mission
and
paradigm.
The
’core
at Kings College London - ISS on July 11, 2015oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
213
processes’
are
to
do
with
structure,
decision
processes,
communication
patterns,
etc.
which
basically
constitute
the
design
archetype.
’Culture’
refers
to
beliefs,
values
and
norms.
’Mission’
r.efers
to
purpose
and
broad
programmes
for
direction
of
action.
’Paradigms’
as
’metarules’
underpin
and
give
direction
to
all
lower
levels.
Although
the
titles
are
clearly
debatable,
they
indicate
an
important
’nesting’
of
the
contents
of
inter-
pretive
schemes,
and
certainly
can
be
used
as
a
working
rule-of-thumb
for
their
design.
The
three
levels
in
Figure
1
are
intended
to
reflect
this
possible
structure.
The
final
preparatory
point
to
highlight
concerns
the
concept
of
balance/
coherence
and
the
role
of
environmental
disturbances.
Figure
1
suggests
that
the
interpretive
schemes,
design
archetype
and
sub-systems
are
potentially,
at
any
point
in
time,
in
some
dynamic
balance.
Miller
and
Friesen
(1984)
and
Greenwood
and
Hinings
(1988),
for
instance,
talk
about
a
’coherence’
or
’common
orientation’
forming
the
essential
nature
of
a
design
archetype,,
although
their
focus
is
only
on
this
element
of
the
organization.
Such
a
picture
is
not
intended
to
belittle
the
conflict
and
disagreements
which
pervade
organizational
life.
Rather,
it
is
to
suggest
that,
at
some
level,
there
will
be
certain
characteristics
which
bind
the
organization
together
and
make
it
a
coherent
whole,
albeit
with
disagree-
ments
and
conflicts
openly
or
subsumed
in
its
makeup.
It
is
these
dominant
interconnected
characteristics
which
are
being
assumed
in
this
idea
of
balance
and
coherence.
Once
such
a
balance
and
coherence
is
achieved
at
some
level
(even
if
many
voices
and
opinions
are
quashed
by
this
general
ethos)
’inertia’
around
this
dominant
perspective
becomes
the
norm.
It
is
only
an
environmental
disturbance
(using
the
term
to
refer
to
some
uncontrollable
jolt)
which
will
require
the
organizational
partici-
pants,
however
reluctantly,
to
shift
the
inert
characteristics
of
organiza-
tional
life.
Such
disturbances
will
lead
to
shifts
in
the
balance
of
the
dominant
lines
of
an
organization,
but
the
intention
will always
be
to
return
to
some
other
balanced
state
around
which
a
new
level
of
inertia
can
set
in.
However,
a
’schizoid’
(Greenwood
and
Hinings
1988:
304
ff.)
organization
(not
only
in
the
design
archetype,
but
also
in
the
rest
of
the
organization)
is
clearly
a
possible,
but
unwanted,
state.
Whether
a
schizoid
position
can
be
held
for
long
periods
of
time,
though,
without
a
split
occurring
into
two
organizations
(where
respective
balance
and
coherence
can
be
achieved),
remains
dubious.
With
these
four
points
in
mind,
we
can
turn
to
look
at
some
possible
general
pathways
which
an
environmental
disturbance
or
kick
might
take
through
an
organization.
Models
of
Organizational
Transitions
and
Transformations
The
attempt
to
model,
even
in
a
skeletal
sense,
the
pathways
an
environmental
disturbance
may
take
through
any
organization
is
thought
by
some
to
be
an
impossible
task.
Morgan
(1986)
picks
up
this
theme
with
at Kings College London - ISS on July 11, 2015oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
214
his
’loop
analysis’
and
suggests
that
these
pathways
may
be
so
complex
that
it
becomes
very
difficult
to
talk,
at
a
general
level,
about
any
possible
direction
a
disturbance
(’kick’
as
he
calls
it)
might
take
through
the
organization.
His
whole
analysis
shows
how
the
initial
disturbance,
which
may
have
been
made
with
a
particular
intention
in
mind,
’bounces’
along
an
uncertain,
interconnected,
interacting
pathway,
the
outcome
of
which
cannot
be
guaranteed.
However,
this
unpredictable
and
complex
view
is
not
shared
by
all
those
who
are
concerned
with
understanding
organizational
change
processes.
A
start
towards
a
classification
of
pathways
is
provided
by
Smith
(1982),
Levy
(1986)
and
Robb
(1988)
and
their collective
understanding
of
change
of
a
morphostasis
(first
order)
and
morphogenesis
(second
order)
nature
as
understood
in
biology
and
cybernetics.
Fundamentally,
mor-
phostatic
change
involves
’making
things
to
look
different
while
remain-
ing
basically
as
they
have
always
been’
(Smith
1982-
318),
or,
as
Robb
(1988)
suggests,
morphostatic
changes:
are
those
which
arise
from
the
workings
of
the
organization
within
the
framework
of
its
received
wisdom
and
view
of
its
existence,
within
the
current
definitions
of
its
objectives
and
of
the
processes
which
are
appropriate
to
achiev-
ing
them.’
(Robb
1988:
4)
These
changes
need
to
be
clearly
distinguished
from
change.
Smith
(1982)
calls
the
process
morphogenesis.
This
is
a
form
of
change
’that
penetrates
so
deeply
into
the
&dquo;genetic
code&dquo;
that
all
future
generations
acquire
and
reflect
these
changes’
(Smith
1982:
318)
or,
as
Robb
(1988)
suggests,
morphogenetic
changes:
’...
occur
when
the
model
of
the
organization
held
in
view
is
questioned,
when,
as
a
result
of
learning
and
developmental
processes,
a
new
model
emerges
and
when
new
processes
are
instituted
to
achieve
the
new
objectives
entailed
by
the
new
model.’
(Robb
1988:
4)
Levy
(1986),
drawing
from
a
wide
range
of
literature,
defines
these
dif-
ferent
dimensions
of
change
as
first
and
second
order
changes -
the
terms
of
which
are
clearly
traceable
to,
amongst
others,
Argyris
and
Schon’s
(1978)
single
and
double
loop
learning.
Despite
the
variety
of
terminology
which
Levy
(1986)
highlights
in
his
literature
review
and
in
the
terms
he
settles
upon,
all
refer
to
the
basic
distinctive
levels
of
periphery
and
core
change
encapsulated
in
the
biological
terms
of
mor-
phostasis
and
morphogenesis.
However,
since
these
terms
are
less
used
in
the
organization
change
literature,
the
following
will
return
to the
more
customary
language
of
first
and
second
order
changes.
First
and
second
order
changes
will
have
different
pathways
and
out-
comes
in
terms
of
the
contents
of
Figure
1.
Change
of
a
first
order
nature
initiated
by
an
environmental
disturbance
will
track
its
way
through
the
organization
without
affecting
the
interpretive
schemes.
Operationally,
this
may
involve
shifts
in
the
sub-systems’
elements
and
changes
in
the
design
archetype,
but
this
is
the
extreme
of
the
pathway.
Second
order
change,
on
the
other
hand,
stemming
from
an
environmental
disturb-
at Kings College London - ISS on July 11, 2015oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
215
ance,
will
result
in
changes
not
only
in
those
elements
altered
by
first
order
changes
but
also
in
the
interpretive
schemes.
Second
order
change
pathways,
therefore,
will
affect
all
elements
in.Figure
1.
Greenwood
and
Hinings
(1988)
and
Hinings
and
Greenwood
(1988)
also
accept
the
view
that
pathways
or
’tracks’
as
they
call
them
can
be
defined.
Their
work
is
a
significant
summary
of&dquo; the-
developments
to
date
in
formulating
the
tracks
of
organizational
change.
These
insights
will
form
the
starting
point
for
the
following,
but
before
looking
at
the
detail
of
their
models
there
are
a
number
of
comments
which
need
to
be
made.
A
.
fundamental
problem
of
their
work
is
that
they
concentrate
only
on
the
,
design
archetype.
They
do
not
trace
through
these
changes
to
the
inter-
pretive
schemes
or
to
the
sub-systems.
They
do
not,
therefore,
express
or
discuss
first
and
second
order
changes.
The
models
discussed
in
this
paper
are
intended
to
make
up
for
this
omission
and
in
the
process
provide
a
rather
richer
development
of
their
insights.
Greenwood
and
Hinings
(1988)
and
Hinings
and
Greenwood
(1988)
highlight
four
different
tracks
that
any
design
archetype
can
take,
which
they
describe
as
’inertia’,
’aborted
excursion’,
’reorientations’
(in
three
different
forms:
’linear
progression’,
’oscillations’
and
’delayed’)
and
’unresolved
excursions’.
They
couch
these
changes
in
terms
of
a
five
stage
process
involving
a
movement
from
design
archetype
A
to
design
arche-
type
B
via
an
’embryonic
archetype’
A
and
B
respectively
and
a
(middle)
’schizoid’
position.
’Inertia’
involves
non-movement
from
design
arche-
type
A.
&dquo;Aborted
excursion’
involves
a
movement
from
design
archetype
A
to
embryonic
archetype
A
and
then
back
to
the
original
(i.e.
design
archetype
A).
’Unresolved
excursion’
ends
up
in
the
schizoid
position
(neither
archetype
A
nor
B
nor
the
embryonic
version
of
either).
’Reorientation’
involves
a
progressive
move
from
design
archetype
A
to
B
with
the
pathway
linear,
oscillating
or
delayed.
Alternative
models
of
possible
pathways
are
contained
in
Figures
2
to
5.
Change
of
a
’rebuttal’
(Figure
2)
and
’reorientation’
(Figure
3)
nature
are
first
order
(morphostatic)
changes.
Change
of
a
’colonization’
(Figure
4)
or
’evolution’-
(Figure
5)
nature
are
second
order
(morphogenetic)
changes.
These models
can,
to
some
extent,
be
directly
aligned
to
those
put
forward
by
Greenwood
and
Hinings,
although,
as
already
pointed
out,
- their
tracks
only
refer
to
movements
in
the
design
archetype.
The
’inertia’
track
is
a
normal
and
desired
state
of
all
organizations.
It
is
the
situation
when
no
disturbances
need
to
be
faced.
The
’oscillations’
track
is
clearly
related
to
the
’rebuttal’
model
contained
in
Figure
2.
The
’reorientation’
track,
on
the
other
hand,
has
overlaps
with
both
the
’reorientation’,
’colonization’
and
’evolution’
models
of
Figures
3
to
5.
Greenwood
and
Hinings’
’reorientation’
track,
because
they
are
only
looking
at
the
design
archetype
aspects,
fails
to
distinguish
the
many
ramifications
involved
for
the
whole
organization.
These
ramifications
are
not
adequately
covered
in
their
work
or
in
the
different
variations
of
the
’reorientation’
track
(i.e.
the
’linear
progression’,
’oscillations’
and
at Kings College London - ISS on July 11, 2015oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
216
’delayed’
variants).
The
’unresolved
excursion’
track
is
one
which
inevit-
ably
pervades
all
the
models
discussed
below.
Figures
2
to
5
indicate
the
complete
journey
of
any
track
or
pathway,
yet
there
is
always
a
possibility
that
the
excursion
will
be
unfinished
either
in
the
short
or
long
term.
In
the
following
discussion,
which
looks
in
detail
at
the
models
portrayed
in
Figures
2
to
5,
these
various
connections
with
Greenwood
and
Hinings’
tracks
will
be
brought
out
more
fully.
Smith
(1982)
encapsulated
the
two
first
order
(morphostatic)
pathways,
contained
in
Figures
2
and
3,
in
his
’repetition’
and
’development’
models
of
change
and
his
work
seems
an
appropriate
point
of
departure
for
developing
our
understanding.
His
’repetition’
model
relates
to
the
externalizing
and/or
deflecting
of
the
noise
or
kick
so
as
to
protect
and
maintain
the
organization
exactly
as
it
was
before
the disturbance.
This
is
a
typical
homeostatic
control
system
working
on
repetitive
defensive
mechanisms
to
deflect
any
challenges
to
the
organizational
equilibrial
state.
Not
suprisingly,
therefore,
Smith
calls
this
process
of
change
a
’-repetition’
(Smith
1982:
363).
Such
a
change
is
encapsulated
diagrammatically
in
Figure
2
under
a
renamed
title
of
’rebuttal’
which
seems
to
express,
in
less
technical
terms,
the
essence
of
the
model.
The
assumption
behind
Figure
2
is
that
to
rebut
the
environmental
disturbance
will
involve
some
changes
but
these
will
be
primarily
in
the
design
archetype.
Thus
in
Figure 2
the
change
pathway
(marked
as
’ch.p’
in
this
Figure
(and
in
Figure
3
to
5
below)
leads
to
shifts
in
the
design
archetype
(from
configuration
1
to
1A
in
Figure
2).
As
Figure
2
First
Order
Change:
Rebuttal
at Kings College London - ISS on July 11, 2015oss.sagepub.comDownloaded from
217
Figure
2
indicates,
such
a
change
may
revert
back
from
design
archetype
1A
to
1
once
the
disturbance
has
been
rebutted.
It
is
this
possibility
which
allows
an
alignment
between
this
model
and
the
’oscillation’
track
of
Greenwood
and
Hinings.
Either
way,
rebuttal
is
a
change
of
a
first
order
nature
since
it
fails
to
shift
the
balance
and
coherence
(marked
as
’bal.’
in
Figure
2,
and
in
Figures
3
to
5
below)
between