Unit VIII Article Critique -Leadership

Managing change and transitions: a comparison of different models and their commonalities Brisson-Banks, Claire V . Library Management ; Bradford 31.4/5 (2010): 241-252.

ProQuest document link

ABSTRACT  

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to analyze the commonalities of various change and transition models

developed over time to assist with and support managing organizational change. Design/methodology/approach -

The article provides an examination of change and transition models through a review of relevant literature and the

comparison of different models. Findings - Each change and transition model has similar methods of handling

change. Their unique methods and strategies provide additional insights into possible applications to most

organizations. In some cases, models could be combined to form new models to best fit the circumstances of the

organization. Practical implications - This comparison can assist individuals in evaluating and selecting the model

based on organizational need while remembering to focus on both the physical and the emotional changes in an

organization. Originality/value - The article shows that human resource managers can benefit from learning the

commonalities between change and transition models when considering what will work for their organization in

conjunction with the review of a number of well known and relevant models. FULL TEXT  

Introduction

Change is evident everywhere from the simplest everyday changes to the most difficult situations encountered by

human resource (HR) managers as management grapples with reorganizations, downsizing and/or cutbacks. A

crucial factor in the effectiveness of an organization is the ability to adapt to change ([14] French and Delahaye,

1996). According to [7] Bridges and Mitchell (2000) "Business conditions change and yesterday's assumptions and

practices no longer work".

While it may seem uncommon to some, most businesses are told they have to change everything from the way

they think to the way they work ([24] Nortier, 1995). [31] Wagar (2000) provides a bit of history by reminding us of

how downsizing became an obsession in the 1990s, the phrase "lean and mean" became a primary focus of most

businesses at that time. Whether the success of downsizing tactics worked is not the topic for discussion here,

however, the tactics employed at the time are part of this comparison. Today's economic crisis has also added the

new dimension of change needing to be immediate instead of over a period of time. Add increased global

competition, outsourcing, fast changing and new technologies and you have a recipe for massive confusion to

those involved in such a volatile environment.

Literature review

When beginning a review of studies surrounding change models, it was discovered that much time and energy has

been devoted to bring about a better understanding of change as it relates to organizations. While this topic has

been looked at from various disciplines, this article will only touch on some of the many change and transition

models, which organizations have to choose from as they work through their particular organization change.

An awareness of the need for change is the beginning of the whole change process ([1] Armstrong, 2006). A

complete assessment of the current situation is necessary to begin the process of implementing any kind of

change in an organization. Unfortunately, this kind of assessment may take longer than management or

stakeholders have if the situation is very serious. What happened to bring about the need for change? What kind of

issues and problems have occurred to bring about this crisis are questions which need to be answered as this

helps to determine the best course of action to follow. Which change and/or transition model will fit the

organization?

Another facet within change models are the individuals involved in working together to implement change. [30]

Ulrich and Brockbank (2005) provide some insights to this element of the equation by pointing out how "high-

performing HR professionals make change happen successfully and thoroughly with their most critical

contribution being to make sure the change happens quickly". Just how involved the HR professional has to be for

a successful change is up to the organization. There are a variety of reasons their involvement is imperative to the

success of any type of change. Additionally, their familiarity with the organization's culture and employees

becomes a great asset to the individuals responsible for organizing changes. This is most significant in a change

process as follow through skills become extremely valuable and adds to the facilitation of all types of

organizational change.

Taking a step back to change itself, various studies have revealed additional strategies concerning the very nature

of change and how it relates to organizations. [16] Kanter (1985) relates how organizations have to be able to

adapt to change or face the possibility of losing out to competition. [16] Kanter (1985) further expounds on how

some in top management attempt to force change by just simply dictating it, changing polices without warning

and expecting their middle management to take charge and make the change work. These experiences reflect how

strategic-planning models are only a piece of the change process, which usually results in some sort of

modifications to work with an individual organization.

[8] Burke (2004) looks at where the organizational development field is in 2004, and expresses how difficult it is to

move forward without the knowledge of what is coming. [8] Burke's (2004) review of what is now known (in 2004)

evaluates change processes and points out some of the change models which will be covered further in this

article. Additionally, change effort is now enhanced with the aid of training and feedback. [8] Burke's (2004)

comments bring out how any value-based change effort requires effective leadership and a business structure

which includes strategy, mission plans and a model. When a change model is used in conjunction with the

business structure it has a better chance of success and is part of the eight-step change model from [17] Kotter

(1995) where "to work together as a team united in the vision," is necessary for success.

[2] Axelrod (2001) reminds us of how change management and models came to the point of unleashing the power

of employees. Previous studies conducted by Kurt Lewin during World War II revealed how allowing input from

employees when changes were needed added to acceptance of the changes with a bonus of increased

productivity. These studies were conducted with surveys and working together to review the collected data which

resulted in better change solutions. [2] Axelrod (2001) further explains there needs to be a new paradigm involving

more people and widening the circle of involvement.

[10] Dannemiller and Norlin (2001) have developed a different approach altogether calling it a whole-scale change

where the business comes together to connect the collective wisdom of the organization creating the one brain

and one heart methodology. This process brings in individuals from all levels of the organization to create the

alignment needed for success. The additional touch of requiring high performance brings this model in line with

another change model introduced by [25] Quinn (2006).

Following the path of working together, [28] Schein(2004) uses the term "culture" and shows how it is extremely

important to investigate and study the culture of an organization in order to work with them in a more cohesive

manner. This very notion of knowing the culture of the organization is the responsibility of the leaders in order to

determine how to lead or [28] Schein (2004) says the "culture will lead them" making any change model more

difficult to implement.

[13] Evans and Ward (2004) remind us how managers are in the position of needing to "be prepared for two types

of change-planned and imposed". New managers are under pressure to make a good impression and feel like they

have to implement change correctly and operating under an unexpected or forced change can cause great

difficulties with staff. While change can be risky and is time-consuming, careful preparation can enhance the

process. Managers tackle the situation of how most people do not enjoy change, but somehow, because change

must happen, individuals will adjust over time with the right people in management.

[4] Beer et al. (1990) conducted studies of change programs with 12 different companies and discovered how most

do not work unless everyone is involved and on board. [4] Beer et al. (1990) determined that "effective corporate

renewal starts at the bottom, through informal efforts to solve problems". Their studies revealed how senior

officials can be committed to change and have to foster a climate of change instead of mandating the changes

from the top as may have been done in the past. They also discovered how all departments and mangers need to

be involved or the whole process can break down.

Additional organizational change studies were conducted by [12] Dunphy and Stace (1993) to show how no one

model is universally applicable. They point out how "turbulent times demand different responses in varied

circumstances, so managers and consultants need a model of change that is essentially a situational or

contingency model". [11] Dunphy and Stace (1988) developed a contingency model using a combination of

leadership styles and different types of changes. Identifying the optimum mix of leadership and change styles,

while considering the organization, is what makes the change successful.

[7] Bridges and Mitchell (2000) provide what they call a new model for change. They remind us how, over the years,

a large amount of time and effort has been spent in studying the management of change and yet it seems to have

fallen short in providing the much needed solutions to the economical situations organizations find themselves in

today as they work through a variety of necessary changes for survival. While change is not an easy or simple

process, many still operate today as if it is and fail to understand why a business is unable to create a plan and

follow it through successfully. [7] Bridges and Mitchell (2000) point out "most leaders imagine that transition is

automatic - that it occurs simply because the change is happening. But it doesn't". The human element of change

needs to be addressed for change to be successful.

[19] Kotter and Cohen (2002) have put together a collection of success stories using Kotter's famous eight-step

change model from 1996 as well as situations which could be considered failures. In the book, [19] Kotter and

Cohen (2002) point out the reasons for success are "[b]ecause their most central activity does not center on formal

data gathering, analysis, report writing, and presentations ... instead, they compellingly show people what the

problems are and how to resolve the problems". It is this kind of process that goes a long way into creating

successful organizational changes. This change model will be discussed in this article.

Change and transition models

Lewin

One of the earliest change models was developed by Kurt Lewin. According to [9] Burnes (2004) and [1] Armstrong

(2006) this model is referred to as the "3-Step Model" developed in 1947 and referenced in his Field Theory in

Social Science ([21] Lewin, 1951). This model breaks change down into three steps: unfreezing, changing, and

refreezing, [1] Armstrong (2006) provides greater detail to this process as follows:

- Unfreezing - is altering the present stable equilibrium which supports existing behaviors and attitudes. This

process must take account of the inherent threats that change presents to people and the need to motivate those

affected to attain the natural state of equilibrium by accepting change.

- Changing - developing new responses based on new information.

- Refreezing - stabilizing the change by introducing the new responses into the personalities of those concerned

([1] Armstrong, 2006).

This could be compared to overcoming bad habits by replacing them with new and better habits. The individual,

like an organization, has to be resolved and committed to make the change and do what is necessary regardless of

any inconveniences involved in the process. The end goal is to succeed with the change.

[9] Burnes (2004) points out that Lewin is one of the early pioneers of group dynamics and how individuals will

usually go along with the group norm whether it is a positive or negative situation or actions. [1] Armstrong (2006)

adds how "Lewin suggests a methodology for analyzing change which is called 'field force analyses'" and involves

the following:

- Analyzing the restraining or driving forces will affect the transition to the future state; these restraining forces will

include the reactions of those who see change as unnecessary or as a constituting a threat.

- Assessing which of the driving or restraining forces are critical.

- Taking steps both to increase the critical driving forces and to decrease the critical restraining forces ([1]

Armstrong, 2006).

How does this apply to an organizational change? [26] Ritchie (2006) sheds some light on how an organization can

apply this to a change situation. The unfreezing is the time process required to prepare for change, to help the

staff accept the coming change, and break down the status quo found through the evaluation completed leading

up to the realization that changes were necessary for survival. This will force the organization to take a hard and

difficult look at their very essence. [26] Ritchie (2004) calls this a "controlled crisis" which adds the needed

motivation to make a change.

Once the change is set in motion, individual workers may have to find new ways to accomplish their jobs, whether

they are the same jobs in new locations or new jobs in the same locations. Once the workers have accepted these

changes they easily support and adjust to the change. In [15] Johnson's (1998) Who Moved My Cheese?, the

character Haw realizes he needs to move on and accept his situation making the best of it, while Hem refuses to

change and just remains in his same state. This is often what happens in an organization when certain individuals

refuse to accept the changes while others move on and work through them.

[26] Richie (2004) states refreezing is at the point when there is a new stable organization, people are accepting

the reorganization by working through the new methods and ways of accomplishing daily tasks. Once this occurs,

confidence in the business increases and there is usually a new sense of hope and the future looks brighter for all

in the new organization. It is at this point when refreezing should take place. A celebration of the new

organizations should be held. This allows everyone to feel appreciated for their part in the success of the change.

(Remembering change is cyclical and may have to be addressed again in the future.)

Beckhard

Richard [3] Beckhard (1969) developed a change program, which incorporates the following processes (as cited in

[1] Armstrong, 2006):

- Setting goals and defining the future state or organizational conditions desired after the change.

- Diagnosing the present condition in relations to these goals.

- Defining the transition state activities and commitments required to meet the future state.

- Developing strategies and action plans for managing this transition in the light of an analysis of the factors likely

to affect the introduction of change.

Depending on the circumstance, an organization may receive the latest quarterly reports and realize that change is

required in order to survive or successfully contend with their existing or future competition. A business's staff can

work together to plan and implement change using this program.

To breakdown this change program further, [27] Rouda and Kusy Jr (1995) provide Beckhard's definition of

organizational development; it is "[a]n effort, planned, organization-wide, and managed from the top, to increase

organization effectiveness and health through planned interventions in the organization's process, using

behavioral-science knowledge". This explanation provides additional insights in how the change program can be

used in a business setting.

Looking at this change program with this added definition helps to show how it can be applied in a business or

organizational setting when change is imminent. According to [27] Rouda and Kusy Jr (1995), this model:

[t]akes a long-range approach to improving performance and efficiency in an organization by looking at the total

organization, adding the necessary support from top management by implementing it themselves along with tying

it to the bottom-line. Next apply incremental changes over a period of time while involving the individuals in the

business providing them an opportunity to make a positive contribution.

Additionally, [23] Marshak (2004) states "The whole idea of planned change assumes, in essence, that it is possible

to determine rationally how to initiate and implement actions to achieve and then maintain a predetermined,

desired future state". While these steps are not always applied in the correct order, they all need to happen for

change to be successful.

Thurley

A third change model described in [1] Armstrong (2006) was introduced by K. Thurley (1979) and has five main

strategies to managing change: "Directive, bargained, hearts and minds, analytical and action-based". Each

strategy has advantages and disadvantages for all parties involved. The primary starting point is to recognize the

need for change in an organization. An in depth review of each strategy is valuable when determining if and when

there is any commonality with each of the change models discussed in this article exists and whether access to

particular strategies will aid or hinder the success of the organizational change. Both [1] Armstrong (2006) and [22]

Lockitt (2004) provide ample explanations of each strategy.

- Directive - "the imposition of change in crisis situations or when other methods have failed. This is done by the

exercise of managerial power without consultation" ([1] Armstrong, 2006). "The advantage here is that change can

be undertaken quickly, however, the disadvantage is it does not take into consideration any views, or feelings, of

those involved in the change" ([22] Lockitt, 2004).

- Bargained - "this approach recognizes that power is shared between employer and the employed and that change

requires negotiation, compromise and agreement before being implemented" ([1] Armstrong, 2006). "[w]illingness

by senior managers to negotiate and bargain in order to effect change. This approach acknowledges that those

affected by change have the right to have a say in what changes are made, with disadvantages being the

additional time to effect change" ([22] Lockitt, 2004).

- Hearts and minds - "an all-embracing thrust to change the attitudes, values and beliefs of the whole workforce.

This normative approach seeks commitment and a shared vision but does not necessarily include involvement or

participation" ([1] Armstrong, 2006). This strategy allows "full support of the changes being made and a shared set

of organizational values that individuals are willing and able to support. Again the advantage is the positive

commitment to the changes being made with the disadvantages being that it takes longer to implement" ([22]

Lockitt, 2004).

- Analytical - "a theoretical approach proceeds sequentially from the analysis and diagnosis of the situation,

through the setting of objectives, the design of the change process, the evaluation of the results and, the

determination of the objectives for the next stage in the process" ([1] Armstrong, 2006).

- Action-based - "this recognizes that the way managers behave in practice bears little resemblance to the

analytical, theoretical model. The distinction between managerial thought and managerial action blurs in practice

to the point of invisibility. What managers think is what they do. Real life often results in a 'ready', 'aim', and 'fire'

approach" ([1] Armstrong, 2006). "This strategy stresses full involvement of all those involved, and affected by, the

anticipated changes. Benefits of this approach are that any changes made are more likely to be supported due to

the involvement of all those affected, the commitment of individuals and groups within the organization as they all

feel ownership over the changes being made, the disadvantages are the time it takes before changes are made"

([22] Lockitt, 2004).

Each of these strategies can be analyzed extensively, used independently or in combination in a manner

appropriate for an organization. There may be situations arise which may require methods from one strategy

mixed with methods from a different strategy to support a successful model for a particular business. [22] Lockitt

(2004) points out how "the skill of effective change management is to recognize what strategies to employ, when,

where and how to use them in order to be most effective", this can be an individual from human resources,

management or a hired change agent.

Often change models neglect the transition that is required to occur within the individuals in the organization

during the actual change process. It is important to include this human element in the change process. [24] Nortier

(1995) explains how [5] Bridges (1986) "considers transition as a dynamic in three stages". [7] Bridges and Mitchell

(2000) have labeled these three stages as:

Endings, the neutral zone (explorations), and new beginnings. Often, in the whole course of action, whether using a

change model or not, the benefits of a change are presented, plans are designed and implemented in coordination

with managers, policies, technical changes and budgets leaving out one of the most important aspects, the

individuals who will be affected by the changes ([24] Nortier, 1995).

Bridges

Another thought on this is provided by [6] Bridges (1991) in the statement "it isn't the changes that do you in, it is

the transitions". In an earlier paper by [5] Bridges (1986), he also points out how "change is the current corporate

landscape is the rule rather than the exception". It is worth noting that in 2009 this is still the rule. Further

explanations of the three stages are as follows:

- The Ending Phase - Saying goodbye to the way things were, a particular job, associates, a location, even a

manager or supervisor can all be changed when realignment happens in an organization.

- The Neutral Zone - New environment, new responsibilities, the rules have changed, there are different people to

work with and report to, this can all be unsettling as one explores and experiments in this new setting.

- New Beginnings - This period requires the final adjustment to new ways of doing many different tasks or even

similar tasks but in handling them in a new manner ([7] Bridges and Mitchell, 2000).

The last phase is often when individuals lose it all hope; they freeze and cannot move forward. This is mentioned

earlier in this article in reference to Who Moved My Cheese? ([15] Johnson, 1998). Three of the four characters

eventually make it to this last phase, but one, Hem, is unable to move beyond his fears, and eventually, he is left

behind. Organizational change models need to incorporate transitions in their plans to improve the success rate of

their upcoming change.

Kotter

[20] Kotter (2007) states "Leaders who successfully transform businesses do eight things right (and they do them

in the right order)". Kotter's original article by the same title published in 1995 soon became a must read for

organizational leaders planning and implementing change. [18] Kotter (1996) states while change efforts have

helped improve some organizations in the competitive markets, many situations have been disappointing and the

results have been disastrous for the employees and those in charge. Kotter points out "the biggest mistake people

make when trying to change organizations is to plunge ahead without establishing a high enough sense of urgency

in fellow managers and employees". The thought that this could not happen to our organization is one of the main

causes of failure while instituting organizational change. Some changes take years and even after a number of

years, they may fail for a variety of reasons.

[1] Armstrong (2006) goes through his eight steps as follows:

1. Establishing a sense of urgencya. Examining market and competitive realitiesb. Identifying and discussing

crises, potential crises, or major opportunities2. Forming a powerful guiding coalitiona. Assembling a group with

enough power to lead the change effortb. Encouraging the group to work together as a team3. Creating a visiona.

Creating a vision to help direct the change effortb. Developing strategies for achieving that vision4.

Communicating the visiona. Using every vehicle possible to communicate the new vision and strategiesb.

Teaching new behaviors by the example of the guiding coalition5. Empowering others to act on the visiona. Getting

rid of obstacles to changeb. Changing systems or structures that seriously undermine the visionc. Encourage risk

taking and non-traditional ideas, activities and actions6. Planning for and creating short-term winsa. Planning for

visible performance improvementb. Creating those improvementsc. Recognizing and rewarding employees

involved in the improvements7. Consolidating improvements and producing still more changea. Using increased

credibility to change systems, structures and polices that don't fit the visionb. Hiring, promoting and developing

employees who can implement the visionc. Reinvigorating the process with new projects, themes and change

agents8. Institutionalizing new approachesa. Articulating the connections between the new behaviors and

corporate successb. Developing the means to ensure leadership development and succession ([1] Armstrong,

2006).

It is interesting to note here how Kotter has managed to bring together the change models and transitions into an

eight step process. In The Heart of Change ([19] Kotter and Cohen, 2002) these eight steps are linked to 34 real life

organizations located throughout the world. The book is structured around these specific eight steps because "this

is how people experience the process" ([19] Kotter and Cohen, 2002). Both books provide case studies showing

what works and what usually does not work. [20] Kotter (2007) also reviews what happens when these eight steps

are not followed in the correct order or in the correct way. The old adage of "this is the way we do things around

here" is very difficult to overcome, but is very necessary to change when dealing with having to change a culture.

[20] Kotter (2007) states "his basic goal has been the same: to make fundamental changes in how business is

conducted in order to help cope with a new, more challenging market environment". This goal is evident as [20]

Kotter (2007) reviews what happens when these steps are not followed:

1. Not establishing a Great Enough Sense of Urgencya. Transformation or changes begin but are frozen and can't

move forwardb. Complacency has set in preventing any change from going forward2. Not creating a powerful

enough guiding coalitiona. When just a few people are not supported by more along the way, their efforts are lost,

major players need to be involved or the change will never get off the ground3. Lacking a visiona. Without a clear

vision, the whole effort can fall apart as individuals struggle to be a part of something not understood by the larger

population4. Under communicating the vision by a factor of tena. Everyone needs to be kept in the loop throughout

the whole process using every possible means of communication available from meetings to emails and

everything else in between. The management and the employees need to be in sync with each other, lack of

communication can prevent major successes causing the whole plan to fail5. Not removing obstacles to the new

visiona. Everyone has to be working together to make this new vision a reality, keeping those who refuse to change

need to be replaced or it will fail.6. Not systematically planning for, and creating, short-term winsa. Change takes

time; people lose momentum and need to be congratulated when evidence shows that the changes are going

forward successfully7. Declaring victory to soona. Some changes can take anywhere from five to ten years,

premature victory celebrations can kill momentum and ruin the whole change8. Not anchoring changes in the

corporations culturea. Making the new changes the way things are now done shows that the change is most likely

to stay, however, if this is not happening and most things beyond the surface don't really change then the change

has failed ([20] Kotter, 2007).

It is crucial for successful change to help individuals adjust to the ever-changing business world and keep

communication lines open at all times while maintaining the organization's vision during the change process.

When these strategies are implemented, taking everyone into consideration, than change is more likely to be

completely successful.

Commonalities

Conclusions

Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] shows clearly there are significant commonalities between these

particular change and transition models. It is interesting to note that is while they are not all lined up they each

handle change in a similar fashion. All these models are just guides to assist organizations through the world of

constant change which exists today. While no one exact and perfect model exists for everyone, each has positive

ways to handle change and can be adapted according to the organization. It must also be remembered that

change is constant. If an organization makes a set of changes successfully, it should be noted that one [18]

Kotter's (1996) eight steps is to keep improving, going forward with new and more innovative ways to compete in

the market by adding new products, always looking for new ways to handle situations and keep the vision going by

adding new people as the organization continues to grow.

[29] Senge (1990) points out how "from an early age we are taught to break apart problems, to fragment the world".

If problems are broken down too soon or too quickly perspective is lost and there are times when stepping back

and seeing the whole situation first is very beneficial and usually necessary. In an organizational environment,

creating a sense of urgency or mandating a directive because market forces have caused great economic

upheaval, it is prudent to step back, take a look at the whole situation, analyze the problems, develop a plan of

action with support and proceed to unfreeze, work with the employees, managers, directors and stockholders in

creating a complete environment where everyone feels ownership of the both the problems and the solutions. This

creates a solid foundation for any organization to handle the unexpected challenges brought on by a global market

and fast-paced technological advances.

This article has provided a commonality view of change and transition modes in hopes of presenting additional

insights into how they are still relevant today in dealing with the ever-changing organization world. Managing

change is definitely a challenge but not impossible, linking together possible solutions can only lead to improved

ways to handle changes and transitions and open up the possibility of new and improved methods not yet

discovered.

References

1. Armstrong, M. (2006), A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice, 10th ed., Kogan, London, pp. 343-

57.

2. Axelrod, R. (2001), "Why change management needs changing", Reflections, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 46-7, available at:

http://web.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/ehost/pdf?vid=4&hid=7&sid=e8690d69-fd9a-4c85-add1-

a821c755d5d7%40sessionmgr4 (accessed 27 July 2008).

3. Beckhard, R. (1969), Organizational Development: Strategies and Models, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

4. Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A. and Spector, B. (1990), "Why change programs don't produce change", Harvard Business

Review, Vol. 68 No. 6, pp. 158-66, available at:

http://web.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/ehost/pdf?vid=5&hid=7&sid=38c4fc2e-bcf2-4ab6-834d-

be9e5e2afb52%40sessionmgr4 (accessed 25 July 2009).

5. Bridges, W. (1986), "Managing organizational transitions", Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 158 No. 1, pp. 24-33,

available at: http://web.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/ehost/pdf?vid=5&hid=3&sid=7f423133-1ef6-43c5-

8073-668c1e2d7a4d%40sessionmgr4 (accessed 11 August 2009).

6. Bridges, W. (1991), Managing Transitions Making the Most of Change, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

7. Bridges, W. and Mitchell, S. (2000), "Leading transition: a new model for change", Leader to Leader, Vol. 16 No. 3,

pp. 30-6, available at: www.berlineaton.com/resource_files/Bridges%20Change%20Model.pdf (accessed 5 July

2009).

8. Burke, W. (2004), Organization Development: What We Know and What We Need to Know Going Forward,

available at: www.g-rap.org/docs/ICB/Warner%20Burke%202004%20-%20Organisation%20Development.pdf

(accessed 8 August 2009).

9. Burnes, B. (2004), "Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: a re-appraisal", Journal of Management

Studies, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 977-1001, available at:

www.busmgt.ulster.ac.uk/modules/bmg899j3/doc/Burnes%20on%20Lewin%20and%20planned%20change.pdf

(accessed 9 August 2009).

10. Dannemiller, K. and Norlin, P. (2001), "Leading whole-system change", available at:

www.dannemillertyson.com/leading.php (accessed 8 August 2009).

11. Dunphy, D.C. and Stace, D.A. (1988), "Transformational and coercive strategies for planned organizational

change: beyond the O.D. Model", Organizational Studies, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 339-55, available at:

http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=5994762&loginpage=Login.asp&site=ehost-live

(accessed 8 August 2009).

12. Dunphy, D. and Stace, D. (1993), "The strategic management of corporate change", Human Relations, Vol. 46

No. 8, pp. 905-21, available at:

http://libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=1108411&Fmt=3&clientId=17867&R

QT=309&VName=PQD (accessed 8 August 2009).

13. Evans, G.E. and Ward, P.L. (2004), Beyond The Basics: The Management Guide for Library and Information

Professionals, Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc, New York, NY, pp. 68-92.

14. French, E. and Delahaye, B. (1996), "Individual change transitions: moving in circles can be good for you",

Leadership &Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17 No. 7, pp. 22-9, available at:

http://libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=117542778&Fmt=3&clientId=17867

&RQT=309&VName=PQD (accessed 11 August 2009).

15. Johnson, S. (1998), Who Moved My Cheese?, Penguin Putnam, Inc., New York, NY.

16. Kanter, R. (1985), The Change Masters: Corporate Entrepreneurs at Work, Unwin Paperbacks, London, pp. 84-

87, 304-306.

17. Kotter, J. (1995), The 20% Solution: Using Rapid Redesign to Create Tomorrow's Organizations Today, John

Wiley &Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ.

18. Kotter, J.P. (1996), Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

19. Kotter, J.P. and Cohen, D.S. (2002), The Heart of Change: Real Life Stories of How People Change Their

Organizations, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

20. Kotter, J.P. (2007), "Leading change why transformation efforts fail", Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 1,

pp. 96-103, available at:

http://search.ebscohost.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=23363656&loginpage=Lo

gin.asp&site=ehost-live (accessed 6 July 2009).

21. Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper and Row, New York, NY.

22. Lockitt, B. (2004), "Change management", available:

www.learninglab.org.uk/papers/CHANGE_MANAGEMENT_3t.pdf (accessed 10 August 2009).

23. Marshak, R.J. (2004), "Morphing: the leading edge of organizational change in the twenty-first century",

Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 8-21.

24. Nortier, F. (1995), "A new angle on coping with change: managing transition!", The Journal of Management

Development, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 32-46, available at:

http://proquest.umi.com.libaccess.sjlibrary.org/pqdweb?index=5&did=8695001&SrchMode=3&sid=1&Fmt=3&VIns

t=PROD& VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1247461423&clientId=17867&aid=1 (accessed 6 July 2009).

25. Quinn, J.B. (2006), "Organizational development, change and transformation", in Armstrong, M. (Ed.), A

Handbook of Human Resource Management, 10th ed., Cambridge University Press, London, p. 349.

26. Ritchie, B. (2006), Lewin's Change Management Model: Understanding the Three Stages of Change, available:

www.consultpivotal.com/lewin's.htm (accessed 10 August 2009).

27. Rouda, R.H. and Kusy, M.E. Jr (1995), "Organization development the management of change", Tappi Journal,

Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 1-4, available at: http://alumnus.caltech.edu/rouda/T3_OD.html (accessed 10 August 2009).

28. Schein, E.H. (2004), Organization Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed., John Wiley &Sons, Inc, Danvers, CT, pp. 3-23.

29. Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday, New York, NY.

30. Ulrich, D. and Brockbank, W. (2005), The HR Value Proposition, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, p.

224.

31. Wagar, T. (2000), "Downsizing and restructuring", in Belcourt, M. and McBey, K. (Eds), Strategic Human

Resources Planning, Nelson Thompson Learning, Ontario, pp. 231-57.

Appendix

Corresponding author

Claire V. Brisson-Banks can be contacted at: [email protected]

  

AuthorAffiliation

Claire V. Brisson-Banks, Family History Library, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Illustration

Table I:

   DETAILS

Subject: Organizational change; Studies; Success

Location: United States--US

Classification: 2500: Organizational behavior; 2310: Planning; 2200: Managerial skills; 6100: Human

resource planning; 9130: Experimental/theoretical; 9190: United States

Publication title: Library Management; Bradford

Volume: 31

Issue: 4/5

Pages: 241-252

Publication year: 2010

Publication date: 2010

Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Place of publication: Bradford

Country of publication: United Kingdom

Publication subject: Library And Information Sciences

ISSN: 01435124

Source type: Scholarly Journals

Copyright  2017 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest

Language of publication: English

Document type: Feature

Document feature: Tables References

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01435121011046317

ProQuest document ID: 287901868

Document URL: https://search.proquest.com/docview/287901868?accountid=33337

Copyright: Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2010

Last updated: 2013-01-28

Database: ABI/INFORM Collection