Organizational_Change_Framing.PDF
RSP • No. 59 • 2018: 23-33
23
ORIGINAL PAPER
Organizational Change: Framing the Issues
Simona Rodat*
Abstract:
The study of change is a major concern at present in all fields of science. Traditionally,
in philosophy and socio-human sciences, the concept of change was approached as
opposed to that of stability, with intense debates about the desirability and importance of
order and stability vs. the unpredictability of change. While in classical approaches to
organizational change the conceptions that favoured order, stability, and routine
prevailed, modern approaches recognize the decisive role of accepting change for the
development and progress of organizations. In the field of organization development and
organizational becoming nowadays strategies are sought and devised in order to align
the organizations not only with their rapid inner changing, but also with the external
multiple, complex, and dynamic environments. Starting from an outline of the factors of
change and of the term of change as it has been conceptualized in sociology, the present
paper aims to delineate a general framework for addressing organizational change. In
this regard, after discussing the relationship between organizational change and the
social and economic environment and delineating the main areas and agents of change in
an organization, the various types of change in the organization and the models of their
approach are addressed. Furthermore, since the resistance to change is a common and
omnipresent human and social phenomenon, including at the level of groups and
organizations, the paper approaches also the causes and manifestations of change
resistance, as well as the possible measures for combating this phenomenon, in situations
where the change is beneficial and necessary.
Keywords: change; organizational change; organizational becoming; change
management; change resistance.
* Professor, PhD, Adventus University, Cernica, Ilfov, Faculty of Theology and Social Sciences; Email:
Simona RODAT
24
Introduction
Presently, the study of change is a major issue in all fields of science. While
traditionally, in philosophy and socio-human sciences, the concept of change was
approached as opposed to that of stability, the importance and desirability of order and
stability vs. the unpredictability of change being intense debated, modern approaches,
especially those regarding organizational change, emphasize the decisive role of
accepting change for the development and progress of organizations. Thus, change is
treated as the normal condition of organizational life (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992;
Tsoukas and Chia, 2002).
Nowadays in the field of organization development there are sought and devised
strategies designed to help the organizations to adjust both to the rapid inner changing
and to the external multiple, complex, and dynamic environments(Van de Ven and
Poole, 2005). That is why factors such as time, history, organizational experiences and
actions are taken into account and links between change processes and organizational
performance are assessed (Pettigrew, Woodman and Cameron, 2001). Change is an
ongoing process and some scholars (e.g. Tsoukas and Chia, 2002), in order to highlight
the pervasiveness of change in organizations, talk about ‘organizational becoming’.
This paper intends to outlinea framework for addressing organizational change.
After some conceptual delimitations, the relationship between organizational change and
the social and economic environment is discussed and the main areas and agents of
change in an organization are delineated. Moreover, the various types of change in the
organization and the models of their approach are addressed. Since the resistance to
change is a common and omnipresent human and social phenomenon, including at the
level of groups and organizations, the paper approaches also the causes and
manifestations of change resistance, as well as the possible measures for combating this
phenomenon, in situations where the change is beneficial and necessary.
Conceptual framework The idea of ‘change’ began to be debated in philosophy in the eighteenth
century as an expression of the conception that the unity of the substance is in fact
revealed by the continual change (Cassirer, 1990). Such a viewpoint was in contradiction
with the philosophical conceptions of the past, according to which the world that is
undergoingchange is merely an imitation of the world of universal and necessary ideas
(Ferréol, Cauche, Duprez, Gadrey and Simon, 1998: 197).
Generally speaking, change refers to the transition from one state to another.
Specific for the change is the fact that it can itself be seen as a state, even transient,
which should be considered as such, but also addressing at the same time the differences
between two successive states of the system. Identifying changes involves seeing to
what extent there are modifications in the underlying structure of an object or a situation
over a period of time. Any reporting of change means therefore also to see what remains
stable, as a benchmark for measuring the transformations.
Overall, socio-human sciences, especially sociology, approach change at two
distinct levels: a) macro-social, i.e. at the level of global society, referring to growth,
evolution, development, progress, regression; b) micro-social, i.e. at the level of certain
subsystems or components of society, such as organizations. The two levels are not
necessarily and consistently put into relationship, some sociological theories focusing on
macro-social changes, and others on the micro-social ones.
Organizational Change: Framing the Issues
25
Although many theorists have tried over the last two centuries to develop a
general theory that explains the nature of all social changes, it is now admitted that no
theory based on a single factor canclarify the diversity of the human social evolutions
(Giddens, 2000: 560). However, there can be identified three main factors that have
constantly influenced change in society (ibid.): physical environment, political
organization, and cultural factors. While the physical environment has especially
implications on the evolution of social structure, the political organization plays a key
role in producing social change. Furthermore, the cultural factors have a significant,
even primordial influence in triggering social change. For example, the technological
innovations, scientific discoveries, cultural diffusion, religion, etc., are all cultural
factors that can become catalystsof social change.
Thus, one can say that changes in the social sphere can occur either as a result
of extraordinary challenges of physical living conditions or as a result of political actions
(including a variety of factors such as governmental and legislative actions,
implementation of political and social programs, changes of political regime, social
movements of various forms such as protesting, reforming, orrevolutionary ones, etc.),
or as anoutcome of cultural factors, such as the intentional or unintentional
consequences of technological innovations, scientific discoveries, the emergence of a
new religion, and so on.
The relationship between organizational change and the social and
economic environment
Being part of the social environment, which is constantly changing, either
slower or more accelerated, organizations must also continually adapt to the changing
environment. Thus, adaptability to environmental change has now become a
fundamental condition not only for the success of the organization but also, often, for its
survival.The scope of environmental changes varies from country to country and region
to region, but there are also global changes affecting companies worldwide, such as the
crisis of energy resources, environmental pollution, etc.
In order to maintain and develop, organizations have to create structures capable
of anticipating the trends in economic and social development, in general, as well as the
structural and content-related market changes, in particular. Strategic planning of the
organization, including that of human resources, is the most important managerial
activity with long-term effects. Performing organizations allocate considerable financial
resources for developing strategies, as well as for adopting policies on human resources
(Stanciu, Ionescu, Leovaridis and Stănescu, 2003). Organizational changes in recent
decades have led to awareness for the need for organizations to create structures to adapt
to the environment. In this respect, forms of management have been developed, such as
the management by objectives (MBO) or management by results (MBR), participatory
management, total quality management (TQM), as well as structures to facilitate and
expand internal and external communication.
The current economic, social and political environment determines, in the
context of globalization, an increasingly fierce competition, so that the success of an
organization depends on its ability to differentiate itself from the competition through a
multidimensional contribution. These multiple dimensions refer to(Huţu, 1999):
providing value and satisfaction to customers; ensuring the prosperity of owners and
investors; ensuring the well-beingof members of the community to which it belongs. In
order to address all these dimensions, organizations need to make a series of assessments
Simona RODAT
26
regarding(ibid.): their own structure; the flow of fluxes of information and resources, the
efficiency of the organization and the level of performances, the adaptability of the
organization to the external environment, the capacity of the staff to use new
technologies, the ability to finance its own restructuring, the willingness to invest in
training and retraining of the staff, etc. Organizations also need to be prepared with
strategies that make the organization able, on the one hand, to adapt to the
transformation of the environment, and on the other hand, to continue uninterrupted the
process of achieving the objectives.
Change in relation to organizations can also be seenin the reverse direction: not
only the external environment contributes to changing organizations, but also
organizations themselves can contribute to changing the external environment, for
example by creating and spreadingnew technologies or products that, in time, can
become dominant, can change people’s way of life and habits and can even modifythe
social and natural environment to a wider level.
Areas and agents of change in an organization Organizational change can aim various transformations in different areas of an
organization, consisting of transitions from states that start to be regarded as deprecated
to desired, up-to-date states, suitable to the dynamic and the challenges of the
environment.
In order to describe the major changes undertaken in key organizational
parameters, such as strategy, structure, technology, the distribution of power, and the
people, there are used terms like ‘quantum change’ (Miller and Friesen, 1984;
Greenwood and Hinings, 1993), ‘second-order change‘ (Bartunek and Moch, 1994) or
‘organizational transformation’ (Wischnevsky and Damanpour, 2006). The different
conceptualizations of organizational change have however the similar view that this
process is consisting of major changes in multiple dimensions (Van de Ven and Poole,
2005).
Among the most important dimensions that could be subject to change in an
organization can be mentioned:basis of the organization (its purpose, nature and level of
activity, legal status, ownership form, sources of financing, ways to diversify production,
etc.); strategy (planning and directing designs, short-term and long-term goals, schemes
and procedures, the vision for the future direction of organization, etc.); tasks and
activities (the range of products and services offered, sales markets, beneficiaries,
suppliers, etc.); structures and management processes (internal organization, work flow,
decision-making procedures, control methods, information systems, the flow of intra-
communication, and so on); the technology used (technological processes, office
technology, equipment, materials and type of energy used, etc.); people (staff and
leadership – type, size, characteristics, structure, skills, conducts, attitudes, values,
motivations, behaviour, work efficiency, etc.);organizational culture (influences and
processes, values, traditions, leadership style, hierarchical structures, formal and
informal relations, etc.); communication (internal and external communication models,
image changes, strategies of dealing with the extrinsic environment, etc.).
Currently, many companies and organizations are aware of the importance of
change and encourage the entrepreneurial spirit of their members. Some companies even
have special departments dealing with innovation, as well as with proposing changes and
the required measures to implement them. Such departments comprise people with
innovative and avant-garde spirit.
Organizational Change: Framing the Issues
27
However, other members of the organization may prove to be also agents of
change, without necessarily working in specialized departments. More and more
organizations are open to the proposals of such entrepreneurial employees, knowing that
nowadays novelty and creativity are the keys to the success of an enterprise.
Not only those who have innovative ideas in terms of production are considered
to be agents of change, but also those who come up with proposals to restructure and to
improve the quality of work, the climate in the organization, etc. From this point of
view, it is expectedthat leaders and managers of organizations are agents of change, but
other employees also should be encouraged to take the initiative.
There are also situations in which organizations hire agents of change from
outside. Based on an audit, observation and analysis of the organization’s work, they
make specific proposals for changing the aspect of the company for which they were
hired.
Types of organizational changes and models of approach
Some changes are foreseeable, such as those related to ‘natural’, evolutionary
processes, like changes that are caused byadaptation to current technology and, in
general, any change aiming the modernization of organization, personnel or leadership
reshufflings, etc. Although not always entirely, such changes can be in the plans and
strategies of the organization.However, other changes, especially those determined by
factors from the external environment, are unforeseeable, and the organization must be
able to cope with these as well.In the following section, some possible types of
organizational change and their approaches are discussed, taking into account criteria
such as the predictability and planning of change and the degree of participation of the
organization’s members to change.
Unplanned change. There exist not only predictable, but also non-predictable
changes, which are usually not of an evolutionary nature. This happens when
organizations have to react to new situations. For example, a crisis (economic, political,
social) that suddenly bursts may limit the sales of a company; the behavior of competing
firms may lead to a drastic reduction in prices; a strike can force an organization to raise
wages and therefore production costs, etc. Such changes can be characterized as adaptive
or reactive.
Even if an organization did not plan and often did not foresee the need for such
changes, once the events are triggered, it must react before it would be too late and
operate the change to respond to events or trends that threaten the organization, or, on
the contrary, offer new, unexpected development opportunities.
Planned change. An organization must be permanently prepared to adapt to the
general social and economic environment. However, it should not only wait for
unforeseen events in this environment to make unplanned changes. This organizational
vision would be a sign of an inefficient management. In order to develop, and even to
survive, an organization must be able to ‘look into the future’ and to take into account
the possible evolutions, and the strategies for adapting to them.
Planning does not completely eliminate unplanned changes, but it helps the
organization to properly prepare for some transformations that can be anticipated, thus
reducing the number of situations in which hastilychanges need to be made, in an
atmosphere of panic. Moreover, planning the change allows many organizations to
‘create the future’, for example by contributing to technological progress or by
Simona RODAT
28
launching new products and services, and this is possible when the organization
proposes and plans to achieve ambitious targets.
To successfully plan change in an organization, a series of elements and
questions should be taken into account:
Evolution and transformations in the environment (economic, social). Related questions: How stable is the economic/ social/ political environment? Which changes are
currently taking place in this environment? What are their implications for the
organization in question? And so on.
Evolution and cultural developments. Related questions: Which changes are
taking place in customer preferences and/ or in their purchasing behaviour? Whichare
the trends as regards consuming?Which are the main interests and concerns of people
today? Etc.
Aspects related to the own organization. Associated questions: What changes need to be made to the structure/ production/ climate/ staff/ leadership of the
organization in order to achieve the goals? To improve activity? To maintain the market
segment and/ or to expand it? And so on.
Issues related to the implementation of the changes. Linked questions: What is
the time frame and the implementation plan for change? Implementation must be done in
stages? Can we allow a long time change or should we act quickly? How will be the
relationships between the various changes that the organization intends to make?
Howwill be people’s reactions to these changes? And so on.
The last mentioned issues are of great importance. It has been found (Cascio,
2012: 87) that both organizations and people can only absorb a limited volume of change
over a certain period of time, and this “absorption capacity” may vary by country,
region, or people. Therefore, the proper pace of change is one of the main issues to be
taken care of and a critical dimension of change planning and achievement.
Imposed change. It refers to that type of change in an organization that is
initiated and imposed solely by its leadership. Sometimes such changes are made from a
position of power (for example, the staff reductions), in situations where consultations
and negotiations would make it difficult rather than facilitating the process. Also, some
minor measures and regulations do not justify and require lengthy consultation, and in
this case they are implemented through imposed changes.
Another context in which such organizational changes take place is represented
by emergency situations, in which case discussing and planning of change is difficult or
even impossible. There are situations where making a decision to change is crucial, and
any delay can be fatal to the organization. In such cases, the change is imposed from top
to bottom. However, after resolving the crisis period, it is recommended that the leader/
manager explain to the subordinates the reasons why he/ she acted as such. Otherwise,
they risk losing the adhesion and confidence of the group.
Participatory change. This type of change can be considered to be the opposite
of the one described above. It involves modifications that are made through
consultations and debates, and decisions that are made by all members of the
organization. It is a form of change to which more and more organizations are now
joining. Comparing with the process of imposed change, the process of participatory
change is much slower, because consultation and participation of members of the
organization requires time and effort. However, such changes are considered to have
more sustainable results. Furthermore, participatory change helps leadership to benefit
from people’s experience and creativity, which is harder to achieve if change is imposed.
Organizational Change: Framing the Issues
29
The process of participatory change may vary with the organizational levels
involved. It depends on the nature and complexity of change, the maturity of the
organization, the motivation and team spirit of the working group. Generally, as well in
this case, the direction of the process is from the top to bottom levels of organization: at
a first level, the leader or the consultant hired by the organization informs the staff
concerned about the possible measures that may be useful and about the need for
change; at a second level, consultations are held with certain key people in the
organization to get suggestions, criticism and/ or a prognosis of staff reactions to
change;at a next level, ways are sought for all members of the organization to be actively
involved in formulating, planning and implementing change; these pathways usually
involve the formation of teams, working groups or committees that discuss and
participate in the different aspects of change.
Negotiated change.The significance of this form of change is close tothat of
participatory change. The focus in this case is however more on negotiation than on
participation. Negotiation can take place between groups in the organization directly
involved or at least interested in the issues covered by the possible change. The
negotiation can be understood simultaneously as: a process through which a person,
group or organization succeeds in obtaining what he/ she/ it wants from other people/
groups/ organizations who, in their turn, want something from the first; an interaction
between two or more parties with different interests, following which, through
discussion, an agreement can be reached;the process of adjusting the viewpoints of
different parties so that from an ideal solution to reach a real solution for solving a
problem or conflict.
Negotiation is a prerequisite equallyfor achieving goals, resolving conflicts,
obtaining agreements, and the dynamics of an organization. It is always done through
communication. Negotiation is a voluntary activity. If some people or groups do not
want to negotiate, then they should not participate in the negotiations.But if there
change, participation in the organization’s life and decisions, solving problems, reducing
or eliminating certain existing tensions, etc. are aimed or desired, then negotiation is
needed, because often the interests of the parties involved are divergent. If the interests
or needs of thestakeholders involve, alongside divergent areas, also common areas, then
it is preferable to focus attention on these common areas so that, through discussions and
decisions involving inclusivecompromises, gains and losses on both sides, a consensus is
reached.
In general, at the level of an organization, the negotiated change is combined
with the participatory decision, through which the managers, together with the executors,
try to find: ways of regulating the activity; opportunities to improve future work;
solutions for different issues. It is recommended that leaders and managers to be
receptive to the idea of dialogue and negotiation with employees. This does not only
increase the probability of receiving support from them, which facilitates the process of
implementing change, but italso avoids the tension and conflicts, that are harmful forthe
organization.
Resistance to change The resistance to change is a common and omnipresent human and social
phenomenon.The term was introduced by Kurt Lewin (1947) as a systems concept,
designating a force that affects managers and employees equally, that tendency of a
system to continue its current behaviour, despite the attempts to change that behaviour
Simona RODAT
30
(Harich, 2010: 37).The intensity of the resistance to change of groups and organizations
depends on their degree of cohesion, their organizational structure and/or their traditions
and habits. For example, the church, the military, or the educational institutions have
proved to be highly inert and reluctant to change, in comparison to other organizations
that have a more flexible structure and are not so strongly anchored
intraditions(Giddens, 2000).
It has beenobserved that, within companies, employees show resistance both to
changes that directly affect the ‘stability’ to which they have become accustomedat their
workplace, such as those related to their situation, the pace of work, the work conditions,
etc., and the changes that do not directly affect them, aiming some neutral aspects, such
as the structural and organizational ones. Moreover, employees show resistance to
change even when it comes to issues that would be beneficial forthem. The causes of this
phenomenon are psychological, both individual and collective (Dent and Goldberg,
1999). Among the causes of change resistance we can mention:
Lack of belief that change is necessary. Unlike managers, who have an overall
perspective on the organization, employees have a perspective that pertains only
themselves in the organization. Therefore, especially when the purpose of change is not
properly explained, they do not see the necessity of change, and therebyas a result they
tend to reject it.
The change is perceivedand/or experienced as unpleasant. This happens
especially when the change is proposed by agents from outside the organization, even if
the measures do not necessarily affect the employees directly. This phenomenon occurs
particularly when the employees have not been consulted about the pattern of change,
and thus they feel ‘betrayed’ by the decision-makers, feeling therefore any suggestion of
change as unpleasant.
Fear of inability and failure. Many employees are not convinced that they have the ability to meet the new requirements and the new roles required by the change. Even
if managers succeed in persuading the subordinates regarding the need for change, this
in turn can cause anxiety as it involves trainings, retraining, possibly more work or
amendments to work, new and unfamiliar tasks, etc.
Lack of confidence andof positive feelings for the promoters of change. It has been found that resistance to change is directly proportional to the lack of popularity of
those proposing change –whetherthey are change agents from inside (managers, people
from specialized departments, etc.), or they are external change agents (consultants,
experts, etc.).
The more those peoplewho propose changes are more popular, and they have
the respect and confidence of the employees, the less is the resistance to change and the
chances for its successful implementation increase significantly.
If the resistance to change is too intense because of negative feelings towardsthe
promoters of change, it is recommended that intermediary agents are involved for
introducing the change measures. Optimally, for the success of the change, these should
be neutral agents, at best respected persons within the organization.
The comfort given by perpetuating the existing practices and habits and the fear
regarding unknown. Habits represent the most important factor against change. Thus, changes are often rejected simply because they disturb habitualness, the already installed
routine, the customs, and the work procedures employees are already accustomed to.
To combat these causes, in order to successfully plan and implement change,
effective management communication is essential. Therefore, the phenomenon of
Organizational Change: Framing the Issues
31
resistance to change requires special attention from those who initiate change, because
any change is a renouncement from stability, which, associated with the impossibility of
controlling the future announced by change, can cause uncertainty, dissatisfaction,
discontent and, last but not least, anxiety. To avoid these phenomena as far as possible, a
series of measures are recommended, including:
- streamlining the communication process between those involved in the change
process; timely, realistic and responsible communication diminishes the likelihood of
hostile reactions to change;
- development of a change project by the initiator of the transformations, in
order to anticipate and control the stages of change or unwanted effects; without such a
project the quality of change could be questionable;
- correlation of the pace imposed on change with the context of its generation;
the idea of an instant change is extremely tempting, but rarely possible;
- involvement and effective participation of individuals in the process of
change; sothey have the opportunity to assume both the acting side and the effects, be
they successes or failures; here an important role is played by the stimulation of thinking
and creativity, simultaneously with diminishing the fear of mistakes;
- last but not least, resistance to change may be diminished if those who initiate
and sustain changesare the first to accept those changes and change themselves,
according to the principle “change begins with ourselves”; only by thisthose who are
asked to accept change may be convinced to change their attitudes, behaviors, practices,
habits, etc.
Conclusions The main focus of this paper was to delineate a general framework for
addressing organizational change. This concept was approached starting from a general
outline of social change, whose research is currently – as has been over the last two
centuries – a major issue in the field of socio-human sciences.As a first conclusion, it
can be emphasized, that although many theorists have tried to originate a general theory
that explains the nature of all social changes, such a theoretical model remains to the
stage of a utopia. At present scientists agree that social changes and evolutions are too
diverse, complex and unpredictable to be explained by a single theoretical model. That is
why over the time various theories were developed in order to describe, expound,
interpret and understand certain social transformations or particular aspects of human
developments and changes.
The social environment is one that is continually transforming. As part of this
environment, organizations must also constantly adapt to these dynamics. Adjusting to
the environmental change has nowadays become a fundamental condition not only for
the success of an organization but also, often, for its survival. Therefore, in the field of
organization development there are sought and devised strategies designed to help the
organizations to adjust both to the rapid inner changing and to the external multiple,
complex, and dynamic environments.
Strategic planning of the organization, including that of human resources, is
seen as one of the most important managerial activity with long-term effects, since in
order to maintain themselves and to successfully develop, organizations have to create
structures capable to anticipate the trends in economic and social development, in
general, as well as the structural and content-related market evolutions, in particular.
Simona RODAT
32
Organizational change is a major process through which the organization adapts
to the dynamics of the external environments, as well as to the inherent, also
continuously changing internal evolutions. The targets of this process can vary,
regarding transformations in different areas of the organization and consisting of
transitions from states that start to be regarded as deprecated to desired, up-to-date
states, which are considered more appropriate to the challenges of the external and
internal environment.
Because ccurrently many organizations are aware of the importance of change,
they encourage the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit of their members. Moreover,
they develop strategies and adopt measures to combat the frequent phenomenon of
resistance to change, i.e. that tendency of a system to preserve the current state, although
a new state would be more beneficial, and even when some attempts to change aremade.
This phenomenon can be observed both in systems as a whole and in its parts and
elements,both in social as well as in individual attitudes and behaviours. The causes of
this phenomenon are various, including the fear towards unknown, the comfort given
byhabits, the perception of change as unnecessary or as unpleasant, the fear to fail, as
well as the lack of trust andof positive feelings towards the promoters of change. The
more there is assessed which of these causes most accurately explain the resistance to
change in an organization, the more theappropriate measures and strategies can be
adopted to combat this phenomenon.
References:
Bartunek, J. M., Moch, M. K. (1994). Third-order Organizational Change and the Western
Mystical Tradition. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(1), 24-41.
Cascio, W. F. (2012). Managing Human Resources: Productivity, Quality of Work Life,
Profits, 9th Edition, Denver: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Cassirer, E. (1990). La Philosophie des Lumières, Paris: Fayard.
Dent, E. B. and Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging “Resistance to Change”. The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25-41.
Ferréol, G., Cauche, P., Duprez, J.-M., Gadrey, N., and Simon, M. (1998). Dicţionar de
sociologie, Iaşi: Editura Polirom; București: Editura Știință & Tehnică.
Giddens, A. (2000). Sociologie, București: Editura BIC ALL.
Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R. (1993). Understanding Strategic Change: The Contribution of
Archetypes. Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 1052-1081.
Harich, J. (2010). Change Resistance as the Crux of the Environmental Sustainability
Problem. System Dynamics Review, 26(1), 35-72.
Huțu, C.-A. (1999). Cultură organizațională și transfer de tehnologie: premise pentru
transformarea competitivă a organizațiilor românești, București: Editura
Economică.
Lewin, Kurt. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social
Science; Social Equilibria and Social Change. Human Relations, 1(5), 5-41.
Miller, D. and Friesen, P. H. (1984). Organizations: A Quantum View, Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Mintzberg, H. and Westley, F. (1992). Cycles of Organizational Change, Strategic
Management Journal, 13(S2), 39-59.
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W. and Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying Organizational
Change and Development: Challenges for Future Research. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(4), 697-713.
Organizational Change: Framing the Issues
33
Stanciu, Ș., Ionescu, M., Leovaridis, C. and Stănescu, D. (2003). Managementul resurselor
umane, București: Editura Comunicare.ro.
Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002). On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational
Change, Organizational Science, 13(5), 567-582.
Van de Ven, A. H. and Poole, M. S. (2005). Alternative Approaches for Studying
Organizational Change, Organization Studies, 26(9), 1377-1404.
Wischnevsky, J. D. and Damanpour, F. (2006). Organizational Transformation and
Performance: An Examination of Three Perspectives. Journal of Managerial
Issues, 18(1), 104-128.
Article Info
Received: April 15 2018
Accepted: August 26 2018
