Organizational Research and Theory

rebdeow24

vreading.pdf

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Management homework help >Organizational Research and Theory

Enablers That Positively Impact Implementation of

Organizational Change

Abstract — This study analyzes the enablers identified by

Organization Development (OD) practitioners from

interpretivist’s view as being necessary for positive change to

happen in organization. Through semi-structured interviews with

six OD practitioners from three organizations that elicit their

experiences of change initiatives, nine enablers were found that

span across the three dimensions of content, context and process

suggested in Armenakis and Bedeian’s [1] Integrated Theoretical

Framework for change. The research data also indicates that the

interdependence of these three change dimensions increases the

level of change recipients’ commitment towards successful

implementation of change, and suggests that the intangible

dimensions of context, as compared to the tangible dimensions of

content and process, is found to require more attention from OD

practitioners in order for change to be successfully implemented.

Keywords — change enabler, organization change, content-

context-process framework

I. INTRODUCTION

Organization development (OD) is a broad field of study

that addresses the issue of planned organizational change and

how the change affects organizations and individuals within

those organizations [2, 3]. The fast-pace market changes,

advances in network technology, and rapid growth in diverse

workforce, all point to the fact that successfully implementing

planned organizational change is a topic that organizations

must seriously explore [4]. Although the literature has provided

numerous theories, frameworks and models, a failure

percentage of planned change initiatives has been reported

ranging from 50%~70% [5, 6].

Burnes and Cook [7] conclude that both rigor and relevance

are critical to the future of OD research, and call for efforts

from both academics and practitioners to eliminate the gap

between theory and practice: practice is likely to be flawed and

sub-optimal without a strong theoretical and methodological

rigor, but theory has little impact without practical relevance.

In light of this, the goal of this research was to thus create

incorporation of theory and practice: learning from OD

practitioners’ view, are about the enablers that positively

impacted the organizational change in an integrated theoretical

framework, Armenakis and Bedeian’s [1] theoretical

framework.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

Armenakis and Bedeian classify and integrate existing

research, theories and models into three factor dimensions and

one outcome dimension. The three factor dimensions have

been subsequently referred to as Armenakis and Bedeian’s

theoretical framework shaping employees’ reactions to change

efforts [8]. The three factor dimensions are content, context and

process. The content of change refers to the “what” of change,

that is, concerning the type or substance of the change [8，

p.609]. The context of change “focuses on forces or conditions

existing in an organization’s external environments” [1, p.293].

The process of change refers to the phases in implementing

change and the stages in understanding change [1, 9].

Armenakis and Bedeian’s conceptualization of a change

framework provides a new research direction for organizational

change. More importantly, it provides a platform for further

research to study factors, variables and enablers on

organizational changes. Self, Armenakis and Schaninger [10]

conducted research through questionnaires to examine how one

content variable, two context variables, and one process

variable impact organizational change in a Fortune 500

telecommunications company. By testing the hypothesized

dependent variables and independent variables, Self,

Armenakis and Schaninger conclude that organizational change

is strongly related to or influenced by impact of the change on

employees (content), organizational communication media

(process) and employees’ perceived organizational support

(context), but not leader-member exchange (context).

Walker, Armenakis and Bernerth [11] introduce a new term

“individual difference” to the three macro-dimension factors in

Armenakis and Bedeian’s theoretical framework. The term

“individual difference” refers to the variety of individuals in

each organization, particularly different individual resilience

and tolerance for ambiguity. Data was collected from 117

participants through questionnaires. By testing the hypotheses

in the proposed model, they conclude a model of “tolerance for

ambiguity” (individual difference) to “cynicism” (context) to

“change beliefs” (process) to commitment in an organizational.

Devos and Buelens’ [8] experimental simulation studies

show five factors in the three dimensions, i.e. threatening

character of organizational change (content); trust in executive

management, trust in the supervisor, and history of change

(context); and participation in the change effort (process).

Lily Cheng

DOI: 10.5176/2010-4804_4.1.348

GSTF Journal on Business Review (GBR) Vol.4 No.1, July 2015

©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF

Based on the hypothesis testing in two phases, they conclude

that these content, context and process factors have significant

effects on the employees’ openness to change, and introduced

locus of control to the framework.

In summary, Armenakis and Bedeian’s integrated

theoretical framework provides OD academics a platform to

study the factors and enablers on organizational change, and

provides practitioners a common ground to understand

organizational change. However, the existing research on

factors or enablers in the framework, namely Devos & Buelens

[8], Armenakis and Bernerth [11], and Self et al. [10],

leverages on methods of hypothesis testing, which are from

positivist’s and quantitative perspectives. Due to the

quantitative nature, their research may be strong in rigor but

weak in relevance. As Johnson and Onwuegbuzie [12] have

pointed out, quantitative research has some weakness: (i)

categories and theories may not reflect local constituencies’

understandings, (ii) confirmation bias exists because of the

focus on hypothesis testing, and (iii) knowledge produced may

be too abstract for application.

Thus this research aims to study the enablers that positively

impact the implementation of organizational change from the

OD practitioners.

III. METHODOLOGY

This research adopts a qualitative method from an

interpretivist’s perspective. An inductive and

phenomenological study, set out to formulate propositions [13]

out of conscious, first-person perspectives an, in rich detail,

phenomena as they are situated and ed experience [14]. The

qualitative method is able to describe in rich detail, the

phenomena as they are situated in local contexts, study

dynamic processes, and provide emic viewpoint [12, 15].

The three organizations that have participated in the

research are multi-national corporations in pharmaceutical,

chemical and electronics industries. One dyadic pair of a

change agent and a change recipient from each of these

organizations has participated in the research (6 participants in

total). The participants had implemented organizational change

(change agents) or had been affected by organizational change

(change recipients) prior to the time of research. They provide

this research a holistic view on the enablers that positively

impacted organizational change.

The ethics committee has been granted ethical approval

from the researcher’s university, which supervises the research.

Each participant was invited to, and participated in a two-hour

one-to-one in-depth semi-structured interview with the

researcher. One-to-one in-depth interview is a type of interview

that serves as an effective tool to provide an environment for

participants to speak openly and frankly [16]. It encourages

personal thoughts, provides alternative answers to questions,

offers the researcher the opportunity to capture non-verbal

responses [17], and is one of the common data collecting

methods of qualitative studies [15]. A semi-structured

interview, which is different from structured interview, is a

participatory interview method [18] common in qualitative

research [19], and “combines the flexibility of the unstructured,

open-ended interview with the directionality and agenda of the

survey instrument to produce focus” [20, p.149]. The

participants were assured of the anonymity of the information

and experiences they have shared.

The interview was centered on the following key questions:

1. What is your general experience in organizational

change interventions?

2. What were your experiences in working with the

different types of change, small, middle and large scale?

3. How do you define successful implementation in

organizational change?

4. What conditions need to exist to facilitate a successful

implementation of organizational change?

5. What are contributions of each enabling aspect that

influences success of organizational change? Which of these

enabling aspects is the most important to enhance the success

of organizational change?

6. To what extent can the change agents have control

over these identified enablers?

IV. FINDINGS

The participants’ verbatim was recorded and transcribed.

Open coding technique, a commonly used qualitative data

analysis technique to unfold the perceptions, properties and

dimensions of concepts, was performed [21]. The coding

process met the purpose of qualitative data analysis which is to

discover the participants’ experiences and understanding, and

extract themes and repeated patterns for the researcher [22]. As

a result, nine enablers that positively impact organizational

change were identified across content, context and process

dimensions.

In the content dimension, three enablers were identified,

namely, perceived gap, desired state, and consistency of

change message. Perceived gap refers to the realization and

acknowledgement of “either an existing weakness or existing

deficiency”. By acknowledging the organization is poorly

aligned with the environment or identifying the possibilities of

improvement and transformation could create the perception of

existing gap and dissatisfaction with the present state, and the

sense of urgency for a change, “even if the change is painful”.

Desired state refers to the identification and articulation of an

ideal future state or vision to be achieved. Articulating and

picturing an ennobling future could bring change recipients’

passion to envision the exiting future possibility. To do so, the

desired state has to be “compelling”, “exciting” and “possible”.

Another enabler in content dimension is the consistency of

change message. This refers to creating a consistency in

implementing change, “establishing certain things that won’t

change in moments of confusion”, and maintain the change

momentum.

GSTF Journal on Business Review (GBR) Vol.4 No.1, July 2015

©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF

In the context dimension, three enablers were identified,

namely, trust and credibility, addressing emotional responses,

and transformational change agent. Trust and credibility refer

to the change recipients’ trust in the organization and in the

change agents. The analysis on the dyadic pairs shows that

trust is a two-way relationship in an organizational change: on

one hand, the change recipients need to trust the change agent’s

and the organization’s credibility; on the other hand, the

change agent and the organization have to trust, value and

respect the change recipients. Addressing emotional responses

refers to acknowledging, appreciating, respecting and

managing change recipients’ negative emotions and individual

feelings, such as “fear”, “frustration” and “pressure”. As the

participants shared, organizational change process creates an

“emotion roller-coaster ride”. Transformational change agent

refers to a change agent that shows intellectual stimulation,

inspirational motivation, individualized consideration and

idealized influence. Such change agent “shows interest to know

you”, “addresses each and everyone’s unique concerns”, plays

the role of “evangelist”, and “gives a vision with challenge”.

One interesting finding is that if a change recipient fully agrees

with the change, he/she will be transformed and play certain

roles of a change agent such as advocating the change initiative

among peers.

In the process dimension, three enablers were identified,

namely, involving and engaging, communicating, and

monitoring of change initiative. Involving and engaging refer

to the practice of encouraging broad-based and genuine

participation and engagement in the change process. Such

practice creates “empowerment” and sense of ownership

among the change recipients. Communicating refers to the

practice of open, two-way and effective communication

channel. Communicating not only creates “transparency”, but

also provides a “feedback channel”. Monitoring of change

initiative refers to monitoring “measurable targets”, “time

frame”, “milestone and updates”.

Other than the identified nine enablers, there are other

findings in this research:

A. Finding #1

Participants’ verbatim suggests there are possible

interdependences between the nine identified change enablers.

For example, one of the participants expressed,

I think having that transparency, that honesty as the

result of providing all the information to the recipient

like myself, built up trust and helped to ease the anxiety,

my anxiety basically of knowing that will happen to the

site and what will happen to me.

Such verbatim suggests that communication increases trust

and reduces the negative emotional responses, and suggests a

possible enhancement from enabler communicating to trust and

credibility, and from enabler communicating to addressing

emotional responses. Table 1 summarizes the all suggested

interdependency between enablers by each participant. If

enhancement from one enabler to another has been identified in

the verbatim of a participant, the acronym of the participant

will be recorded in the respective cell (CA: Change Agent; CR:

Change Recipient).

B. Finding #2

All of the participants strongly believe the transformational

change agent plays the central role in the change process. As

shown in Table 1, this finding resonates with finding #1 that

other enablers are depending on transformational change agent.

However, change agents control over enablers also requires the

support and cooperation from change sponsor and change

recipients

C. Finding #3

The participants shared that organizational change

generates a variety of emotions and feelings, including anxiety,

apprehension, fear, sadness, uncertainty and perception of

betrayal. However, those individual emotions and feelings are

“very often overlooked”.

TABLE I. IDENTIFIED INTERDEPENDENCE BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE ENABLERS

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The findings, based on participants sharing of their

understanding and experiences, provide some new insights to

the literature.

As the findings suggest, identification of a perceived gap

provides a sound reason for change. A number of researchers

have noted the importance of identifying the Perceived Gap.

Self and Schraeder [23] comment that “the first challenge

organizations face is recognizing the need for change” (p.167).

In addition, Whelan-Berry and Somerville [24] argue that it

was the leaders’ responsibility to convince others that the

current approach would not achieve the desired objective for

the organization, and this argument echoes the research

participants’ remark that “the acknowledgement of that both by

the person implementing the change and the people who are

going to be affected by the changes is important”. The

identification of a Perceived Gap is consistent with Lewin’s

step of Unfreezing and Kotter’s “Establishing a sense of

urgency” and “Creating a powerful guiding coalition”. By

asking the questions “why do we need to change” and “what do

we need to change”, practitioners involved in the change

acknowledge the necessity for change in their answers.

GSTF Journal on Business Review (GBR) Vol.4 No.1, July 2015

©The Author(s) 2015. This article is published with open access by the GSTF

The research participants consider the articulation of an

ideal and ennobling future state as a crucial enabler in the

successful implementation of change initiatives. Articulating

the desired state and picturing an ennobling future for the

change recipients could bring out their passion and help them

to envision exciting future possibilities. This desired state could

also bring out the purpose and benefits of the change, which

would largely ensure the success of change implementation.

Lacking a compelling vision or not being able to articulate and

demonstrate that vision to change recipients often results in the

disastrous failure of change initiatives. Existing research

largely support the significance of having a desired state, or a

compelling vision [24, 25]. Winston Churchill [26] cited that

“there is nothing wrong with change if it is the right direction”.

A vision provides a direction, and as long as it is clear, concise

yet comprehensive, compelling and regularly communicated,

everyone can find his/her own role in the vision community

[27]. Kouzes and Posner [28] define vision as “an ideal and

unique image of the future for the common good (p.153)” and

suggest that the source of this vision as well as its articulation

and translation is oftentimes a matter of intuition. However, as

suggested by researchers such as Whelan-Berry and Somerville

[24], merely having a compelling vision and a desired state

alone is not enough; both change agents and change recipients

are required to accept, or in other words, “buy-in” the vision,

and believe that the desired state would benefit both the

organization and the individual.

The consistency of the change message is another key

enabler in the Content dimension identified in my research.

The participants believed that the consistency in message

would help implement a change by reducing ambiguity and

confusion and establishing certain things that won’t change.

Researches in strategic organization management have already

to some extent endorsed the notion of consistency [29].

Scholars in organizational change have observed the role which

consistency plays [30] and recognized the idea of balancing the

paradox of continuity and change [31].

The research data indicates that building trust and

credibility is a crucial antecedent in implementing a successful

change. The participants’ sharing that credibility is built on

past experiences, supporting Kouzes and Posner’s [32]

assertion that credibility is earned over time and does not come

naturally with titles or hierarchical positions. In the context of

organizational change, an organization’s credibility is based on

its degree of success in its past changes, as well as how fairly it

reallocates organizational resources during past and ongoing

changes [33]. Other than reliable professional knowledge and

expertise, and interpersonal skills and dynamism, a change

agent’s credibility is perceived based on his/her role modeling

behaviors, honesty in communication, reputation, consistency,

or, in another word, on his/her trustworthiness. In line with

Harisalo, Huttunen and McInerney’s [34] argument that trust is

a result of human interaction, this research finding also

suggests that trust, like respect, is a mutual relationship built

among the change agents, change recipients, and the

organization, i.e. a change recipient’s level of trust in a change

agent, will depend on the change agent’s level of trust in the

change recipient, and vice versa. Zand's [35] argument

provides yet another perspective in understanding the two-way

nature of trust: he elaborates that trust to another person

contains a willingness to increase one’s vulnerability to the

other person whose behavior is beyond your control; your

benefits and interest are threatened by other person’s potential

abusive use of such vulnerability. If a person trusts another,

he/she would be willing to share opinions, ideas and resources

of his/her own, and listen to and follow the other’s advice, even

though this may increase her risks and vulnerabilities during

organizational changes when uncertainties are largely involved.

When the individual displays trust in the other person when

stakes are high, most likely in reciprocity, the other person

would appreciate these actions demonstrating trust and would

trust this person in return. Conversely, mistrust alienates people

from one other by reducing their willingness to cooperate and

collaborate [34].

Organizational change often triggers intense emotions [36],

which in some cases can lead to resistance [37]. For example,

loss or anticipated loss of control, routines, traditions, status,

and relationships can lead to fear, frustration, anxiety,

resentment, grief and depression [38]. Some have compared

these emotions to the grieving process associated with major

traumatic events such as death and dying [39]. Eriksson [40]

argues that in environments of rapid and continuous change,

these emotions can be exacerbated by an emotional residue of

fatigue and lethargy left over from past change initiatives. The

observation from this research supports the literature that

addressing emotional responses is an enabler to positive

implementation of organizational change. Observation

emerging from my research is that the research participants

seemed to dwell much more on negative emotional responses

than positive emotional responses. For instance, the change

recipients repeatedly displayed and recalled frustrations when

mentioning difficulties encountered in implementing a change

or in experiences of failed change, while the change agents put

much emphasis on the challenging task of addressing negative

emotional responses. This observation corroborates Cameron’s

[41] argument that negative emotions appear to hold stronger

and longer effects than does the positive, and the accumulation

of these negative emotional responses might lead to a

dangerous state of emotional trauma when certain thresholds

are broken, which might easily destroy the accumulated effects

of many positive past events. Given that these findings concur

with the cited literature, OD practitioners are advised to be very

careful not to evoke any negative emotions while doing the

necessary to bring about positive emotions during a change

initiative.

The research participants unanimously agreed upon the

paramount importance of a strong and capable change agent

being present to enhance and enable organizational change.

Their description of capable change agent ties in with the four

elements of transformational leadership [42, 43]: Intellectual

Stimulation, Inspirational Motivation, Individualized

Consideration and Idealized Influence. A transformational

change agent does not only constantly adapt himself/herself,

but also exerts great influence on the people around him/her,

serving as a catalyst and contributing positive energy to the

organizational change. Sims [44] defined a change agent as

internal employee or external expert who is appointed to

oversee the change process. However, this research finding

sketches a quite different portrayal on the figures of change

agents, showcasing whether a member is change agent is far

GSTF Journal on Business Review (GBR) Vol.4 No.1, July 2015

more dynamic than being appointed to oversee the change

process. The researcher would argue that when a change

recipient is highly motivated and committed to change, he/she

could start to take on the role of persuading and influencing

others to adapt, becoming transformed to a change agent to

some extent. In light of this, the research would introduce a

more generalized and dynamic concept for change agent, as

being someone with clear understanding about and great

commitment toward, and thus advocating the incoming or

ongoing organizational change.

The participants of this research also highlighted

importance of involving and engaging change recipients from

the start to the end throughout the journey. Somerville [24] also

agree that, being involved in the planning or piloting of change

implementation, both change agents’ and change recipients’

understanding of the change initiatives would be deepened, and

they would thus be increasingly committed to the

organizational change. However, one of the participants

pointed out that blindly involving a large scale of change

recipients prematurely when the change is still unclear could

cause panic and misunderstanding.

O’Neill and Jabri [45] argued that organizations are formed

in talk and maintained in talk, and the existence of an

organization is based on networks of relationship which are

“expressed in language”. Numerous scholars [24, 33, 45-51] as

well have acknowledged the pivotal role communication plays

in organizational change. The research participants of this

study unanimously and repeatedly emphasized the utmost

importance of communicating as the key enabler to

successfully implement a change, especially the clarity of

communication, and the assurance of two-way communication.

FIGURE 1. CROSS-DIMENSIONAL ORGANIZAITONAL CHANGE FRAMEWORK

The interdependency among the enablers within the

content, context or process dimension, and across the

dimensions, as shown in Table 1, also provides new insights on

Armenakis and Bedeian’s framework. Such finding resonates

with existing knowledge on the correlations across content,

context and process variables [8, 11]. Other literature also

suggests the correlations and interdependency within

dimensions. For example, the level of emotional stress

experienced by employees would affect their trust in

management [52], and emotions such as cynicism are also

found to be negatively correlated with trust in management

[53].

Based on the cross-dimension interdependency, the

researcher introduces the concept of cross-dimensions in

Armenakis and Bedeian’s framework, as shown in Figure 1.

The presence of the enablers in each dimension creates

enabling cross-dimensions and a holistically enabled

organizational change. With the framework, OD practitioners

can assess the missing enablers or dimensions in the on-going

or upcoming change intervention. OD academics can also

examine enablers for organizational change in a more

systematic rather than linear manner.

REFERENCES

[1] Armenakis, A.A. and A.G. Bedeian, Organizational change: a review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 1999. 25: p.

293-315.

[2] Cummings, T.G. and C.G. Worley, Organization development and change. 2009, Mason, OH: Thomson, South-Western Cengage Learning.

[3] Wooten, K.C., Ethics and Justice in New Paradigm and Postmodern Organization Development and Change. 2009. 17: p. 241-300.

[4] Avolio, B.J., Full leadership development: building the vital forces in organizations. 1999, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

[5] Keller, S. and C. Aiken, The inconvenient truth about change management: Why it isn't working and what to do about it, 2008,

McKinsey & Company Report.

[6] Pasmore, W.A., Tipping the Balance: Overcoming Persistent Problems in Organizational Change. Research in Organizational Change and

Development, 2011. 19: p. 259-292.

[7] Burnes, B. and B. Cooke, The past, present and future of organization development: Taking the long view. Human Relations, 2012. 0(0): p. 1-

35.

[8] Devos, G. and M. Buelens, Contribution of content, context, and process to understanding openness to organizational change: two experimental

simulation studies. Journal of Social Psychology, 2007. 147(6): p. 607-

629.

[9] Armenakis, A.A., S.G. Harris, and H.S. Feild, Making change permanent: a model for institutionalizing change interventions. Research

in Organizational Change and Development, 1999. 12: p. 97-128.

[10] Self, D.R., A.A. Armenakis, and W.S. Schaninger, Organizational change content, process, and context: a simultaneous analysis of emloyee

reactions. Journal of Change Management, 2007. 7(2): p. 211-229.

[11] Walker, H.J., A.A. Armenakis, and J.B. Bernerth, Factors influencing organizational change efforts; An integrative investigation of change

content, context, process and individual differences. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2007. 20(6): p. 761.

[12] Johnson, R.B. and A.J. Onwuegbuzie, Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Research, 2004. 33(7): p. 14-26.

[13] Crouch, M. and H. McKenzie, The logic of small sample in interview- based qualitative research. Social Science Information, 2006. 45(4): p.

483-499.

[14] Smith, D.W., Phenomenology, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E.N. Zalta, Editor 2008, The Metaphysics Research Lab:

Standford, CA.

[15] Levy, D., Qualitative methodology and grounded theory in property research. Pacific Rim Property Research Journal, 2006. 12(4): p. 369-

388.

[16] Anastas, M., For sensitive research studies, one-to-one interviews work best. Bank Marketing, 1988. 20(7): p. 18-22.

[17] Sokolow, H., In-depth interviews increasing in importance. Marketing News, 1985. 19(19): p. 26-31.

GSTF Journal on Business Review (GBR) Vol.4 No.1, July 2015

[18] Mukherjee, N., Participatory appraisal of natural resources. 1997, New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.

[19] Wengraf, T., Qualitative research interviewing: biographic narrative and semi-structured methods. 2001, London: Sage Publications.

[20] Schensul, S.L., J.J. Schensul, and M.D. LeCompte, Essential Ethnographic Methods: Observations, Interview, and Questionnaires.

1999, Oxford, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

[21] Strauss, A. and J. Corbin, Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 1998, Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

[22] Sekaran, U. and R. Bougie, Research methods for business: a skill building approach. 2009: John Wiley & Sons.

[23] Self, D.R. and M. Schraeder, Enhancing the success of organizational change: matching readiness strategies with sources of resistance. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 2009. 30(2): p. 167-

182.

[24] Whelan-Berry, K.S. and K.A. Somerville, Linking change drivers and the organizational change process: a review and synthesis. Journal of

Change Management, 2010. 10(2): p. 175-193.

[25] Baraldi, S., et al., The importance of commitment to change in public reform: an example from Pakistan. Journal of Change Management,

2010. 10(4): p. 347-368.

[26] Churchill, W. 1925; Available from:

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/there_is_nothing_wrong_

with_change-if_it_is_in/179038.html.

[27] Kotter, J.P., Leading change, why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review OnePoint, 1995. (March-April): p. 1-10.

[28] Kouzes, J.M. and B.Z. Posner, The Leadership Challenge. 4 ed. 2008, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[29] Christensen, L.T. and J. Cornelissen, Bridging corporate and organizaitonal communication: review, development and a look to the

future. Management Communication Quarterly, 2010. 25(3): p. 383-414.

[30] Higgs, M. and D. Rowland, What does it take to implement change successfully? a study of the behaviors of successful change leaders.

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2011. 47(3): p. 309-335.

[31] Nasim, S. and Sushil, Revisiting organizational change: exploring the paradox of managing continuity and change. Journal of Change

Management, 2011. 11(2): p. 185-206.

[32] Kouzes, J.M. and B.Z. Posner, Credibility: how leaders gain and lose It, why people demand it. 2003, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

[33] Bernerth, J.B., et al., Justice, cynicism, and commitment: a study of important organizational change variables. Journal of Applied

Behavioral Science, 2007. 43(3): p. 303-326.

[34] Harisalo, R., H. Huttunen, and J. McInerney, Trust-Creating Practices for Marketing Managers. Journal of Change Management, 2005. 5(4): p.

463-484.

[35] Zand, D.E., The leadership triad: knowledge, trust, and power. 1997, New York: Oxford University Press.

[36] Thoits, P., The sociology of emotions. Annual Review of Sociology, 1989. 15: p. 317-342.

[37] Kanter, R.M., When giants learn to dance: mastering the challenges of strategy, management and careers in the 1990s. 1989, London: Unwin.

[38] Carr, A., Understanding emotion and emotionality in a process of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2001. 14: p.

421-436.

[39] deKlerk, M., Healing emotional trauma in organizations: an O.D. framework and case study. Organization Development Journal, 2007.

25(2): p. 49-56.

[40] Eriksson, C.B., The effects of change programs on employees' emotions. Personnel Review, 2004. 33: p. 110-126.

[41] Cameron, K.S., Paradox in positive organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2008. 44(1): p. 7-24.

[42] Bass, B.M. and R. Bass, The Bass handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications. 4th ed. 2008, New York: Free

Press.

[43] Bass, B.M. and R.E. Riggio, Transformational leadership: theory, research, and managerial application. 2nd ed. 2005, New York:

Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.

[44] Sims, R.R., Managing organizational behavior. 2002, Westport: Quorum Books.

[45] O'Neill, A. and M. Jabri, Legitimation and group conversational practices: implications for managing change. Leadership & Organization

Development Journal, 2007. 28(6): p. 571-588.

[46] Mueller, J.R., Maxims of maximizing organizational change effectiveness. The Business Review, Cambridge, 2009. 14(1): p. 70.

[47] Ford, J.D. and L.W. Ford, The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Academy of Management, 1995. 20(3): p. 541-570.

[48] Whittle, A., O. Suhomlinova, and F. Mueller, Funnel of interests: the discursive translation of organizational change. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2010. 46(1): p. 16-37.

[49] Katz, R., Creating a strategy to help others better understand the value of organization development. Organizational Development Journal, 2007. 25(4): p. 121-126.

[50] Lines, R., J. Saenz, and N. Aramburu, Organizational learning as a by- product of justifications for change. Journal of Change Management, 2011. 11(2): p. 163-184.

[51] Jimmieson, N.L. and K.M. White, Predicting employee intentions to support organizational change: an examination of identification

processes during a re-brand. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2011.

50(2): p. 331-341.

[52] Sackmann, S.A., P.M. Eggenhofer-Rehart, and M. Friesl, Sustainable change: long-term efforts toward developing a learning organization.

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 2009. 45(4): p. 521-549.

[53] Erwin, D.G. and A.N. Garman, Resistance to organizational change: linking research and practice. Leadership & Organization Development

Journal, 2010. 31(1): p. 39-56.

AUTHOR’S PROFIL

Dr. Lily Cheng, An OD practitioner since 1995, is founder and CEO of PACE O.D. Consulting. She received her Ph.D. in Education from Monash University, her Master of Arts in Education & Human Development from George Washington University, and her Bachelor of Arts in Business, University of Tasmania.NHer research interests are in organization development and change, human resource management, strategy and leadership development. She is also a Certified Master for The Leadership Challenge®, a Certified Master Coach with the Behavioral Coaching Institute (BCI), Certified Management Consultant, and a Member of the International Coaching Council (ICC).

GSTF Journal on Business Review (GBR) Vol.4 No.1, July 2015

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/there_is_nothing_wrong_with_change-if_it_is_in/179038.html