essay questions based on articles
annyzyl123
WeeTaylor.pdf
Journal of Applied Psychology Attention to Change: A Multilevel Theory on the Process of Emergent Continuous Organizational Change Elijah X. M. Wee and M. Susan Taylor Online First Publication, September 21, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000261
CITATION Wee, E. X. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2017, September 21). Attention to Change: A Multilevel Theory on the Process of Emergent Continuous Organizational Change. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000261
Attention to Change: A Multilevel Theory on the Process of Emergent Continuous Organizational Change
Elijah X. M. Wee University of Washington
M. Susan Taylor University of Maryland, College Park
Increasingly, continuous organizational change is viewed as the new reality for organizations and their members. However, this model of organizational change, which is usually characterized by ongoing, cumulative, and substantive change from the bottom up, remains underexplored in the literature. Taking a multilevel approach, the authors develop a theoretical model to explain the mechanisms behind the amplification and accumulation of valuable, ongoing work-unit level changes over time, which then become substantial changes at the organizational level. Drawing on the concept of emergence, they first focus on the cognitive search mechanisms of work-unit members and managers to illustrate how work-unit level routine changes may be amplified to the organization through 2 unique processes: composition and compilation emergence. The authors then discuss the managers’ role in creating a sense of coherence and meaning for the accumulation of these emergent changes over time. They conclude this research by discussing the theoretical implications of their model for the existing literature of organi- zational change.
Keywords: continuous organizational change, multilevel, emergence, attention, search
Organizational change, defined as the alterations of existing work routines and strategies that affect the whole organization (Her- old & Fedor, 2008), is a prominent topic of research interest in the social sciences (Ford & Ford, 1995; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001; Van de Ven & Poole, 1995). Notably, a growing body of scholars emphasizes the importance of extend- ing our knowledge of organizational change by explaining why and how continuous change occurs (e.g., Leanna & Barry, 2000; Pettigrew et al., 2001). Organizations today reside in an envi- ronment characterized by accelerating complexity (De Meuse, Dai, & Hallenbeck, 2010) and, as a result, they need to harness their members’ day-to-day ongoing accommodations to allow for “everyday contingencies, breakdowns, exceptions, opportu- nities, and unintended consequences” (Orlikowski, 1996, p. 65) to remain competitive. Despite the theoretical and practical importance of continuous organizational change, a central re- search question remains unsolved: Why and how do small changes amplify and accumulate at the organizational level, over time, to become continuous change?
Current research suggests that continuous organizational change is likely to originate from the bottom up (i.e., work-
units; Feldman, 2000; Orlikowski, 1996; Weick & Quinn, 1999). Research to date has not offered a clear theoretical explanation of how small continuous changes at the lower level may lead to substantial change at the organizational level (Grieves, 2010; Smets, Morris, & Greenwood, 2012). Although work-units engage in continuous change at the lower levels (Feldman, 2000), these changes often go unrecognized by the organization itself (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Therefore, espe- cially if we are to shed light on this phenomenon of continuous change from the bottom up, it is beneficial to adopt a multilevel perspective to explicate the mechanisms in which continuous change from lower level units is transferred within and across levels of the organization.
Our purpose for this article is to develop a theoretical model of emergent continuous organizational change, defined as the dynamic, interactive, and bottom-up processes that involve both work-unit members and managers in the amplification and accumulation of valuable, ongoing work-unit level changes over time that become substantial changes at the organizational level. We make three important contributions to the organiza- tional change literature through our model (see Figure 1).
First, we develop a theoretical model to explain how routine changes at the work-unit level amplify and accumulate at the organizational level to constitute emergent continuous change. Because routines are generative in nature (Becker, Lazaric, Nelson, & Winter, 2005; Nelson & Winter, 1982), we argue that routine changes at the work-unit level are a form of continuous change (Feldman, 2000; Feldman & Pentland, 2003). We con- tribute to the limited literature on bottom-up processes, which hold much interest and potential in the organizational change literature (Smets et al., 2012). Second, we heed the call of a growing group of organizational change scholars to take a multilevel perspective on our theorizing (e.g., Caldwell, Her-
Elijah X. M. Wee, Foster School of Business, University of Washington; M. Susan Taylor, Robert H. Smith, School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park.
We thank Myeong-Gu Seo, Michael Parke, Elad Sherf, and Subra Tangirala for their constructive and insightful comments on earlier versions of the article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elijah X. M. Wee, Foster School of Business, University of Washington, 537 PACCAR Hall, Seattle, WA 98195. E-mail: [email protected]
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
Journal of Applied Psychology © 2017 American Psychological Association 2017, Vol. 0, No. 999, 000 0021-9010/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000261
1
old, & Fedor, 2004; Pettigrew et al., 2001; Whelan-Barry, Gordon, & Hinings, 2003). We develop a theoretical narrative that connects meso (work-unit level) and macro (organizational level) levels of theory. We integrate the attention-based theory of search (Li, Maggitti, Smith, Tesluk, & Katila, 2013; Ocasio, 2011) in a multilevel framework to illustrate how specific work-unit level routine change may be interpreted and adapted across the organization through the cognitive mechanisms of both managers and work unit members— either homogenously (i.e., composition emergence: a similar change is shared across other work units), or heterogeneously (i.e., compilation emer- gence: a pattern of different changes across other work units; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Third, we integrate the sensemaking literature with temporal concepts to reflect the ongoing process of organizing (Weick et al., 2005). This integration is central to our understanding of how managers facilitate the accumulation of multiple streams of emergent changes in the organization. We propose that managers do so by considering the temporal arrangement of these emergent changes with respect not only to themselves, but also to ongoing streams of organizational ac- tivities and events (Ballard, 2009; Huy, 2001; Plowman et al.,
2007; Smets et al., 2012). Overall, our model provides a co- herent explanation of why and how changes within work-units may amplify and accumulate over time to constitute emergent continuous organizational change.
Continuous Change at Work-Unit Level
The distinctive characteristic of emergent continuous organiza- tional change lies in the way small continuous adjustments, created simultaneously across different units, amplify and accumulate to become substantial changes at the organizational level over time. The amplification aspect relates to the process in which a single lower-level change (i.e., work unit level) can emerge to the orga- nizational level (e.g., Ford, Ford, & D’Amelio, 2008; Plowman et al., 2007). The accumulation aspect relates to the process in which a series of emergent changes can be woven into a coherent thread of change at the organizational level (e.g., Weick & Quinn, 1999). Emergent continuous organizational change, unlike episodic orga- nizational change, is not triggered by identifiable intentional major interruptions (Weick & Quinn, 1999), but instead, represents a model of organizational change that is driven by constituents
A Single Work-Unit Level Routine Change (P1)
Emergent Continuous Organizational Change Definition: The dynamic, interactive, and bottom-up processes that involve both work-unit members and
managers in the amplification and accumulation of valuable, ongoing work-unit level changes over time that become substantial changes at the organizational level.
Composition Emergence Homogeneous interpretation and adaptation of work-unit
level routine change across organization
Compilation Emergence Heterogeneous interpretation and adaptation of work-unit
level routine change across organization
A cc
um ul
at io
n A
sp ec
t
Work-Unit Level
Organizational Level
Search Mechanisms (P2)
Deeply Embedded Routine
Search Mechanisms (P2)
Weakly Embedded Routine
P4P3
Managerial Sensemaking Create coherent meaning of the emergent changes over time
Sequencing (P5a) Recognizable steps and
stages
Timing (P5b) Window of opportunity
for changes
Pacing (P5c) Pace of change
Rhythm of Change (P5d) Regular organizational
rhythm
A Single Work-Unit Level Routine Change (P1)
A m
pl ifi
ca tio
n A
sp ec
t
Figure 1. Multilevel process model of emergent continuous organizational change.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
2 WEE AND TAYLOR
within the organization. Our model1 of organizational change offers a unique proposition for organizations to enable a change that originates from within, instead of a change that is precipitated by unpredictable external events.
We start our model of emergent continuous organizational change at the work-unit level, where we define the work-units as a collection of individuals “who see themselves and who are seen by others as an intact social entity embedded in one or more larger social systems” (Cohen & Bailey, 1997, p. 241). Because the work-unit sits at the juncture of micro-origins (e.g., individual members) and contextual constraints (e.g., organizational level factors and constraints), it is an ideal target for the study of emergence (Kozlowski & Chao, 2012). Further, work-units exe- cute critical task performance in organizations (Parmigiani & Howard-Grenville, 2011; Zellmer-Bruhn, 2003) and they provide opportunities for members to test, refine, and implement changes (Miron-Spektor, Erez, & Naveh, 2011).
The routine literature also regards routine change as one of the key origins of continuous change (Feldman, 2000; Feldman & Pentland, 2003; Pentland, Haerem, & Hillison, 2011). This argu- ment is consistent with Weick and Quinn’s (1999) theorizing of continuous organizational change as “small continuous adjust- ments, created simultaneously across units, [which] can cumulate and create substantial change” (p. 375). Routines are “effortful accomplishments” (Pentland & Rueter, 1994, p. 488) performed by a group of individuals in the organization. In brief, routines are often enacted at the work-unit level.
There are two distinct aspects of routines: the ostensive aspect, which is the “abstract, generalized idea of the routine,” and the performative aspect, which consists of “specific actions, by spe- cific people, in specific places and times” (Feldman & Pentland, 2003, p. 101). The ostensive aspect represents the abstract cogni- tive structure of the routines, whereas the performative aspect represents actual behaviors of the individuals who are performing the routines (Parmigiani & Howard-Grenville, 2011). This perfor- mative aspect of routine suggests that individuals are capable of adapting existing routines based on “ongoing changes and reflect- ing on the meaning of actions for future realities” (Feldman & Pentland, 2003, p. 95). In line with the agency view, routines are generative in nature (Becker et al., 2005; Nelson & Winter, 1982). Individuals often make adjustments to existing routines based on a new understanding of what they can achieve and the consequences of their actions (Feldman, 2000). Feldman theorized two specific kinds of work-unit level outcomes that have the potential to develop into continuous change: outcomes that fall short of ideals (striving) and outcomes that present new opportunities (expand- ing). Each of these two types of outcomes will elicit a change response from the work unit. For example, when the work unit’s actions provide outcomes with new opportunities (e.g., a new procedure to organize an existing color-filing system in a furniture design firm; Salvato, 2009), the unit may respond to this outcome by expanding the existing routine to incorporate this new change. On the other hand, when a work unit’s actions present a shortfall of ideas (e.g., failing to meet the standards of performance), the work unit may respond to this outcome by adjusting the existing routine to strive for a higher, difficult, but not impossible, stan- dard. We argue that it is this ongoing adjustment process of routine changes at the work-unit level that eventually lead to continuous change at the organizational level from the bottom-up.
Proposition 1: A work unit creates ongoing routine changes that may amplify and accumulate over time to form emergent continuous organizational change.
Now that we have explained why work-unit level routine change is an important source of emergent continuous organizational change, we proceed to explain how the managers and work-unit members’ attention-based search mechanisms may facilitate the amplification of these work-unit level routine changes to the organizational level.
Attention-Based Search Mechanisms Driving the Emergence Processes
Attention is regarded as a cognitive process that involves the noticing, interpreting, and focusing of time and effort on the acquisition of knowledge and information (Kahneman, 1973). Re- latedly, search is defined as the “controlled and proactive process of attending to, examining, and evaluating new knowledge” (Li et al., 2013, p. 893). As individuals engage in searching, they channel their attention to specific aspects of the environment while ignor- ing others. For instance, top management teams’ search and iden- tification of new knowledge and information is central to new product introductions (Li et al., 2013). When a top management team is equipped with new knowledge and information, it makes better strategic decisions regarding innovation and firm growth (e.g., Cyert & March, 1963; Katila et al., 2012). Similarly, these search mechanisms determine the extent to which the routine change from a particular work unit will be noticed and evaluated.
To date, the attention literature has focused exclusively on managers rather than organizational constituents. This emphasis on the managers’ attention-based search processes is likely because of the strong theoretical and empirical connections between manage- rial search and firm innovation (e.g., Cyert & March, 1963; Katila et al., 2012; Thompson, 1967). However, growing research on employee proactivity (e.g., Griffin, Neal, & Parker, 2007) suggests that the search processes of nonmanagerial individuals should not be ignored in the discussion of continuous change. Likewise, work-unit members are involved in routine change within their respective work-units (e.g., Feldman, 2000). Therefore, we focus on both managers and work-unit members’ attention-based search mechanisms in our model.
There are two key attention-based search mechanisms (Li et al., 2013; Ocasio, 2011). First, search selection relates to individuals’ choice of the location to which they will direct their attention during an information search. Given individuals’ limited information- processing capacity (Ocasio, 2011), they are often unable to pro- cess all external stimuli simultaneously and they must determine the range of stimuli in the environment to focus on and which to
1 To further differentiate our discussion of emergent continuous organi- zational change from similar literature, we contend that our proposed model departs from the literature on collective action/social movements. This literature examines why and how collective individuals are galvanized to bring about higher level changes (e.g., social change, institutional change; see Rao, Morrill, & Zald, 2000). Instead of focusing on definitive significant injustices and disadvantages faced by employees in the work- place (social movements; see Yzerbyt, Dumont, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003) or disruptive cultural or economical imperatives (collective actions; see Rao et al., 2000), our model focuses on day-to-day valuable changes that are initiated by members within the organization.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
3CONTINUOUS ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
filter out (Lavie, 1995). Search selection pinpoints “where” stake- holders look for new information and determines the scope and kind of information available to be noticed and focused on (Fiske & Taylor, 2008). Different stakeholders gravitate toward different information in the organization (Ocasio, 1997). Individuals with more power (e.g., managers) show greater flexibility in their attention by changing their focus of attention more readily, based on how relevant the information is to their motivations and goals (Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson, & Liljenquist, 2008; Gui- note, 2007; Guinote, 2017). Because managers are expected to contribute to organizational innovation (Mollick, 2012), one of the managers’ goals is to select and promote novel ideas for further development and implementation (Burgelman, 1991; Kanter, 1982). In tandem with selective attention theory, novel, salient, and vivid information stand out against other stimuli in the envi- ronment (McArthur & Post, 1977). Novel information is more likely to enter the consciousness of the information searchers as well as affect their subsequent actions (Daft & Weick, 1984; Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, & Lawrence, 2001; Sullivan, 2010). Thus, we expect managers’ search selection to be drawn toward distinctive work-unit level routine changes.
In contrast, work-unit members are attracted to information that is likely to suggest a solution to their own specific problems (problemistic search; Cyert & March, 1963). Individuals with less power (e.g., work-unit members) show less flexibility in their attention and tend to focus primarily on information that are relevant to them (Guinote, 2007; Guinote, 2017). Because work- unit members are expected to enact and perform their work-unit level routines effectively, they are more likely to pay attention to other work-units that are structurally similar to theirs to maximize the chances of finding a solution from known sources (Burt, 1987; Contractor & Eisenberg, 1990). In addition, work-unit members may search for information from both proximal and distal work- units without a defined problem to resolve. They cast a wider search parameter by relying on a multitude of probes to identify potential sources of routine change from which to learn (Bresman, 2013). Thus, we expect work-unit members’ search selection to be drawn toward work-unit level routine changes that are most rele- vant to their work-units.
Second, search intensity refers to the extent to which individuals allocate effort and persistence to the attention processes (Kahne- man, 1973; Ocasio, 2011). It represents individuals’ cognitive capacity to notice, interpret, and make sense of the information in the environment (Kahneman, 1973; Weick, 1995). Search intensity has a significant impact on organizational level outcomes. Indi- viduals who are not persistent in their information gathering might end up endorsing a compromised alternative rather than exploring all promising alternatives in a more rigorous manner (Schwenk, 1984). In addition, individuals produce lower rates of idea adap- tion when their information gathering is less rigorous (Nutt, 1993). When managers use less effective and persistent search processes, they may also invest prematurely in a suboptimal change (Levitt & March, 1988).
Although the function of search intensity appears similar for either stakeholder, we argue that the motivational force behind each type of search intensity is largely distinct from each other. Managers’ search intensity is influenced by attention structures, defined as social, economic, and cultural structures that influence the allocation of time, effort, and attentional focus of managers in
the organization (March & Olsen, 1976). These structures deter- mine how managerial attention is divided between internal and external environments and direct the extent to which communica- tion and interaction patterns between work unit members and managers develop (Barnett, 2008; Ocasio & Joseph, 2005). One concrete example of attention structures is termed the rules of the game, defined as “formal and informal principles of action, inter- action, and interpretation that guide and constrain decision-makers in accomplishing the firm’s tasks and in obtaining social status, credits, and rewards in the process” (Ocasio, 1997, p. 196). Orga- nizations with structures in place to consistently reward managers who devote their attention to novel changes from within the organization (e.g., from work-units) are more likely to inspire them to demonstrate a higher level of cognitive persistence and effort so as to notice and evaluate the quality of work-unit level routine changes (i.e., search intensity).
Although managers are expected to pay attention to innovation from their immediate environments (internal and external; Mol- lick, 2012), work-unit members are expected to enact work-unit level routines as part of their daily work. As Pentland and col- leagues (2011) aptly summarized: “Each performance is an occa- sion for repetition, but it is also an occasion for improvisation or error; thus larger numbers of performance create more opportunity for change” (p. 1371). However, the opportunity for change does not automatically translate into action for change; instead, work- unit members have to manage the tension between the need to ensure consistency and the need to respond to change in their enactment of routines (Turner & Rindova, 2012). Because work- unit members’ search mechanisms are not formal expectations from the management, we contend that members’ search intensity is more likely to be influenced by proximal psychological pro- cesses within the work unit. For instance, identification with a group or unit is likely to motivate a group of individuals to engage in collective action to improve the current situation (Drury & Reicher, 2005). It follows that work-unit members who identify strongly with the unit are likely to increase their cognitive effort to evaluate the potential change that opportunities present in their interactions with other work units. Now that we have explained the different mechanisms behind work-unit members and managers’ search intensity, we proceed to elaborate on how these search mechanisms illustrate the amplification aspect of our model.
Amplification Over Time: Emergence Processes
A complete discussion of how and why a phenomenon at the lower level may coalesce to form a higher level construct (i.e., emergence process; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) should include specifying the what, elemental content, and the how, interaction. The elemental content represents the raw material for emergence, such as cognition, affect, and/or behavior. The interaction repre- sents the nature of interpersonal exchanges critical to the transfer of the elemental content within and across the different levels of theory. For example, group mood (affect) represents emergent- group level properties with origins in the elemental content (e.g., individual mood) provided by the group members, and is created through the interaction process of communication and interaction among group members. We propose that work-unit level routine change represents the elemental content (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000), whereas the search mechanisms of key stakeholders repre-
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
4 WEE AND TAYLOR
sent the interaction process (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) in our model.
Managers and work-unit members perceive and interpret work- unit level routine change according to their own cognitive lens (Kozlowski & Chao, 2012). These stakeholders interact, commu- nicate, and exchange their perceptions of the routine change based on how each individual selectively chooses the type of information to pay attention to (i.e., search selection) and to what extent each individual possesses the cognitive capacity to process and evaluate the value of the information (i.e., search intensity). Different patterns of search mechanisms will influence the type of emer- gence processes we observe in the organization. The single routine change may be homogeneously interpreted and adapted across other work units (i.e., composition emergence) or the same routine change may be heterogeneously interpreted and adapted across other work units (i.e., compilation emergence). In sum, the search mechanisms explain the nature of interpersonal exchanges among work-unit members and managers that are critical to the transfer of work-unit level routine change (i.e., elemental content) within and across the levels of our phenomenon (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000).
Proposition 2: Work-unit members and managers’ search selection and search intensity on a single work-unit level routine change con- stitute the amplification aspect of emergent continuous organizational change.
Composition Emergence Process
Composition emergence of emergent continuous organizational change occurs when the work-unit level routine change is shared across other work-units (Kozlowski & Chao, 2012). This type of emergence reflects homogeneity in the way the work-unit level routine change (i.e., elemental content) is interpreted and adapted across other work units. We clarify here that the example we highlight only shows a snapshot of one particular composition emergence in the organization; there might be other types of emergence processes (e.g., composition and/or compilation) oc- curring at the same time.
We illustrate composition emergence with an empirical exam- ple. When a particular work unit in a designer home-furnishing firm implemented a new method of organizing color for one of its projects, the managers paid attention to this routine change and ultimately elevated it to the organizational level (Salvato, 2009). Once the color routine change caught the attention of the senior managers, they introduced significant refinement and codification to scale up the routine change to the organizational level. The managers evaluated the potential contributions of the lower level routine change to the organization as a whole and then made the decision to create a shared interpretation and adaptation of the routine change across the organization. To achieve this, they initiated further research on the color organization, and they con- ducted training for other organizational constituents involved in the design procedure requiring the color organizing routine.
A key condition of composition emergence process is the strong embeddedness of the focal routine, which represents the extent to which the use of the routine overlaps with the enactment of other organizational structures (Howard-Grenville, 2005). The embed- dedness of a routine will determine the flexibility of its enactment and the ongoing consequences of its flexible use. A strongly embedded routine means that any change in this particular routine
should bring significant consequences to other organizational con- stituents. In our example of the color organizing routine, because it is a critical routine that involved the organization’s design procedure, any potential change in the routine would induce con- siderable impact on other work-units. Although a strongly embed- ded routine should not deter work-unit members from improvising their own enactment of that particular routine, the nature of the routine’s overlap with other organizational structures means that other work-units often are constrained in their interpretation and adaptation of the same routine change to their work-units (Howard-Grenville, 2005, p. 619). A strongly embedded routine signals a need to create shared interpretation and adaptation of the change across affected organizational constituents for the change to radiate beyond the focal work unit. Because the color organizing routine change was related to the design procedure in the organi- zation, managers played a critical role in fostering a common or shared interpretation and adaptation of the change. Managers en- able, rather than control, the outcomes of composition emergence by developing conditions that are conducive for bottom up changes (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001).
Because managers enable the creation of shared interpretation and adaptation of the strongly embedded routine change, the attention-based search mechanisms of the managers are central to our discussion of composition emergence. First, managers’ search selection tends to lean toward novel, salient, and vivid information (Dutton, Ashford, O’Neill, & Lawrence, 2001). Managers’ limited attentional capacities require them to select parts of their environ- ment to attend to (e.g., Cyert & March, 1963). Novel information often provides raw material for organizational innovation (Katila, 2002). Strongly embedded routines are also likely to be more salient to managers because of how tightly coupled these routines are with ongoing organizational practices, including norms of appropriate behaviors that enable and constrain types and se- quences of action (Pentland, 1995). Put together, managers are more likely to notice novel work-unit level routine changes that are strongly embedded. At the same time, it is also possible for other work-unit members to notice the strongly embedded routine change in the first place and bring the change to the managers’ attention.2 For example, work-unit members may highlight a strongly embedded routine change that may bring significant con- sequences to other work-units. The basic idea in composition emergence is that managers need to be made aware of the strongly embedded routine change, whether it is through their own search or brought to their attention by work-unit members.
Second, managers with higher search intensity will increase their effort and persistence to attend to novel salient routine changes at the work-unit level. Effortful and persistent attention will lead to higher levels of cognitive capacity channeled to notice, interpret, and make sense of information and knowledge (Kahne- man, 1973; Weick, 1995). In turn, this increased cognitive capacity enables managers to evaluate the scalability and value of the work-unit level routine change at the organizational level (e.g., Plowman et al., 2007; Smets et al., 2012). In the color organizing routine example, its success was due to the managers’ attention to seeking out novel changes in the work environment and their effort
2 We thank an anonymous reviewer for bringing up this point.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
5CONTINUOUS ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
to evaluate the impact of the observed routine change on the firm’s design procedure.
Work-Unit Level Versus Organizational Level
It is crucial to highlight and explain the subtle yet important differences between continuous change at the work-unit level and continuous change at the organizational level. We contend that in composition emergence, work-unit level routine change and con- tinuous organizational change are only partially isomorphic; both constructs remain conceptually distinct despite sharing some com- mon features (Chan, 1998). Multilevel scholars assert that it is extremely rare for both higher and lower level constructs to be perfectly isomorphic (see Chan, 1998; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Bliese (2000) described the process through which partial isomor- phism occurs as “fuzzy composition,” whereby “the main differ- ence between a lower level and an aggregate level variable is that the aggregate variable contains higher level contextual influences that are not captured by the lower level construct” (pp. 369 –370; italics added for emphasis). This means that the specific routine change that is interpreted and adapted at the organizational level is not completely identical to the original routine change instituted at the work-unit level because the managers seek to implement the change in a way that is relevant and useful to the rest of the organizational constituents. In other words, the managers’ effort in the process reflects the contextual influences that are not usually present in continuous change at the work-unit level.
Proposition 3: Composition emergence is more likely to occur when (1) the routine is strongly embedded, and (2) managers with high search intensity create a shared interpretation and adaptation of the routine change.
We turn now to a discussion of the compilation emergence process.
The Compilation Emergence Process
Compilation emergence of emergent continuous organizational change occurs when distinctly different work-unit level routine changes are integrated across the organization to form a pattern of change (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). In compilation emergence, we expect to observe a heterogeneous pattern of work-unit level routine changes (i.e., elemental content) at the organizational level. This is a result of the pattern and nature of attention-based mechanisms among key stakeholders (i.e., interaction). Kozlowski and Chao (2012) noted that this form of emergence is analogous to the way “different puzzle pieces fit together to create a meaningful unit” (p. 44).
As an example of compilation emergence, we point to an em- pirical study examining how a change introduced by a group of church members led to a distinct pattern of change that was observed at the organizational level (Plowman et al., 2007). The members began by offering free hot breakfasts to the homeless on Sunday mornings. Interest from the church members and the homeless community began to grow, and other groups in the church began to find different ways of providing assistance to the homeless (e.g., medical consultation, dental hygiene clinic). Ultimately, the church’s pastors formalized their commitment to the recently initiated change and took the role of “giving meaning to the changes that were unfolding rather than creating and direct-
ing the changes” (Plowman et al., 2007, p. 538). Thus, different groups in the church contextualized change in a way that was qualitatively different from the concept developed by the initial group that came up with the idea to offer breakfast. What started out as an idea for breakfast as part of an outreach routine initiated by a small group of church members eventually developed into different interpretations as well as an adaptation of the initial outreach routine. Thus, one group of church members began to start a medical clinic, whereas another group initiated a dental clinic.
Unlike composition emergence, the key condition of the com- pilation emergence process is the weak embeddedness of the routine. A weakly embedded routine means that there is greater flexible in how a work unit interprets and adapts the routine change and the change itself should not bring significant conse- quences to other organizational constituents. In our example of outreach routine, because the routine is volunteer-based and not entwined with the key function of the church, we expect that any change in the routine would induce minimal impact on the various groups in the church. At the work-unit level, members in the unit often make the internal decision about any routine change, pro- vided that the proposed change does not have a significant impact beyond the focal work unit (Bresman, 2013; Feldman, 2000; Pentland et al., 2011). For weakly embedded routine change, the work-unit members have the discretion to interpret and adapt the specific routine change to suit their work-unit’s requirement with- out the support of managers (Howard-Grenville, 2005). For these reasons, work-unit members’ heterogeneous interpretation and ad- aptation of the weakly embedded routine change are central to our discussion of compilation emergence.
In terms of search selection, there are two different approaches for work-unit members. First, in accordance with the “problemis- tic” search approach (Cyert & March, 1963), work-unit members may seek routine change from units that are most likely to offer a viable solution to their own specific problems. Work-unit members pay attention to other work-units that are structurally similar to them to maximize the chances of finding a solution from known sources (Burt, 1987; Contractor & Eisenberg, 1990). Second, in contrast to “problemistic” search, work-unit members may also search for routine change from both proximal and distal work-units without a defined problem to resolve. Here, work-unit members cast a wider search parameter by relying on a multitude of probes to identify potential sources of routine change from which to learn. In sum, work-unit members’ search selection is channeled toward routine changes that are beneficial to the work-unit’s present or future performance. At the same time, it is possible for managers to notice the weakly embedded routine change in the first place and bring the change to work-unit members’ attention. For exam- ple, a manager may highlight a routine change that is weakly embedded within the work-unit and encourage the members to adapt the change to their existing routines. The basic idea in compilation emergence is that work-unit members need to be made aware of the weakly embedded routine change, whether it is through their own search or is brought to their attention by the managers.
We expect members with high search intensity to (a) devote effort and persistence to notice, interpret, and make sense of the routine change from the focal work-unit (Kahneman, 1973; Weick, 1995), and (b) spend considerable cognitive resources to evaluate
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
6 WEE AND TAYLOR
the benefits of the observed routine change to their own work-units (Li et al., 2013). Once members have determined that the observed routine change is relevant and useful to their own work-unit, their next step is to decide on the best strategy to adapt and contextu- alize the change (Bresman, 2013). In today’s dynamic work envi- ronment (Scott & Davis, 2007), work-unit members often rely on different methods of change adaptation (Bresman, 2013). For example, work-unit members may adapt routine change to their own work-units, based on an underlying concept or principle, instead of the specific content: work-unit members “can combine aspects of various models that they have imitated into a constel- lation that differs substantially from the original models” (Bres- man, 2013, p. 52). In the example of the outreach routine, the initial group came up with the idea to change the outreach routine by offering hot breakfasts to the homeless. Groups within the church observed the same outreach routine change, but in the end, some groups developed different interpretations and adaptations of this specific routine change. Group members with higher search intensity not only noticed the outreach routine change but also spent considerable effort to interpret and adapt the routine change in a way that made a significant contribution to outreach.
Proposition 4: Compilation emergence is more likely to occur when (a) the routine is weakly embedded and when (b) work-unit members with high search intensity create different interpretations and adapta- tions of the observed routine change that is beneficial to their work- units’ performance.
Accumulation Over Time: Composition and Compilation Emergence
Now, we elaborate on how these emergent changes accumulate over time. Different types of emergence processes may occur simultaneously in the organization, across multiple stakeholders and across different work-units. For example, a routine change from work-unit A may lead to a shared homogenous interpretation and adaptation of that particular change across other work-units (i.e., composition emergence). Happening at about the same time, a routine change from work-unit B may lead to a highly hetero- geneous interpretation and adaptation of that particular change across other work-units (i.e., compilation emergence). Emergent continuous organizational change, therefore, is an accumulation of the emergent changes that resulted from a series of composition and/or compilation emergence processes in a particular time period (e.g., from Time X to Time Y). This accumulation of change over time distinguishes continuous organizational change from episodic organizational change: continuous organizational change consists of a series of changes over time that may make it difficult for observers to identify their sources (e.g., routine changes from specific work units). Episodic organizational change usually con- sists of changes that can be identified by a specific major disrup- tive event as the source. We propose that emergent continuous organizational change is “carried out by multiple actors in multiple series of events” (Bartunek & Woodman, 2015, p. 170).
Existing research has pointed to contrasting conclusions regard- ing change frequency in organizations. On one hand, scholars contest that frequent change enables an organization to better align itself with constantly evolving contexts and thereby reap positive effects on firm performance (Amburgey, Kelley, & Barnett, 1993; Cohen & Bacdayan, 1994). On the other hand, scholars argue that
frequent changes to established routines require organizational members to constantly identify new routines through search mech- anisms (e.g., Hedberg, 1981) that consume organizational re- sources. Routines are important mechanisms to translate collective experience into organizational performance (Levinthal & March, 1993). Frequent changes place a greater demand on management’s cognitive resources, elevating the potential risk of information overload (Huber, 1991) and ineffective decision-making (Ham- brick, Finkelstein, & Mooney, 2005), which lead to negative effect on a firm’s performance.
Because the very nature of continuous change necessitates a higher change frequency for the organization experiencing this model of change, we propose that managers in their roles as sensemakers (Weick & Quinn, 1999) facilitate the accumulation of emergent changes over time. Consistent with Weick’s (1995) articulation, sensemaking refers to the manager’s effort to create order and coherent understanding among organizational constitu- ents so as to enable change in the organization. Sensemaking involves the construction and deconstruction of meaning (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991) by managers to create a coherent narrative for the emergent changes. Indeed, the accumulation of emergent changes over time at the organizational level requires synchro- nized activity cycles across the organization (Ballard, 2009). We clarify that our discussion of managers’ roles as sensemakers does not contradict our overarching theme of bottom up changes. When faced with changes in the organization, managers are expected to facilitate organizational constituents’ reframing of what the change entails (Bartunek, 1984; Isabella, 1990). Organizational constitu- ents need to comprehend the intended organizational level change in a way that “fits into some revised interpretive scheme or system of meaning” (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991). The accumulation of emergent changes over time is likely to create some level of conflict within the organization.
Sensemaking is the effort by mangers to create orderly and meaningful understanding of the emergent changes (Weick et al., 2005). In this regard, the manager’s role is not about controlling or dictating how the emergent changes should unfold in the organi- zation. Rather, the manager’s role is about reframing the series of emergent changes, which have already taken place at different parts of the organization, in a way that is meaningful for the rest of the organization.
Managers articulate new or different schemata that give mean- ing to the emergent changes through tools of language and sym- bols (Bartunek & Woodman, 2015), which then enable organiza- tional constituents to think and act in agreement with the emerging changes (e.g., Elsbach, Barr, & Hargadon, 2005; Rerup & Feld- man, 2011). Organizational schemata are frames of reference shared among members of an organization (Bartunek, 1984); peo- ple draw on these schemata to interpret, understand, and respond to change within their environment (Rerup & Feldman, 2011). There- fore, in the context of emergent continuous organizational change, managers “enact a more workable certainty—a negotiated under- standing” (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008) to give meaning to the accu- mulation of emergent changes over time. Weick and colleagues (2005) aptly described the sensemaking process as “continued redrafting of an emerging story so that it becomes more compre- hensive, incorporates more of the observed data, and is more resilient in the face of criticism” (p. 415).
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
7CONTINUOUS ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
Managers who facilitate the accumulation of emergent changes can develop “modification routines” (Nelson & Winter, 1982, p. 17) that are procedures for the organization to change or create new routines (Levitt & March, 1988). Modification routines in- crease the organization’s capacity for future change. As Amburgey and colleagues argued, “the more an organization changes its operating routines, the more likely it is to develop the modification routines needed to make further, similar changes” (Amburgey et al., 1993, p. 54). This suggests that as managers become more successful in facilitating the accumulation of emergent changes at the organizational level, over time they will develop modification routines that lay out the blueprint for future continuous change in the organization.
Going further, we heed the call from organizational change scholars (e.g., Albert, 2013 Bartunek & Woodman, 2015; Huy, 2001; Pettigrew et al., 2001) to consider temporal concepts in developing organizational change theory. In particular, these tem- poral concepts will elevate our understanding of how managerial sensemaking can facilitate the accumulation of emergent changes over time. Sequencing refers to a temporal ordering of events, including recognizable steps and stages, or the order of events within a particular stage or phase (Bluedorn, 2002; Langley, 1999). Managers need to consider the sequencing of emergent changes in a manner that creates the most coherent meaning for organizational constituents. The assumption is that a certain order of how changes are introduced to the organization has consequences for the integ- rity of the phenomenon of change (Werner, Haggard, Altman, & Oxley, 1988) and also for the receptivity of organizational con- stituents. As an example, consider two emergent changes that are related to the recruitment procedure in the organization: the first emergent change is about refining the selection process (i.e., shortlist) and the second emergent change is about refining the interview process. In such a situation, managers can facilitate the accumulation of these two emergent changes at the organizational level by framing the changes in a way that reflects the recognizable steps and stages of how the recruitment procedure is usually enacted. The overall change is more coherent when the managers articulate the recognizable sequence from the changes with the sequencing of the recruitment procedure in mind, which means creating a narrative that highlights the change in selection process before the change in interview process.
Proposition 5a: Managers create coherent meaning for the accumula- tion of emergent changes when they articulate the recognizable se- quence from these changes.
Timing represents the right time for change, an occasion where there is readiness for change (Albert, 2013; Armenakis et al., 1993; Tyre & Orlikowski, 1994). Huy (2001) aptly explains, “good timing captures windows of opportunity in which an intervention can benefit from better receptivity to change and more bountiful resources” (p. 613). A vital function of managerial sensemaking is to create meaning across multiple streams of actions and events occurring simultaneously within the organizations (e.g., Huy, 2001; Plowman et al., 2007; Smets et al., 2012). When organiza- tional constituents are provided opportunities to acclimate to the changes, the level of change readiness for the organization will be significantly higher (Albert, 2013; Armenakis et al., 1993). One strategy is to frame the emergent changes as one single change. For
example, train stations often synchronize change in train schedules at the same time with the daylight saving time adjustment (Landes, 1983). Similarly, managers can articulate a coherent meaning of the emergent changes by connecting these changes to a window of opportunity for change. In doing so, managers alleviate the pres- sure on organizational constituents to do multiple things at differ- ent times and thus increase their receptivity toward the emergent changes (Huy, 2001). Furthermore, managers are in a good posi- tion to articulate a coherent narrative of the emergent changes when these changes are tied closely to a window of opportunity. For example, when managers frame these emergent changes as part of the ongoing changes associated to the start of the fiscal year (a window of opportunity for change), they are able to offer a compelling narrative of why these change matter to the organiza- tional constituents.
Proposition 5b: Managers create coherent meaning for the accumula- tion of emergent changes when they articulate the window of oppor- tunity for these changes.
Pacing refers to the momentum of change (Ancona & Chong, 1996). Change itself can take on a different speed as it unfolds over time in an organization (Huy, 2001). This is an important factor to consider in the accumulation of emergent changes over time. Managers need to understand the characteristics of each emergent change and articulate the momentum necessary for the change to accumulate at the organizational level. For example, managers should articulate that novel emergent changes (e.g., composition emergence) require a faster pace of change in their sensemaking to the organizational members to convey a sense of urgency that keeps everyone driven to maintain the pace (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997).
Proposition 5c. Managers create coherent meaning for the accumula- tion of emergent changes when they articulate the pace of change for these changes.
Finally, the rhythm of change refers to the timing of multiple changes in a given period (Klarner & Raisch, 2013). In the context of emergent continuous organizational change, the rhythm of change determines the pattern of variability in the intensity and frequency of organizational activities, which is often characterized by periods of accelerated activity and slowed activity (Huy, 2001). A regular rhythm suggests that changes are distributed somewhat equally over a given time period: changes are scheduled to “max- imize the shortest time span between subsequent changes” (Klarner & Raisch, 2013, p. 163). In doing so, an organization with a regular rhythm of change reduces the risk of information over- load, which often surfaces when multiple changes are initiated within a short time frame (Huber, 1991). A regular change rhythm also helps managers to retain and leverage modification routines from previous changes (Amburgey et al., 1993). On the other hand, an irregular rhythm suggests that periods of change and stability vary significantly in their duration: changes have a “longer max- imum time span between subsequent changes than a regular change rhythm has” (Klarner & Raisch, 2013, p. 164). An orga- nization with an irregular change rhythm increases the risk of information overload, which occurs when too many strategic de- cisions must be made in a short time frame (Huber, 1991). Such long periods of stability may create inertia that is too strong for the
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
8 WEE AND TAYLOR
organization to incorporate subsequent changes (Hannan & Free- man, 1977; e.g., managers articulate a coherent meaningful narra- tive of emergent changes when they are aware of the time span between organizational activities and make a concerted effort to create a sense of regular organizational rhythm for these emergent changes).
Proposition 5d: Managers create coherent meaning for the accumula- tion of emergent changes when they articulate a sense of regular organizational rhythm for these changes.
Discussion
Overall, we make several key theoretical contributions to the organizational change literature. First, we developed a theoretical model to explain how routine changes at the work-unit level amplify and accumulate at the organizational level to constitute emergent continuous organizational change. We center our focus squarely on emergent continuous organizational change because, while bottom-up processes hold much interest and potential, they have too often been ignored or neglected (Smets et al., 2012). Through our discussion of the complex pathways in which con- tinuous change can emerge from the bottom up, we broaden our understanding of different change models. Surprisingly, the orga- nizational change literature gravitates toward the model of epi- sodic change, which is characterized by infrequent and disruptive events (e.g., technology change, shifts in markets; Greenwood & Hinings, 1996; Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Tushman & Ro- manelli, 1985) leading to top down, intentional change interven- tions (Weick & Quinn, 1999). Although the episodic model of change may account for some of the large-scale organizational changes at least every 4 to 5 years (Lewis, 1999), we are neglect- ing ongoing, cumulative, and substantive changes that are contin- uous in nature (Pettigrew et al., 2001). Our model enriches both scholars’ and practitioners’ understanding of emergent continuous organizational change by enabling them to predict, explain, and support this important model of change. Only with a strong grasp of the underlying mechanisms driving emergent continuous orga- nizational change, are organizations empowered to produce the desired outcomes associated with continuous change, including learning and innovation (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997; Orlikowski, 1996).
Second, we provide a multilevel foundation for organizational change scholars to extend our understanding of bottom up change. We heed the call from organizational change scholars (Caldwell et al., 2004; Pettigrew et al., 2001; Whelan-Barry et al., 2003) to adopt a multilevel perspective in our model. There are some promising headways in the multilevel theorizing of change in an organization (e.g., change readiness: Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Ar- menakis, 2013; routines and capabilities: Salvato & Rerup, 2011) and our process model contributes to this nascent development in the literature. In our model, we adhere to the key principles behind good multilevel theory, including specifying the phenomenon of interest at different levels of theory (e.g., work unit and organiza- tional level) and addressing the key elements in our model (e.g., mechanisms driving emergence processes; e.g., House, Rousseau, & Thomas-Hunt, 1995; Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994; Kozlow- ski & Klein, 2000). Our model answers the multilevel issues by explicating how a phenomenon at lower levels of the organization may influence an organizational level phenomenon (Hitt et al.,
2007). Without addressing these multilevel issues relating to emer- gent continuous organizational change, the current literature is limited by potentially fallacious interpretations (e.g., assuming that the same theory is applicable across different levels; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000; Rousseau, 1985). Our theory also answers the call from multilevel theorists (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000) to study emergence processes beyond the micro and meso levels. We are encouraged that recent development in multilevel theory has wit- nessed the application of the emergence concept across different levels of the organization (e.g., emergence of unit-level human capital from individual’s micro, meso, and macro levels: Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011; organizational learning at micro, meso, and macro levels: Kozlowski, Chao, & Jensen, 2010). The meso level of theory resides at the juncture of both micro origins and macro contextual constraints. Therefore, it is important to take advantage of its theoretical uniqueness and extend the theoretical narrative beyond the individual-to-group relationship. Especially in the con- text of organizational change, where the phenomenon of interest is at the organizational level, the meso level of theory offers both important and novel insights into how interactions within and across unit levels may explain significant change at the organiza- tional level.
In addition, we integrate the cognitive mechanisms of search selection and search intensity (Li et al., 2013; Ocasio, 2011) into our model to illuminate the critical emergence processes. In the- orizing about an emergent phenomenon, it is essential for the theory to include a detailed account of the underlying mechanism driving the emergence of the lower level phenomenon. Because current research suggests that continuous organizational change is likely to originate from the lower level of the organization (i.e., work units; Grieves, 2010; Orlikowski, 1996; Smets et al., 2012; Weick & Quinn, 1999), we show how work-unit level routine change is transferred to the work-unit level and then amplified to the organizational level based on the interaction of work-unit members and managers’ search mechanisms on the focal routine change. We highlight a key characteristic of the focal routine: the extent to which it is embedded within other organizational struc- tures (Howard-Grenville, 2005) to explain the relative importance of each stakeholder’s contribution to the emergence process. Our contribution to the organizational change literature stems from our explanation of the unique pathways for work-unit level routine changes to emerge from the bottom up (i.e., composition and compilation emergence). Relatedly, by providing a holistic discus- sion of emergent continuous organizational change through the search mechanisms of the work-unit members and managers, we also make a meaningful extension to the attention literature. The research spotlight has traditionally been cast on the managers’ cognitive processes in the context of organizational change (e.g., Cyert & March, 1963; Katila et al., 2012; Thompson, 1967). Recognizing the employee proactivity literature in our model (e.g., Griffin et al., 2007), we take the important step of acknowledging the significance of employees’ cognitive processes in emergent continuous organizational change.
Third, we highlight the significance of managerial sensemaking in supporting the accumulation of emergent changes over time. We integrate the sensemaking literature with temporal concepts to elevate our understanding of the complex relationship among multiple streams of emergent changes in the organization. Despite the consensus that sensemaking is an ongoing dynamic process of
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
9CONTINUOUS ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
organizing (Weick et al., 2005) and that temporal dimensions are critical to our understanding of change involving human systems (Albert, 2013; Bartunek & Woodman, 2015), there has been lim- ited theoretical progress to integrate sensemaking with temporal concepts. We shift the conversation away from managers who control and dictate how lower level changes are implemented at the organizational level; instead, we offer an alternative perspec- tive of managers who seek to create orderly and coherent under- standings of these ongoing emergent changes.
Future Research
Our model reveals exciting avenues for scholars of organiza- tional change in the future. Pettigrew and colleagues (2001) pro- jected that “the study of continuous change is difficult, time- consuming, and resource dependent” (p. 705). Having laid a foundation in our multilevel model, we encourage scholars to take up this empirical challenge armed with a better understanding of the mechanisms and processes behind emergent continuous orga- nizational change. Recent developments in both multilevel theory and research methodology (Kozlowski, Chao, Grand, Braun, & Kuljanin, 2013) have paved new ways to test theory on the emergence processes through empirical studies. With regard to our theoretical model, we propose a mixed method design in the form of a two-phase exploratory sequential design (Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, 1989). First, given the dynamic nature of emergence processes, we suggest a qualitative approach to fully capture how stakeholders’ attention-based search mechanisms impact the emer- gence processes of work-unit level routine changes. This will involve tracking the trajectory of a series of single routine changes across time and capturing the different ways in which the stake- holders interact with these routine changes. Most routine research- ers rely on qualitative research designs (e.g., Howard-Grenville, 2005; Pentland et al., 2011; Turner & Rindova, 2012) to provide rich accounts on the process mechanisms behind routine change in organizations. Second, we suggest a quantitative approach to tri- angulate the findings from the qualitative approach. For example, future researchers can rely on computational modeling (Harrison, Lin, Carroll, & Carley, 2007; Vancouver, Weinhardt, & Schmidt, 2010) to capture the nuances of the stakeholders’ attention-based search mechanisms over time.
In addition, future researchers could explore and test the ante- cedents of work-unit level routine change. Because work-unit level routine change is a key element in our model, our starting assump- tion is that continuous change is occurring at the work-unit level. Even though routine outcomes may present opportunities for change, work-unit members do not always participate in such endogenous change efforts. Organizational members often experi- ence a strong challenge in picking up subtle signals for change, especially when they are faced with habitual routines (Burke, Stagl, Salas, Pierce, & Kendall, 2006). There is an ongoing call for more attention to the psychological processes behind the use of routines by organizational constituents (e.g., Parmigiani & Howard- Grenville, 2011). Relatedly, the collective action literature identi- fies social identity as a key mechanism explaining collective action among individuals (van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008). Iden- tification with a group (e.g., a disadvantaged social group) is more likely to motivate a group of individuals to participate in collective action to improve the current situation (Drury & Reicher, 2005).
We encourage future researchers to explore different psychologi- cal processes that will explain work-unit members’ motivation and effort to engage in routine change.
And finally, we acknowledge that the bottom-up perspective is not the only form of continuous organizational change. For exam- ple, continuous improvement is a top-down management approach to raise the efficiency of organizational processes and systems among organizational constituents (Zangwell & Kantor, 1998). Such improvements are derived through a series of management- intended methodologies and programs. Top-down, management- driven continuous organizational change is likely to be distinctly different from our model of emergent continuous organizational change. We encourage future researchers to embark on this im- portant endeavor to pinpoint the differing mechanisms behind top-down continuous organizational change.
We began this article by highlighting the significance of con- tinuous organizational change in today’s complex environment. Unfortunately, the current literature tends not only to neglect the pervasiveness of continuous change in organizations, but also lacks a holistic theoretical explanation of the mechanisms behind emergent continuous organizational change. By focusing on the more minute, moment-to-moment change from the bottom up, we embark on an ambitious journey to explain emergent continuous organizational change. We integrate various pieces of critical literature, including key ideas from routine attention-based search and sensemaking in developing a multilevel theoretical model. It is our hope that our theoretical model will stimulate innovation in future thinking and research on the important yet theoretically elusive phenomenon of continuous organizational change.
References
Albert, S. (2013). When: The art of perfect timing. San Francisco, CA: Wiley.
Amburgey, T. L., Kelley, D., & Barnett, W. P. (1993). Resetting the clock: The dynamics of organizational change and failure. Administrative Sci- ence Quarterly, 38, 51–73.
Ancona, D. G., & Chong, C.-L. (1996). Entrainment: Pace, cycle and rhythm in organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behav- ior, 18, 251–284.
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681–703. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600601
Ballard, D. I. (2009). Organizational temporality over time: Activity cycles as sources of entrainment. In R. A. Roe, M. J. Walker, & S. R. Clegg (Eds.), Time in Organizational Research (pp. 204 –219). London, UK: Routledge.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 523–549. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159600
Barnett, M. L. (2008). An attention-based view of real options reasoning. The Academy of Management Review, 33, 606 – 628. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5465/AMR.2008.32465698
Bartunek, J. M. (1984). Changing interpretive schemes and organizational restructuring: The example of a religious order. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 355–372. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393029
Bartunek, J. M., & Woodman, R. W. (2015). Beyond Lewin: Toward a temporal approximation of organization development and change. An- nual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behav- ior, 2, 157–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414- 111353
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
10 WEE AND TAYLOR
Becker, M. C., Lazaric, N., Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (2005). Applying organizational routines in understanding organizational change. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14, 775–791. http://dx.doi .org/10.1093/icc/dth071
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. Klein & S. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in orga- nizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349 –381). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bluedorn, A. C. (2002). The human organization of time: Temporal real- ities and experience. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bresman, H. (2013). Changing routines: A process model of vicarious group learning in pharmaceutical R&D. Academy of Management Jour- nal, 56, 35– 61. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0725
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentless shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1–34. http://dx.doi .org/10.2307/2393807
Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2, 239 –262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.3.239
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1189 –1207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.91.6.1189
Burt, R. S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1287–1335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/228667
Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2004). Toward an understanding of the relationships among organizational change, indi- vidual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: A cross-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 868 – 882. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.868
Chan, D. (1998). Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different level of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 234 –246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.83.2.234
Cohen, M. D., & Bacdayan, P. (1994). Organizational routines are stored as procedural memory: Evidence from a laboratory study. Organization Science, 5, 554 –568. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.4.554
Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239 –290. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206397023 00303
Contractor, N. S., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1990). Communication networks and new media in organizations. In J. Fulk & C. Steinfield (Eds.), Organizations and communication technology (pp. 143–172). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483325385.n7
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Daft, R. L., & Weick, K. E. (1984). Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review, 9, 284 –295.
De Muse, K. P., Dai, G., & Hallenbeck, G. S. (2010). Learning agility: A construct whose time has come. Consulting Psychology Journal: Prac- tice and Research, 62, 119 –130.
Drury, J., & Reicher, S. (2005). Explaining enduring empowerment: A comparative study of collective action and psychological outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 35–58.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A. (2001). Moves that matter: Issue selling and organizational change. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 716 –736. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3069412
Elsbach, K. D., Barr, P. S., & Hargadon, A. B. (2005). Identifying situated cognition in organizations. Organization Science, 16, 422– 433. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0138
Feldman, M. S. (2000). Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science, 11, 611– 629. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ orsc.11.6.611.12529
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organiza- tional routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94 –118. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3556620
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Social cognition: From brains to culture. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. (1995). The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. The Academy of Management Re- view, 20, 541–570.
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. The Academy of Management Review, 33, 362–377. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.31193235
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., & Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of the situation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and dissonance. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 95, 1450 –1466. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/a0012633
Gioia, D. A., & Chittipeddi, K. (1991). Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 443– 448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educa- tional Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3102/01623737011003255
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organiza- tional change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. The Academy of Management Review, 21, 1022–1054.
Grieves, J. (2010). Organizational change: Themes and issues. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent con- texts. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 327–347. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438
Guinote, A. (2007). Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 685– 697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.06.008
Guinote, A. (2017). How power affects people: Activating, wanting, and goal seeking. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 353–381. http://dx.doi .org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044153
Hambrick, D. C., Finkelstein, S., & Mooney, A. C. (2005). Executive job demands: New insights for explaining strategic decisions and leader behaviors. The Academy of Management Review, 30, 472– 491. http:// dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2005.17293355
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population ecology of organi- zations. American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929 –964. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1086/226424
Harrison, J. R., Lin, Z., Carroll, G. R., & Carley, K. M. (2007). Simulation modeling in organizational and management research. Academy of Man- agement Review, 32, 1229 –1245. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2007 .26586485
Hedberg, B. L. Y. (1981). How organizations learn and unlearn. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational change (pp. 3–27). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2008). Change the way you lead change: Leadership strategies that really work. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer- sity Press.
Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J. P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474 – 487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.3 .474
Hitt, M. A., Beamish, P. W., Jackson, S. E., & Mathieu, J. E. (2007). Building theoretical and empirical bridges across levels: Multilevel
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
11CONTINUOUS ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
research in management. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1385– 1399. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.28166219
House, R., Rousseau, D. M., & Thomas-Hunt, M. (1995). The meso paradigm: A framework for the integration of micro and macro organi- zational behavior. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 71–114). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Howard-Grenville, J. A. (2005). The persistence of flexible organizational routines: The role of agency and organizational context. Organization Science, 16, 618 – 636. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0150
Huber, G. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and literatures. Organization Science, 2, 88 –115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ orsc.2.1.88
Huy, Q. N. (2001). Time, temporal capability, and planned change. Acad- emy of Management Review, 26, 601– 623. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 3560244
Isabella, L. A. (1990). Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: How managers construe key organizational events. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 7– 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256350
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kanter, R. M. (1982). Dilemmas of managing participation. Organiza- tional Dynamics, 11, 5–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(82) 90039-0
Katila, R. (2002). New product search over time: Past ideas in their prime? Academy of Management Journal, 45, 995–1010. http://dx.doi.org/10 .2307/3069326
Katila, R., Chen, E. L., & Piezunka, H. (2012). All the right moves: How entrepreneurial firms compete effectively. Strategy and Entrepreneur Journal, 6, 116 –132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sej.1130
Klarner, P., & Raisch, S. (2013). Move to the beat: Rhythms of change and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 160 –184. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0767
Klein, K. J., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. J. (1994). Levels issues in theory development, data collection, and analysis. Academy of Management Review, 19, 195–229.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Chao, G. T. (2012). The dynamics of emergence: Cognition and cohesion in work teams. Managerial & Decision Eco- nomics, 33, 335–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mde.2552
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., & Kuljanin, G. (2013). Advancing multilevel research design: Capturing the dynam- ics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16, 581– 615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1094428113493119
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Jensen, J. M. (2010). Building an infrastructure for organizational learning: A multilevel approach. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E. Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and develop- ment in organizations (pp. 361– 400). New York, NY: Routledge Aca- demic.
Kozlowski, S. W., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent pro- cesses. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Landes, D. (1983). Revolution in time: Clocks and the making of the modern world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24, 691–710.
Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451– 468. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.21.3 .451
Leanna, C. R., & Barry, B. (2000). Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 25, 753–759.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj .4250141009
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319 –338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188 .001535
Lewis, L. (1999). Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned organizational change. Discourse & Society, 13, 43–75.
Li, Q., Maggitti, P. Q., Smith, K. G., Tesluk, P. E., & Katila, R. (2013). Top management attention to innovation: The role of search selection and intensity in new product introductions. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 893–916. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0844
Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and man- agerial sensemaking: Working through paradox. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 51, 221–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2008 .31767217
March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.
Marion, R., & Uhl-Bien, M. (2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12, 389 – 418. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1048-9843(01)00092-3
McArthur, L. Z., & Post, D. L. (1977). Figural emphasis and person perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 520 –535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90051-8
Miron-Spektor, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2011). The effect of conformist and attention-to-detail members on team innovation: Reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 740 –760. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2011.64870100
Mollick, E. (2012). People and process, suits and innovators: The role of individuals in firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 1001–1015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.1958
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. The American Economic Review, 72, 114 –132.
Nutt, P. C. (1993). Flexible decision styles and the choices of top execu- tives. Journal of Management Studies, 30, 695–721. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1111/j.1467-6486.1993.tb00322.x
Ocasio, W. (1997). Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ (SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1��187::AID-SMJ936�3.3.CO;2-B
Ocasio, W. (2011). Attention to attention. Organization Science, 22, 1286 – 1296. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0602
Ocasio, W., & Joseph, J. (2005). An attention-based theory of strategy formulation: Linking micro- and macroperspectives in strategy process. Advances in Strategic Management, 22, 39 – 61. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1016/S0742-3322(05)22002-8
Orlikowski, W. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7, 63–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/isre.7.1.63
Parmigiani, A., & Howard-Grenville, L. (2011). Routines revisited: Ex- ploring the capabilities and practice perspectives. The Academy of Man- agement Annals, 5, 413– 453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011 .589143
Pentland, B. T. (1995). Grammatical models of organizational processes. Organization Science, 6, 541–556. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.5 .541
Pentland, B. T., Haerem, T., & Hillison, D. (2011). The (N)ever-changing world: Stability and change in organizational routines. Organization Science, 22, 1369 –1383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0624
Pentland, B. T., & Rueter, H. H. (1994). Organizational routines as gram- mers of action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 484 –510. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/2393300
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research.
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
12 WEE AND TAYLOR
Academy of Management Journal, 44, 697–713. http://dx.doi.org/10 .2307/3069411
Plowman, D. A., Baker, L. T., Beck, T. E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S. T., & Travis, D. V. (2007). Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 515–543. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.25525647
Ployhart, R. E., & Moliterno, T. P. (2011). Emergence of human capital resource: A multilevel model. The Academy of Management Review, 36, 127–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0318
Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A multilevel review. Journal of Management, 39, 110 –135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206312457417
Rao, H., Morrill, C., & Zald, M. N. (2000). Power plays: How social movements and collective action create new organizational forms. Re- search in Organizational Behavior, 22, 237–281. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1016/S0191-3085(00)22007-8
Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. S. (2011). Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 577– 610. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ .2011.61968107
Rousseau, D. M. (1985). Issues of level in organizational research: Multi- level and cross-level perspectives. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 1–37.
Salvato, C. (2009). Capabilities unveiled: The role of ordinary activities in the evolution of product development processes. Organization Science, 20, 384 – 409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0408
Salvato, C., & Rerup, C. (2011). Beyond collective entities: Multi-level research on organizational routines and capabilities. Journal of Manage- ment, 37, 468 – 490. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206310371691
Schwenk, C. R. (1984). Cognitive simplification processes in strategic decision-making. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 111–128. http://dx .doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050203
Scott, W. R., & Davis, G. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Smets, M., Morris, T., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From practice to field: Multi-level model of practice-driven institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 55, 877–904. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010 .0013
Stikin, S. B., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Weick, K. E. (1998). Organizational learning. In R. C. Dorf (Ed.), The technology management handbook (pp. 70 –76). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press and IEEE Press.
Sullivan, B. N. (2010). Competition and beyond: Problems and attention allocation in the organizational rulemaking process. Organization Sci- ence, 21, 432– 450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0436
Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13, 567–582. http://dx.doi .org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810
Turner, S. F., & Rindova, V. (2012). A balancing act: How organizations pursue consistency in routine functioning in the face of ongoing change.
Organization Science, 23, 24 – 46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110 .0653
Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: Inter- actions between external and emergent processes and strategic choice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 8, 171–222.
Tyre, M. J., & Orlikowski, W. J. (1994). Windows of opportunity: Tem- poral patterns of technological adaptation in organizations. Organization Science, 5, 98 –118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.98
Vancouver, J. B., Weinhardt, J. M., & Schmidt, A. M. (2010). A formal, computational theory of multiple-goal pursuit: Integrating goal-choice and goal-striving processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 985– 1008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0020628
Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510 –540. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/258786
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research syn- thesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504 –535. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.4.504
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sense-making in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and devel- opment. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–386. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sense-making. Organization Science, 16, 409 – 421. http://dx .doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
Werner, C. M., Haggard, L. M., Altman, I., & Oxley, D. (1988). Temporal qualities of rituals and celebrations. In J. E. McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time: New perspectives (pp. 21–38). London, England: Sage.
Whelan-Berry, K. S., Gordon, J. R., & Hinings, C. R. (2003). Strengthen- ing organizational change processes: Recommendations and implica- tions from a multi-level analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39, 186 –207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886303256270
Yzerbyt, V., Dumont, M., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. (2003). I feel for us: The impact of categorization and identification on emotions and action tendencies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 533–549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466603322595266
Zangwell, W. I., & Kantor, P. B. (1998). Toward a theory of continuous improvement and the learning curve. Management Science, 44, 911– 920.
Zellmer-Bruhn, M. E. (2003). Interruptive events and team knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 49, 514 –528. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1287/mnsc.49.4.514.14423
Received March 25, 2016 Revision received July 27, 2017
Accepted August 3, 2017 �
T hi
s do
cu m
en t
is co
py ri
gh te
d by
th e
A m
er ic
an P
sy ch
ol og
ic al
A ss
oc ia
ti on
or on
e of
it s
al li
ed pu
bl is
he rs
. T
hi s
ar ti
cl e
is in
te nd
ed so
le ly
fo r
th e
pe rs
on al
us e
of th
e in
di vi
du al
us er
an d
is no
t to
be di
ss em
in at
ed br
oa dl
y.
13CONTINUOUS ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
- Attention to Change: A Multilevel Theory on the Process of Emergent Continuous Organizational Ch ...
- Continuous Change at Work-Unit Level
- Attention-Based Search Mechanisms Driving the Emergence Processes
- Amplification Over Time: Emergence Processes
- Composition Emergence Process
- Work-Unit Level Versus Organizational Level
- The Compilation Emergence Process
- Accumulation Over Time: Composition and Compilation Emergence
- Discussion
- Future Research
- References
