Module 7
OD & Sense-Making, Change Management, Processual, and Contingency, Change vs
Initiative Decay
a. Alternative Approaches to Managing Change
Of the six images of managing change, the caretaker and nurturer images have
their foundations in the field of organization theory; the other four images—director,
coach, navigator, and interpreter—have stronger foundations in the organizational change
field. This the next delve further into the foundations of the four images that are rooted in
the organizational change field and explore their implications for how to manage
organizational change. They are also the four images that, in various ways, assume that
the change manager has an important influence on the way change occurs in
organizations. In contrast, the first two images, caretaker and nurturer, have in common
an assumption that change managers receive rather than initiate change. The one that
follows, therefore explore the four images that assume that change managers have an
active role in the initiation, support, and outcomes of organizational change. This
considers the foundational approaches associated with the coach and interpreter images;
the following considers the foundational approaches associated with the director and
navigator images.
Embedded in the coach image, the Organization Development (OD) approach
represents a distinctive methodology where proponents advocate their developmental
recommendations for achieving change. Traditionally, this approach is underpinned by a
core set of values, emphasizing that change initiatives should not only benefit the
organizations themselves but also prioritize the well-being and growth of the individuals
comprising the organizational staff.
In the intricate tapestry of organizational change, the coach image within the OD
approach signifies a commitment to cultivating environments where individuals and
organizations thrive symbiotically. As the OD approach continues to evolve, its emphasis
on values, personal development, and a holistic perspective positions it as a human-
centric paradigm within the broader spectrum of change management methodologies.
OD has played a central role in the organizational change field for over half a
century. In their 2012 review of OD, Burnes and Cooke (p. 1396) argue that it “has been,
and arguably, still is, the major approach to organizational change across the Western
world, and increasingly globally.” However, as this and the next illustrate, different
images of change management are associated with different ideas about what sort of
approaches (and techniques) should be used to try to bring about change within
organizations. It is not surprising, therefore, that OD’s long history has been
accompanied, from time to time, by expressions of concern as to its continuing relevance,
leading some writers to raise the question of whether OD is “in crisis”; both the Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science (vol. 40, no. 4, 2004) and OD Practitioner (vol. 46, no. 4,
2014) have had special issues focused on the question of OD’s ongoing relevance. A
long-standing criticism of OD has been the claim that it has been sidelined from the
concerns of the business community because of its preoccupation with humanistic values
rather than with other issues such as business strategy (Hornstein, 2001; Beer, 2014).
Approaches to managing change other than OD have emerged. For example,
underpinned by the interpreter image, the sense-making approach maintains that change
emerges over time and consists of a series of interpretive activities that help to create in
people new meanings about their organizations and about the ways in which they can
operate differently in the future. We begin by considering the approaches underpinned by
the coach image and then move on to the interpreter image.
b. Organization Development (OD)
In this section, we consider the underlying tenets of the OD approach to managing
change, along with the role of the OD practitioner. We then review a number of
challenges that have been directed at OD, including the continuing relevance of the
values underlying the OD approach, the universal applicability of these values, and the
relevance of OD to large-scale change. OD as a change intervention technique has
developed over time, being influenced by a number of different trajectories. As such
there is no single, underlying theory that unifies the field as a whole. Rather, it is
informed by a variety of differing perspectives, including theorists such as Herzberg,
Maslow, Argyris, and Lewin (Bazigos and Burke, 1997).
While Organization Development (OD) is often portrayed as primarily targeting
incremental, developmental, or first-order change, a broader perspective emerges when
considering the unifying factor within the OD field. Contrary to a singular focus on
change outcomes, some scholars argue that the cohesive thread in the OD tradition,
particularly in its traditional roots, lies in its emphasis on a core set of values. These
values, rooted in humanistic psychology, form the bedrock of the OD approach,
highlighting the significance of fostering human development within work organizations
and facilitating the attainment of satisfaction for individuals (Nicholl, 1998a).
In essence, the broader perspective on OD, emphasizing a core set of humanistic
values, sheds light on its essence as a field committed to the holistic development of
individuals within organizations. Beyond specific methodologies or change outcomes, the
enduring commitment to these values positions OD as a human-centric approach that
seeks to create workplaces where individuals not only contribute to organizational
success but also find meaning, satisfaction, and fulfillment in their professional journeys.
Human development, fairness, openness, choice, and the balance between
autonomy and constraint are fundamental to these values (Burke, 1997). It is said that
these values were radical and “a gutsy set of beliefs” in relation to the time in which they
were developed; that is, in the 1940s and 1950s when organizational hierarchy was
dominant, emphasizing authority, rationality, and efficiency rather than humanism and
individuality (Nicholl, 1998b). In this sense, the traditional practice of OD has as its
focus people and is not necessarily meant to be solely focused on the interests of
management or the profitability of the firm (Nicholl, 1998a).
Central to the traditional OD approach is the role of the “OD practitioner,” who
may be either internal or external to the organization. A typical OD practitioner helps to
“structure activities to help the organization members solve their own problems and learn
to do that better” (French and Bell, 1995, p. 4). . Problem identification. Someone in the
organization becomes aware of what that person thinks is a problem that needs to be
addressed. Consultation with an OD practitioner. The client and the practitioner come
together, with the latter endeavoring to create a collaborative dialogue. Data gathering
and problem diagnosis. Interviews, observations, surveys, and analysis of performance
data occur to assist in problem diagnosis. Each of these techniques is recognized as an
intervention in itself in the sense that it involves an interaction with people.
As application of OD as an approach to managing change became more
widespread, so did attention to its limitations. Even advocates of the OD approach began
to acknowledge that there are problems in the field. OD definitions and concepts. OD
may consist of single or multiple interventions over different periods of time, so
establishing the relationship between “OD” and its ability to enhance “organizational
effectiveness” is difficult, especially given that the latter term itself also lacks precise
definitions. Internal validity problems. This relates to whether the change that occurred
was caused by the change intervention or a range of other factors. External validity
problems. This is the generalizability question and relates to whether OD and its
techniques are appropriate to all organizational settings.
French and Bell (1995, p. 334) adopted an optimistic view of this situation,
arguing that “these do not appear to be insurmountable problems at this time, although
they continue to plague research efforts.” However, other writers were critical of such
optimism, pointing out that the approach is largely descriptive and prescriptive, often
failing to adequately consider the inherent limitations and underlying assumptions of its
own techniques (Oswick and Grant, 1996). OD has been presented with a range of other
criticisms relating to the extent to which it deals adequately with issues such as
leadership, strategic change, power, and reward systems (Cummings and Worley, 2015).
Three further criticisms relate to the current relevance of OD’s traditional values, the
universality of those values, and the ability of OD to engage in large-scale change. Each
of these issues is addressed next.
Despite its longevity, or perhaps because of it, the issue of the ongoing relevance
of the values underlying OD continues to be a matter of debate, the topic still featuring
heavily in 2014 in the pages of the journal OD Practitioner (vol. 46, no. 1). Going back
20 years, prominent OD thought leader Warner Burke (1997, p. 7) argued that, for many
experienced OD practitioners, “the profession has lost its way—that its values are no
longer sufficiently honored, much less practiced, and that the unrelenting emphasis on the
bottom line has taken over.” This sentiment was a reaction to the growing role of some
OD practitioners as advisers on corporate restructurings, mergers and takeovers, and so
on, despite the lack of evidence of the values core to OD being central to such changes.
As a result, a view formed that “OD has lost some of its power, its presence, and
perhaps its perspective” (Burke, 1997, p. 7). An editor of OD Practitioner at the time,
Dave Nicholl, agreed with Burke’s general assessment, pointing to how many of the
values of OD are confrontational to many of the values held in our organizations, leading
to “stark contrasts” between being relevant and value-neutral or being value-laden and
marginal (Nicholl, 1998c). Nicholl argued that OD practitioners need to remind
themselves of the dilemma they face, of assisting both individual development and
organizational performance—which he characterizes as “contradictory elements.” By
delving back into OD’s heritage, Nicholl (1999) suggested that they regain their humility
and present to clients not certainty but educated conjecture. Finally, he proposed the need
for a paradigm shift in how the corporation is viewed and rebuilt, allowing space to
recognize that corporations are not necessarily just institutions for profit but social
institutions.
Other OD writers have challenged managers to make their organizations more
inclusive (multiple levels of involvement in decision making), to create mutual
accountability (linking performance remuneration to adherence to core values,
stakeholders, and corporate sustainability), to reinforce interdependence (between
individuals, organizations, and the wider society), to expand notions of time and space
(such as considering the impact of decisions for future generations), to ensure the wise
use of natural resources (such as consideration of renewable and nonrenewable
resources), and to redefine the purpose of the organization in terms of multiple
stakeholders (including customers, stockholders, community, planet, descendants,
organizational leaders, employees, and directors) (Gelinas and James, 1999).
The challenge directed at Organization Development (OD) revolves around the
question of its relevance beyond the borders of the United States, where it originated and
predominantly developed. This inquiry delves into whether the approach and the values
that underpin OD, rooted in its American origins, maintain their appropriateness and
effectiveness in diverse global contexts. Similar to the ongoing debate regarding the
enduring relevance of OD values over time, the discourse on the global appropriateness
of these values persists, reflecting a dynamic conversation within the field (see, for
instance, Sorenson and Yaeger, 2014).
In summary, the debate on the global appropriateness of OD values showcases the
dynamic nature of the field and its responsiveness to diverse organizational landscapes.
While some argue for the need to contextualize OD to fit different cultural settings,
others emphasize the universality of its humanistic principles. Empirical research,
practical experiences, and emerging trends contribute to an ongoing dialogue that informs
the evolution of OD as it continues to shape organizational development on a global
scale.
Some advocates portray OD change values as being universal, with cultural
differences serving as “a veneer which covers common fundamental human existence”
(Blake et al., 2000, p. 60). For example, Blake et al. (2000) claim that the classic
Managerial (or Leadership) Grid framework developed by Robert Blake and Jane
Mouton in the 1960s has been applied successfully in many different countries. For Blake
et al. (2000, p. 54), this framework was “probably the first systematic, comprehensive
approach to organizational change” and had played a central role in the development of
OD. They argue that the grid sustains and extends core OD values in seeking greater
candor, openness, and trust in organizations. The grid maps seven leadership styles that
vary in terms of their emphasis on people versus results: controlling, accommodating,
status quo, indifferent, paternalist, opportunist, and sound—the latter style being
preferred insofar as it portrays a leadership style that is concerned for both results and
people (Blake et al., 2000).
The grid has been used as the basis for change leadership seminars, helping to
establish both individual awareness and skills. In response to the question of the grid’s
applicability outside of the United States, they claim that it has been used extensively in a
variety of countries (including within Asia), in part because of “its ability to effectively
employ a universal model of effective management and organizational development
within diverse cultures” (Blake et al., 2000, p. 59). Similarly, for Sorenson and Yaeger
(2014, p. 58) the evidence from years of application of OD in diverse countries is that
national cultural values are more akin to “a veneer that covers more fundamental and
universal needs, needs which are reflected in the fundamental values of OD.”
However, other OD advocates are more circumspect about how far the OD
approach is relevant across cultural boundaries. For example, Marshak (1993) contends
that there are fundamentally different assumptions underlying Eastern (Confucian/Taoist)
and Western (Lewinian/OD) views of organizational change. These differences are
outlined. Marshak’s (1993) view is that OD practitioners need to view with care any
assumptions they may hold that OD practices have universal applicability, while Mirvis
(2006) recommends that OD become more open to a pluralism of ideas by drawing from
both Eastern and Western styles of thought. Similarly, Fagenson-Eland et al. (2004, p.
461), based on the findings of a seven-nation study, conclude that “OD practitioners
should carefully consider dimensions of national culture when recommending specific
OD interventions.”
One of the biggest challenges to the traditional OD field was the criticism that it
was ill suited to handle large-scale organizational change. Traditional OD techniques
focused on working with individuals and group dynamics through processes such as
survey feedback and team building. Such methods came under attack as being
insufficient to deal with the large-scale changes needed by organizations to cope with the
hypercompetitive business world that confronts them (Manning and Binzagr, 1996, p.
269). OD was seen as “too slow, too incremental and too participative” to be the way to
manage change at a time when organizations often faced the need to make major change
and to do so with speed (Burnes and Cooke, 2012, p. 1397).
As a result of such criticisms, many OD practitioners began to move their focus
from micro-organizational issues to macro, large-system issues, including aligning
change to the strategic needs of the organization (Worley et al., 1996). This has led to the
development of a range of techniques designed to get the whole organizational system, or
at least representatives of different stakeholders of the whole system, into a room at the
same time.
Whole system techniques take a variety of forms and names, including search
conference, future search, real-time strategic change, World Café (see box), town hall
meetings, simu-real, whole-system design, open-space technology, ICA strategic
planning process, participative design, fast-cycle full participation, large-scale interactive
process, and appreciative future search (Axelrod, 1992; Bunker and Alban, 1992, 1997;
Dannemiller and Jacobs, 1992; Emery and Purser, 1996; Fuller et al., 2000; Holman et
al., 2007; Klein, 1992; Levine and Mohr, 1998; Manning and Binzagr, 1996). Such
techniques are typically designed to work with up to thousands of people at a time.
The various techniques do entail differences. Some techniques assume that
organizational participants can shape and enact both their organization and its
surrounding environment; others are based on the assumption that the environment is
given (although its defining characteristics may need to be actively agreed upon) and that
organizations and their participants join together democratically to identify appropriate
adaptation processes. Other differences relate to the extent to which the technique
includes a majority of organizational members and stakeholders. Some techniques are
highly structured and use a consultant who manages the process, whereas others utilize a
more flexible self-design approach (Manning and Binzagr, 1996).
What unites these techniques is an underlying assumption that “the few are no
longer left in the position of deciding for the many” as a result of the inclusion of “new
and different voices” in the change process (Axelrod, 2001, p. 22). These techniques are
designed to assist organizations in being responsive to their current business conditions
by providing the means “for getting the message to the total system by enhancing
everyone’s understanding of the organization’s situation and its context. This reframing
leads to a common recognition of the changes required and becomes the impetus for
concerted actions” (Bunker and Alban, 1992). An example of this technique in a large
setting, involving over 4,000 people who came together to identify how the World Trade
Center 9/11 site should be developed, is outlined below.
Although designed, as the name suggests, for application in large-scale system-
wide situations such as that represented in the World Trade Center example, these
methods have also been applied in smaller-scale situations such as that described below
involving the Museum of Science and Technology. Proponents of large-scale intervention
approaches are glowing, sometimes almost evangelical, in expounding their benefits.
Weisbord (1992, pp. 9–10) claims that future search conference outcomes “can be quite
startling” and produce restructured bureaucratic hierarchies in which “people previously
in opposition often act together across historic barriers in less than 48 hours.” Results
emerge “with greater speed and increased commitment and greatly reduced resistance by
the rest of the organization” (Axelrod, 1992, p. 507), enhancing “innovation, adaptation,
and learning” (Axelrod, 2001, p. 22).
However, alongside testaments to the success of these techniques are
disagreements regarding both the origin of large-scale, whole-system change techniques
and their likely effectiveness in highly volatile environments. Some writers disagree with
the version of “OD history” that depicts the field as having moved over time from a
micro to a macro focus. They maintain that large-scale techniques have always been part
of the OD approach and that “ODers have a strong tendency to neglect their past”
(Golembiewski, 1999, p. 5). Others, such as Herman (2000), maintain that because of the
need for more rapid responses, system-wide culture change programs are less relevant
today than more specific, situational interventions such as virtual team building and
management of merger processes.
Aligned with this critique is the issue of the feasibility of system-wide changes in
an era when “[t]he old model of the organization as the center of its universe, with its
customers, share-owners, suppliers, etc. rotating around it, is no longer applicable in
‘new-era’ organizations” (Herman, 2000, p. 110). As one OD practitioner argues, “I’m
not sure that ‘system wide’ change is really possible, since the real system often
include[s] a number of strategic partners who may never buy into changes that fit one
company but not another” (cited in Herman, 2000, p. 109).
However, others disagree. For OD consultant Susan Hoberecht and her colleagues
(2011), the increasing centrality of interorganizational alliances and networks in the
business world provides an opportunity for change methods with a system-wide focus,
because in such an environment a greater than ever premium is placed on the effective
operating of interdependencies. In such an environment, Hoberecht et al. (2011) argue,
large-scale interventions have particular relevance. For an empirically based assessment
of various aspects of the effectiveness of largescale interventions, see Worley, Mohrman,
and Nevitt (2011)
c. Appreciative Inquiry (AI)
Techniques of “inclusion” appropriate to large-scale or large-group interventions
led to them being labelled as part of a new “engagement paradigm” (Axelrod, 2001, p.
25), a “new type of social innovation” (Bunker and Alban, 1992, p. 473), a “paradigm
shift” (Dannemiller and Jacobs, 1992, p. 497), and “an evolution in human thought,
vision and values uniquely suited to our awesome 21st Century technical, economic, and
social dilemmas” (Weisbord, 1992, p. 6). They represented a shift from the emphasis on
problem-solving and conflict management, common to earlier OD programs, to a focus
on joint envisioning of the future. For example, Fuller and colleagues (2000, p. 31)
maintain that with a problem-solving approach comes the assumption that “organizing is
a problem to be solved,” one that entails steps such as problem identification, analysis of
causes and solutions, and the development of action plans.
In their outline of the benefits of appreciative inquiry, Fuller et al. (2000, p. 31)
claim that it “releases an outpouring of new constructive conversations,” “unleashes a
selfsustaining learning capacity within the organization,” “creates the conditions
necessary for self-organizing to flourish,” and “provides a reservoir of strength for
positive change.” These are not minor claims.
While various techniques within the realm of Organization Development (OD)
have been reported to yield success across a spectrum of organizational settings
(Weisbord, 1992), the task of definitively establishing their effectiveness poses a
considerable challenge. The assessment of these approaches often relies heavily on the
claims and assertions put forth by their proponents, rather than being grounded in robust
research evidence. This nuanced landscape prompts a deeper exploration of the
complexities involved in evaluating the success of OD techniques and the importance of
augmenting anecdotal evidence with rigorous research methodologies.
The reported success of OD techniques in diverse organizational settings
underscores their versatility. Whether applied in large corporations, non-profit
organizations, or government agencies, these techniques are believed to contribute to
positive organizational change, enhanced collaboration, and improved performance.
Defining and measuring success in organizational development is inherently
subjective. Success metrics may vary based on organizational goals, stakeholder
perspectives, and the specific context in which OD techniques are applied. This
subjectivity adds a layer of complexity when attempting to establish the unequivocal
success of these approaches.
Proponents of OD techniques often play a central role in disseminating
information about their success. Advocacy and assertions, while valuable in sharing
experiences and insights, may be limited by a certain level of bias or a tendency to
highlight positive outcomes. This underscores the need for a more comprehensive and
objective evaluation.
The challenge in establishing the success of OD techniques lies in the limited
availability of rigorous research evidence. While anecdotal success stories contribute
valuable qualitative insights, a more robust foundation for assessment necessitates
empirical studies, control groups, and statistical analyses that go beyond subjective
accounts.
Organizational change is a dynamic and often gradual process. To capture the true
impact of OD techniques, longitudinal studies tracking changes over extended periods are
essential. Such studies can unveil patterns, trends, and potential fluctuations in the
perceived success of OD interventions.
OD techniques often aim at fostering intangible benefits such as improved
organizational culture, enhanced employee morale, and increased collaboration.
Quantifying these intangible outcomes poses a considerable challenge, as traditional
metrics may not adequately capture the depth and subtleties of these changes.
Conducting comparative effectiveness studies can provide valuable insights into
how specific OD techniques fare in comparison to alternative approaches or in varied
organizational contexts. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of the
relative success and limitations of different interventions.
While acknowledging the achievements and positive impact reported by
proponents, a comprehensive assessment should also involve a critical evaluation of
potential limitations, failures, or unintended consequences associated with OD
techniques. Balancing advocacy with a critical lens enhances the overall understanding of
their efficacy.
In conclusion, the reported success of OD techniques, as acknowledged in various
organizational settings, invites a nuanced exploration of their effectiveness. While
proponents play a crucial role in sharing insights, the field would benefit from a
concerted effort to bridge the gap between anecdotal evidence and rigorous research.
Embracing a multidimensional approach, including longitudinal studies, comparative
effectiveness research, and ethical considerations, contributes to a more comprehensive
understanding of the intricacies involved in assessing the success of OD techniques.
d. Positive Organizational Scholarship (POS)
Dubbed as a “new movement in organizational science,” positive organizational
scholarship (POS) is an umbrella term that emerged in the early 2000s to encompass
approaches such as appreciative inquiry and others, including positive psychology and
community psychology (Cameron and Caza, 2004, p. 731). POS developed out of a view
that for most of the history of OD, attention had mainly been paid to identifying instances
of “negatively motivated change” (or problems) in organizations and designing change
programs to eliminate them (Cameron and McNaughtan, 2014). Following this line of
argument, thinking about the positive aspects of organizational life—and building change
programs to spread these aspects elsewhere in organizations—has been relatively
neglected.
In line with the coaching metaphor, POS can be depicted as coaching
organizations to identify their “best plays,” to understand the behaviors and dynamics
underlying them, and then to work out how to spread them to other parts of their “game”
(the organization). POS has had its critics. Fineman (2006, pp. 270–73) raises four issues
that question whether POS can really live up to its “positive” aims. First, he questions
whether we can really agree on which behaviors are “positive.” What passes for being
positive will vary in different environments. For example, in reviewing a number of
research studies, he points out how “‘courageous,’ ‘principled’ corporate whistle-blowers
are also readily regarded as traitors, renegading on the unspoken corporate code (‘virtue’)
to never wash one’s dirty linen in public.”
Second, he (2006, pp. 274–75) questions whether the positive can be separated
from the negative or whether they are really “two sides of the same coin, inextricably
welded and mutually reinforcing.” For example: “Happiness may trigger anxiety (‘will
my happiness last?’). Love can be mixed with bitterness and jealousy. Anger can feel
energizing and exciting.” By focusing on positive experiences, he maintains, approaches
such as appreciative inquiry fail “to value the opportunities for positive change that are
possible from negative experiences, such as embarrassing events, periods of anger,
anxiety, fear, or shame.”
Third, he (2006, p. 276) points to how what are regarded as positive behaviors
and emotions differ, not just in different organizational environments but across different
cultural environments. Drawing on the work of writers on culture, he points out how “[e]
ffusive hope, an energizing emotion in the West, is not a sentiment or term prevalent in
cultures and sub-cultures influenced by Confucianism and Buddhism.”
Fourth, he (2006, p. 281) suggests that there is “an unarticulated dark side to
positiveness.” This occurs where there is a lack of recognition that there are different
interests in organizations and that not all people respond well to so-called positive
programs like empowerment and emotional intelligence or practices that impose a
“culture of fun” in the workplace. These programs “have a mixed or uncertain record, and
some can produce the very opposite of the self-actualization and liberation they seek”
(Fineman, 2006, p. 281).
In response to these criticisms, defenders of POS argue that their perspective
complements and expands rather than replaces the perspective of those who “only wrestle
with the question of what’s wrong in organizations” (Roberts, 2006, p. 294). Indeed,
those whose focus is on the latter question “may inadvertently ignore the areas of human
flourishing that enliven and contribute value to organizations, even in the face of
significant human and structural challenges” (Roberts, 2006, p. 295). POS is presented as
“concerned with understanding the integration of positive and negative conditions, not
merely with an absence of the negative” (Cameron and Caza, 2004, p. 732). Rather than
assume that there are no universally positive virtues, the task of POS is to “discover the
extent to which virtues and goodness are culturally influenced” (Roberts, 2006, p. 298).
Roberts (2006) suggests that criticism of POS may be due to a combination of the critics
not wanting to step outside of their comfort zone—an approach to managing change that
is focused on identifying problems—and lack of consideration for the relative infancy of
POS as an area of practice.
Where does this leave the manager of change? On the one side, proponents of
POS wish to change organizations with “an implicit desire to enhance the quality of life
for individuals who work within and are affected by organizations” (Roberts, 2006, p.
294). On the other side are critical scholars who do not lay out an alternative call to
action for agents of change so much as caution them if they assume that they will be
successful in their “positive” ventures. Instead, the critics of POS urge POS advocates to
recognize how underlying power relationships and interests in organizations (and
beyond) will limit their actions; they also are urged to recognize that what passes as being
positive will vary in different contexts and may not be shared by all. However, such
critical reflections do not seem to have dented, in any significant way, the increasing
momentum that the POS movement has gained, at least in North America. Whether it
achieves the same momentum outside of the United States remains to be seen.
Cameron and McNaughtan (2014, p. 456) revisit the findings of a decade of
application of POS ideas to organizational change covering such variables as virtuous
practices (e.g., compassion), humanistic values, the meaningfulness of work, high-quality
interpersonal communication, hope, energy, and self-efficacy. They summarize the
results as “provid[ing] support for the benefits of positive change practices in real-world
work settings.” However, adding a note of caution, they (2014, p. 456) state that the
relative newness of the approach means that not enough is yet known to be able to be
sure of “what, how or when” it is most successful.
e. Dialogic Organizational Development
As OD developed through its various manifestations such as large group
interventions and appreciative inquiry, it was moving more and more away from the
classic, diagnosis-driven approach to OD. Gervase Bushe and Bob Marshak (2009)
characterized this change by contrasting the traditional “diagnostic OD” with what they
described as “dialogic OD.”
Bushe and Marshak (2009) contrast the characteristics of diagnostic and dialogic
OD. Whereas traditional/diagnostic OD emphasizes that any problem requiring change
could be addressed by first applying an objective diagnosis of the circumstances of the
situation, dialogic OD treats reality as subjective so that the priority in intervening in an
organization was to identify and acknowledge different stakeholders’ interpretations of
what for them was “reality.” In parallel with this, the role of the OD consultant moved
from being the provider of data for fact-driven decision making to being the facilitator of
processes that encouraged “conversations” around change issues (Marshak, 2013).
Central to the dialogic OD approach is the view that “real change” only occurs
when mindsets are altered and that this is more likely to occur through “generative
conversations” than persuasion by “facts.” Altered mindsets are represented by changes
at the level of language and associated changes at the level of actions taken by
organization members.
The evolving approach to organizational change is intricately linked with a
departure from traditional perspectives, marking a significant shift away from two
predominant paradigms. Firstly, there is a departure from the conventional view that
change is a relatively manageable and linear process, characterized by predictability from
the initial diagnosis to the eventual outcomes. Instead, the contemporary understanding
recognizes the inherent unpredictability of organizational change, where the journey is
marked by unforeseen twists and turns, challenging the notion of a neatly planned
trajectory.
In essence, the changed approach to organizational change reflects a paradigm
shift from deterministic, linear models to a more dynamic, adaptive, and system-centric
perspective. This evolution acknowledges the inherent unpredictability of change
processes and underscores the importance of cultivating organizational systems that
possess the agility, resilience, and collective intelligence necessary to address their own
challenges in an ever-changing environment.
As OD continues to evolve, it remains a major “school of thought” as to how
organizational change should be managed. However, not all OD practitioners are sure
that a move from [diagnostic] OD to dialogic OD is sufficient to position OD optimally
for being able to have an influence on how change in organizations is managed. For
example, both Worley (2014) and Bartunek and Woodman (2015) argue that the
diagnostic-dialogic dichotomy is unhelpful and that “we should be talking about whether
a comprehensive and systematic diagnostic OD can be integrated with a really good
dialogic OD to create a powerful change process” (Worley, 2014, p. 70).
In his seminal work, Worley (2014, p. 70) critically scrutinizes the prevalent
emphasis on the dialogic-diagnostic focus within the realm of Organizational
Development (OD). Rather than outright dismissing the significance of the "OD as
process" paradigm, Worley contends that a more comprehensive approach is imperative
for practitioners to unlock the full potential of OD interventions. His nuanced perspective
advocates for a strategic integration of process skills with a robust foundation in the
principles and frameworks of strategy and organization design.
Worley's assertion prompts a deeper exploration into the dynamics of OD, urging
practitioners to broaden their skill set beyond the confines of process-oriented
competencies. By placing an additional spotlight on the multifaceted interplay between
strategy, organization design, and the traditional OD process, he challenges the field to
evolve beyond a myopic focus on dialogue and diagnosis.
To elaborate, Worley underscores the necessity for practitioners to not only
adeptly navigate the intricate processes of organizational change but also to possess a
profound understanding of the overarching strategic goals and organizational structures.
The dialogic-diagnostic focus, according to Worley, may inadvertently lead to a tunnel
vision that overlooks the symbiotic relationship between OD processes and the broader
strategic context in which organizations operate.
In advocating for a more holistic approach, Worley encourages OD practitioners
to augment their skill sets with a comprehensive grasp of strategic frameworks. This
involves delving into the intricacies of organizational design, understanding the nuanced
interplay between structure and strategy, and incorporating these insights into the OD
interventions. Such an integrative approach, he contends, allows practitioners to wield a
more potent toolkit, enhancing their capacity to address organizational challenges in a
dynamic and strategic manner.
In conclusion, Worley's perspective serves as a thought-provoking call to action
within the field of Organizational Development. It challenges practitioners to transcend
the confines of the dialogic-diagnostic focus and embrace a more encompassing skill set
that harmonizes process skills with a deep understanding of strategic principles and
organizational design frameworks. By doing so, OD practitioners stand to unlock the full
potential of their interventions and contribute meaningfully to the ever-evolving
landscape of organizational effectiveness.
f. Sense-Making
The interpreter image emphasizes the role of the change manager as a “manager
of meaning,” that is, it emphasizes that a core skill of a change manager is the capacity to
frame meaning for those involved. Times of change can be confusing to those affected,
and a key element of what change managers do through their various actions and
communications is convey a sense of “what’s going on.” Organizational change is a
process which is “problematic” in terms of its outcomes “because it undermines and
challenges [people’s] existing schemata, which serve as the interpretive frames of
reference through which to make sense of the world” (Lockett et al., 2014).
Change often means that the leaders of an organization are seeking to take it in a
significantly new direction and/or to have the organization function in a significantly
different manner. In order to do so, the sense-making process is likely to involve a
sequence that Mantere and colleagues (2012) describe as beginning with “sense-
breaking” (as the leaders challenge the appropriateness of the status quo), followed by
“sense-giving” (their attempts to reshape people’s understandings of the direction they
should be heading).
Managers lacking self-awareness will often convey a message that is other than
they would intend. People in organizations interpret managers’ actions symbolically and,
particularly where formal communications leave ambiguity, such interpretations will fill
the “meaning gap.” Good change managers are likely to have a high level of self-
awareness and recognize that their capacity to provide a narrative along the lines of
“what’s going on and why?”—that is, acting as an interpreter—can meet a need.
Drawing on the interpreter image of managing organizational change, Karl
Weick’s (2000; Weick et al., 2005) sense-making model provides an alternative approach
to the OD school. Weick’s (2000) point of departure is to argue against three common
change assumptions. The first is the assumption of inertia. Under this assumption,
planned, intended change is necessary in order to disrupt the forces that contribute to a
lack of change in an organization so that there is a lag between environmental change and
organizational adaptation. He suggests that the central role given to inertia is misplaced
and results from a focus on structure rather than a focus on the structuring flows and
processes through which organizational work occurs. Adopting the latter perspective
leads one to see organizations as being in an ongoing state of accomplishment and re-
accomplishment, with organizational routines constantly undergoing adjustments to
better fit changing circumstances.
In this view of organizational change, change agents are those who are best able
to identify how adaptive emergent changes are currently occurring, many of which often
are dismissed as noise in the system., a sense-making perspective, it is up to managers of
change “to author interpretations and labels that capture the patterns in those adaptive
choices [and] within the framework of sense-making, management sees what the front
line says and tells the world what it means” (Weick, 2000, p. 238). Sense-making is “a
social process of meaning construction and reconstruction through which managers
understand, interpret, and create sense for themselves and others of their changing
organizational context and surroundings” (Rouleau and Balogun, 2010, p. 955).
In a landmark study in using and extending the sense-making framework to the
management of organizational change, Jean Helms Mills (2003) investigated
organizational change within Nova Scotia Power, a large electrical utility company based
on the eastern shore of Canada. Helms Mills (2003) found that there were a variety of
interpretations within the organization about these change programs. Drawing on the
work of Weick (2000), she argues that these differing sense-making activities across the
organization are indicative of the importance of understanding change as the
accomplishment of ongoing processes for making sense of organizational events. She
uses Weick’s (2000) eight features of a sense-making framework to show how they
impacted on understandings of organizational changes in the company. She draws out
from each feature its implications for change managers.
Similarly, in a study of downsizing in Telenor, Norway’s main telecom
organization, Bean and Hamilton (2006) point to the way its corporate leaders used
sense-making to frame changes to the company in terms of making it an innovative,
flexible, learning organization. After the downsizing, while some staff accepted the
corporate “alignment” frame, others adopted an “alienated” frame, feeling marginalized
and fearing for their job security. The researchers suggest that framing of change is
fragile, with employees’ interpretations of senior management pronouncements varying
from frame-validating (accepting) to frame-breaking (challenging). That is, when the
change manager acts as interpreter, there is no guarantee that the manager’s
interpretations will not be contested.
The topic of resistance to change, people in organizations can hold very strong
views about an organization including what it “stands for” and how it should operate, and
these views (“mental models”) can make people resistant to change that they see as
inconsistent with these views. Another way of expressing this same point is that people in
organizations can be disinclined to accept the change manager’s construction of events
(i.e., his/her interpretation). On change communication strategies, the communicated
message is not necessarily the message as understood by the receiver. In regard to the
construction of events as provided by the change manager, it is not just that there may be
some misunderstanding of the “story” the manager is seeking to communicate; the story
may be well and truly understood, but not accepted as “the facts of the situation.”
The sense-making approach alerts change managers to the different facets that
influence interpretations of events. At the same time, it is clear that these influences are
often deeply embedded and less tangible than a clear set of steps that can be followed.
Intangible does not mean less important or helpful, but they do require change managers
to be what Bolman and Deal (2003, p. 19) call more “artistic” than “rational.” Managing
change as artistry “is neither exact not precise. Artists interpret experience and express it
in forms that can be felt, understood, and appreciated by others.”
Change managers who are comfortable with these concepts are likely to find the
sense-making framework of assistance to them in exploring the “tangled underbrush” of
organizational change (Bolman and Deal, 2003, p. 13). At the same time, they need to be
mindful of organizational limitations on their sense-making abilities. This point is made
by Balogun and Johnson (2004, p. 545) in their study of sense-making by middle
managers when they “question the extent to which leaders can manage the development
of change recipients’ schemata, particularly in the larger, geographically dispersed,
modularized organizations we are increasingly seeing.”
In reviewing the sense-making framework, it is clear that it provides less a set of
prescriptions for managers of change and more a set of understandings about how to
proceed. It acknowledges the messiness of change and accepts that competing voices
mean that not all intended outcomes are likely to be achieved. However, critical to
engaging these competing voices is the ability to shape and influence how they make
sense of organizational events.
g. Why Change Fails
In the expansive terrain of organizational dynamics, the exploration of effective
approaches to implementing change stands as a pivotal endeavor. This embarks on a
comprehensive journey, delving into the intricacies of organizational change through the
lenses of change management, processual, and contingency perspectives. Before
venturing into the proactive strategies for successful change implementation, however, a
foundational understanding of the reasons behind change failures becomes imperative.
By unraveling the complexities surrounding unsuccessful organizational transformations,
we pave the way for a more informed and insightful approach to change initiatives.
The initial segment of this is devoted to a thorough examination of the
multifaceted reasons that often underlie the failure of organizational change. It seeks to
dissect common mistakes, missteps, and pitfalls that organizations encounter in the
pursuit of transformation. By scrutinizing these challenges, we aim not only to identify
the stumbling blocks but also to extract valuable lessons that can inform future
endeavors. This reflective analysis is a crucial step toward building a robust foundation
for successful change initiatives.
One prominent aspect of this exploration involves an in-depth investigation into
the various dimensions of change management. Understanding the nuances of change
management theories and practices is essential for practitioners seeking to navigate the
complexities of organizational transformations. From the classical models to the more
contemporary and agile frameworks, a comprehensive review provides a nuanced
understanding of the diverse methodologies available for orchestrating change.
Simultaneously, the processual perspective unfolds as an essential facet in our
examination. Acknowledging that organizational change is not a linear or isolated
occurrence, but rather a continuous process, allows us to appreciate the intricate interplay
of factors over time. By scrutinizing the procedural aspects of change, we gain insights
into how the evolving nature of organizational dynamics impacts the success or failure of
transformation initiatives.
Furthermore, the contingency perspective adds a layer of sophistication to our
exploration. Recognizing that organizational change cannot be approached with a one-
size-fits-all mentality, this perspective underscores the importance of adapting strategies
based on the unique context, culture, and challenges of each organization. Unraveling the
contingencies that influence change outcomes equips practitioners with the discernment
to tailor interventions according to the specific needs and circumstances of their
organizational context.
In essence, this serves as a comprehensive guide, weaving through the intricate
tapestry of organizational change. By initially examining the pitfalls and failures, we lay
the groundwork for a more nuanced and informed exploration of effective change
implementation. The subsequent sections will delve into proactive strategies, drawing on
the rich insights provided by change management, processual, and contingency
perspectives, ultimately equipping practitioners with a holistic understanding to navigate
the complexities of organizational transformations successfully.
Ask a group of managers to reflect on their experience and to identify what to do
in order to make organizational change fail. Their response usually comes in two stages.
First, they laugh. Second, they generate without difficulty a list of practical actions to
guarantee that an initiative will not be successful. This invites two conclusions. First,
ensuring that change fails—should one wish to do that—is not difficult. There are many
tools at one’s disposal, involving a combination of actions and inactions. Second, if we
have such a good understanding of what can go wrong, then getting it right should not be
difficult. Just turn the negatives around: clear vision, commitment and leadership support,
honest communication, simplicity, break down the silos, highlight successes and
positives, and so on. Sadly, while this approach is helpful, “getting it right” is not quite
this easy.
Based on this calculation, information about your change initiative constitutes
about half of one percent of an employee’s total quarterly exposure to corporate
communications. This does not take into account the quality of the communication, the
inspirational nature of the message, the enthusiasm with which it is delivered, or the
motivation of staff to pay attention. Kotter thus asks, what impact is your “half percent
sound bite” likely to have on the response to change?
We will meet this work again, in our section on “Stage Models of Change
Management,” as Kotter turns these mistakes into a model of successful transformation.
That involves careful planning, working through these issues more or less in sequence,
and not missing or rushing any of them—which takes time. However, given the rapid
pace of contemporary change, many organizations perhaps try to take too many shortcuts,
in an attempt to put change in place quickly, and get it wrong as a result.
While it may be an oversimplification to claim that successful change just means
avoiding these mistakes, they should be avoided nevertheless. It is also important to
recognize that there are many of these mistakes, and that in any particular setting, several
of those factors may be combining to ensure that the change program fails. Success or
failure can rarely be explained with reference to only a single factor. What are the costs
involved in avoiding these mistakes? Almost all of the remedies are cost-neutral,
involving changes in leadership and management style, and in organizational policies and
procedures. In short, while ensuring that change will fail involves little or no cost, most
of the actions required to “get it right” are also free.
h. Change by Checklist
The landscape of practical advice for the change manager is dominated by simple
checklists. These have also been described as “n-step recipes,” where “n” is the number
of items on the list. This approach is open to the criticism that it oversimplifies a complex
process. However simplified, it is probably accurate to claim that, in most cases, if the
change manager does not follow most of the advice in these checklists, then the change
program could run into trouble.
Checklist approaches to change management assume that the process is logical
and linear, and can therefore be controlled by planning and then following the correct set
of steps. This “rational linear”’ model of change has been widely criticized (e.g., Graetz
and Smith, 2010), but it remains popular with professional bodies and management
consultancies. This is probably because these checklists or recipes codify what is usually
a messy and iterative process, and thus offer the busy change manager straightforward
advice on what to do in order to improve the chances of success. In this section, we will
consider some of these checklists, and assess the strengths and limitations of this
approach.
Change managers are advised to calculate scores for each of the DICE factors. For
example, duration scores highly if the overall project timescale is short with frequent
reviews, but scores badly if reviews are more than eight months apart. Integrity scores
well if a skilled and motivated project team has a capable and respected leader, and
scores badly if those features are absent. Are those who will be affected by the change
enthusiastic and supportive (high commitment score), or are they concerned and
obstructive (low score)? Does the project require a small amount of additional work (high
effort score) or a lot of extra effort on top of an already heavy load (low score)? The
combined scores reveal whether a project is in the win zone, the worry zone, or the woe
zone. Knowing where the weaknesses are, management can develop an action plan to
move the change into the win zone.
The ADKAR change model was developed by the consulting company Prosci
(Jeff Hiatt, 2004 and 2006). Here, the acronym is based on five elements: awareness,
desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement. Many commentators have observed that
organizations change by changing one person at a time (e.g., McFarland and
Goldsworthy, 2013). Following that premise, the focus of the ADKAR model lies with
the individuals who will be involved in and affected by change. In other words, the
change manager is advised to concentrate on individual awareness, individual desire,
individual knowledge, individual ability, and the extent to which reinforcement is
meaningful and relevant to the individual.
As with DICE, the change manager can use ADKAR as a diagnostic and planning
tool, to identify areas of potential resistance, to develop communication and staff
development strategies, and to strengthen change implementation by addressing gaps and
problems. Paying close attention to individual perceptions, strengths, and weaknesses is a
strength of the ADKAR approach, particularly with regard to generating enthusiasm,
overcoming resistance, and developing new skills. In addition, this is one of the few
models that explicitly addresses the issue of sustaining change. However, ADKAR pays
less attention to the nature and implications of the wider organizational context and the
process of change—factors that are emphasized in other models.
Our final example of a change checklist was developed by the consulting
company McKinsey, and it offers a sharp contrast to the individual focus of the ADKAR
approach. From a global survey of 2,500 executives, Scott Keller and colleagues (2010)
identify the tactics that make transformational change successful. They define
transformational change as “any large-scale change, such as going from good to great
performance, cutting costs, or turning around a crisis” (p. 1). The executives who were
surveyed identified four sets of tactics that had contributed to the success of their
changes: goals, structures, involvement, and leadership. Individual perceptions,
motivations, and capabilities are only implicit in this model, which lays the emphasis
instead on leadership and management behaviors, and on organizational characteristics
and processes.
One of the main themes from this study concerned the need to focus on strengths
and achievements, and not just on problems. It was also important to have unambiguous
measures of success, using “stretch targets,” with milestones and information systems to
ensure that progress was constantly monitored and problems could be addressed quickly.
Interestingly, they also found that progressive transformations (going for growth,
improved performance, expansion) succeeded 50 percent more often than defensive
transformations (reactive, cutting costs).
Success was linked to breaking the change process down into specific, clearly
defined initiatives, with a logical program, which those who were involved were allowed
to shape or to “co-create.” Almost a quarter of the successful change initiatives had used
planning groups of 50 or more, compared with only 6 percent of unsuccessful change
programs. Clear roles and responsibilities, so that staff felt accountable for producing
results, were also important success factors.
Success was also associated with high levels of employee engagement and
collaboration. Changes were more likely to be successful when frontline staff felt a sense
of ownership of what was happening and took the initiative to drive the changes. This
meant high levels of communication and involvement at all stages of the transformation
process.
Leadership capabilities are important, along with the personal commitment and
visible involvement of the chief executive. Leaders should “role model” the desired
changes, focusing on organization culture and developing capacity for continuous
improvement. Staff gain new capabilities through the transformation process, and
organization cultures become more receptive to further innovation.
Goals, structures, engagement, leadership—these are common themes in change
management advice. They appear in similar ways in the other checklists that we have
explored in this section, and we will meet them again when considering stage and
contingency models of change. However, Keller and colleagues also found that these four
sets of tactics were more powerful when they were combined. Of the organizations that
used all of these tactics, 80 percent met their aims, compared with only 10 percent of
those organizations that had used none of these approaches. Even with defensive
transformations, the chance of success using all of these tactics was 64 percent. A survey
carried out by McKinsey in 2014 found that companies adopting this comprehensive
transformation approach reported a 79 percent success rate, which was three times the
average (Jacquemont et al., 2015).
How should the change manager choose between the checklists and recipes that
are on offer? The length of these checklists varies; some are much longer than those we
have discussed here. While the contents of these checklists are often similar, they can
also highlight different aspects of the change management process. Pfeffer and Sutton
(2006) emphasize change management behaviors. The CIPD (2014) identifies
implementation factors. DICE (Sirkin et al., 2005) advises the change manager to
calculate scores for the change timing, team, commitment, and demands on staff.
ADKAR (Hiatt, 2006) focuses on individual perceptions, motivations, and capabilities.
The McKinsey model (Keller et al., 2010) indicates that success lies with leadership,
management, and organizational properties.
One answer to “how to choose?” may simply be—does it matter? As long as
advice in this form is used as a structured starting point, then the details and issues that
are relevant to a specific change in a particular organization should emerge in the
discussion and the planning. Another answer concerns “fit”; some models and approaches
will be more appropriate than others to a particular context. This will depend on the size
of the organization, the nature, scale, and urgency of the change, the problems to be
solved, numbers affected, the organization’s history of change, and so on. The third
answer, of course, is why choose? Why not work through several of these approaches and
assess their value in application? Two or more approaches applied to the same change
program may suggest similar—or widely different—implications for practice. The
similarities can be reassuring. The differences may trigger further insights and
investigation, and contribute to better implementation planning.
These recipes are “high-level” guides, not detailed “best practice” road maps.
They can be useful in practice as long as they are used in that way (although academics
complain that they are atheoretical). Unlike the recipes in your kitchen cookbook, these
guidelines list the ingredients without explaining how to cook the dish. You have to “fill
in the blanks” and work that out for yourself. This can be a source of frustration for
change managers seeking concrete advice on “what works and what doesn’t.” Checklists
just identify factors that need to be addressed; the challenge is to construct a change
implementation process that fits the organizational context (Rod et al., 2009). That is the
hard part. Change from this perspective is to some extent a technical exercise,
understanding the issues to consider, but also requires a blend of local knowledge,
informed judgement, and creative flair.
i. Stage Models of Change Management
Change can be viewed, not just as a checklist of “to dos,” but as a series of stages
unfolding over time, from initiation, through implementation, to conclusion. This stage
approach does not necessarily disqualify the checklists and recipes. However, stage
models suggest that the actions that the change manager is advised to take will vary over
the implementation cycle. The steps that are necessary to initiate change are thus to be
different from those that are required during the implementation stage, and different
actions again are necessary to conclude and sustain the change. Stage models can thus
complement the checklist approach by introducing this temporal dimension.
It is not difficult to see how each of these three stages makes different demands
on the change manager: first, convincing those involved of the need to change; second,
putting the change in place; third, redesigning roles, systems, and procedures to prevent a
return to past practice. With regard to “unfreezing,” Pfeffer and Sutton (2006) were
referring to Lewin’s model when they argued that, if people are happy with the way
things are, they will be more reluctant to change. The change manager’s first task in this
perspective, therefore, is to make people unhappy. But this is a “positive dissatisfaction,”
which encourages people to believe that “we can do better.”
Lewin’s second stage can invoke “Kanter’s Law” (from Rosabeth Moss Kanter,
quoted earlier), which says that change often looks like a failure in the middle. This
“law” was captured by David Schneider and Charles Goldwasser (1998), who plotted
“the classic change curve”. In the middle of the curve sits the “valley of despair.” Those
who are affected start to realize that this could mean loss and pain for them.
Most contemporary stage models of change have followed Lewin’s approach,
offering more detail and using some different terms. For example, the U.S. Institute for
Healthcare Improvement (IHI) advocates a five-stage implementation framework for
large-scale change starting with “make the status quo uncomfortable,” followed by
“execute change,” and closing with “sustain improved levels of performance” (Reinertsen
et al., 2008, p. 4). Does the terminology sound familiar?
The IHI framework details the stages more comprehensively than did Lewin, with
detailed advice (checklists) for “building will,” “generating ideas,” and “executing and
sustaining the change.” This framework also highlights the importance of “establishing
the foundation,” which involves personal preparation, building relationships and
organizational change capability, getting top team commitment, and developing future
leaders. The healthcare sector in all developed economies faces a range of pressures—
social, demographic, medical, economic, technological, political—and is therefore not
sheltered from the need for large-scale transformational change.
Probably the most widely cited and widely applied stage model of change is the
one developed by John Kotter (2007 and 2012a), mentioned earlie. Kotter’s model is
summarized. This is sometimes presented as another checklist, but this is a
misrepresentation. Note how his eight-stage approach to transformational change opens
with “create a sense of urgency” (unfreeze), passes through “empower others to act”
(move), and ends with “institutionalize new approaches” (refreeze). Lewin’s echo can be
heard in this model, too.
Kotter advises the change manager to work through those eight stages more or
less in sequence. To rush or to miss out on any of the stages increases the chance of
failure. However, Kotter also recognizes that this is an “ideal” perspective, as change is
often untidy and iterative. As with the checklists, this model codifies the stages of change
in a clear and easily understood manner. However, the change manager still has to
combine local knowledge with creative thinking in order to translate this advice into
practical actions that are appropriate to the organizational context and to the nature of the
changes that are being proposed. There are many ways, for example, in which to “create a
sense of urgency” or to “communicate the vision” or to “institutionalize new
approaches.” As with checklists, these stage models are also “high-level” guides, rather
than detailed “best practice” frameworks.
Steven Appelbaum and colleagues (2012) have reviewed the evidence relating to
the effectiveness of Kotter’s transformational change model. They found support for most
of the individual steps in the model. However, despite Kotter’s argument about
integrating the eight stages, no studies had evaluated the framework as a whole. On the
other hand, there was no evidence to challenge the practical value of the approach, which
remains popular. The authors argue that “Kotter’s change management model appears to
derive its popularity more from its direct and usable format than from any scientific
consensus on the results” (Appelbaum et al., 2012, p. 764). They conclude, therefore, that
Kotter’s model is useful in change implementation planning but should be complemented
by other tools in order to adapt the change process to local conditions.
Kotter (2012b, p. 52) subsequently revised his framework, arguing that the
components identified should be seen as “change accelerators,” to speed up change. The
new argument has three aspects. First, Kotter argues that the accelerators must operate
concurrently, rather than in sequence. Second, change must not rely on a small powerful
core group, but on many change agents from across the organization. Third, traditional
hierarchy must be complemented by flexible and agile networks. Kotter is not alone in
advocating the use of multiple levers to pursue goals, adopting a “distributed” approach
to change leadership, and strengthening organizational flexibility.
Stage models thus complement a checklist approach by highlighting the manner
in which change unfolds over time, developing through different phases. As we have
noted, change is likely to make different demands on the change manager—and on those
who are affected by change—at each of those different stages. Although the manner in
which change unfolds is rarely tidy, knowing in advance the probable sequence of events,
and how that sequence may be disrupted, allows the change manager to anticipate and to
prepare for potential difficulties.
