Strat. Change 11: 243–251 (2002)
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jsc.600
Who says change can be managed?
Positions, perspectives and
problematics
Ian Palmer1∗ and Richard Dunford2
1
2
University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
• We pick up a current challenge in the change management literature — whether change
can be managed. The answer to this question depends upon the underlying image one
has of both managing and change.
• We develop a model based upon two images of managing (management as controlling;
management as shaping) and three images of change outcomes (intended, partially
intended and unintended).
• From this we identify six views on managing change: directing, navigating, caretaking,
coaching, interpreting and nurturing.
• We outline different theories associated with each of these views.
• Theorists and practitioners hold differing images of what ‘managing change’ actually
means — which leads them to talk past each other when attempting to engage in
dialogue around how change can be managed.
Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Introduction
At the 2001 Academy of Management Conference in Washington, DC the prominent
change writer, Warner Burke, quipped:
‘Change management: now there’s an oxymoron!’ His statement was probably tonguein-cheek but it prompts us to reflect on the
question of whether change is manageable.
We argue that the answer to this question
depends upon the images one holds about
both managing and change. We develop a
model based upon differing images and identify six change management positions which
can be applied to answering this question.
* Correspondence to: Ian Palmer, School of Management, University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123,
Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia.
E-mail: I.Palmer@uts.edu.au
Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
We then outline each of these positions
and conclude by identifying how arguments
about this question occur when people holding alternative images seek to engage in
dialogue.
Images of managing and change
Table 1 sets out our model for understanding images of change management. It is based
upon two images of managing (management
as controlling; management as shaping) and
three images of change outcomes (intended,
partially intended and unintended). First,
we set out the rationale for these images. In
the subsequent part of the paper we outline
the six views on managing change, and the
change theories associated with them, which
Strategic Change, August 2002
244
Ian Palmer and Richard Dunford
Table 1. Images of change management
Images of managing
Images of change outcomes
Intended
Partially intended
Unintended
Controlling
(activities)
Shaping
(capabilities)
Image of managing change:
DIRECTING
• N-step models
• Contingency models
Image of managing change:
NAVIGATING
• Processual
Image of managing change:
CARETAKING
• Life cycle
• Population ecology
• Institutional
Image of managing change:
COACHING
• Organization development
emerge in this model: directing, navigating, caretaking, coaching, interpreting and
nurturing.
Images of managing
We suggest that two images dominate writings on management: management as controlling and management as shaping. A
managing as controlling image underlies
the classic Fayol (1949) characterization of
management as planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling. This
is a pervasive view historically and one which
continues to be in use today (e.g. see Higgins, 1994: 5). Later developments of this
view can be found in the work of Luthans
et al. (1988) and Minztberg (1975) who outline a variety of managerial roles and activities
underpinned by an image of management as
control. Management as shaping is an alternative image developed from different participative forms of managing and refers to the
taking of actions designed to enhance organizational capabilities. Capabilities provide
the organization with operational requirements to assist in its effective functioning,
even in times of high ambiguity. Typical of
this approach is the following view:
Corporate capabilities are embedded in
the fabric of the organization — in its
practices, processes, systems, structures,
Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Image of managing change:
INTERPRETING
• Sensemaking
Image of managing change:
NURTURING
• Chaos/complexity
• Confucian
culture, values, know-how and technologies. Importantly this is as true for reshaping capabilities as it is for operational
ones. While personal capabilities leave the
organization when their owner does, corporate capabilities tend to endure, despite
the comings and goings of individuals
(Turner and Crawford, 1998: 15).
In this approach good management produces strong corporate capabilities. Building
in the capacity to both respond to, and shape,
external changes is a key rationale for engaging in change (see Beer and Nohria, 2000:
35–36).
Images of change outcomes
Table 1 identifies three different images of
change outcomes, that is, three different
ways in which new social practices are
established in organizations. The notion
of planned or intended outcomes is at
the core of much of the change literature
and is argued to have dominated the
practice of changing organizations for over
50 years (Burnes, 1996: 170). Change is
the realization of prior intent through
the action of managers. An alternative
image of change is one which produces
partially intended change outcomes, that
is, some but not all change intentions are
achieved. Power, processes, interests and
Strategic Change, August 2002
245
Who says change can be managed?
skill variations act to modify intended change
outcomes (e.g. see Mintzberg and Waters,
1985). Finally, while there is less focus
on it within the change literature a third
image is unintended change outcomes, the
assumption being that individual managers
may have little role in producing intentional
change outcomes. This is because change
outcomes occur through actions, usually
external to the organization or even to whole
industries, which are outside the influence
or control wielded by individual managers.
Managers and their intentions are swamped
by these actions. Occasionally outcomes and
intentions may collide, but this is the result of
serendipity of events rather than the outcome
of planned, intentional change actions.
Images of managing change
Arising from our model are six differing
change approaches each of which has embedded in them quite different ways of answering
the question of whether change is manageable. We outline these six approaches and
provide examples of change theories associated with them. In doing this we acknowledge that each approach represents a Weberian ‘ideal type’ and that not every theory
fits neatly into each category. This is for
three reasons. First, within each approach
there are variations, arguments and debates
so that it will always be possible to find a
position which appears to be ‘the exception
to the rule’. Second, the images of managing
and images of change outcomes are, themselves, not necessarily mutually exclusive. For
example, we retain three images of change
as an analytical device but recognize that
a continuum from intended to unintended
change outcomes operates in practice. Third,
sometimes multiple images can be detected
in the arguments of particular writers who
may not be even aware that they are moving
among arguments which have a grounding in
differing assumptions. Accepting these limitations, however, we argue that the change
theories we identify and discuss in relation
to each change management approach are
Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
broadly representative of the relevant underlying images of change and managing.
Change management as directing
The directing approach, in which intended
changes are achieved through deliberate
management actions, can be identified in
strategic change management models, or
what Collins (1998: 82) refers to as ‘n-step
guides’. The general contention of these
models is ‘that strategic choice can determine an organization’s formal development
and survival is a matter of self-determination’
(White et al., 1997: 1384). Management
engages in intentional changes in order
to align their organization with the changing environment (Rajagopalan and Spreitzer, 1996: 49). Directed mainly at achieving large-scale, transformational change an
array of multi-step models are available from
which to choose such as Pendlebury et al.’s
(1998: 40–41) ‘Ten Keys’ model, Taffinder’s
(1998: 40–42) five ‘transformation trajectories’ model and Nadler’s (1998) ‘12 Action
Steps’ model. Authors of these models accept
that minor modifications may be needed in
their use although most argue that all steps
are necessary to achieve intentional change.
While some authors recognize that not everything is always able to be controlled (e.g.
Kanter et al., 1992: 390) what unites them
is an optimistic view of achieving intentional
change (e.g. see Ghoshal and Bartlett, 2000:
220). Contingency models, such as found in
Stace and Dunphy (2001) and Huy (2001)
share with change management models the
assumption that change can be directed, but
the nature of this direction depends on a
range of organizational factors such as the
scale of the change, the urgency of the change
and the receptivity of organizational members for engaging in the change. There will
be different ‘best ways’ depending upon the
confluence of such factors.
Change management as navigating
In the navigating approach to change control
is still seen as at the heart of management
Strategic Change, August 2002
246
actions, although a variety of factors external to managers mean that while they may
achieve some intended change outcomes,
others will also occur over which they have
little control. Outcomes are often emergent
rather than planned and result from a variety
of convergent influences, competing interests, and processes. The contextualist or
processual approach typifies this position.
Associated with the work of writers such as
Dawson (1994) and Pettigrew and Whipp
(1993) the approach shares an assumption
with contingency theory that change unfolds
differently over time and according to the
context in which the organization finds itself.
However, it parts company from contingency theory in assuming ‘that change should
not be and cannot be solidified, or seen
as a series of linear events within a given
period of time; instead, it is viewed as a
continuous process’ (Burnes, 1996: 187).
Change is therefore ‘a process that unfolds
through the interplay of multiple variables
(context, political processes and consultation) within an organization’ (Burnes, 1996:
187). Directing is not an option as ‘there
can be no simple prescription for managing transitions successfully’ (Burnes, 1996:
187). It is up to change managers to navigate
their way through this complexity by identifying the range of options open to them,
gathering and monitoring information and
availing themselves of appropriate resources
(Burnes, 1996: 189–192).
Change management as caretaking
In the caretaking approach the (ideal) image
of management is still one of control,
although the ability to exercise control
is severely constrained by external actions
which propel change relatively independent
of individual management intentions. At
best, individual managers are caretakers,
shepherding their organizations along as
best they can. For example, life cycle theory
draws on a biological analogy by providing
a developmental view of organizations as
passing through well-defined stages from
birth to growth, maturity and then decline
Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Ian Palmer and Richard Dunford
or death. The assumption in this theory
is that organizational change is to be
expected as a natural, developmental cycle
of organizations. There is an underlying logic
or trajectory and the stages through which it
passes are sequential (Van de Ven and Poole,
1995: 512–520). Managers may engage in
differing activities at differing stages but have
a limited role, helping to smooth the various
transitions rather than controlling whether
or not they occur.
Population ecology theory stresses ‘the difficulty, rarity, and liabilities of organizational
change and the weak impact of managerial
choice on organizational outcomes’ (Gersick, 1994: 10). Drawing on biology and
neo-Darwinian logic population ecologists
argue that the environment selects organizations for survival or extinction (White et al.,
1997: 1384) and that whole populations of
organizations change as a result of ongoing
cycles of variation, selection and retention.
In all this, managers have little sway over
change. While some adherents have argued
for at least a (very) limited role that managers
might take (Hall, 1996: 192–200) the underlying assumption remains, that is, that managers themselves are rarely able to achieve
intended organizational change.
Like population ecology, institutional theory assumes that the environment pushes
organizations to change in similar ways. However, whereas population ecology assumes
that similarity, or isomorphism, occurs
through competitive (Darwinian) pressures
for survival in the marketplace, institutional theory argues that isomorphism occurs
through pressures associated with the interconnectedness of organizational populations
(Oliver, 1988: 543). DiMaggio and Powell
(1991: 67–74) identify three such pressures — coercive, mimetic and normative.
They acknowledge that not all organizations
succumb to isomorphic pressures — there
are ‘‘deviant peers’’ (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991: 73; see also Hoffman, 1999: 351).
However, the underlying thrust of this theoretical approach views managing as at best
caretaking, being buffeted by change actions
Strategic Change, August 2002
Who says change can be managed?
and outcomes over which individual managers have very limited influence. Again, the
(ideal) image of managing is still one of control — except that individual managers are
unable to achieve this to any large degree
given the circumstances confronting them.
247
achieve their intended outcomes. For example, they are argued to produce results ‘with
greater speed and increased commitment
and greatly reduced resistance by the rest
of the organization’ (Axelrod, 1992: 507).
Change management as interpreting
Change management as coaching
Taking a coaching approach to managing change is one where managers (or
change consultants) achieve intended outcomes through helping to shape the organization’s capabilities in particular ways.
We consider the Organization Development
(OD) approach as an example. The traditional OD focus is on incremental, developmental, first-order change. A typical OD
consultant acts as a coach by helping to
‘structure activities to help the organization members solve their own problems and
learn to do that better’ (French and Bell,
1995: 4). Where this is based upon action
research it involves a variety of steps such
as (1) problem identification, (2) client consultation, (3) data gathering and problem
diagnosis, (4) feedback, (5) joint problem
diagnosis, (6) joint action planning, (7)
change actions, (8) further data gathering
to determine outcomes of change and identification of further actions (Cummings and
Worley, 1997: 28–30). Such methods came
under attack as being insufficient to deal
with the large-scale changes needed by organizations to cope with the hyper-competitive
business world which confronts them (Manning and Binzagr, 1996: 269). As a result,
organization development is argued to have
moved its focus from micro-organizational
issues to macro, large system issues including aligning change to the strategic needs of
the organization (see Worley et al., 1996).
This has led to the development of a range of
techniques designed to get the whole organizational system into a room at one and the
same time (Fuller et al., 2000; Bunker and
Alban, 1992). Proponents of these ‘coaching’
techniques are glowing, sometimes almost
evangelical, in expounding how they help to
Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Taking an interpreting approach to change
places managers in the role of creating
meaning for other organizational members
and helping them to make sense of the
differing meanings attached to events. However, because sensemaking in organizations
is not necessarily a consensual activity but
may be a contested terrain, this suggests
that there will be competing meanings and
that only some meanings — and therefore
change intentions — are likely to be realized;
other change outcomes are likely to emerge
from alternative actions of others which are
based upon differing sensemaking schema.
In Karl Weick’s (2000) sensemaking model
of organizational change he suggests that a
central focus is needed on the structuring
processes and flows 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 (Weick,
2000: 229–232; see also Feldman, 2000).
In this constant movement are four drivers
of organizational change: animation, direction, paying attention and candid interaction (Weick, 2000: 235–236). Adopting
these sensemaking actions assists individuals
in developing their capabilities for managing the ambiguity of organizational change
(Weick, 2000: 234–235). In this perspective
it is up to managers of change:
to author interpretations and labels that
capture the patterns in those adaptive
choices. Within the framework of sensemaking, management sees what the front
line says and tells the world what it
means. In a newer code, management
doesn’t create change. It certifies change
(Weick, 2000: 238).
Strategic Change, August 2002
248
Change management as nurturing
Taking a nurturing role to managing change
assumes that even small changes may have
a large impact on organizations (Thietart
and Forgues, 1995: 1) and individual managers are not able to control the outcome
of these changes. However, they may nurture their organizations, facilitating organizational qualities which enable positive
self-organizing to occur. Like a parent nurturing a child, future outcomes are shaped but
not directly controlled. Specific outcomes of
change are not intentionally produced but
rather emerge from the positive qualities and
capabilities of the organization. Chaos theory takes this perspective in its assumption
that organizational change is non-linear, fundamental rather than incremental, and does
not necessarily entail growth (Lichtenstein,
2000: 131).
Drawing on complexity theory it is argued
that ‘companies continuously regenerate
themselves through adaptive learning and
interactive structural change. These efforts
periodically result in the spontaneous emergence of a whole new dynamic order,
through a process called self-organization’
(Lichtenstein, 2000: 131). Self-organizing
recognizes the chaotic nature of organizations which results from having to engage
simultaneously with both change and stability (see Thietart and Forgues, 1995: 28). Marshak (1993) also points out that fundamentally different assumptions underlie a Confucian/Taoist approach to change compared
to Western views of organizational change.
He argues that Confucian/Taoist assumptions
view change as cyclical (constant ebb and
flow), processional (harmonious movement
from one state to another), journey oriented
(cyclical change therefore no end state),
based on maintaining equilibrium (achieve
natural harmony), observed and followed by
involved people (who constantly seek harmony with their universe) and that it is
normal rather than the exception. In this
sense organizational change outcomes are
not intended so much as produced through
Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Ian Palmer and Richard Dunford
the nurturing of a harmonious Yin–Yang philosophy in which each new order contains its
own negation.
Conclusion
We take seriously the question of whether
change is manageable and argue that the
answer to this question depends upon the
differing images that one has of managing
and of change. Based on two images of
managing (controlling actions versus shaping capabilities) and three images of change
outcomes (intended, partly intended, unintended) we have identified six change management images: directing, navigating, caretaking, coaching, interpreting and nurturing
which are relevant both to how academics
study organizational change (the assumptions they make in what they research) and
how practitioners engage in change actions
(the assumptions they make in terms of
what they can achieve and how they should
approach it).
Each of these contains its own logic in
which change can be viewed as manageable — and each position varies in terms
of the criteria for establishing change manageability. Some critiques of the manageability of change fail to recognize the
bounded nature of these images and how
they impact upon answers to this question. For example, Anderson and Anderson
(2001: 9) say that developmental and transitional change can be managed, but not
transformational change. They argue that
there are too many intangibles which can
inhibit the arrival of predetermined outcomes; what is required is a mindset which
accepts that organizations can be led into
the unknown without the end point being
predictable in advance. In relation to this
argument we suggest that the notion of transformation not being able to be managed
only occurs if the notion of management
as control is retained. Where management
is viewed as shaping capabilities it might be
accepted that transformation change might
be managed — although there will be variable answers in terms of the extent to
Strategic Change, August 2002
249
Who says change can be managed?
which change outcomes are intentionally
achieved.
Notions of managing are also bound
up with measurements of success — was it
managed well? What went right? What went
wrong? However, such questions are still
locked into a particular view of change (the
directing view) and fail to appreciate that
even judging change ‘success’ is problematic.
As Pettigrew et al. argue ‘Judgments about
success are also likely to be conditional on
who is doing the assessment and when the
judgments are made’ (Pettigrew et al., 2001:
701). We suggest that the framework we
have provided makes another contribution
to understanding not just whether change
can be managed, but how change as a
successful set of management actions is to
be viewed. If management is viewed as
being only about control, then this closes
down the potential for meaningful dialogue
with other theorists and practitioners who
view managing as about shaping capabilities.
Our framework is one way of opening up
dialogue around the question of whether
change can be managed by enabling a
clearer understanding of how our images
of managing and change outcomes affect our
interpretation, deliberations and judgements
on the question.
Biographical notes
Ian Palmer is a Professor in the School of
Management, University of Technology, Sydney. His current research and consulting
is on organizational change, new forms of
organizing and downsizing. His publications
have appeared in journals such as Academy
of Management Review, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Management
Studies, Sociology, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Journal of Management Education, Nonprofit Management
and Leadership, Organizational Dynamics,
and Human Relations. His recent book
(2000), co-authored with Cynthia Hardy,
Thinking about Management: Implications
of Organizational Debates for Practice is
published by Sage (UK).
Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Richard Dunford is a Professor at the
Macquarie Graduate School of Management,
Macquarie University, Sydney. He has also
held full-time positions outside universities,
both in the private sector (oil industry) and
in the public sector (technology policy).
His current research is centred on corporate restructuring, particularly in regard to
the emergence of new organisational forms.
Richard has produced over seventy publications including papers in the Administrative
Science Quarterly, Academy of Management
Review, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Human Relations, Journal of Organizational Change Management, and the Journal
of Management Studies.
References
Anderson LA, Anderson D. 2001. Awake at the
wheel: Moving beyond change management to
conscious change leadership. OD Practitioner
33(3): 4–10.
Axelrod D. 1992. Getting everyone involved:
How one organization involved its employees
supervisors and managers in redesigning the
organization. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science 28(4): 499–509.
Beer M, Nohria N. 2000. Purpose of change:
Economic value or organizational capability? In
Breaking the Code of Change, Beer M, Nohria N
(eds). Harvard Business School Press: Boston;
35–36.
Bunker BB, Alban BT. 1992. Editors’ introduction: The large group intervention — a new
social innovation? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 28(4): 473–579.
Burnes B. 1996. Managing Change: A Strategic
Approach to Organizational Dynamics. (2nd
edn). Pitman: London.
Collins D. 1998. Organizational Change:
Sociological Perspectives. Routledge: London.
Cummings TG, Worley CG. 1997. Organization
Development and Change. (6th edn). West
Publishing Company: Minneapolis/St Paul, MN.
Dawson P. 1994. Organizational Change: A
Processual Approach. Chapman: London.
DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. 1991. The iron
cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields. In
The New Institutionalism in Organizational
Analysis. Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ (eds).
University of Chicago Press: Chicago; 63–82.
Strategic Change, August 2002
250
Fayol H. 1949. General and Industrial
Management. Pitman: London. (original:
Administration Industrielle et Generale 1916.)
Feldman MS. 2000. Organizational routines as a
source of continuous change. Organization
Science 11(6): 611–629.
French WL, Bell CH. 1995. Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for
Organization Improvement. Prentice Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Fuller C, Griffin T, Ludema JD. 2000. Appreciative
future search: Involving the whole system
in positive organization change. Organization
Development Journal 18(2): 29–41.
Gersick CJG. 1994. Pacing strategic change:
The case of a new venture. Academy of
Management Journal 37(1): 9–45.
Ghoshal S,
Bartlett CA.
2000.
Rebuilding
behavioral context: A blueprint for corporate
renewal. In Breaking the Code of Change.
Beer M, Nohria N (eds). Harvard Business
School Press: Boston, MA; 195–222.
Hall RH. 1996. Organizations: Structures
Processes and Outcomes. Prentice Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Higgins JM. 1994. The Management Challenge:
An Introduction to Management. (2nd edn).
Macmillan: New York.
Hoffman AJ. 1999. Institutional evolution and
change: Environmentalism and the U.S.
chemical industry. Academy of Management
Journal 42(4): 351–371.
Huy QN. 2001. Time temporal capability and
planned change. Academy of Management
Review 26(4): 601–623.
Kanter RM, Stein BA, Jick TD. 1992. The
Challenge of Organizational Change: How
Companies Experience it and Leaders Guide
it. Free Press: New York.
Kotter JP. 1996. Leading Change. Harvard
Business School Press: Boston, MA.
Lichtenstein BB. 2000. Self-organized transitions:
A pattern amid the chaos of transformative
change. Academy of Management Executive
14(4): 128–141.
Luthans FR, Hodgetts M, Rosenkrantz SA. 1988.
Real Managers. Ballinger: Cambridge, MA.
Manning MR, Binzagr GF. 1996. Methods
values and assumptions underlying large
group interventions intended to change
whole systems. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis 4(3): 268–284.
Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Ian Palmer and Richard Dunford
Marshak RJ. 1993. Lewin meets Confucius: A review of the OD model of change. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 29(4): 393–415.
Mintzberg H. 1975. The manager’s job: Folklore
and fact. Harvard Business Review 53: 49–61.
Mintzberg H, Waters JA. 1985. Of strategies deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management
Journal 6: 257–272.
Nader DA. 1998. Champions of Change: How
CEOs and their Companies are Mastering
the Skills of Radical Change. Jossey-Bass: San
Francisco, CA.
Nicholl D. 1998. From the Editor: Is OD meant to
be relevant? — part I. OD Practitioner 30(2).
Oliver C. 1988. The collective strategy framework:
An application to competing predictions
of isomorphism. Administrative Science
Quarterly 33: 543–561.
Pendlebury J, Grouard B, Meston F. 1998. The
Ten Keys to Successful Change Management.
John Wiley: Chichester.
Pettigrew A, Whipp R. 1993. Understanding
the environment. In Managing Change.
Mabey C, Mayon-White B (eds). Open University/Chapman: London.
Pettigrew AM, Woodman RW, Cameron KS. 2001.
Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy
of Management Journal 44(4): 697–713.
Rajagopalan N, Spreitzer GM. 1997. Toward
a theory of strategic change: A multilens perspective and integrating framework.
Academy of Management Review 22(1):
48–79.
Stace D, Dunphy D. 2001. Beyond The
Boundaries: Leading and Recreating the
Successful Enterprise. (2nd edn) McGraw-Hill:
Sydney.
Taffinder P. 1998. Big Change: A Route-Map
for Corporate Transformation. John Wiley:
Chichester.
Thietart RA, Forgues B. 1995. Chaos in the theory
and organization. Organization Science 6(1):
19–31.
Turner D, Crawford M. 1998. Change Power:
Capabilities That Drive Corporate Renewal.
Business and Professional Publishing: Warriewood, Australia.
Van de Ven AH, Poole MS. 1995. Explaining
development and change in organizations.
Academy of Management Review 20(3):
510–540.
Weick KE. 2000. Emergent change as a universal
in organizations. In Breaking the Code of
Strategic Change, August 2002
Who says change can be managed?
Change. Beer M, Nohria N (eds). Harvard
Business School Press: Boston, MA; 223–241.
White MC, Marin DB, Brazeal DV, Friedman WH.
1997. The evolution of organizations:
Suggestions from complexity theory about
the interplay between natural selection
Copyright  2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
251
and adaptation. Human Relations 50(11):
1383–1401.
Worley CG, Hitchin DE, Ross WL. 1996. Integrated Strategic Change: How OD Builds Competitive Advantage. Addison-Wesley: Reading,
MA.
Strategic Change, August 2002