Towards a Dynamic Description of the Attributes of
Change
Abstract
Purpose of This Paper
The literature on change is characterized by a dichotomist view on the subject. The purpose
of this paper is to try to consolidate the vast literature on the types and attributes of change in
order to find a more homogeneous set of attributes.
Design/Methodology/Approach
A study of literature was executed on change articles and books from 1970 onwards.
Findings
Types and attributes of change are largely studied in the change literature, but there is no
general agreement on the attributes that can best describe the different types of change. Seven
characteristics were retained that can define change in all its aspects.
Originality/Value
Change is approached not as a process changing a system but as a system by itself. Although
the borders between the change system and the system to be changed are not always easy to
perceive, this view seems to create a richer picture on change. A systems approach allows to
define the dynamic attributes of change.
Key Words
Change, attributes of change, systems theory.
Introduction
The literature on change is characterized by a dichotomist view on the subject. This
dichotomic approach has resulted in a cluttered jumble of change models that do not tend to
promote the general understanding of this subject matter.
A systems approach can provide a way to describe change based on all the attributes of the
change system. If organizational change is considered a system in itself, that system will
show dynamic fluctuations during the change process that can be described based on the
attributes of that system.
From an extensive literature research of change articles and books from 1970 onwards seven
attributes of change were found. Using these attributes an organizational change system can
be defined in all its aspects. This approach is also much better able to view change as a
process of becoming than the static definitions resulting from the dichotomic approach.
Systems Theory and Organizational Change
Organizations are often considered a system within the process approach to change and there
the process of a system change is also being investigated and described. Yet it is far less
obvious to consider the change mechanisms in an organization as a system by themselves.
However “the systems language has proven itself more suitable for getting to grips with realworld management problems than any other single discipline” (Jackson, 2003). Following
the systems theory an organization can be considered to be a system containing both
subsystems (production, accounting, administrative systems, HR system, etc) and aspect
systems (hierarchic relations, data flows, etc). As such we can assume that the management
of change is a system with a specific function within the organization, the same way that the
HR system has its function. For the most part change systems are not developed in a formal
way and as such they cannot be interpreted – hence it is rarely considered to be a system.
Consequently there is little literature on a systems approach to the management of change.
Only a few researchers are convinced of a systemic approach to the management of change
itself (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992; Cao et al., 1999; Cao et al., 2000;Cao et al., 2001; Cao
et al., 2003; Cao et al., 2004; Cao and McHugh, 2005). Indeed change itself has all the
characteristics of an open system (Robbins, 1987; Katz and Kahn, 1978): Environment
awareness. It is obvious that the change system is interdependent as its purpose is to change
that environment, but it is also important to realize that the environment has an impact on the
system. Feedback. The system continually receives information from the environment about
its output so that corrective action on its activities is possible. Cyclical character. More and
more students in change believe there is no real linearity in the change activities and if there
are different phases in time, they are rather blurry. Negative entropy. Contrary to a closed
system that runs out of energy because of lack of input, change as an open system can
maintain its structure if it adapts itself to its environment. Steady state. The inputs create
some kind of constancy that keeps the system moving. Differentiation. As the change system
becomes more complex it will move toward growth and expansion. This can become a real
danger if the expansion becomes unmanageable. Equifinality. A variety of activities can lead
to the expected change.
A systems perspective allows of an analysis of the system’s structure and behaviour, where
both the individual components and the interaction between the different components matter.
A systems perspective on the management of change is better placed to position the different
components of the change management that are not always obvious or clear-cut (Cao et al.,
2004).
A systems perspective on the management of change also offers additional benefits:
It is better placed to position the concepts that function as components or subsystems
of the change management (Cao, et al., 2004).
The system approach focuses on the interdependencies and interrelations between the
different components. The qualities of change management are made obvious by
comprehending the interdependencies (Robbins, 1987; Deschouwer, 1993).
System attributes “turn up” as qualities that exceed the different system components
and hence they do not appear when considering change in terms of processes (Harrington, et
al., 1999).
Change management can be put in its context by creating a system type of change
because then it will be a subsystem in a bigger system.
Literature Review
The time period that was investigated has shown that a lot of attention was paid to the kind of
change and the characteristics that can be distinguished between different types of change.
Many authors describe only one or some of these characteristics and they attribute a
normative value to it. When discussing one of these characteristics they will make a deviating
classification in the way in which change arises. According to Ford and Ford it is the logic of
the observer that defines the way that change is experienced (Ford and Ford, 1994). So it is
no surprise that the larger part of the literature on change originated from criticizing models
from other writers and taking an opposite point of view. Incremental change is then opposed
to Tranformative change (Dunphy and Stace, 1988); Episodic change to Continuous change
(Griffin et al., 1987); Planned change to Logic incrementalism (Quinn, 1977)(Quinn, 1980
1980); Evolutionary change to Revolutionary change (Pettigrew, 1985), First order change
to Second order change (Moch and Bartunek, 1990); Convergent change to radical change
(Greenwood and Hinings, 1988;Miller and Friesen, 1982) etc.
This dichotomic approach to change resulted in a cluttered jumble of change models that –
although they all contain an element of truth – do not tend to promote the general
understanding of this subject matter. Moreover the change’s general usage is ambiguous and
inaccurate (Marshak, 2002). Thus comparing the change that was handled with its principal
characteristic without specifying the other attributes could cause a lot of confusion. For
example the main quality of planned change is the degree to which change is being
controlled. However there can be substantial differences in planned change – if only based on
another characteristic such as the way in which this planning is done (participative/coercive).
In this respect Weick and Quinn distinguish between episodic and continuous change and as
such they describe the frequency with which change is happening (Weick and Quinn, 1999).
In this article, although otherwise quite worth reading, the terminology for defining these two
types of change is sometimes used carelessly. Weick and Quinn indicate a substantial contrast
between episodic, discontinuous, and intermittent change and continuous, evolving, and
incremental change. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary renders episodic,
discontinuous and intermittent as synonyms, which obviously is not explanatory. Continuous
change is said to be incremental, where authors move to another quality – the pace of change.
However one can imagine continuous change that is not gradual but continuously
transformative. Moreover episodic change is among other things called intentional (Control),
slower (Pace) and incomplete (which is related to Dimension). These characteristics are not
mentioned when continuous change is described.
Dunphy and Stace distinguish between incremental changes and transformations. They claim
that this distinction is not a matter of speed (slow or fast) but of frequency (Dunphy and
Stace, 1988). Ford and Ford describe the degree to which changes are being controlled when
indicating the differences between intentional and unintentional changes depending on
whether a change agent effects change deliberately or whether changes occur accidentally or
as side effects (Ford and Ford, 1994). Huy discusses the aspects of time and content
(Andersen et al.) of changes that according to him have been neglected in the literature (Huy,
2001). Marshak claims that multi-variable typologies are much better placed to grasp the
dynamics of organizational changes (Marshak, 2002). This is initiated by means of a 2x2
matrix where two characteristics are being combined to have four variations. He opposes
frequency (episodic and continuous) to dimension (partly or totally) (Marshak, 2002).
Dunphy and Stace oppose the way in which (collaborative or coercive) and the pace
(incremental or transformative) (Dunphy and Stace, 1988). Kenny puts level and goal in a
quadrant with which the impact of a project can be identified (Kenny, 2003). Nadler and
Tushman combine the scope (incremental or strategic) and the response to key external
events (anticipatory of reactive) (Nadler and Tushman, 1989). Meyer et al. make a
classification based on frequency (continuous or discontinuous) and level (organisation or
industry) (Meyer et al., 1990).
The image of change with this method – although resulting in new perceptions – is still
highly incoherent. Besides in this way 21 matrices are required to oppose the seven (system)
attributes that were described in this enquiry. Yet Burnes succeeds in taking into account
several factors. He puts two aspects of change as independent variables in a quadrant: the
dimension (scale) and the pace (speed) of change. Other characteristics (object, level,
frequency, control and the way in which) are considered as dependent variables of these two
aspects (Burnes, 2000). However the definition of the independent and dependent variables is
entirely the author’s view since other combinations can be made as well.
Mintzberg and Westley are among the few with a holistic approach to change and who try to
comprehend the different dimensions of change. They look upon change as a system of
moving cycles where change shows itself on different levels and in different ways. In this
way possible variations in content, scope, control, stages and frequencies are described and
visualized (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992).
The systems approach to organizational change makes it possible to describe change based on
all characteristics of change; after all the change system presents all those attributes
dynamically and at the same time. Fluctuations in one or more attributes are possible at any
time during the course of the change process. This view better answers the description of
change as a process of becoming than the static definitions resulting from the dichotomist
approach to change.
Summarizing a change system can be described as follows. Usually the reason for a change
will be a cause beyond the change system, more specifically within the organization itself or
within the organization’s external environment. This cause may lead to a deliberate
intervention where the change system has got to lead to the desired effects. However the
system may be set in motion directly by external factors and result in unprompted effects. In
addition the change system has its own dynamics that may generate unexpected or unwanted
effects. The input for the system model of change can be one or more elements from the
organizational context (strategy, structure, people, culture). This element experiences a
change through the influence of the change attributes of the change system. The change
attributes may vary depending on the input in the system. Thus in case of a strategic change
other change attributes than with a cultural change are involved. Moreover the change
attributes will get another interpretation when they are being looked upon from other
paradigms. Apart from the intentional changes that occur unplanned changes take place
continuously. The system model of change generates specific individual or group effects,
organizational effects and social effects. The organizational and socio-economic context
affects the system which for its part affects its environment. The system gets a number of
attributes by means of its action. We will dilate on these attributes in the following
paragraphs.
Types of Organization Change
An analysis of the literature on types and characteristics of change gives the following
impression: Most articles are about some type of transformation and the difference with
adaptation. Beside this the distinction between planned change and emergent change has been
investigated many times. A lot of attention is also being paid to the distinction between
discontinuous and continuous change as well as to the absence of change: stability or inertia.
Finally also incremental change often is the subject of discussion. We will now enter at
length into these aspects.
Transformation
Transformation is a frequently used term with a different content depending on the author.
It also happens to be a vogue word: change is everywhere and apparently transformation is
since many years a higher kind of change, worth while to be investigated. But the exact
difference with change is quite unclear and there is much overlap with other concepts in
change management (Tosey and Robinson, 2002). The focus is more on change of the
organization as an entity rather than smaller groups or departments, and it emphasizes the
relation between strategy and change management. Hence the line between transformational
change and strategic change is very thin and both concepts overlap. Transformation is
compared with fundamental and discontinuous change that questions both the existing way of
thinking and acting, and the established structures and patterns. With transformation not only
the strategy and the structure will change but also the culture of the organization (Hope
Hailey and Balogun, 2002). According to some authors organizational transformation can
only be brought up when most of the staff members need to change their behaviour
(Blumenthal and Haspeslagh, 1994). However behavioural change is also intrinsic to other
types of change but only when the majority of the organization needs to adopt another
behaviour can transformation be brought up. According to other authors a shift of paradigm,
another mental pattern or other values and convictions are needed (Sheldon, 1980;Mezias and
Glynn, 1993;Clarke and Clegg, 2000).
Argyris in this view speaks about double-loop learning. Double-loop learning occurs when
apart from asking what is going wrong, also the reason why is being questioned. Learning
can only be brought up when a problem has been found and when a solution has been
implemented (Argyris, 1977). Bartunek and Moch here refer to second-order change. Firstorder change is incremental and convergent, second-order change is transformational, radical
and it fundamentally changes the organization (Bartunek and Moch, 1987). The organization
endures a metamorphosis (Meyer et al., 1993).
Chapman claims that Organization Development has evolved from a treatment of mainly
first-order change to a more transformational change where a change of the attitudes,
convictions and values is the main matter of importance (Chapman, 2002).
Schneider, Brief and Guzzo are convinced that for a permanent change Total Organization
Change (TOC) is needed, a change which permanently modifies the “feel” (both the climate
and the culture of an organization). TOC can be achieved by means of three ways of
approach from three different philosophies: 1. the human capacity philosophy, 2. the
sociotechnical philosophy and 3. the total quality philosophy (Schneider et al., 1996). Allaire
and Firsirotu apply four types of radical change strategies: reorientation, rotation,
revitalization and transformation (Allaire and Firsirotu, 1985). Appelbaum and Wohl define
transformation as creation of a new context, a new area of possibilities that did not exist
before. The result of transformation is a fundamental change in three areas: financial results,
industrial benchmarks and the context as it is being experienced by the staff members.
Moreover the organization should be capable of perpetuating the transformation and thus of
changing permanently or reinventing itself (Appelbaum and Wohl, 2000).
Creativity is an underexposed yet essential dimension when transformation is involved.
For a radical change of the organization it is inappropriate to use the trusted processes;
instead creative thinking is required in order to realize really new things.
Notwithstanding the discontinuous context many change managers stick to the familiar
incremental thinking that is based on known assumptions (McAdam, 2003). FoxWolfgramm, Boal and Hunt also state that often organizations cluster round a particular
archetype (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985): the strategic orientation and inertia limit changes
to what is in line with the archetype – which comes down to first-order changes (FoxWolfgramm et al., 1998). Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is a method to realize
transformations; it makes use of innovative technology applications to radically change the
way that organizational processes are implemented. Changing the staff members’ mental
pattern is not obvious. There is a risk that people are obliged to switch from a specific way of
thinking to another method while they do not quit sticking to the unitarian logic.
Planned change
Planned change is an iterative and cyclical process of diagnosis, action and assessment. The
idea of it is to elevate the effectiveness of the organization’s human trait by focusing on the
performance of groups and teams. The basic idea is that change is a common activity where
managers, change agents and staff members involved jointly tackle a problem and reach a
solution. The rationale behind planned change and organization development is a deep
humanist and democratic conviction as well as putting emphasis on the elevation of the
organization’s effectiveness.
According to Levy’s definition planned change:
 Concerns the wanted, deliberate and explicit decision to begin a change program,
 Reflects a process of change,


Involves internal or external professional support,
Usually involves a strategy of teamwork and power balance between the change agent
and the system (Levy, 1986).
Intentional change takes place when a change agent deliberately and determinedly creates
conditions and situations that deviate from the existing ones, by starting a series of actions or
interventions all by himself or together with other people. Planned change then is starting
intentional actions with the intention of achieving a particular result. This is done by drawing
attention to the differences between the specificity of the desired condition and that of the
current condition (Ford and Ford, 1995). Usually the process flow of planned change is: 1.
Interventions change the 2. target variables of the organization, which has repercussions on 3.
the staff members’ behaviour and in its turn on 4. the organization results. The organization is
seen as a context where individuals exhibit a specific behaviour. The working conditions
strongly influence the behaviour of the individuals in the organization. In its turn this
behaviour is decisive with respect to the organizational results: the level of the corporate
results and the level of the individual development. Interventions are activities started in
order to realize changes in the working conditions with which the desired behaviour can be
elicited (Porras and Silvers, 1991) (Robertson et al., 1993). Organization Development and
socio-technical approach are two related kinds of approach for planned change. The main
differences between them originate from their historical background (Berger, 1992).
Since many years planned change is being criticized. De Cock and Rickards state that
planned change is based on the assumption that senior management is able to redraw and
change organizations in the planned direction by simply exerting a linear logic “if … then”.
There an expected method will lead to a number of changes in line with predefined action
routines. The main criticism is that the one monolithic world view is being replaced with
another one that then is supposed to elevate the organization’s effectiveness (De Cock and
Rickards, 1996).
Emergent change
Emergent changes are variations that arise from a series of permanent adaptations, changes
and improvements that are not exactly orchestrated and that lack a beginning or an end (Ford
and Ford, 1995;Orlikowski, 1996). Such an emergent change can only arise by means of
action and cannot be foreseen or planned (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985). It arises from the
adaptations and experiments that result from the malfunctions, exceptions and opportunities
that occur during the daily routine. Every activity holds the possibility of new failures,
unexpected outcomes and innovations and so more variations are possible. This cycle does
not have a beginning nor an end (Orlikowski, 1996). The population ecology theory and its
variants such as institutionalism and the life cycle theory can be looked upon as an
explanation of emergent changes in the change system (Hannan and Freeman,
1977;DiMaggio and Powell, 1983;Meyer and Rowan, 1977;Quinn and Cameron, 1983). The
population ecology theory advocates the idea that organizations have problems to adapt
themselves because of a number of inertia factors, and that changes rather occur because of
the environmental selection mechanisms.
Stability/Inertia
Inertia can be defined as an inability for organizations to change as rapidly as the
environment (Pfeffer, 1997). Inertia refers to the number of market-oriented changes of an
organization when it changes its competitive attitude. Inertia comes in when an organization
– compared to its competitors – shows little changes in its competitive practices. Meant here
are rather tactical moves such as price changes, product changes or strategic actions such as
expansions, mergers, alliances or product renewals (Miller and Chen, 1994). Martin states
that inertia within companies arise in four stages: the founder’s vision from the beginning
defines the product concept and a notion of the way the company needs to be organized.
Steering mechanisms keep the company afloat and on course while it grows. They structure
the perceptions of the members of an organization. Disrupted feedback. As steering
mechanisms grow older they degrade marked signals and provide wrong feedback to the
managers. Defensive routines. The changes that are necessary collide with the steering
mechanism that support the actual strategy (Martin, 1993). Organizations exist because they
work in a reliable and safe way. Reliability and responsibility are of a high standard when the
organization’s objectives are institutionalized and the processes are highly practiced. Thus the
factors that give stability to an organization simultaneously offer resistance and reduce the
chance of change. After all structural resistance prolongs the time needed to realize a change
(Hannan and Freeman, 1984). As time goes by organizations develop both operational
routines and ‘change routines’, which are routines for defining and modifying operational
routines. So there are two types of inertia. One type is sticking to operational routines which
creates resistance against change, the other form arises from change routines which cause that
changes being performed in the past can be repeated in the future (Amburgey et al., 1993).
A special type of stability is ‘momentum’, the driving force that ensures that the road taken
will not be abandoned (Miller and Friesen, 1980).
Discontinuous change
Discontinuuous changes are changes that happen only occasionally and in episodes. Such
changes occur in times of divergence when organizations move away from the equilibrium
condition in respect of the environment. Divergence is the result of a growing harmony
imbalance between the organization and its environment. These changes are needed because
the organization was unable to timely adapt to a change in its environment. This kind of
changes always occur intentionally and they are controlled by the authorities (Weick and
Quinn, 1999). The organization’s institutional powers cause a kind of inertia as a result of
which the organization does not timely react on changes. At a certain moment however the
tension will be too much for the organization or often even life-threatening so that radical
changes are needed in order to close the gap. Dunphy and Stace state that Organization
Development advocates an incomplete model of change which assumes that change occurs
gradually, planned and well-organized. They claim that change is discontinuous, with periods
of both relative rest and revolution (Dunphy and Stace, 1988). The way that discontinuous
change occurs was further developed in the theory of the punctuated equilibrium, which
originates from the biological theory of evolution. The “organization ecology” arose from the
application of the principles from the theory of evolution on organizations; it applies models
from the population ecology to a number of organizations. The results from this enquiry
confirm that organizations are also liable to pressure from the environment where periods of
gradual adaptation are broken by discontinuities (Tushman and O'Reilly Iii, 1996).
Gersick compares models from different areas to demonstrate that Punctuated Equilibrium
can be perfectly applied to changes in organizations (Gersick, 1991). Romanelli and Tushman
have tested the PE theory (Romanelli and Tushman, 1994). Abrahamson is convinced that
both substantial and minor changes should happen in succession at set times, in a system of
‘dynamic stability’ (Abrahamson, 2000).
Continuous change
Continuous change is the gradual adaptation of the internal logic to the changing external
conditions. Brown and Eisenhardt criticize the punctuated equilibrium theory, they state that
in many sectors companies have to change continuously in order to survive. They found that
for the most part these changes take place through product innovations. Continuous change is
caused by combining a minimum of structure with intensive interactions and the freedom to
try out new products; by exploring the prospects while adopting a large variety of
experiments; by continuously developing new projects from existing ones (Brown and
Eisenhardt, 1997). Continuous improvement is strongly related to continuous change but
continuous improvement has not been fully conceptualized into the genre of the organization
change literature. Whereas change is often considered to be the territory of the top
management, continuous improvement concepts emphasize incremental changes that are
continuous, and worker play a key role in these changes (Choi, 1995). A known methodology
of continuous improvement is Total Quality Management (TQM) that – as opposed to BPR –
focuses on a continuous improvement of the business processes. Continuous improvement
aims at better process’ achievements by means of implication and ideas of principally those
that are involved in these processes. In this way the organization is continuously challenged
to eliminate activities with no or only negligible added value, to optimize the use of resources
and to look for gradual improvements by means of benchmarking (Love et al., 2000).
Incremental change
Incremental change is change that focuses on individual components of the organization in
order to realize or maintain congruity. This change takes place within the context of the
actual components and strategy (Nadler and Tushman, 1989). Incremental change is about
realigning the organization – working the existing ways of doing something without the
presence of radical changes in the organization’s hierarchical structure or culture (Hope
Hailey and Balogun, 2002). Even when an organization is adjusted to its environment and
when its internal organization is streamlined there still is scope for refinement, specialization,
development of staff members, reinforcement of the engagement and confidence, making
clear of the different roles, etc (Tushman et al., 1986). A pioneering theory on gradual change
is Quinn’s “logical incrementalism”. The essence of his argument is that strategies are not
developed in a planned linear way but by continuously experimenting and testing (Quinn,
1977)(Quinn, 1980) (Quinn, 1989). Organizational learning is also a kind of incremental
change, at least when single-loop learning is concerned, whereas double-loop learning rather
stimulates second-order changes (Argyris, 1996). Although many authors prefer
transformation, there are much more first-order changes. Anyway reorientation or secondorder changes are also possible by taking gradual steps (Fox-Wolfgramm et al., 1998).
Gradual change and continuous change (see infra) should not be mixed up. Although
confusion is possible as a result of the definitions of some authors incremental change is not
always continuous and continuous change can result in transformative changes.
From this study of literature a number of attributes can be distilled that are typical when
organization change is being described. All of these attributes then can be integrated into a set
with which the change system can be described dynamically. For that purpose these attributes
need to be dynamic themselves, they should move on a continuum. Besides every attribute
has only one dimension in order to avoid confusion (Table 1).
Table 1 Attributes of the change system can be described in seven dimensions
1. Scope: from adaptation/improvement to transformation/renewal
2. Control: from planned to emergent
3. Frequency: from inertia to discontinuous to continuous
4. Pace/Tempo/Speed: from gradually to quick
5. Time: from short to long
6. Goal: from strict to open
7. Way in which (Style): from participative to coercive
Scope: from Adaptation to Transformation
A first dimension is about the scope that moves on a continuum of adaptation to
transformation. The scope concerns the intensity of change. With adaptation the existing
organization as such is not modified but re-adjusted, whereas with transformation there is a
radical change of the organization. With transformation the organization abandons its initial
orientation and endures a transformation (Greenwood and Hinings, 1996). Many authors
identify transformation through a change of the existing paradigm, of the way of thinking and
doing (Johnson and Scholes, 1999). However discerning authors pose that a genuine change
is taking place only rarely, basically the functionalist vision on the organization is not
changed (Collins, 1996). From the process approach there is an exponential increase of
changes from process control to process improvement, process (re)design and process reengineering (Phalpher, 1999).
Terms used are: adapt, re-adjust, improve, continuous improvement, first-order change,
second-order change, homeostasis, alpha change, convergent change – transformation,
gamma change, paradigm change, archetype change, revolutionary change, dramatic change,
total or complete organization renewal.
Control: from Planned to Emergent
Change can occur following the intentions of a change agent to either a small or large extent.
So this dimension is about the extent to which change is being controlled. The duality
between planned and emergent change is a familiar topic in the literature on change. With
planned change the change from A to B occurs in subsequent stages of deliberate change
initiatives. However emergent change rather starts from the idea that an organization is
continuously moving and that acknowledging and reinforcing this flux is the change
management’s only task (Burnes, 2000;Bamford and Forrester, 2003).
Frequency: from Inertia to Discontinuous to Continuous
The frequency is about the number of times a change is happening. The frequency is moving
from inertia with no or only barely noticeable change, over periods where relative stability
succeeds periods of change, to periods with continuous change. Organizations are compelled
to continuous change because the organization is being touched by powers such as adaptation
to the environment, savings in expenditures, impatient capital markets, exertion of power and
maintaining the competitive benefit. By contrast stability is being forced by other powers, for
example institutionalism, transaction costs, consolidated benefit, social capital, predictability
and suspense reduction (Leana and Bruce, 2000). Believers of the Punctuated Equilibrium
Theory agree that bureaucratic organizations have longer periods of convergence and
incremental changes alternating with short bursts of intense discontinuous change (Mezias
and Glynn, 1993).
Four other attributes are present less explicit in literature although they are indispensable to
have a full description of the change system.
Pace/Tempo/Speed: from Gradually to Quick
The change can be applied gradually or at a high speed, for instance in order to force a
breakthrough. Characteristic for incremental change is the rather slow evolution toward a
new situation whereas quick changes often are “bold strokes” such as closedowns, mergers,
take-overs or other radical strategic decisions that bring about abrupt significant changes
(Greenwood and Hinings, 1996;Kanter et al., 1992).
A substantial motivation to implement quick interventions is that it may create the
momentum needed to break the inertia that was built throughout the years (Miller and Chen,
1994). Furthermore the chances of resistance are reduced and the period of suspense and risk
is restricted (Romanelli and Tushman, 1994). For the most part improvements have slower
impact than renewal and many authors advocate a quick implementation of renewal; however
investigation has shown that often this does not yield the success hoped for (Amis et al.,
2004).
Terms used are: incremental or gradual change, evolutionary change, development –
revolutionary change, radical intervention (bold stroke), quantum change.
Time: from Short to Long
The time dimension plays an important part in changes. Changes can occur in a short period
or come about during a good length of time. The literature usually assumes that incremental
changes take longer than revolutionary changes (Dunphy and Stace, 1988), yet a radical
change can take years. Changes in the social variables usually require more time than
changes in technical systems. Changes performed in consultation with the parties involved
take longer than changes imposed by the authorities (Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979). Duration
is in the interpretative discourse not an exact fact but a perception of time. By influencing this
perception the dimension of time can be an important facilitator for organization change
(Staudenmayer et al., 2002).
Goal: from Strict to Open
Emergent changes arise without a purpose while planned change always occurs with a
specific purpose in mind. Ultimately the change can have a strictly defined goal or it can be
rather unclear, meaning that there is no unambiguity with respect to the change’s finality. The
goal-orientedness refers to the extent of agreement on the ultimate goal (Bennebroek
Gravenhorst et al., 2003). Creating a common view on the future is considered an essential
prerequisite in order for the change to succeed (Beer et al., 1990;Kotter, 1996). The failure of
a change is commonly compared with the failure to obtain the objectives and this failure is
the rule rather than the exception: some 70% of the change initiatives is bound to fail (Beer
and Nohria, 2000). Yet changes may have unexpected results with a positive effect on the
organization’s achievements (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985;Balogun, 2006).
Way in which (Style): from Participative to Coercive
The impact of the way that change is organized is crucial to the change’s chances of success.
The ‘way in which’ is particularly defined by the style of leadership that can vary from selfgoverning to directive, with in between some levels of cooperation and participation (Kotter
and Schlesinger, 1979; Dunphy and Stace, 1993; Werkman et al., 2001). Self-governing
changes are performed by the parties involved while directive changes are imposed by the
authorities. It is generally assumed that the senior management is decisive for the way of
change, yet also other actors (change agent, middle management, unions) influence the way
in which a change occurs (Kochan and Dyer, 1993). The ‘way in which’ is responsible for
directing planned changes and for the most part it defines the other attributes.
Conclusion
Based on the seven characteristics it is possible to draw up an identity card for every change
(Figure 1). Since it is this enquiry’s premise that changes are complex and adaptive
systems, a change’s outlook may endure several modifications; otherwise said the identity of
the change is a dynamic fact.
Figure 1 Attributes of Change Systems
Scope
adaptation
Tempo
incremental
Time
short
Goal
strict
Control
planned
Frequency
stable
discontinuous
Way in which
participative
transformation
rapid
long
open
emergent
continuous
coercive
Further investigation needs to show whether archetypes of change can be defined based on
this identity card, and whether or not there is a particular pattern involved when change
systems evolve in time.
References
ABRAHAMSON, E. (2000) Change without pain. Harvard Business Review, 78, 75, 75p.
ALLAIRE, Y. & FIRSIROTU, M. (1985) How to implement radical strategies in large
organizations. Sloan Management Review, 26, 19,16p.
AMBURGEY, T. L., KELLY, D. & BARNETT, W. P. (1993) Resetting the clock: the
dynamics of organizational change and failure. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38,
51, 23p.
AMIS, J., SLACK, T. & HININGS, C. R. (2004) The pace, sequence, and linearity of radical
change. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 15, 25p.
ANDERSEN, K. K., COOPER, B. K. & ZHU, C. J. (2007) The effect of SHRM practices on
perceived firm financial performance: some initial evidence from australia. Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 45, 168-179.
APPELBAUM, S. H. & WOHL, L. (2000) Transformation or change: some prescriptions for
health care organizations. Managing Service Quality, 10, 279-298.
ARGYRIS, C. (1996) Leren in en door Organisaties, Schiedam, Scriptum.
BALOGUN, J. (2006) Managing change: Steering a course between intended strategies and
unanticipated outcomes. Long Range Planning, 39, 29-49.
BAMFORD, D. R. & FORRESTER, P. L. (2003) Managing planned and emergent change
within an operations management environment. International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, 23, 546-564.
BARTUNEK, J. M. & MOCH, M. K. (1987) 1st-order, 2nd-order, and 3rd-order change and
organization development interventions - a cognitive approach. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 23, 483-500.
BEER, M., EISENSTAT, R. & SPECTOR, B. (1990) The Critical Path to Corporate
Renewal, Harvard Business School Press.
BEER, M. & NOHRIA, N. (2000) Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review,
78, 133-141.
BENNEBROEK GRAVENHORST, K. M., WERKMAN, R. A. & BOONSTRA, J. J. (2003)
The change capacity of organisations: general assessment and five configurations.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 52, 83-105.
BERGER, A. (1992) Towards a framework aligning implementation change strategies to a
situation-specific context. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 12, 32, 13p.
BURNES, B. (2000) Managing Change: a Strategic Approach to Organisational Dynamics,
Harlowe, England; New York, Financial Times/Prentice Hall.
CAO, G., CLARKE, S. & LEHANEY, B. (1999) Towards systemic management of diversity
in organizational change. Strategic Change, 8, 205-216.
CAO, G., CLARKE, S. & LEHANEY, B. (2000) A systemic view of organisational change
and TQM. The TQM Magazine, 12, 186-193.
CAO, G., CLARKE, S. & LEHANEY, B. (2001) A critique of BPR from a holistic
perspective. Business Process Management Journal, 7, 332-339.
CAO, G., CLARKE, S. & LEHANEY, B. (2003) Diversity management in organizational
change: towards a systemic framework. Systems Research and Behavioral Science,
20, 231-242.
CAO, G. M., CLARKE, S. & LEHANEY, B. (2004) The need for a systemic approach to
change management - a case study. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 17, 103126.
CAO, G. M. & MCHUGH, M. (2005) A systemic view of change management and its
conceptual underpinnings. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 18, 475-490.
CHAPMAN, J. A. (2002) A framework for transformational change in organisations.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 23, 16-25.
CHOI, T. (1995) Conceptualizing continuous improvement: Implications for organizational
change. Omega, 23, 607-624.
CLARKE, T. & CLEGG, S. (2000) Management paradigms for the new millennium.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 2, 45-64.
COLLINS, D. (1996) New paradigms for change? Theories of organisation and the
organisation of theories. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9, 9-23.
DIMAGGIO, P. J. & POWELL, W. W. (1983) The iron cage revisited: institutional
isomorphiism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American
Sociological Review, 48, 147, 114p.
DUNPHY, D. C. & STACE, D. A. (1988) Transformational and coercive strategies for
planned organizational change: beyond the OD Model. Organization Studies, 9, 317334.
FORD, J. D. & FORD, L. W. (1994) Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in
change. Academy of Management Review, 19, 756-785, 730p.
FORD, J. D. & FORD, L. W. (1995) The role of conversations in producing intentional
change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 541, 530p.
GERSICK, C. J. G. (1991) Revolutionary change theories: a multilevel exploration of the
punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Management Review, 16, 10, 27p.
GREENWOOD, R. & HININGS, C. R. (1988) Organizational design types, tracks and the
dynamics of strategic change. Organization Studies, 9, 293-316.
GREENWOOD, R. & HININGS, C. R. (1996) Understanding radical organizational change:
bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management
Review, 21, 1022, 1033p.
HANNAN, M. T. & FREEMAN, J. (1977) The population ecology of organizations.
American Journal of Sociology, 82, 929-964.
HOPE HAILEY, V. & BALOGUN, J. (2002) Devising context sensitive approaches to
change: the example of Glaxo Wellcome. Long Range Planning, 35, 153-178.
HUY, Q. N. (2001) Time, temporal capability, and planned change. Academy of Management
Review, 26, 601, 623p.
JOHNSON, G. & SCHOLES, K. (1999) Exploring Corporate Strategy, London; New York,
Prentice Hall Europe.
KANTER, R. M., STEIN, B. A. & JICK, T. D. (1992) The Challenge of Organizational
Change: How People Experience It and Leaders Guide It, New York, The Free Press.
KATZ, D. & KAHN, R. L. (1978) The social psychology of organizations, New York, Wiley.
KOCHAN, T. A. & DYER, L. (1993) Managing transformational change: the role of Human
Resource professionals. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 4,
569, 522p.
KOTTER, J. P. (1996) Leading Change, Boston, Mass., Harvard Business School Press.
KOTTER, J. P. & SCHLESINGER, L. A. (1979) Choosing strategies for change. Harvard
Business Review, 57, 106-114.
LEANA, C. R. & BRUCE, B. (2000) Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in
organizational life. Academy of Management Review, 25, 753, 757p.
LOVE, P. E. D., LI, H., IRANI, Z. & HOLT, G. D. (2000) Re-thinking TQM: toward a
framework for facilitating learning and change in construction organizations. The
TQM Magazine, 12, 107-117.
MARSHAK, R. J. (2002) Changing the language of change: how new contexts and concepts
are challenging the ways we think and talk about organizational change. Strategic
Change, 11, 279-286.
MCADAM, R. (2003) Radical change: a conceptual model for research agendas. Leadership
and Organization Development Journal, 24, 226-235.
MEYER, A. D., BETTENHAUSEN, K. R. & TYLER, B. B. (1993) Organizations reacting to
hyperturbulence. IN HUBER, G. P. & GLICK, W. H. (Eds.) Organizational Change
and Redesign: Ideas and Insights for Improving Performance. New York, Oxford
University Press.
MEYER, A. D., BROOKS, G. R. & GOES, J. B. (1990) Environmental jolts and industry
revolutions - Organizational responses to discontinuous change. Strategic
Management Journal, 11, 93-110.
MEYER, J. W. & ROWAN, B. (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as
myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340-363.
MEZIAS, S. J. & GLYNN, M. A. (1993) The 3 Faces of Corporate Renewal - Institution,
Revolution, and Evolution. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 77-101.
MILLER, D. & CHEN, M. J. (1994) Sources and consequences of competitive inertia - a
study of the United-States airline industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 123.
MILLER, D. & FRIESEN, P. H. (1980) Archetypes of organizational transition.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 268, 232p.
MILLER, D. & FRIESEN, P. H. (1982) Structural Change and performance: Quantum versus
piecemeal incremental approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 867-892.
MINTZBERG, H. & WATERS, J. A. (1985) Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic
Management Journal, 6, 257,216p.
MINTZBERG, H. & WESTLEY, F. (1992) Cycles of organizational change. Strategic
Management Journal, 13, 39-59, 21p.
NADLER, D. A. & TUSHMAN, M. L. (1989) Organizational frame bending: principles for
managing reorientation. Academy of Management Executive, 3, 194, 111p.
ORLIKOWSKI, W. J. (1996) Improvising organizational transformation over time: a situated
change perspective. Information Systems Research, 7, 63-92, 30p.
PFEFFER, J. (1997) Pitfalls on the road to measurement: The dangerous liaison of human
resources with the ideas of accounting and finance. Human Resource Management,
36, 357-365.
PORRAS, J. I. & SILVERS, R. C. (1991) Organization development and transformation.
Annual Review of Psychology, 42, 51, 28p.
QUINN, J. B. (1980) Managing strategic change. Sloan Management Review, 21, 3-20.
QUINN, R. E. & CAMERON, K. (1983) Organizational life-cycles and shifting criteria of
effectiveness - Some preliminary evidence. Management Science, 29, 33-51.
ROBBINS, S. P. (1987) Organization Theory: Structure, Design, and Applications,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
ROBERTSON, P. J., ROBERTS, D. R. & PORRAS, J. I. (1993) Dynamics of planned
organizational change: assessing empirical support for a theoretical model. Academy
of Management Journal, 36, 619, 616p.
ROMANELLI, E. & TUSHMAN, M. L. (1994) Organizational transformation as punctuated
equilibrium: an empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1141, 1126p.
SCHNEIDER, B., BRIEF, A. P. & GUZZO, R. A. (1996) Creating a climate and culture for
sustainable organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24, 7,13p.
SHELDON, A. (1980) Organizational paradigms: a theory of organizational change.
Organizational Dynamics, 8, 61, 20p.
STAUDENMAYER, N., TYRE, M. & PERLOW, L. (2002) Time to change: temporal shifts
as enablers of organizational change. Organization Science: A Journal of the Institute
of Management Sciences, 13, 583, 515p.
TOSEY, P. & ROBINSON, G. (2002) When change is no longer enough: what do we mean
by "transformation" in organizational change work? The TQM Magazine, 14, 100109.
TUSHMAN, M. L., NEWMAN, W. H. & ROMANELLI, E. (1986) Convergence and
upheaval: managing the unsteady pace of organizational evolution. California
Management Review, 29, 29, 16p.
TUSHMAN, M. L. & O'REILLY III, C. A. (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing
evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8, 23p.
TUSHMAN, M. L. & ROMANELLI, E. (1985) Organizational evolution: a metamorphosis
model of convergence and reorientation. 7, 171, 152p.
WEICK, K. E. & QUINN, R. E. (1999) Organizational change and development. Annual
Review of Psychology, 50, 361-385.