Due September 16thJobs and LaborPlease answer the following

Due: September 16th
Jobs and Labor
Please answer the following questions:
Part One:
For many individuals, the nature of work and jobs is changing.
Describe some reasons for the changes and how they are
affecting HR management and organizations.
Part Two:
Managing Employee Turnover
Think about any HR experience you may have. Then, in your
own words, write one or two paragraphs answering the
following question: If you became a new manager at a
restaurant with high employee turnover, what actions would you
take to increase employee retention?
12
JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE
No 34/35 2015/2016
A Concept for Diagnosing and Developing Organizational
Change Capabilities
A Concept for Diagnosing and Developing
Organizational Change Capabilities
Christina Schweiger, Barbara Kump and Lorena Hoormann
Abstract

In modern industries, organizations are facing
the need to continuously change and adapt
to dynamic environmental conditions. To
address this change, organizations require
several specific capabilities, which will be
referred to as organizational change capabili-
ties. As the paper will outline, organizational
change capabilities are a type of dynamic
capability grounded in an organization’s
change logic. The model of organizational
change capabilities presented in this paper
distinguishes search, ref lection, seizing, plan-
ning, implementation, and strategy making
capabilities. Based on this model, (a) concepts
for diagnosing and improving change capabili-
ties, and (b) an innovative intervention design
for organizational development are devel-
oped, which are generic and can be tailored to
the needs of a specific firm. The theoretical
analysis sketched in this paper may further
stimulate theory development at the interface
of dynamic capabilities and dominant logic.
At the same time, the innovative intervention
design is expected to be of high practical value
for managers and practitioners in the field of
organizational development.
Key Words
Change capabilities, dynamic capabilities,
organizational change logic, organizational
development, organizational diagnosis
Introduction

Due to increasing turbulence in the markets
and intense competition, organizations need to
continuously change and adapt to their envi-
ronments to survive. Dynamically changing
operating environments require a proactive
approach, where change occurs in a strategic
way in anticipation of prospective alterations
(Judge & Douglas, 2009; Worley & Lawler,
2006). Proactive organizational change
requires the identification and development
of strategic options and the implementation
of the planned strategic changes. To achieve
these changes, organizations need certain
capabilities, which have been referred to as
organizational change capabilities (Soparnot,
2011).
A lack of change capabilities may lead to struc-
tural inertia; that is, the inability to address
Christina Schweiger is Senior Researcher and Lecturer in
the Entrepreneurship Competence Team at Vienna University
of Applied Sciences of WKW (Austria). She has worked in
international applied R&D projects for many years. Currently
she works as a team leader in research and consultant projects
in the field of the development of small and medium sized
enterprises, strategic management, organizational develop-
ment and change management. She holds a doctoral degree in
Business Management and Business Education from the Uni-
versity of Graz. E-mail:
Barbara Kump is Endowed Professor of Organizational
Development and Organizational Learning at the department
of Human Resources and Organization at Vienna University of
Applied Sciences of WKW (Austria). She holds both a diploma
(MA) and a doctoral degree in cognitive psychology from the

University of Graz. She has worked as a team leader in vari-
ous international and interdisciplinary R&D and consulting
projects in the field of change, organizational learning and
knowledge management. She has co-authored more than 30
peer reviewed scientific articles. Her current research inter-
ests include organizational knowledge creation, leadership and
organizational development.
Lorena Hoormann is Research Associate and Lecturer in the
Entrepreneurship Competence Team at Vienna University of
Applied Sciences of WKW (Austria). During her studies she
worked in different projects in Germany, Spain, Chile and Aus-
tria. She has been working for more than four years as a Junior
Consultant at the Viennese Institute for Systemic Organiza-
tional research (I.S.O.). Her current research interests include
organizational development, applied research in evaluation and
participation as well as systemic organizational research and
interventions.
13
No 34/35 2015/2016
Christina Schweiger, Barbara Kump, Lorena Hoormann
changing conditions. Negative development
paths and corporate crises are possible conse-
quences (Hannan & Freeman, 1984; Trispas
& Gavetti, 2000; Vergne & Durand, 2011).
Organizational change capabilities can inter-
cept structural inertia and path dependencies,

thereby sustaining competitive advantage over
time, and increase the likelihood of long-term
survival. Change capabilities may thus safe-
guard organizations from being “stuck in the
middle” – from being without targeted strate-
gic positioning in relevant markets (Borch &
Madsen, 2007). The aim of this article is to
introduce concepts and methods that support
the improvement of organizational change
capabilities. More concretely, the developed
methods will enable (a) organizational diagno-
sis and (b) the initiation of capability develop-
ment.
The concept of organizational change capa-
bilities, which will be outlined in this paper,
builds on the dynamic capabilities framework
(Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Helfat, 1997;
Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), but has a stron-
ger focus on the implementation of strategic
change. Moreover, it integrates the concept of
organizational change capabilities with that of
organizational dominant logic (Bettis & Pra-
halad, 1995; Prahalad & Bettis, 1986) by intro-
ducing the concept of organizational change
logic. As an initial theoretical contribution, a
model of change capabilities will be developed.
The model builds on the concept of dynamic
capabilities but takes into account the actual
implementation of strategic changes. More-
over, the link between organizational change
capabilities and an organization’s change logic
will be elaborated. As a second contribution,
implications and requirements for diagnos-
ing change capabilities and the organization’s
change logic will be derived, and an interven-

tion design for developing change capabilities
will be developed. The design is standardized
but can still be adapted to the demands of a
specific firm.
This paper is organized as follows. First, the
theoretical concept of change capabilities
will be outlined by extending the concept of
dynamic capabilities and linking this with
the concept of organizational dominant logic.
Then, a multi-method approach to diagnosing
change capabilities and organizational change
logic and an intervention design for develop-
ing change capabilities within organizations
will be described. Finally, implications for
future research and practice will be discussed.
Change Capabilities and Change Logic
This section provides the theoretical rationale
for developing and diagnosing organizational
change capabilities. Because change capabili-
ties can be seen as specific types of dynamic
capabilities (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000;
Helfat, 1997; Teece et al., 1997), the section
starts with a brief review of dynamic capabil-
ity research, before the concepts of organiza-
tional change capabilities and organizational
change logic are introduced.
Dynamic Capabilities
The concept of dynamic capabilities emerged
from contributions by Teece et al. (1997),
Helfat (1997), and Eisenhardt and Martin

(2000). It is grounded in the resource-based
view of the firm, which assumes that competi-
tive advantage is generated by a firm’s indi-
vidual combination of internal resources such
as knowledge, rules, routines and capabilities
and by its capability to reconfigure existing
resources into specific resource configura-
tions (e.g. Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991; Nelson &
Winter, 1982). These resource configurations
enable firms to generate new valuable market
strategies and innovations that are difficult to
copy. Dynamic capabilities are usually defined
as those capabilities that enable an organi-
zation to recognize the need for changes, to
understand the likely consequences of the
change, and to reconfigure its firm-specific
resource base to match the requirements of
changing environments.
14
No 34/35 2015/2016
Change Capabilities
Since its introduction, the dynamic capabili-
ties framework has been the subject of numer-
ous theoretical debates (for overviews see, e.g.
Ambrosini, Bowman, & Collier, 2009; Bar-
reto, 2010; Di Stefano, Peteraf, & Verona, 2014;
Vogel & Güttel, 2013). Dynamic capabilities

are deemed responsible for seizing the oppor-
tunities that a dynamic operating environment
opens up and for presenting the innovations
required to continuously maintain competitive
advantage. Such capabilities include the bal-
ance of the present and future activities of the
firm; for example, the management of the cre-
ation of product and process innovations, the
operational management of the present busi-
ness, and the improvement and advancemen t
of present routines and competencies (Borch
& Madsen, 2007; Wang & Ahmed, 2007;
Winter, 2003; Zahra, Sapienza, & Davidsson
2006). Thereby, dynamic capabilities prepare
the firm for prospective challenges.
Teece (2007, see also Teece, 2014) presents
a model of dynamic capabilities that dis-
tinguishes sensing, seizing, and transform-
ing capabilities. Sensing refers to various
activities related to identifying new business
opportunities, or innovations (e.g. searching,
scanning). Seizing includes designing vari-
ous new business opportunities and selecting
among various strategies and business models,
and it is closely related to investment decisions
that primarily take place under uncertainty
(e.g. changing markets). Transforming refers
to conducting activities that aim to recombine
and to reconfigure assets within an organiza-
tion such that path dependencies and inertia
are avoided (Vergne & Durand, 2011). Teece
(2014) highlights the importance of strategic
decision-making with regard to sustainable
change. In line with previous approaches (e.g.
Eisenhardt & Sull, 2001; Mintzberg, 1994),

Teece emphasizes that strategy should build
the basis for investment decisions and should
be aligned with changing environmental con-
ditions.
Research into dynamic capabilities provides
insights into how firms can strive to gain or
to sustain a competitive advantage by strate-
gically altering their resource base. However,
this stream of research is largely disconnected
from the question of how well firms can actu-
ally implement strategic change (Soparnot,
2011). Therefore, the concept of change capa-
bilities has been introduced.
Change Capabilities
Soparnot (2011: 642) defines a firm’s change
capability as
‘the ability of the company to produce match-
ing outcomes (content) for environmental
(external context) and/or organizational (inter-
nal context) evolution, either by reacting to the
changes (adaptation) or by instituting them
(pro-action) and implementing the transition
brought about by these changes (process) in
the heart of the company’.
This definition, however, remains vague with
regard to the concrete capabilities firms need
for successful strategic change. To actually
diagnose and improve change capabilities, the
concept must be further refined.

Teece’s (2007, 2014) distinction of dynamic
capabilities into sensing, seizing, and trans-
forming provides a useful starting point for
further refining the concept of change capa-
bilities, and Teece’s components can partly be
transferred to change capabilities: First, orga-
nizations need to sense ideas for change, from
both outside and within the firm. Teece’s cat-
egory of sensing is primarily oriented towards
the organization’s environment, for exam-
ple, towards identifying changing customer
needs or new competitors. However, ideas for
changes may also arise from within the orga-
nization, for example, because the current pro-
cesses do not lead to the expected outcomes.
Second, ideas for change both from outside
and within the organization must be seized,
that is, formed into concrete opportunities for
change that fit the firm’s strengths and weak-
nesses and are in line with the firm’s strategy.
15
No 34/35 2015/2016
As described above, Teece (2014) highlights
that dynamic capabilities can unfold their full
potential only in conjunction with a strong
organizational strategy. This also holds true
for organizational change, which should take

place in a strategic, planned manner. There-
fore, decisions for implementing a change
opportunity should be in line with an organi-
zation’s strategy. Third, transformation must
occur in the sense that the decided changes
must be implemented. This aspect of imple-
mentation goes beyond Teece’s concept of
transformation: As Soparnot (2011: 645) puts
it, even if the concept of dynamic capability
‘identifies the routines at the origin of the stra-
tegic and organizational reconfigurations, it
does not explain how these renewals may be
carried out; this is what the change capacity is
trying to identify’.
By combining Soparnot’s (2011) concept with
Teece’s (2007, 2014) components, the defini-
tion of change capabilities can be refined by
regarding them as
those capabilities that enable an organization
to recognize the need for change, both from
inside the organization and its environment,
develop and seize ideas for change opportuni-
ties which fit the firm’s strengths and weak-
nesses, make decisions for change, taking into
account the firm’s strategy, and successfully
plan and implement changes.
From this definition, the following change
capabilities can be derived: search, ref lection,
seizing, planning, implementation and strat-
egy making (see Figure 1; a similar model is
presented by Güttel, 2006, in the context of
strategic entrepreneurship).

Search refers to a firm’s ability to effectively
recognize, sense and explore the external envi-
ronment for prospective innovative products,
services and processes (e.g. Danneels, 2008).
That is, they are all routines that support orga-
nizations in observing their environment to
find new relevant external information about,
for example, the market, customer needs,
competition and new technologies. Reflection
focuses on processes and developments within
the organization. It constitutes the firm’s abil-
ity to continuously challenge internal organi-
zational routines, behaviour and the general
“status quo” (strategy, goals, vision, etc.; e.g.
West, 2000). Ref lection is related to the ques-
tions of what is working well within the orga-
nization, what is not working and what has to
be changed.
Seizing, in the sense of Teece (2007, 2014),
refers to all organizational processes that
enable organizations to assimilate relevant
information and to transform it into suitable
change opportunities. With regard to orga-
nizational change, this means that ideas for
change, which the organization has devel-
oped based on (external) search and (internal)
ref lection processes, are adapted to a firm’s
current characteristics.
Concerning the implementation of the change,
planning and implementation can be distin-
guished. Planning becomes visible in the abil-
ity to bring change visions “down to earth”
by operationalizing strategic change goals

(e.g. Kapsali, 2011; McElroy, 1996; Noble,
1999). This includes the planning of change
and innovation projects and the identification
of existing resources, potentials and barriers.
Implementation refers to the firm’s ability to
bring intended change activities into action
and to transform change ideas consistently
into new products, structures and systems
(e.g. Davis, Kee, & Newcomer, 2010; Meyer &
Stensaker, 2006; Vacar, 2013). Only through
consequential action can change take place.
Finally, the capability of strategy making
is required for successful strategic change,
which is closely related to all other capabili-
ties. Strategy making is seen as the firm’s abil-
ity to define long-term change goals, to take
into account the existing means and resources,
and to orient entrepreneurial decisions towards
these goals. Strategy making includes pro-
cesses for defining the vision, mission, value
16
No 34/35 2015/2016
Change Capabilities
statements and strategies for competition (e.g.
Ackermann & Eden, 2011).

Organizational Change Logic
An organization’s change capabilities do not
operate in a vacuum; they are deeply embed-
ded in the organization’s basic assumptions,
beliefs and emergent decision rules regarding
change and learning. One framework, which
elaborates on the emergence and effects of
organizational beliefs and rules within orga-
nizations, is the concept of a dominant logic
introduced by Prahalad and Bettis (1986) (see
also Bettis & Prahalad, 1995). The dominant
logic constitutes the firm’s collective mind set
or “view of the world”, which configures and
arranges the business model, the management,
and the firm’s structure to make decisions, to
allocate resources, and to realize goals (Bettis
& Wong, 2003; Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian,
2004; Eggers & Kaplan, 2013; Kor & Mesko,
2013).
Expressed as the firm’s typical learning and
problem solving behaviour, the dominant logic
is “an emergent property of organizations as
complex adaptive systems” (Bettis & Pra-
halad, 1995: 10) and part of the organization’s
deep structure or subconscious (Bettis & Pra-
halad, 1995; Bettis & Wong, 2003; Gersick,
1991; Tushman & Romanelli, 1985), which
underlies a firm’s visible strategy, structure
and systems (Drazin et al., 2004; Eggers &
Kaplan, 2013; Kor & Mesko, 2013; von Krogh
& Roos, 1996). The organization’s dominant
logic comprises, among others, values (e.g.
trust, reliability), beliefs (e.g. “leaders must
be strong”), mental models (e.g. what does

“conf lict” mean) or norms (e.g. dress code,
addressing extra hours).
An organization’s dominant logic affects
all aspects of organizing, including how the
organization addresses change. This facet of
the dominant logic, which addresses orga-
nizational change, is defined here as organi-
zational change logic. More specifically, an
Figure 1: Organizational Change Capabilities (search,
reflection, seizing, planning, implementation, strategy
making) that Operate on the Organizational Change Logic
17
No 34/35 2015/2016
organization’s change logic is seen as that part
of the dominant logic that conceptualizes its
change and learning processes through basic
assumptions, beliefs and emergent decision
rules, structures and systems. Therefore, the
organizational change logic is the organiza-
tion’s collective mind set, which shapes and
steers all types of change and learning pro-
cesses within an organization. Because each
organization has its unique dominant logic, it
also has a specific way of addressing change;

that is, a particular, idiosyncratic, organiza-
tional change logic.
In more practical terms, the organizational
change logic is the organization’s typical way of
addressing change (e.g. avoiding risk, involv-
ing many people in decisions). The organiza-
tion’s change logic may affect questions such
as “How important is change in general for the
organization?”, “Who usually makes sugges-
tions for change?”, “Who decides whether an
idea is actually being implemented?”, or “To
what extent are changes being planned?”
As a set of invisible, cognitive rules, assump-
tions and beliefs, the organizational (change)
logic is responsible for prospective changes
and for maintaining present routines and
behaviour (Bartunek & Moch, 1994). The
organizational change logic therefore can be
seen as the framework on which change capa-
bilities may bring out the intended change and
innovations. Although it was not in the focus
of their work, Kor and Mesko (2013) described
a similar link between dynamic capabilities
and the organizational logic. In line with these
considerations, the presented model suggests
that the development of change capabilities is
shaped by the firm’s change logic, and in turn,
the development of change capabilities may
shape the organizational change logic (Bettis
& Wong, 2003; Kor & Mesko, 2013).
Diagnosing Change Capabilities and
Change Logic

The aim underlying this article was to develop
concepts for organizations to improve their
change capabilities, taking into account
their change logic. Therefore, concepts were
developed for diagnosing both change capa-
bilities and the change logic. Due to the dif-
ferent nature of the two, different methods are
needed to diagnose them, which will be out-
lined in the following.
An Outcome-oriented Approach to
Diagnosing Change Capabilities
Organizational change capabilities mani-
fest themselves in practice when firms are
addressing change. They are basically observ-
able and measurable. They may appear in
various shapes in different organizations but
they have similar outcomes regardless of how
these outcomes are achieved. This property
of achieving similar outcomes with different
means has been referred to as equifinality by
Eisenhardt and Martin (2000).
To account for this property of equifinality,
the extent of change capabilities may be best
measured by focusing on outcomes. Therefore,
a definition of outcomes was developed that
may indicate a high level of the competence
under consideration (e.g. “How well are you
aware of what our competitors are doing?”).
This output orientation allows for measuring
change capabilities regardless of how they are
enacted in the firm under consideration. The
definition of outcomes for each of the com-
ponents of change capabilities can be seen in

Table 1: Firms with high search capability are
aware of what happens in their environment
and are able to identify ideas for change. If the
reflection capability is high, firms are aware
of what happens inside their organization
and are able to identify ideas for change from
within. Firms with high seizing capability are
able to recognize ideas that bear market oppor-
tunities and to derive ideas for innovation and
18
No 34/35 2015/2016
Change Capabilities
change that fit the organization’s strengths and
weaknesses. A firm with good planning capa-
bility is able to realistically plan changes. If
the implementation capability within a firm is
well developed, the firm is able to allocate the
required resources, to define appropriate pro-
cesses and to acquire the required know-how
once the change has been initiated. Organiza-
tions with high capability of strategy making
in the context of organizational change have
long-term goals and strategies with which to
achieve these goals, and they are able to align
their change-related decisions with these long-
term goals.

Starting from this output-oriented operation-
alization, change capabilities may be diag-
nosed with the help of (quantitative) surveys
or semi-structured (qualitative) interviews. A
quantitative survey-based diagnosis may be
useful to gain an overview of different (aggre-
gated) perspectives on each of these change
capabilities. A survey-based quantitative
operationalization may enable the collection
of data in more breadth (e.g. many employees
in different positions).
In addition, qualitative interviews may take
place individually or in group settings, and
they may focus on the question of how each
of these capabilities is enacted in practice
within an organization. Qualitative methods
help achieve greater depth and richer pictures
of how change capabilities manifest within the
organization at hand and of their strengths and
weaknesses. A combination of qualitative and
quantitative methods may provide an over-
view of the status quo of each of the change
capabilities, concerning both their extent
(quantitative) and their shape (qualitative).
An Interpretative Method for Diagnosing
the Organizational Change Logic
Because a firm’s logic is rooted in its “deep
structures”, a firm’s members are largely
unaware of it (Bettis & Wong, 2003). There-
fore, the organizational change logic cannot be
directly diagnosed with, for example, a survey
or direct interview questions such as “How

would you describe the change logic of your
firm?” Instead, more indirect methods are
needed with which the organizational change
logic is inferred from other data (e.g. Alderfer,
1987; 2011). The method that has been devel-
oped for diagnosing the organizational change
logic is based on an associative-interpretative
analysis (e.g. Alderfer, 2011; Dijksterhuis
& Nordgren, 2006) of qualitative data from
multiple sources (e.g. qualitative interviews,
observations, analyses of the website).
The following basic assumptions underlie the
developed method for diagnosing the change
logic: (a) An organization’s change logic is
Table 1: Output-oriented Definition of Organizational Change
Capabilities
Organizational
change capability
Output-oriented definition
Search
We are aware of what happens in our organization’s
environment, and we are able to
identify ideas for change.
Reflection
We are aware of what happens inside our organization, and we
are able to identify ideas
for change.

Seizing
We are able to recognize ideas that bear market opportunities
and to derive ideas for
innovation and change.
Planning We are able to realistically plan changes within our
organization.
Implementation
Once we initiate a change in our organization, we are able to
allocate the required
resources, to define appropriate processes, and to acquire the
required know-how.
Strategy making
We have long-term goals and strategies of how to achieve these
goals, and we are able to
align our decisions with these long-term goals.
19
No 34/35 2015/2016
idiosyncratic; that is, each organization has
its unique change logic; (b) the organization’s
change logic manifests in patterns that re-
occur in different organizational contexts; (c)

an organization’s change logic is a collective
phenomenon, but each individual has his own
perspective on it; (d) some aspects of the logic
are directly observable, whereas others must
be inferred; and (e) an organization’s change
logic develops based on experiences and rein-
forcement learning from the past.
From these assumptions, several methodologi-
cal implications were derived: Because the
change logic is assumed to manifest as an idio-
syncratic pattern that re-occurs in different
organizational contexts, multiple data sources
should be considered for data collection. In
addition to interviews, as much additional
information as possible should be collected,
which could potentially reveal insights into
a firm’s change logic (e.g. explicated values
on walls, layout of offices, salient symbols).
Because it is assumed to be a collective phe-
nomenon, multiple members of the organiza-
tion should be asked to provide information.
To identify the more observable/conscious
aspects of the change logic, semi-structured
interviews should be conducted. The inter-
view protocol could include questions about
the firm’s foundation and past handling of
change, the significance of change within
the organization, the general attitude towards
change, the frequency of change, how the need
for change is recognized and communicated,
how ideas for change are developed and by
whom, who makes decisions for change, to
what extent changes are planned, and what
are typical obstacles with regard to change.

Moreover, to better understand the firm as a
whole, the interview protocol should also con-
tain questions about the current market situa-
tion and questions regarding the firm’s overall
strategy.
To extrapolate an organization’s change logic;
that is, the pattern of how it usually addresses
change, from the vast amount of informa-
tion from multiple sources (e.g., interviews,
field protocols), a group interpretation proce-
dure was developed. This procedure foresees
involving multiple individuals (we suggest
four to six) who have varying degrees of famil-
iarity with the organization under consider-
ation. For the group interpretation, interview
transcripts and documentation of all other data
collections are needed. The procedure pro-
posed for the group interpretation follows six
Table 2: Procedure of the Group Interpreta tion to Diagnose an
Organization’s Change Logic
Step Content
Preparation
Multiple researchers familiarize themselves with field data
(interviews, protocols)
to ensure that all information is “available”.
Information sharing
Researchers present short versions of the data to the
interpretation group to
ensure that all available field information is “on the table”.

Individual associations
(intuitive)
Each individual (alone) comes up with free associations (words,
images, stories,
feelings, emotions) and intuitions about the case. Time pressure
is used to ensure
intuitive thinking.
Collective pattern
recognition
Associations are shared in the group, patterns and similarities
among these
associations are identified, and assumptions about the change
logic are developed.
Linking identified patterns
to data (systematic)
Assumptions about patterns of the change logic are validated
based on the data;
assumptions that are not substantiated by the data are discarded.
Communicative validation
Assumptions about the change logic that are supported by data
from interviews

and observations are presented to members of the organization
for communicative
validation purposes.
20
No 34/35 2015/2016
Change Capabilities
steps (see Table 2): (i) In preparation, each of
the interview transcripts and other protocols is
read by at least two participants (in the follow-
ing referred to as owners) to reduce researcher
biases. (ii) At the beginning of the session, the
owners present a concise summary of each
interview and protocol to all participants to
make sure that all information is “in the room”
at the same time. During this step, the other
participants do not comment; they only ask
comprehension questions. (iii) All participants
(including the owners) note their mental asso-
ciations regarding the organization’s logic; for
example, metaphors, images, or words. (iv)
These associations are presented to the others
in the interpretation group, starting from
the person with the least knowledge about
the firm to the person with the most knowl-
edge. The associations are discussed and syn-

thesized, and assumptions about the firm’s
change logic are derived. (v) The developed
assumptions are then cross-checked with the
interview data. If no evidence for a specific
assumption is found in the data, that assump-
tion is discarded. The group interpretation is
finished once the group has developed a col-
lection of assumptions concerning the firm’s
organizational change logic, each of which is
substantially grounded in multiple pieces of
data. Eventually, (vi) the collection of assump-
tions is presented to members of the firm (e.g.
the management board) for them to validate.
Intervention Model: Improving
Organizational Change Capabilities
Once the organization’s change capabilities
and change logic have been diagnosed, inter-
ventions can be conducted to trigger the devel-
opment of change capabilities. As described
above, every organization is assumed to have
a specific change logic – to address change
in its own idiosyncratic way. Because change
capabilities are embedded in and shaped by
the firm’s organizational change logic, change
capabilities may also appear in different forms
across different organizations. The method
for developing change capabilities (Figure
2), which will be presented in the following,
is generic and standardized but can be easily
adapted to the needs of each firm.
To enable this individual adaptability, again an
outcome-oriented approach was chosen. For

each step in the generic design, specific out-
comes were defined that should be achieved
for each change capability (Table 3). How
exactly one and the same intended outcome
is achieved may strongly vary across firms,
depending on their organizational change
logic. In the following, both the overall design
for capability development and specific out-
comes for each change capability in each step
of the design will be detailed. Possible effects
of the designed interventions on the organi-
zational change logic will then be brief ly dis-
cussed.
A Generic Design for the Development
of Organizational Change Capabilities
The standardized design that has been
designed for the outcome-oriented develop-
ment of change capabilities follows four basic
steps: (1) Status Quo and Awareness, (2) Pre-
ferred Future, (3) Resources and Barriers and
(4) Routines and Specification. The interven-
tion methods and focus areas within each step
are easily adaptable to the organization’s indi-
vidual learning needs.
Step 1. Status Quo and Awareness aims to
create a common view of the status quo of
the firm’s change capabilities and change
logic based on organizational diagnoses. The
main content of this step is the presentation
and discussion of the results from the organi-
zational diagnoses. Step 2. Preferred Future
seeks to achieve a common view of the firm’s
specific outcomes for the change capability

to be developed. This includes a definition
of the preferred future regarding compe-
tence development and an explication of the
expected benefits for the organization. Ques-
tions to be addressed in this step are: What
would the indicators be if this change capabil-
21
No 34/35 2015/2016
ity were perfectly developed? What would be
the benefits for our organization if this change
capability were highly developed? Step 3.
Resources and Barriers aims to identify exist-
ing resources and barriers for the development
of change capabilities. The main questions to
be answered in this step are therefore: Which
resources are critical for our preferred future?
What hinders us from further developing this
change capability in the intended direction? At
this stage, the organization’s change logic can
be considered both a resource and a constraint.
Step 4. Routines and Specification targets the
development of an organizational action plan
for developing the respective change capa-
bility. The main question to be answered is:
How can we reach the intended learning out-
comes and with the help of which methods,
taking into consideration our existing change

logic? In this phase, the focus lies on defining
concrete steps for competence development,
which lead to an agreed-upon “learning con-
tract” for the implementation of the intended
processes and routines. It is important to note
that the learning activities within the sug-
gested intervention model do not end with
step 4. To ensure that the organization puts
the planned actions to use, further monitor-
ing, ref lection and adaptation are required, as
long as the development of change capabilities
is still in progress. Hence, further (internal or
external) process facilitation may be helpful to
provide support for the organization’s devel-
opmental process.
Intended Outcomes for Specific Change
Capabilities
The initiation of organizational learning and
development processes requires the defini-
tion of clear learning goals to steer and shape
these processes in the intended direction (e.g.
Edmondson & Woolley, 2003; Levitt & March
1988; Schein, 1993). Therefore, the generic
learning goals described in the previous sec-
tion were specified for each of the change
capabilities, based on the outcome-oriented
Figure 2: Design for developing change capabilities, which
comprises four steps: (1) Status Quo and Aware-ness,
(2) Preferred Future, (3) Resources and Barriers and (4)
Routines and Specification

22
No 34/35 2015/2016
Change Capabilities
Table 3: Specification of Outcomes in Each Step of the Design
for Change Capability Development
Organizational
Change
Capability
Intended
Outcomes
Status Quo and
Awareness
Preferred Future
Resources and
Barriers
Routines and
Specification

Search
Continuous
knowledge and
awareness of
market trends,
customers,
competitors
Status quo of
search capability
Examples:
awareness of
new technology
trends,
competitors,
markets
Aspects to
search for
Examples:

competitors’
activities, new
technologies,
market
movements, new
market segments
What enables/
hinders the
search?
Examples:
access to
data sources,
communication
structures/
information
distribution,
interest of
employees in

topic
Concrete steps
to establish
search routines
Examples:
responsibilities
for search topics,
subscription
to magazines,
networking
events
Reflection
Continuous
reflection about
strengths,
weaknesses, and
opportunities for
improvement

Status quo
of reflection
capability
Examples:
awareness of
the firm’s core
competences,
core processes,
blind spots
Aspects to
reflect upon
Examples:
customer
satisfaction,
efficiency
of strategic
processes,
quality of

outcomes,
employee
satisfaction
What enables/
hinders
reflection?
Examples:
documentation/
data, existing
meeting formats,
(physical)
infrastructure,
time, feedback
culture, attitude
towards errors
Concrete steps
to establish
reflection

routines
Examples: jour
fixes, collection
of relevant
data as basis
for reflection,
systematized
feedback,
supervision,
customer and
employee
surveys
Seizing
Continuous
recognition of
strategic options
for change and
innovation

Status quo of
seizing capability
Examples:
product
and service
innovations in
line with existing
strategy
Aspects to ‘seize’
Examples:
new products,
new business
models, new
management
methods
What enables/
hinders seizing?
Examples:

reward structure,
clear strategy,
time for creative
processes,
culture of
innovation
Concrete steps
to establish
routines for
recognizing
and generating
options for
change and
innovation
Examples:
innovation days,
idea awards,
R&D position/

department,
cooperation with
universities
23
No 34/35 2015/2016
Table 3: (continued): Specification of Outcomes in Each Step of
the Design for Change Capability Development
Organizational
Change
Capability
Intended
Outcomes
Status Quo and
Awareness
Preferred

Future
Resources and
Barriers
Routines and
Specification
Planning
Planned change
processes
Status quo
of planning
capability
Examples:
resources
adequately
allocated
to planned
changes, project
management
Aspects to plan

before/during
change
Examples:
responsibilities,
time, money
What enables/
hinders the
planning for
change?
Examples:
discontinuous
order situation,
planning tools/
databases,
workload
Concrete steps to
establish routines
for planning change

Examples: allocation
of responsibilities,
project
management,
controlling
Implementation
Structure and
knowledge
for enabling
consequent
and competent
implementation
of intended
change
Status quo
implementation
capability
Examples:

workforce
skilled for
change,
required
structures
Aspects to
implement
in preparation
for/during
change
Examples:
employee
competences,
consulting,
machines and
devices required
for the change
-resource

management
What enables/
hinders the
implementation
of change?
Examples:
commitment
to change,
prioritization,
ownership of
change, number
of concurrent
change projects
Concrete steps
to establish
implementation
routines
Examples: enacting

assigned roles,
rewards (at least
no disadvantages)
for change-
related activities,
training, regular
communication of
project status
Strategy Making
Clear (change-
related) vision
and coherent
strategy
regarding
change
Status quo
of strategic
handling of

change
Examples:
presence/
absence of
vision/mission,
formal strategy
including
the aspect of
change, clear
decision criteria
Aspects
regarding
change to take
into account
in vision and
strategy
Examples:
decision for

innovation
areas, customer
types, role of
innovation,
growth/no
growth
What enables/
hinders strategy
development
regarding
change?
Examples:
managerial
style, ownership
structures, legal
regulations,
organizational
flexibility (e.g.

production
vs. service
business)
Concrete steps to
establish routines
for strategic
development
Examples: definition
of decision criteria,
regular SWOT
analyses, regular
strategy meetings,
vision work
definitions introduced above in Table 1. For
example, search was defined as a firm’s abil-
ity to effectively recognize, sense, and explore
the external environment for prospective
innovative products, services, and processes.
Strong search capabilities are indicated by the
defined outcomes (e.g. continuous knowledge
and awareness of the market, trends, custom-
ers and competitors).

On the basis of these overall learning goals for
each change capability, sub-goals for each of
the steps in the generic process (Figure 2) were
specified. These sub-goals guide the develop-
ment of the change capability under consid-
eration. Table 3 details the learning goals for
each of the change capabilities in each step in
the generic design. How these learning goals
can be utilized in the process of capability
24
No 34/35 2015/2016
Change Capabilities
development is described using the search
capability as an example: The aim of step 1,
Status Quo and Awareness, is to achieve a
common awareness of the firm’s current status
quo in regard to its search capability. Differ-
ent indicators exist for the extent of a firm’s
search capability, such as the firm’s awareness
of new technology trends, competitors and
markets. Step 2, Preferred Future, focuses on
the desired aspects the firm should be aware
of in the future. Competitors’ activities, new
technologies, market movements and new
market segments are examples of prospective
aspects worth seeking. Step 3, Resources and

Barriers, aims to answer the question of what
may enable and hinder the firm with regard to
search activities in the aspects worked out in
step 2. Examples for such resources and barri-
ers are access to data sources, communication
structures and the degree of employee interest
in the topic under consideration. Step 4, Rou-
tines and Specification, aims to define con-
crete steps for establishing search routines,
such as determining clear responsibilities for
the defined search topics, subscribing to rel-
evant magazines, or participating regularly in
networking events.
This goal-oriented specification of process
steps takes into account the fact that the mani-
festation of each of the change capabilities may
differ across organizations. The methods for
the development of change capabilities in each
of the process steps can be chosen f lexibly, as
long as they lead to the outcomes specified
in Table 3. That way, the generic intervention
model can be adapted to each of the change
capabilities while still being sensitive to the
needs of a specific firm.
Effects on the Organizational Change
Logic
In this methodology, direct interventions
primarily target change capabilities, particu-
larly by making use of collective learning
processes, for example, through group ref lec-
tion and discussions (e.g. Isaacs, 1993; Zollo
& Winter, 2002). However, as graphically

insinuated in Figure 2, in addition to capabil-
ity development, each design step may affect
the organizational change logic because it may
mean challenging basic assumptions, making
decisions unconsciously, or learning rules.
In addition to these rather indirect interven-
tions, alterations in the organizational change
logic may be triggered by more direct meth-
ods (Corley & Gioia, 2003; Schein, 1993;
Zollo & Winter, 2002), such as the explication
of mental models (e.g. “What do we mean by
‘change’?”, “What does ‘success’ mean for
us?”) or the questioning of basic assumptions
(e.g. “change must take place fast”, “change is
dangerous”), and beliefs (e.g. “never change a
winning team”, “change must start from the
top”). As a next step, these mental models,
assumptions and beliefs may be analysed with
regard to effects on the organization’s handling
of change. To maintain sustainable change at
the level of the organizational change logic,
regular supervision of the top management
may also be a highly effective method (e.g.
Swart & Harcup, 2012).
Discussion and Conclusion
The paper presents an extended conceptual-
ization of a firm’s strategic change capabili-
ties, and makes two theoretical advancements.
First, previous research on capabilities related
to change have almost entirely been identified
and discussed in terms of dynamic capabili-
ties, which focus on the identification of stra-
tegic options and the transformation of the

resource base. The model of change capabili-
ties introduced in this paper follows Sopar-
not’s (2011) suggestion to extend the dynamic
capabilities perspective by highlighting the
actual implementation of the planned changes,
and considers perspectives of strategic change,
the generation of change ideas and innova-
tions, and their actual implementation within
the organization in accordance with corporate
strategy and strategic goals.
25
No 34/35 2015/2016
The second theoretical advancement presented
in this paper is the integration of the theory on
capabilities for strategic change with the con-
cept of the organization’s dominant logic – it
is suggested that the development of specific
capacities and processes for the realization of
change and innovation (organizational change
capabilities) is embedded in this set of invis-
ible rules and assumptions (organizational
change logic), which steer organizational
development processes and need to be con-
sidered for capability development. The two
aspects are assumed to mutually inf luence
each other – the development of change capa-
bilities is supposed to be shaped by the firm’s

change logic, and in turn, the development
of change capabilities may shape the organi-
zational change logic. The idea that change
capabilities are shaped by the organization’s
change logic has important implications for
the practical development of change capabili-
ties. Since it is assumed that every organiza-
tion addresses change in its own specific way,
enforcing effective interventions to develop
change capabilities systematically requires
taking into account an organization’s change
logic. This perspective contradicts the preva-
lent practice within business schools and man-
agement courses, which often propagate “one
best way” of searching the business environ-
ment, or planning change initiatives.
Building on the theoretical concept of change
capabilities that are embedded in a change
logic, a generic, outcome-oriented approach
for diagnosing and developing the change
capabilities was suggested. This outcome-
oriented approach aims to assess the extent
of change capabilities by focusing on their
desired outcomes, thereby taking into account
the idea of equifinality (i.e. achieving one
and the same outcome with different means).
Instead of suggesting a specific tool, the paper
describes considerations for the design and
operationalization of quantitative and qualita-
tive diagnostic methods. Future work may be
dedicated to developing standardized quanti-
tative measures for diagnosing the extent of
change capabilities within an organization or
to developing standardized interview guide-

lines for analysing how change capabilities are
enacted.
Another innovative contribution of the pres-
ent article is the design of a theory-based,
associative-interpretative group analysis tech-
nique for diagnosing an organization’s change
logic, which cannot be diagnosed directly (e.g.
by asking explicit questions such as “What is
your change logic like?”). Because this more
qualitative branch of research into organiza-
tional (change) logics is still in its infancy, no
standard tools exist for assessing it. Future
work should be dedicated to further refining
the methodology and testing its diagnostic
strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, the eco-
logic validity and practical usefulness of the
methodology should be explored by practitio-
ners such as change agents in their practical
work.
The paper also contributes to current orga-
nization development practice by presenting
an output-oriented intervention design for
the improvement of an organization’s change
capabilities. The output-oriented approach
enables the adaptation of concrete interven-
tions for both the organization’s idiosyncratic
change logic and the firm-specific learn-
ing needs and circumstances. The interven-
tion model can be seen as a standardized and
outcome-oriented learning framework that
encourages the development of organizational
change capabilities for pro-active strategically
relevant organizational change.

In conclusion, the paper makes several theo-
retical and practical contributions to the ques-
tion of how organizations can improve their
capabilities for strategic change and innova-
tion and how they can be supported during this
improvement process. One possible avenue
for future research could be investigating the
effect of the presented intervention model
and methods on the development of strategic
change capabilities, particularly on the basis
of longitudinal case studies. Another sugges-
tion for future work would be enriching the
26
No 34/35 2015/2016
Change Capabilities
theoretical basis of the change capabilities
concept and its relationship with the organiza-
tional change logic with more theoretical and
empirical findings, to further strengthen the
theoretical foundation of this novel approach.
In particular, future work could look in more
depth at the effect of the organizational
(change) logic on organizational change and
learning processes.
References

Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. 2011. Making
strategy: Mapping out strategic success (2nd
ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
Alderfer, C. P. 1987. An intergroup perspec-
tive on group dynamics. In J. W. Lorsch (Ed.),
The handbook of organizational behavior
(pp. 190–222). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Alderfer, C. P. 2010. The practice of organi-
zational diagnosis: Theory and methods. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Ambrosini, V., Bowman, C., and Collier, N.
2009. Dynamic capabilities: An exploration of
how firms renew their resource base. British
Journal of Management, 20(s1), 9–24.
Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sus-
tained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Barreto, I. 2010. Dynamic capabilities: A
review of past research and an agenda for the
future. Journal of Management, 36(1), 256–
280.
Bartunek, J. M., and Moch, M. K. 1994. Third-
order organizational change and the western
mystical tradition. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 7(1), 24–41.
Bettis, R. A., and Prahalad, C. K. 1995. The
dominant logic: Retrospective and extension.
Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 5–14.

Bettis, R. A., and Wong, S. S. 2003. Dominant
logic, knowledge creation, and managerial
choice. In M. Easterby-Smith and M. Lyles
(Eds.), The blackwell handbook of organiza-
tional learning and knowledge management
(pp. 343–355). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Borch, O. J., and Madsen, E. L. 2007. Dynamic
capabilities facilitating innovative strategies
in SMEs. International Journal of Technoen-
trepreneurship, 1(1), 109–125.
Corley, K. G., and Gioia, D. A. 2003. Semantic
learning as change enabler: Relating organiza-
tional identity and organizational learning. In
M. Easterby-Smith and M. Lyles (Eds.), The
blackwell handbook of organizational learn-
ing and knowledge management (pp. 623–
638). Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Danneels, E. 2008. Organizational anteced-
ents of second-order competences. Strategic
Management Journal, 29(5), 519–543.
Davis, E. B., Kee, J., and Newcomer, K. 2010.
Strategic transformation process: Toward pur-
pose, people, process and power. Organization
Di Stefano, G., Peteraf, M., and Verona, G.
2014. The organizational drivetrain: A road to
integration of dynamic capabilities research.
Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(4),
307–327.

Dijksterhuis, A., and Nordgren, L. F. 2006. A
theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 1(2), 95–109.
Drazin, R., Glynn, M. A., and Kazanjian, R.
K. 2004. Dynamics of structural change. In M.
S. Poole and Van de Ven, A.H. (Eds.), Hand-
book of organizational change and innovation
(pp. 161–189). New York, NY: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Edmondson, A. C., and Woolley, A. W. 2003.
Understanding outcomes of organizational
learning interventions. In M. Easterby-Smith
27
No 34/35 2015/2016
and M. Lyles (Eds.), The blackwell handbook
of organizational learning and knowledge
management (pp. 185–211). Malden: Black-
well Publishing.
Eggers, J. P., and Kaplan, S. 2013. Cognition
and capabilities: A multi-level perspective.
The Academy of Management Annals, 7(1),
295–340.
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Martin, J. A. 2000.

Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Stra-
tegic Management Journal, 21(10/11), 1105–
1121.
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Sull, D. 2001. Strategy
as simple rules. Havard Business Review, 9(1),
107–116.
Gersick, C. J. G. 1991. Revolutionary change
theories: A multilevel exploration of the punc-
tuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of
Management Review, 16(1), 10–36.
Grant, R. M. 1991. The resource-based theory
of competitive advantage: implications for
strategy formulation. California Management
Review, 33(3), 114–135.
Güttel, W. 2006. Corporate Entrepreneurship
als Strategie. In H. Frank (Ed.), Corporate
Entrepreneurship (pp. 80–111). Wien: Wiener
Universitätsverlag.
Hannan, M. T., and Freeman, J. 1984. Struc-
tural inertia and organizational change. Amer-
ican Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164.
Helfat, C. E. 1997. Know-how and asset
complementarity and dynamic capability
accumulation: The case of R&D. Strategic
Isaacs, W. N. 1993. Taking f light: Dialogue,
collective thinking, and organizational learn-
ing. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24–39.

Judge, W., and Douglas, T. 2009. Organiza-
tional change capacity: The systematic devel-
opment of a scale. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 22(6), 635–649.
Kapsali, M. 2011. Systems thinking in innova-
tion project management: A match that works.
International Journal of Project Management,
29(4), 396–407.
Kor, Y. Y., and Mesko, A. 2013. Dynamic
managerial capabilities: Configuration and
orchestration of top executives’ capabilities
and the firm’s dominant logic. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 34(2), 233–244.
Krogh, G. von, and Roos, J. 1996. A tale of the
unfinished. Strategic Management Journal,
17(9), 729–737.
Levitt, B., and March, J. G. 1988. Organiza-
tional learning. Annual Review of Sociology,
14(1), 319–338.
McElroy, W. 1996. Implementing strategic
change through projects. International Jour-
nal of Project Management, 14(6), 325–329.
Meyer, C. B., and Stensaker, I. G. 2006. Devel-
oping capacity for change. Journal of Change
Management, 6(2), 217–231.
Mintzberg, H. 1994. The rise and fall of strate-
gic planning. New York: Free Press.

Nelson, R. R., and Winter, S. G. 1982. An
evolutionary theory of economic change.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press/Harvard Uni-
versity Press.
Noble, C. H. 1999. The eclectic roots of strat-
egy implementation research. Journal of Busi-
ness Research, 45(2), 119–134.
Prahalad, C. K., and Bettis, R. A. 1986. Domi-
nant logic: A new linkage between diversity
and performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 7(6), 485–501.
28
No 34/35 2015/2016
Change Capabilities
Schein, E. H. 1993. On dialogue, culture,
and organizational learning. Organizational
Dynamics, 22(2), 40–51.
Soparnot, R. 2011. The concept of organiza-
tional change capacity. Journal of Organiza-
tional Change Management, 24(5), 640–661.
Swart, J., and Harcup, J. 2012. ’If I learn do
we learn?’: The link between executive coach-
ing and organizational learning. Management

Learning, 44(4), 337–354.
Teece, D. J. 2007. Explicating dynamic capa-
bilities: the nature and microfoundations of
(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strate-
gic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.
Teece, D. J. 2014. The foundation of enterprise
performance: Dynamic and ordinary capabili-
ties in an (economic) theory of firms. Academy
of Management Perspectives, 28(4), 328–352.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., and Shuen, A. 1997.
Dynamic capabilities and strategic manage-
ment. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7),
509–533.
Tripsas, M., and Gavetti, G. 2000. Capabili-
ties, cognition, and inertia: evidence from dig-
ital imaging. Strategic Management Journal,
21(10), 1147–1161.
Tushman, M. L., and Romanelli, E. 1985. Orga-
nizational evolution: A metamorphosis model
of convergence and reorientation. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 7, 171–222.
Vacar, A. 2010. Project management – A tool
for implementing change in organizations.
Studies in Business and Economics, 8(2), 137–
145.
Vergne, J.-P., and Durand, R. 2011. The path of
most persistence: An evolutionary perspective
on path dependence and dynamic capabilities.
Organization Studies, 32(3), 365–382.

Vogel, R., and Güttel, W. 2013. The dynamic
capability view in strategic management: A
bibliometric review. International Journal of
Management Review, 15(4), 426–446.
Wang, C. L., and Ahmed, P. K. 2007. Dynamic
capabilities: A review and research agenda.
International Journal of Management
Reviews, 9(1), 31–51.
West, M. 2000. Ref lexivity, revolution and
innovation in work teams. In M. M. Beyerlein,
D. A. Johnson, and S. Beyerlein (Eds.), Prod-
uct development teams (pp. 1–29). Stanford
CT: JAI Press.
Winter, S. G. 2003. Understanding dynamic
capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,
24(10), 991–995.
Worley, C. G., and Lawler, Edward E III.
2006. Designing organizations that are built
to change. MIT Sloan Management Review,
48(1), 19–23.
Zahra, S. A., Sapienza, H. J., and Davidsson,
P. 2006. Entrepreneurship and dynamic capa-
bilities: A review, model and research agenda.
Journal of Management Studies, 43(4), 917–
955.
Zollo, M., and Winter, S. G. 2002. Deliberate
learning and the evolution of dynamic capa-
bilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.

Copyright of Journal of Management & Change is the property
of EBS Review and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted
to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.
p
Introduction
The Heart of Change
he single most important message in this book is very
simple. People change what they do less because they are
given analysis that shifts their thinking than because they
are shown a truth that influences their feelings. This is
especially
so in large-scale organizational change, where you are dealing
with
new technologies, mergers and acquisitions, restructurings, new
strategies, cultural transformation, globalization, and e-
business-

whether in an entire organization, an office, a department, or a
work group. In an age of turbulence, when you handle this
reality
well, you win. Handle it poorly, and it can drive you crazy, cost
a
great deal of money, and cause a lot of pain. . .
The lessons here come from two sets ofinterviews, the first
com-
pleted seven years ago, the second within the last two years.
About
400 people from 130 organ
izations answered our questions. We
found, in brief, that
• Highly successful organizations know how to overcome
antibodies that reject anything new. They know how to grab
opportunities and avoid hazards. They see
that bigger leaps
d
2 • THE HEART Ut l,MJ-1'4U'-
. . gl associated with winning big. They see that
are 1ncreas1n Y

. dual improvement, by itself, is no longer
continuous gra
enough.
ful l rge -scale
change is a complex affair that
• Success a
happens in eight stages. The flow is this: push urgency up,
put together a guiding team, create the vision and strate-
gies, effectively communicate the vision and strategies,
remove barriers to action, accomplish short-term wins,
keep pushing for wave after wave of change until the work
is done, and, finally, create a new culture to make new be-
havior stick.
• The central challenge in all eight stages is changing people's
behavior. The central challenge is not strategy, not systems,
not culture. These elements and many others can be very im-
portant, but the core problem without question is behavior -
what people do, and the need for significant shifts in what
people do.

• Changing behavior is less a matter of giving people analysis
to influence their thoughts than helping them to see a truth
to influence their feelings. Both thinking and feeling are es-
sential, and both are found in successful organizations, but
the heart of change is in the emotions. The flow of see-feel-
ch ·
ange is more powerful than that of analysis-think-change.
These distinctions betw •
. een seeing and analyzing between
feehng and thinking · · '
'are critical because, for the most part,
we use the latter much m f
comfortabl th ore requently, competently, an9
Y an the former.
When we are frustrated we som .
there is a decreasi ' etimes try to convince ourselves
ng need for large- al h
and unceasing forces ar d . . sc e c ange. But powerful
e riving the turbulence. When frustrated,
The Heart of Change • 3
we sometimes think that problems are inevitable and out of our

control. Yet some people handle large-scale change remarkably
well. We can all learn from these people. CEOs can learn. First-
line
supervisors can learn. Nearly anyone caught up in a big change
can
learn. That's the point of this book.
The Eight Stages of Successful Large-Scale Change
To understand why some organizations are leaping into the
future
more successfully than others, you need first to see the flow of
ef-
fective large-scale change efforts. In almost all cases, there is a
flow,
a set of eight steps that few people handle well.
STEP 1
Whether at the top of a large private enterprise or in small
groups at
the bottom of a nonprofit, those who are most successful at
signifi-
cant change begin their work by creating a sense of urgency
among
relevant people. In smaller organizations, the "relevant" are

more
likely to number 100 than 5, in larger organizations 1,000 rather
than 50. The less successful change leaders aim at 5 or 50 or 0,
allow-
ing what is common nearly everywhere-too much complacency,
fear, or anger, all three of which can undermine change. A sense
of
urgency, sometimes developed by very creative means, gets
people
off the couch, out of a bunker, and ready to move.
STEP 2
With urgency turned up, the more successful change agents pull
together a guiding team with the credibility, skills, connections,
reputations, and formal authority required to provide change
lead-
ership. This group learns to operate as do all good teams, with
truSt
and emotional commitment. The less successful rely on a single
[ART Of CHANGE
4 • THE H

ak
task forces and committees, or co one we lltplex ~TSon or no '
all without the stature and skills and ..-- strUcurres, . . k .
Porer governance ds ape is littered with tas forces ill eqli do
the job. The lan c PJled
to rod ce needed change.
toP u
sTEP3 . the d'niding team creates sensible, clear sun l In the
best cases, o-- ' p e, . . . • s and sets of strategies. In the less
successful ,..~~"A uplifting vzszon ~,
nly detailed plans and budgets that, although neces~...,,
thereareo --J, are insufficient, or a vision that is not very
sensible in light of what
is happening in the world and in the enterprise, or a vision that
is
created by others and largely ignored by the guiding team. In
un-
successful cases, strategies are often too slow and cautious for a
faster-moving world.
STEP4
Co . .
h mmumcation of the vision and strategies comes next-simple,
eartfelt messages sent through many unclogged channels. The
goal is to induce und tandin . ers g, develop a gut-level
commitmen~ andliberatemoreene gyfr .. are ft . r om a critical
mass of people. Here, deeds o en more unportant th etition is ~
In an words. Symbols speak loudly. Rep-ey. the less su ful #
tive conunum . ccess cases, there is too little euec-cation or peo
1 h Rernarkab1 ' P e ear words but don't accept them. . Y,
Slllart peopl

mcate all the time . e undercommunicate or poorly conunu·
Without reco . .
STEP
5 grtizmg their error.
In the h
est situar
obstacles th ions, You find h J{eY Chan at stop Peo
1
a eavy dose of empowerment. ge lead P e frolll . "ed, infonnati
ers focus on b acting on the vision are reill0 b on and . asses wh
d. . dequate atliers in lllforinati O 1sempower, on ma
not ''giVin People's lllind on systems, and on self-confideJlce
g Power." Yi s. The issu h . . bstacles, ou can't h e ere 1s
removing o c-
and out power in a bag. In less sU
~
. t'ons people are often left to fend for themselves de-
ful s1tua 1 ,
cess . d'ments all around. So frustration grows, and change is
·te unpe 1 spl
undermined.
STEP 6

With empowered people working on the vision, in cases of great
success those people are helped to produce short-term wins. The
wins are critical. They provide credibility, resources, and
momen-
tum to the overall effort. In other cases, the wins come more
slowly,
less visibly, speak less to what people value, and have more
ambigu-
ity as to whether they really are successes. Without a well -
managed
process, careful selection of initial projects, and fast enough
suc-
cesses, the cynics and skeptics can sink any effort.
STEP 7
In the best cases, change leaders don't let up. Momentum builds
af-
ter the first wins. Early changes are consolidated. People
shrewdly
choose what to tackle next, then create wave after wave of
change
until the vision is a reality. In less successful cases, people try
to

do too much at once. They unwittingly quit too soon. They let
mo-
mentum slip to the point where they find themselves hopelessly
bogged down.
STEP 8
Finally, in the best cases, change leaders throughout
organizations
make change stick by nurturing a new culture. A new culture-
group norms of behavior and shared values-develops
through
co · ffi · t period of time. nsistency of successful action over a
su cien .
H loyee orientation,
ere, appropriate promotions, skillful new emp
a d ak big difference. In
n events that engage the emotions can m e a k
th f Agreatdealofwor 0 er cases, changes fl.oat fragile on the sur
ace. h rt . . . a remarkably s o
can be blown away by the winds of traditwn in
Period of time.
G • THE HEART OF CHANGE
~ , . ., .,..

The Eight steps for' Successful Large-Scale C~arr~e
STEP ACTION
NEW BEHAVIOR
1 Increase urgency
People start telling each other, "Let's
go, we need to change things!"
2 Build the guiding team
A group powerful enough to guide a
big change is formed and they start to
work together well.
3 Get the vision right
The guiding team develops the right
vision and strategy for the change
effort.
4 Communicate for buy-in People begi
n to buy into the change,
and this shows in their behavior.
5 Empower action More people fee
l able to act, and do
act, on the vision.
6 Create short-term wins Momentum builds as people

try to
fulfill the vision, while fewer and fewer
resist change.
7 Don't let up People make wave after wave of
changes until the vision is fulfilled.
8 Make change stick New and winning behavior continues
despite the pull of tradition, turnover
of change leaders, etc.
The Flow of Change
T~e process of change involves subtle points regar
ding overlap-
ping stages guidi g t .
. .
' n earns at multiple levels in the organ1zat1
0n,
handling multipl 1
. e eye es of change, and more. Beca
use the world
1s complex som d ' e cases o not rigidly follow the eight-step
flow.
But

I
r - 1 I
The Heart of Change • 7 I
the eight steps are the basic pattern associated with significant
use-
ful change-all possible despite an inherent organizational
inclina-
tion not to leap successfully into a better future.
Evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the most fundamental
problem in all of the stages is changing the behavior of people.
The
core issue in step 1 is not urgency in some abstract sense. The
core
issue is the behavior of people who are ignoring how the world
is
changing, who are frozen in terror by the problems they see, or
who
do little but bitterly complain. In step 2, the issue is the
behavior
of those in a position to guide change-especially regarding trust
and commitment. In step 3, the core challenge is for people to
start
acting in a way that will create sensible visions and strategies.
For
people who know how to plan but have never devised a winning
change vision, this behavior change is very big. In step 4, the
issue
is getting sufficient people to buy into the vision via
communica-
tion. In step 5, it's acting on that communication-which for
some

employees will mean doing their jobs in radically new ways.
And so
on throughout the process.
See, Feel, Change
Significantly changing the behavior of a single person can be
excep-
tionally difficult work. Changing 101 or 10,001 people can be a
Her-
l · · t the future sue-cu ean task. Yet organizations that are
leapmg m 0
ceed at doing just that. Look carefully at how they act and
you'll fi
nd
fth t ge in the overall another pattern. They succeed, regardless
o e s a
• · d not center on for-process, because their most central
activity oes .
-a1 ·t· and presentat10ns-
·11 data gathering, analysis, report wr1 mg, .
th . th' k'ng m order to e sorts of actions typically aimed at
changmg m 1
h . 1 h eople what the c ange behavior. Instead, they compellmg
Y s ow P
1 They provoke re-Problems are and how to resolve the prob
ems. d
d f fl eeded change, an sponses that reduce feelings that slow an
s 1 en

8 • THE HEART OF CHANGE
.c 1
. g that motivate useful actio
n. The emotional
they enhance 1ee m s
. h vi'des the energy tha
t propels people to push along
reaction t en pro
. .
no ma
tter how great the difficulties.
the change process,
The stories presented throug
hout the book clarify this pa
t-
h
· g what can be done to enab
le the process. In chap-
tern, s owm
ter 1 (w
hich deals with urgency), a pro
curement manager starts a

needed change by creating a dr
amatic presentation. On the b
oard-
room table he piles 424 differen
t kinds of glovesthat the firm is
cur-
rently buying for its workers a
t dozens of different prices fo
r the
same glove and from dozens of
different suppliers. First peop
le are
shocked, then the gut-level sen
se of complacency shrinks an
d ur-
gency grows. It's not just a mat
ter of the data saying that cha
nges
are necessary in the purchasing
process so people alter their b
ehav-
ior. Instead, it's subtler and deep

er. It's a loud sound that catche
s at-
tention in a day filled with thous
ands of words and dozens of ev
ents.
It's an image, hard to shake, th
at evokes a feeling that we mu
st do
something.
In chapter 2 (guiding team), the
army officer doesn't pull toget
her
his new change team with a rat
ional argument. Instead, he s
hocks
them by taking a risk for the g
reater good with his commen
ts in a
meeting. He then helps them b
egin to tell emotion-packed s
tories

around a campfire. More posit
ive feelings and trust grow, m
aking
them act as an effective team.
The aircraft plant manager in
chapter 3 (vision and strateg
ies)
ceases to just talk to his people
about developing ambitious s
trate- 1
gies to fit an ambitious quality
vision. Instead he takes dra
matic
.
,
actwn. He st0Ps the normal p
roduction process-just stops
it-so
everyone must stare all day l
ong at a gigantic plane that
can no
longer move along the produc

tion line. At the same time,
he ex-
pres~es a_ rock-solid belief th
at they can find a way to im
prove
q~ality Wi
th0ut delaying delivery. After the
initial shock, and with
his continuously upb t b h
.
ea e avior, employees begi
n developing all
sorts of new strategies for leaping ahead in procurement,
logistics,
and quality control.
In chapter 4 (communication), people logically explain why
maintaining a lush executive floor is cost-effective in an age of
cut-
backs-the· logic being that it would cost more to change the
archi-

tecture and decor to make-it look less excessive. But that
commu-
nication convinces few employees and allows cynicism to grow.
So
they "nuke" the floor, making it less regal, and shock employees
in
a way that increases their faith in top management and their
belief
in the vision.
In chapter 5 (empowerment), managers refuse to demote, fire,
or "retrain" someone who is staunchly against change and who
disempowers others from helping with change. Instead they loan
him to a customer, where he is dramatically confronted each day
with the problems the customer is having with his products.
What
he sees generates shock, then feelings that help the man rise to
the
occasion. He returns to his employer a manager reborn.
Approach-
ing his job in a whole new way, he helps the firm make changes
that
benefit customers, employees, and owners.

In chapter 6 (short-term wins), a manager does not ignore an in-
fluential state Senator or sell him on a change effort's progress
with
graphs and charts. Instead, the manager finds out what the
Senator
really cares about. Then he dramaticallY, reduces the number of
ri-
diculous, bureaucratic forms needed to be filled out in that area.
He
shows the Senator the result, surprising the man in the most
posi-
tive sense. As a result, the Senator begins actively supporting
the
change effort.
In chapter 7 (not letting up), a task force knows top
management
behavior is slowing down the change process. But instead of
duck-
ing the issue, or trying to describe it in antiseptic terms,
the task
force creates a hilarious video with actors spoofing
the problem.
Th .
. 1 •d g·ves those

executives try-
e amusing, nonconfrontat10na VI eo
1
I
e a much-needed tool for legitimizing new to . g to create chang
I>
1n .
ment behavior.
manage ( aking change stick), staff write a good spe h 1 hapter
8 m ec n c th firm has created and needs to strengthen a d bout
the values e
n a . formation is to be firmly entrenched. But th retain if their
trans
e hen they present a real customer to employee real power
comes w . s. . pi·rational story showing the consequences of
living He tells an ins
those values.
Stories like these reveal a core pattern associated with
successful
change.
1. SEE. People find a problem in some stage of the change
process-too many of their colleagues are behaving com-
placently, no one is developing a sensible strategy, too many

are letting up before the strategy has been achieved. They
then create dramatic, eye-catching, compelling situations
that help others visualize the problem or a solution to the
problem.
2. FEEL. The visualizations awaken feelings that facilitate
useful change or ease feelings that are getting in the way.
Urgency, optimism, or faith may go up. Anger, complacency,
cynicism, or fear may go down.
3
· ~HANGE. The new feelings change or reinforce new behav-
ior, sometimes very different behavior. People act much less
comp~acently. They try much harder to make a good vision a
reahty They d 't
· f the d · on st0P before the work is done, even 1 roa seems
long.
Successful see-feel c
and never cyu· - hange tactics tend to be clever, not clumsY,
ically mani 1 · l w where the sto pu ative. They often have an
afterg O ' · ry of the eve t · h e is a rernaining • . n is told again
and again or where t er P Vls1ble sign f h . al eople over tirn , 1
n._ 0 t e event that influences addition e. vvnen d
one Well over all eight stages of a change
Almost Always
the Core Method Is:
SEE-FEEL-CHANGE

1. HELP PEOPLE SEE.
Compelling, eye-catching,
dramatic situations are cre-
ated to help others visualize
problems, solutions, or prog-
ress in solving complacency,
strategy, empowerment, or
other key problems within the
eight steps.
As a result
2. SEEING SOMETHING NEW
HITS THE EMOTIONS.
The visualizations provide
useful ideas that hit people
at a deeper level than surface
thinking. They evoke a vis-
ceral response that reduces
emotions that block change

and enhances those that sup-
port it.
3
· EMOTIONALLY CHARGED
IDEAS CHANGE BEHAVIOR
OR REINFORCE CHANGED
BEHAVIOR.
. The Heart of Change • 11
Rarely
the Core Method Is:
ANALYSIS-TH INK-CHANGE
1. GIVE PEOPLE ANALYSIS.
Information is gathered and
· analyzed, reports are written,
and presentations are made
about problems, solutions, or
progr~ss in solvi~g urgency,
teamwork, communication,

momentum slippage, or other
key problems within the eight
steps.
As a result
2. DATA AND ANALYSIS
INFLUENCE HOW WE THINK.
The information and analysis ·
change people's thinking.
Ideas inconsistent with the
needed change are dropped or
modified.
3. NEW THOUGHTS CHANGE
BEHAVIOR OR REINFORCE
CHANGED BEHAVIOR.
It
an be breathtaking. Mature (old-fash.
rocess, the resu s c .

. Ioned,
P ., ganizations take a
leap into the future. Lag
dun~ or heavy1 or
gards
' 1
ders Leaders jump farther ahead.
start to become ea .
.
. . t that careful data gather1ng,
analysis, and pre
The point 1s no .
. sen-
. . portant. They are impo
rtant. Sometimes it is b
tatwn are un1m
. . e-
. h g d by analysis that sends peo
ple into a see-feel-chan
havior c an e
ge
S met
imes change launched through fee
lings creates

process. o
a
radically better approach to analysis. O
ften small changes are a nec-
essary part of a larger change effort, and
the small changes are driven
by analysis. Occasionally, careful anal
ysis is required to get show-
me-the-numbers finance people or engi
neers in the mood to see.
But analysis has at least three major
limitations. First, in a re-
markable number of cases, you don't n
eed it to find the big truths.
You may not need to do much work to fi
nd that the old strategy isn't
working and that a new one isn't being
embraced. You don't need a
fifty-page report to see there is insuffi
cient new product develop-
ment and that a number of factors ma
ke it impossible for the en-
gineers to do what is necessary. You do
n't need reams of financial

data to learn that you cannot stay out of
e-business and that the first
step is simply to take the first step. It is
n't necessary for a team of
psychologists to study Fred and his team
to find out they are failing
and must be replaced. Yes, there are ma
ny exceptions-deciding on
w~ic~ $IOO million IT system to buy, fo
r example-but the general
pomt 1s valid.
Seco
nd, analytical tools have their limitatio
ns in a turbulent
~orld. These tools work best when para
meters are known, assump-
tions are minimal d h
. ' an t e future is not fuzzy
.
Third, good anal s •
It
h Y Is rarely motivate
s people in a big way.

c anges thought but h
t
the do t . ' ow often does i
t send people running ou
or o act m signifi l
. t a
thinki . cant Y new way
s? And motivation 1s no
ng word; It's a feeling word
We fail at change .
controlled and efforts not beca
use we are stupid, over-
' unemotional b ·
h t waY
at times. We fa .1 b
eings, although it can seem t a
1 ecause we h ,
h ·gh1Y
aven t sufficiently experienced
1
The Heart of Change O 13

successful change. Without that experience, we are too often
left
pessimistic, fearful, or without enough faith to act. So we not
only
behave in less effective ways, we don't even try.
Consider the implications of this pattern in an age of accelerat-
ing change, at a time when we are making a mind-boggling
transi-
tion from an industrial to an information/knowledge economy.
Consider the implications in light of how managers,
management
educators, and others today deal with large-scale change.
Of course there are many difficulties here, but being
uninformed
and pessimistic does not help. We need more leaps into the
future.
And although we are becoming better at this, there is no reason
that
we cannot learn to become much better still.
In light of the stakes, we must become better still.
Using the Book
Because they help show, the stories in the book are very im-
portant. As a reader, glancing at the figures, reading a bit of the
text, and moving on does not work especially well. If you are in
a
rush and want to learn from the book quickly, read three or four
stories and look at the end-of-chapter figures. You might choose
the stories in whichever chapter seems of most relevance. Or
you
might go to "Gloves on the Boardroom Table" in the step 1
chapter,

"The Plane Will Not Move!" in the step 3 chapter, and
"Retooling
the Boss" in the step 5 chapter.
No matter how you read the book, feel free to copy a story and
send it to your colleagues. The more a relevant story circulates
among your colleagues, and the more it creates useful dialogue,
the
better.
In a recent edition of Fortune magazine, Jack Welch is quoted
as saying, "You've got to talk about change every second of the
day." That's a bit of an extreme position, but maybe extreme is
what wins.
Assignment: Developing a Change Plan – Steps 1 and 2,
Creating Urgency and Building a Guiding Coalition
Throughout this course, you are going to build a change plan
using Kotter’s eight-stage process for creating change. Each
week, you will use the Learning Resources to guide you through
the change process step-by-step. You will then submit the
individual steps as your weekly assignment. At the end of the
course, you will have practiced all of the steps you need to
create and implement change within your organization or
community.
For the first stage of your change plan, you will begin by
selecting a positive change you would like to implement to help
improve your organization or community. You will then use
Steps 1 and 2 in Kotter’s eight-stage process to begin creating
urgency and building your coalition.
In preparing for this assignment, think about the various
organizations or communities with which you are involved. For
example, think about the company you work for, the places
where you volunteer, or the community you live in. What

positive change do you believe could improve the organization
or community of which you are a part? What key information is
important to help develop your change plan?
To prepare for this Assignment:
Introduction, “The Heart of Change” See attachments
Concept for Diagnosing and Developing Organizational Change
- See attachments
Exercise on pp. 34–35 of the course text, The Heart of Change
See attachments
Assignment:
To complete Steps 1 and 2 in your Change Plan, compose a
cohesive document that addresses the following:
· Introduction
· Identify a positive change that would improve an organization
or community with which you are familiar.
· Briefly describe the organization.
· Discuss why you feel this change is necessary and how the
organization would benefit from this change.
· Be sure and build a firm case on why this change is crucial.
· Establishing a Sense of Urgency
· Identify any areas of complacency within the organization.
· From Figure 1 in Schweiger, et al. (2016), which
organizational change capability would you describe as a
strength of your organization? Which would you describe as a
weakness? What steps will you take to address the weakness as
you create a sense of urgency?
· Outline a plan for creating urgency for the positive change you
have identified.
· Use the Exercise on pp. 34–35 of the course text, The Heart of
Change, as a guideline in the process.
· Creating a Guiding Coalition

· Outline the individuals that would be important to include in
your guiding coalition. You do not need to use names, but
describe the role each plays in the organization.
· Identify the criteria you used for selecting your coalition.
· Discuss the contributions each role would play in guiding the
change process.
· Defend why this group is ideal for this coalition over other
possibilities.
· 3-5 pages
· No Plagarism
· APA citing

Due September 16thJobs and LaborPlease answer the following

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Due September 16thJobs and LaborPlease answer the following

Similar to Due September 16thJobs and LaborPlease answer the following (19)

More from AlyciaGold776

More from AlyciaGold776 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Due September 16thJobs and LaborPlease answer the following