12JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGENo 3435 20152016

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 organizatio nal 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 advancement
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 Interpretation 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

A Concept for Diagnosing and Developing Organiza tional
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.
John Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model
John Kotter (1996), a Harvard Business School Professor and a
renowned change expert, in his book “Leading
Change”, introduced an 8 Step Model of Change which he

developed on the basis of research of 100
organizations which were going through a process of change.
The 8 steps in the process of change include:
creating a sense of urgency, forming powerful guiding
coalitions, developing a vision and a strategy,
communicating the vision, removing obstacles and empowering
employees for action, creating short-term
wins, consolidating gains and strengthening change by
anchoring change in the culture. Kotter’s 8 step model
can be explained with the help of the illustration given below:
(Source: Adapted from Kotter 1996)
1. Creating an Urgency: This can be done in the following ways:
repercussions which might crop up in
the future.
effective interventions.
think over the prevalent issues and give
convincing reasons to them.
the industry people,
key stakeholders and customers on
the issue of change.
2. Forming Powerful Guiding Coalitions
This can be achieved in the following ways:
and also the key stakeholders,
requesting their involvement and commitment towards the entire

process.
team.
the team involves many influential
people from various cross functional departments and working
in different levels in the company.
3. Developing a Vision and a Strategy
This can be achieved by:
the strategies for realizing a change in
an organization.
effectively and in a manner that people can
easily understand and follow.
4. Communicating the Vision
and convincingly. Connect the vision
with all the crucial aspects like performance reviews, training,
etc.
involvement.
5. Removing Obstacles
ructure are in
place and aligned with the overall
organizational vision.

change. Implement proactive actions
to remove the obstacles involved in the process of change.
endorsing change and supporting in the
process.
6. Creating Short-Term Wins
can give a feel of victory in the early
stages of change.
-term goal,
which are achievable and less
expensive and have lesser possibilities of failure.
meeting the targets.
7. Consolidating Gains
s
stories individually and improving from
those individual experiences.
8. Anchoring Change in the Corporate Culture
every given opportunity.
al part in your
organizational culture and is visible in
every organizational aspect.
well as the new leaders continue to
extend their support towards the change.

Advantages of Kotter’s Model
description and guidance on the entire process of
change and is relatively easy for being implemented.
employees for the success in the overall process.
change instead of the actual change
process.
Retrieved from:
https://www.managementstudyguide.com/kotters-8-step-model-
of-change.htm on
5/30/2018
https://www.managementstudyguide.com/kotters-8-step-model-
of-change.htm
Discussion 2: Developing a Change Plan – Forming a Guiding
Coalition
As a sense of urgency for change is developed within an
organization, there needs to be a structure in place to manage
the change. In the Kotter model, this need is filled by the
establishment of a change management team composed of a
variety of individuals with different competencies and roles.
The composition of the key players in the change process is
important, and while those with solid management skills may be
needed, leadership skills are vital. These key players must align
together in a coalition based on trust and common goals. A
successful coalition is not necessarily composed of top
management, but a blend of people within an organization—a

selection based on position, skills, integrity, and leadership
qualities that will garner the necessary commitment of the entire
organization. Key players in the change process can exist at all
levels of an organization.
To prepare for this Discussion:
· Review this week’s Learning Resources, especially:
1. Step 1: Establishing a sense of urgency – see attachment
2. Step 2: Creating a guiding coalition – see attachment
3. Leading change managementRetrieved from:10 principles of
leading change management (strategy-business.com)
Post a cohesive responsebased on your analysis of the Learning
Resources and your professional experience. Be sure to discuss
the following:
· If you were tasked with establishing a network for change,
which types of individuals within your organization would you
select? Why?
· Do these individuals represent all areas in your organization
that would be affected by the change?
· As the change project evolves, it will be necessary to include
key individuals from every level of the organization that is
affected. Explain how you have included these managers and
leaders in your guiding coalition.
· What challenges might a manager or leader face when
enlisting individuals from diverse areas within the organization?
· What could be the consequences of not identifying key
individuals or of not including individuals that represent all
areas of the organization? What additional work would that then
create in managing change?
· 3 – 4 paragraphs
· No plagiarism

12JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGENo 3435 20152016

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 12JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGENo 3435 20152016

Similar to 12JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGENo 3435 20152016 (19)

More from ChantellPantoja184

More from ChantellPantoja184 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

12JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGENo 3435 20152016