Review of hrm, vol. 2, april 2013 35 proceedings of

Review of HRM, Vol. 2, April 2013
35
Proceedings of 3
rd
National Conference on Human Resource Management,
NCHRM 2013
Employee Motivation, Adjustment and Values
as Correlates of Organizational Change
Anurakti Mathur
Amity Institute of Psychology and Allied Sciences, Amity
University, Noida
E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract
Change is inevitable in any organization. Every one fears the
unknown before the change
takes place, however after the change event there is a severe
problems that the
employees may face with regards to adjustment to the
disturbances that the change has
created. The present research sets out with an aim to understand
the effect of

organizational change on Employee Motivation, Adjustment and
Values in an organization
that has recently undergone massive organizational change. This
research was conducted
on a sample of 50 employees who are working in an
organization which has experienced a
major change in the recent past. Data was obtained through
questionnaires devised for
the purpose of this research keeping in mind the above
mentioned variables. The findings
show that the respondents have revealed the tendency to try and
maintain moderate
levels of motivation after the change. They also try to make the
desired adjustments that
are required in order to cope with the multiple roles in the
organization. The values shift
from achievement to personal survival ones to maintain ones
existence in the
organization and to function as a well-balanced individual.
Keywords: Motivation, Values, Organizational Change
Introduction
Changing organisations involves building a network of
relationships between
organisational entities that are defined and shaped (against
various resistances) to
contribute towards some particular goal of change (Law, 2000).
Or, as Brunsson and
Sahlin-Andersson (2000) suggest, the construction of entities so
that they come to
resemble some general or abstract concept of organisation –
perhaps one that is
perceived to be somehow more “complete”. In the context of
recent public sector reform

in a number of Western countries, much organisational change
can be seen as
representing attempts to reconstruct public sector organisations
as more consistent with
popular notions of “modern management” taken from the private
sector.
mailto:[email protected]
36
Proceedings of 3
rd
NCHRM 2013
An operational definition of ‘organisational change’
While the phrase ‘organisational change’ is much used in
management discourse it is a
phrase, like the word ‘management’, that is rarely defined at a
conceptual level. It is
clearly not a unitary concept as organisational change can be
implemented using a variety
of instruments either in series or, as our data show, more often
in parallel. Change may
be further explained in terms of its various types that the
researchers have divided it into.
Planned versus emergent change

Sometimes change is deliberate, a product of conscious
reasoning and actions. This type
of change is called planned change. In contrast, change
sometimes unfolds in an
apparently spontaneous and unplanned way. This type of change
is known as emergent
change. An important (arguably the central) message of recent
high-quality management
of change literature is that organisation-level change is not
fixed or linear in nature but
contains an important emergent element.
Episodic versus continuous change
Another distinction is between episodic and continuous change.
Episodic change,
according to Weick and Quinn (1999), is ‘infrequent,
discontinuous and intentional’.
Sometimes termed ‘radical’ or ‘second order’ change, episodic
change often involves
replacement of one strategy or programme with another.
Continuous change, in contrast, is ‘ongoing, evolving and
cumulative’ (Weick and Quinn,
1999). Also referred to as ‘first order’ or ‘incremental’ change,
continuous change is
characterised by people constantly adapting and editing ideas
they acquire from different
sources. At a collective level these continuous adjustments
made simultaneously across
units can create substantial change.
The distinction between episodic and continuous change helps
clarify thinking about an
organisation’s future development and evolution in relation to
its long-term goals. Few
organisations are in a position to decide unilaterally that they

will adopt an exclusively
continuous change approach. They can, however, capitalise
upon many of the principles
of continuous change by engendering the flexibility to
accommodate and experiment with
everyday contingencies, breakdowns, exceptions, opportunities
and unintended
consequences that punctuate organisational life (Orlikowski,
1996).
Developmental, transitional and transformational change
Change can also be understood in relation to its extent and
scope. Ackerman (1997) has
distinguished between three types of change: developmental,
transitional and
transformational.
37
Proceedings of 3
rd
NCHRM 2013
1. Developmental change may be either planned or emergent; it
is first order, or
incremental. It is change that enhances or corrects existing
aspects of an organisation,

often focusing on the improvement of a skill or process.
2. Transitional change seeks to achieve a known desired state
that is different from the
existing one. It is episodic, planned and second order, or
radical. The model of transitional
change is the basis of much of the organizational change
literature (see for example
Kanter, 1983; Beckhard and Harris, 1987; Nadler and Tushman,
1989). It has its
foundations in the work of Lewin (1951) who conceptualised
change as a three-stage
process involving:
• unfreezing the existing organisational equilibrium
• moving to a new position
• refreezing in a new equilibrium position.
3. Transformational change is radical or second order in nature.
It requires a shift in
assumptions made by the organisation and its members.
Transformation can result in an
organisation that differs significantly in terms of structure,
processes, culture and
strategy. It may, therefore, result in the creation of an
organisation that operates in
developmental mode – one that continuously learns, adapts and
improves.
Systems thinking and change
Many of the approaches to organisational change found in the
literature give the
impression that change is (or can be) a rational, controlled, and
orderly process. In
practice, however, organisational change is chaotic, often
involving shifting goals,
discontinuous activities, surprising events, and unexpected

combinations of changes and
outcomes (Cummings et al., 1985; Dawson, 1996). Accordingly,
change can be understood
in relation to the complex dynamic systems within which
change takes place.
Systems are described as closed or open. Closed systems are
completely autonomous and
independent of what is going on around them. Open systems
exchange materials, energy
and information with their environment. The systems of interest
in managing change can
all be characterised as open systems. In terms of understanding
organisations, systems
thinking suggest that issues, events, forces and incidents should
not be viewed as isolated
phenomena but seen as interconnected, interdependent
components of a complex entity.
Areas of Change
Organizations typically respond to the challenges of new
technologies, new competitors,
new markets, and demands for greater performance with various
programs, each
designed to overcome obstacles and enhance business
performance. Generally, these
programs fall into one of the following categories:
38
Proceedings of 3

rd
NCHRM 2013
• Structural change.–These programs treat the organization as a
set of functional parts—
the “machine” model. During structural change, top
management, aided by consultants,
attempts to reconfigure these parts to achieve greater overall
performance. Mergers,
acquisitions, consolidations, and divestiture of operating units
are all examples of
attempts at structural change.
• Cost cutting.–Programs such as these focuses on the
elimination of nonessential
activities or on other methods for squeezing costs out of
operations. Activities and
operations that get little scrutiny during profitable years draw
the attention of cost
cutters when times are tough.
• Process change.–These programs focus on altering how things
get done. Examples
include reengineering a loan approval process, the company’s
approach to handling
customer warranty claims, or even how decisions are made.
Process change typically aims
to make processes faster, more effective, more reliable, and/or
less costly.
• Cultural change.–These programs focus on the “human” side
of the organization, such
as a company’s general approach to doing business or the

relationship between its
management and employees. A shift from command-and-control
management to
participative management is an example of cultural change.
Two Different Approaches to Change
While there are many types of change programs, two very
different goals typically drive a
change initiative: near-term economic improvement or an
improvement in organizational
capabilities. Harvard Business School professors Michael Beer
and Nitin Nohria coined the
terms “Theory E” and “Theory O” to describe these two basic
goals.
Theory E: An Economic Approach
The explicit goal of Theory E change is to dramatically and
rapidly increase shareholder
value, as measured by improved cash flow and share price.
Popular notions of employee
participation and the “learning organization” take a back seat to
this overarching goal.
Financial crisis is usually the trigger for this approach to
change. Driven to increase
shareholder value, Theory E proponents rely heavily on
mechanisms likely to increase
short-term cash flow and share price: performance bonuses,
headcount reductions, asset
sales, and strategic reordering of business units. According to
Theory E, all implicit
contracts between the company and its employees, such as
lifetime employment, are
suspended during the change effort. Individuals and units whose
activities fail to
demonstrate tangible value creation The CEO and the executive
team drive Theory E

change from the top
39
Proceedings of 3
rd
NCHRM 2013
Theory O: An Organizational Capabilities Approach
The goal of Theory O change is to develop an organizational
culture that supports learning
and a high performance employee base. Companies that follow
this approach attempt to
invigorate their cultures and capabilities through individual and
organizational learning.
And that requires high levels of employee participation, flatter
organizational structure,
and strong bonds between the organization and its people.
Because employee
commitment to change and improvement are vital for Theory O
change to work, implicit
contracts with employees are considered too important to break.
The leaders of Theory O
change are less interested in driving the success themselves than
in encouraging
participation within the ranks, and in fostering employee
behaviors and attitudes that will

sustain such change.
Employee Psychological Dynamics during Organisational
Change
A debate exists over the reactions that individual employees
have towards change. While
there has been a long tradition of researchers who argue that
employees tend to resist
organisational change in general (e.g. Judson 1991; Odiorne
1981; Strebel 1996), Dent
and Goldberg (1999) argue that the term ‘resistance’ should be
removed from the
literature as it does not reflect the complex interactions that
occur during change. Piderit
(2000) takes a more conciliatory view suggesting that the
ambivalence that employees
feel towards change does not always produce resistance, but
generally produces
confusion. Regardless of what term is used, there is a wealth of
literature that shows that
employee ambivalence to management change initiatives is
often linked to dysfunctional
conflict during organizational change and associated with
negative outcomes such as job
dissatisfaction and expressed grievances (Kirkman, Jones &
Shapiro 2000). Employees
who are expending their energy on these types of reactions to
change have less energy
for participating or contributing to that change. Therefore,
identifying factors that
moderate this change resistance would be beneficial to both the
individuals involved in
the change process and the organisation. Examining
organisational behaviour,
researchers have identified change as having the potential to
elicit a broad range of

emotion whether the transformation is a major restructure or
minor re-organisation
(Mossholder et al., 2000).
Change can be perceived as a challenge or an opportunity and
triggers positive emotions
such as excitement, enthusiasm and creativity (Goleman,
Boyatzis & McKee 2002).
Change can also, however, be threatening and create negative
emotions such as anger,
fear, anxiety, cynicism, resentment, and withdrawal (French
2001). Clearly change poses
significant challenges, both to those who implement and those
who are affected by the
change (O’Neill & Lenn 1995). Management theory, however,
tends to focus on cognitive
issues such as cognitive dissonance during change (Bacharach,
Bamberger & Sonnenstuhl
1996). The result of this focus is consideration of solutions in
dealing with attitudes to
40
Proceedings of 3
rd
NCHRM 2013
change, rather than emotional reactions (e.g. Brockner 1988;

Brockner, Grover, Reed &
DeWitt 1992). A small body of research that has examined the
role of emotion during
organisational change has largely focused on emotional
responses such as stress (Terry &
Jimmieson 2003), and behaviours such as withdrawal and low
organisational commitment
(Begley & Czajka 1993), thereby ignoring the emotive/cognitive
processes that engender
such outcomes (O’Neill & Lenn 1995).
Work Motivation
Work motivation may be defined as the internal or external
force that compels an
individual to perform optimally in the organization where he is
employed. Work
motivation has been found to be positively related to job
satisfaction, performance and
organizational commitment. The motives may be extrinsic or
intrinsic in nature.
Extrinsic motives are tangible or visible to others. They are
distributed by other people. In
the workplace extrinsic motives include pay, benefits,
promotions etc. extrinsic motives
also include the drive to avoid punishment, such as termination
or being transferred. In
each situation an external agent distributes these items.
Furthermore, extrinsic rewards
are usually contingency based. That is, the extrinsic motivator
is contingent on improved
performance, or performance that is superior to others in the
same workplace. Extrinsic
motivators are necessary to attract people into the organization
and keep them on the
job. They are also used to inspire workers to achieve at higher

levels or to reach new
goals, as additional payoffs are contingent on improved
performance. They do not,
however, explain every effort made by an individual employee.
Intrinsic motives are internally generated. In other words, they
are motivators that the
person associates with the task or job itself. Intrinsic reward
include feeling of
responsibility, achievement, accomplishment, that something
was learned from
experience, feeling of being challenged or competitive, or that
something was an
engaging task or goal. Performing meaningful work has also
been associated with intrinsic
motivation.
The two types of motivators are not completely distinct from
one another. Many
motivators have both extrinsic and intrinsic components.
Cognitive Evaluation Theory
suggests a more complicated relationship. This theory says that
a task may be intrinsically
motivating, but when an extrinsic motivator becomes associated
with that task, the actual
level of motivation may decrease. In other words, extrinsic
motivation may actually
undermine intrinsic motivation. But there is considerable
research evidence that extrinsic
reward may not detract from intrinsic motivation and at least for
interesting, challenging
tasks, extrinsic reward may increase the level of intrinsic
motivation.

41
Proceedings of 3
rd
NCHRM 2013
According to David McClelland there are three major types
work motivators need for
achievement (n-ach), need for power (n power) and the need for
affiliation (n aff). These
set of needs are said to guide and direct employee motivation in
the organizational
setting.
The Power Motive: Winter (1973) has defined social power as
“the ability or capacity of a
person to produce (consciously or unconsciously) intended
effects on the behaviour and
emotions of another person”. The goal of power motivation are
to influence, control,
cajole, persuade, lead, charm others and to enhance ones own
reputation in the eyes of
other people. People with strong power motivation derive
satisfaction from achieving
these goals.
The leading advocate of the power motive was the psychologist,
Alfred Adler. To explain
the need for power- the need to manipulate others or drive for

being in charge of others-
Adler developed the concept of inferiority complex and
compensation. He felt that every
small child experiences a sense of inferiority. When this feeling
of inferiority is combined
with what he sensed as an innate need for superiority, the two
rule all behaviour. The
person’s lifestyle is characterized by striving for compensation
for the feeling of
inferiority, which are combined with the innate need for power.
Power motivation varies in strength from person to person and
situation to situation in
the same person. It may be expressed in many ways; the manner
of expression depends
greatly on the person’s socioeconomic status, sex, level of
maturity, and the degree to
which the individual fears his or her own power motivation.
There are five categories of power:
ource of power is based on a person’s
ability to control
resources and reward others. In addition, the target of this
power must value
these rewards. If the managers offer their people what they
think are rewards, but
the people do not value them, then managers do not really have
reward power. By
the same token, the managers may not think that they are giving
rewards to their
people, but if they perceive this to be rewarding, the managers
nevertheless have
reward power. Also managers may not really have the rewards
to dispense, but as
long as people think they have it, they do indeed have reward

power.
person with coercive
power has the ability to inflict punishment or aversive
consequences on another
person or, at least make threats that the other person believes
will result in
punishment or undesirable outcomes. Managers frequently have
coercive power
in that they can fire or demote people who work for them or
dock their pay. A
42
Proceedings of 3
rd
NCHRM 2013
manager can also directly or indirectly threaten an employee
with these punishing
consequences.
ource, identified by French
and Raven, stems from
the internalized values of the other person that give the
legitimate right to the
agent to influence them. The others feel that they have the

obligation to accept
this power. It is closely aligned with both reward and coercive
power because the
person with legitimacy is also in a position to reward and
punish. But unlike
reward and coercive power it does not depend on the
relationships with others
rather on the position or role that the person holds. Managers
generally have
legitimate power because employees believe in the value of
private property laws
and in the hierarchy where higher positions have been
designated to have power
over lower positions. People can obtain legitimate power from
accepted social
structure or from being designated as the agent or representative
of a powerful
person or a group.
the part of the
other person to identify with the agent wielding power. They
want to identify with
the powerful person, regardless of the outcome. The others
grant the person
power because he or she is attractive and has desirable
resources or personal
characteristics. Managers with referent power must be attractive
to their people
so that they will want to identify with them, regardless of
whether the managers
later have the ability to reward or punish or whether they have
legitimacy. The
manager who depends on referent power must be personally
attractive to the
subordinates.

Expert Power: This source of power is based on the extent to
which others attribute
knowledge and expertise to the power holder. Experts are
perceived to have knowledge
or understanding only in certain well defined areas. The target
must perceive the agent to
be credible, trustworthy, and relevant before expert power is
granted. Staff specialists
have expert power in their functional areas but not outside
them. Expert power is highly
selective, and, besides credibility the agent must also have
trustworthiness and relevance.
Managers and staff specialists, who seldom have the other
sources of power available to
them, often have to depend on their expertise as their only
source of power. As
organizations become increasingly technologically complex and
specialized, the expert
power of the organization members at all levels has become
more and more important.
This is formally recognized by some companies that deliberately
include lower level staff
members with expert power in top level decision making
Research Objectives
The research has been conducted with an objective of
understanding the psychological
after-effects of organisational change on the employees of that
organisation. For this

43
Proceedings of 3
rd
NCHRM 2013
purpose few aspects of the human psyche such as motivation
(extrinsic and intrinsic),
adjustment(personal and professional), and values have been
incorporated, though many
other aspects have been left out due to the constraints faced by
the researcher and in
order to narrow down the scope of the study.
Thus the research has been carried out keeping the following
aims in mind:
employees
after a change event.
fit into their
organisations after change has occurred.
event with respect
to need for power, affiliation and achievement.
-place in the
employees after the change
process.

Review of Literature
The present research is aimed to develop a theoretical
understanding of psychological
dynamics of the employee during the organisational change,
informed by a perspective
on employee work values, motivation and adjustment. This
chapter provides a literature
review that introduces the issue of employee’s psychological
aspect during organisational
change. The review draws primarily on the psychological
literature focusing on aspects of
the human psyche like motivation, values and adjustment.
Research on Nature of Organisational Change
The increasing pace of global, economic and technological
development makes change an
inevitable feature of organisational life (Cummings & Worley,
1997). Organisations are
often ineffective at managing the psychological components of
organisational change
(Bennett & Durkin, 2000) and it has been noted that there is
considerable room for
improving the effectiveness of change efforts (Porras &
Robertson, 1992). Kotter (1995)
noted that as many as 90% of initiatives fail to achieve their
strategic objectives mainly
due to human factors such as change related responses, attitudes
and behaviours.
Organisations cannot achieve their strategic change objective
until a critical mass of
employees has successfully completed their individual
transitions (St Amour, 2001).
Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) argued that employee
attitude towards

organisational change affect not only the success of the change
process but other
important organisational outcomes such as job satisfaction,
productivity, morale,
absenteeism and turnover (Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby, 2000).
The costs involved with
such consequences may be directly attributable to the distress
that is created when an
organisation’s employees encounter constant change (Mack,
Nelson & Quick, 1998).
44
Proceedings of 3
rd
NCHRM 2013
Large scale organisational change is defined as change that
encompasses the entire
organisation, has occurred over a number of years, and involves
fundamental
modifications in ways of thinking about the business, the
organisation, and how the
organisation is managed (Nadler, 1988). This type of change has
important and often
underestimated psychological implications for the employees.
The necessary adjustments

can foster enthusiasm and opportunities for learning and growth
or, alternatively, can
lead to frustration and alienation (Thompson & Van de Ven,
2001).
Judge, Thoresen and Welbourne (1999) argued that
organisational change research has
been dominated largely by macro systems oriented focus and
that a limited number of
studies of organisational have taken a micro level,
psychological approach. Hence
assessing the impact of organisational change on employee
attitudes and behaviours is
identified as an important research direction.
Despite widespread research on why and how organisations
change, what constitutes
change is often taken for granted. Its definition is avoided.
Studies based on individuals'
rational choice imply that change flows from purposive actions
in accordance with an
objective, external reality whereas contextualism argues that
change results from
institutional pressures, isomorphism, and routines. But both
depict change as the passage
of an entity, whether an organisation or accounting practices,
from one identifiable and
unique status to another. Despite their differences over whether
reality is independent,
concrete and external, or socially constructed, both assume that
actors (or researchers)
can identify a reality to trace the scale and direction of changes.
This reflects modernist
beliefs that organisational space and time are unique and linear.
Many organisations are implementing major changes in the way

they do business in
response to growing international competition, a significantly
changing workforce,
increasingly complex and changing work environments, and
other pressures (Lawler,
1986, Manz, 1992). As an organisation strives to maintain their
competitive edge they are
reorganising, downsizing and implementing new technology.
Ultimately, new and
additional job demands are placed on individuals within these
organisations. These
changes are inevitable inn today’s work environment. Also
inevitable is the fact that
employees must adapt to these constantly changing
environments in order to survive and
prosper. Development of a body of knowledge about managing
change is an important
body of knowledge for both academics and for general managers
(Beer, 1987). The need
for adaptive workers has become increasingly important due to
the fact that today’s
organisations are characterised by changing, dynamic
environments (Pulakos, Arad,
Donovan, & Palmondon, 2000, Ilgen &Pulakos, 1999). In a
recent article stressing the
attributes graduates need to enter the workforce, adaptability to
the changing work
environment was at the top of the list (Gow & Mc Donald,
2000).
45

Proceedings of 3
rd
NCHRM 2013
In today's turbulent, often chaotic, environment, commercial
success depends on
employees using their full talents. Yet in spite of the myriad of
available theories and
practices, managers often view motivation as something of a
mystery. In part this is
because individuals are motivated by different things and in
different ways. In addition,
these are times when delayering and the flattening of
hierarchies can create insecurity
and lower staff morale. Moreover, more staff than ever …
Major Case Analysis Presentation Instructions
As students complete the required Major Case Analysis, they
are also responsible for completing a PowerPoint or Prezi
presentation (or presentation that uses another appropriate
technology) highlighting their findings.
This is a follow-up to the Major Case Analysis and must be
submitted to the assignment folder no later than the Sunday
11:59 PM EST/EDT of Module 7.
View the rubric for this assignment here.
The recommended length of the presentation is 8-10 slides with
audio commentary included. The presentation must be

appropriate to college-level work, demonstrate critical analysis
of the case, and be free of spelling and grammar errors.
Submit the Major Case Analysis PowerPoint or Prezi
Presentation to the assignment folder.
The presentation should outline the Major Case Analysis
submitted in Module 7 and contain the major topics that discuss
the Major Case Analysis. It should also contain the critical -
thinking topics contained in this course: making claims, use of
evidence, recognizing and validating assumptions, causal
claims, and being persuasive. Students are free to choose any
company for the case; however, they are strongly encouraged to
choose a publicly held company that is listed on a major stock
exchange in the U.S. so adequate information may be obtained
for the case analysis.
Major Case Analysis Instructions
For this assignment, you are required to address an issue or
problem faced by your company of choice and will analyze it
using the techniques taught in this course.
View the rubric for this assignment here.
Each student must submit to the assignment folder a Major Case
Study Analysis no later than Sunday 11:59 PM EST/EDT of
Module 7. (This assignment folder may be linked to Turnitin.)
The write-up is limited to 12-15 double-spaced pages, not
including a title page and exhibits (include as appendices).
SELECTING AN ORGANIZATION
Explore news/current events to locate a business that has a
complex problem which needs to be addressed. The problem
may be related to any business topic (i.e. accounting, marketing,

legal, etc.).
It is suggested that you select a recent problem of a public
company, which will ensure that you will have access to the
information necessary to complete your project.
As you select an organizational problem for your class project,
it is important that you select an organization that is interesting,
possibly useful to you in your career, industry, or interests. An
organization or industry you are interested in should give you
better access to information.
USE THE 9-STEP CASE ANALYSIS PROCESS AS A GUIDE:
1. Skim the case to get an overview of the situation.
2. Read the case thoroughly to digest the facts.
3. Carefully Review information in exhibits.
4. Decide what the strategic issues are.
5. Begin your analysis with some number crunching.
6. Apply the concepts of strategic analysis.
7. Check out conflicting opinions
8. Support your opinions with reasons and evidence.
9. Develop recommendations and an action plan.
Your analysis and recommendations should be supported with
high-quality evidence, including textbooks and peer-reviewed
academic journal articles covering the appropriate topics that
apply to your specific problem from the following list:
1. Accounting
2. Business Communications
3. Business Ethics
4. Business Finance
5. Business Integration and Strategic Management
6. Business Leadership
7. Economics
8. Global Dimensions of Business
9. Information Management Systems
10. Legal Environment of Business

11. Management
12. Marketing
13. Quantitative Research Techniques/Statistics
W I N T E R 2 0 0 7 V O L . 4 8 N O . 2
R E P R I N T N U M B E R 4 8 2 1 1
Peter M. Senge, Benyamin B. Lichtenstein, Katrin Kaeufer,
Hilary Bradbury and John S. Carroll
P l e a s e n o t e t h a t g ra y a re a s re f l e c t a r t w o rk
t h a t h a s
b e e n i n t e n t i o n a l l y re m o v e d . T h e s u b s t a n t
i v e c o n t e n t
o f t h e a r t i c l e a p p e a rs a s o ri g i n a l l y p u b l i s
h e d .
Collaborating For
Systemic Change
Meeting the sustainability
challenge will require
the kind of cross-sector
collaboration for which
there is still no real

precedent. It must be
co-created by various
stakeholders by
interweaving work in
three realms: the
conceptual, the relational
and the action-driven.
Peter M. Senge,
Benyamin B. Lichtenstein,
Katrin Kaeufer,
Hilary Bradbury and
John S. Carroll
or more than a century and a half, industrial growth has been
weaving an ever-
thickening web of interdependence around the world. Today,
consumer
choices on one side of the planet affect living conditions for
people on the
other side. Complex supply chains span the globe; for example,
the average

pound of food travels between 1,500 and 2,500 miles before it
reaches an American con-
sumer.1 But these developments do not alter biological or social
realities that have taken
shape over thousands and millions of years. Consequently,
businesses operating within this
growing web are facing a host of “sustainability” probl ems:
social and ecological imbalances
created by this globalization, such as a widening social divide
between haves and have-nots,
global climate change, exponentially growing chemical and
material waste and loss of
habitat and species.
Traditionally, businesses have thought such problems to be the
result of economic exter-
nalities that require governments’ attention. But while
governments are a crucial part of
lasting change, relying on governmental leadership to
effectively deal with sustainability is
questionable for many reasons. The first limitation is
geography. Even the largest govern-
mental institutions are limited by their borders and can’t attack
sustainability problems that

are global in nature. The second limitation is time. Elected
officials are limited by their elec-
tion cycles and struggle to deal with problems that develop over
decades and don’t align
with their time in office. Moreover, due to increased
fragmentation in democratic societies,
problems that transcend those of specialized interests tend to
fall by the wayside.
For these and many more reasons, businesses are finding
themselves compelled to ex-
ercise leadership around a host of sustainability issues. In
particular, recognizing the
limitations of what can be done in isolation, many business
leaders have already formed
collaborative initiatives like the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, the
Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies and
Societies and the Global Re-
porting Initiative. In spite of such initiatives, however, there are
challenges we are just
beginning to recognize. (See “About the Research,” p. 46.)
For example, in 1991, Unilever — the consumer products giant
based in London — ini-
tiated a worldwide collaborative effort toward creating a global

certification regime for
sustainable fishing involving fishing companies, distributors,
retailers, local governments
Collaborating For
Systemic Change
Peter M. Senge is the founding chairperson of the Society for
Organizational Learning and a senior lec-
turer at the MIT Sloan School of Management. Benyamin B.
Lichtenstein is assistant professor of
management and entrepreneurship at the College of
Management, University of Massachusetts, Boston.
Katrin Kaeufer is research director of the Presencing Institute
and founding research member of SoL.
Hilary Bradbury is the director of Sustainable Business
Programs at the Marshall School of Business,
University of Southern California. John S. Carroll is a professor
of behavioral and policy sciences, MIT
Sloan School of Management. Contact them respectively at
[email protected], [email protected]
edu, [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected]
F
44 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW WINTER 2007
S U S T A I N A B I L I T Y
and nongovernmental organizations. Unfortunately, as soon as
this Marine Stewardship Council was formed, it was immersed
in

controversy.2 Environmental NGOs interpreted aggressive goals
to certify major fisheries as a corporate drive to certify
“business-
as-usual” overfishing.3 Conversely, NGO efforts to contest
certification were criticized by the multinational corporations as
stalling progress toward sustainability. One of the first projects
of
the MSC — to certify the Alaskan pollock fishery (the largest
white fish fishery in the world) — became a multiyear legal bat-
tle. Similar difficulties have plagued other efforts to establish
certification mechanisms in forestry, organic and nongenetically
modified foods.
Two conclusions stand out from efforts like the MSC. First,
recognition of the need for such collaboration is growing.
Second,
it is exceedingly difficult to engage a diverse group of partners
in
successful collaborative systemic change. Although some
relevant
research exists,4 cross-sector collaboration at this scale is
largely

unexplored. The need is great, but the challenge is equally
great.
The Society For Organizational Learning
Beginning in the late 1990s, organizational members of the
Soci-
ety for Organizational Learning began several initiatives
focusing
on collaborative solutions to a variety of sustainability issues.5
The
group’s goals have included the application of systems thinking,
working with mental models and fostering personal and shared
vision to face these complex sustainability issues.6
Through its work, SoL has learned that successful collabora-
tive efforts embrace three interconnected types of work
— conceptual, relational and action driven — that together
build
a healthy “learning ecology” for systemic change. Failing to ap-
preciate the importance of each is likely to frustrate otherwise
serious and well-funded attempts at collaboration on complex
problems. What follows are examples from particular projects in
which this learning ecology provided an important foundation

for substantive progress.
Conceptual Work: Framing Complex Issues
Making sense of complex issues like sustainability requires sys -
tems-thinking skills that are not widely shared. When effective
collaboration is the aim, developing a shared conceptual
“systems
sense” is even more important.
Illustrative Conceptual Projects: Integrating Sustainability
Frameworks
A dozen SoL organization members including Shell, Harley Da-
vidson, HP, Xerox and Nike formed the SoL Sustainability
Consortium in 1999 to gain a better understanding of how learn-
ing tools could support their efforts to integrate sustainability
concerns into their business practices.7 One of the first concep-
tual projects that emerged in the consortium grew from the
confusion of members about the many different sustainability
frameworks and tools they encountered,8 including the Natural
Step,9 Natural Capitalism,10 ISO 14001,11 Zero Emissions Re-
search Initiative,12 biomimicry,13 WBCSD Indicators,14
ecological

footprints,15 life-cycle analysis,16 and cradle to cradle.17 (See
“De-
scribing Different Sustainability Frameworks,” p. 48.)
This confusion became an issue because the proliferation of
frameworks and tools was actually slowing progress toward sus-
tainability rather than assisting it, especially because people
were
spending their time arguing about which framework was “right.”
In response the consortium frameworks group emerged — a
WINTER 2007 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 45
subgroup of the consortium that included members from BP,
Harley-Davidson, Plug Power, Visteon, MIT and U.S. Natural
Step — that came up with two key ideas for integrating and
relat-
ing different sustainability approaches.18
1. There are three different worldviews that inform the notion of
sustainability.19 These are rationalism, which recognizes the
need

for efficient utilization of resources through “meeting the needs
of
the present without compromising the ability of future
generations
to meet their own needs;”20 naturalism, which recognizes the
need
to bring industrial systems into harmony with nature21 by not
de-
pleting resources beyond their rates of regeneration; and
humanism,
which recognizes that sustainability depends on an intrinsic
human
desire to be part of healthy communities that preserve life for
our-
selves, other species and future generations.22
Each worldview provides a vital
counterbalance to the others. For
example, popular rationalistic con-
cepts like eco-efficiency can help
businesses waste less, but a growing
economy can have an increasingly
adverse environmental impact, even

as it becomes more efficient in using
natural resources. By contrast, natu-
ralism addresses the total impact of
industrial activity on nature, but
unless it evokes a deep human de-
sire to live within those limits, it
doesn’t necessarily motivate change.
Similarly, humanism addresses the
deeper motivations for sustainabil-
ity but does not, by itself, lead to the
practical tools and metrics for con-
necting business operations to
sustainability outcomes.23
2. Different sustainability frame-
works relate to different levels in
the management system. Many
frameworks focus on metrics. This
is useful but narrow. Equally im-

portant is defining overall outcomes
and having guidelines for shaping
strategies. Organizational practices
that include or go beyond metrics
mediate between strategy and out-
comes and constitute a critical
aspect of any business.
Seeing different sustainability
frameworks as working at different
management levels clarifies their interdependency and potential
complementarity. (See “Integrating Frameworks Across Levels,”
p. 49.) It also reminds us that management systems must be
homegrown. Strategic guidelines and organizational metrics and
practices must be tailored to the specific people, culture,
market,
technology and history of any enterprise. For example, NIKE
Inc.,
a company that prides itself on innovation for vitality and more
healthy personal life styles, naturally gravitated to biomimicry

—
innovation inspired by nature. Today, led by hundreds of
independent designers who are part of Nike’s larger network,
the
company is introducing a range of “biomimetic” innovations
such
as compostable cloth, shoes that are put together with
biodegrad-
able adhesives and an entire line of organic cotton athletic
apparel.
(Nike even helped to launch the Organic Cotton Exchange to
bring more organic cotton onto the world market.) Translating
Data for this research were collected and analyzed by a team of
four researchers who, over
a six-year period, participated in more than a dozen meetings of
the SoL Sustainability Con-
sortium as well as being participant observers in all the
collaborative projects. Using
traditional ethnomethodology, researchers took extensive field
notes of each of the con-
sortium meetings and discussed these in post hoc research
teleconferences. In addition, 42

semi-structured interviews with participants were conducted,
recorded and transcribed
over a two-year period. Participants were asked about specific
collaborative experiences,
as well as their personal and business aspirations for the
consortium as a whole. In order to
gain a diversity of views, the research team chose individuals
representing a range of orga-
nizational ranks (senior, mid-level, and junior) and attendance
levels (core, frequent, and
recent). Data were analyzed and coded for emergent themes,
using inductive qualitative
methods appropriate for exploratory research.i At the same
time, individual case studies of
collaborative projects were developed and compared in order to
identify emergent rou-
tines and practices being transferred across projects.ii We
analyzed all these data for the
presence of drivers and interaction patterns within the
consortium as a whole, eventually
developing a single system map that identified the three
domains discussed here.iii
The study has been guided by the principles of participatory
action researchiv and com-

munity action research,v aiming to build a community that
builds knowledge in a way that
binds together the community. Thus, the researchers actively
participated in meetings and
projects and, in addition, they periodically presented
interpretations from their research en-
gaging participants, facilitators and organizers in regular
dialogues on its implications.
i. J.M. Corbin and A.L. Strauss, “The Articulation of Work
Through Interaction,” Sociological Quarterly 34, no. 1 (March
1993): 71-
83; and M.B. Miles and A.M. Huberman, “Qualitative Data
Analysis” (Thousand Oaks, California: Sage, 1994).
ii. R.K. Yin, “Case Study Research: Design and Methods”
(Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1984); and K.M.
Eisenhardt and L.
J. Bourgeois, III, “Building Theories From Case Study
Research,” Academy of Management Review 14, no. 4 (October
1989): 532-550.
iii. H. Bradbury, D. Good and L. Robson, “What Keeps It
Together: Relational Bases for Organizing,” in “Creating
Collaborative Cul-
tures,” ed. S. Shuman (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Wiley, in
press).
iv. P. Reason and H. Bradbury, “Introduction: Inquiry and

Participation in Search of a World Worthy of Human
Aspiration,” in
“Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and
Practice,” ed. P. Reason and H. Bradbury (London: Sage
Publications,
2001), 1-14; and C.D. Argyris, B. Smith and B. Putnam,
“Action Science: Concepts, Methods and Skills For Research
and Interven-
tion” (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985).
v. C.O. Scharmer and P. Senge, “Community Action Research,”
in “Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and
Prac-
tice,” ed. P. Reason and H. Bradbury (London: Sage
Publications, 2001), 238-249.
About the Research
general ideas into specific organizational strategies, practices
and
objectives takes imagination, courage, persistence, patience and
passion. In its final report, the consortium subgroup concluded,
“The sustainability challenge is fundamentally a learning chal -
lenge, a process that requires both ‘outer changes’ like new

metrics
and ‘inner changes’ in taken-for-granted assumptions and ways
of
operating.”24
Lessons From the Conceptual Work The learnings from
conceptual
work done on particular projects suggest the need for
collectively
built frameworks that create clarity without denying
complexity.
Build community through thinking together and sharing.
When faced with difficult conceptual tasks, it is faster and
easier
to leave the work to small groups of experts or to outsource it to
consultants or academics. But doing so bypasses the collective
intelligence embedded in diverse organizations and industries
and can result in output for which there is neither deep under -
standing nor commitment. In contrast, when conceptual
frameworks are developed collaboratively, the process builds
community and fosters more extended application and testing.
As one member reflected, “Working together to make sense of
the

different sustainability frameworks showed us that we were not
the only company who was confused about sustainability and
helped us communicate what sustainability meant in terms of
outcomes and strategies in a way that worked in our culture.”25
Achieve simplicity without reduction.26 Clarity must not come
at the expense of oversimplification and trivialization of com-
plex issues. Conceptual working groups can sometimes produce
rousing action agendas that include little penetrating insight;
similarly, turgid analyses of complex issues can leave people
better informed but no more able to take action. Nevertheless,
tools like system dynamics27 and stock-flow diagrams (see
“Naturalism and Sustainability,” p. 50) can help in digesting the
complexity of a problem while communicating key features that
guide action. Simple system models highlight key variables and
key interrelationships.
Relational Work: Dialogue and Collaborative Inquiry
Success in any collaboration between organizations rests on the
quality of relationships that shape cooperation, trust, mutuality

and joint learning.28 But supporting relationship building is not
easy, given the competitive culture and transactional
relationships
typical in organizational life. Only rarely do groups move
beyond
“politeness” or win-lose debates into more authentic and
reflective
interactions characterized by candor, openness and
vulnerability.
From its inception, members of the SoL Sustainability Con-
sortium were committed to skills of reflective conversation and
working with mental models as a way to build more productive
relationships. As part of bringing new members into the com-
munity, a half-day, premeeting workshop introduced basic
tools of organizational learning; specific ground rules for ef-
fective conversation were made explicit, including such things
as confidentiality, radical respect for each other, the imperative
to “listen, listen, listen” and inquiry balanced with advocacy.
These steps were especially useful in ongoing projects in which
people deepened their understanding of one another through

genuine dialogue.
Illustrative Relational Projects: Women Leading Sustainability
The
first Women Leading Sustainability dialogue was held in 2001
to
explore the distinctive nature of women’s leadership in sustain-
ability initiatives. Over the years, participants developed a
repository of the group’s experiences, including stories about
leading sustainability initiatives, reflections on personal chal -
lenges and lessons learned through the eyes of their children. In
these ways, the group has lived the consortium’s dedication to
candor and cooperation.
The relational work of WLS has had tangible effects. For ex-
ample, Simone Amber, founder of a corporate-funded, global
Internet-based educational project called SEED, said that the
honest dialogue of WLS helped her see how far sustainability
ef-
forts go toward helping others, especially those in developing
countries. In WLS, participants’ motivation for working on sus-
tainability goes beyond business benefits by integrating work,

family and self; and the members have developed a sense of
pur-
pose, fueled by a desire for their work to benefit others. These
successes are embodied in the group’s description of itself:
“What
matters most about this group is that we assert the importance
of
taking time for reflection so that our learning evolves through
integrating action and reflection.” Action and reflection are nec -
essary for good decision making, yet in today’s “just do it”
culture,
time for learning is rarely practiced or valued.
Clarity must not come at the expense of oversimplification and
trivialization of complex issues. Conceptual
working groups can sometimes produce rousing action agendas
that include little penetrating insight.
Lessons From the Relational Work The learnings from relational
work done on particular projects suggest that the work must
begin with far-reaching and unorchestrated dialogue that in turn
sets the tone for systematic initiatives and practices.

Dialogue groups emerge from deep questions and longings. Al -
though it is easy to focus on formal strategies and the
mechanics of
change, we shape our collective futures in “conversations that
mat-
ter.”29 For example, the Women Leading Sustainability group
explored how to connect their “inner” and “outer” lives, how to
develop a career path that can provide leadership within the
corpo-
ration while also being consistent with their core values and
how
best to engage stakeholders far beyond their organizations. Such
conversations help clarify important issues and provide a “lived
experience of how we naturally self-organize to think together,
strengthen community, share knowledge and ignite
innovation.”30
Identifying powerful questions cannot be orchestrated or
planned. They emerge over time with shifts in strategic context.
The key is to recognize and engage them seriously in a spirit of
dialogue and joint exploration. For example, John Browne, chief

When the Society for Organizational Learning first organized in
1999, one of its first conceptual projects was to find a way to
integrate and relate the existing sustainability tools and
frameworks.
Describing Different Sustainability Frameworks
The Natural Step was founded by the
Swedish researcher Karl-Hènrik Robèrt
in 1989, who developed the following
scientifically based consensus defini-
tion of sustainability: In a sustainable
society, nature is not subject to system-
atically increasing (1) concentrations of
substances extracted from the earth’s
crust; (2) concentrations of substances
produced by society; and (3) degrada-
tion by physical means; and in that
society, people are not subject to condi-
tions that systematically undermine
their capacity to meet their needs.

Natural capitalism is a strategic frame-
work based on four precepts: (1) radically
increase the productivity of resource use;
(2) shift to biologically inspired produc-
tion (for example, biomimicry) with
closed loops, no waste and no toxicity; (3)
shift business models away from the mak-
ing and selling of “things” to providing
the service that the “thing” delivers
(thereby retaining ownership of products
for recycling and remanufacturing); and
(4) reinvest in natural and human capital.
ISO 14001 was first published in 1996
and specifies the operational require-
ments for an environmental manage-
ment system, providing generalizable
objectives and goals with measurable
metrics that can guide the environmen-

tal activities of organizations in most
industries.
Zero Emissions Research Initiative was
launched by the United Nations Univer-
sity/Institute of Advanced Studies in 1994
and was renamed Zero Emissions Forum
in 1999. ZERI promoted the concept that
all industrial inputs can be completely
converted into a final product and that
waste products can be converted into
value-added inputs for another chain of
production. In this context, the manufac-
turing line can be viewed as a series of
production cycles and recycling systems.
Biomimicry studies nature’s models and
imitates or takes inspiration from these
designs and processes to create products
and human processes. Based on research

from multiple disciplines, biomimicry
provides a framework for valuing not
what we can extract from the natural
world but what we can learn from it.
The World Business Council for Sustain-
able Development brings together 180
international companies in a shared
commitment to sustainable develop-
ment through economic growth,
ecological balance and social progress.
The WBCSD has developed a set of eco-
efficiency indicators to help measure
progress toward economic and environ-
mental sustainability in business.
“Ecological footprints” was first
coined in 1992 by the Canadian ecolo-
gist William Rees, and is used to
manage the use of resources through-

out the economy by measuring the
total environmental impact of business.
Life-cycle analysis enables a manufac-
turer to quantify how much energy and
raw materials are used and how much
solid, liquid and gaseous waste is gener-
ated at each stage of a product’s life
from creation up to and including the
end of its period of use.
Cradle to cradle articulates a set of
principles that seek to transform manu-
facturing design from being purely
opportunistic to focusing on the service
that products provide. One key princi-
ple is the total elimination of waste
in manufacturing; all components of
manufactured goods would be recycled
or reused, thus reversing the “cradle-

to-grave” model that governs existing
industry.
executive officer of BP p.l.c., has arguably done as much to
legiti-
mize the importance of climate change in the business world as
anyone over the last decade. This started with a day-long
meeting
of climate scientists and a handful of BP top executives in 1996.
“The very fact that we took a whole day on this issue was
signifi-
cant,” says former BP chief scientist Bernie Bulkin. “Prior to
that,
this was a subject that might have gotten 20 minutes on a
manage-
ment team meeting agenda. But, I remember Brown saying that,
‘We are grownups. We can think these things through on our
own
and find out what we really believe. Maybe we come to the
same
conclusion as the industry association, or maybe we come to a

different conclusion.’” This “thinking together” eventually
resulted
in a historic speech Browne gave at Stanford University, in
Stan-
ford, California, in 1997, in which for the first time in public a
CEO of a major oil company broke ranks with peers. He
declared
that it was sufficiently likely that climate change actually was
oc-
curring to warrant serious action, and he announced a series of
initial commitments that BP would make unilaterally to reduce
its
emissions and begin investing in alternative technologies.
Nurturing relational space can be systematic and purposeful.
Although the deep questions that drive dialogue cannot be
overly
planned, there are ways to encourage a relational ecology out of
which initiatives will self-organize. For example, many of the
founders of Women Leading Sustainability brought specific
methods to the group, like personal check-ins and basic princi-
ples of dialogue and learning. The provision of free space is a

must — and perhaps is the most challenging. Although it sounds
simple, free space to simply explore what emerges is virtually
nonexistent for today’s busy managers.
Once it is recognized and legitimized, deepening relational
space also infuses results-oriented work. Effective relational
work encourages diverging conversations, asks difficult
questions
and helps confront dysfunctional practices and attitudes in our
organizations and ourselves. Such capacities also benefit action-
oriented change initiatives.
Action-Driven Work: Building Collaborative Change Initiatives
Conceptual and relational work are important for effective col -
laboration, but they are especially important as they come
together to enable whole new levels of action. Effectively
weaving
together all three dimensions requires a new approach that is
more personal and more systemic than traditional planned-
change approaches.
Illustrative Action-Oriented Projects: Collaborating For
Innovation in
Food Systems Although most consumers in wealthier countries

are unaware of problems with global food systems, these are the
largest drivers of poverty, social and political instability and
local
environmental deterioration worldwide. For example, falling
prices for coffee have created a “crisis for 25 million coffee
pro-
ducers around the world, [many of whom] now sell their coffee
beans for much less than they cost to produce.”31 Long-term
trends of falling prices for major agricultural commodities —
40%–90% declines over the past 50 years for wheat, soy, maize,
potatoes, dry beans and cotton — relentlessly drive down farmer
incomes.31 Whereas wealthy countries like the United States
buf-
fer farmers with over $500 billion in annual agricultural
subsidies,
developing countries do not have that luxury. As a result, the
in-
creasing production needed to meet demand and offset falling
incomes leads to vast environmental degradation (for example,
over 1.2 billion hectares of topsoil has been lost in the past 50
years — more than the area of China and India combined) as

well as increasing worldwide water shortages, since 70% of
water
use is for agriculture. And yet, despite increases in production,
800 million people remain chronically underfed.
The Sustainable Food Lab project was organized around an
innovative approach to weaving together conceptual, relational
and action space and included about 40 upper-middle and senior
Different sustainability frameworks relate to different levels
in the management system. Companies often develop cus-
tomized or home-grown …
Managing Organizational Change:
A Philosophies of Change Approach
FIONA GRAETZ∗ & AARON C.T. SMITH∗ ∗
∗ Graduate School of Management, La Trobe University,
Bundoora, Australia, ∗ ∗ RMIT Business, RMIT
University, Melbourne, Australia
ABSTRACT The underlying assumption of the classical, linear
approach to organizational change
is that it involves a series of predictable, reducible steps that

enable senior management to establish
a new work order and routines. This article confronts the
conventional assumption that change is a
finite, one-off phenomenon, representing the exception rather
than the rule. Beginning with the
rational change model as an exemplar, and subsequently by
examining 10 organizational change
philosophies, this article reviews the fundamental assumptions
governing different change
management approaches. In revealing the biases and uni-
dimensional nature of theoretical
philosophies of organizational change, this article argues for a
multi-philosophy approach that
applies an interactive mix of continuity and change. Managing
the continuity-change continuum
helps to guard against complacency and inertia, and underpins
an organization’s capacity both
to exploit and explore.
KEY WORDS: Continuity-change dilemma, complementary-
competing, paradox, ambiguity,
duality
Introduction
Traditional approaches to organizational change generally
follow a linear, rational
model in which the focus is on controllability under the
stewardship of a strong
leader or ‘guiding coalition’. The underlying assumption of this
classical
approach, ever popular among change consultants, is that
organizational change
involves a series of predictable, reducible steps that can be
planned and
managed (Collins, 1998). The evidence from case studies of

failed change
implementations indicates, however, that this uni-dimensional,
rational focus is
Journal of Change Management
Vol. 10, No. 2, 135–154, June 2010
Correspondence Address: Fiona Graetz, Graduate School of
Management, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC
3086 Australia. Tel.: + 61 3 9479 3109; Email:
[email protected]
1469-7017 Print/1479-1811 Online/10/020135 – 20 # 2010
Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14697011003795602
limited because it treats change as a single, momentary
disturbance that must be
stabilized and controlled. Such a view fails not only to
appreciate that change is a
natural phenomenon which is intimately entwined with
continuity but, also, that
the change-continuity continuum is what defines organizations
and their ability
both to exploit and explore. Change and continuity represent
competing but comp-
lementary narratives, bringing in ambiguity and novelty to
destabilize as well as
validate existing organizational routines.
Our argument is that understanding change as part of a
continuing work in pro-
gress calls for a much broader canvas that seeks out competing

voices, and works
with the resulting ambiguities, contradictions and tensions of
messy reality. We
advocate a multi-philosophy approach because continuity
depends on change as
much as change depends on continuity. They are both essential
for organizational
growth and survival. Continuity underpins the search for new
meaning and new
understandings. As Evans (1992: 256 – 257) argued, ‘almost all
qualities of an
organization have a complementary opposite quality, and
excessive focus on
one pole of a duality ultimately leads an organization into
stagnation and
decline (undue continuity), while the corrective swing to the
opposite pole leads
to disruptive and discontinuous crisis (excessive change)’.
As an exemplar, this article looks firstly at the context for the
traditional,
rational approach to organizational change. It subsequently
illustrates how rational
change is depicted and deployed with reference to three
different organizational
cases on leadership and change. The following section explores
a range of organ-
izational change philosophies and considers how these might
provide a broader
frame of reference in understanding the change process and its
undeniable,
though sometimes tense, partnership with continuity. Based on
this discussion,
the conclusion considers how an appreciation of the
philosophies of change
may help to turn around the way organizations and, in

particular, senior manage-
ment, view the process of change. It, therefore, puts forward the
case for a multi-
perspectives approach in managing the continuity-change
dilemma and offers
advice for practitioners attempting to navigate the turbulent
waters of organiz-
ational change.
The Traditional Change Agenda
Recognizing changing forms of organizing as a ‘fuzzy, deeply
ambiguous process’
(Collins, 2003: v) with no obvious ending calls into question the
snake oil sales
pitch used to promote popular change models. Consider, for
example, Grundy’s
(1992) ‘power tools for change’, Kanter et al.’s (1992) ‘ Ten
commandments’,
Kotter’s (1995) ‘Eight steps to transforming your organization’,
and Hammer
and Champy’s (1993) ‘Business process re-engineering’. The
nomenclature
assigned to these popular 1990s offerings typifies a formulaic
approach which pre-
supposes that organizational change can and should be a
controlled and orderly
affair, a simple case of ‘unfreezing’, ‘moving’ and ‘refreezing’.
Central to suc-
cessful implementation is the key role the ‘magic’ leader plays
(Nadler and
Tushman, 1989; Kotter, 1990). The implication is that his or her
charismatic
qualities in communicating the new vision are all it takes to
inspire and win
over the masses. These factors expose a number of critical flaws

in the purely
136 F. Graetz & A.C.T. Smith
rational perspective. Firstly, it begs the question as to whether
organizations are
‘as amenable to control as a block of ice’ (Grey, 2003).
Secondly, it ignores the
not-so rational wild card – the human factor – treating
individuals as automatons
rather than active agents (Giddens, 1981: 224) in the change
process. An inherent
assumption in rational models is that organizational actors will
respond enthusias-
tically and uniformly to their leader’s call to arms. With
stability and control the
end goals, rational models represent a singular, partial story
told by senior man-
agement and consequently ignore the many other distinctive
stories unfolding
around them in the organizational narrative (Buchanan, 2003).
As a result, the
principal response is not to listen to, but to silence, dissident
voices.
Despite the limitations of n-step (Collins, 1998), goal-directed
models of change,
the management penchant for these types of tools continues
unsated. They are, of
course, seductively simple and the labels attached (power tools,
transforming, com-
mandments, magic) imply that success is guaranteed if they are
followed to the
letter. In addition, n-step models ensure that the change process

is controlled
‘from the top’. Management texts and business magazine ‘case
studies’ tend to per-
petuate and legitimize a rational, leader-centered model of
organizational change.
Take, for example, the report in AFRBoss (Hughes, 2008) on
‘turnaround’ change
at the Reader’s Digest Association, instigated by incoming
CEO, Mary Berner.
Berner is variously referred to as the new ‘chief’, ‘straight
shooting’, and, more sig-
nificantly, ‘Cyclone Mary’. Propounding the notion that
‘turnover is actually good
for an organization’, Berner undertook a massive cost-cutting
exercise with the aim
of creating ‘a new “FACE” (fast, accountable, candid and
engaged)’. In presenting
Berner’s story and her prescription for change, the article pays
homage to the key
elements of a rational perspective: the magic leader principle,
the focus on account-
ability and control, and the need to eliminate contradiction,
dissent and uncertainty
in order to move forward and ‘grow the business’.
Other change management cases in business magazines paint a
more humanistic
picture. Here, one sees the new twenty first century leader as a
people person,
adopting a more participatory, inclusive style. This observes a
shift from autocrat
to democrat, the leader who recognizes that organizational
knowledge and exper-
tise does not reside solely within the senior management cadre.
The role of the
twenty first century leader is to energize and revive the

creativity lying dormant
at all levels of the organization. The emphasis here is on
teamwork, as highlighted
in articles on Marius Kloppers, the head of BHP Billiton (Gray,
2008; Williams,
2008). Kloppers is described as a ‘detail person’ who actively
seeks out infor-
mation from people ‘conducting the nuts and bolts operations’.
During an interview,
Kloppers himself draws a parallel between organizational
strategy-making and test
cricket. What he likes about the game of cricket is the power of
the captain and the
team. It is not about an omniscient coach but about ‘11 men
planning, performing
and enduring as best they can themselves.’ Similarly, discussion
of turnaround
change at the Melbourne arm of advertising agency, Clemenger
BBDO, under
the direction of new chief, Peter Biggs, highlights his team-
centric leadership
style (Gettler, 2008). Through his open door, hands-on
approach, Biggs sought to
unlock creativity by ‘opening up’ the agency and encouraging
people ‘to interact
and show their personality.’ He wanted to transform the self-
focused, individualistic
culture into one which prized generosity and collegiality.
A Philosophies of Change Approach 137
These expressed aims are laudable and undoubtedly sincere.
They demonstrate
a clear desire among organizational leaders to challenge the

status quo, increase
risk-taking and creativity, and open up organizational
boundaries through infor-
mation sharing and collaborative teamwork. Yet the methods
adopted to
achieve these new ways of working and organizing remain, by
and large,
embedded in rational, analytical orthodoxy about organizational
change and
change leadership. And, the problem with rational orthodoxy is
its inability to
understand, let alone cope with, the centrality of paradox in
organizations; that
is, the ‘simultaneous existence of two inconsistent states’
(Eisenhardt, 2000:
703). Rational orthodoxy in contrast presupposes the importance
of discipline,
order and control. The possibility of implementing change by
simultaneously
maintaining divergent dual states does not enter the frame.
Managerial
decision-making is therefore based on either – or choices, or
some sort of bland
compromise between assumed opposites that define change and
continuity, such
as innovation and efficiency, collaboration and competition,
freedom and account-
ability, empowerment and leadership, or economic and social
goals.
Both Kloppers (BHP Billiton) and Biggs (Clemenger) appear to
have some
sense of these continuity-change tensions. In Kloppers case, he
combines an
analytical mind and an eye for detail with the need for adaptive
strategy-

making to cope with sudden, unforeseen circumstances. He also
looks to key
players for information and ideas. Representing a blend of
economic and social
goals, the focus for Biggs is on increasing competition through
a collaborative,
collegial and ‘generous’ workplace. There is a clear leadership
– commander
‘presence’ bound up with the aim to empower and foster
creativity through the
rank and file. Biggs’ advocacy of a ‘culture of discontent’ also
implies a view
of change as having no finite end, thereby rejecting the classical
‘unfreeze-
move-refreeze’ model.
In the end, however, the indelible impression from all of these
change cases is
the classic model of top-down, change in the hands of a strong,
forceful and char-
ismatic leader. Kloppers is ‘the big South African’, and
Clemenger BBDO is ‘born
again’ under the guidance of Biggs. The predominant focus is
on increasing
competition through economic discipline and accountability
under strong ‘take-
no-prisoners’ leadership. While input and involvement are
actively sought and
encouraged, the underlying message is not about managing
paradox but about
maintaining control. There is an assumption that the leader’s
vision is the right
one or that everyone is on the same wavelength. Leana and
Barry (2000) noted
that while new forms of organizing are seen as less hierarchical
and centralized,

these new forms in fact enable senior managers to ‘consolidate
power and
control’ without the need for centralization. It is control by
stealth as managers
‘set performance targets rather than impose direction’ (Leana
and Barry, 2000:
754). In this environment there is little tolerance for ambiguity
or dissent. At
Clemenger, for example, Biggs recruited ‘six or seven core
people that make
the soul of the agency and keep it true to what its purpose is.’
The implication
from Biggs’ statement is that existing employees were not
appreciative of his
vision for a new soul and it was necessary to bring in some
proselytizing
muscle to ‘guide’ employees to the light. At Readers Digest,
Berner declared ‘It
matters that people are aligned with what we are trying to do
and people are
paid for performance. There’s no more paying for trying’
(author emphasis in
italics).
Lewin and Volberda (1999) counseled that progress requires
combining and
recombining multiple theoretical lenses to improve the
integration of theories
and avoid increasing fragmentation. They argued that change is
neither an
outcome of managerial adaptation nor of environmental

selection, but rather is
a co-evolutionary outcome of strategic intentionality and
environmental impera-
tives. For Lewin and Volberda, the management of change
means accepting
that adaptation and selection are interrelated rather than
opposing forces. In prac-
tice, their position emphasizes that a single, linear commitment
to change theory
will fail to account for the non-linear, recursive and multi-level
nature of change
reality. As Morgan (1997: 350) advised, ‘reality has a tendency
to reveal itself in
accordance with the perspectives through which it is engaged’.
Therefore, tapping
into a range of different perspectives provides the scope to
understand a situation
from many angles and create different modes of engagement
(Morgan, 1997).
The following section of this article explores a range of
organizational change
philosophies and comments upon their impact on the tools and
techniques typi-
cally employed in change interventions. The complementary and
competing
insights they offer also demonstrate that complexity, ambiguity
and uncertainty
are part of the organizational dynamic and do not respond well
to a rational,
leader-centric approach bent on establishing certainty and
control.
Change Philosophies
We note that a philosophy of change is a general way of looking

at organizational
change, or what might be considered a paradigm: a structured
set of assumptions,
premises and beliefs about the way change works in
organizations. Philosophies of
change are important because they reveal the deep suppositions
that are being
made about organizations and the ways that change operates
within and around
them. In the forthcoming section we take an in depth look at 10
philosophies, sum-
marizing their methods and approach to change. A philosophy’s
method for
change is expressed in terms of its inferences about the
mechanisms through
which a change intervention can be brought about. Typically,
these are expressed
as theories, which in turn generate hypotheses and predictions
about organiz-
ational change. Any given philosophy may have generated
numerous theories,
but it is not always clear what they have to do with each other,
and in some
cases, what they have to do with theories emanating from other
philosophies.
Nevertheless, philosophies are advantageous because they offer
both description
and prescription. Regarding the former, philosophies provide a
metaphorical
and theoretical explanation of assumptions and, therefore, of
methods for
change. While the usefulness of metaphors for explaining
change is well sup-
ported (Palmer and Dunford, 1996; Oztel and Hinz, 2001;
Wood, 2002), the
way metaphors can offer prescriptive guidance is less well

articulated.
However, a general consensus would suggest that they are
effective as change
management heuristics under certain conditions because they
liberate observers
from entrenched thinking, encourage creativity by suggesting
new interpretations
of old circumstances, stimulate emotional engagement, and fuel
action by probing
the unconscious mind (Green and Ruhleder, 1995; Palmer and
Dunford, 1996;
Wood, 2002).
As with many complex aspects of organizational life, metaphors
are useful in
conveying the range of paradigms from which change can be
viewed. Paradigms
describe the fundamentally different event sequences and
generative mechanisms,
or what can be thought of as motors of change (Van de Ven and
Poole, 1995).
While it is not possible to consider every metaphor or paradigm
conceived, we
have re-conceptualized a range of divergent approaches for
change into 10 the-
matic philosophies. Each of the philosophies is explained in
turn, with emphasis
on their respective interpretations of change. We also comment
on the influence
each has upon the tools and techniques typically employed for
change interven-

tions. The aim is to show that the underpinning philosophical
assumptions associ-
ated with various change interventions not only help to map the
terrain of change
options, but also reveal why change is so difficult to introduce
successfully when a
single approach is overlaid upon a complex and ambiguous
organizational
scenario.
The Biological Philosophy
The most long held change philosophy has been commandeered
from biology. In
fact, biology has been used in several different ways as a
metaphor for organiz-
ational change (Witt, 2004). The first is appropriated from
evolution itself. It
refers to the adaptations experienced by a species – or in this
case, a population
of organizations – during its evolution. This application of
biology, pioneered by
Hannan and Freeman (1977) under the terminology of
population ecology, focuses
on incremental change within industries rather than individual
organizations.
Population ecologists (McKelvey and Aldrich, 1983)
subsequently began to
take a biological view of industrial behavior. They suggested
that change comes
about as a consequence of Darwinian-like natural selection
where industries
gradually evolve to match the constraints of their environmental
context. Ulti-
mately, population ecologists seek to determine why there are
so many different

kinds of organizations within a population when the biological
imperative for effi-
ciency and a best fit would suggest that there should be an ideal
configuration that
has evolved into dominance (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995).
The second biological sub-philosophy refers to the individual
experiences of
members of a species (organizations within an industry) and is
summarized by
reference to its life cycle. The contrast is, therefore, between
the Darwinian
concept of natural selection and the developmental life cycle of
individual organ-
izations. Life cycle theory (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995; Kezar,
2000) explains
change in organizations from start-up to divestment. Birth,
growth, maturity,
decline and death are all natural parts of an organization’s
development (Levy
and Merry, 1986). The philosophy is developmental in nature,
comparing the
ongoing stages of progress and change in organizations to
organic processes of
growth and reproduction. These can be analogous to child,
human, organic,
moral, or even financial development. The life cycle philosophy
implicitly
assumes that change is imminent and progressive. The
biological philosophy
can get confusing because it is not uncommon for theorists to
write about

organizations seeking to adapt to their respective environments
(Chakravarthy,
1982). While correct in practical application, this is a
technically inaccurate
view of evolution which is concerned with species (industries),
not individual
organisms (organizations).
Change from a biological perspective must be viewed as
dynamic. In addition,
the evolutionary and life cycle sub-philosophies, as opposed to
punctuated-
equilibrium, reflect a slow and incremental pace of change,
moderately affected
by the environment, moderately controllable, and tending
toward certainty.
The Rational Philosophy
The rational philosophy (also referred to as strategic) concerns
the alignment
between an organization’s composition, competencies and state
over time, and
its environmental context (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995).
Sometimes also
known as teleological theories (because the final destination of
the organization
is its guiding logic) or planned change, the rational philosophy
assumes that
organizations are purposeful and adaptive (Van de Ven and
Poole, 1995; Kezar,
2000). As highlighted in an earlier discussion of the rational
perspective,
change occurs simply because senior managers and other change
agents deem it

necessary. The process for change is rational and linear, like in
evolutionary
and life cycle approaches, but with managers as the pivotal
instigators of
change (Carnall, 1995; Carr et al., 1996).
Strategic choice theorists (Child, 1972; Smith and Berg, 1987)
belong to the
rational philosophy and maintain that leaders and managers
have ultimate
control of their organizations. The proliferation of management
‘gurus’ such as
Kotter (1995), Huber and Glick (1995) and Kanter et al. (1992),
who each
propose their own ‘holy grail’ of change interventions, fit into
this conceptual
classification. They argue that any events outside the
organization are exogenous;
successful change is firmly in the hands of managers. The
corollary of this argu-
ment, of course, is that unsuccessful change is also the
responsibility of managers,
although sometimes there is the acceptance that the actors
cannot override the
environment and resource limitations. In other words, when
change goes well it
is because leaders and managers were insightful and prescient,
but when change
goes badly it is because something happened that could never
have been foreseen.
The rational philosophy assumes that change can be brought
about at any pace
and on any scale deemed suitable. Similarly, change is
internally directed,
controlled and certain. Approaches consistent with the rational

philosophy give
precedence to strategic decision-making and careful planning
towards
organizational goals. It is therefore the most popular philosophy
for leaders
seeking to impose a direction upon an organization.
The Institutional Philosophy
The institutional philosophy makes some fundamentally
evolutionary assump-
tions, but does so in the context of a strong belief in the
sensitivity of organizations
to the external environments in which they are placed. Like
population ecologists,
institutionalists expect organizations to increase homogeneity
within their
industrial sector over time, but view the shaping mechanism to
be the pressure of
the institutional environment rather than competition for
resources. It is less the
strategy in place or even the competition for scarce resources
that stimulates
organizational change, but rather the pressures in the wider
institutional context.
These might come in the form of new regulatory, financial or
legal conditions
(DiMaggio and Powell, 1983, 1991). Irrespective of the specific
forces, change
is largely a function of a shifting industrial landscape. The
implication is that suc-

cessful organizations are successful because their set-up neatly
accommodates the
industrial pressures to which they are obligated to respond. The
key to this philo-
sophical standpoint is that organizations are coerced into
change by pressures
from within their institutional environment. Clever strategy
cannot out-manoeuvre
the rules set by an institutional context. Since organizational
form is instrumental
to the institutional philosophy, it remains essential to study how
similarities are
driven by external forces that coerce companies into set patterns
and structures
(Meyer and Rowan, 2006).
One of the strengths of the institutional philosophy is that it
explains similarities
between organizations and stability of organizational
arrangements within an
industry. For example, institutional advocates would point to
legal firms as an
exemplar of institutional compliance where most are configured
in the same
way simply because they have hit on the best approach for
success. Institutional
theory is, therefore, valuable in explaining the way in which
social, economic
and legal pressures influence organizational structures and
practices, and how
an organization’s ability to adapt to these play a part in
determining organizational
survival and prosperity. On the other hand, the institutional
philosophy tends to
downplay internal forces and the impact that organizational
actors can have on

their own predicament.
The institutional philosophy tends to view change as slow and
small in scale,
although institutional pressures can encourage a more rapid
pace and magnitude
of change. The stimulus for change is external, control is mostly
undirected,
and certainty is moderate.
The Resource Philosophy
An instructive starting point is to contrast the resource
philosophy with the insti-
tutional philosophy. Where the latter explains the industry-
specific pressures
encouraging organizations to conform, or at least move toward
some greater orga-
nizing homogeneity, the resource philosophy helps to explain
deviance. Accord-
ing to what is typically called the resource-dependence theory,
any given
organization does not possess all the resources it needs in a
competitive environ-
ment. Acquisition of these resources is therefore the critical
activity for both
survival and prosperity (Pfeffer and Salancik, 1978). Thus,
successful organi-
zations over time are the ones which are the best at acquiring,
developing and
deploying scarce resources and skills. Moreover, the most
valuable resources to
acquire are either unique in themselves or in the ways in which
they can be
combined with other assets (Connor, 2002).

From a resource philosophy standpoint, organizational change
begins by iden-
tifying needed resources, which can be traced back to sources of
availability and
evaluated in terms of criticality and scarcity. Understanding that
a dependence on
resources increases uncertainty for organizations, is particularly
useful to change
attempts because it encourages an awareness of critical threats
and obstacles to
performance. While resource dependency creates uncertainty,
theorists note
that the direction of uncertainty is generally predictable even if
its magnitude is
not.
As core competencies are seen as assets that will generate an
ongoing set of new
products and services, the focus of organizational change from a
resource perspec-
tive is on the strategic capabilities of the organization, rather
than on its fit with the
environment. In this sense, the only limitation to an
organization’s success is its
management of resources. Change can, therefore, be fast or slow
as well as
small or large. The stimulus for change comes principally from
within – as organ-
izations seek the resources they require – while control is
directed and compara-
tively certain.

The Contingency Perspective
The contingency philosophy is based on the proposition that
organizational per-
formance is a consequence of the fit between two or more
factors, such as an
organization’s environment, use of technology, strategy,
structure, systems,
style or culture (Pfeffer, 1982). However, variables such as
inertia, inflexibility,
resource immobility and industry pressure make the fit between
factors difficult
to predict. This fact explains why researchers have noted
different levels of organ-
izational performance, with performance reflecting degree of fit
(Van de Ven and
Drazin, 1985). Contingency philosophy advocates suggest that
over the long-term,
managers in competitive markets are forced to adjust their
practices and their
organization’s configurations so that they are consistent with
efficiency
demands (McLoughlin and Clark, 1988; Alder, 1992). However,
the search for
best fit is limited by the impossibility of modeling all the
contingent variables
and the difficulty of predicting their connections and causal
relations.
The strength of the contingency philosophy is that it explains
organizational
change from a behavioral viewpoint where managers should
make decisions
that account for specific circumstances, focusing on those which
are the most

directly relevant, and intervening with the most appropriate
actions. The best
actions to initiate change come back to two words: ‘it depends’.
In fact, the
best course of action is one that is fundamentally situational,
matched to the
needs of the circumstances. For example, although introducing
…
Discussion 2: The Rational Approach Model vs. Other Change
Management Models
We have focused on the Rational Approach Model for planning
and implementing change. For this Discussion, focus on other
change management models and think about how they can be
used to strengthen your change plan. Are there any areas where
the Rational Approach Model might fall short? Are there other
change models you could use to achieve sustained change?
To prepare for this Discussion:
As you prepare for this Discussion, you will need to objectively
critique your planned change through the lens of other change
models. You will begin by categorizing the type of change that
you have proposed from Mathur (2013). Next, you will use the
Graetz & Smith (2010) article to identify which 2–3
philosophies of change most match your perspective of change.
Then, you will compare these different change models to the
Rational Approach Model. Finally, you will apply these new
philosophies to your proposed change plan and conclude how
they may enhance or hinder your plan.
· Review this week’s Learning Resources, especially:
· Employee Motivation, Adjustment – See attachment
· Collaborating for Systemic Change - See attachment
· Graetz, (2010), Managing organizational Change - See
attachment
·

Assignment:
Respond to at least two of your peers' postings in one or more
of the following ways:
· What consistencies or inconsistencies do you see in the
argument your colleague has presented for which approach to
change is best?
· Propose a change philosophy that might complement or
replace the one(s) your colleague chose to provide greater
coherence to your colleague’s argument.
· Share insights gained as you read your colleague’s approach to
change.
· Apply what you have learned from your colleague that
enriches your planned change and strengthens your approach.
· 3 – 4 paragraphs
· No plagiarism
· APA citing
1st Colleague – Kristen Springer
Kristen Springer
RE: Discussion 2 - Week 6
Top of Form
The proposed change for my organization to implement
the use of new software called Meditech EXPANSE would be an
example of a ‘Developmental’ change. “Developmental change
may be either planned or emergent; it is first order, or

incremental. It is a change that enhances or corrects existing
aspects of an organization, often focusing on the improvement
of a skill or process” (Mathur, 2013, p. 37). To add advanced
software is a planned process change that will shift ‘how’ things
get done. My proposed change plan does not shift the
organization and is not at all radical. It is simply the addition
of advanced software technology to improve certain process
flow.
Out of the 10 philosophies presented, the ones that
match my perspective change would be Resource and Cultural
philosophies. “These different philosophies also bring into
focus the complementary and competing forces that
organizations face in managing the tension between continuity
and change and how to deal with perennial issues such as
certainty/uncertainty, tight/loose control, large-/small-
scale change, slow/fast change, and external/internal stimuli”
(Graetz & Smith,2010, p. 150). In the Resource philosophy, the
key is getting the much-needed critical resources to make a
change and move forward in a completive world. Most people
don’t think of hospitals as a business, but they most
definitely are a business. My example of change is to
implement cutting-edge software to increase speed and reduce
the risk of security hacks and errors, as a way to compete with
other hospitals. If people know they can come to our
Emergency Department (E.D.) and get treated quickly and
efficiently, they will continue to use our services. Culture is
strongly ingrained in my organization. To advance our
computer system will shift the culture to new ways of thinking.
The education provided will make a shift in the way things will
be done due to the addition of a speedy Electronic Health
Record (EHR). The faster, more efficient software will lead to
less frustration, leading to a less negative culture. Customized
processes can be more about the patient and less about
unnecessary clicks on a computer.
In contrast, the “Rational Approach Model” provides a
set of instructions to provide ultimate consistency and a way to

stay on track. Using new Resources and adjusting Culture can
definitely lead to unexpected evolutionary type changes. There
is no way we can predict the retort from the nursing staff using
the new system. Even though I feel the new Resource or
software is far superior to what we use today, the reaction could
result in a continued negative culture. But, by incorporating a
mesh of the three ideas, being sure to address the complexity of
feedback, and following specific steps towards the outcome,
ample leadership and management change may need to intervene
and smooth over those bumps in the road. The idea of
sustainability for future generations strikes a nerve for me as
well. Keeping the environment in mind by using less paper,
purchasing less waste, yet providing collaboration among staff
must be maintained. “The basic toolbox from the organizational
learning field — which includes systems thinking, building
shared vision and working with mental models and dialogue —
is a useful starting point in collaborating for systemic change,
but it is just a starting point” (Senge, et. al., 2007, p. 51).
The potential weaknesses in my proposed changed to
upgrade the EHR is the unknown variables. How long is this
COVID-19 pandemic going to continue to disrupt our E.D.?
Will another pandemic erupt? What if the authoritarian director
does not completely buy in? What is confidence is lost?
Ensuring that I use a step-by-step process is an excellent plan,
but what if something unexpected happens to a team member?
Just like a pothole in the road, patches must be available at a
moment’s notice. “Work motivation has been found to be
positively related to job satisfaction, performance and
organizational commitment” (Mathur, 2013, p. 40). The correct
reward system must be considered and established in order to
continue.
In conclusion, I don’t think using one method is good
enough. By incorporating a Developmental change, with the
Resource Philosophy and the Culture Philosophy, yet keeping
the structure of a step-by-step guide to keep referring to in the
Rational Approach Model, the leadership can stay on track.

Just as the human body is made up of 12 distinct systems:
Integumentary, Skeletal, Muscular Nervous, Endocrine,
Cardiovascular, Lymphatic, Respiratory, Digestive, and
Urinary, our plan for change also has many interconnecting
layers. By solely relying on one system of the body is destined
for organ failure, but incorporating a plexus of theories the
intertwining complexities can hold the plan together. “You
motivate people to go beyond compliance and inspire them to
reach for the best in themselves” (Kouzes & Posner, 2017, p.
200)
Graetz, F. & Smith, A.C.T. (2010), Managing organizational
change: A philosophies of change approach. Journal of Change
Management, 10(2), 135–154. doi:10.1080/
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2017). The leadership
challenge: How to make extraordinary things happen in
organizations. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
Mathur, A. (2013). Employee motivation, adjustment and values
as correlates of organizational change. Review of HRM, 2, 35–
60.
Senge, P. M., Lichtenstein, B. B., Kaeufer, K., Bradbury, H., &
Carroll, J. S. (2007). Collaborating for systemic change. MIT
Sloan Management Review, 48(2), 44–53.
Bottom of Form
2nd Colleague – Sandra Patterson
Sandra Patterson
RE: Discussion 2 - Week 6
Top of Form
As I read Mathur’s article, the type of changes that I have
chosen for my organization are developmental change,
transformational change, and structural change. Then I will
conclude with Theory O change. Developmental change will be
very beneficial because it’s a planned change that enhances
existing aspects of an organization. It focuses on improving a
skill or process. I will use transformational change because it

Review of hrm, vol. 2, april 2013 35 proceedings of

Review of hrm, vol. 2, april 2013 35 proceedings of

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Review of hrm, vol. 2, april 2013 35 proceedings of

Similar to Review of hrm, vol. 2, april 2013 35 proceedings of (20)

More from SHIVA101531

More from SHIVA101531 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Review of hrm, vol. 2, april 2013 35 proceedings of