Adaptive and Unpredictable Change Theory

Change is mostly unplanned. Organizations must adapt to their external environments in order to survive and grow. Their focus is more “change management” than planning for change. Organizations manage change by adapting to emerging external forces. Change unfolds in a largely Darwinian process of competition and survival of the fittest, random chance, self-organization, and selection and retention by leaders of those structures and processes best suited for an environmental niche. Leaders help the organization adapt to external changes for competitive advantage by supporting connection, interaction, and self-organization. The outcome of the adaptive and unplanned change is new structures and processes (Kezar, 2001, p. 57).

Planned Change Theory

Organization change results from action by organization leaders, with participation and collaboration by organization members, to

• Plan for addressing significant opportunities, problems, issues, and concerns,
• Envision and set shared organization goals,
• Manage the transition to implementation of those goals, and
• Evaluate the outcome.

Outcomes are new structures and organizing processes (Kezar, 2001, p. 57, Van de Ven, 2011, p. 60).

Developmental and Stage-Based Change Theory

Change occurs as a progressive sequence of phases and natural, logical, or institutional activities and requirements over time. For example, organizations are born, experience rapid growth and efficiency, mature and experience diseconomies of scale and crisis, and transform or decline. Outcome is a new organizational identity (Kezar, 2001, p. 57; Van de Ven, 2011, p. 60).

Conflictive and Power-Based Change Theory

Change results from tension and conflict created when people of the dominant (power) culture create organizational processes and structures that preserve the status quo, maintain their privilege and interests, and prevent equitable treatment for members of subordinated cultures. Change results when members of subordinated cultures gain sufficient power to confront and engage the dominant culture on issues through agenda setting, networking, coalition-based action, bargaining, and negotiation. Outcomes are new processes, new structures and new cultures (Kezar, 2001, p. 57; Van de Ven, 2011, p. 60).

Narrative-Based Change Theory

Members of organizations interpret their world and construct and reconstruct reality on an ongoing basis. Change occurs when the narratives/stories/conversations of organization members describing organization reality changes in a substantive way, which impacts organization decisions, actions, and behaviors and, in turn, organization culture. Leaders address organization opportunities, issues, problems, and concerns by changing current conversations, metaphors, and stories. This shapes organization reality and behavior “by involving more and different voices, altering how and which people engage with each other, and/or by stimulating alternative or generative images that shape how people think about things” (Marshak & Bushe, 2013, pp. 1–2). Change is a process of social construction of a new organization reality, resulting in new decisions, actions, and behaviors, and culture (Bushe, 2013).

These five organization change theories, and other organization change theories not described here, form a foundation for organization change models that are blueprints to guide organization change initiatives. A series of organization change models are described in the next section.

Open System Model

Many organization change models incorporate the open system model of organizations developed by Karl Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1969). An organization that is an open system must constantly interact with its external environment to survive and grow. The organization imports inputs from the external environment and exports products and services to meet the needs of customers. Inputs include financial, human, and material resources, equipment, technology, information, and energy. The external environment may value some outputs, products, and services and other outputs seen as having negative and adverse effects e.g. discrimination, employee layoffs, and pollution. The organization includes internal processes, structures, and subsystems that convert inputs to outputs. The open system model is illustrated in Figure 13.1.

The external environment is composed of individuals, organizations, communities, nations, and the earth, and includes customers, suppliers, distributors, government agencies, competitors, and partners. The organization’s external environment also includes culture and cultural values, economic conditions, the legal, regulatory, and political environment, the quality and availability of education and health services, and the quality and availability of earth resources, such as water, soil, and trees.

Feedback between the organization and its external environment is needed for evaluation learning and change. The organization receives feedback about the value of its outputs, the availability of needed inputs, achievement of the financial and non-financial goals and objectives, and other ways the organization is perceived by the environment. The organization sends feedback to entities in its environment through its outputs, public relations, advertising, promotions, its use of inputs, and both the positive and adverse impacts it has on entities in its environment.

The organization has boundaries that differentiate it from entities in its environment. The organization’s boundaries must be permeable to the external environment for the organization to survive, grow, and be healthy. When organization boundaries are too permeable, the forces, pressures, and demands of the external environment can be overwhelming, negative, and destructive. When boundaries have too little permeability, the organization can be cut off from opportunities, information, and the resources it needs from its environment to survive and grow.

The organization depends on the openness of interactions at its boundaries with entities in its external environment for the change, development, and learning it needs to survive, grow, and be healthy. The organization must also defend against and resist threats, forces, and adverse pressures exerted on the organization at its boundaries with the external environment. Both change and resistance show up at the organization’s boundaries with its environment. The capacity for change and resistance are necessary for the health and survival of the organization.

Models of Change, Status Quo, and Resistance

Change and resistance are needed for the health and survival of organizations in the open-system model. Organization change models that feature stability, resistance and change are explored in this section. They include Kurt Lewin’s force field model and the Gestalt resistance and change model.

Force Field Change Model

The force field change model was one of three organization change models created in the 1940s by Kurt Lewin. The other two models, the unfreeze-change-refreeze and action research models, are explored later in this chapter. The force field model describes the current reality of an organization as the outcome of driving forces that encourage change and restraining forces that discourage change. A key assumption of the model is that forces for change and forces for status quo are ever present. They both need to be considered to understand the organization’s current situation, to initiate organization change, and to adapt to unforeseen change. A change in the organization’s current reality can be initiated by the organization by strengthening the driving forces for change and weakening the restraining forces for maintaining the status quo. In order for change to occur the driving forces must exceed the restraining forces.

Driving and resisting forces are a mix of people, habits, customs, processes, structures, beliefs, and attitudes. Lewin’s force field change model involves exploring the current situation in terms of the balance between forces for change and forces for status quo, determining the key players and circumstances, defining the desired change, and developing strategies for change that heighten driving forces for change and lessen restraining forces for maintaining the status quo (see Figure 13.2).

Multicultural Organization Development Change Model

Diversity, inclusion, and social justice are seldom considered in organization change models (Brazzel, 2008). The one exception is the model created by Bailey Jackson and Rita Hardiman in the 1980s that has come to be known as the multicultural organization development model (Jackson, 2006; Jackson & Hardiman, 1981, 1994). This is an early-phase, middle-phase and later-phase developmental and stage-based model in which change occurs in a progressive sequence of phases and stages as organizations develop and change their understanding of and approach to addressing diversity, inclusion, and social justice. This pioneering work of Jackson and Hardiman has been elaborated on in later work of Jackson and Holvino (1986, 1988), Miller and Katz (1995), and Brazzel (2007).

Organization tension and conflict result when people of the dominant (power) culture create organizational processes and structures that preserve the status quo, maintain their privilege and interests, and prevent equitable treatment for members of subordinated cultures. Change occurs when members of subordinated cultures gain sufficient power to confront and engage the dominant culture and call for equitable treatment and new cultural processes and structures.

A version of the model is described by Brazzel (2007) in which there are three organizational phases: the dominant-culture organization, the pluralistic, dominant-culture organization, and the integrating-culture organization. (See Figure 13.3.) The model can be used to diagnose the current position of an organization, organizational units, or groups of people in an organization’s development from a dominant-culture to integrating-culture organization and to suggest intervention strategies that are appropriate for current phases of the organization. Organization diversity strategies and initiatives, which can help the organization move from one phase to another, are different for each of the organizational phases.

Lewin Change Models

Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze Model

Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refreeze model is a cornerstone model for understanding the organization change process that provides a three-step picture of how organizations change: unfreezing the organization, implementing the change, and refreezing the organization (Lewin, 1951). See Figure 13.4. The first step of unfreezing involves convincing those affected by the change that the change is necessary; the second is making the change; and the third is making the change a permanent way of doing business.

Unfreezing

This step is about helping the organization get ready and motivated to change, understand that change is necessary, and prepare to move into action and away from the more comfortable, current situation. This involves destabilizing the current situation by developing a compelling message and sense of urgency about why the existing way of doing things cannot continue; reexamining and challenging the core beliefs, values, attitudes, and behaviors of the current situation; creating a critical mass of support for the change; and developing and communicating a change vision and strategy.

Change

In the second step, desired changes are implemented and the organization begins moving toward the desired outcome. Change is a process and not an event–a process of developing new thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to help move the organization, learning about the changes, and understanding how the changes will be beneficial. Time and communication are important for the changes to occur. People need time to understand the changes and they need support, training, coaching, role models, acceptance that mistakes as part of the learning process, and clear and on-going communication about the desired change and its benefits for the organization. As people begin to resolve their uncertainty and look for new ways to do things, they begin to believe and act in ways that support the new direction.

Refreezing

Refreezing is creating and reconstructing stability once a change has been implemented, establishing the change as the “new normal,” and anchoring and institutionalizing it in the fabric of the organization . . . reinforcing and locking it in so that people in the organization feel confident and comfortable with the new beliefs, values, attitudes, behaviors, and ways of working and do not go back to doing what they were used to doing.

Action Research Change Model

Kurt Lewin created the term “action research” in his paper “Action Research and Minority Problems” (Lewin, 1948). Lewin used action research to address issues involving inter-social-identity-group relations, problems of discrimination, and social action and change.

He described action research as “research on the conditions and effects of various forms of social action and research leading to social action” using a process of “a spiral of steps each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of the action” (Lewin, 1948, pp. 144–146).

Lewin further defined “fact-finding” to include evaluating what the action has achieved, identifying learning and possible next steps, and providing information for “modifying the ‘overall plan’” (Lewin, 1948, p. 146).

The action research change model is shown in Figure 13.5. It includes issue-definition, action planning, action/change, evaluation of the results of the action, learning and next steps, and then moving to the next cycle of steps and action.

Action research has become a core research and organization change methodology for the field of organization development. In action research, there is a commitment to study and change the organization in collaboration with members of the organization and participants in the change process. The action researcher in this process is a co-learner with participants in the research. Action research has four important elements:

• Learning—learning by doing and learning through action;
• Organization change;
• Participation—empowerment of participants; research with, rather than research about, on, or for; and
• Collaboration between researcher and participants at every step.

Dialogic and Diagnostic OD Change Models

Gervase Bushe and Robert Marshak began a conversation about the emergence of the dialogic OD change model around 2005–2006. In order to continue and encourage further understanding of dialogic OD, they edited a special edition of the OD Practitioner in 2013, “Advances in Dialogic OD” (Bushe & Marshak, 2013). In this special issue, Marshak and Bushe contrasted dialogic OD with diagnostic or foundational OD change models and noted that the OD field is now divided into two forms of OD—dialogic OD and diagnostic OD (Marshak & Bushe, 2013, p. 1). Marshak asks that dialogic and diagnostic OD be considered in a both/and rather than in an either/or way and foresees them being used together and separately to change organizations (Marshak, 2013). The dialogic OD model is clearly seen now as a separate form of OD. The conversation about the dialogic OD change model is recent. The understanding of dialogic OD and whether there are only two forms of OD is still emerging. A brief discussion of the dialogic and diagnostic change models follows.

Diagnostic OD Change Model

Marshak and Bushe describe the change process for the diagnostic OD change model as “change driven by diagnosing how to objectively align or realign organizational elements (strategies, structures, systems, people practices, etc.) with the demands of a broader environment as suggested by open systems theory” (2013, p. 2). They include the Lewin unfreezing-change-refreezing and action research models as examples of diagnostic OD, as well as the “phases of the OD consulting process” change model (Marshak, 2013, p. 54). The phases of the OD consulting process change model is based in action research and the unfreezing-change-refreezing model and usually includes entry, contracting, data collection and analysis, feedback and action planning, action-taking, and evaluation and closure phases (see, for example, Tschudy, 2006, pp. 167–171). (See Figure 13.6.)

As a change model, the phases of the OD process support a shared and participatory organization change process. The contracting and entry phase provides the basis for a solid, trusting relationship between the organization and the OD practitioner and a shared agreement about the change process. The data collection, analysis, feedback, and action planning processes raise awareness and a sense of the urgency for change. They mobilize energy for the change that is implemented in the action-taking phase. The results of the change, learning, next steps, and completion are established in the evaluation and closure phase.

Models of Organization Change and the Organization’s Current Reality, Transition, and Desired Future

Building on Lewin’s unfreezing-change-refreezing model, there are a rich variety of organization change models that visualize the change process as including the current organizational reality, a transition process, and the desired organizational future. Examples of organization change models that fit this current reality, transition, and desired future framework are described in this section of the chapter. They include the Beckhard-Harris present-state, transition-state, future-state change model (1977), Fritz creative-tension change model (1984, 1996), paradoxical theory of change (1970), and strategic planning change model (Bryson, 1988). These models give relatively little consideration to the deep emotions that can result from organization change and the impact they can have on the organization change process. Aspects of the Bridges transitions model (1988), Tannenbaum-Hanna’s holding-on, letting-go, and moving-on model (1985), Kubler-Ross’s death and dying model (1996) are also mentioned in this section to include consideration of the role of emotions in the organization change process.

Present-State, Transition-State, Future-State Change Model

Richard Beckhard and Reuben Harris (1977) created the well-known, present state, transition state, future state organization change model. Their model includes the following steps:

• Define the desired future state
• Describe the present state, the current situation for the organization
• Gap analysis: assess the current situation in relation to the desired future
• Action planning: determine and implement changes needed to accomplish the vision for the organization’s future state
• Manage the transition from the organization’s current reality to its desired future

In the Beckhard-Harris organization change model, change is driven by the organization’s vision of their desired future state (see Figure 13.7).

Following are descriptions of the present state, transition state, and future state in the Beckhard and Harris’ change model:

Creative Tension Organization Change Model

The creative tension model created by Robert Fritz is a decision-making structure that produces structural tension for organizational creativity and change (1984, 1999). Creative tension is formed in a three-step process shown in Figure 13.8:

1. Define the organization’s vision as clearly and in as much detail as possible. A vision is what the organization wants (not what the organization does not want, which is more about current and past problems and issues).
2. Define the organization’s current reality. The current reality is a statement of “what is.”
3. While holding both vision and reality, notice what action steps come to mind for moving toward what the organization wants, and do those.

The gap between vision and reality creates an emotional, energetic, and cognitive tension that seeks to be resolved by marshaling creativity, energy, and resources into designing and taking action on steps to resolve the tension. Creative tension is a structure that facilitates creativity and change. The greater the gap between vision and reality, the greater the tension, and the stronger the motivation and energy in the organization to resolve that tension.

Paradoxical Theory of Change

The paradoxical theory of change is a core part of the Gestalt theory of organization change. Arnold Beisser describes the paradoxical theory of change as “change occurs when one becomes what he is, not when he tries to become what he is not” (1970, p. 77). Beisser applies the paradoxical theory of change to individual change. Later, he adds: “it is proposed that the same principles are relevant to social change, that the individual change process is but a microcosm of the social change process” (p. 77). The paradoxical theory of change applies to individuals, groups, organizations as well as society (Maurer, 2003). From the perspective of organization change, the paradoxical theory of change can be written as: when an organization acknowledges, accepts, and becomes what it is, change occurs. (See Figure 13.9.)

The paradoxical theory of organization change suggests:

• The work of organization change is heightened awareness of “what is” and of current organization experience, not the need and urgency of change.
• An organization cannot change until it accepts and becomes what it is.
• The harder an organization tries to change and be different than it is now, the more likely it will stay where and what it is now.
• The role of the leader (and OD practitioner) is to be an agent of current experience and “what is” and not an agent of change. Being an agent of “what is” is the best way to be an agent of change.
• What is needed for an organization to change, not how change happens.

Strategic Planning Organization Change Model

The strategic planning organization change model is a structured, participative approach for key decision-makers in an organization to engage in fundamental decisions and actions that shape what an organization is, what it does, and why it does it (Bryson, 1988, p. 3). It is a model of strategic thinking and acting that considers mission, vision, values, the current organizational and environmental realities, and the actions needed to achieve the mission and vision, consistent with the values, and organizational and environmental reality. (See Figure 13.10.) The planning process answers three key questions in the context of the organization’s mission, vision, and values:

1. How are things now in the organization and in its environment?
2. What is the organization’s desired future?
3. What steps does the organization need to take to move from where it is now to its desired future?

The purpose of the strategic planning organization change model is action.

Organization Work and Five Tasks of Managing Change

Change initiatives are difficult, complex, and subject to failure. When change initiatives are seen as competing with and isolated from the core work and tasks of the organization, they are even less likely to be successful. Today organization change is an integral part of the work of the organization (Fishman, 1997, p. 64). The organization’s management processes include the management both of change initiatives and of the organization’s core work. They are interrelated.

A rich variety of organization change models have been discussed in this chapter. There are many other organization change models that have not been covered here. The number and variety of organization change models can lead to confusion, competing claims about which is “best,” and jokes about the latest “fad of the month.” In fact many of the models are complementary and overlapping and address key aspects of the organization change process.

The change models described in this chapter are integrated as complementary parts of the change management process, connected with the work of the organization, and shown as the “multi-task organization work and change management model” in Figure 13.11. The multi-task model includes work and change management processes as the core work of the organization. The six tasks of organization work and change management responsibility and processes are addressed simultaneously. Change management activities are described in five of the tasks: current reality, desired future, change, transition management, and communication, dialogue, and learning.

Change is ongoing and the work and change management tasks are interdependent and ongoing, as well. The activities in each task incorporate a learning-by-doing perspective and represent interventions that can change the organization. Knowledge and information gained in one task inform and impact the management processes of other tasks. Activities (that is, change initiatives) in the five change management tasks inform the management of core organizational work. When change initiatives are segregated from the management of organizational work, organizations can miss important forces, data, learning, and opportunities for improvement.