See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/211388896

Rethinking Organizational Change: Reframing the Challenge of Change

Management.

Article  in  Organization Development Journal · January 2005

CITATIONS READS

75 4,626

2 authors:

Kenneth Kerber Anthony Buono

Northeastern University Bentley University
52 PUBLICATIONS   485 CITATIONS    74 PUBLICATIONS   2,252 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

UNGC & PRME; Conceptualizing Change Implementation View project

Reconceptualizing Organizational Change View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kenneth Kerber on 16 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Feature Articles

Abstract
RETHINKING The article examines three basic approaches to
ORGANIZATIONAL organizational change-directed change, planned
CHANGE: change, and guided changing-and their appropri-
ateness as a function of the relative business com-
Reframing the Challenge of plexity and socio-technical uncertainty in the situa-
Change Management tion. Two moderating factors, the change capacity
of the organization and the urgency of the situa-
tion, are also considered. The article concludes
Kenneth Kerber
with a discussion of the implications for our think-
Anthony F Buono
ing about organizational change and change man-
agement practices.

Key words: change management,

planned change, resistance to
change

Kenneth W Kerber, Kerber & Associates, has
helped clients for twenty plus years in formulating
learning and development strategies, leading organi-
zational change, and enhancing virtual team effec-
tiveness. His Ph.D. in Personality Psychology is
from the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign. He was Director of Training &
Development at 3Com Corporation where he
focused on business and performance management,
leadership development, and change. He holds
adjunct faculty appointments at Bentley College and
Simmons College.
Contact Information
Kenneth W. Kerber
Kerber & Associates
Auburn, MA 01501
kenkerber@charter.net
Volume 23ŒNumber 3ŒFall 2005
Companies in every industry are increasingly being
challenged to build the capacity for change, not
only in response to competitive and technological
pressures but also in anticipation of those changes.
Accordingly, significant attention in conceptualiza-
tion, empirical research and practice has been
devoted to the growing field of change manage-
ment. Most large consulting firms, for example,
have developed extensive change management
practices within their organizations (Garfoot, 2003;
Werr, Stjernberg & Docherty, 1997; Worren,
Ruddle & Moore, 1999). A growing number of
MBA programs have added courses and curricula
on change management (Adams & Zanzi, 2001;
Kerber, 2001). In addition, the literature on manag-
ing organizational change seems to be expanding
exponentially (cf. Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992;
Beer & Nohria, 2000; Conner, 1993; de Caluwé &
23
Feature Articles
Anthony F. Buono, Professor of Management and
Sociology, Bentley College, Coordinator of the
Bentley Alliance for Ethics and Social
Responsibility, with a PhD from Boston College,
researches and consults on mergers, acquisitions,
strategic partnerships, and firm-stakeholder relation-
ships. His books include The Human Side of
Mergers and Acquisitions (1989; 2003), A Primer on
Organizational Behavior (6th edition, 2005) and
Creative Consulting (2004). Dr. Buono edits the
Research in Management Consulting series.
Contact Information:
Anthony F. Buono
Department of Management
Bentley College
175 Forest Street
Waltham, MA 02452
abuono@bentley.edu
24
Vermaak, 2002; Fullan, 2001; Kotter, 1996; Kotter
& Cohen, 2002; Quinn, 1996). Many of the result-
ing tools for managing and influencing change
have enhanced our ability to deal with change
processes, especially given their focus on the very
necessary and critically important task of dealing
with people's emotional reactions to change. As a
result, we are beginning to develop a much more
informed base of actionable knowledge to support
our change efforts.
Building true organizational
change capacity involves leading
change in ways that are appropri-
ate to the situation.
Unfortunately, many of these prescriptions and
models continue to fall well short of the challenge.
Our contention is that such failure is exacerbated
and magnified largely by the inappropriate applica-
tion of different approaches to change. Building
true organizational change capacity involves lead-
ing change in ways that are appropriate to the situ-
ation.
Situational or contingency models of management
and organizational behavior, of course, are com-
monplace in the literature about organizations,
ranging from situational models of leadership to
variations on organization design. When it comes
to organizational change, however, there is a nor-
mative bias toward participation as the preferred
strategy for overcoming many of the negative reac-
tions associated with the change process (cf. Beer,
Eisenstat & Spector, 1990; Bennis, Benne & Chin,
1961; Kotter, 1996; Sashkin, 1984). While there
are some situational approaches, they tend to focus
Organizational Development Journal

on specific aspects of the change process. Kotter
and Schlesinger (1979), for example, describe dif-
ferent methods of dealing with resistance to
change. They suggest that key situational variables,
such as the amount and type of resistance and the
locus of relevant data for designing the change,
should influence the choice of method. Examining
technological change in organizations, Orlikowski
and Hofman (1997) distinguish between traditional
and improvisational change and propose that the
process of change should be aligned with the tech-
nology to be implemented and with the culture of
the organization in which the change is introduced.
Recent work by de Caluwé and Vermaak (2002)
describes different types of change, which they
color code, their underlying assumptions, and the
concomitant ramifications for the role and focus of
change agents and consultants.
Directed change is driven from
the top of the organization, relies
on authority and compliance, and
focuses on coping with people's
emotional reactions to change
Despite these efforts, organization development
theorists and practitioners continue to exhibit a
strong normative bias toward involvement and par-
ticipation as the solution for organizational change-
related problems (cf. Coyle-Shapiro, 1999; Nurick,
1982; Farnham, Horton & White, 2003; Fay &
Luhrmann, 2004; Sashkin, 1984; Warren, 2004). It
appears, however, that while participation does
increase a sense of ownership in the change, in far
too many instances such participative strategies
either waste critical resources by unnecessarily
involving people or take a limited view of the par-
ticipation necessary for success (cf. Horton, 2003;
Volume 23ŒNumber 3ŒFall 2005
Feature Articles
Jenkins, 1994; Lawler, 1988; Morgan & Zeffane,
2003; Shrank, 1983). In essence, many of our par-
ticipation-based solutions either go too far or not
far enough. As Beer and Nohria (2000) argue, as
many as 70 percent of major change efforts fail to
achieve their stated objectives despite good inten-
tions to involve people in the change process.
CONCEPTUALIZING CHANGE
MANAGEMENT: THREE
APPROACHES TO CHANGE
Our premise is that this low success rate may be
due in large part to a mismatch between the
requirements of the situation and the approach to
change that is implemented. From a conceptual
vantage point, three interrelated approaches to
organizational change are present in organizations
today (Kerber, 2001): directed change, planned
change and guided changing. Directed change is
driven from the top of the organization, relies on
authority and compliance, and focuses on coping
with people's emotional reactions to change (Figure
1). Leaders create and announce the change and
seek to persuade organizational members to accept
it based on business necessity, logical arguments,
and emotional appeals. Directed change reflects a
quick, decisive approach to introducing change in
an organization. Used inappropriately, however,
managers and employees throughout the organiza-
tion are forced to cope with the well-known and
expected reactions of the targets of the imposed
change-denial, anger, bargaining, sadness, and loss
(cf. Kubler-Ross, 1969; Marks, 2003).
Planned change, which has become an increasingly
popular approach to change management, may
arise from any level in the organization but ulti-
mately is sponsored at the top. Change leaders and
implementers seek involvement in and commit-
ment to the change by making extensive use of
specific actions, identified through research and
25
Feature Articles

Authority

Persuasive Communication

Acceptance

Top-down Change

Figure 1. Directed Change

Implem
Organize Monitor &
the C
the Project
Involve &
Influence the
Stakeholders
Identify the
Change

Figure 2. The Planned Change Roadmap

26 Organizational Development Journal


experience, that mitigate the typical resistance and
productivity losses associated with directed change
(e.g., Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992; Kotter, 1996;
LaMarsh, 1995). Underlying most planned change
efforts is the Lewinian three-stage process of
unfreezing, changing, and refreezing: (a) unfreez-
ing or releasing the organization from its current
patterns, (b) transitioning the resulting, more mal-
leable, organization from its current patterns to
more adaptive ones, and then (c) refreezing the
organization into a new set of patterns by weaving
them into the fabric of the organization (Lewin,
1947, 1951; Weick, 2000; Weick & Quinn, 1999).
As illustrated in Figure 2, rather than simply creat-
ing and announcing the change, planned change
provides a roadmap that outlines a project manage-
ment approach to the change process. It attempts to
create the conditions for people to become more
involved in the change process, identifying and
encouraging key stakeholders to participate in both
the form and implementation of the change. Yet,
while planned change creates an important capabil-
ity in today's organizations, used inappropriately it
can still result in significant reductions in produc-
tivity, overwhelm organizational members with its
complexity, alienate key stakeholders as a result of
limited participation and true influence in the
process, and constrain the ability of the organiza-
tion to achieve its intended goals (cf. Abrahamson,
2000; Kerber, 2001). Moreover, the burden for ini-
tiating and sustaining the change is still placed
directly on the change strategists, from identifying
the need for change and creating a vision of
desired outcomes to deciding which changes are
ultimately feasible (see, for example, Mento, Jones
& Dirndorfer, 2002).
The planned change approach implicitly assumes
that organizations experience sufficient inertia and
that leaders must intentionally create change and
consciously attempt to minimize resistance to that
Volume 23ŒNumber 3ŒFall 2005
Feature Articles
Guided changing emerges from
within the organization and peo-
ple's commitment and contribu-
tions to the purpose of the organ-
ization.
change. Yet, observations of organizations today
suggest that it is increasingly common for change
to arise from all levels in the organization, for peo-
ple to make both small and large changes in their
work based on trial and error and success and fail-
ure, and for changes initiated in one part of an
organization to spread to other parts of the compa-
ny. The reality is that such continuous change is a
natural part of organizational life (Wheatley, 1999).
Guided changing emerges from within the organi-
zation and people's commitment and contributions
to the purpose of the organization. In the context of
the type of over-lapping changes that are character-
istic of today's hypercompetitive environment, this
approach largely focuses on enhancing and extend-
ing the effects of the myriad changes that are
already underway. It attempts to take full advan-
tage of the expertise and creativity of organization-
al members, as organic changes emerge and
evolve, reconfiguring existing practices and mod-
els, and testing new ideas and perspectives.
Reflecting on Lewin's (1947, 1951) seminal contri-
bution to planned change, guided changing follows
a different three-stage process: freezing, rebalanc-
ing, and unfreezing (Weick & Quinn, 1999).
Specifically, guided changing involves pausing the
action in an organization, at least figuratively, so
that sequences, patterns, and interrelationships can
be identified (freezing). Change agents can facili-
tate this process through vision casting and the cre-
ation of cultural maps that link different change
27
Feature Articles

INTERPRET &
DESIGN

SHARE THE
LEARNING IMPLEMENT
SYSTEM-WIDE & IMPROVISE

HOLD ACCOUNTABLE
& LEARN

Figure 3. The Guided Changing Spiral

Source: Kerber (2001)
efforts and initiatives. Based on a clearer under-
standing of what is happening in the organization,
patterns can then be reassessed-re-shifting, rebal-
ancing, or re-sequencing as necessary-to eliminate
obstacles and blockages to these emergent changes
(rebalancing). Instead of telling people what to do
and why to do it (logic of replacement), the under-
lying key is to inspire organizational members so
that they are drawn to and excited by the possibili-
ty of change (logic of attraction). At this point, the
"pause button" is figuratively released, unfreezing
the action and resuming the learning and improvi-
sation that characterize the guided changing
process. Much of the ideal underlying guided
changing is reflected in appreciative inquiry and its
cycle of discovery, dream, design, and delivery
(see Srivastava & Cooperrider, 1990; Watkins &
Mohr, 2001).
As illustrated in Figure 3, guided changing is an
iterative process of initial interpretation and design,
implementation and improvisation, learning from
the change effort, and then sharing that learning
system-wide, leading to ongoing re-interpretation
and redesign of the change. The resulting spiral of
learning, innovation, and development contributes
to both continuous improvement of existing change
efforts as well as the ability to generate novel
changes and solutions. Our experience suggests,
however, that if used inappropriately, guided
changing can contribute to organizational chaos, as
continuous changes and transitions confuse and
frustrate rather than enlighten and support organi-
zational members and other key stakeholders. The
feeling of being in "permanent white water" (Vaill,
1989) and the need to constantly adapt and adjust
can be a daunting experience. Many people ulti-
mately want organizational change to end, rather
than experience changing as a way of doing busi-
ness that will, in essence, never end.
TOWARD A SITUATIONAL
APPROACH TO CHANGE MAN-
AGEMENT

28 Organizational Development Journal


Two key factors influence the
appropriateness of each
approach to change: business
complexity and socio-technical
uncertainty.
While normative bias accompanies thinking about
preferred approaches to change, moving away from
directed change toward highly participative
planned change and more organic, guided changing
efforts, any of the three approaches to change may
be appropriate depending on the situation.
Similarly, any one of these approaches, if used
inappropriately, could readily create problems and
contribute to organizational discontent and resist-
ance.
We suggest that two key factors influence the
appropriateness of each approach to change: busi-
ness complexity and socio-technical uncertainty.
Business Complexity
Business complexity refers to the intricacy of the
system, in essence, the number of different compo-
nents and extent of differentiation in the organiza-
tional system in which the change is to be imple-
mented. While there are no precise demarcation
points between low and high business complexity,
indicators include such factors as organizational
size and geographical dispersion, the nature of
interdependencies and related technology, the num-
ber of products and services, and the array of criti-
cal stakeholders. In general, organizational size is
related to the degree of vertical (organizational lev-
els), horizontal (specializations, departments) and
spatial (geographic dispersion) differentiation (e.g.,
Bluedorn, 1993). Another measure is the extent to
Volume 23ŒNumber 3ŒFall 2005
Feature Articles
which different work units depend on each other
for resources or other materials to accomplish their
tasks (Thompson, 1967; Drexler & Forrester,
1998). Such interdependencies can range from rela-
tively simple interactions where work does not
directly flow between units (pooled interdepend-
ence), to situations where ongoing feedback
between different units is critical for task accom-
plishment (reciprocal and team interdependence).
Similarly, mediating technologies that allow work
units to work independently (e.g., real estate
offices that mediate between buyers and sellers)
involve less complexity than intensive technologies
that combine a variety of products and services to
meet client needs (e.g., patient care in a hospital).
The degree of business complexity increases the
more an organizational change cuts across different
hierarchical levels, different work units and differ-
ent geographic locations; involves reciprocal or
team interdependence; effects a range of products
and services; and requires the buy-in of a number
of internal and external stakeholders. Thus, the
focus is on the relative complexity of implement-
ing the change solution and what it will take to
successfully introduce and sustain the change over
time.
Socio-technical Uncertainty
Socio-technical uncertainty refers to the amount
and nature of information processing and decision-
making required for the change based on the extent
to which the tasks involved are determined, estab-
lished, or exactly known. Some tasks are clearly
analyzable, where work processes can be reduced
to repeatable steps. In these instances, organiza-
tional members can be directed to follow objective,
standardized procedures based on technical knowl-
edge and managerial expertise. As the change chal-
lenge and its solution become less clear and the
correct solution is far more difficult to identify,
29
Feature Articles
High
Business
Complexity
Directed
Low
Low
Figure 4. Complexity, Uncertainty and Approaches to Change
such directed approaches begin to break down. In
these instances, there is no organizational reper-
toire of appropriate techniques or procedures, and
organizational members must draw on their own
judgment, intuition, and expertise. The solution to
the change challenge is typically the result of wis-
dom and testing rather than following a set of stan-
dardized procedures (Perrow, 1970).
While no precise demarcation points appear
between low and high socio-technical uncertainty,
situations can be described as varying in the extent
to which there are (a) clearly known ways to
approach the situation, (b) an understandable
sequence of steps that can be followed, and (c) an
identifiable set of established procedures and prac-
tices (Daft, 2001). Duarte and Snyder (2001), for
example, describe work with high socio-technical
uncertainty as adaptive, involving situations where
satisfactory responses have not yet been developed,
no specific plan of action can solve the problem,
and workers may not even know which questions
to ask. In low socio-technical uncertainty situa-
tions, the solution to the change challenge is
known, while in high socio-technical uncertainty
30
Planned
Guided
High
Socio-Technical
Uncertainty
contexts the solution may not be known or fully
understood.
Directed change is most appro-
priate in situations where both
business complexity and socio-
technical uncertainty are low.
A Change Management Framework
As illustrated in Figure 4, directed change is most
appropriate in situations where both business com-
plexity and socio-technical uncertainty are low. If
the change involves well-known and well-accepted
actions that are implemented in a relatively simple,
routine environment, then directed change makes
the best use of limited organizational resources.
Within this context, persuasive and ethical commu-
nication is still critical, ensuring both the clarity of
the message and the honesty and trustworthiness of
the change agent/strategist. If organizational mem-
Organizational Development Journal
 Feature Articles
ments of strong project management, helps man-
agers work their way through the complexity that
surrounds them.
The primary driver of the shift to
planned change is business
complexity.
The primary driver of guided
changing is socio-technical
bers do not trust the change implementer and his or uncertainty.
her message, their acceptance of the change is
unlikely. Another important dimension of such
communication is responding to the "so that" ques-
tion-"We are changing X so that we will be able to
accomplish Y"-making certain that organizational
The primary driver of guided changing is socio-
members fully understand the reason, rationale,
technical uncertainty. If the future state or change
and expected outcome of the change (Ulrich,
solution is unknown, even in what appear to be rel-
Zenger & Smallwood, 1999). While explaining rea-
atively simple situations, managers do not have the
sons for change might seem obvious, research indi-
answers and are unable to meaningfully direct the
cates that employees, including many managers,
change or carefully plan the change process.
often have little or no objective knowledge of the
Instead, they must draw on the tacit knowledge and
intention and/or outcomes of their change efforts
capabilities of organizational members. The itera-
(e.g., Olsson, Ovretveit & Kammerlind, 2003;
tive nature of the guided changing process encour-
Walston & Chadwick, 2003).
ages the type of improvisation and experimentation
needed to identify the most effective actions, solu-
The primary driver of the shift to planned change
tions, and outcomes. While planned change has
is business complexity. As the business complexity
clearly provided us with implementation-related
of the implementation process increases, a planned
tools and participative strategies to get people
change approach is needed, especially when key
involved in the change process, it does not go far
stakeholders differ about what actions may be most
enough in those situations where a solution to the
effective in different parts of the organization.
change problem is unknown or unclear. The
Effectively and appropriately engaging people in
dynamics inherent in the guided changing spiral
the planning process can ameliorate implementa-
(Figure 3) are crucial as organizational members
tion problems and generate buy-in for the current
create, test, experiment, and mutually adjust to
and more complex changes. This effort is especial-
each other's efforts. In effect, guided changing is an
ly important when commitment to the decision is
attempt to break through the constraints imposed
critical for successful implementation. While an
by hierarchy and closely managed change process-
underlying concern might be that increasing partic-
es, dispersing awareness much more broadly
ipation simply adds more complexity to a situation
throughout the organization and ensuring that the
that is already highly complex, the planned change
right talent and appropriate resources are applied to
approach increases the probability of buy-in and
continuous changing (Oxman & Smith, 2003). An
support for the change. Moreover, the resulting
underlying challenge, especially as excitement
roadmap (see Figure 2), which includes key ele-

Volume 23ŒNumber 3ŒFall 2005 31

Feature Articles

High Planned
ty
ci
pa y
Ca nc
Business g e ge
Complexity an Ur
C h

Directed Guided
Low

Low High

Socio-Technical
Uncertainty

Figure 5. The Influence of Change Capacity

and Urgency

about change possibilities begin to emerge, is to
harness the energy of organizational members
around those aspects of the organization that
require changing while maintaining continuity
where appropriate (Gosling & Mintzberg, 2003).
Moderating Factors and Changemaker
Responsibility
While the choice of an approach to change should
be driven primarily by business complexity and
socio-technical uncertainty, there are two moderat-
ing factors that further influence the appropriate-
ness of each approach to change: change capacity
and urgency.
Change Capacity
The change capacity of the organization refers to
(a) the willingness and ability of changemakers to
assume responsibility for the change, (b) the exis-
tence of a supportive infrastructure that facilitates
change, and (c) sufficient resources appropriate for
the change. The concept of changemakers goes
well beyond top-management change leaders and
strategists and includes mid-level implementers
and lower-level participants and recipients (Kanter,
Stein & Jick, 1992). Each of these groups brings a
very different role, mindset, and orientation to the
change and can experience the change in different
ways (de Jager, 2003). For example, just because a
management group may view a particular initiative
as planned change, it does not necessarily mean
that others in the organization will view it the same
way. Depending on how it is carried out, recipients
(i.e., those affected by the change) can perceive the
change as much more directed in nature, and as a
result, have quite different reactions to the change
process. An organization's change capacity is influ-
enced by the extent to which all three groups-
change strategists, implementers, and recipients-
have a similar understanding of the change process
and its appropriateness to the situation.
Similarly, organizations that have extensive and
highly networked communication structures tend to

32 Organizational Development Journal

 Feature Articles

If the infrastructure and resources supporting

The greater an organization's change are not in place, any approach to change
change capacity ... the greater the will require additional planning and effort to create
organization's ability to embrace the necessary infrastructure and to acquire the nec-
guided changing. essary resources, in addition to implementing the
change itself. In fact, when the infrastructure and
resources supporting change are not in place, suc-
cessful organizational change could very well be
have a higher level of change capacity than organi-
impossible, even with an appropriate approach to
zations with hierarchically oriented, silo structures.
change. Thus, the capability to marshal broad-
Readily available communication technologies,
based resources, including cultivating a senior-
flexible systems and processes, and responsive
level sponsor (see Mento, et al., 2003), to support
training and education all contribute to a support-
change programs and problem-solving activities is
ive infrastructure that facilitates the change
a crucial dimension of the change process. Even
process. Finally, sufficient resources appropriate
though guided changing draws on the energy,
for the change adds to an organization's change
enthusiasm, and commitment of organizational
capacity. Such resources go beyond financial and
members, it must still be supported and encouraged
operational support to include sufficient time and
by organizational leaders to be successful and sus-
mind share. If organizational members feel over-
tainable.
whelmed and distracted by other pressures and
commitments, it is unlikely that they will embrace
further change.

As reflected in Figure 5, the greater an organiza-

When circumstances involve a
tion's change capacity (changemaker willingness
strong sense of urgency, a direct-
ed approach to change may be
and ability to accept responsibility for change,
necessary, even in complex and
facilitating infrastructure, and appropriate
uncertain situations
resources), the greater the organization's ability to
embrace guided changing. When an organization is
faced with ambiguous and uncertain situations, if
Urgency of the Situation
the changemakers are not willing or able to assume
responsibility for change, then the change agent is
The urgency of the change situation refers to the
faced with the challenge of developing that capaci-
risks associated with no or slow change, such as
ty. Thus, as a way of enhancing the change capaci-
when changes are needed to ensure the personal
ty of an organization, companies may experiment
safety of organizational members to protect cus-
with planned change or guided changing efforts
tomers, or to increase the probability of organiza-
even when a directed approach to change is appro-
tional survival. As illustrated in Figure 5, when cir-
priate. Alternatively, in a simple, certain situation,
cumstances involve a strong sense of urgency, a
when changemakers are willing and able to assume
directed approach to change may be necessary,
responsibility for change, getting people to accept
even in complex and uncertain situations. While
directed change is a communication challenge.

Volume 23ŒNumber 3ŒFall 2005 33

Feature Articles
this strategy may only result in a short-term, tem-
porary solution to longer-term problems, as long as
the directed change is carried out in the manner
described in this article, it can still provide the
basis for subsequent planned change and/or guided
changing efforts. Moreover, such short-term suc-
cesses-in essence "small wins"-can serve as a
source of motivation and direction in longer-term
change efforts (cf. Kotter, 1996; Weick, 1984). An
underlying key is the type of persuasive, open, and
honest communication and direction discussed ear-
lier.
RETHINKING CHANGE AND CHANGE
MANAGEMENT
Given today's turbulent business environment, the
ability to lead organizational change is essential for
individuals, teams, and entire organizations, and
the nature and pace of change require an expanded,
yet integrated framework. Based on our analysis,
the most effective approach to organizational
change appears to be dependent on key contingen-
cies of the situation including (a) the complexity of
the business environment and (b) the socio-techni-
cal uncertainty of the task or problem, along with
(c) the change capacity of the organization and (d)
the risks associated with either no or slow change.
Within this framework, resistance to change can be
thought of, in part, as a function of the mismatch
between the demands of the situation and the
selected approach to change.
As the pace of change in our business environment
continues to accelerate, organizational success will
be increasingly dependent on our capacity for con-
tinuous adaptation (Weick & Quinn, 1999). All
three change approaches contribute to this process;
however, an appropriate balance across directed
and planned change as well as guided changing
appears to be necessary to achieve this ideal.
Abrahamson's (2000) notion of dynamic stability
34
suggests the essence of such balance, interspersing
major (directed and planned) change initiatives
with the thoughtful guidance of ongoing, organic
(guided) changing. Encouraging people to initiate
and experiment with changing as they see fit may
seem risky, but as long as it is accomplished within
an organization's business context and strategic
intent, guided changing encourages both incremen-
tal changes associated with continuous improve-
ment methods (e.g., Choi, 1995) and transforma-
tive, breakthrough changes (Kerber, 2001).
To be successful today, organizations require a
combination of directed and planned change and
guided changing, appropriately matched to differ-
ent situations and to different parts of large-scale
change efforts. As an example, the acquisition of a
company, while typically chosen by a small num-
ber of executives in the two organizations, is essen-
tially a directed change for most managers and
employees. The process requires a clearly commu-
nicated business strategy and highly engaging wel-
coming activities to mitigate the well-known reac-
tions to directed change. The integration teams that
are often created to facilitate the transition to a uni-
fied company typically require a planned change
approach to design and implement the fairly well-
understood, albeit complex changes required to
combine different structures, systems, and policies.
Using a clear change management roadmap from
current to future state, cross-functional integration
teams (with representatives from both organiza-
tions) can begin to resolve the complex issues
associated with integrating the two companies,
while simultaneously encouraging involvement that
helps build commitment to the new organization.
At the same time, the reality of joining two organi-
zations, even relatively simple ones, exceeds our
human ability to plan for every contingency, there-
by creating situations with high socio-technical
uncertainty. Members of the combined organization
Organizational Development Journal

should be encouraged to use their experience in the
new situation, their expertise, and their creativity to
evolve and reconfigure the organization for suc-
cess. Framed by the business context and identity
of the new company, guided changing may be what
is most needed to unleash the business potential
that typically drives the decision to combine com-
panies in the first place.
As we move from directed change to planned
change to guided changing, there is an underlying
need for significant competence transfer from
change strategists to change recipients, as organiza-
tional members become, in effect, the new change
strategists. The transition from planned change to
guided changing, in particular, poses a significant
challenge for change strategists and organizational
members who are both accustomed to having the
former lead change. While resistance is clearly
related to instances where people feel change is
being thrust upon them, a downside of carefully
orchestrated planned change is that it might create
an artificial sense of security among recipients that
could counteract reflection (Werr, et al, 1997) and,
as a result, suppress the type of learning and
improvisation necessary for guided changing. At
the same time, one of the greatest challenges to the
implementation of guided changing may be the
unwillingness of change strategists to let go of
tight management control and embrace a messy,
dynamic process that involves the entire organiza-
tion (Kerber, 2001). Therefore, it is imperative that
all changemakers become better informed about
the advantages and limitations of each approach to
change as well as about the situations in which
each approach is most appropriate.
A critical challenge for twenty-first century organi-
zations and their leaders is the ongoing develop-
ment of individuals, teams, and entire organizations
that are capable of understanding the different
Volume 23ŒNumber 3ŒFall 2005
Feature Articles
approaches to change and adapting the change
process to the complexity and uncertainty of the
situation. From this perspective, the highest level
of change capacity would be exemplified by an
organization in which directed change, planned
change, and guided changing are implemented as
appropriate in different situations with the full sup-
port and commitment of all organizational mem-
bers because they understand the different
approaches to change and the appropriate timing
for change. In such a situation, we might truly say
that the organization has created a culture of
change.
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, E. (2000). Change without pain.
Harvard Business Review, 78(4), 75-79.
Adams, S.M. & Zanzi, A. (2001). Are we produc-
ing information age consultants? A study
of U.S. business schools' course offerings.
In A.F. Buono (Ed.), Research in
Management Consulting: Current Trends
in Management Consulting (pp. 189-206).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Beckhard, R. & Pritchard, W. (1992). Changing the
essence: The art of creating and leading
fundamental change in organizations. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. & Spector, B. (1990). Why
change programs don't produce change.
Harvard Business Review, 68(6), 158-167.
Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code
of change. Harvard Business Review,
78(3), 133-141.
Bennis, W.G., Benne, K.D. & Chin, R. (1961). The
planning of change. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
35
Feature Articles
Bluedorn, A.C. (1993). Pilgrim's progress: Trends
and convergence in research on organiza-
tional size and environment. Journal of
Management Studies, 19(2), 163-191.
Choi, T. (1995). Conceptualizing continuous
improvement: Implications for organiza-
tional change. Omega: International
Journal of Management Science, 23, 607-
624.
Conner, D.R. (1993). Managing at the speed of
change. New York: Villard.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. (1999). Employee participation
and assessment of an organizational change
intervention. Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 35(4), 439-456.
Daft, R.L. (2001). Organization theory and design.
Cincinnati, OK: South-Western/Thomson.
de Caluwé, L. & Vermaak, V. (2002). Learning to
change: A guide for organization change
agents. London: Sage Publications.
de Jager, P. (2003). Management concerns: Three
types of change. Internet-based article
(www.hrgate.co.uk/viewnewsdetail.asp?
uniquenumber=2528&loginstatus=).
Accessed 12/01/03.
Drexler, A.B. & Forrester, R. (1998).
Interdependence: The crux of teamwork.
HR Magazine, 43(10), 52-62.
Duarte, D.L. & Snyder, N.T. (2001). Mastering vir-
tual teams. Second edition. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Farnham, D., Horton, S. & White, G. (2003).
Organisational change and staff participa-
tion and
involvement in Britain's public services.
International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 16(6), 434-445.
Fay, D. & Luhrmann, H. (2004). Current themes in
organizational change. European Journal
of Work & Organizational Psychology,
13(2), 113-119.
36
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garfoot, A. (2003). The new breed of consultants.
IT Training, (April), 22-23.
Gosling, J. & Mintzberg, H. (2003). The five
minds of a manager. Harvard Business
Review, 81(11), 54-63.
Horton, S. (2003). Participation and involvement:
The democratisation of new public mana-
gement? International Journal of Public
Sector Management, 16(6), 403-410.
Jenkins, A. (1994). Teams: From 'ideology' to
analysis. Organization Studies, 15(6), 849-
860.
Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A. & Jick, T.D. (1992). The
challenge of organizational change: How
companies experience it and leaders guide
it. N.Y.: Free Press.
Kerber, K.W. (2001). Change in human systems:
From planned change to guided changing.
In A. F. Buono (Ed.), Current trends in
management consulting (pp. 145-169).
Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J.P. & Cohen, D.S. (2002). The heart of
change: Real-life stories of how people
change their organizations. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J.P. & Schlesinger, L.A. (1979). Choosing
strategies for change. Harvard Business
Review, 57(2), 106-116.
Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New
York: MacMillian.
LaMarsh, J. (1995). Changing the way we change:
Gaining control of major operational
change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Organizational Development Journal

Lawler, E.E. III (1988). Transformation from con-
trol to involvement. In R.H. Kilmann, T.J.
Covin and Associates, Corporate transfor-
mation: Revitalizing organizations for a
competitive world (pp. 46-65). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science.
New York: Harper & Row.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics.
Human Relations, 1(1), 5-47.
Marks, M.L. (2003). Charging back up the hill:
Workplace recovery after mergers, acquisi-
tions, and downsizings. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Mento, A.J., Jones, R.M. & Dirndorfer, W. (2002).
A change management process: Grounded
in both theory and practice. Journal of
Change Management, 3(1), 45-59.
Morgan, D.E. & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee
involvement, organizational change and
trust in management. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 14(1),
55-75.
Nurick, A.J. (1982). Participation in organizational
change: A longitudinal field study. Human
Relations, 35 (5), 413-430.
Olsson, J.A., Ovretveit, J, & Kammerlind, P.
(2003). Developing and testing a model to
predict outcomes of organizational change.
Quality Management in Health Care,
12(4), 240-249.
Orlikowski, W.J. & Hofman, J.D. (1997). An
improvisational model of change manage-
ment: The case of groupware technologies.
Sloan Management Review, 38 (), 11-22.
Oxman, J.A. & Smith, B.D. (2003). The limits of
structural change. Sloan Management
Review, 45(1), 77-82.
Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational analysis: A soci-
ological approach. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Volume 23ŒNumber 3ŒFall 2005
Feature Articles
Quinn, R.E. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the
leader within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Sashkin, M. (1984). Participative management is
an ethical imperative. Organizational
Dynamics, 12(4), 4-23.
Shrank, R. (Ed.). Industrial democracy at sea:
Authority and democracy on a Norweigian
freighter. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Srivastava, S. & Cooperrider, D. (1990).
Appreciative inquiry and leadership: The
power of positive thought and action in
organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action.
N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.
Ulrich, D., Zenger, J. & Smallwood, N. (1999).
Results-based leadership: How leaders
build the business and improve the bottom
line. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Vaill, P. (1989). Managing as a performing art.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Walston, S.L. & Chadwick, C. (2003). Perceptions
and Misperceptions of Major
Organizational Changes in Hospitals: Do
Change Efforts Fail Because of
Inconsistent Organizational Perceptions of
Restructuring and Reengineering?
International Journal of Public
Administration, 26(14), 1581-1605.
Warren, J.W. (2004). Predicting and enhancing
client success. In A.F. Buono (Ed.),
Creative consulting: Innovative perspec-
tives on management consulting (pp. 345-
372). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Watkins, J.M. & Mohr, B.J. (2001). Appreciative
inquiry: Change at the speed of imagina-
tion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
37
 Feature Articles
Weick, K.E. (2000). Emergent change as a univer-
sal in organizations. In M. Beer & N.
Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change
(pp. 223-241). Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Weick, K.E. (1984). Small wins: Redefining the
scale of social problems. American
Psychologist, 39(1), 40-49.
Weick, K.E. & Quinn, R.E. (1999). Organizational
change and development. In J.T. Spence,
J.M. Darley, & D.J. Foss (Eds.), Annual
Review of Psychology (pp. 361-386). Palo
Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Werr, A., Stjernberg, T. & Docherty, P. (1997). The
functions of methods of change in manage-
ment consulting. Journal of Organizational
Change Management, 10(4), 288-307.
Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership & the new
science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Worren, N.A.M., Ruddle, K. & Moore, K. (1999).
From organization development to change
management: The emergence of a new
profession. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 35(3), 273-286.

38 Organizational Development Journal

View publication stats