Transformational and Coercive Strategies for Planned Organizational Change: Beyond the

O.D. Model
In order to manage organizational change more effectively, this study proposes a more all-
encompassing model that allows for both transformation and incrementalism, as well as the
employment of both directive or coercive and collaborative methods. When it comes to the
management of organizational transformation, it harmonizes the perspectives of two significant
and frequently at-odds theoretical traditions in the field of organizational behaviour. These are
the "tough-minded" tradition of the pluralistic power viewpoint and the "tender-minded"
tradition of the "human relations or human resource" theorists whose theories underlie O.D.
methods (Marx to Mason and Mitroff). Instead of being conflicting tactics, coercion and
collusion are complementing strategies, and evolution and transformation are complementary
modes, depending on the situation. This model, which serves as a contingency model for planned
change strategies, enables managers and consultants to look beyond personal value preferences
as the primary selection criterion for an organizational change strategy. The model substitutes
systematic analysis based on what is required to uphold or build organizational fit or
effectiveness for such preferences.
Concerning Incrementation, incrementalism refers to planned change and orderly transitioning
(Quinn 1977, 1980; Golembiewski 1979; Dunphy 1981; Kanter 1983; Gagliardi 1986).
Employee confidence rises as a result of incremental change, which lessens the organization's
reliance on outside sources for motivation and momentum. The principles of incrementalism
emphasize gradual change as opposed to radical change, order as opposed to chaos, consensus
and collaboration over conflict and power, and the use of expert authority and the persuasiveness
of data as opposed to the demands of positional authority or charisma of charismatic leaders.
For ‘Transformative Change’, managers will be driven into a reactive rather than pro-active
mode to the extent that they are unable to alter external influences that may also be unpredictable
and that they are imprisoned in a fixed mindset. when they are confronted by reality. If the
company is to survive, its response may need to be swift and transformative. In these situations,
forcing change from outside the organization may be the only option to get it back in sync with
its surroundings. Additionally, it might spark enough disagreement to free up the organization's
stifled human energy and spur transformation. Numerous often recurring events could provide
circumstances that need for such extensive organizational change as opposed to incrementalism,
including environmental creep; organizational creep; diversification, acquisition, merger,
shutdowns; industry re-organization; and major technological breakthroughs.
The key distinction between incremental and revolutionary change, in our opinion, is not
between slow and quick change, or between typical and extraordinary change. Instead, the
distinction is between organizations that implement change continuously versus discontinuously.
According to Fiol and Lyles (1985), the former are organizations that experience "continuous
learning" at all organizational levels, whereas the latter are those that experience "periodic
learning," mostly at the top of the organization. Organizations that go through periodic learning
often establish or restore fit by making a number of significant changes to their strategy,
organizational structure, operational procedures, or a mix of these. This type of change is what is
meant when the term "transformative" is used. This is due to the fact that managers who have a
fundamental commitment to the current paradigm and who want help managing change
incrementally—that is, who want evolution rather than revolution—have recruited and deployed
O.D. practitioners most frequently. The majority of O.D. practitioners' ideological commitment
to incrementalism has also motivated them to seek out and choose incrementalist options and
circumstances, creating a vicious circle.
No one change technique or class of techniques works well in all situations, according to
research by Nicholas Wylie and his co-authors. They postulate that coercion or collaboration
may be equally effective modes of bringing about change in different situations. The authors
conclude that no value judgements are attached to these constructs in proposing the model which
follows.
The argument is that choosing the right sorts of change fully depends on a strategic appraisal of
the circumstance. Instead of automatically depending on a change strategy and mode that is
congruent with their own personal values, change agents (internal or external) should choose the
most effective strategy and method of change. It follows that most O.D. practitioners will require
additional training in charismatic and forceful techniques, as well as in the effective use of
emotion, symbols, and political interventions. Similarly to this, financial and strategic business
consultants must increase their understanding of the function participatory methods of change
can play in specific situations to ensure the adoption of their suggestions and to raise the calibre
of those recommendations. Additionally, they typically need to improve their interpersonal
communication abilities in order to accomplish change.