The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

Organizational
A systems model of change
organizational change
Guido Maes and Geert Van Hootegem
Department of Social Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
725
Abstract Received 14 July 2017
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a meta-model of organizational change that allows to look Revised 21 December 2018
at change from different angles. This meta-model starts from the idea that there are different discourses about Accepted 7 October 2019
organizational change, each having their own merits but also their own limitations. Bringing these discourses
together into an integrated systems model allows the authors to capture the essence of organizational change
a lot better.
Design/methodology/approach – This model is designed based on a literature review of organizational
theories, systems theories related to theories of organizational change and specific theories about
organizational change.
Findings – The literature review resulted in a systems model of organizational change that is better able to
grasp the complexity of change than linear models.
Originality/value – This model goes beyond the usual change models from the normative discourse and
provides a multidimensional view on organizational change.
Keywords Organizational change, System, Meta-model, Multidimensional view
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Organizational change has become a vast and complex subject and a phenomenal number of
books and articles are written about it. Since the beginning of the century, several scholars
have tried of synthesize this enormous domain (Al-Haddad and Kotnour, 2015; Demers,
2007; Graetz and Smith, 2010; Heracleous and Barrett, 2001; Jacobs et al., 2013; Wetzel and
Gorp, 2014; Young, 2009). These contributions are a great support to better understand
the complexity of organizational change. Inspired by these colleagues, we developed a
meta-model for organizational change based on a literature review of organizational
theories, systems theories related to theories of organizational change and specific theories
about organizational change.
A literature search is a systematic, explicit and reproducible method for the
identification, evaluation and interpretation of the existing recorded work of researchers,
scientists and practitioners (Fink, 2013). Several authors have developed methods for
conducting literature research in a scientifically sound manner (Hart, 2018; Fink, 2013;
Ridley, 2012; Machi and McEvoy, 2016). These methods show strong similarities. We
decided to use Fink’s (2013) method as a general guideline because of its practical
applicability. In certain steps, however, we also used instruments from other authors.
Fink (2013) proposes a process in seven steps that starts with the selection of the
research question and the selection of the databases. Then the search terms are chosen, and
the databases are questioned. The results are filtered based on practical research criteria
such as language, research method, journal, etc., and methodological research criteria such
as the scientific quality and the breadth of the research. The results obtained are collected in
an accurate and extensive way and finally synthesized.
The research was executed using the Social Sciences Citation Index from a timespan of
Journal of Organizational Change
1972–2012 and actualized for this paper. The search terms used where change, Management
transformation, organization(al), model, theory, systems and combinations of these terms. Vol. 32 No. 7, 2019
pp. 725-738
The meta-model is constructed as a systems model that allows for a holistic approach © Emerald Publishing Limited
0953-4814
on change. DOI 10.1108/JOCM-07-2017-0268
JOCM As Maes and Van Hootegem (2011) stated: “According to the systems theory an
32,7 organization can be considered to be a system containing both subsystems (production,
accounting, administrative systems, HR system, etc.) and aspect systems (hierarchic
relations, data flows, etc.). As such we can assume that the management of change is a (sub)
system with a specific function within the organization, the same way that, for instance, the
HR system has its function” (p. 215).
726 The idea for developing a systems model of organizational change came in response to
the fact that for organizational change predominantly linear change models are used, often
with limited results. According to the linear models, change develops in successive steps
which must be followed closely. Following these steps, however, is no guarantee of success.
In this paper, we will demonstrate that a systems model of change is better able to capture
the complexity of change than linear models.
The starting point of this study is the fact that changes cannot be captured in a single
theory. The literature on organizational change is characterized by often conflicting theories
and beliefs, and by the fact that there are no dominant tendencies.
To cope with this plurality a kind of paradigm crossing was chosen, focussing both on
differentiation and integration of the divergent viewpoints (Patel, 2016). That view starts
from the idea that there are different discourses about organizational change, each having
their own merits but also their own limitations. This approach leads us to Stanley Deetz
(1996), who, based on the discourse theory, concluded that social research should be
regarded as “a set of interaction processes producing identifiable social discourses” (p. 204.).
Deetz proposed that research programmes in organization science should be differentiated
on the basis of the differences in the origin of the concepts and problem statements
(local/emergent vs elite/a priori) on the one hand, and according to the relation of research
practices to the dominant social discourses within the organization studied, the
research community and/or wider community (consensus/dissensus) on the other hand.
The combination of these two dimensions creates four types of discourse: normative,
interpretive, critical and dialogic (Alvesson and Deetz, 2006; Deetz, 1996) (see Figure 1).
The normative discourse emphasizes consensus and a priori conceptions of
operationalization, “objectivity” and law-like relations. The term “normative” refers to the
orientation of this discourse towards the centrality of codification, the search for regularity,
the normalization of experience and a strategic/directive control orientation, based on a
positivist philosophy of science.
As in the normative discourse, the interpretative discourse searches for consensus,
continuity and legitimacy, but emphasizes the view of the researcher rather than objective
truth. According to the interpretive discourse, reality is socially constructed, and

Relation to dominant social discourse

dissensus

Dialogic studies Critical studies

post modern, late modern,
Origine of deconstructionist reformist
conceptsen
Local/ Elite/
problems
emergent a priori
Figure 1. Interpretative studies Normative studies
Contrasting premodern, modern,
dimensions from the traditional progressive
meta-theory of
representational Consensus
practices
Source: Deetz (1996)
sensemaking is the most important aspect of human activity. Meaning is not objectively Organizational
given, but exists only when an event is interpreted through a particular system of beliefs. change
Critical discourse stands for dissensus and focusses on the disruption of the existing
order. The use of an a priori set of concepts demonstrates a critical attitude towards elites in
the organization and a preference for supporting the weak (Deetz, 1996). Unlike interpretive
discourse, which focusses on how a particular social reality is constructed, critical discourse
examines why social reality is constructed in a certain way and what interests are served by 727
this construction (Gioia and Pitre, 1990).
Like the critical discourse, dialogic discourse is concerned with asymmetry and
dominance, but this dominance is situational and not of one particular group over another.
The local/emergent concepts are not representative of reality, but of power-loaded
structures (Deetz, 1996). The term “dialogic” refers to the postmodern discourse that denies
the existence of a tangible reality. Postmodernist studies and postmodernist discourse
theory belong to the quadrant of dialogical discourse.

2. Development of a meta-model of organizational change

In its most generic form, a system model can be represented as a process in which an input
results in an output. This process takes place in a particular context, and often there is a
reason for the triggering of the system. So, we need to find change concepts that provide an
insight into the inputs, processes and outputs of the system, and also the contexts and the
triggers for change.
The different concepts that were identified from the literature search were classified
according to the generic systems model. A number of concepts are related to the trigger that
may or may not be necessary in order to activate the system. Content concepts describe the
inputs into the system. Concerning the input, we need to know which aspect of the organization
is subject to change (the object of change), at what level the organization is impacted on and how
deeply the change will affect the organization (the dimension of the change). The throughput is
formed by process concepts and constitutes the actual engine of the change system. Result
concepts indicate what effects the change will generate at an individual, organizational and
societal level. Finally, context concepts are included because the context provides important
indications about the reasons why the change system reacts in a certain way (see Table I).
The different concepts of organizational change are further discussed as follows.

The trigger
The change system can be activated by certain factors or events in its environment or
within the system itself. The interaction with the environment is a complex process of

The trigger

Input Content concepts

Object of change: strategy, structure, people, culture
Level: individual, group, organization, industry, society
Dimension: from small to large
Throughput Process concepts
Elements of planned change
Output Result concepts – change effects on different levels
Individual and group effects
Organizational effects
Social effects (industry and societal level) Table I.
Context External environment: from stable to turbulent Change concepts:
Internal environment: from resistant to ready an overview
JOCM information exchange. The way in which information from the environment is absorbed by
32,7 the change system has an impact on the input, the throughput and the output of the change
system. Actors within and outside the organization will try to influence this information
exchange and direct the change system in a certain direction. However, a real trigger for
change is not always necessary. The system has its own dynamic and can generate changes
without any apparent trigger.
728
Input: the object of change
The object of the change can be any possible aspect of an organization. Therefore, it is
important to find a useful format for the classification of these change objects. This format
should have a high level of generalization in order not to increase the complexity of the
model. Apart from a difference in names, four change objects always pop up in the literature:
strategy, structure, people and culture. (Beech and MacIntosh, 2012; Connor et al., 2003;
Cummings and Worley, 2015; Huy, 2001; Levy and Merry, 1986; Mintzberg et al., 1998;
Schwartz and Davis, 1981; Stickland, 1998).
Taking these concepts in turn, the first concept to consider is strategy. In its most
general meaning, strategy is about the choices managers make to improve the
performance of the organization, determine its future direction and generate competitive
advantage (Stacey, 2007).
Structure is considered here in its broadest sense, and this includes both the actual
organizational structure for processes and systems (Kahn, 1974). In the literature, this is
often described as the organizational architecture. The concept of structure also includes
organizational design or redesign (Nadler and Nadler, 1998).
People refers to the actors in organizations, their abilities and weaknesses, and the
behaviours they exhibit in interaction with each other. Behaviour is seen by many authors
as an essential component within organizational change. These authors are convinced that
the adaptation of the organization to the changing environment is done through the
behavioural changes – learning new knowledge, skills and attitudes – of every employee
(Pullen, 1993). It is important to note that in the systems model developed in this paper,
the central elements are not the actors nor their behaviour, but the change processes
themselves. Human behaviour is one, albeit crucial, change object that can be altered by the
system, like any other change object.
Finally, culture is a key element in organizational change. Culture is generally defined as
the values, norms and actions that characterize the social relationships in a formal structure
(Clegg et al., 2008; French et al., 2008; Schein, 2010). Between any discourses, the definition of
these change objects will be different, and there can be many variations even within the
same discourse.

The throughput: change processes

The throughput is the engine of the change system and consists of processes that realize the
change. Each discourse has its own vision on change and therefore on the kind of processes
that generate change.
In the normative discourse a sequential process flow for the realization of change
prevails. It is generally assumed that Lewin (1947, 1951) was one of the first who described
how to lead change. His approach of planned change comprises four main elements: field
theory, group dynamics, action research and the three-step model for change (Burnes, 2014).
It is the last that we are interested in here.
Lewin (1951) states that, “A successful change includes […] three aspects: unfreezing
(if necessary) the present level L1, moving to the new level L2 and freezing group life on the
new level L3” (p. 228). The basic principle is that change can be planned and proceeds in
successive steps to a specific goal. The current state of a system is a form of dynamic
equilibrium in which certain driving and inhibiting social forces balance each other. Organizational
Change is obtained by a modification of these forces so that the system can evolve towards change
a new equilibrium.
Lewin’s three-step model has formed the basis of most models of change in the normative
discourse, and it continues to this day to retain its influence. A first consolidation of the
existing change models was conducted by Bullock and Batten (1985), who analysed
the organizational development literature on change phases. Based on this analysis, they 729
proposed a model, which consisted of four phases: exploration, planning, action and
integration. In each phase, several processes occur that change the organizational system
from one state to another, as shown in Table II (Bullock and Batten, 1985).
In this phase model, the three-step model of Lewin is clearly recognizable. However, there
appeared to be a need to split Lewin’s unfreeze step into an exploration phase and a
planning phase. This linear model is universal and therefore applicable to all change
objects (strategy, structure, people and culture). Most models that were developed later can
be brought back to this four-phase model.
Based on this analysis of the phase models in the change literature, we will use the
following steps as process elements for change in the normative discourse: exploration,
planning, action, integration.
The interpretive discourse has an equally wide variety of change theories and concepts
as the normative discourse. In addition, scholars of the interpretative approach are averse to
recipes and routines because they believe that meaning creation should be based on
improvisation and spontaneity (Weick, 1995). According to Weick (2000), any change
programme can succeed when that programme is able to animate people, provide a
direction, encourage updating through improved situational awareness and facilitate
respectful interaction. Weick (2000) considered that these four components of sensemaking
are sufficient to bring about change. Whatever change theory or method is chosen
(TQM, BPR, socio-technique, organizational learning, action learning, cultural change, etc.),
its success will depend on whether the programme succeeds in creating new meanings.
Daft and Weick (1984) presented an interpretation of the change process at the
organizational level that can be roughly divided into three phases. During the scanning
phase, the environment is analysed and information about this environment is collected.
This is not so much a rational activity, as in the normative discourse, but different
approaches are possible based on the assumptions that organizations have about the
environment and the possible opportunities to penetrate this environment. In the next stage,
the interpretation phase, meaning is given to these data, events are translated, and common
understandings and conceptual schemes are developed. In the third phase, a learning
process develops where, based on these interpretations, actions are taken that, in turn,
produce new data for interpretation.
This scheme has served as a guideline for most authors who have studied how meanings
change and how changes are generated in organizations (see Milliken, 1990; Thomas et al., 1993).
According to Isabella (1990), during a change process, the interpretations of managers
go through four stages: anticipation phase, confirmation phase, culmination phase
and the aftermath. Gioia et al. found that top management at a university went through
an interpretive process in four phases: interpretation, definition, legitimation,

Phases Exploration Planning Action Integration

Table II.
Processes Needs awareness Diagnosis Implementation Stabilization The four-phase
Search Design Evaluation Diffusion model of Bullock
Contracting Decision Renewal and Batten (1985)
JOCM institutionalization (Gioia and Chittipeddi, 1991; Gioia et al., 1994). Barrett et al. (1995) saw
32,7 change as a recursive process of six phases whereby “one way of talking replaces another
way of talking” (Barrett et al., 1995, p. 370). Weick and Quinn (1999) believed that there are
constant changes taking place in organizations so that the situation must be frozen to
observe the patterns in what is going on. Then, these patterns can be looked at and
reinterpreted, and then let loose again during the unfreezing phase to make improvisation
730 and learning possible again (Weick and Quinn, 1999; Weick, 2000). According to Oxtoby
et al. (2002), a change process based on a conceptual framework can be developed that is
typical for any organization. Their LITT model consists of four phases, starting with
listening (listen) to what managers have to say, then interpreting (interpret) what these
managers really mean. These meanings are translated (translate) into an explicit model of
change, and in the final phase, the model is transferred (transfer) to the mental framework
of the organization. In a study of HRM-related changes, Francis and Sinclair (2003) came
up with three stages of change. A new discourse arises during the evolution stage. In the
transformation phase, the new discourse expands and is in competition with older
meanings. As the new discourse starts to predominate, it becomes integrated
(incorporation) into daily routines and social relationships. Balogun (2006) developed a
framework that explains how sensemaking during strategic change leads to expected and
unexpected results. During change, the initiatives, activities and events that individuals
cannot understand through their existing schemata act as sensemaking triggers and
generate new interpretations. This is done by sharing their experiences with others
(social processes of interaction). Then, people will react according to their own
interpretations, resulting in both intended and unintended changes. These actions will,
in turn, give rise to new sensemaking.
Based on this literature review, we also want to retain four system elements for the
interpretive discourse: scanning, interpretation, learning and incorporation. These phases
can be found in one way or another in most models. The last phase we have called
incorporation, as in Francis and Sinclair (2003). Incorporation is more than the integration of
the change in a normative discourse that places an emphasis on the stabilization of the
system. With incorporation, we mean the interiorization of what is learned into cognitive
schedules and routines. It is important for all concerned that a coherent interpretation arises
from the change.
When looking for process elements of change in the critical discourse, as in the
interpretive discourse, we must consider a wide variety of views on change, which makes it
difficult to reach an overall view. Moreover, radical theorists have little regard for
organizational change as such. In contrast to the normative and interpretive discourse, the
critical discourse does not aim to understand and explain organizational change, but rather
to question the status quo and promote emancipation. Critical discourse is talking about
radical change, but these radical theories deal with dissensus, while the normative and
interpretive discourse deal with consensus (Alvesson and Deetz, 2006; Demers, 2007).
To ensure the workability of the change model that is developed here, a strong
generalization of the critical concepts is inevitable. These concepts are found primarily in a
theoretical subdomain of the radical discourse: critical theory.
As concepts relevant to organizational change, dialectics, having a voice, critical
reflection and self-criticism, emancipation, and democratic decision making come to the
forefront. Dialectics is important as a method of reasoning within the critical discourse, but
it cannot be used as a separate system element. The other four concepts can, and these are
described as follows:
• First, a prerequisite for the realization of radical change according to critical discourse
is ensuring that those who normally have no opportunity to express themselves have a
(Bradshaw-Camball, 1990; Darwin et al., 2002). The aim is to learn to recognize how
 some obvious visions of reality are socially constructed within a dominant culture and Organizational
to give people the ability to formulate their own definition of reality. change
• Second, critical reflection and self-criticism are aimed at investigating unexplored
fields in search of new opportunities and involve constantly questioning of people’s
own position. This critical reflection on the situation and environment should lead to
emancipation, whereby the marginal members of the organization are freed from the
authority of managers to change their situation themselves (Carr, 2000; Clayton and 731
Gregory, 2000; Darwin et al., 2002).
• The third concept, emancipation, is the process by which individuals and groups are
liberated from oppressive social and ideological conditions, particularly those
conditions that put unnecessary restrictions on the development and expression of
human consciousness (Alvesson and Willmott, 1992).
• Fourth, the critical theory is strongly supportive of democratic decision-making. The
term “democratic decision-making” refers to the ability of members of an organization
to participate in the processes of organization and management. This is less about
assigning voting rights to those involved, than about the incorporation of democratic
values in the organization through self-government and voluntarism (Clarke, 2008).
Clarke understands the possibility that, through voluntarism, unofficially constituted
groups can, by exercising self-control, come together in a coherent organization
regardless of their different agendas. Through their participation in the change
process, all stakeholders not only get the chance to decide on their own situation, but
they also become aware of their oppression by a hegemonic management (Carr, 2000;
Clayton and Gregory, 2000; Darwin et al., 2002).
Therefore, the following process elements of the critical discourse can be used for system
change: having a voice, critical reflection and self-criticism, emancipation, and democratic
decision-making. These four elements are only loosely coupled to each other, and they
certainly cannot be assembled into a strict phase model.
In the last discourse, the dialogical discourse, finding the process elements for change
is particularly problematic. The literature published on this subject is highly theoretical
and there are few authors who have examined how changes take place in practice (Hardy
et al., 2000). Some authors have looked at particular change methods, such as Action
Research (Cassell and Johnson, 2006) and Total Quality (Barrett et al., 1995), from the
perspective of discourse theory. Other authors are convinced that recent developments in
organizational development may be regarded as dialogical. Practices such as Appreciative
Inquiry, Search Conferences, Future Search and Open Space are not so much about
seeking for hard facts, but about trying to accommodate different perspectives and
possibilities. Marshak and Bushe call these practices dialogic organization development
because they have underlying similarities that distinguishes them from what they call
Diagnostic Organization Development (Bushe and Marshak, 2009, 2014a, b, 2015, 2016;
Marshak and Bushe, 2009; Marshak and Grant, 2008). In brief, dialogic OD holds that
organizations and organizational behaviour are socially created realities resulting from
the on-going interactions of its stakeholders. Change occurs when there are significant
shifts in language, conversations and communication patterns that allow for new
possibilities. The OD consultant is an involved facilitator who becomes part of and acts
with the system (Marshak, 2015).
Bushe (2013), Roehrig et al. (2015) and Hardy et al. (2000) developed models that explain
how discourse can be mobilized to achieve organizational changes.
The model of Hardy et al. (2000) explicitly takes in to account the political aspects of dialogic
change. This model explains how discourse can be mobilized to achieve strategic changes.
JOCM Their premise was that discourse creates social reality through the production
32,7 of concepts, objects and subject positions that determine how people see the world and
react to it. Through the use of discourse as a strategic resource, one can seek to influence that
relationship. The model is based on the idea that a discourse is composed of complex linkages,
which can be broken down heuristically into a set of meaningful circuits that identify the
various steps through which the discourse is engaged. Hardy et al.’s (2000) model consists of
732 three circuits, which are described as follows:
(1) The first circuit, the circuit of activity, comprises discursive activities carried out by
individuals who are attempting to use discourse strategically. These people make
discursive statements in their attempts to manage meaning in ways that support
their intentions. These statements involve the creation and dissemination of texts,
including the introduction of symbols, the creation of narratives, the use of
metaphors, the employment of rhetoric and so on. The texts associate particular
concepts with certain relations and/or material referents in order to create objects.
This corresponds to the idea that discourses play a role in the social construction of
reality. They produce objects of knowledge, social identities and relationships
between people by making the material world meaningful.
(2) The second circuit is the circuit of performativity. To have a political effect, the circuit
of discursive activities should engage other actors in the process. In the circuit of
performativity, the concepts evoked in discursive statements are embedded in the
larger discursive context. This requires that individuals who want to use discourse as
a strategic resource to be in a position which warrants voice to be heard by others.
If this is not the case, or not sufficiently the case, others will not hear the statements or
ignore them. Moreover, the symbols, narratives, rhetoric, metaphors and so on, which
are used by these individuals, should be susceptible to others. Other actors should
show a certain willingness to listen in order to transfer new meanings.
(3) Third, if the circuit of activity and the circuit of performativity intersect, they
create a circuit of connectivity. Discursive meanings are saved as concepts and
are successfully linked to relationships and/or physical referents to create value in
the eyes of other actors. The new discursive statements “take root” as concepts and
are successfully attached to relations and/or material referents and create specific
objects in the eyes of other actors. This also gives rise to the creation of new subject
positions and practices. Prevailing discourses contested, changed or reinforced by
the accumulation of individual statements and practices, which, in turn, have an
influence on future discursive activities.
The model shows how discourses can be used to realize (strategic) changes. It also provides
dialogical insights into struggles for power and control among actors, and how their room
for manoeuvre is limited by existing social discourses and the dominant discourse.
Accordingly, we will retain the three circuits of activity, performativity and connectivity as
process elements of change for the dialogical discourse.
Table III summarizes the different process elements of each discourse. It is clear that
the different views on the change in any discourse are reflected in different sets of
process elements.

Output: change effects

Change processes can generate effects on three levels: individual or group effects,
organizational effects and social effects.
The effects depend on many factors (Zammuto, 1984). The result of a change depends on
the other system factors, first and foremost on all the input and process elements in the
throughput, but also on the environmental factors. Opinions on effects will vary according Organizational
to the discourse in which the change effects are conceptualized. Normative and interpretive change
discourse will focus mainly on the effects on organizational effectiveness, and the
critical discourse will emphasize the emancipation of oppressed groups, while, according to
the dialogic discourse, changes should lead to greater flexibility, diversity and creativity.

Context 733
The context refers to the external and internal environment in which the system change is
located (Dawson, 1994). The context does not only have a strong influence on the behaviour
of the change system, changes in the environment are often seen as the main reason for the
system change. The context generally includes the external environment which is located
outside the organization. Since in this study organizational change is seen as a subsystem of
the organization, the organization itself is seen as a context factor for the change system.
So, there are two environmental factors: an external and an internal.
The external environment of an organization includes everything outside the
boundaries of an organization that directly or indirectly affects the performance and
results of that organization.
The internal context refers to the state of the organization and the system elements
strategy, structure, people and culture that nourish and affect change system. This internal
environment may be one of resistance or willingness to change: it will encourage the change
or slow it down.

3. The meta-model for organizational change

Based on the above insights, the meta-model for organizational change can now be built as a
complex systems model (Figure 2).

Discourse Process elements

Normative Exploration, planning, action, integration Table III.

Interpretive Scanning, interpretation, learning, incorporation Process elements in
Critical Having a voice, critical reflection and self-criticism, emancipation, democratic decision-making the different
Dialogic Discursive activity, performativity, connectivity discourses

External
External environment
effects

Organizational context:
Strategy, structure, people, culture

Control
Sc
op
yle

e Organizational
St

Object: Change elements: effects

for change

Frequency
Rationale

strategy normative
Goal

structure interpretative
people critical Figure 2.
culture dialogic Individual/ The generic systems
Te
m group effects model of
de

po
ri

organizational change
St

Time about here

JOCM This model can be described as follows. Usually, a change will be caused by a reason
32,7 beyond the change system itself, more specifically the cause will either be within the
organization itself or within the organization’s external environment. This cause may lead
to a deliberate intervention whereby the change system has got to lead to the introduction
of the desired effects. However, the system may be set in motion directly by external
factors and result in unprompted effects. In addition, the change system has its own
734 dynamics that may generate wanted, unwanted or unexpected effects. The input to the
system model of change can be one or more elements of the organizational context
(strategy, structure, people, culture). These elements experience a change through the
influence of the change elements of the change system. The change elements may vary
depending on the input to the system. Thus, in the case of a strategic change, the
emphases are different from a case of cultural change.
Moreover, the change elements will be subject to a further interpretation when they are
considered from the perspective of different discourses. The change elements will also vary
according to the discourse, as each discourse views change in a different way. It is therefore
important to approach a change from different viewpoints. By continuously changing
the viewpoints to those of other discourses, one gets a much more complete picture of the
change. The system model of change generates specific individual or group effects,
organizational effects and social effects. The organizational context affects the system,
which, in turn, affects the environment.
Whatever elements are used to construct the change system, the parts interact over
time to create a pattern that exceeds the sum of the parts. As such, the whole has
additional properties that can act back on the parts, giving meaning to the parts
(Stacey, 2007). As a whole, the parts produce some types of change, so the change system
will have specific attributes by means of its action. These attributes can be described in
terms of control, scope, frequency, stride, time, tempo, goal and the style of change
(Maes and Van Hootegem, 2011). By describing the behaviour of the system according to
these attributes, the type of change that the system produces becomes clear. This
approach also makes it possible to observe and describe the fluctuations of the attributes
over time. Thus, this approach better reflects the description of organizational change
as a process of becoming.

4. Conclusion: benefits of the meta-model of organizational change

The meta-model developed in the paper creates new possibilities to look at change from
different angles at the same time. As each discourse provides specific insights in the way
organizational change occurs, by switching back and forward between discourses – as a
kind of “interplay” (Schultz and Hatch, 1996) – makes it possible to dramatically widen our
field of view on change. Each aspect and each type of change (strategic, cultural, structural,
behavioural) can be viewed form four different discourses creating a wealth of insights that
goes far beyond purely one-dimensional models.
Moreover, a systemic approach to change allows for a holistic view to be taken, in
contrast to the often overly reductionist methods of other approaches ( Jackson, 2001).
A systems perspective on change offers some additional advantages for the construction of
the change model. First, the concepts of change, as developed above, can be positioned in a
logical manner as elements or subsystems of the systems model (Cao et al., 2004). Second,
the systems approach emphasizes the interdependencies and interrelationships between the
various elements. By understanding the interdependencies, the attributes of the change
become clear (Robbins, 1987). Third, the systems properties “appear” as properties that
transcend the various elements of the system – these properties do not come up in a process
approach to change (Harrington et al., 1999). Finally, change management will be placed in
its context because it becomes a subsystem in a larger system.
References Organizational
Al-Haddad, S. and Kotnour, T. (2015), “Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for change
successful change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 234-262.
Alvesson, M. and Deetz, S.A. (2006), “Critical theory and postmodernism approaches to organizational
studies”, in Clegg, S., Hardy, C. and Nord, W.R. (Eds), Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage
Publications, London and Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 255-283.
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1992), “On the idea of emancipation in management and organization 735
studies”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 432-464.
Balogun, J. (2006), “Managing change: steering a course between intended strategies and unanticipated
outcomes”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 29-49.
Barrett, F.J., Thomas, G.F. and Hocevar, S.P. (1995), “The central role of discourse in large-scale change:
a social construction perspective”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 352-372.
Beech, N. and MacIntosh, R. (2012), Managing Change: Enquiry and Action, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge and New York, NY.
Bradshaw-Camball, P. (1990), “Organizational development and the radical humanist paradigm:
exploring the implications”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 1990 No. 1, pp. 253-257.
Bullock, R.J. and Batten, D. (1985), “It’s just a phase we’re going through: a review and synthesis
of OD phase analysis”, Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 383-412.
Burnes, B. (2014), Managing Change, Pearson, Harlow.
Bushe, G.R. (2013), “Theories of dialogic consultation”, OD Practitioner, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 11-17.
Bushe, G.R. and Marshak, R.J. (2009), “Revisioning organization development: diagnostic and dialogic
premises and patterns of practice”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 45 No. 3,
pp. 348-368.
Bushe, G.R. and Marshak, R.J. (2014a), “The dialogic mindset in organization development”, Research
in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 22, pp. 55-97.
Bushe, G.R. and Marshak, R.J. (2014b), “Dialogic organization development”, in Jones, B.B. and
Brazzel, M. (Eds), The NTL Handbook of Organization Development and Change: Principles,
Practices, and Perspectives, Wiley, San Francisco, CA, pp. 193-211.
Bushe, G.R. and Marshak, R.J. (2015), Dialogic Organization Development: The Theory and Practice of
Transformational Change, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Oakland, CA.
Bushe, G.R. and Marshak, R.J. (2016), “The dialogic organization development approach to
transformation and change”, in Rothwell, W., Stravros, J. and Sullivan, R. (Eds), Practicing
Organization Development, Wiley, San Francisco, CA, pp. 407-418.
Cao, G.M., Clarke, S. and Lehaney, B. (2004), “The need for a systemic approach to change management
– a case study”, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 103-126.
Carr, A. (2000), “Critical theory and the management of change in organizations”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 208-220.
Cassell, C. and Johnson, P. (2006), “Action research: explaining the diversity”, Human Relations, Vol. 59
No. 6, pp. 783-814.
Clarke, M. (2008), Stimulating Organizational Democracy, Lambert Academic Publishing, Köln.
Clayton, J. and Gregory, W.J. (2000), “Reflections on critical systems thinking and the management of
change in rule-bound systems”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 140-161.
Clegg, S., Kornberger, M. and Pitsis, T. (2008), Managing and Organizations: An Introduction to Theory
and Practice, Sage, London and Thousand Oaks, CA.
Connor, P.E., Lake, L.K. and Stackman, R.W. (2003), Managing Organizational Change, Praeger,
Westport, CT.
JOCM Cummings, T.G. and Worley, C.G. (2015), Organization Development & Change, Cengage Learning,
32,7 Stamford, CT.
Daft, R.L. and Weick, K.E. (1984), “Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 284-295.
Darwin, J., Johnson, P. and McAuley, J. (2002), Developing Strategies for Change, Pearson Education, Harlow.
Dawson, P. (1994), Organizational Change: A Processual Approach, Paul Chapman Publishing, London.
736 Deetz, S. (1996), “Describing differences in approaches to organization science: rethinking Burrell and
Morgan and their legacy”, Organization Science, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 191-207.
Demers, C. (2007), Organizational Change Theories: a Synthesis, Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA.
Fink, A. (2013), Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Francis, H. and Sinclair, J. (2003), “A processual analysis of HRM-based change”, Organization, Vol. 10
No. 4, pp. 685-706.
French, R., Charlotte, R., Garry, R. and Sally, R. (2008), Organizational Behaviour, John Wiley & Sons,
Hoboken, NJ.
Gioia, D.A. and Chittipeddi, K. (1991), “Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 433-448.
Gioia, D.A. and Pitre, E. (1990), “Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 584-602.
Gioia, D.A., Thomas, J.B., Clark, S.M. and Chittipeddi, K. (1994), “Symbolism and strategic change in
academia – the dynamics of sensemaking and influence”, Organization Science, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 363-383.
Graetz, F. and Smith, A.C.T. (2010), “Managing organizational change: a philosophies of change
approach”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 135-154.
Hardy, C., Palmer, I. and Phillips, N. (2000), “Discourse as a strategic resource”, Human Relations,
Vol. 53 No. 9, pp. 1227-1248.
Harrington, J.H., Carr, J.J. and Reid, R. (1999), “What’s this ‘systems’ stuff, anyhow?”, TQM Magazine,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 54-57.
Hart, C. (2018), Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Research Imagination, SAGE Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Heracleous, L. and Barrett, M. (2001), “Organizational change as discourse: communicative actions and
deep structures in the context of information technology implementation”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 755-778.
Huy, Q.N. (2001), “Time, temporal capability, and planned change”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 601-623.
Isabella, L.A. (1990), “Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds – how managers construe key
organizational events”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 7-41.
Jackson, M.C. (2001), “Critical systems thinking and practice”, European Journal of Operational
Research, Vol. 128 No. 2, pp. 233-244.
Jacobs, G., van Witteloostuijn, A. and Christe-Zeyse, J. (2013), “A theoretical framework of
organizational change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 26 No. 5,
pp. 772-792.
Kahn, R.L. (1974), “Organizational development – some problems and proposals”, Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 485-502.
Levy, A. and Merry, U. (1986), Organizational Transformation: Approaches, Strategies, Theories,
Praeger, New York, NY.
Lewin, K. (1947), “Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method and reality in social science; social
equilibria and social change”, Human Relations, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 5-41.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, Routledge & Kegan Organizational
Paul, London. change
Machi, L.A. and McEvoy, B.T. (2016), The Literature Review: Six Steps to Success, Corwin, Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Maes, G. and Van Hootegem, G. (2011), “Toward a dynamic description of the attributes of
organizational change”, in Shani, A.B., Woodmann, R. and Pasmore, W.A. (Eds), Research in
Organizational Change and Development, Emerald, Bingley, pp. 191-231. 737
Marshak, R.J. (2015), “My journey into dialogic organization development”, OD Practitioner, Vol. 47
No. 2, pp. 47-52.
Marshak, R.J. and Bushe, G.R. (2009), “Further reflections on diagnostic and dialogic forms of
organization development”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 378-383.
Marshak, R.J. and Grant, D. (2008), “Organizational discourse and new organization development
practices”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 19 No. Supplement 1, pp. S7-S19.
Milliken, F.J. (1990), “Perceiving and interpreting environmental change – an examination of college
administrators interpretation of changing demographics”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 42-63.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B.W. and Lampel, J. (1998), Strategy Safari: A Guided Tour Through the
Wilds of Strategic Management, Free Press, New York, NY.
Nadler, D. and Nadler, M.B. (1998), Champions of Change: How CEOs and Their Companies are
Mastering the Skills of Radical Change, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Oxtoby, B., McGuiness, T. and Morgan, R. (2002), “Developing organizational change capability”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 310-320.
Patel, T. (2016), “Promoting multi-paradigmatic cultural research in international business literature:
an integrative complexity-based argument”, Journal of Organizational Change Management,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 599-629.
Pullen, W. (1993), “Strategic shocks: managing discontinuous change”, International Journal of Public
Sector Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 30-39.
Ridley, D. (2012), The Literature Review: A Step-By-Step Guide for Students, Sage Publications, London;
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Robbins, S.P. (1987), Organization Theory: Structure, Design, and Applications, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Roehrig, M., Schwendenwein, J. and Bushe, G.R. (2015), “Amplifying change: A 3-phase approach to
model, nurture and embed ideas for change”, in Bushe, G.R. and Marshak, R.J. (Eds), Dialogic
Organization Development: The Theory and Practice of Transformational Change, Berrett-
Koehler Publishers, Oakland, pp. 325-348.
Schein, E.H. (2010), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Schultz, M. and Hatch, M.J. (1996), “Living with multiple paradigms: the case of paradigm
interplay in organizational culture studies”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 2,
pp. 529-557.
Schwartz, H. and Davis, S.M. (1981), “Matching corporate culture and business strategy”,
Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 30-48.
Stacey, R.D. (2007), Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity,
Prentice Hall, London.
Stickland, F. (1998), The Dynamics of Change: Insights into Organizational Transition from the Natural
World, Routledge, London and New York, NY.
Thomas, J.B., Clark, S.M. and Gioia, D.A. (1993), “Strategic sensemaking and organizational
performance: linkages among scanning, interpretation, action, and outcomes”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 239-270.
Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
JOCM Weick, K.E. (2000), “Emergent change as a universal in organizations”, in Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (Eds),
32,7 Breaking the Code of Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, pp. 223-241.
Weick, K.E. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), “Organizational change and development”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 1999, pp. 361-385.
Wetzel, R. and Gorp, L.V. (2014), “Eighteen shades of grey?: an explorative literature review into the
theoretical flavours of organizational change research”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 115-146.
738
Young, M. (2009), “A meta model of change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 22
No. 5, pp. 524-548.
Zammuto, R.F. (1984), “A comparison of multiple constituency models of organizational effectiveness”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 606-616.

About the authors

Guido Maes has a Masters Degree in Law and a Phd in Social Sciences. He is Scientific Researcher at
the Centre for Sociological Studies of the Faculty of Social Sciences. He is also Consultant and was HR
Director for more than 25 years in different companies. Guido Maes is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: guido.maes@skynet.be
Geert Van Hootegem is Senior Full Professor at the Centre for Sociological Studies of the Faculty of
Social Sciences. His academic work has always focussed on understanding the impact of organizational
structures, division of work and team working on various aspects of organizational performance and
employee well-being. In recent years, much of his work has been dedicated to making organizations
aware of the implications of the changing demographic reality and the necessity for creating healthy,
sustainable work. With his fundamental, strategic and applied research at the KU Leuven, he is
elaborating the modern sociotechnical systems theory. As a consultant, he brings evidence-based
consulting and change programmes to organizations in both the public and private sector.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com