The Action Centric of Self-Change Concept

Introduction

T
he fast-moving and volatile business environment has forced businesses to stay agile and
adapt themselves to changes all the time no matter what size the organization is (Gilley,
Gilley, and McMillan 2009; Brown and Eisenhardt 1997; Doz and Kosonen 2010;
Kryvinska 2012; Zhang and Sharifi 2000). Historical success cannot guarantee future existence
in the marketplace. Companies with past success may find that their performance drops
dramatically due to the lack of sufficient changes to critical facets of business operations and
management (Haveman 1992). To survive, critical or highly impactful organizational change is
important and necessary for continuous growth and long-term sustainability.
Organization development (OD) is the process that can help organizations build their
capacity to change and to achieve effectiveness in terms of financial performance, customer
satisfaction, and employee engagement (Cummings and Worley 2009). The capacity to change
is critical to improvement of the competitive advantage, which is a key to the success of
organizations. Quattrone and Hopper (2001) found that studies of organizational change have
largely ignored the question of what change is. Dunphy (1996) reported that to create
continuously adaptive organizations, there are three different questions: How can we understand
how organizations are changing? How can we change organizations? What will organizations
look like in the future? These are three fundamental questions that need to be addressed for the
field of organizational development to evolve.
However, with the fast development of new digital technology disruptions such as artificial
intelligence (AI), robotic machines, and quantum mechanics, humans are at risk of being
replaced by the machine and AI in many parts of routine work in manufacturing, retail, banking,
service, and hospitality industries (Cascio 1995; Pettigrew, Woodman, and Cameron 2001;
Herscovitch and Meyer 2002; Pauschunder 2019; Bowen and Morosan 2018; Smith and
Andersen 2014; Aeppel 2017; Ivanov 2019; Lamberton, Brigo, and Hoy 2017; Poola 2017; Liu
and Zawieska 2017; Furman and Seamans 2018; Wang et al. 2013; White, Pothos, and
Busemeyer 2015). It is time for preparation so that human and machines can work together in
harmony in both hardware and software formats. Thus, successful leaders must be able to align
all fits among strategy, structure, culture, and process, while preparing for the inevitable
disruption triggered by discontinuous environmental change (Tushman and O’Reilly III 1996).
Thomas, Clark, and Gioia (1993) described action as any significant change in ongoing
organizational practices, such as a substantive alteration in product or service offerings.
Effective organizational actions often depend on an ability to implement decisions based on
interpretations of strategy and intervention of leaders. Organizational change also involves
different types of communications and orders of discourse. Ford (1999) proposed that the
change process is constituted by four types of conversations, namely, initiative, understanding,
performance, and closure.
The purpose of this article is to discuss how high impact actions can be assured and taken
in the most effective manner supported by well-calculated action results as a tool toward action
effort driving. The modified concept of action value and self-forced action is proposed for
further study and as future research opportunity. This article extends the revised version of
Bird’s (1988) paper, which was modified by Boyd and Vozikis (1994) by including the concept
of self-forced action for natural change target, or so called “exdysivity” (Thammatucharee
2010b), which describes how change process can be done naturally rather than a one-time big
event—just like reptiles that have to shed their skin regularly in order to grow healthily. In
addition, the exdysivity concept focuses on elimination and abandonment of ineffective and
irrelevant actions through self-forced actions (Thammatucharee 2010a).

Why Are Most Critical Organizational Changes Not Successful?

First, let us clarify what critical organizational changes are. Organizational changes can happen
from low impact types, such as rotation of people or modification of job functions, to high
impact types of change. Smith (2002) clarified that major organizational change means any
intentional change in the way the organization does business that affects the strategic position of
the organization vis-à-vis its competition. Examples of major organizational change include:
 Business acquisition or merger
 Business expansion, such as new territory or line of business
 Culture change, such as developing a more customer-oriented workforce
 A new computer system
 Process improvement or re-engineering
 Re-structure of organizational units, such as downsizing
 Technology change
 Total quality management (TQM) - driven change
 Deployment of new business strategies
Today major organizational changes may occur because of disruption from technology
innovation. Change can be affected by internal factors (e.g., growth and transformation) and
external factors (e.g., institutional environment and market volatility). Understanding the causes
of changes and the outcomes that changes produce can help prevent organizations from demise
(Barnett and Carroll 1995). March (2007) suggested five highlights for the relationship between
change and adaptive behavior, as follows:
1. Organizations are continually changing, routinely, easily, and responsively, but
change within them cannot ordinarily be arbitrarily controlled. Organizations
rarely do exactly what they are told to do.
2. Changes in organizations depend on a few stable processes. Theories of change
emphasize either the stability of the processes or the changes they produce, but a
serious understanding of organizations requires attention to both.

40
 3. Theories of change in organizations are primarily different ways of describing
theories of action in organizations, not different theories. Most changes in
organizations reflect simple responses to demographic, economic, social, and
political forces.
4. Although organizational response to environmental events is broadly adaptive and
mostly routine, the response takes place in a confusing world. As a result, prosaic
processes sometimes have surprising outcomes.
5. Adaptation to a changing environment involves an interplay of rationality and
foolishness, which includes goal orientation (DeShon and Gillespie 2005).
Organizational foolishness is not maintained as a conscious strategy but is
embedded in such familiar organizational anomalies as slack, managerial
incentives, symbolic action, ambiguity, and loose coupling.
It is evident that resistance to changes is the number one reason for failures of
organizational change initiatives. Erwin and Garman (2010) reported that participation in the
change effort was associated with more positive view of the change, reduced resistance, and
improved goal achievement.
To make successful major changes, commitment by employees was one of the key success
factors. Organizational change should occur naturally with influence and intervention from
managers (Tsoukas and Chia 2002). It is essential to understand the success factors as well as
the obstacles of organizational changes. Based on the study of business and professional
publications about success of various types of organizational changes, Smith (2002) reported
that there were seven re-engineering and process design studies from 3,442 sample sizes. But
the success rate was only 30 percent. For the change effort on restructuring and downsizing,
based on nine studies with 4,830 sample sizes, 46 percent was successful. Overall, the average
success rate for major organizational change of a total of forty-nine studies was 33 percent.
There were several reasons why the success rate was so low. Morrison and Milliken (2000)
indicated that there were powerful forces operating in organizations that could make employees
feel that speaking up about issues and problems was futile and dangerous. Silence in
organizations also resulted as a critical barrier to organizational change and development.
Moreover, Rosenberg and Mosca (2011, 141) indicated that there are factors relating to
resistance that can be categorized as follows:

1. Personal Factors: these are, for example, employees’ attitude toward change, fear
of unknown or uncertainty, and lack of understanding of the firm’s intention.
2. Organizational Factors: these are, for example, poor leadership, lack of
participation due to top-down steering, and lack of trust between management and
employees.
3. Specific-to-Change Factors: these are the content of the change (an ill-conceived
change/relevance of the goals of change) and poor implementation planning.

An Introduction to the Holistic Self-Change Concept

With the failure of change efforts involving several resistant factors as described above, a new
change concept is needed to help drive the change actions successfully. Typically,
organizational change does not have a linear trajectory, but is more spiral or open-ended. Weick
and Quinn (1999) indicated that researchers should focus on “changing” rather than “change”
and direct attention to actions as change is never-ending.
For a person to perform a task, the belief in his or her capability influences the behaviors or
actions (Boyd and Vozikis 1994). Research in social psychology supports the need to modify
Bird’s model of entrepreneurial intentionality by integrating with self-efficacy. Boyd and
Vozikis (1994) suggested the revised model of Bird’s (1988) contexts of entrepreneurial
intentionality.
This model was originally developed by Bird (1998) to explain how an entrepreneur can
create and develop a business successfully. The process of business development is a type of
organizational change. The model started from understanding the underlining contextual factors
(social, political, and economic variables), and the prior experiences of a person that formed
personality and ability. With the goal-directed behavior and the vision of a person, the
rational/analytic thinking and the intuitive/holistic thinking will lead to both business plan and
opportunity analysis. Then the intention is structured with direction to take necessary actions.
As research in social psychology supported the need to modify the model, Boyd and
Vozikis (1994) added two elements—attitudes and perception, and self-efficacy—into this
model. These two factors can influence the behavioral and thought process for a person to act.
Unfortunately, more than half of organizational changes were not successful. This is an
opportunity to incorporate additional element into Bird’s model which may lead to better new
change concept.
As organizational change cannot be successful without engagement, acceptance, and
intention to change by an individual, the proposed new modified concept of action value and
self-forced action can complete Bird’s modified model in terms of action. This could form a
new holistic self-change concept supporting a successful organizational change process as
explained below.

What is Action Value?

For radical organizational changes, the action of values, interests, power, and capacity within an
organization must be brought into play. Action is not disembodied; it comes from institutions
(Barley and Tolbert 1997); organizational actors who have positions, skills, commitments, and
histories that are primarily found in the groups of which those actors are members. Change and
stability are understood through the ways in which organizational group members react to old
and new institutionally derived ideas through their already existing commitments and interests
and their ability to implement or enforce them by way of their existing power and capability
(Greenwood and Hinings 1996).
When a person does something, it usually has an inherent objective(s) or expectation to be
achieved. At work, people perform their duties in exchange for some agreed return. For
example, a production operator in a factory has to do his/her task according to the work
instruction so that the product is finished before being passed to the next workstation. That
person may put together a few materials and parts until they form a new product. This finished
product consumes materials, overhead costs, and labor cost. The labor cost consists of several
actions that need to be performed under the agreed condition between the company and
employees. The finished product carries some costs along the production processes. Once it is
finished, that product can be valued at a price that is certainly higher than the total cost of
production. The difference between the product selling price and the cost represents the profit.
In this case, once required actions are correctly put together, they can produce some value to the
product.
The value of an action can also apply to service activities. Service businesses, such as those
in the hotel or consultancy industries, can also give some value that customers are willing to pay
money in exchange for that service.
A single unit of action value represents the measurable impact from an action taken that
optimizes an individual self-achievement. The form and level of achievement can be varied
from one person to another. In this context, the development of standard action is required to
serve the requirements of both actor and customer so that an agreement can be reached in terms
of expectation and compensation determination.

42
The Unit of Action Value or So-called “AVALREM”

To communicate and set a standard unit of measurement for the value of an action, the word
AVALREM is created to represent one standard value of an action. The word comes from Latin
words “actio valorem,” meaning action value. Thus one avalrem is the calculated value of an
action that is performed and causes the least change to the next action consequence. The chain
of change reaction will accumulate the resource consumed until the end of the impact.
For example, in the case of a viral epidemic of an unknown virus occurring in one country,
the decision and action by the government to declare or not declare this fact to the public
requires assessment of action value for different alternatives before implementation. All
concerned factors must be put into the calculation formula so that the comprehensive process
can return the two different values for decision making. Inevitably, the time to act and the
magnitude of action taken play an important role in the variable value determination.

Figure 1: Action Value Calculation Formula

Source: Thammatucharee

According to the above formula (Figure 1), the action value (avalrem) is derived from three
variables: 1) the future value of consequences and the continued impacts generated by the
action under consideration (c); 2) the discount rate in relation to the future consequences to be
applied to convert the future consequence value to the present value of the action (a); and 3) the
impact rate of the future consequences (i). The action value is calculated by dividing (c) by the
difference of the rates between the discount rate (a) and the growth rate (i).
This proposed formula still needs a lot of future research considering big data collection,
defined variables involved in the calculation, and selected technology to be employed. Thus, the
intention of this article at this early stage of development is to suggest an initial proposed idea
for further academic debate and future discussion.

The New Concept of Self-Forced Action

This concept involves the process that assists the responsible person to move forward to making
action happen according to the made decision and approved action plan. The focus is on those
actions that can cause highly impacted changes (such as government policy change, company-
wide decision impacting employees, and so on) because of the decision made. As the
consequences can be huge in terms of both positive and negative impact, actors need high level
of confidence that the necessary actions will be taken properly leading to the desirable outcome
(Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). Resistance to change is inevitable. Understanding the nature of
ambivalence in employee responses to change might be useful in predicting the mode in which
employees will communicate their responses to change agents (Piderit 2000; Grosz and Kraus
1996). Therefore, the concept is proposed to address this concern.
The development of the concept was based on the qualitative research performed at a large
retail company in Thailand from 2008 to 2017 (Thammatucharee 2017) consisting of over
eighty brands for fashion, cosmetics, and electrical devices. The company has over 12,000
employees nationwide from 700 shops and counters. The research methodology included
interviews, case study, and meeting participation.
 The research question is how to ensure that the best course of an action/action plan is
performed effectively and the expected benefits are maximized. The result of the study leads to
the proposed concept self-forced action.
There are four elements under this concept (see Figure 2).
1. Assessment of alternatives: In view of the action taker, it is important to
understand the magnitude of different actions under consideration. The pattern of
action selection can be either one out of several alternatives or between “do” or
“not do.” Therefore, at this step, necessary actions should be laid out clearly for
the responsible persons to start the next move.
2. Calculation of action value: Each action has its associated value that is calculated
by giving a defined value for better understanding and as a stimulus for action
taking. The formula for calculation is discussed below.
3. Resistance of change actions: There are always forces that oppose the intended
actions no matter what justification and rationale for the selected action may look
like. It is the fighting force to stop the actor from moving forward.
4. Power of abandonment: An action cannot happen without sufficient power to force
an action. This power of abandonment is the most important element to force
change as suggested by Buddhadasa (1993) under the teaching concept of
Atammayata, or unconcoctibility. The understanding of the mechanism to create
such power and how to enrich it to the point that can start the action is worth
studying and practices.

Figure 2: The Concept of Self-forced Action

Source: Thammatucharee

The process of self-forced action is iterating by nature and all elements interact with one
another repeatedly. Unless the intense toward the action is strong enough, the start of the action
cannot happen. In an analogy, this process acts like a motor in a car engine, of which all the
components must function properly and be supported by all the small but necessary parts. The
start of the engine to move the car forward will happen under the ready state that allows the
power to drive the wheels.

44
Development of Self-forced Action Model

Thammatucharee (2010b) discusses the effectiveness of action plan especially for

organizational changes and suggests that a new framework for change is needed. The
prevalence of failure to act on one’s intentions is supported by numerous studies (Scholz et al.
2007) in the forms of action plan implementation, strategy execution, and so on. The framework
of Belief-Desire-Intention (BDI) system in relation to the rational behaviors has been studied
and received a great deal of attention to bridge the gap among theory, systems, and applications
(Rao and Georgeff 1995). Actions are goal-oriented behaviors (Frese and Zapf 1994). From
Bird’'s (1988) extended framework, the modification and extension were made to emphasize the
importance of action, which is the last step of human behavior in transforming the intentions
into reality.
In order to understand the process of how highly impacted change actions can be
effectively performed, Figure 3 shows the concept of holistic change by self-forced action
consisting of the fourteen key elements:
1. Subconsciousness
2. Personal knowledge
3. Personal experiences
4. Consciousness
5. Physical control capability
6. Mind control capability
7. Objectives (organizational changes)
8. Assessment of alternatives
9. Calculation of action value
10. The power of abandonment
11. Resistance of change action
12. Iteration of self-forced actions
13. Start of first change action
14. Exdysivity (successful natural change)
As humans were born and equipped with (1) subconsciousness, this part is added at the top
as the starting point of the framework. As a person grows up, he/she learns, and gains (2)
personal knowledge; and (3) personal experiences. As a result, (4) the consciousness helps
prepare a person for intended actions. For a change action plan to be executed, a person needs to
have two capabilities, which are (5) physical control capability and (6) mind control capability.
In order to affect the movement of an action for an objective (7), a person needs to enhance the
energy inside through the iteration (8) of the four sub-elements: (9) the assessment of
alternatives, (10) the calculation of action value (for each alternative), (11) the resistance of
hange action, and (12) the power of abandonment. The aforementioned process will be
intensified to the level that the first action emerges (13). With successful actions performed, the
real benefits of change should be realized. As change actions continue successfully, the more
naturally the change action is done, the higher of exdysivity of a person (14), which leads to the
growth of the firm and individual.
 Figure 3: The Holistic Change by Self-Forced Actions
Source: Thammatucharee

46
Discussion
Businesses have been trying to understand the change process and how to make change
successful. Barr, Stimpert, and Huff (1992) indicated that managers who failed to consider
change in their beliefs during periods of major environmental change may set their firms on a
course of a protracted and downward spiral. Many companies fail due to slow pace of making
sufficient change. Today’s dynamic environment has forced people to be alert all the time in
order to ensure their existence and survival. It is necessary to find a new tool that can address
the necessity for change in a more objective manner.
Humans tend to use subjective judgment in making change. Unless they are forced to
change by driving factors, they seem to feel complacent with the status quo. Humans should
become the center of all activities either in business or public society. It is necessary to make
sure that humans’ capabilities are recognized and cannot completely be replaced by machines,
like AIs or robots.
As motivation and incentive cannot guarantee the achievement of change efforts, the new
holistic self-change concept has been developed and proposed in this article by modification of
Bird’s (1988) contexts of entrepreneurial intentionality model modified by Boyd and Vozikis
(1994). The strength of this model is the in-depth understanding of an individual’s thinking
process that start when a person is born and grows up with collective experiences and learning
processes. The wisdom of a person has been reflected in the thinking and action taking process
inclusive of the self-forced action and action value ideas. Understanding of this concept should
enhance the potential success rate in the organizational change efforts.

The Application and Benefits of Action Value

This article proposes the concept of action value as a factor to help drive decided change
actions. Once the action value system is set up, it could help analyze and guide the actors to
make the right and necessary action at the speed and time that maximizes the benefit of
stakeholders.
Thammatucharee (2009) discusses that today’s business performance is measured in
financial terms rather than the value a human can add or contribute to the whole organization. If
there is an acceptable tool that can determine the value creation performed by a human, this
may enhance the ability of a company or an organization to evaluate the performance of a
human systematically. Once this system becomes real, the economic society may change the
focus from financial numbers to individuals’ performance, as it should have been ever since the
accounting record system started. When considering change and not change as an action choice,
the calculated action value can lead to the selected option systematically.

The Accounting System of Action Value

The widely used accounting system, or so-called double-entry concept, can be traced back to
over 500 years ago (Thammatucharee 2009). The technique was developed by merchants in
northern Italy sometime during the late thirteenth or early fourteenth centuries, and then Pacioli,
a Franciscan monk and mathematician, introduced the double-entry method in Venice in 1494
(Carruthers and Espeland 1991). With this system, we can understand the status and
performance of an entity based on the result of the accounting methodology. The output of the
accounting system is the financial reports consisting of balance sheet and the profit-and-loss
statement.
However, the current accounting system has an important flaw in that it fails to recognize
the value of humans who are one of the most important parts of an enterprise. Employees of a
company can make the company exist in the long run or can cause the company to end its
operation. Moreover, there have been attempts to understand organizational behavior and its
implications for individual function (Burchell et al. 1980).
Organizational change is a central issue within organization theory, management, and
increasingly, accounting. Traditional accounting work considered as creating inertia in
organizations opens up opportunity for improvement and innovation (Feldman and Pentland
2003). Consultants argue that firms should adopt various “new” accounting systems. However,
very little is known of processes of accounting change (Quattrone and Hopper 2001; Miettinen
and Virkkunen 2005). If an innovative accounting system can focus on tracking and monitoring
actions rather than exchange of financial means, the determination of success could lead to the
well-being of an individual or members of a corporate not the entity itself.
Thammatucharee (2010a) suggested that to start developing a system that can effectively
account for action values produced by members of an entity, the flow of information tracking,
recording, and reporting should be established. The following are important steps to be
considered:
1. The action item: the chart of action is to be developed, consisting of distinctive
nature of actions. These actions may have different codes for storing the value of
action either quantitative or qualitative.
2. Tracking of actions: necessary tools need to be developed for keeping track of
actions performed by an individual. These tools may utilize the new technology
available to effectively monitor and record the action taken on 24/7 basis.
3. Action value determination: the result of action tracking must produce calculated
value by considering necessary variables. The determination of action value can be
done based on current actions and also forecast of action alternatives.
4. Interpretation of action value: this part can mean evaluation and appraisal of an
individual and collectively a group of people. The next planned action set can be
developed to correct, adapt and adjust the past results.
The future evolution of an individual’s work—ultimately the value of actions determined
from the performance of one person—can lead to calculation of returns for stakeholders and the
compensation for the individual who completes the action. This proposed idea gives an
opportunity for further study and research on a novel action accounting system.

The Implications of Self-forced Actions

The self-forced concept starts from the belief that difficult action needs certain force to be
executed. However, it is impossible to force anyone to do things in all cases, and it is also not
effective enough to just use positive approaches alone. The other alternative can be self-force
practice. This could be another way of releasing the potential of an individual in the change
process. The ability to develop the self-force skill can create a new competitive edge for a
person, and ultimately for the whole organization. The initiation of self-forced action closely
relates to the application of an action value system. Once a reliable system is developed, the
whole change process can be more effective and resolve long-lasting issues regarding high
failure rate of organizational change.

Conclusions and Implications for Future Research

This article reviews the importance and consequences of an organizational change’s action. The
term “action value” is created to reflect the calculated present value of impacts resulting from
the action performed by an individual. As a result of the qualitative research, Thammatucharee
(2010a) addresses the question of how to ensure that the best course of an action/action plan is

48
performed successfully whereas the expected benefits are maximized. This is where the holistic
self-change concept is proposed. This concept has been developed by modification of two sub-
models, which are self-forced action and modification of Bird’s (1988) context of
entrepreneurial intentionality. The comprehensive model of Bird (1988) is complementary to
the proposed self-forced action and forms the integrated novel holistic self-change concept.
The holistic change by self-forced action model (Figure 4) presented in this article is
helpful for researchers to understand the comprehensive mechanism that explains how change
actions occur and what process constitutes the materialization of a planned action. As part of the
model, even though at this stage there is no proven and reliable tool to measure and determine
the value of an action performed by an individual in a meaningful and comparable fashion, with
the emerging new technologies such as block-chain, big data and quantum computing, we may
discover a practical way to apply and exploit these technologies to fulfill this purpose.
The twenty-first century started with economic uncertainty; environmental volatility,; and
digital technology disruptions, robots, and AI; which could impact humans greatly in
unforeseen future. One day these machines could replace many jobs and ultimately actions
performed by humans. Intelligent actions and careless actions can lead to different results. The
better we understand the mechanism of self-force action and action value, the better chance for
the well-being achievement of humankind. The study of how humans, robots, and AI take
actions will become increasingly more important. Action science that provides in-depth
understanding of how to get things done in the most effective, ethical, and beneficial way to
stakeholders will become a new subject of this century.
The value of an action needs to be defined in a new measurement unit. Thus, this article
proposes the new measurement term called “avalrem” to represent the calculated value that an
action can produce at present time. This can become an accepted medium for conversion into
compensation for work done by a person.
The focus that shifts from financial and economic value exchange to performance and
action result measurement may lead to a new way of business management and economic
resource allocation under the novel methodology of action accounting.
Finally, as previously mentioned, this holistic self-change concept still needs further
research and empirical studies over the next two to five years before a reliable instrument can
be developed for practicality. The pandemic impacting all business models and economic
analysis is challenging. The holistic self-change concept may offer positive economic growth
for business across the globe. The opportunity for future research may include the development
of a new accounting system under the “action accounting” idea and the systematic calculation
of action value that possibly not only can it be applied by humans but also by artificial
intelligence in order to assist in decision making and action taking accordingly. This new metric
“avalrem” requires input from business data starting from 2020.
 REFERENCES
Aeppel, Timothy. 2017. “AI & Machine Learning Disruption Timeline Conference.” MIT IDE
Conference Report, vol. 2017.3, http://ide.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications
/IDE%20Research%20Brief_v317.pdf.
Barley, Stephen R., and Pamela S. Tolbert. 1997. “Institutionalization and Structuration:
Studying the Links between Action and Institution.” Organization Studies 18 (1): 93–
117.
Barnett, William P., and Glenn R. Carroll. 1995. “Modeling Internal Organizational Change.”
Annual Review of Sociology 21: 217–236.
Barr, Pamela S., J. L. Stimpert, and Anne Huff. 1992. “Cognitive Change, Strategic Action, and
Organizational Renewal.” Strategic Management Journal 13 (51): 15–36.
Bird, Barbara. 1988. “Implementing Entrepreneurial Ideas. The Case for Intention.” Academy of
Management Review 13 (3): 442–453. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1988.4306970.
Bowen, John, and Cristian Morosan. 2018. “Beware Hospitality Industry: the Robots are
coming.” Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 10 (6): 726–733.
Boyd, Nancy G., and George S. Vozikis. 1994. “The Influence of Self-Efficacy on the
Development of Entrepreneurial Intentions and Actions.” Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice 18 (4): 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F104225879401800404.
Brown, Shona L., and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. 1997. “The Art of Continuous Change: Linking
Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting
Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (1): 1–34.
Buddhadasa, Tarn Ajan. 1993. “Atammayata: The Rebirth of a Lost Word.” Kevala Retreat.
https://www.liberationpark.org/arts/other/atmrebirth.htm.
Burchell, Stuart, Colin Clubb, Anthony Hopwood, John Hughes, and Janine Nahapiet. 1980.
“The Roles of Accounting in Organizations and Society.” Accounting, Organizations
and Society 5 (1): 5–27.
Carruthers, Bruce G., and Wendy Nelson Espeland. 1991. “Accounting for Rationality: Double-
Entry Bookkeeping and the Rhetoric of Economic Rationality.” The American Journal
of Sociology 97 (1): 31–69.
Cascio, Wayne F. 1995. “Whither Industrial and Organizational Psychology in a Changing
World of Work?” American Psychologist 50: 928–939.
Cummings, Thomas G., and Christopher G. Worley. 2009. Organization Development &
Change. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
DeShon, Richard P., and Jennifer Z. Gillespie. 2005. “A Motivated Action Theory Account of
Goal Orientation.” Journal of Applied Psychology 90 (6): 1096–1127.
Doz, Yves L., and Mikko Kosonen. 2010. “Embedding Strategic Agility: A Leadership Agenda
for Accelerating Business Model Renewal.” Long Range Planning 43: 370–382.
Dunphy, Dexter. 1996. “Organizational Change in Corporate Settings.” Human Relations 49(5):
541–552.
Erwin, Dennis G., and Andrew N. Garman. 2010. “Resistance to Organizational Change:
Linking Research and Practice.” Leadership & Organization Development Journal 31
(1): 39–56.
Feldman, Martha S., and Brian T. Pentland. 2003. “Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines
as a Source of Flexibility and Change.” Administrative Science Quarterly 48: 94–118.
Fishbein, Martin, and Icek Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An
Introduction to Theory and Research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ford, Jeffrey D. 1999. “Organizational Change as Shifting Conversations.” Journal of
Organizational Change Management 12 (6): 480–500.

50
Frese, Michael, and Dieter Zapf. 1994. “Action as the Core of Work Psychology: A German
Approach.” Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 4: 271-340.
Furman, Jason, and Robert Seamans. 2018. “AI and the Economy.” NBER working paper no.
24689. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w24689.
Gilley, Ann, Jerry W. Gilley, and Heather S. McMillan. 2009. “Organizational Change:
Motivation, Communication, and Leadership Effectiveness.” Performance
Improvement Quarterly 21 (4): 75–94.
Grosz, Barbara J., and Sarit Kraus. 1996. “Collaborative Plans for Complex Group Action.”
Artificial Intelligence 86: 269–357.
Greenwood, Royston, and C. R. Hinings. 1996. “Understanding Radical Organizational
Change: Bringing together the Old and the New Institutionalism.” Academy of
Management Review 21 (4): 1022–1054.
Haveman, Heather A. 1992. “Between A Rock and A Hard Place: Organizational Change and
Performance under Conditions of Fundamental Environmental Transformation.”
Administrative Science Quarterly 37 (1): 48–75.
Herscovitch, Lynne, and J. P. Meyer. 2002. “Commitment to Organizational Change: Extension
of Three-Component Model.” Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (3): 474–487.
Ivanov, Stanislav Hristov. 2019. “Ultimate Transformation: How Will Automation
Technologies Disrupt the Travel, Tourism and Hospitality Industries?” Zeitschrift für
Tourismuswissenschaft [Maganize for Tourism Science] 11(1) (February 16, 2019)
https://ssrn.com/abstract=3335811.
Kryvinska, Natalia. 2012. “Building Consistent Formal Specification for the Service Agility
Foundation.” Journal of Service Science Research, Springer 4 (2): 235–269.
Lamberton, Chris, Damiano Brigo, and Dave Hoy. 2017. “Impact of Robotics, RPA and AI on
the Insurance Industry: Challenges and Opportunities.” Journal of Financial
Perspectives 4 (1): 8–20.
Liu, Hin-Yan, and Karolina Zawieska. 2017. “From Responsible Robotics towards Human
Rights Regime Oriented to the Challenges of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence.”
Springer. Ethics and Information Technology (November 2017)
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-017-9443-3.
March, James G. 1981. “Footnotes to Organizational Change.” Administrative Science
Quarterly26 (4): 563–577.
Miettinen, Reijo, and Jaakko Virkkunen. 2005. “Epistemic Objects, Artefacts and
Organizational Change.” Organization Articles 12 (3): 435–456.
Morrison, Elizabeth Wolfe, and Frances J. Milliken. 2000. “Organizational Silence: A Barrier to
Change and Development in a Pluralistic World.” Academy of Management Review 25
(4): 706–725.
Piderit, Sandy Kristin. 2000. “Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: A
Multidimensional View of Attitudes toward an Organizational Change.” Academy of
Management Review 25 (4): 783–794.
Pettigrew, Andrew M., Richard W. Woodman, and Kim S. Cameron. 2001. “Studying
Organizational Change and Development: Challenges for Future Research.” Academy
of Management Journal 44 (4): 697–713.
Poola, Indrasen. 2017. “Making Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Disrupted Business Intelligence
(BI) truly Conversational with Humanity Touch, Automated Descriptions and Talking
Bots.” International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in
Technology 3 (5): 573–577.
Puaschunder, Julia M. 2019. “Artificial Intelligence Market Disruption.” RAIS Conference
Proceedings (July 3, 2019) https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3267472.
Quattrone, Paolo, and Trevor Hopper. 2001. “What does organizational change mean?
Speculations on a taken for granted category.” Management Accounting Research
12 (4): 403–435.
Rao, Anand S., and Michael P. Georgeff. 1995. “BDI Agents: From Theory to Practice.”
Proceedings of the First International Conference on Multiagent Systems
http://www.aaai.org/Papers/ICMAS/1995/ICMAS95-042.pdf.
Rosenberg, Stuart, and Joseph Mosca. 2011. “Breaking Down the Barriers to Organizational
Change.” International Journal of Management & Information Systems – Third
Quarter 15 (3): 139–146.
Scholz, Urte, Falko F. Sniehotta, Benjamin Schuz, and Andries Oeberst. 2007. “Dynamics in
Self-Regulation: Plan Execution Self-Efficacy and Mastery of Action Plans.”
Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37 (11): 2706–2725.
Smith, Aaron, and Janna Anderson. 2014. “AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs.” Pew
Research Center, August 6, 2014.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/08/06/future-of- jobs/.
Smith, Martin E. 2002. “Success Rates for Different Types of Organizational Change.”
Performance Improvement 41 (1): 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4140410107.
Thammatucharee, Yanyong. 2009. The Effective Controller in the 21st Century. South
Charleston: Create Space.
———. 2010a. Self-reform Forces: Understanding the Organization Development Concept of
Exdysivity. Charleston: Create Space.
———. 2010b. Exdysivity: An Introduction to a New Management Concept. Charleston: Create
Space.
———. 2017. The Pantry CEO: Discovering Untapped Wisdom in Any Organizations.
Charleston: Create Space.
Thomas, James B., Shawn M. Clark, and Dennis A. Gioia. 1993. “Strategic Sensemaking
and Organizational Performance: Linkages among Scanning, Interpretation, Action
and Outcomes.” Academy of Management Journal 36 (2): 239–270.
Tsoukas, Haridimos, and Robert Chia. 2002. “On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking
Organizational Change.” Organizational Science 13 (5): 567–582.
Tushman, Michael L., and Charles A III. O’Reilly. 1996. “Ambidextrous Organizations:
Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change.” California Management
Review Reprint Series 38 (4): 8–28.
Wang, Zheng, Jerome R. Busemeyer, Harald Atmanspacher, and Emmanuel M. Pothos.
2013. “The Potential of Using Quantum Theory to Build Models of Cognition.”
Topics in Cognitive Sciences 5 (4): 672–688.
Weick, Karl E., and Robert E. Quinn. 1999. “Organizational Change Development.” Annual
Review of Psychology 50: 361–386.
White, Lee C., Emmanuel M. Pothos, and Jarome R. Busemeyer. 2015. “Insights from
Quantum Cognitive Models for Organizational Decision Making.” Journal of
Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 4 (3): 229–238.
Zhang, David, and H. Sharifi. 2000. “A Methodology for Achieving Agility in
Manufacturing Operations.” International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 20 (4): 496–512.

journal invites case studies that take the form of

presentations of management practice—including
documentation of organizational practices and exegeses
analyzing the effects of those practices.

Change Management: An International Journal is a

52
peer-reviewed, scholarly journal.