a meta model of change

A meta model of changeMike Young

Royal Navy and Henley Management College, Portsmouth, UK

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a model of change which is both academicallyrigorous and practitioner-friendly.

Design/methodology/approach A theoretical meta-analysis is conducted by clustering themesfrom across a broad range of change-related literature including: learning; personal, social, situationaland emergent change; helping, systems thinking, process improvement and leadership.

Findings Common themes emerge across all the change-related literature, which suggests theexistence of a common underlying change progression.

Research limitations/implications Whilst the literature covered is extensive, it is notcomprehensive. The intention is to draw attention to the kinds of variables that need to beconceptualised, observed or enacted when change is studied or implemented.

Practical implications The meta-model has already proved a useful guide to implementingchange and is presented here to stimulate scholarly debate among those studying it.

Originality/value The benefit of considering such a broad range of change-related fields is thateach brings a different perspective to the stages of the common underlying journey. As a consequence,the meta-model offers both a lens, to provide focus on the stages in this common change progression,and a prism, to reveal the full spectrum of applicable concepts and activities.

Keywords Change management, Leadership, Process planning

Paper type General review

IntroductionIn the conclusion to their meta-analysis of 52 evaluations of planned organisationalchange interventions Robertson et al. (1992, p. 205) highlighted the very realrequirement for the development of change process theory which would also serve asa useful guide for more efficacious implementation of planned organisational change.The need for such a guide appears all the more compelling given the frequent assertionthat up to seventy percent of planned change initiatives fail (Beer and Nohria, 2000;Higgs and Rowlands, 2005; Wheatley, 2006).

Unfortunately, the change literature itself may often form a barrier to broaderappreciation of the key factors which have a significant impact upon change. Weick andQuinn (1999, p. 364) note that the sheer sprawl of change literature is a continuingchallenge to those who seek simplicity, or at least clarity, and as a result fewpractitioners and management theorists understand (Lichtenstein, 2000) or manage tofollow (Doyle et al., 2000) the basic principles surrounding the change process.

Attempts to impose some order on the literature often take the form of typologieswhich compare and contrast change based upon: size and speed (Dunphy and Stace,1988; Nadler and Tushman, 1990); nature of event sequence (van de Ven and Poole,1995); continuity (Romanelli and Tushman, 1994; Weick and Quinn, 1999); and degreeof complexity and uniformity (Higgs and Rowlands, 2005). However, by their verynature, these typologies seek differentiation and so the common themes which mightguide the successful implementation of change are not always apparent. Perhaps, thisexplains why there may be over a million articles related to change and development

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

JOCM22,5

524

Journal of Organizational ChangeManagementVol. 22 No. 5, 2009pp. 524-548q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0953-4814DOI 10.1108/09534810910983488

(van de Ven and Poole, 1995) and yet the commonsense or basic factors are oftenoverlooked when change is implemented or emerges within organisations (Doyle et al.,2000; Fernandez and Rainey, 2006; Kotter, 1996).

MethodThe traditional scientific philosophy and method of inquiry may actually contribute tothe shortcomings identified above. Since Plato a philosophic dualism has existedbetween mind and matter, knowing and doing. Descartes not only brought this tocompletion (Russell, 1996, p. 519) but also anchored the scientific way of thinking inreductionism (Descartes, 1968, p. 41). As a result when the traditional scientific methodof inquiry is extended through positivism (Comte, 1908; Durkheim, 1938) to the studyof social life, know that tends to be valued over know how and the object of inquiryis often only an aspect of a more complex phenomenon. It is unsurprising therefore, asnoted above, that much of the academic literature on change is of little assistance tothose attempting its implementation.

This seeming ineffectiveness of the academic literature to inform practice hasresulted in a rift between theorists and change agents (Lichtenstein, 1997).Unsurprisingly, therefore, Huff (2000) notes the decline in support within thebusiness community for the purely academic Mode 1 knowledge production(Gibbons et al., 1994) of scientific truths by scientists. Anderson et al. (2001) see thisrift enhanced by Pedantic science studies where the sole criterion of worth is theevaluation of a small minority of other researchers who specialise in the narrowfield of inquiry. Such research, they observe, is totally devoid of any practitionerrelevance.

By contrast Mode 2, production of knowledge, is driven by practitioner learningfrom application. It is validated in use as discovery occurs in contexts whereknowledge is developed for, and put to use, while results which would havebeen traditionally characterised as applied fuel further theoretical advances(Gibbons et al., 1994, p. 9). However, Mode 2 is not without its problems somemethods can be too pragmatic, their practitioners too willing to make do(Huff, 2000, p. 292). The result can be the generation of popularist science (Andersonet al., 2001, p. 393) which addresses a relevant theme but fails to do so with any degreeof rigour.

An alternative approach is Mode 1.5 (Huff, 2000) where the issues of importancearise from practice but academic skills and standards are applied in developingdefinitions, comparing literature and data from across organizational settings, andsuggesting generalizable frameworks for further sensemaking. Anderson et al. (2001)refer to this as scholarly consulting or pragmatic science where both practicalrelevance and methodological rigour are high.

The Pragmatic approach to science however is far from new. Over 100 years agoJohn Dewey articulated the need for a rigorous and systemic, yet action oriented,approach to the science of social affairs. He challenged the stimulus response dualismin psychology declaring that:

[. . .] what is wanted is that sensory stimulus, central connections and motor responses shallbe viewed, not as separate and complete entities in themselves but as divisions of labor,function factors within the single concrete whole (Dewey, 1896, p. 358).

A meta modelof change

525

The concrete whole was described by Dewey as a coordination. Therefore:

[. . . the] the stimulus is not a thing or existence by itself; it is that phase of a coordinationrequiring attention because, by reason of the conflict with the coordination, it is uncertainhow to complete it (Dewey, 1896, p. 368).

Dewey (1910, pp. 68-78) further developed this holistic approach to inquiry through theanalysis of a complete act of thought:

The trained mind is the one that best grasps the degree of observation, forming of ideas,reasoning, and experimental testing required in any special case, and that profits the most, infuture thinking, by mistakes made in the past. What is important is that the mind should besensitive to problems and skilled in methods of attack and solution (Dewey, 1910, p. 78).

This highlights that, for Dewey (1910, p. 213), application is as much an intrinsicpart of genuine reflective inquiry as is alert observation or reasoning itself.Deweys action-oriented philosophy appears well suited to the complex challenges ofmaking social changes so it is unsurprising to discover a striking kinship(Allport, 1948, p. 7) between his approach and that of Kurt Lewin one of those fewmen whose work changed fundamentally the course of social science (Cartwright,1951, p. 159):

The research needed for social practice can best be characterised as research for socialmanagement or social engineering. It is a type of action-research [. . .] Research that producesnothing but books will not suffice (Lewin, 1946, p. 144).

Sharing Deweys action orientation Lewin (1946, p. 146) proposed that:

[. . .] rational social management therefore proceeds in a spiral of steps each of which iscomposed of a circle of planning, action, and fact finding about the result of the action.

Lewin also shares Deweys recognition of the need for a holistic or systemic approachin studying (Lewin, 1942) or making (Lewin, 1946) social change:

Instead of picking out one or another isolated element within a situation, the importance ofwhich cannot be judged without consideration of the situation as a whole, field theory finds itadvantageous, as a rule, to start with a characterisation of the situation as a whole(Lewin, 1942, p. 214).

This paper attempts to adhere to the holistic, action-oriented philosophy of Dewey andLewin by analysing the broadest reaches of the change paradigm in order to betterunderstand its constituent factors and so inform practitioner action and stimulatescholarly debate. The approach taken is to juxtapose similar theories from differentdomains of change and to show how each both reinforces and adds to the others.

Meta-analysisSince, Glass (1976) first coined the term meta-analysis to mean analysis of analyses ithas provided a potent method to understand what we know and integrate ourinformation into abstract, general causal and relational form (Willson, 1981, p. 584).Three premises of theoretical meta-analyses (Gersick, 1991; van de Ven and Poole,1995) underlie this paper:

(1) that there are important commonalities across a very broad range ofchange-related literature;

JOCM22,5

526

(2) that we can benefit by comparing theories and research findings from suchdisparate areas because different facets of kindred processes may come intofocus as the method, topic and level of analysis vary; and

(3) working out the relationships between such seemingly divergent viewsprovides opportunities to develop stronger and broader explanations than theindividual perspectives.

However, meta-analysis is not without its potential shortcomings. The quality of theprimary work examined will directly affect any findings of the meta-analysis (AMJ,2002) as will sampling bias, overemphasis of specific works or any attempt tocombine apples and oranges. (Rosenthal and DiMatteo, 2001) In an attempt to avoidsuch problems this paper follows some basic steps (Willson, 1981; Rosenthal andDiMatteo, 2001; Stanley, 2001; AMJ, 2002) for meta-analysis. From the outset, there isclarity that the variables of interest are the common factors in diverse accounts ofchange. The primary sources examined are collectively as exhaustive as possible,in terms of the range of perspectives represented, and individually all highlyrecognised in their field. Finally, the analysis itself attempts to adhere to the basicprinciples of: accuracy, simplicity and clarity.

Mode 1.5 meta-analysisThis paper starts from the premise that there is an important practitioner need for asimple, yet rigorous, theory to guide those facing the challenge of change. The searchfor this change process theory is given academic rigour by the application of theprinciples of meta-analysis, discussed above, in order to identify common themes andso propose a potentially generalizable model for further sensemaking. In effect this is aMode 1.5 meta-analysis. If a pure Mode 1 meta-analysis had been conducted the authorwould have been constrained to secondary analysis of others quantitative studies ofchange. This would have limited the scope of the study and so reduced the likelihood ofproducing the clarity and holism needed by practitioners. By contrast a pure Mode 2meta-analysis of practitioner insights might, especially in a world where everyconsultant has a model of change, generate great clarity but the associated rigourwould be at best questionable. Such subjective insights are often little more thanworthless simplicity on this side of the complexity of change. By using Mode 1.5meta-analysis, this article seeks to find the priceless simplicity on the far side.

LiteratureAs noted above, this paper is not intended to constitute a comprehensive change literaturereview. It is an attempt to provoke ideas about change through the identification andexploration of common themes in the following areas of change-related literature.

Changing understandingLearning and change processes are part of each other; change is a learning processand learning is a change process (Beckhard and Pritchard, 1992, p. 14). One of theearliest advocates of a sequential approach to learning was Dewey (1896, 1910, 1916,1927) who stressed that the purpose of learning is only to be found in the solidity,security and fertility it affords our dealings with the changing future. This forwardleaning approach to learning is shared by Kolbs (1984) experiential learning theory


527

and Argyriss (1993) actionable learning. Kuhn (1962) recognised that bodies ofknowledge themselves tend to be changed, not through piecemeal evolution but oftenthrough painful revolutionary reformulation.

Personal changeThroughout the ages cultures have been defined, in part, by the stories they shareabout heroes and adventures. Campbell (1949) has suggested the purpose of suchmythology is to supply the symbols that carry the human spirit forward (Campbell,1993, p. 11). Of course, for every abstract myth there are myriad real experiences suchas those of Frankl (2004) which lead to the discovery (Allport, 1959) of logotherapy ameaning-centred approach to psychotherapy. Fritz (1989) builds on the seminal pointof logotherapy, that man can always decide or choose, to develop the concept ofcreative personal change through which you can learn to recognise the structures atplay in your life, and change them, so that you can create what you really want tocreate (Fritz, 1989, p. 5).

Helping others changeRogers (2004, p. 27) noted that life at its best, is a flowing, changing process in whichnothing is fixed and his therapy aimed to create a relationship through which theclient could change and grow. Similarly, over eight editions between 1975 and 2007,The skilled helper (Egan, 2007) has provided a popular problem-management andopportunity-development framework to help individuals change. Egans work was oneof the precursors (Prochaska et al., 1992, p. 1103) of the transtheoretical model (TTM)of change (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1982; Prochaska et al., 1992; Prochaska andNorcross, 2001) which is commonly used in the health arena to help people makepersonal changes such as stopping unhealthy behaviours and/or developing healthybehaviours.

Changing group behaviourLewin (1942, 1943/1944, 1946, 1947) made clear the practical task of social management,as well as the scientific task of understanding the dynamics of group life, require insightinto the desire for and resistance to change. Hendry (1996, p. 624) has suggested:

[. . .] scratch any account of creating and managing change and the idea that change is athree-stage process which necessarily begins with a process of unfreezing will not be farbelow the surface. Indeed it has been said that the whole theory of change is reducible to thisone idea of Kurt Lewins.

Lewins spirit and assumptions are deeply embedded in the work of Schein (1988, 1990,1995, 2002) who has further developed Lewins three-stage process.

System approaches to organisational changeHow are organisations changed? To answer this question we need some way ofthinking about organisations (Nadler, 1982, p. 38). Beckhard and Harris (1977),Checkland (1981), Lawrence and Lorsch (1967, 1969), Nadler and Tushman (1990) andOptner (1965) among many adopt a system perspective by viewing organisations as:the coordination of different activities to carry out planned transactions with theenvironment (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1969); a mechanism for transforming needs andraw materials into services and products (Beckhard and Harris, 1977); or for taking

JOCM22,5

528

input and turning it into patterns of performance or output (Nadler and Tushman,1990). Such a process-orientated conceptualisation of organisations allows for anequally systemic approach to planning change therein.

Organisational change through process improvementWhen Michael Hammer urged organisations dont automate, obliterate (Hammer,1990, p. 104) he typified the approach which suggests that managers can activelyreengineer organisations. Hammer finishes his call for reengineering in US firms byhighlighting the threat posed by already streamlined Japanese companies who,decades before, had taken similar process improvement teachings of the Americanquality gurus such as Deming (1982) and Juran (1964) to their hearts (Liker, 2004).

Situational factors in organisational changeIn times of change, it is vital to be in touch with the assumptions and theories that areguiding our practice and be able to shape and reshape them for different ends,otherwise we run the risk of being trapped within existing mindsets (Morgan, 1997).In common with Morgan (1997), Dunphy and Stace (1993) and Nadler and Tushman(1990) argue that, in order to execute the appropriate change for a given organisationalsituation, contingent, rather than universalistic, approaches are required.

Emergent changeWhen the implications of localised concrete changes are generalised into more broadlyheld concepts emergent change has occurred. (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985). Senge(1990, 1997) has highlighted that in a world of increasing interdependence and rapidchange it is no longer possible to figure it out from the top whilst Wheatley (2006) goesfurther by suggesting that relationships are the basis of existence, and disorder mustbe embraced as the source of new order. Within this paradigm philosophies such aswholeness (Bohm, 1980; Wheatley, 2006) as well as methods such as dialogue (Bohm,2004) and sensemaking (Weick, 1995) become increasingly relevant in order to dealwith the chaotic demands of emerging team, or group, learning.

Leading major changeDespite the great theoretical debates over the differing interpretations of the changephenomenon in the academic literature, there is an equally significant body (see,Fernandez and Rainey, 2006, for a full review) of research indicating the pragmaticreality that individuals frequently do get tasked with, and are successful in, makingchange happen in organisations. Fernandez and Rainey (2006), Kotter (1996) andKouzes and Posner (2007) among many present guidelines through which leaders canmaster the challenges of leading change. Indeed, the original concept oftransformational leadership was anchored very much in the ability to create suchchange: leadership is nothing if not linked to collective purpose; that the effectivenessof leaders must be judged not by their press clippings but by actual social change(MacGregor Burns, 1978, p. 3).

Meta-analysisThe premise of this paper is that there are shared constructs underlying theprogressions described within each the above change paradigms. A thematic analysis


529

(Boyatzis, 1998) was conducted by clustering similar themes from each field of changeliterature to examine the support for this premise. The following commonalitiesemerged.

Existing or pre-change paradigmThe literature themes, from each of the fields of change, in Table I suggest that the firstcommonality is the existence of an established coordination of activity (Dewey, 1896),social habit (Lewin, 1947) or paradigm (Kuhn, 1962), prior to the commencement of thespecific change event.

The nature of the existing, or pre-change, situation will determine the manner inwhich the potential need for change will be discovered and subsequently perceived.The paradigm of a dynamic, changing world (Dewey, 1916; Kolb, 1984) will encourageactive searching for new information and experiences but, by contrast a NormalScience (Kuhn, 1962) or inappropriate Master Programme (Argyris, 1993) will act asa barrier to the recognition of the early signs of the need for a reformulation. Similarlypeople with an evolving (Campbell, 1949), response-able (Frankl, 2004) approach tolife will seek out or create (Fritz, 1989) opportunities to change whilst others will be sowedded to an existing social habit (Lewin, 1947) or cognitive structure (Schein, 1995)that they will be precontemplative to change (TTM). Within organisations thedominating paradigm or culture will determine whether or not there is an activeprogramme of environmental scanning (de Geus, 1988), internal quality scrutiny(Deming, 1982; Juran, 1964) and variety (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992; Pascale, 1999)to seek out signs of the potential need for change.

Commonality 1Learning Existing coordination, anticipatory sensation (Dewey, 1896); normal science

(Kuhn, 1962); learning territory (Kolb, 1984); master programme (Argyris,1993)

Personal change Evolving human spirit (Campbell, 1949); potential for meaning in life (Frankl,2004); creative orientation (Fritz, 1989)

Helping Capacity to help (Egan, 2007) or facilitate growth (Rogers, 2004) in helper butalso point of precontemplation in client (TTM)

Social change Phase space, social field, or habit (Lewin, 1947) existing cognitive structures(Schein, 1995)

System approach Organisational system of interdependent parts and environmental relationsserving a purpose (Beckhard and Harris, 1987; Checkland, 1981; Lawrenceand Lorsch, 1967; Nadler, 1982)

Process improvement Constancy of purpose for improvement through reengineering (Hammer,1990) transformation (Deming, 1982) or breakthough ( Juran, 1964)

Situational factors Organisations are neither uniform (Morgan, 1997) nor stable (Nadler andTushman, 1990) so contingent approaches are required (Dunphy and Stace,1993)

Emergent change Inductive change (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992) and co-evolution (Wheatley,2006) is possible in learning organisations (Senge, 1990) through dialogue(Bohm, 2004), sensemaking (Weick, 1995) and internal variety (Pascale, 1999)

Leading change Leadership delivers change (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006; Kotter, 1996;Kouzes and Posner, 2007) and leadership is about delivering change(MacGregor Burns, 1978, 2003)

Table I.An existing orpre-change paradigm

JOCM22,5

530

A stimulusTable II shows that all the literature reviewed clearly identified the experience of astimulus as the first stage in the active process of change. The stimuli may range fromindividual happenstance, whether personally experienced or highlighted by another, toprocedural discrepancies or catalytic events within organisations. Immediate responsesmay include attention (Dewey, 1896), perplexity or confusion (Dewey, 1916), anxiety(Schein, 1995) or refusal to acknowledge (Campbell, 1993) the stimulus all together.

ConsiderationThe stimulus furnishes the motivation to attend to what has taken place; to define itmore carefully. (Dewey, 1896, p. 368) So it is unsurprising that, as Table III shows,there is universal consideration of the stimulus across the literature although methodsvary greatly. Personal reflection is the most accessible means of considering astimulus, however, it is limited to the paradigm of the observer. Even within thelearning literature, the need for multi-perspective is highlighted and the provisionof such additional views is the basis of therapy. Within social settings the provision ofnew perspectives (Egan, 2007) can assist the development of better understanding(Rogers, 2004) and greater insight (Schein, 1995) which can balance the psychologicalanxiety of the disconfirmation (Schein, 2002). In organisations, better understanding ofthe causal and consequential factors of the stimulus (Beckhard and Harris, 1987;Lawrence and Lorsch, 1969; Nadler, 1982) and the existing theories and assumptions(Morgan, 1997) can be better achieved through deeper listening (Bohm, 2004) to avariety of view points. Finally, articulating the compelling case for change in a mannerwhich allows each individual or group to recognise that their perspective and needs

Commonality 2Learning Experience of (Kolb, 1984) stimulus and associated attention (Dewey, 1896)

perplexity or confusion (Dewey, 1916); paradigm violation (Kuhn, 1962)detection of mismatch or error (Argyris, 1993)

Personal change Blunder, chance (Campbell, 1949) life challenge, question (Frankl, 2004) orproblem (Fritz, 1989)

Helping Problem, opportunity (Egan, 2007; Rogers, 2004) or unhealthy behaviour(TTM)

Social change New force acting on quasi-stationary social equilibrium (Lewin, 1947);dissatisfaction or frustration generated by disconfirming data (Schein, 1995)

System approach Discrepancy (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967) problem situation (Checkland,1981) changing demand (Beckhard and Harris, 1987) or catalytic events(Nadler and Tushman, 1990)

Process improvement Lack of fit with environment (Hammer, 1990) organisational challenges(Deming, 1982; Juran, 1964)

Situational factors Strengths and weaknesses in existing mindsets (Morgan, 1997) lack of fit withenvironment (Dunphy and Stace, 1993; Nadler and Tushman, 1990)

Emergent change Local concrete challenges (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992), problem (Bohm,2004; Senge, 1990), stimuli (Weick, 1995) organisational anxiety (Pascale,1999) chaos and disorder (Wheatley, 2006)

Leading change Urgent need (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006; Kotter, 1996) opportunity andinnovation (Kouzes and Posner, 2007) peoples new wants and needs inchanged environment (MacGregor Burns, 1978, 2003)

Table II.A stimulus


531

have been accommodated will maximise the likelihood of their engagement (Fernandezand Rainey, 2006; Kotter, 1996; Kouzes and Posner, 2007; MacGregor Burns, 1978,2003; Pascale et al., 1997).

Validating the needThe next commonality across the change literature fields, as Table IV highlights, is adecision point. Having been considered from multiple perspectives the stimulus mustbe accepted as sufficiently valid (Schein, 1995) and legitimate (MacGregor Burns, 1978,2003) to overcome the allure of the status quo and proceed to a planning stage. Thisdecision may be a very personal one of accepting the need to change a habit, life style(Frankl, 2004; Fritz, 1989) or behaviour (Egan, 2007; Rogers, 2004; TTM) or anorganisational decision that a new demand (Beckhard and Harris, 1987) requirement(Hammer, 1990) or event (Nadler, 1982) requires an organisational change or response.Of note this is not a decision on what action is appropriate but an agreement that theneed for change is valid (Deming, 1982; Juran, 1964; Morgan, 1997).

PreparationTable V shows that some form of planning or goal setting is the most frequently citedform of preparing for change. This can range from a plan of action to test theories andconcepts (Dewey, 1916; Kolb, 1984), through personal goal setting (Egan, 2007; Fritz,1989; Rogers, 2004), preparing strategies for redefining social standards (Lewin, 1947;Schein, 1995), planning system variable interventions (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967)

Commonality 3Learning Reflection from different viewpoints (Kolb, 1984) careful survey of all

attainable interpretations (Dewey, 1916); different schools of thought (Kuhn,1962); feedback findings for learning (Argyris, 1993)

Personal change Helpers magical aid (Campbell, 1949) discovery of meaning outside ownpsyche (Frankl, 2004) and life outside emotions (Fritz, 1989)

Helping Help develop new perspectives and better understanding (Egan, 2007; Rogers,2004) raise consciousness and stimulate contemplation by helping with theachievement of insight (TTM)

Social change Fact finding within total relations of social field (Lewin, 1947) understand allrelevant factors acting on target system (Schein, 2002)

System approach Structured inquiry of the complexity (Checkland, 1981) including all causalfactors of discrepancy (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967) and consequences(Beckhard and Harris, 1987; Nadler, 1982)

Process improvement New conceptualisation of requirement (Hammer, 1990) gathering more data(Deming, 1982) participative diagnosis to enhance perspective ( Juran, 1964)

Situational factors Reading the theories and assumptions in practice (Morgan, 1997) andchanging cognitive limitations (Nadler and Tushman, 1990) based on muti-persepcitve views of environment (Dunphy and Stace, 1993)

Emergent change Conceiving local ideas (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992) interrelationships(Wheatley, 2006) and patterns of change (Senge, 1990, 1997) deeper listening(Bohm, 2004) retrospect (Weick, 1995) and use of Socratic questioning toevoke self-discovery (Pascale et al., 1997)

Leading change Clarify compelling need (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006; Kotter, 1996) ideals,possibilities; encourage contribution (Kouzes and Posner, 2007) articulate theneed (MacGregor Burns, 1978, 2003)

Table III.Consideration frommultiple perspectives

JOCM22,5

532

Commonality 4Learning Precise hypothesis (Dewey, 1916) or theory incorporating observations (Kolb,

1984) validity test (Argyris, 1993)Personal change Decision to answer call to adventure (Campbell, 1949) answer for life (Frankl,

2004) make the fundamental choice (Fritz, 1989)Helping Help client agree need to change (Egan, 2007; Rogers, 2004) by weighing pros

and cons and self-reevaluation (TTM)Social change Disconfirming data accepted as valid (Schein, 1995)System approach Consequences of change clarified (Checkland, 1981; Lawrence and Lorsch,

1967) future state deemed more attractive than current (Beckhard and Harris,1987) need for strategic adjustment agreed (Nadler, 1982)

Process improvement New requirement sufficient to overcome inertia of old processes (Hammer,1990) agree change needed (Deming, 1982) demonstrate need for change( Juran, 1964)

Situational factors Decision to shape, re-shape (Morgan, 1997) or change (Dunphy and Stace,1993; Nadler and Tushman, 1990)

Emergent change Decision to generalise local change (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992) embracethe invisible (Wheatley, 2006) share understanding (Senge, 1990, 1997)suspend assumptions (Bohm, 2004) enact (Weick, 1995) and cultivate internalvariety (Pascale, 1999)

Leading change Create a guiding coalition, communicate the need (Kotter, 1996) topmanagement support (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006) decide to innovate andexperiment (Kouzes and Posner, 2007) legitimise the need (MacGregor Burns,1978, 2003)

Table IV.Validation of the need

Commonality 5Learning Plan of action (Dewey, 1916) to test concepts (Kolb, 1984) and action strategies

(Argyris, 1993)Personal change Summoning the forces of unconsciousness (Campbell, 1949) self

determination (Frankl, 2004) creating tension through vision (Fritz, 1989)Helping Help set realistic goals and strategies for growth (Egan, 2007; Rogers, 2004)

prepare for action (TTM)Social change Create psychological safety by redefining concepts and standards (Schein,

1995) against which group decisions are made (Lewin, 1947)System approach Plan (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967) or map (Checkland, 1981) action on system

variables develop options to manage transition from current to future state(Beckhard and Harris, 1987) redefine tasks (Nadler, 1982) made

Process improvement Organise around outcomes not tasks (Hammer, 1990) design for quality(Deming, 1982) separate the vital few from the trivial many (Juran, 1964)

Situational factors Imaginize the new ways (Morgan, 1997) incorporate relevant contingentfactors (Dunphy and Stace, 1993; Nadler and Tushman, 1990) into plan

Emergent change Shift the mindset (vision) (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992) establish sharedvision, strategy (Senge, 1990, 1997) and plan (Wheatley, 2006) think together(Bohm, 2004) socially (Weick, 1995) and delegate decision making to thoseclosest to the action (Pascale, 1999)

Leading change Develop a vision strategy and plan, (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006; Kotter,1996) develop competence and increase self determination (Kouzes andPosner, 2007) arouse the motives of followers (MacGregor Burns, 1978, 2003)

Table V.Preparation


533

right up to designing full organisational reengineering (Hammer, 1990). However,whilst plans are needed to effectively prepare for the use of inanimate resources,humans will need to be engaged in a vision (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006; Kotter, 1996)to emotionally arouse them for the change (Kouzes and Posner, 2007; MacGregorBurns, 1978, 2003).

Commitment to actTable VI shows a second common decision point in the literature. Having validated theneed and prepared for change, the individual, group or organisation must make thedecision to get going (Egan, 2007; Rogers, 2004) as insight alone does not bringchange (Prochaska and Norcross, 2001). The decision to act is a function ofcommitment to (Beckhard and Harris, 1987; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Nadler, 1982),and acceptance of (Argyris, 1993; Deming, 1982), the planned intervention. It is at thispoint that, the status quo is slain (Campbell, 1949), the social habit broken and thecustom unfrozen (Lewin, 1947).

The transition (do-check-act)The breadth of the literature covered in this analysis makes it difficult to summarisethe commonality of this action or transition phase in one word. However,Campbells (1993, p. 345) phrase the cycle rolls the hero grows captures the essence.The experiment (Dewey, 1916; Kolb, 1984), action (Argyris, 1993), turbulent transition(Beckhard and Harris, 1987; Morgan, 1997) or transformation (Deming, 1982) must beactively managed (Dunphy and Stace, 1993; Nadler and Tushman, 1990). During thisperiod, it is important to recognise the importance of accepting responsibility (Egan,2007; Frankl, 2004; Rogers, 2004) and harnessing learning (Bohm, 2004; Senge, 1990,1997; Weick, 1995) in order to be able to frame and re-frame the vision as needs evolve(MacGregor Burns, 1978, 2003) and so inspire, align, empower and enable (Kotter, 1996;Kouzes and Posner, 2007) those making the change (Table VII).

Commonality 6Learning Taking a stand on the projected hypothesis as a basis for action (Dewey, 1916)

commitment to intervention (Argyris, 1993)Personal change Slaying the status quo (Campbell, 1949) choosing ones attitude (Frankl, 2004)

formally choosing (Fritz, 1989)Helping Help client get going (Egan, 2007; Rogers, 2004) self-liberation (choosing

and committing) (TTM)Social change Decide to break the social habit, unfreeze the custom (Lewin, 1947)System approach Accommodation (Checkland, 1981) leading to commitment (Beckhard and

Harris, 1987; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Nadler, 1982)Process improvement Change the rules (Hammer, 1990) decide to act on plan (Deming, 1982) and

breakthrough (Juran, 1964)Situational factors Commitment to reshape (Morgan, 1997) and proactive management (Dunphy

and Stace, 1993; Nadler and Tushman, 1990)Emergent change Acceptance of emergent concepts (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992; Senge, 1990,

1997; Pascale, 1999) as people support what they create (Wheatley, 2006)Leading change Model the way (Kouzes and Posner, 2007) mobilise the resources (MacGregor

Burns, 1978, 2003)Table VI.Commitment to act

JOCM22,5

534

Specific resultThe effect of change (Deming, 1982) may not always be that which was expected but, asTable VIII shows, the experiment result (Kolb, 1984), solution (Fritz, 1989), adaptation(Beckhard and Harris, 1987; Dunphy and Stace, 1993; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Nadler,1982; Nadler and Tushman, 1990; Morgan, 1997), emergent concept (Bohm, 2004;Mintzberg and Westley, 1992; Pascale, 1999; Senge, 1990, 1997; Weick, 1995;) or change(Fernandez and Rainey, 2006; Kotter, 1996; Kouzes and Posner, 2007) share thecommonality of being the active products of their specific change progressions.

The enduring benefit (new normal)By contrast with the commonalities in Table VIII, which are the specific active products oftheir various change progressions, Table IX highlights the, often more valuable, benefitsthat are the enduring by product. Knowledge is finite but an enhanced capacity to learnbrings with it infinite possibilities and a firm basis for dealing with an uncertain future(Dewey, 1916; Kolb, 1984; Kuhn, 1962). Similarly, whilst addressing specific problemsituations or seizing opportunities may bring transitory relief or satisfaction, enduringhappiness (Seligman, 2002) comes from the capacity to take responsibility for life (Frankl,2004; Fritz, 1989) through enhanced ability to live it effectively (Egan, 2007; Rogers, 2004;TTM). Social change for a group may establish a new equilibrium (Lewin, 1947) whichaccommodates the new force at a moment in time, but it is the groups ability to retaincongruence with the environment which will minimise the likelihood of subsequentrounds of disconfirmation (Schein, 1995). Similarly, organisations may change toaccommodate a specific discrepancy (Beckhard and Harris, 1987; Lawrence and Lorsch,1967; Nadler, 1982) or lack of fit (Deming, 1982; Hammer, 1990; Juran, 1964) but the

Commonality 7Learning Hypothesis testing (Dewey, 1916) active experiment (Kolb, 1984) action and

observation of consequences (Argyris, 1993) reformulation of paradigm(Kuhn, 1962)

Personal change Cycle rolls, hero grows (Campbell, 1949) take responsibility (Frankl, 2004)resolve the tension (Fritz, 1989)

Helping Support and help client make it happen (Egan, 2007; Rogers, 2004)behaviour modification (TTM)

Social change Moving the equilibrium (Lewin, 1947) through cognitive restructuring orreframing (Schein, 1995)

System approach Implementing action (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967) to improve (Checkland,1981) managing transition (Beckhard and Harris, 1987) modification (Nadler,1982)

Process improvement Changing the processes (Hammer, 1990) taking action to accomplish thetransformation (Deming, 1982) create good changes ( Juran, 1964)

Situational factors Manage the turbulence (Morgan, 1997) execute appropriate change (Dunphyand Stace, 1993; Nadler and Tushman, 1990)

Emergent change Synthesis of initiatives into programme (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992)harnessing emergent change (Senge, 1990, 1997) shared meaning (Bohm,2004) structuring unknown (Weick, 1995) self-organising (Wheatley, 2006)

Leading change Inspire, communicate, align, empower, enable (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006;Kotter, 1996; Kouzes and Posner, 2007) frame and re-frame vision as needsevolve (MacGregor Burns, 1978, 2003)

Table VII.Do-check-act


535

Commonality 8Learning Knowledge created (Dewey, 1916) experiment result (Kolb,

1984) specific correction or change (Argyris, 1993) anomalousnow expected (Kuhn, 1962)

Personal change Hero returns (Campbell, 1949) answer for life (Frankl, 2004)solution created (Fritz, 1989)

Helping Problem overcome or opportunity seized (Egan, 2007; Rogers,2004) and behaviour changed (TTM)

Social change New quasi-stationary equilibrium frozen (Lewin, 1947)restructure refrozen (Schein, 1995)

System approach Adaptation to discrepancy (Beckhard and Harris, 1987;Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Nadler, 1982) improvement(Checkland, 1981)

Process improvement Redesigned processes (Hammer, 1990) the effect of change(Deming, 1982) transition to the new level (Juran, 1964)

Situational factors Contingent adaptation to new conditions (Dunphy and Stace,1993; Nadler and Tushman, 1990;)

Emergent change Generalised implementation of emergent concepts (Mintzbergand Westley, 1992; Senge, 1990, 1997) shared meaning (Bohm,2004) and sense (Weick, 1995) create best solutions to problemsof the moment (Pascale, 1999) and so growth (Wheatley, 2006)

Leading change Wins, gains, change (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006; Kotter, 1996;Kouzes and Posner, 2007) satisfied followers expectations(MacGregor Burns, 1978, 2003)

Table VIII.Specific result

Commonality 9Learning Basis for dealing with future (Dewey, 1916) enable decision-

making and problem-solving (Kolb, 1984) change to themaster programme (Argyris, 1993) new paradigm(Kuhn, 1962)

Personal change A life guide (Campbell, 1949) meaning (Frankl, 2004) theessence of living (Fritz, 1989)

Helping Live more effectively (Egan, 2007; Rogers, 2004) healthyunconscious behaviour (TTM)

Social change Social equilibrium congruent with the environment (Lewin,1947; Schein, 1995)

System approach A continuously adaptive system (Beckhard and Harris,1987; Checkland, 1981; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Nadler,1982)

Process improvement Culture of Continuous Improvement (Deming, 1982;Hammer, 1990; Juran, 1964)

Situational factors In-built flexibility (Dunphy and Stace, 1993; Morgan, 1997;Nadler and Tushman, 1990;) to change

Emergent change Thinking together (Bohm, 2004) in learning (Senge, 1990,1997) sensemaking (Weick, 1995) dissipative structures,self organising systems (Wheatley, 2006) and generative(Pascale, 1999) organisations

Leading change Institutionalised new culture (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006;Kotter, 1996;) spirit of community (Kouzes and Posner, 2007)continued evolution of followers (MacGregor Burns,1978, 2003)

Table IX.The enduring benefit(new normal)

JOCM22,5

536

enduring benefit comes from the emergence of a culture of continuous adaptation andimprovement both for processes and people.

DiscussionThe aim of this paper is to identify common themes from a broad range of changeliterature in order to better understand the basic principles of the change process andso inform practitioner action and stimulate scholarly debate. The benefit of consideringboth organisational- and individual-based change models is that each brings a differentperspective to the stages of the common underlying change progression.

From the outset, the theoretically rigorous yet action-oriented approach of Dewey andLewin presented very compelling general philosophies, systemic methodologies as wellas more specific techniques and guidance. And, despite the breadth and quality ofliterature subsequently reviewed, the works of Dewey and Lewin remain the strongestinfluences running through the meta-analysis. Through Deweys rejection of theCartesian knowing-doing dualism (Bush, 1994) and Lewins obliteration of theresearch-practice boundary (Bargal, 2006) their work established the need for, andbenefit of, systemically-based action-oriented approaches to social research andimprovement a tradition to which this paper attempts to adhere. It is unsurprisingtherefore that Dewey and Lewin are not only key references within the field of actionresearch (Reason and Bradbury, 2001; Greenwood and Levin, 2007) but also theirongoing influence is explicitly acknowledged by many of the change theorists andpractitioners reviewed in this article. (Argyris, 1993; Checkland, 1981; Egan, 2007; Kolb,1984; MacGregor Burns, 1978; Morgan, 1997; Rogers, 2004; Schein, 1995; Senge, 1990).

Dewey (1910, 1916, 1927) argued that the purpose of education was to train the mindnot only to safeguard the individual but also to allow them to better participate in theimprovement of society through the process of democracy. Similarly, when Lewinurged us to realise that there is nothing so practical as a good theory (Lewin,1943/1944, p. 288), he did so to highlight that when theory and practice are linked itstrengthens that rational approach to our practical social problems which is one of thebasic requirements for their solution (Idem). With Dewey and Lewins aspirations inmind the following learning points, associated with each of the themes which emergedfrom the meta-analysis, are presented as potentially useful guidance for thoseattempting to help solve social problems and improve the implementation of change.

Pre-change paradigmOne of the strengths of counselling-based change models is that they identifypre-change as the first stage of the journey. In so doing they draw attention to theseminal importance of understanding the pre-change paradigm. This is significant as,without a paradigm which encourages active searching, organisations, likeindividuals, often ignore early warning signs and wait until a crisis highlights theneed for change. Too many companies needed scandals such as the collapse of Enronand Parmalat (MacMillan et al., 2004) to give corporate governance the attention itdeserves. And sadly it often takes diagnosis of a medical condition or the threat ofdivorce to highlight to individuals the need for a change in lifestyle or outlook. Manysuch organisational and personal crises could be avoided through regular, targetedstakeholder engagement. From the famed scenario planning of Shell (de Geus, 1988) tofamily discussions at the dinner table, the message is clear: make sure you know who is


537

important to you, regularly canvass their opinion on what they want, how you aredoing and what if anything could be improved.

Stimulus and considerationThe counselling-based change models also highlight the importance of raisingawareness to the signs of a potential need for change. Of course, in todays businessand social environment of 24/7 news, e-mails, Blackberries, mobiles, away days, teamand shareholder meetings, we are bombarded with external and internal stimuli thankfully not all of which signify the need for change. But the mere action ofconsidering the need for, or rationalising the reasons not to, change constitutes the nextdistinct stage of the journey. Active consideration from multiple perspectives, followedby an informed decision that the status quo is preferable, is a productive learningactivity. What must be guarded against is the denial that any stimuli exist. However, itis also important to recognise that, even when change is required, the disconfirmingdata is likely to induce anxiety which can prevent its acceptance as valid unless thethreat is balanced with positive visions (Schein, 1995). So whilst the nature of thepre-change paradigm will determine the tendency to recognise or ignore the stimuli, ineither case, the provision of Socratic questioning can assist in the achievement of therequired insight and balance (Pascale et al., 1997; Prochaska and Norcross, 2001).

Validation of the needIt is crucial to be really clear about who needs what, by when and why in order toestablish whether a compelling need for change exists. Newtons first law of motionapplies: overcoming the inertia of the existing status quo will require energy and onlyleadership can blast through the many sources of corporate inertia (Kotter, 1996, p. 30).At this point the transforming leadership model (MacGregor Burns, 1978, 2003) isparticularly appropriate as the transformational leader will take the initiative byarticulating peoples new wants and needs in the changed environment, thuslegitimising them and gathering support. The recognition of followers specific wantsnot only validates the social need for change but also secures support.

PreparationThe danger of a really energising need is that it may stimulate a premature reaction asopposed to an effective plan of action. Initiatives are regularly launched with no clearlyestablished criteria for success and, by implication, no means of achieving them. Evenmore frequently organisations start to change things without first establishing abaseline without which it is impossible to monitor progress or to quantify themagnitude of change required or achieved. Beckhard and Harris (1977) provide aprocess to avoid such mistakes by assessing the present system and clarifying thedesired future state; thus clearly identifying the scale of change required and allowinginformed options to be developed to mange the transition. However, such preparationshould not be done in isolation; early participation will uncover, at the very outset, theobjections which are bound to emerge as resistance later. If these objections are facedwhen proposals are still in a fluid state, the solutions are easier to find, and the personalrelations are less abrasive ( Juran, 1964, p. 152). Similarly early engagement of groupsin the planning phase provides an advantage in that:

JOCM22,5

538

[. . .] if one uses individual procedures the force field which corresponds to the dependence ofthe individual on a valued standard acts as a resistance to change. If, however one succeeds inchanging group standards, this same force field will tend to facilitate changing the individual(Lewin, 1947, p. 36).

Commitment to actMany change models correctly acknowledge the significance of the decision that acompelling need for change exists (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006; Kotter, 1996).However, an equally important decision is confirming that the planned action is themost effective and efficient way to deliver the required change. The status quo may notmerely be a level of equilibrium resulting from whatever forces the circumstancesprovide. Frequently, the level itself acquires value. Strong commitment is needed toovercome this inner resistance to break the habit to unfreeze the custom (Lewin,1947, p. 32).

Do-check-actWith a compelling need for change and an effective plan for its delivery, the changeitself should flow by necessity but this transition stage must be kept aligned.Whether it is a business improvement cycle of plan-do-check-act (Deming, 1982) or apersonal review of your goals, current situation, options and actions (Egan, 2007; Fritz,1989) the key message is that once the momentum for change has been successfullyestablished, what is delivered must be actively steered. You either lead the change youwant or end up managing what you get. However, within organisations such steeringmust not take the form of micro-management:

The leaders provide the vision and are the context setters. But the actual solutions about howbest to meet the challenges of the moment, those thousands of strategic challengesencountered every day, have to be made by the people closest to the action the people at thecoal face (Pascale, 1999, p. 91).

Specific resultsIf successful, the planned change initiative will deliver results which may range frommillions of dollars of increased revenue in a multi-national, to improved health for anindividual. In delivering such change the individual, or executive team, must learnfrom both success and failure. This ability to build learning and flexibility into theprocess of changing is a touchstone for ongoing success (Nadler and Tushman, 1990).But by the very nature of the fact that these are the results of a planned changeprogramme they are, by consequence, dependent on the maintenance of that consciouschange effort.

New normalBy contrast enduring benefits will only accrue when some new behavioural norm isembedded which continues to deliver the desired results as an unconscious by-product.When a month without a targeted improvement initiative or a day without exercise isunusual then business growth or personal fitness will be assured. Of course, as soon asit is established the new normal becomes a pre-change paradigm for whatever emergesnext. This realisation is crucial because:


539

[. . .] in times of change it is vital to be in touch with the assumptions and theories that areguiding our practice and be able to shape and reshape them for different ends (Morgan, 1997,p. 375).

Otherwise, we run the risk of being trapped within existing mindsets practice isnever theory free (Morgan, 1997, p. 377).

Meta-modelIt has been suggested that all social entities have similar properties and predilections[. . .] and because organisations are basically utility maximising entities they will sharemany behavioural characteristics with self-interested individuals (Staw, 1991, p. 812).Support for this position is evidenced by authors who have applied therapeutic modelsof planned personal change to metaphorically guide practices of plannedorganisational change (Grover and Walker, 2003; Matheny, 1998; Staw, 1991) as wellas those who have used models of organisational change to assist individualstransitions (Emiliani, 1998; Maxwell, 1993; Pedler et al., 2001). The meta-analysis inthis paper is an attempt to pull these, and other theoretical approaches to change,together by identifying the themes they all share in common.

The meta-model in Figure 1 is shown as a visual representation of thecoordination (Dewey, 1896) of change which emerges from the themes identified inthis meta-analysis. Where the meta-analysis served as a lens focussing the literaturedown to nine common themes, the meta-model should be considered as a prism illustrating the common themes but reminding the reader of the range of concepts andactivities which could be of benefit, at each stage. It can be viewed as a deductivemodel moving in a clockwise direction from Pre-change and this best represents theoverarching progression in most of the fields of change examined in this paper.

However, the derivation of Figure 1 means it is not only a model of change but also amodel of learning, and in the latter capacity it exists within itself. For example, within amacro phase of Do-check-act a stimulus may be encountered which sets of anothermicro round of learning and change as shown in Figure 2.

The resulting localised, or micro, new normal may in itself become a new macrostimulus in which case the model can reflect inductive or emergent change as shown inFigure 3.

Figure 1.A meta-model of change Pre-change New normal

Changeactiveconscious

Culturepassiveunconscious

Stimulus

Consideration Preparation Do - check - act ResultValidate

need Commit

JOCM22,5

540

Figure 2.Cycles of learning within

cycles of change

Pre-

chan

geN

ew n

orm

al

Chan

gea

ctiv

eco

nsc

ious

Cultu

repa

ssiv

eu

nco

nsc

ious

Stim

ulus

Cons

ider

atio

nPr

epar

atio

nD

o - c

heck

- ac

tR

esul

tVa

lidat

en

eed

Com

mit

Pre-

chan

geN

ew n

orm

alCha

nge

act

ive

con

scio

us

Cultu

repa

ssiv

eu

nco

nsc

ious

Stim

ulus

Cons

ider

atio

nPr

epar

a-tio

nD

o - c

heck

-ac

t R

esul

tVa

lidat

en

eed

Com

mit


541

When change is effective, learning also occurs between, and so informs, each stage of theactive progression. This would take the form of the application of lessons identified inorder that they become lessons learned. Learning is also responsible for creating thenew normal when fresh perspectives or behavioural norms are embedded into theunconscious, or culture. Such a norm might be an emerging mindset that constantadaptation is good. In this way, single-loop learning (applying lessons identified) canbe seen to occur above the line whilst double-loop learning (the new paradigm ofactively seeking stimuli) occurs below the line in the model. Using the meta-model ofchange in Figure 1, we can see that both deductive and inductive learning and change,when effective, progress through similar phases. By contrast Mindless change(Mintzberg and Westley, 1992) occurs when an idea is imported directly into theplanning or preparation phase and can be illustrated as shown in Figure 4.

As a result of bypassing consideration, and validation of the need, such an approachwill, at best, lack personal ownership or group commitment or organisational fit and, atworst, be a solution in search of a non-existent problem.

ApplicationThis paper set out to identify commonalities from a broad range of change literature inan attempt to present a useful guide for more efficacious implementation of plannedorganisational change (Robertson et al., 1992, p. 205). Support for the utility of themeta-model developed, as such a change guide, comes from the observation that thecommonalities identified in this paper also feature strongly within the consultancy

Figure 4.Mindless change

Pre-changeNew normal

Changeactive

conscious

Culturepassive

unconscious

Stimulus


need Commit

Figure 3.Inductive learningand change

Pre-changeNew normal

Changeactiveconscious

Culturepassiveunconscious

Stimulus


need Commit

JOCM22,5

542

literature. For whilst approaches to consultancy may be variously defined as Gestalt(Nevis, 2005) process (Schein, 1988), phase- (Block, 2000), or philosophy-based(de Haan, 2006) in essence they are all assisting progression through the same genericstages of change identified above.

Anderson et al. (2001) caution that, when organisational interventions are deliveredagainst popularist practitioner frameworks, the following areas are likely to suffer:

. the clear analysis of what the real problems are on the basis of reliable, currentevidence;

. the search through the records of previous attempts to understand and addressthese issues;

. the choice of development of interventions that are validly based on theory andresearch;

. the monitoring and evaluation of the process and outcomes of interventions interms of their total systemic effects; and

. the incorporation of the theory and practice of the interventions into thecapability set of the organisation (Anderson et al., 2001, p. 405).

However, as these are some of the specific phases of learning and change advocated by,and embedded in, the meta-model this suggests the chosen methodology of scholarlyconsulting, guided by the philosophies of Dewey and Lewin, was successful and thatthe product is worthy of the term pragmatic science.

Within such a Mode 1.5 knowledge production paradigm the conversation is notexpected to terminate in one round of investigation but rather create a virtuous circlethat generates its own further agenda (Huff, 2000). This agenda continues to evolve asthe meta-model is currently being used to successfully manage the British RoyalNavys Transformation Programme and the associated change management wasrecently adjudged an exemplar of good practice during a governmental audit (OGC,2007). A subsequent paper will present a case study of the use of the meta-model in theRoyal Navy and it is hoped that other scholar consultants will add to theconversation by applying and reflecting on the utility of the model in understandingand making change.

References

Allport, G.W. (1948), Foreword, in Lewin, G.W. (Ed.), Resolving Social Conflicts and FieldTheory in Social Science, Harper & Row, London.

Allport, G.W. (1959), Preface, in Frankl, V.E. (Ed.), Mans Search for Meaning, Pocket Books,New York, NY.

AMJ (2002), Replication, meta-analysis, scientific progress, and AMJs publication policy,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 841-6.

Anderson, N., Herriot, P. and Hodgkinson, G.P. (2001), The practitioner-researcher divide inindustrial, work and organisational (IWO) psychology: where are we now, and where dowe go from here?, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, Vol. 74,pp. 391-411.

Argyris, C. (1993), Knowledge for Action A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to OrganisationalChange, Wiley, San Francisco, CA.


543

Bargal, D. (2006), Personal and intellectual influences leading to Lewins paradigm of actionresearch, Action Research, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 367-88.

Beckhard, R. and Harris, R.T. (1977),Organisational Transitions, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, MA.

Beckhard, R. and Harris, R.T. (1987), Organisational Transitions, 2nd ed., Addison-Wesley,Cambridge, MA.

Beckhard, R. and Pritchard, W. (1992), Changing the Essence The Art of Creating and LeadingFundamental Change in Organisations, Wiley, San Francisco, CA.

Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000), Cracking the code of change, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 78No. 3, pp. 133-41.

Block, P. (2000), Flawless Consulting, Wiley, New York, NY.

Bohm, D. (1980), Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge Classics, London.

Bohm, D. (2004), On Dialogue, Routledge Classics, London.

Boyatzis, R.E. (1998), Transforming Qualitative Information: Thematic Analysis and CodeDevelopment, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Bush, P.D. (1994), The pragmatic instrumentalist perspective on the theory of institutionalchange, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 647-57.

Campbell, J. (1949), The Hero with a Thousand Faces, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Campbell, J. (1993), The Hero with a Thousand Faces, HarperCollins, London.

Cartwright, D. (1951), Foreword to Field theory in social science , in Lewin, K. (Ed.), ResolvingSocial Conflicts and Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, London.

Checkland, P. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester.

Comte, A. (1908), A General View of Positivism, Routledge, London.

de Geus, A.P. (1988), Planning as learning, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 70-5.

de Haan, E. (2006), Fearless Consulting, Wiley, Chichester.

Deming, W.E. (1982), Out of the Crisis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.

Descartes, R. (1968), Discourse on Method and the Meditations, Penguin Books, London.

Dewey, J. (1896), The reflex arc concept in psychology, Psychological Review, Vol. 3, pp. 357-70.

Dewey, J. (1910), How We Think, D.C. Heath & Co., Boston, MA.

Dewey, J. (1916), Democracy and Education, Macmillan, New York, NY.

Dewey, J. (1927), The Public and Its Problems, Henry Holt & Company, Chicago, IL.

Doyle, M., Claydon, T. and Buchanan, D. (2000), Mixed results, lousy process: the managementexperience of organisational change, British Journal of Management, Vol. 11, pp. S59-S80.

Dunphy, D.C. and Stace, D.A. (1988), Transformational and coercive strategies for plannedorganisational change: beyond the OD model, Organisational Studies, Vol. 9, pp. 313-44.

Dunphy, D.C. and Stace, D.A. (1993), The strategic management of corporate change, HumanRelations, Vol. 46, pp. 905-21.

Durkheim, E. (1938), The Rules of Sociological Method, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Egan, G. (2007), The Skilled Helper A Problem-Management and Opportunity-DevelopmentApproach to Helping, Thomson Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA.

Emiliani, M.L. (1998), Continuous personal improvement, Journal of Workplace Learning,Vol. 10, pp. 29-41.

Fernandez, S. and Rainey, H.G. (2006), Managing successful organisational change in the publicsector, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66, pp. 168-76.

JOCM22,5

544

Frankl, V.E. (2004), Mans Search for Meaning, Rider, London.

Fritz, R. (1989), The Path of Least Resistance, Ballantine Books, New York, NY.

Gersick, C.J.G. (1991), Revolutionary change theories: a multi-level exploration of the punctuatedequilibrium paradigm, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16, pp. 10-36.

Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994), The NewProduction of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in ContemporarySocieties, Sage, London.

Glass, G.V. (1976), Primary, secondary and meta-analysis of research, Educational Researcher,Vol. 5, pp. 3-8.

Greenwood, D.J. and Levin, M. (2007), Introduction to Action Research, 2nd ed., Sage, ThousandOaks, CA.

Grover, R.A. and Walker, H.F. (2003), Changing from production to quality: application of thesituational leadership transtheoretical change models, The Quality Management Journal,Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 8-24.

Hammer, M. (1990), Reengineering work: dont automate, obliterate, Harvard Business Review,Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 104-12.

Hendry, C. (1996), Understanding and creating whole organisational change through learningtheory, Human Relations, Vol. 49, pp. 621-41.

Higgs, M. and Rowlands, D. (2005), All changes great and small: exploring approaches tochange and its leadership, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 5, pp. 121-51.

Huff, A.S. (2000), Changes in organisational knowledge production, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 25, pp. 288-93.

Juran, J.M. (1964), Managerial Breakthrough, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Kolb, D.A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as a Source of Learning and Development,Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Kotter, J. (1996), Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Kouzes, J.M. and Posner, B.Z. (2007), The Leadership Challenge, 4th ed., Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA.

Kuhn, T.S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press,Chicago, IL.

Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967), Differentiation and integration in complexorganisations, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12, pp. 1-47.

Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1969), Developing Organisations: Diagnosis and Action,Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Lewin, K. (1942), Field theory and learning, in Cartwright, D. (Ed.), Resolving Social Conflictsand Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, London, pp. 212-30.

Lewin, K. (1943/1944), Problems of research in social psychology, in Cartwright, D. (Ed.),Resolving Social Conflicts and Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, London,pp. 279-88.

Lewin, K. (1946), Action research and minority problems, in Lewin, G.W. (Ed.), Resolving SocialConflicts and Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, London, pp. 143-54.

Lewin, K. (1947), Frontiers in group dynamics, Human Relations, Vol. 1, pp. 5-41.

Lichtenstein, B.B. (1997), Grace, magic and miracles: a chaotic logic of organisationaltransformation, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 10, pp. 393-411.


545

Lichtenstein, B.B. (2000), Self-organised transitions: a pattern amid the chaos of transformativechange, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 14, pp. 128-41.

Liker, J.K. (2004), The Toyota Way, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

MacGregor Burns, J. (1978), Leadership, Harper Colophon Books, New York, NY.

MacGregor Burns, J. (2003), Transforming Leadership, Atlantic Books, London.

MacMillan, K., Money, K., Downing, S. and Hillenbrand, C. (2004), Giving your organisationSPIRIT: an overview and call to action for directors on issues of corporate governance,corporate reputation and corporate responsibility, Journal of General Management,Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 15-42.

Matheny, J.A. (1998), Organisational therapy relating a psychotherapeutic model of plannedpersonal change to planned organisational change, Journal of Managerial Psychology,Vol. 13, pp. 394-405.

Maxwell, J.C. (1993), Developing the Leader within You, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN.

Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J.A. (1985), Of strategies deliberate and emergent, StrategicManagement Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 257-72.

Mintzberg, H. and Westley, F. (1992), Cycles of organisational change, Strategic ManagementJournal, Vol. 13, pp. 39-59.

Morgan, G. (1997), Images of Organisations, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA.

Nadler, D.A. (1982), Managing transitions to uncertain future states, Organisational Dynamics,Vol. 11, pp. 37-45.

Nadler, D.A. and Tushman, M.L. (1990), Beyond the charismatic leader: leadership andorganisational change, California Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 77-98.

Nevis, E.C. (2005),Organisational Consulting AGestalt Approach, Gestalt Press, Cambridge, MA.

OGC (2007), Review of the Fleet Transformation Programme, Office of Government CommerceReport, OGC Gatewaye ID: 081107, 8 November.

Optner, S.L. (1965), Systems Analysis for Business and Industrial Problem-Solving, Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Pascale, R.T. (1999), Surfing the edge of chaos, Sloan Management Review, Spring, pp. 83-94.

Pascale, R.T., Millemann, M. and Gioja, L. (1997), Changing the way we change, HarvardBusiness Review, Vol. 75 No. 6, pp. 126-39.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J. and Boydell, T. (2001), A Managers Guide to Self-Development, 4th ed.,McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead.

Prochaska, J.O. and DiClemente, C.C. (1982), Transtheoretical therapy: toward a more integratedmodel of change, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, Vol. 20, pp. 463-8.

Prochaska, J.O. and Norcross, J.C. (2001), Stages of change, Psychotherapy, Vol. 38, pp. 443-8.

Prochaska, J.O., DiClemente, C.C. and Norcross, J.C. (1992), In search of how people change applications to addictive behaviours, American Psychologist, Vol. 47, pp. 1102-14.

Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2001), Handbook of Action Research, Sage, London.

Robertson, P.J., Roberts, D.R. and Porras, J.I. (1992), A meta-analytical review of the impact ofplanned organisational change interventions, Academy of Management Proceedings,pp. 201-5.

Rogers, C. (2004), On Becoming a Person A Therapists View of Psychotherapy, Constable,London.

Romanelli, E. and Tushman, M.L. (1994), Organisational transformation as punctuatedequilibrium: an empirical test, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37, pp. 1141-66.

JOCM22,5

546

Rosenthal, R. and DiMatteo, M.R. (2001), Meta analysis: recent developments in quantitativemethods for literature reviews, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 59-82.

Russell, B. (1996), History of Western Philosophy, Routledge, London.

Schein, E.H. (1988), Process Consultation Vol. 1. Its Role in Organisation Development, 2nd ed.,Addison-Wesley, New York, NY.

Schein, E.H. (1990), A general philosophy of helping: process consultation, Sloan ManagementReview, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 57-64.

Schein, E.H. (1995), Kurt Lewins change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes towarda model of managed learning, Systems Practice, March.

Schein, E.H. (2002), Models and tools for stability and change in human systems, Reflections,Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 34-46.

Seligman, M.E.P. (2002), Authentic Happiness, The Free Press, New York, NY.

Senge, P.M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline, Random House, London.

Senge, P.M. (1997), Communities of leaders and learners in looking ahead: implications of thepresent, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 75 No. 5, pp. 18-32.

Stanley, T.D. (2001), Wheat from chaff: meta-analysis as quantitative literature review, Journalof Economic Perspectives, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 131-50.

Staw, B.M. (1991), Dressing up like an organization: when psychological theories can explainorganizational action, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 805-19.

van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (1995), Explaining development and change in organisations,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, pp. 510-40.

Weick, K.E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organisations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Weick, K.E. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), Organizational change and development, Annual Review ofPsychology, Vol. 50, pp. 361-86.

Wheatley, M.J. (2006), Leadership and the New Science, 3rd ed., Berrett-Koehler Publishers,San Francisco, CA.

Willson, V.L. (1981), An introduction to the theory and conduct of meta-analysis, Personnel andGuidance Journal, Vol. 59 No. 9, pp. 582-5.

Further reading

Argyris, C. (1976), Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21, pp. 363-77.

Argyris, C. and Schon, D.A. (1974), Theory in Practice, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2000), Five factor model of personality and transformationalleadership, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85, pp. 751-65.

Kuhn, T.S. (1996), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed., University of Chicago Press,Chicago, IL.

Porras, J.L. and Silvers, R.C. (1991), Organization development and transformation, AnnualReview of Psychology, Vol. 42, pp. 51-78.

Stace, D.A. and Dunphy, D.C. (1991), Beyond traditional paternalistic and developmentalapproaches to organisational change and human resource strategies, InternationalJournal of Human Resources Management, Vol. 2, pp. 263-83.

Yukl, G.A. (1989), Managerial leadership: a review of theory and research, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 15, pp. 251-89.


547

About the authorMike Young has been a key driving force behind Leadership Development and OrganisationalChange activity in the Royal Navy for the past seven years. His current post is that of ContinuousImprovement Team Leader for the transformation of the Royal Navy. Previously, he spent fouryears as Head of Leadership and Management Development following six years on attachmentwith the Royal Marines. He also commanded one of the famed Royal Navy Field Gun Crews.He is a graduate of the Joint Services Advanced Command and Staff Course, and holds twoMasters degrees with dissertations on leadership and change as well as a Doctorate in BusinessAdministration. He has published numerous articles on competency, change, leadership andorganisational development. He is a Chartered Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel andDevelopment, Fellow of the Institute of Business Consulting, Certified Management Consultantand Coach. His contribution to leadership development in the Royal Navy was acknowledged bythe award of an MBE in the 2005 Queens Birthday Honours List. He is a Visiting Fellow ofHenley Management College and, in his spare time, consults to a wide variety of organisations inthe fields of organisational change and leadership development. Mike Young can be contacted at:[email protected]

JOCM22,5

548

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

a meta model of change

Documents