adaptive chnge

8/6/2019 Adaptive Chnge

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/adaptive-chnge 1/20

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone of 20

Creat ing Organizat ional Capacity for Continuous and Adaptive Change

Submitted to:

Midwest Academy of Management

October, 2008

Sarah A. Malone Ph.D.

Benedic t ine Univers i ty

773/334-4784

[email protected]

KEY WORDS: Continuous adaptive change




Introduction Today‘s global business environment is dynamic and highly uncertain. Making sense of

rapid and complex environmental fluctuations in global markets, (Apfelthaler, Muller & Rehder,2002), and global interdependencies are presenting formidable challenges to continued

organizational viability. The current environmental conditions in which organizations now

operate, call into question classical theories of organizational change. Organizational membersand leaders are learning that the accepted wisdom about how organizations perform and change

is rapidly losing its relevance (Glover, Jones, & Friedman, 2002).

The agile and continuously adaptive organization is broadly agreed to as the idealorganization form. Examples in practice of this achievement evidenced in organizations ―not

born this way‖, however, are few and far between (Kanter, Stein & Jick, 1992, p. 5). Thechallenge organizations face is fundamentally one of constant change — they are always in the

process of ―becoming‖ (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002, p. 567), always in the process of ―getting from

here to there‖ (Kanter et al., 1992, p. 5). The there, however, is not a static state. There is

moving target — a constant set of continuously morphing conditions.

Throughout history, organizations have viewed change through the lens of a stable

business environment — an environment in which routine and order were dominant constructsthat framed business reality. Operating in an environment thought to be reliable, leaders and

organizational members acted with a sense of security and certainty (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002).

The classical response to change was to introduce change through ―silver bullet‖ (Schneider,1996, p. 10) interventions such as total quality management (TQM), reengineering, organization

redesign, new structures, processes and training programs. These change interventions, however,

at best achieved mixed results (Kotter, 1995). What leaders and organizational members nowbetter understand is implementing silver bullet change interventions is ―fruitless‖ (Glover, Jones,and Friedman, 2004, p. 15) without also developing and enabling organizational capacity for

continuous adaptation. As noted by Glover, Jones, and Friedman, implementing change

initiatives ―do not always create adaptation‖ (p 18).

A continuous state of change readiness and adaptation, an unending state of preparednessversus periodic initiation of change through planned change events, is fundamental to

organizational viability (Rowden, 2001). The new reality, agility and the ability to morph as theoperating environment changes are requisite for sustained organizational viability because there

is no fixed point at which the organization arrives at success; the organization is always in a

perpetual state of arriving. Change readiness and adaptation, an unending state of organizational

agility is no longer a nice to have set of skills — this capacity is now essential organizationalcompetency.

Organizational Change Perspectives: Context for the Study

Weick and Quinn (1999) note that the study of organizational change done in the 1990s

distinguishes between episodic, intermittent, and continuous, emerging organizational change.This difference, they note, is central to the evolution of the theoretical and operational

framework for organizational change. When viewed from a distance, the changing nature of

organizations appears as ―repetitive action, routine inertia, dotted with occasional episodes of revolutionary change‖ (p. 361). When organizational change, however, is seen from an ―on the

ground‖ perspective, (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002, p. 568), the interchange of organization

members‘ activities viewed as ―routine inertia‖ are revealed as multiple cycles of ―ongoingadaptation and adjustment‖ (Weick and Quinn, 1999, p. 361)of organization members‘ activities.




Feldman (2000) suggests that the key to understanding organizational change as an emergent and

modifying process is to examine the transformational character of ordinary human action.

In their article ―On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change,‖Tsoukas and Chia, (2002, p 568) pose an interesting question. They ask, ―What would be thebenefits if organizational change, both as an object of study and as a management preoccupation

were to be approached from the perspective of ongoing change rather that stability?‖ They offer three responses to this inquiry. First, one benefit would be enabling researchers to better

understand the organization‘s ―micro processes‖ (p. 568) of change. Second, they suggest it

would support acquiring a more comprehensive understanding of how change is actually

―accomplished on the ground.‖ Third, Tsouk as and Chia suggest that viewing change as an

ongoing process, a ―stream of interactions‖ (p. 569) and flow of positioned initiatives will help to

overcome implementation issues inherent in change programs.My interest and motivation for pursuing this line of inquiry is to-fold: First, my interest is

influenced by experiences and observations related to challenges organizations face when

dealing with continuous change. A seasoned practitioner with over 20 years experience in

organizational development (OD) and organizational change, I have long asked the question why

organizations are able to initiate change, yet are unable to realize ongoing changesustainability — why they do not have the capacity for continued and adaptive change. My

second reason for pursuing this line inquiry is the belief that further development of the body of knowledge in this research area will have significant implications for theory development as wall

as advancing practice.

Study Purpose and Guiding Questions

The purpose of the study was to gain a deep understanding of the phenomena that create

organizational change sustainability through discovering factors and conditions through

establishing causal relationships between and among these factors and conditions. The emergentdesign research strategy was to follow the data — allow the data to lead and guide the research

versus steering the direction of the study through a priori determinations. The study wasinitiated in fall 2005, during which time interviews were conducted with eight researchrespondents. Questions that guided this preliminary research phase were as follows:

What is organizational change sustainability?

What are the phenomena that create organizational change sustainability?

What are the causal relationships between these phenomena?

How do these phenomena / conditions bring about organizational change sustainability?

Literature Review Organizational Change Sustainability

The study of organizational change has a rich history — a history that has paved the wayfor contemporary exploration of the topic. The evolution of organizational change theory and

practice dates back to Frederick Taylor‘s work in the late 1800s through early 1900s (Burke,

2002). Taylor‘s thinking and his work with organizations were heavily influenced by theindustrial revolution. He viewed organizations as machines, studied them in scientific terms.

Following Taylor, several evolutions of organizational change were the forerunners of contemporary study and practice of organization development (OD). The Hawthorne studies




beginning 1924, industrial psychology which emerged during the late 1940s, survey feedback,

Kurt Lewin‘s work (1946) with T-groups and laboratory training, Eric Trist‘s work in actionresearch (1946), studies done at Union Carbide (McGregor), Exxon (Kolb & Shepard), General

Mills (McGregor & Bechard), Blake and Mouton‘s (1968) ―grid organization development‖ (p.37), and the evolution of the field of management consulting are forerunners to the contemporary

study of organizational change. In addition to classical change theory, contemporary research inthe research area of organizational change sustainability was consulted.

Schneider proposes that to achieve organizational change sustainability, the change must

be effected in both the organization‘s climate and its culture. He suggests that change initiativesfail because the change does not alter the ―fundamental psychology‖ or ―feel‖ of the organization

to its members (1996, p. 6). To sustain change goals and everyday protocols, processes and

routines (climate) must altered and these changes and these changes must significantly impactbeliefs and values that guide behaviors. Total organizational change reaches penetrates the

organization‘s way of existence, creating change in that which the organization becomes, notmerely change in what members do. Change penetrates throughout multiple levels of the

organization‘s architecture, culture and climate.

Frankford (2003) proposes that when beliefs are changed and when institution systemsand rituals to put these beliefs into practice are embedded throughout the organization, ―radical‖

(sustained) change is achieved (p. 512). Through exerting will and exercising choice, belief andinstitutional systems function in concert to bring about change sustainability. Frankford further

maintains institutional systems that align with cultural constructs are dynamically self-

sustaining — the rhythmically balance one another.

A study related to organizational change sustainability conducted by Rosenborg (2003)

discusses concepts of participative management and learning that occur in a ―complex setting‖(p. 64). In her research, she observed that during early implementation of change, organizational

members found it near impossible to achieve the stated desired results. Initially change was

implemented using a conventional approach, one that emphasized intended outcomes and results.

Rosenborg found that a focus on intended outcomes alone was insufficient to bring about theexpected level of organizational change. Participative methodologies and the creation of

networks were implemented. These approaches fostered self-determined learning, problem

solving, and self organized collaborative action. Rosenborg‘s study suggests that a dynamic,non-traditional approach to change, an approach that involves everyone, is self-driven,‖ ―self -

sustaining,‖ and fosters a ―new way of thinking (p78) about organizational change is required in

order to create the capacity for change sustainability.

Clark (2003) adds insight to this discussion. In early 1990s he conducted research in five

European universities and identified ―pathways of transformation.‖ His study examines the

passage these universities made ―from transformation to sustainability‖ (p. 99). He proposes

three underlying causes of their sustained change: (a) reinforced interaction among transforming

organizational constituencies; (b) continuous adaptation through incremental change; and (c)collective desire, commitment, and institutional will.

Clark‘s, Rosenborg‘s, Frankford‘s and Schneider‘s insights strengthen our understandingof the complex nature of organizational change sustainability. Their findings indicate thatmutually reliant concepts of institutional will, engagement (mobilization, systems (practices,

structures, methods,) learning (individual and organization, focus, and self-sustaining




collaborative action, are key ingredients for creating change sustainability within a complex

system.

Continuous and Adaptive Organizational Change: An organic and Complex System

In their book The Management of Innovation (Burns & Stalker, 1961), the authors draw adistinction between ―organic‘ and ―mechanistic‖ organizations. The central differentiatorsbetween the two are the environmental conditions within which each organization thrives.

Mechanistic organizations operate under relatively stable conditions, while organic systems(living systems) operate in complex and unpredictable environments — they adapt to ―unstableconditions‖ (p. 5). The nonlinearity of a living system makes it impossible to quantify it based on

―additive equations,‖ and as such cause and effect cannot be proportionally linked. Inmechanistic linear systems, however, cause and effect are proportional — output is equal to input

(Bloom, 2000, p. 2). Complex social systems are organized by webs of relationships that thrive

on information and are capable of reorganizing themselves in response to changes in the

environment (Wheatley, 1997). Fluidity, emergent response to the environment and adaptivecapacity are attributes found in the organic system Burns and Stalker studied. These

differentiating features, as others discussed in this paper, have significant implications on the

theory that emerged from this research.

Linking Complexity to Organizational Change

All organizations experience change and all, in some way adapt to shifting environmentalconditions. Yet, most efforts to bring about meaningful organizational change do not work

(Burke, 2002). Burke attributes these failures to ―times have changed‖ (p. 5), but organizations,

have not demonstrated capacity to effective adapt to rapidly changing conditions. Lawler &

Worley agree, arguing that to expect ―stable,‖ mechanistic organizations to perform well in

complex and rapidly changing environments is ―following a recipe for failure‖ (Lawler &Worley, 2006, p. 18). Many organizations rely on a planned change which is implemented

through the application of linear methodology (Cummings & Worley, 2005). Change in

organizational life, however, is ―messy and complicated‖ (Bloom, 2000, p. 2) It does not fitwithin the linear cause and effect theoretical model.

While the metaphor of planned change provides a way to view the enactment of change,

Burke (2005) calls for a deeper understanding of the nature of organizational change and thetheoretical foundation upon which the study of organizational change is built and guided.

(Lawler and Worley) 2006) agree saying in today‘s demanding and complex environment,

organizations have to be built on change not merely change as a result of a change program orsilver bullet intervention. Advocating for deeper knowledge of organizational change, Burke

proposes a synthesis of life science theory and organization change theory to better comprehend

and describe complex nature of living systems. Burke hypothesizes that living systems require

three interdependent characteristics; 1) pattern, 2) structure, and 3) process. This self-directedand self-organizing capacity is embedded in the system‘s DNA. Burke speaks of a living

system‘s process as the system‘s ―way of knowing‖ (p. 56). ―Knowing‖ he posits, can only beunderstood in relationship to a living system‘s interaction with the environment within which itfunctions (p. 57)

Similar to Burke‘s theory, Weick refers to the ―interlocked behaviors and organizing‖capacity of social systems (1979, p. 89). The emergent, self-organization of member actions

forms webs of interdependently contingent and interlocked actions throughout the organization.




Weick identifies connections and interdependencies as essential characteristics of complex living

systems (1979). Weick asserts there is progression from one emergent, self-organized process tothe next, and these overlap and meld together to create multiple combinations of self-formed

processes patterns designed to anticipate and respond to the environment in which they function.

Weick further maintains that more than one process is active at any given time and the ―speed‖

with which organizing processes adapt to environmental conditions varies (p. 145). Thiscontention supports the idea that living systems‘ processes are synchronous; they are non-linear,

non-isolated and have ‗open or fuzzy rather than fixed boundaries‖ that promote open flow,

exchange and integration of ―matter, energy, and information (Minus, 2005, p 34). Processes andcharacteristics essential to complex living systems form together (p. 145) to create a lattice of

distributed, aligned and interdependent activities.

The ability to collectively adapt to rapidly changing environmental conditions, link,

overlap and function holistically creates an illusion of messy state of affairs. Within themessiness, however, there is method to the madness — an inherent order exists even in the midst

of apparent chaos (Fairholm, 2004, p 1). Marge Wheatly (2006) similarly reflects that in today‘scomplex environment a sense of order materializes out of chaos when people exercise choice —

make decisions about what affects them based on shared meaning and values.

Methodology

Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory

Qualitative research methodology was the selected approach for conducting this study as

it provides a process for characterizing, examining, and interpreting insights discovered ineveryday experiences (Stokrocki, 1997). This methodology its well with my interest in studying

how organizational leaders, OD practitioners and scholars view understand and interpret (Rubin

& Rubin, 2005) their experiences with and perceptions of organizational change sustainability.

A holistic form of inquiry (Patton, 1990), qualitative research enabled me to bring who I am to

the research process — to intimately relate to the data — to explore the fertile terrain of diverseexperiences, perspectives, and insights — to tell a story honoring the complexity of many

representations and contexts (Rubin & Rubin, p. 2), including those from my own experiences.Engaging my scientific faculties, my ability to think abstractly and conceptualize complex data,

and my intuitive skills. The qualitative approach provided a way to become immersed in the

research process.The grounded theory research method consists of three major qualitative research

components, each of which is a building block and arterial medium for comparative analysis.

While each component is distinct, they integrate, overlap, and occur simultaneously. The first

component of the grounded theory methodology is data collection. As applied in this study, datawere derived from interviews. The second component is coding of data. Coding (open, axial and

selective) is the analytic method and associated procedures used to analyze and organize data.Coding results in conceptualization, data reduction, and the development, articulation and

relating of categories, properties and dimensions. Other coding procedures used in this studyincluded sampling, memo writing, and diagramming. The third aspect of grounded theory

research is the preparation of written and verbal reports (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

The study was approached with no prescribed or preferred theory, only an inquisitivemind eager to explore an area of study in which I was greatly interested. I entered the process

open to learning and trusting that deeper knowledge and theory would emerge from the data.




Figures 1, 2 and 3 while illustrated in linear form, attempts to show coding and data analysis as

dynamic processes moving continuously back and forth between streams of data and data pointsin order to discover, break down, and rebuild concepts to form meaning.

Open Coding In Vivo Coding

Researcher Comments

Figure 1. First Cycle Coding

Deep DiveOpen Coding Properties/Dimensions Categories

In Vivo Coding

Stream of Conscious Theoretical

Memo Writing Propositions

Figure 2. Second-Cycle Coding and Comparative Analysis Process

Deeper DiveQuotes Properties/Dimensions Categories

Stream of Conscious Memos Conceptual Theoretical Propositions

In Vivo Coding Ordering Conceptual Ordering

Researcher Comments

Figure 3. Third-Cycle Coding and Comparative Analysis Process




Data Collection —Responsive Interviews

The interview process was designed to stimulate respondents‘ recollection and sharing of

their experiences, perspectives, values and enabling characteristics of organizational change(Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Interview questions included open ended as well as focused inquiries

intended to solicit breadth as well as narrowly focused meaning. Intentionally, research

participants were engaged as conversational partners. They had key influence in shaping andguiding the dialogue and direction of the research. Together, we explored the research topic to

develop shared understanding. In the role of researcher, I had the flexibility to, in real time, adapt

to changes in direction, dept and scope of interview content, allowing for full, colorful, and

contextual exploration of conversational partner‘s experiences and perspectives.

Interview Design

The interview protocol was based on Appreciative Inquiry design. Appreciative Inquiry(AI) is an a pproach to inquiry that is about the ―search for the best in people, their organizations,

and the world around them‖ (Cooperrider, Whitney, 2001, p. 7). It is a systematic discovery of what gives life to an organization when it is most vibrant and performing at its highest

productive capability. Appreciative interview protocol was designed to focus conversational

partners‘ reflections on characteristics that give life to organizations as opposed to what is notworking and problems to be solved.

Using an Appreciative Inquiry protocol was relevant to the focus of the study. Prior tostarting the formal research, several organizational development professionals were informally

queried about experiences with creating organizational change sustainability within their

organizations. Surprisingly, each overwhelmingly recounted negative experiences. Based ontheir accounts and personal experience, I had a good sense of what organizational change

sustainability was not. During this process, I also became more aware that my interest was to

discover and study what organizational change sustainability was — what it looked like and what

circumstances made it possible. Based on this reflection, the decision was made to focus the

research for this study on an organization‘s sustained capacity for change; in other words, Iwanted to develop learning about what it is working within and what it looks like when

organizations demonstrate organizational change sustainability.The interview protocol consisted of five regions of inquiry. Each region explored a study

area consequential to the research. The purpose of the first region of inquiry was to facilitate

sharing a vivid account of conversational partners‘ stories. The second region of inquiry drewout and explored the characteristics of success. The purpose of the third region of inquiry was to

make visible values, essential qualities and distinguish this experience from other experiences

the conversational partner had with organizational change sustainability. Region four surfaced

and inquired into conditions, actions and behaviors required for characteristics, values andessential qualities to be present in the organization at all times; and region five explored the

leader‘s reflections on organizational change sustainability, and drew out key concepts related tohow the conversational partners envisioned and defined organizational change sustainability.

Each region of inquiry was explored through an appreciative open question, designed to explorebreadth of meaning. Each main question was assisted, should it be needed, with follow-up

questions designed to explore specific meaning and clarify understanding (Rubin, Rubin, 2005).

The interview guideline included the following questions:




Table 1. Appreciative Interview Questions

Region of Inquiry I Please share with me a story about a time when an

organization you were affiliated with functioned at its best inorganizational change sustainability?

(To draw out the story — what took place.)

Region of Inquiry II What contributed to creating organizational change

sustainability? What are the core factors and/or conditions thatmade this possible?

(To discern important characteristics of success.)

Region of Inquiry III What distinguishes this from other experiences you‘ve had

with sustaining organizational change?

(To discern positive core, values, and essential qualities.)

Region of Inquiry IV What would need to be in place for these attributes to becharacteristic of an organization all of the time?

(To identify requirements, conditions – circumstances,actions, and behaviors needed for change sustainability.)

Region of Inquiry V Reflecting on what has been discussed, how do you define

―sustaining organization?‖ What does it mean to ―sustainorganization change?‖

To determine key concepts related to the definition of

―organizational change sustainability.)

Conversational Partners

This research evolved as an emergent design, grounded theory study. The initial datacollection interviews were conducted with eight organization leaders who were practitioners and

scholars engaged in advancing change sustainability within their organizations or client

organizations. Leaders‘ backgrounds included secular, non-secular, profit, and non-profit sectors.Leaders were selected based theoretical relevance (Glaser & Strauss, 1999) and their

organizational change and change sustainability experiences. Roles of leaders who participated

in the initial data collection were: Director of organization development (OD) for a Fortune 100pharmaceutical company, Director of a U.S. government agency, Senior Pastor of a large

metropolitan Baptist church (former CEO for a national organizational development consulting

company), president of a large multiple business unit home health organization, Vice Presidentof human resources for a major healthcare organization, organizational development theorist,author, consultant and visiting faculty member of Benedictine University, Director of

environmental and security services for a major teaching healthcare organization and Associate

pastor for a large metropolitan Baptist church.

Based on the insights from the initial interviews, an additional 12 US OD leaders,scholars, and practitioners were interviewed. As with initial data collection, interviewees were

selected from profit and non-profit sectors and they were selected based on their OD and




organizational change work and study. Practitioners and scholars who participated in the

expanded research included: Internal consultant for a diversified financial services company,Doctoral program director with an independent university, Manager of OD for Europe, Africa,

and Asia with a global communications company, Sr. Leader of OD with a super regional

wireless company, Roman Catholic priest and activist, Director and professor, for an

independent university, Director of training and OD of an international pharmaceuticalscompany, Fire Chief for a suburban municipality, Scholar and OD consultant, Chief HR Officer

with a global real state and investment management company, Manager of global product and

sales training and development for a global interconnect solutions company, and scholar and ODconsultant. A total of twenty interview respondents participated in the study.

Grounded Theory Data Analysis

Data from each interview was analyzed using the constant comparative method (Glaser &Strauss).This form of discovery generates, properties, dimensions, and hypothesis. The approach

fuses data collection, data analysis, and theory development as a continuous and seamless

process that culminates in theoretical findings that are anchored in the data (Glaser & Strauss).

Classical data analysis methods as well as computer data analysis software were used toorganize and analyze data. ATLAS.ti data analysis software was used to organize and analyze

large amounts of qualitative data. The program provides a suite of tools for systematically

analyzing unstructured data. ATLAS.ti tools help manage, extract, compare, explore and

reassemble a large amount of facts, observations and materials from which conclusions can bedrawn in creative, flexible, yet systematic ways (Muhr, 2006). To supplement ATLAS.ti, 3/5

index cards were used for conceptualizing interrelationships among and between properties,

categories, and theoretical phenomena. Cards were written for each of the nine concepts. Inconstant consultation with the data and using speculation, cards were positioned, repositioned,

and repeatedly rearranged in an attempt to formulate and organize an illustration of the

theoretical construct interpreted and depicted in the data. Findings derived from qualitativeinterviews for this research were triangulated with a comprehensive literature review, knowledge

and ―preunderstanding‖ (Gummesson, 2000, p. 57) – insights gained through over 20 years

experience leading, designing, and facilitating organization change in organizations throughout

the U.S. and Canada.

Research Results

The initial set of data resulted in two crucial insights that established the base from whichfurther research was conducted. The first insight was a clearer understanding and articulation of

the topic under study —―sustaining organizational change.‖ this was profound breakthrough. The

fifth region of inquiry in the interview protocol asked respondents to define what ―organizational

change sustainability‖ meant to them based on their experiences.Key themes emerged from the data. These themes created the framework for the

following definition that was developed: ―Sustaining organizational change is the continuous,

anticipative, and adaptive movement (thinking and actions) taken by organizational members to

achieve a desired future.‖ This definition created the context for calibrating a clear definition of the topic as well as the naming of the research topic. This discovery resulted in recalibration of

the initial focus of ―sustaining organizational change‖ to ―continuous and adaptive change.‖




The second major finding made during the initial data analysis was the discovery that

higher level codes did not take the form of neatly constructed clearly defined concepts and causalrelationships. Emerging from the data were a series of nonlinear, inexact concepts — concepts

that appeared to be multi-dimensional versus singular in character. In addition, these concepts

appeared to be mutually reinforcing, interacting with and influencing one another. Based on the

findings from the initial data analysis, research questions were recalibrated and a second roundof interviews was conducted to broaden the inquiry and meet the rigorous standards for

theoretical saturation. Questions that guided the second round of data collection were:

What are the phenomena that create continuous and adaptive organizational change? What are the causal relationships between these phenomena?

How do these phenomena/ conditions bring about continued and adaptive organizational

change?The comparative data analysis from the twenty interviews resulted in the discovery and

interpretation of nine (9) multifaceted grounded dimensions of continuous and adaptive change.

These dimensions embody the concepts leadership, learning / teaching, systems, mobilization,

environmental savvy, focus, beliefs, will / exercising choice, and values concurrence. Table 2.

depicts dimensions of continuous and adaptive organization change and the groundedsubcategories that emerged from the data; provides descriptive narratives typifying participant

perspectives and experiences, and exhibits concepts embodied within the dimensions.

Table 2. Continuous & Adaptive Change Dimensions and Subcategories

Dimensions of Continuous and

Adaptive Organizational Change

Grounded Subcategories

Leadership Mobilize the organization. Set example, convey

vision, teaching / learning, and focus.

Mobilization Collaborative involvement of organizationalmembers in deciphering, planning and taking

collective action. Collaborative involvement of

stakeholders, participation and diverse levels of

organization members involved in the process.

Meaningful connections are developed. Hearts and

minds are engaged.

Learning/Teaching Maximize own potential. Create learning

opportunities for others, and maximize potential of

others. Believe in and promote collective and

reciprocal learning throughout the organization.

Environmental Savvy Understand current and future state. Scan, anticipate

and look for changes in the environment.Comprehend emerging internal and external

conditions, understand implication of actions.

Disseminate information throughout organization.

Systems Structure, methods, processes, strategy, models,frameworks and tools/measures to support learning,

align, alter and reinforce behavior are in place.

Focus Have an end in mind. Pay attention and keep what is




important in sight. Sustain cohesion of everyone

pursuing the same goal. Continuously link tactical

execution with strategy.

Belief Expectation of success. Confident in self and

others‘ ability to achieve success. See what ispossible; build success from shared belief and

values. Believe in individual and collectivepotential.

Will/The Exercising of Choice Intentional deliberation of multiple possibilities.Having resolve. Exercising free will / personal

choice. Take risks and take responsibility for

choices.

Values Concurrence Have shared values. Act with shared values.

Deeper analyses of data lead to three further observations. First, dimensions of

continuous and adaptive organizational change are multi-dimensional — dimensions overlap andmeld together, and embedded in their DNA is the intrinsic properties of the other concepts.

Secondly, each of the nine dimensions was adaptive — morphic in nature versus unvarying.Thirdly, the nine concepts, while distinctly different did not function independently. Instead, therelationship between them resembled, in form and function, that of an association — they were

interrelated, inter-reliant upon each other; they informed and were informed by each other. The

presence of these three characteristics (multi-dimensionality, inter-reliance, morphic nature)

reflects the holistic nature of CAOC.To capture and illustrate the dynamic and complex nature of CAOC, theory development

was approached from a non linear, non static perspective that accommodates the emergent and

complex nature of organizational change.CAOC is a multi-directional, multi-dimensional, inter-relational holistic system in which the

nine concepts act in concert to create the capacity for continuous and adaptive organizational

change. Six of the nine dimensions (environmental savvy, leadership, mobilization, focus,systems and learning/teaching) are fields where highly adaptive behaviors are initiated inanticipation of and in response to perpetual waves of environmental change.

Shared values and belief in individual and collective ability to achieve success constitute

the underlying and stabilizing force that informs and anchors behaviors and creates order in themidst of the sensation of chaos and volatility. Guided by values and beliefs, will/the exercising

of choice is the agent of change — the conduit for activating organization members‘ behaviors

and actions. Will/the exercising of choice triggers and sets in motion the organization‘s adaptive capacity. Figure 4 illustrates CAOC interacting with emerging environmental conditions.




Figure 4. Continuous and Adaptive Organizational Change

Legend: L = Leadership E = Environmental Savvy

M = Mobilization Lg = Learning/TeachingS = System F = Focus

B = Beliefs V = Values Congruence

WC = Will/The Exercising of Choice

Continuous and Adaptive Organizational Change: As Seen Through the Lens of

Complexity

Mobilization, Leadership, Learning/Teaching, Environmental Savvy, Systems, Focus,

Will/the exercising of Choice, Beliefs and Values Congruency are fundamental elements of continuous and adaptive organizational change. The interdependent aligned and synchronousworking together of these nine dimensions enacts capacity for continuous and adaptive

organizational change within an organization. This organizational capacity, embodies sixcharacteristics; they are 2) non-linear form and function, 2) multi-dimensionality, 3) adaptive

capacity, 4) maximized velocity, 5) diametrical forces and 6) relational dependency. Table 3

summarizes CAOC as a complex social system.




Table 3. CAOC Complex Social System

Complex system Characteristic Description

Non-linear form and function Fragmented, ―straight line,‖ (Franklin and

Streeter, 1998) and neatly orderedmeeting points delineating cause and

effect are not found in CAOC. The nine

dimensions of CAOC have ―open, fuzzy,

rather than fixed boundaries,‖ (Minus,2005, p. 34) and small changes in one or

more dimensions can have unsymmetrical

impact on the other dimensions.

Multi-Faceted and multi dimensional The nine dimensions of continuous and

adaptive organizational overlap and blendtogether. Embedded within each

dimension, is the essence of otherdimensions. These two features create the

multi-faceted, multi-dimensionalfunctioning of CAOC dimensions.

Adaptive capacity Adaptation occurs as a result of sensing,

anticipating and responding to changing

environmental conditions. Adaptation is a

way of existence versus a series of episodic events.

Speed and Velocity The nine dimensions adapt andreconfigure at different speeds and

velocities. The speed (how fast adaptationoccurs) and velocity (―direction aware‖movement) (Henderson, 1996) of people,

practices, systems and structures within

the (take out) seven dimensions, isinfluenced by external and internal

environmental change.

Diametrical Forces Values and beliefs anchor and inform

behavior and member actions, and

provide stability and a sense of order inthe midst of turbulence and chaos.

Relational Dependency Dimensions of continuous and adaptivechange function as an association — theyare distinct yet interdependent; they

influence and are influenced by each

other; they inform and are informed byeach other.




CAOC is viewed as a complex system that adapts to fluctuations in the environment. Figure 5, 6,

and 7 illustrate CAOC taking place throughout the inter-relational patterns among the nine

dimensions of CAOC, which flex and alter in response to shifts in the external and internal

environment.

Figure 5. CAOC Dimensions Responding to Internal/External Environment






Conclusion The nine dimensions that make up CAOC function as a complex living system in

continuous and adaptive relationship with its environment. The interdependent, aligned, and

synchronous working together of the nine dimensions foster an organization‘s capacity for CAOC. Seeing continuous and adaptive organizational change through the lens of a complex

living system has compelling implications for both the development of change theory and the

practice of organizational development and change.

Advances in knowledge and theory development will be stymied by usingsingularly dimensioned theoretical frameworks that promote the study of change process

depicted as simple cause and effect relationships. What is called for is a nonlinear, theoretical

framework that allows for multi-dimensional, multi-directional, holistic, and adaptive

illustration, and working understanding of organizational change. Advancement of knowledgewill come through theoretical models that support examination of (a) the relationships between

and among CAOC dimensions, (b) new ways of perceiving and talking about organizational

change, and (c) better understanding of the relationship between CAOC and environmental

change. Implications for the practice of OD and organizational change are also evident. The

discipline of organizational change is, by and large, practiced within the context of in-step,




episodic processes that assume change is achieved within a relatively fixed set of circumstances.

This static and linear view of change may have had relevance when marketplace dynamics werelocal, regional, or national. Today, an organization‘s ability to respond to constantly shifting andemerging global environmental conditions calls for a new worldview — a new way of seeing,

thinking about, and responding to ever-shifting environmental conditions.

Practitioners must discontinue promoting this less valuable and less valid view of changeand raise awareness that organizational change is not a noun — not a person, thing, or place that

the organization, at some time in the future, arrives at. Organizational change is networks of

people in action — people who are continuously predicting, preparing for, and responding tochanges occurring in the environment. The term continuous and adaptive organizational change

connotes continuous movement toward achieving a set of non-static strategies and goals that

flow in and through a constantly broadening, extending and often simultaneously contractingenvironment. It is a normal state of affairs, not the exception to the rule (Purser & Petranker,

2005).

There are two levels of implications for OD practice. First, practitioners must see with

new eyes and secondly they must practice with new understanding. Seeing with new eyes is

seeing CAOC as a complex social system — recognizing the dimensionality, interconnection, andinter-reliance that each of the nine dimensions has with one another – altering one, alters them all.

Additionally, the complex nature of CAOC requires balancing prescription and creative action in

the performance of carrying out the organization‘s business recognizing that within the dynamic

of CAOC, prescriptive and creative actions reside together in harmony.




References

Apfellthaler, G., Muller, Helen., Rehder, R., (2002). Corporate global culture as competitiveadvantage: learning from Germany and Japan in Alabama and Austria? Journal of World

Business, 37, No.2, Summer 2002. p. 108-18.

Bloom, S. (2000). Chaos, Complexity, Self-Organization and Us. Psychotherapy Review, 2, No.8, August, 2000. p. 1-5. Retrieved March 1, 2007 from

www.freeinfosociety.com/pdfs/mathematics/ chaos.pdf

Burke, W. (2002). Organization Change Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Burnes, T., Stalker G. (1961).The Management of Innovation, London: The Travistock Institute.

Clark, B. (2003). Sustaining Change in Universities: Continuities in Case Studies and Concepts.Tertiary Education and Management. European Management Journal, 16, 31-38.

Abstract obtained from Kluwer, 2003.

Cooperrider, D.L., Whitney, D. (2001). Positive Revolution in Change: Appreciative.

Appreciative Inquiry an Emerging Direction for Organizational Development .Champaign, IL. Stipes Publishing L.L.C.

Cummings, T., Worley, C. (Ed). (2005). Organization Development & Change, OH. South-Western.

Fairholm, M. (2004). A New Sciences Outline for Leadership Development, The Leadership &Organization Development Journal, 25. 369-383.

Feldman, M. (2000). Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change. Organization

Science, 11, 611-629.

Franklin, C., Streeter, C., & Warren, K. (1998). New directions in systems theory: Chaos and

complexity. Social Work , 43. Retrieved February 22, 2007 fromhttp://www.questia.com/read/500135862

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory strategies for qualitative

research. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

Glover, J., Jones, G., & Friedman, H. (2002). Adaptive leadership: When change is not enough(part 1). Organizational Development Journal, 20, 15-32.

Gummesson, E., (Ed.). (2000). Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Thousand CA:

Sage Publications, Inc.

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/pdfs/mathematics/chaos.pdf








Henderson, T. (1996). The physics classroom, lesson 1: Describing motion with words, speed

and velocity. Retrieved March 1, 2007 fromhttp://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html

Kanter, R. M., Stein, R., & Jick, T. (1992). The challenge of organizational change how

companies experience it and leaders guide it (pp. 3-62). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Kotter, J.P. (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business

Review, 73), 9-67.

Lawler, E., Worley. C (2006). Built To Change, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Minas, H. (2005). Leadership for change in complex systems. Australasian Psychiatry, 13, 33-

39. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

Publications, Incorporated. Purser, R., & Petranker, J. (2005). Unfreezing the future. The Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 41, 182-203.

Rosenborg, L. D. (2003). A facilitated approach to developing collaborative action in primaryhealthcare. International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management, 2, 63-80.

Rowden, R. W. (2001). The learning organization and strategic change. SAM Advanced

Management Journal, 66, 1. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001040001.

Rubin, J., & Rubin, I. (Eds.). (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Schneider, B. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable organizational change.

Organizational Development Journal, 24(4), 6-15.

Stokrocki, M. (1997). Qualitative forms of research methods. In S. D. LaPiere & E. Zimmerman

(Eds.), Research methods and methodologies for art education. 33-56. Reston, VA:NAEA. Retrieved April 30, 2006 from

http://www.public.asu.edu/~ifmls/artinculturalcontextsfolder/qualformsarted.htm

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for

developing grounded theory (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change.

Organization Science, 13, 567-582.

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html





© 2007 S h A M l P 20 f 20

Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of

Psychology, 361-386. Retrieved February 17, 2007, fromhttp://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001249962

Wheatley, M. (1997, Summer). Goodbye, command and control. Leader to Leader

Magazine. Retrieved April 19, 2007 from

http://web.sau.edu/RichardsRandyL/Leadership_Readings_Goodbye%20Comman

d%20and%20Control.htm

Wheatley, M. (2006, Summer). Leadership lessons for the real world. Leader to Leader

Magazine. Retrieved February 28, 2007 fromhttp://margaretwheatley.com/articles/leadershiplessons.html

http://web.sau.edu/RichardsRandyL/Leadership_Readings_Goodbye%20Command%20and%20Control.htm



http://margaretwheatley.com/articles/leadershiplessons.html






adaptive chnge

Documents