Towards a Dynamic Description of the Attributes of Change

Abstract

Purpose of This Paper
The literature on change is characterized by a dichotomist view on the subject. The purpose of this paper is to try to consolidate the vast literature on the types and attributes of change in order to find a more homogeneous set of attributes.

Design/Methodology/Approach
A study of literature was executed on change articles and booksfrom 1970 onwards.

Findings
Types and attributes of change are largely studied in the change literature, but there is no general agreement on the attributes that can best describe the different types of change. Seven characteristics were retained that can define change in all its aspects.

Originality/Value
Change is approached not as a process changing a system but as a system by itself. Although the borders between the change system and the system to be changed are not always easy to perceive, this view seems to create a richer picture on change. A systems approach allows to define the dynamic attributes of change.

Key Words

Change, attributes of change, systems theory.

Introduction

The literature on change is characterized by a dichotomist view on the subject. This dichotomic approach has resulted in a cluttered jumble of change models that do not tend to promote the general understanding of this subject matter.

A systems approach can provide a way to describe change based on all the attributes of the change system. If organizational change is considered a system in itself, that system will show dynamic fluctuations during the change process that can be described based on the attributes of that system.

From an extensive literature researchof change articles and booksfrom 1970 onwards seven attributes of change were found. Using these attributes an organizational change system can be defined in all its aspects. This approach is also much better able to view change as a process of becoming than the static definitions resulting from thedichotomicapproach.

Systems TheoryandOrganizational Change

Organizations are often considered a system within the process approach to changeand there the process of a system change is also being investigated and described. Yet it is far less obvious to consider the change mechanisms in an organization as a system by themselves. However “the systems language has proven itself more suitable for getting to grips with real-world management problems than any other single discipline” (Jackson, 2003). Following the systems theory an organization can be considered to be a system containing both subsystems (production, accounting, administrative systems, HR system, etc) and aspect systems (hierarchic relations, data flows, etc). As such we can assume that the management of change is a system with a specific function within the organization, the same way that the HR system has its function. For the most part change systems are not developed in a formal way and as such they cannot be interpreted – hence it is rarely considered to be a system. Consequently there is little literature on a systems approach to the management of change. Only a few researchers are convinced of a systemic approach to the management of change itself (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992;Cao et al., 1999;Cao et al., 2000;Cao et al., 2001;Cao et al., 2003;Cao et al., 2004;Cao and McHugh, 2005). Indeed change itself has all the characteristics of an open system (Robbins, 1987;Katz and Kahn, 1978): Environment awareness. It is obvious that the change system is interdependent as its purpose is to change that environment, but it is also important to realize that the environment has an impact on the system. Feedback. The system continually receives information from the environment about its output so that corrective action on its activities is possible. Cyclical character. More and more students in change believe there is no real linearity in the change activities and if there are different phases in time, they are rather blurry. Negative entropy. Contrary to a closed system that runs out of energy because of lack of input, change as an open system can maintain its structure if it adapts itself to its environment. Steady state. The inputs create some kind of constancy that keeps the system moving. Differentiation. As the change system becomes more complex it will move toward growth and expansion. This can become a real danger if the expansion becomes unmanageable. Equifinality. A variety of activities can lead to the expected change.

A systems perspective allows of an analysis of the system’s structure and behaviour, where both the individual components and the interaction between the different components matter. A systems perspective on the management of change is better placed to position the different components of the change management that are not always obvious or clear-cut (Cao et al., 2004).

A systems perspective on the management of change also offers additional benefits:

-It is better placed to position the concepts that function as components or subsystems of the change management (Cao, et al., 2004).

-The system approach focuses on the interdependencies and interrelations between the different components. The qualities of change management are made obvious by comprehending the interdependencies(Robbins, 1987; Deschouwer, 1993).

-System attributes “turn up” as qualities that exceed the different system components and hence they do not appear when considering change in terms of processes(Harrington, et al., 1999).

-Change management can be put in its context by creating a system type of change because then it will be a subsystem in a bigger system.

Literature Review

The time period that was investigated has shown that a lot of attention was paid to the kind of change and the characteristics that can be distinguished between different types of change. Many authors describe only one or some of these characteristics and they attribute a normative value to it. When discussing one of these characteristics they will make a deviating classification in the way in which change arises. According to Ford and Ford it is the logic of the observer that defines the way that change is experienced (Ford and Ford, 1994). So it is no surprise that the larger part of the literature on change originated from criticizing models from other writers and taking an opposite point of view. Incremental changeis then opposed to Tranformative change (Dunphy and Stace, 1988); Episodic changetoContinuous change (Griffin et al., 1987); Planned changetoLogic incrementalism (Quinn, 1977)(Quinn, 1980 1980);Evolutionary changetoRevolutionary change (Pettigrew, 1985), First order change toSecond order change (Moch and Bartunek, 1990); Convergent change to radical change (Greenwood and Hinings, 1988;Miller and Friesen, 1982)etc.

This dichotomic approach to change resulted in a cluttered jumble of change models that – although they all contain an element of truth – do not tend to promote the general understanding of this subject matter. Moreover the change’s general usage is ambiguous and inaccurate (Marshak, 2002). Thus comparing the change that was handled with its principal characteristic without specifying the other attributescould cause a lot of confusion. For example the main quality of planned change is the degree to which change is being controlled. However there can be substantial differences in planned change – if only based on another characteristic such as the way in which this planning is done (participative/coercive).

In this respect Weick and Quinn distinguish between episodic and continuous change and as such they describe the frequency with which change is happening (Weick and Quinn, 1999). In this article, although otherwise quite worth reading, the terminology for defining these two types of change is sometimes used carelessly. Weick and Quinn indicate a substantial contrast between episodic, discontinuous, and intermittentchange and continuous, evolving, and incremental change. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary renders episodic, discontinuous and intermittent as synonyms, which obviously is not explanatory. Continuous change is said to be incremental, where authors move to another quality – the pace of change. However one can imagine continuous change that is not gradual but continuously transformative. Moreover episodic change is among other things called intentional (Control), slower (Pace) and incomplete (which is related to Dimension). These characteristics are not mentioned when continuous change is described.

Dunphy and Stace distinguish between incremental changes and transformations. They claim that this distinction is not a matter of speed (slow or fast) but of frequency (Dunphy and Stace, 1988). Ford and Ford describe the degree to which changes are being controlled when indicating the differences between intentional and unintentional changes depending on whether a change agent effects change deliberately or whether changes occur accidentally or as side effects (Ford and Ford, 1994). Huy discusses the aspects of time and content (Andersen et al.)ofchanges thataccording to him have been neglected in the literature(Huy, 2001). Marshak claims that multi-variable typologies are much better placed to grasp the dynamics of organizational changes (Marshak, 2002). This is initiated by means of a 2x2 matrix where two characteristics are being combined to have four variations. He opposes frequency (episodic and continuous) to dimension (partly or totally) (Marshak, 2002). Dunphy and Stace oppose the way in which(collaborative or coercive) and the pace (incremental or transformative)(Dunphy and Stace, 1988). Kenny puts level and goal in a quadrant with which the impact of a project can be identified (Kenny, 2003). Nadler and Tushman combine the scope (incremental or strategic) and the response to key external events (anticipatory of reactive) (Nadler and Tushman, 1989). Meyer et al. make a classification based on frequency (continuous or discontinuous) and level (organisation or industry) (Meyer et al., 1990).

The image of change with this method – althoughresulting in new perceptions – is still highly incoherent. Besides in this way 21 matrices are required to oppose the seven (system) attributes that were described in this enquiry. Yet Burnes succeeds in taking into account several factors. He puts two aspects of change as independent variables in a quadrant: the dimension (scale) and the pace (speed) of change. Other characteristics (object, level, frequency, control andthe way in which)are considered as dependent variables of these two aspects (Burnes, 2000). However the definition of the independent and dependent variables is entirely the author’s view since other combinations can be made as well.

Mintzberg and Westley are among the few with a holistic approach to change and who try to comprehend the different dimensions of change. They look upon change as a system of moving cycles where change shows itself on different levels and in different ways. In this way possible variations in content, scope, control, stages and frequencies are described and visualized (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992).

The systems approach to organizational change makes it possible to describe change based on all characteristics of change; after allthe change system presents all those attributes dynamically and at the same time. Fluctuations in one or more attributes are possible at any time during the course of the change process. This view better answers the description of change as a process of becoming than the static definitions resulting from the dichotomist approach to change.

Summarizing a change system can be described as follows. Usually the reason for a change will be a cause beyond the change system, more specifically within the organization itself or within the organization’s external environment.This cause may lead to a deliberate intervention where the change system has got to lead to the desired effects. However the system may be set in motion directly by external factors and result in unprompted effects. In addition the change system has its own dynamics that may generate unexpected or unwanted effects. The input for the system model of change can be one or more elements from the organizational context (strategy, structure, people, culture). This element experiences a change through the influence of the change attributes of the change system. The change attributes may vary depending on the input in the system. Thus in case of a strategic change other change attributes than with a cultural changeare involved. Moreover the change attributes will get another interpretation when they are being looked upon from other paradigms. Apart from the intentional changes that occur unplanned changes take place continuously. The system model of change generates specific individual or group effects, organizational effects and social effects. The organizational and socio-economic context affects the system which for its part affects its environment. The system gets a number of attributes by means of its action. We will dilate on these attributes in the following paragraphs.

Types of Organization Change

An analysisof the literature on types and characteristics of change gives the following impression:Most articles are about some type of transformation and the difference with adaptation. Beside this the distinction between planned change and emergent changehas been investigated many times. A lot of attention is also being paid to the distinction between discontinuous and continuous change as well as to the absence of change: stability or inertia. Finally also incremental change often is the subject of discussion. We will now enter at length into these aspects.

Transformation

Transformation is a frequently used term with a different content depending on the author.

It also happens to be a vogue word: change is everywhere and apparently transformation is since many years a higher kind of change, worth while to be investigated. But the exact difference with change is quite unclear and there is much overlap with other concepts in change management (Tosey and Robinson, 2002). The focus is more on change of the organization as an entity rather than smaller groups or departments, and it emphasizes the relation between strategy and change management. Hence the line between transformational change and strategic change is very thin and both concepts overlap. Transformation is compared with fundamental and discontinuous change that questions both the existing way of thinking and acting, and the established structures and patterns. With transformation not only the strategy and the structure will change but also the culture of the organization (Hope Hailey and Balogun, 2002). According to some authors organizational transformation can only be brought up when most of the staff members need to change their behaviour (Blumenthal and Haspeslagh, 1994). However behavioural change is also intrinsic to other typesof changebut only when the majority of the organization needs to adopt another behaviour can transformation be brought up. According to other authors a shift of paradigm, another mental pattern or other values and convictions are needed (Sheldon, 1980;Mezias and Glynn, 1993;Clarke and Clegg, 2000).

Argyris in this view speaks about double-loop learning. Double-loop learningoccurs when apart from asking what is going wrong, also the reason why is being questioned. Learning can only be brought up when a problem has been found and when a solution has been implemented (Argyris, 1977). Bartunek and Moch here refer to second-order change. First-orderchange is incremental and convergent, second-orderchange is transformational, radical and it fundamentally changes the organization (Bartunek and Moch, 1987). The organizationendures a metamorphosis(Meyer et al., 1993).

Chapman claims that Organization Development has evolved from a treatment of mainly first-order change to a more transformational change where a change of the attitudes, convictions and values is the main matter of importance (Chapman, 2002).

Schneider, Brief and Guzzo are convinced that for a permanent change Total Organization Change (TOC) is needed, a change which permanently modifies the “feel” (both the climate and the culture of an organization). TOC can be achieved by means of three ways of approach from three different philosophies: 1. the human capacity philosophy, 2. the sociotechnical philosophy and 3. the total quality philosophy (Schneider et al., 1996). Allaire and Firsirotu apply four types of radical change strategies: reorientation, rotation, revitalization and transformation (Allaire and Firsirotu, 1985). Appelbaum and Wohldefine transformation as creationof a new context, a new area of possibilities that did not exist before. The result of transformation is a fundamental change in three areas: financial results, industrial benchmarks and the context as it is being experienced by the staff members. Moreover the organization should be capable of perpetuating the transformation and thus of changing permanently or reinventing itself (Appelbaum and Wohl, 2000).

Creativity is an underexposed yet essential dimension when transformation is involved.

For a radical change of the organization it is inappropriate to use the trusted processes; instead creative thinking is required in order to realize really new things.

Notwithstanding the discontinuous context many change managers stick to the familiar incremental thinking that is based on known assumptions (McAdam, 2003). Fox-Wolfgramm, Boal and Hunt also state that often organizations cluster round a particular archetype (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985): the strategic orientation and inertia limit changes to what is in line with the archetype – which comes down to first-order changes (Fox-Wolfgramm et al., 1998). Business Process Reengineering (BPR) is a method to realize transformations;it makes use of innovative technology applications to radically change the way that organizational processes are implemented. Changing the staff members’ mental pattern is not obvious. There is a risk that people are obliged to switch from a specific way of thinking to another method while they do not quit sticking to the unitarian logic.

Planned change

Plannedchange is an iterative and cyclical process of diagnosis, action and assessment. The idea of it is to elevate the effectiveness of the organization’s human trait by focusing on the performance of groups and teams. The basic idea is that change is a common activity where managers, change agents and staff members involved jointly tackle a problem and reach a solution. The rationale behind planned change and organization development is a deep humanist and democratic conviction as well as putting emphasis on the elevation of the organization’s effectiveness.

According to Levy’sdefinition planned change:

  • Concerns the wanted, deliberate and explicit decision to begin a change program,
  • Reflects a process of change,
  • Involves internal or external professionalsupport,
  • Usually involves a strategy ofteamwork and power balancebetween the change agent and the system (Levy, 1986).

Intentionalchange takes place when a change agent deliberately and determinedly creates conditions and situations that deviate from the existing ones, by starting a series of actions or interventions all by himself or together with other people. Planned change then is starting intentional actions with the intention of achieving a particular result. This is done by drawing attention to the differences between the specificity of the desired condition and that of the current condition (Ford and Ford, 1995).Usually the process flow of planned change is: 1. Interventions change the 2. target variables of the organization, which has repercussions on 3. the staff members’ behaviour and in its turn on 4. the organization results.The organizationis seen as a context where individuals exhibit a specific behaviour. The working conditions strongly influence the behaviour of the individuals in the organization. In its turn this behaviour is decisivewith respect to the organizational results: the level of the corporate results and the level of the individual development. Interventions are activities started in order to realize changes in the working conditions with which the desired behaviour can be elicited (Porras and Silvers, 1991)(Robertson et al., 1993). Organization Development and socio-technical approach aretworelated kinds of approach for planned change.Themain differences between them originate from their historical background(Berger, 1992).