Content uploaded by Kenneth Kerber
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kenneth Kerber on Aug 23, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
CREATING A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH TO CHANGE:
Building Organizational Change Capacity
Anthony F. Buono (Corresponding Author)
Department of Management
Bentley University
175 Forest Street
Waltham, Massachusetts 02452
Tel: 781-891-2529
Email: abuono@bentley.edu
Kenneth W. Kerber
Kerber & Associates
ABSTRACT
Although many organizations are faced with the challenge of adapting to rapidly changing, often
unpredictable environments, the underlying conception of the change process remains largely
linear and mechanistic. Drawing on three different approaches to change, the paper explores the
need for a diagnostic orientation to implementing change and the concomitant challenge of
building organizational change capacity. Emphasis is placed on developing a sustainable
approach to change based on: 1) micro-level (acceptance of different approaches to change;
willingness and ability to change); 2) meso-level (change facilitative infrastructure, appropriate
resources); and 3) macro-level (facilitative culture, ongoing strategizing) interventions.
Paper submitted to the 2009 Society for Advancement of Management Conference
CREATING A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH TO CHANGE:
Building Organizational Change Capacity
ABSTRACT
Although many organizations are faced with the challenge of adapting to rapidly changing, often
unpredictable environments, the underlying conception of the change process remains largely
linear and mechanistic. Drawing on three different approaches to change, the paper explores the
need for a diagnostic orientation to implementing change and the concomitant challenge of
building organizational change capacity. Emphasis is placed on developing a sustainable
approach to change based on: 1) micro-level (acceptance of different approaches to change;
willingness and ability to change); 2) meso-level (change facilitative infrastructure, appropriate
resources); and 3) macro-level (facilitative culture, ongoing strategizing) interventions.
INTRODUCTION
A basic reality of the 21st century is that organizations and their management are faced with
unrelenting demands for change. Companies in literally every industry are increasingly being challenged
to both respond to and anticipate continuously changing competitive, market, technological and social
conditions to the point where change is described as the “new normal” (Jørgensen, Owen & Neus, 2008).
Yet, despite this reality, and a virtual explosion of research and managerial attention devoted to
conceptualizing and empirically testing a range of change management practices (cf. Abrahamson, 2000;
Beer, Eisenstat & Spector, 1990; de Caluwé & Vermaak, 2002; Higgs & Rowland, 2005; Kerber &
Buono, 2005; King & Wright, 2007; Kotter, 1996; Kotter & Cohen, 2002), successful organizational
change often remains an elusive quest. In fact, as a recent IBM white paper study suggests, the “change
gap” (i.e., the gap between an organization’s expectation of change and its history of successfully
managing it) has increased significantly over the past few years (see Jørgensen, et al, 2008).
On a general level, managers and other business professionals have become increasingly skilled
at reacting to external forces, conceptualizing a preferred future state, and implementing the subsequent
“plan” for achieving that well-defined end. In this context, however, change is largely viewed as linear
and mechanistic, as a series of discrete and, at times, traumatic events that need to be controlled to enable
the organization to achieve its goals. Given the onslaught of changes that a growing number of
organizations now face, however, this carefully planned approach is quickly becoming inadequate as
success in rapidly changing environments demands experimentation, improvisation and the ability to cope
with unanticipated occurrences and unintended repercussions. In essence, companies increasingly face the
challenge of sustaining continuous movement toward a largely unknown, emergent future state.
CREATING A FOUNDATION FOR SUSTAINABLE CHANGE
The literature has a number of discussions of “change readiness,” a mental state that typically
focuses on the extent to which organizational members recognize the need for a particular change at a
specific point in time (e.g., Cawsey & Deszca, 2007; Miles, 1997; Smith, 1996). Given this emphasis, it
is important to differentiate such change readiness, i.e., the ability to implement a specific change, from
change capacity – the ability of an organization to change not just once, but as a normal course of events
in response to and in anticipation of external shifts. Change capacity, which in essence is a broader
concept, requires a more extensive set of interventions.
Drawing on our observations and consulting experience over the past twenty years, the paper
focuses on the challenge of creating a foundation for sustainable change, enhancing an organization’s
capacity to successfully navigate an array of changes in response to and in anticipation of ever shifting
market conditions, customer demands and competitive pressures. As summarized in Table 1, our
experience suggests that building organizational change capacity requires focused intervention at the (1)
micro-level (acceptance of different approaches to change; willingness and ability to change), (2) meso-
level (change facilitative infrastructure, appropriate resources), and (3) macro-level (facilitative culture,
ongoing strategizing) of the organization (see Buono & Kerber, 2008; Kerber & Buono, 2007). In
essence, building change capacity involves a systemic approach to developing the organization in ways
that tap into people’s natural capacity to change by supporting change and making it a basic part of
organizational life.
-----------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about Here
---------------------------------
Intervening at the Micro-level
An important first step in building organizational change capacity is to understand the nature of
change and the various ways in which it can be dealt with. From a conceptual vantage point, there are
three interrelated approaches to implementing organizational change: directed change, planned change
and guided changing (see Table 2).
----------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about Here
---------------------------------
Directed change is driven from the top of the organization and relies on authority, persuasion and
compliance. Leaders create and announce the change and seek to convince organizational members to
accept it based on business necessity, logical arguments (rational persuasion), emotional appeals, and the
leader’s personal credibility. Directed change reflects a quick, decisive approach to introducing change in
an organization.
Planned change, which has become an increasingly popular approach to change management,
may arise from any level in the organization but ultimately is sponsored by the top. Change leaders and
implementers seek involvement in and commitment to the change by making extensive use of specific
actions, identified through research and experience, which mitigate the typical resistance and productivity
losses associated with directed change (e.g., Beckhard & Pritchard, 1992; Beer & Nohria, 2000; Kotter,
1996; LaMarsh, 1995). Underlying most planned change efforts is the Lewinian three-stage process of
unfreezing, changing, and refreezing: (1) unfreezing or releasing the organization from its current
patterns, (2) transitioning the resulting, more malleable, organization from its current patterns to more
adaptive ones, and then (3) refreezing the organization into a new set of patterns by weaving them into the
fabric of the organization (Lewin, 1951; Weick & Quinn, 1999). Thus, instead of simply creating and
announcing a change, planned change provides a “roadmap” that outlines a project management approach
to the change process. It attempts to create the conditions for people to become more involved in the
change process, identifying and encouraging key stakeholders to participate in both the form and
implementation of the change.
A very different approach to implementing change is guided changing, an emergent process that
can start at any location within the organization. It is based on the commitment of organizational
members and their contributions to the purpose of the organization. In the context of the over-lapping
changes that are characteristic of today's hypercompetitive environment, this approach attempts to take
full advantage of the expertise and creativity of organizational members, as organic changes emerge and
evolve, reconfiguring existing practices and models, and testing new ideas and perspectives. As
illustrated in Figure 1, guided changing is an iterative process of initial interpretation and design,
implementation and improvisation, learning from the change effort, and then sharing that learning system-
wide, leading to ongoing re-interpretation and redesign of the change as needed. The resulting spiral of
learning, innovation and development contributes to both continuous improvement of existing change
efforts as well as the ability to generate novel changes and solutions.
----------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about Here
---------------------------------
As suggested above, each of these approaches has certain advantages but each one has
disadvantages as well. For example, when directed change is used inappropriately organizational
members are forced to cope with the well-known and expected reactions of the recipients of the imposed
change – denial, anger, bargaining, sadness and loss (e.g., Kubler-Ross, 1969; Marks, 2003; Nalbandian,
1985). Similarly, while planned change creates an important capability in today's organizations, used
inappropriately it can still result in significant reductions in productivity, overwhelm organizational
members with its complexity, and alienate key stakeholders as a result of limited participation and true
influence in the process. A related limitation with planned change is a lack of flexibility in the face of
changing conditions. As experience has illustrated, planned change efforts often constrain the ability of
the organization to achieve its intended goals (e.g., Abrahamson, 2000; Kerber, 2001). Moreover, the
burden for initiating and sustaining the change is still placed directly on organizational leaders, from
identifying the need for change and creating a vision of desired outcomes to deciding which changes are
ultimately feasible. Finally, our experience suggests that guided changing, if used inappropriately, can
contribute to organizational chaos, as continuous changes and transitions confuse and frustrate rather than
enlighten organizational members and other key stakeholders. The need to constantly adapt and adjust –
the idea of “living in beta” (Wilson, 2008) – can be a daunting experience. A related resource issue is that
repeated iterations could easily burn up a fair amount of time and other resources without necessarily
“finishing” the process and moving on to the next change. Many people ultimately want organizational
change to end, rather than experience changing as a way of doing business that, in essence, never ends.
Acceptance of Different Approaches to Change
Given the reality that each of these approaches has certain advantages and disadvantages,
developing true change capacity entails the ability to move back and forth among these change
management approaches as dictated by the situation. In earlier work (Kerber & Buono, 2005), we
proposed two key factors that influence the appropriateness of each approach to change: business
complexity and socio-technical uncertainty.
Business complexity refers to the intricacy of the system, in essence, the number of different
components and extent of differentiation in the organization in which the change is to be implemented.
While there are no precise demarcation points between low and high business complexity, indicators
include such factors as organizational size and geographical dispersion, the nature of interdependencies
and related technology, the number of products and services, and the array of critical stakeholders. The
degree of business complexity increases the more an organizational change cuts across different
hierarchical levels, different work units and different geographic locations; involves reciprocal or team
interdependence; affects a range of products and services; and requires the buy-in of a number of internal
and external stakeholders. Thus, the focus is on the relative complexity of implementing the change
solution and what it will take to successfully introduce and sustain the change overtime.
Socio-technical uncertainty refers to the amount and nature of information processing and
decision making required for the change based on the extent to which the tasks involved are determined,
established, and/or exactly known. Some tasks are clearly analyzable, where work processes can be
reduced to repeatable steps. In these instances, organizational members can be directed to follow
objective, standardized procedures based on technical knowledge and managerial expertise. As the change
challenge and its solution become less clear and the correct solution is far more difficult to identify, such
directed or planned approaches begin to break down. In these instances, there is no organizational
repertoire of appropriate techniques or procedures, and organizational members must draw on their own
judgment, intuition, and expertise. While no precise demarcation points appear between low and high
socio-technical uncertainty, situations can be described as varying in the extent to which there are (1)
clearly known ways to approach the situation, (2) an understandable sequence of steps that can be
followed, and (3) an identifiable set of established procedures and practices (see Daft, 2001; Perrow,
1970). In low socio-technical uncertainty situations, the solution to the change challenge is known, while
in high socio-technical uncertainty contexts the solution is not known or even fully understood. When
socio-technical uncertainty is high, the problem itself is not fully described or clearly understood,
meaning that the search for a solution occurs simultaneously with the search for a clear definition of the
problem.
---------------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about Here
---------------------------------------
As illustrated in Figure 2, when thinking about appropriate approaches to implementing
organizational change, the primary driver of the shift from directed change to planned change is
increasing business complexity, while the shift to guided changing is driven by increasing socio-technical
uncertainty. As the dynamics of a particular situation change – and the relative business complexity
and/or socio-technical uncertainty shift – the approach to implementing the change should also evolve. As
an example, once an appropriate solution to a guided changing challenge has emerged (in essence,
decreasing the socio-technical uncertainty involved), implementation should then shift to either a planned
or directed change approach based on the relative business complexity of the situation and urgency of the
required change.
Enhancing Change Willingness and Ability
Much like the idea of emergent change itself, it is more effective to have the motivation to seek
out different approaches to change come from the organization and its members. While managers may
have the ability to undertake such change, many are often not willing to accept nor are comfortable with
the idea of ongoing iteration and improvisation. Thus, in getting managers to think more fully about the
challenges associated with organizational change, it is typically most effective to begin where they are
likely to be most comfortable – by enhancing organizational understanding of how to successfully lead
planned change in their specific context. As part of such discussions, managers typically begin to see the
need for a more iterative approach to change as they wrestle with problems and issues that are not clearly
defined.
In prompting the reasons underlying their frustration, organizational members typically point to
situations from their own experience that start with little more than a general direction, without a clearly
defined end state, because the solution (or outcome) is generally not determined, established or exactly
known. As organizational members discuss the nature of the problems they face, they also begin to
question the limits of planned change. At this point, it is useful to prompt managers to think about the
challenges and skills necessary to “move forward” in dealing with highly complex and uncertain
problems – reinforcing the ways in which business complexity and socio-technical uncertainty shape and
influence change management dynamics (see Figure 2).
Moving from directed change to planned change to guided changing – and back and forth as
needed – involves significant competence transfer from executives and managers to organizational
members as the latter become, in effect, the new change leaders (see Kerber & Buono, 2005). The
transition from directed or planned change to guided changing, in particular, can pose a significant
challenge for executives and organizational members, who are both accustomed to having the former lead
change. While resistance is clearly related to instances where people feel change is being thrust upon
them – especially when that change is associated with loss (Nalbandian, 1 985) – a downside of carefully
orchestrated planned change is that it might create an artificial sense of security among organizational
members that could limit reflection (Werr, Stjernberg & Docherty, 1997) and, as a result, suppress the
type of learning and improvisation necessary for successful guided changing. Organizational members
may also be reluctant to accept responsibility for identifying the nature of a required change – there is a
certain comfort in having leaders say, “Here is the problem and the solution.” At the same time, one of the
greatest challenges to the implementation of guided changing may be the unwillingness of upper-level
managers to let go of tight management control and embrace a messy, dynamic process that can involve
the entire organization (Buono & Kerber, 2008; Kerber, 2001).
In an effort to enhance the willingness and ability of organizational members to embrace change,
companies can place greater emphasis on selecting, hiring, evaluating and rewarding people based on
their ability to thrive on change. As a way of encouraging innovation and creativity, firms can also create
and support highly diverse teams – prompting, listening to and rewarding mavericks and trailblazers, so-
called “positive deviants” who “transcend the conventional wisdoms, discovering new and innovative
ways to function without creating conflict” (Seidman & McCauley, 2008). Finally, as part of an effort to
enhance the personal credibility of organizational leaders, it is important that organizations create a
climate of trust, honesty and transparency. Persuasive and ethical communication is critical, ensuring both
the clarity of the message and the honesty and trustworthiness of managers and executives. If
organizational members do not trust the change implementer and his or her message, their acceptance of
the change is unlikely.
Intervening at the Meso-level: Building a Change-Supportive Infrastructure
Directed change involves telling people what to do and how to do it, with little or no opportunity
for input about or modification of the change goal or process. In such instances, the infrastructure
supporting the change and the resources that are required for successful change tend to be minimal. Even
so, an important dimension of directed change communication is the ability to respond to the “so that”
question – “We are changing X so that we will be able to accomplish Y” – making certain that
organizational members fully understand the reason, rationale and expected outcome of the change (see
Ulrich, Zenger & Smallwood, 1999). Yet, while this approach is effective in low complexity/low
uncertainty situations, it can severely limit the development of an organization that is faced with more
complex and uncertain changes.
In confronting these latter instances, guided changing involves identifying an overall direction
and then giving people the opportunity to modify and re-define both the change goal and the change
process as needed. For this approach to be successful there must be open and lavish communication
across individuals and groups, with flexible systems and processes to allow for and support improvisation
and iteration, cross-boundary meetings to identify and critically assess new opportunities, and responsive
and proactive training and development that provides organizational members with the requisite skills for
such continual learning and experimentation. It is also important to have a sufficiently fluid structure that
allows groups to be easily formed and ended as needed, encouraging an open sharing of information,
knowledge and learning across departmental and work unit boundaries. Traditional planning and
communication strategies, which typically serve as the basic mechanism for work group-related
coordination, fall short of supporting the type of dynamic interactions and adjustments that contribute to
the ongoing collaboration required for more iterative processes (see Rico, Sanchez-Manzanares, Gil &
Gibson, 2008). The infrastructure should also encourage low-cost experimentation with new ideas.
Sometimes referred to as “no-budget knowledge management” (Hardy, 2007), emphasis is placed on
carrying out multiple initiatives that simultaneously improvise, test and iterate solutions and new
directions. Once a breakthrough emerges, however, it is important to shelter the effort with its own
budget and people.
Within this context, appropriate resources to support the change are critical for such emergent
change to be successful. As illustrated in Table 2, in addition to sufficient time, people and financial
resources, mindshare is critical. When people feel over-loaded and overwhelmed by organizational tasks
and responsibilities, they are often reluctant to engage in the type of experimentation, improvisation and
learning that is characteristic of guided changing. As part of this process, it is also useful to designate an
“owner” of the goal to develop organizational change capacity, a role that not only serves as change
champion but one that can ensure appropriate sponsorship for different initiatives as well. Resources must
also be available for continually scanning the environment for new ideas, encouraging contact with
external stakeholders (e.g., customers).
Intervening at the Macro-level: Creating a Culture of Change
While organizations typically emphasize stability, predictability and execution, a change-
facilitative organization culture is one that embraces fluidity, openness and learning (see Lawler &
Worley, 2006; McLagan, 2003). The ability to break free of organizational traditions and move away
from familiar rules and operating procedures, of course, is not easy to do. Indeed, the power of custom
and the status quo reinforce cultures that forestall the types of adjustments – especially in terms of agility
and flexibility – that organizational members need to embrace in unstable environments (see Thompson,
1994). At the same time, a change-facilitative culture recognizes that more traditional approaches to
change may still be appropriate in certain circumstances. It is imperative, therefore, that all organizational
members become better informed about the advantages and limitations of different approaches to change
as well as the broader context for the change itself as they develop a shared framework for thinking and
talking about change. In essence, the organization must strive to create a shared purpose supported by a
common language about change.
As part of this process, managers at all levels should be encouraged to embrace a stakeholder
orientation that emphasizes learning and information sharing, encourages questions and experiments,
values alternative viewpoints and tolerates mistakes in the interest of learning. A focus on simply getting
things done – and done right the first time – can quickly crowd out the type of reflection and
experimentation that is increasingly vital to success in today’s rapidly changing, hyper-competitive
environment (see Edmondson, 2008).
A related macro-level factor that affects organizational change capacity involves the
organization’s approach to strategy. In contrast to traditional approaches to strategy, Lawler and Worley
(2006) emphasize the importance of making “strategizing” the normal condition. This approach to
strategy involves thinking dynamically, focusing on the future, and stringing together a series of
momentary advantages, rather than attempting to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage. Although a
high change capacity organization certainly requires a shared purpose to provide overall direction,
strategies for achieving that shared purpose can change quickly based on scenarios involving future
markets, competitors, and opportunities. Combined with the type of change-facilitative organizational
culture discussed above, this dynamic approach to strategizing encourages the organization to keep pace
with, if not anticipate, external changes that are critical to business success.
It is important that organizations work to create a shared understanding through which
organizational members (1) are encouraged to think dynamically and systemically so that strategies can
change quickly, (2) are supported in their efforts to think about future markets, competitors, and
opportunities, and (3) are prompted to factor future scenarios into today’s decisions. In general, an
underlying goal is to create and communicate a change friendly identity both internally and externally.
A Case Illustration: Creating a Foundation for Sustainable Change
An example of this approach recently occurred in a client organization, a multi-billion dollar
global technology leader (GlobalCom) focused on information infrastructure technologies, services and
solutions, that was faced with a long-term, complex problem with uncertain dimensions. During a
workshop in which the different approaches to change (see Table 2) were examined, the senior
management team wrestled with how to best implement a large-scale planned change that would revamp
the process through which services are delivered to customers. In discussing the business complexity
involved in such a massive undertaking, it became increasingly clear that they were also dealing with a
higher level of socio-technical uncertainty than initially realized. As they worked through the process, it
became more and more apparent that a planned change approach would fall short of what they needed to
do, especially in terms of gathering input from their global field-based workforce, assessing local
practices and preferred service delivery strategies, evaluating and assessing this information in light of
customer needs and workforce expectations, and determining an appropriate cost structure and level of
service uniformity. During the discussion, the group re-visited the guided changing spiral (Figure 1),
using it to think through how a new service delivery model could be created and better integrated across
all of the key areas of the company, with an emphasis on improvisation and shared learning throughout
the organization.
As part of their analysis, the senior management team also focused on the need to enhance
GlobalCom’s overall capacity for change, using the illustrative actions in Table 1 to guide their thinking
about how they could begin to solidify an organization-wide commitment to change. A next step was to
create a series of webinars on “Mastering Change” that would capture this way of thinking, disseminating
it to its world-wide workforce, encouraging middle-managers and the field-based service delivery
personnel to explore, test and capture leading practices and share that learning on a system-wide basis. In
essence, starting with an understanding and application of planned change, where they initially felt most
comfortable, GlobalCom’s senior managers began to realize from their own experience that planned
change, while necessary and effective in many situations, was not sufficient for all situations. At the
same time, they realized that as the plan for the new integrated service delivery system was created
through this iterative process, once the uncertainties were resolved it would then take a planned change
approach to ensure world-wide implementation, with the need to continually re-visit possibilities as their
markets, resources and customer needs continued to evolve. The senior management team also began to
realize that the ability of the organization to accept and implement these different approaches to change
required appropriate resources, a change-supportive infrastructure, and a culture that emphasized the
importance of ongoing strategizing and changing.
A SUSTAINABLE APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTING CHANGE
Organizations and their management are quite capable of creating a sustainable approach to
implementing change if they focus the appropriate attention and resources on creating organizational
change capacity. As discussed in this paper, this effort requires focused intervention at the micro-, meso-
and macro-levels of the organization. Our experience suggests that once organizational members begin to
understand the various approaches to change, they are quite capable of determining the appropriate
change approach – moving back and forth between directed and planned change and guided changing as
necessary – if given the opportunity and support. As one moves from directed change to planned change
to guided changing, however, managers must be willing to give up control based on rules, procedures and
tight supervision and substitute an approach based on overall direction, principles, values and
commitment. At the same time, as the socio-technical uncertainty involved in the change is gradually
resolved, organizational members must be willing to accept follow-on planned or directed changes as
dictated by the business complexity and urgency involved. A shared purpose, supported by a common
understanding and language about organizational change, can readily facilitate such transitions.
Unfortunately, organizational members are all too frequently overly constrained by
infrastructures and cultures that are based on needs for control and predictability rather than what is
required by our rapidly changing environment. Companies and their management, however, can no
longer afford to rely on ad hoc approaches to managing change that are controlled from above, in essence
creating “self-sabotaging traps” that undermine their ability to effectively bring about needed changes in
their organization (cf. Edmondson, 2008; Jørgensen, et al, 2008). The key is to encourage and support
managers to broaden their change implementation repertoire by developing a common understanding of
the dynamics of organizational change, building a change-supportive infrastructure, and creating and
nurturing a change-facilitative culture. Although successful organizational change may seem to be an
elusive quest, the ability to execute change on a sustainable basis is an achievable goal if organizations
invest in developing their change capacity.
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, E. (2000). “Change without pain,” Harvard Business Review, 78 (4): 75-79.
Beckhard, R. & Pritchard, W. (1992). Changing the essence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. & Spector B. (1990). “Why change programs don’t produce change,” Harvard
Business Review, 68 (6): 158-166.
Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000). “Cracking the code of change,” Harvard Business Review, 78 (3): 133-
141.
Bennis W.G., Benne K.D. & Chin R. (1961). The planning of change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Buono, A.F. & Kerber, K.W. (2008). “The Challenge of Organizational Change: Enhancing
Organizational Change Capacity,” Revue Sciences de Gestion, no. 65: 99-118.
Cawsey, T. & Deszca, G. (2007). Toolkit for organizational change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Daft, R. (2001). Organization theory and design. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western/Thomson.
de Caluwé, L. & Vermaak, V. (2002). Learning to change: A guide for organization change agents.
London: Sage Publications.
Edmondson, A.C. (2008). “The competitive imperative of learning,” Harvard Business Review, 86 (4):
60-67.
Hardy, B. (2007). “Linking trust, change, leadership and innovation,” Knowledge Management Review,
10 (5): 18-23.
Higgs M. & Rowland D. (2005). “All changes great and small: Exploring approaches to change and its
leadership,” Journal of Organizational Change Management, 5 (2): 121-151.
Jørgensen, H.H., Owen, L. & Neus, A. (2008). Making change work. IBM Corporation.
<www.ibm.com/gbs/makingchangework> Accessed November.
Kerber, K.W. (2001). “Change in human systems: From planned change to guided changing,” in A. F.
Buono (Ed.), Current trends in management consulting. Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing, pp. 145-169.
Kerber, K.W. & Buono, A.F. (2007). “Enhancing change capacity: Client-consultant interaction and
emergent change,” Symphonya: Emerging Issues in Management – Management Consulting and
Global Markets, Issue 1, www.unimib.it/symphonya.
Kerber, K.W. & Buono, A.F. (2005). “Rethinking organizational change: Reframing the challenge of
change management,” Organization Development Journal, 23 (3): 23-38.
King, S.B. & Wright, M. (2007). “Building internal change management capability at Constellation
Energy,” Organization Development Journal, 25 ( 2): 57-62.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J.P. & Cohen, D.S. (2002). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change their
organizations, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Kubler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. New York: Macmillan.
Lawler, E.E. & Worley, C. (2006). Build to change. Palo Alto, CA: Kantola Productions, Stanford
Executive Briefings.
Lewin, K. (1947). “Frontiers in group dynamics,” Human Relations, 1 (1): 5-47.
McLagan, P.A. (2003). “The change-capable organization,” Training & Development, 57 (1): 51-57.
Marks, M.L. (2003). Charging back up the hill: Workplace recovery after mergers, acquisitions, and
downsizings. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, R.H.(1997). Leading corporate transformation: A blueprint for business renewal. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Nalbandian, J. (1985). “Human relations and organizational change: Responding to loss,” Review of
Public Personnel Administration, 6 (1): 29-43.
Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational analysis: A sociological approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Rico, R., Sanchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F. & Gibson, C. (2008). “Team implicit coordination processes:
A team knowledge-based approach,” Academy of Management Review, 33 (1): 163-184.
Seidman, W. & McCauley, M. (2008). Positive deviants rule! Cutter IT Journal, 21 (7): 16-20.
Smith, D.K. (1996). Taking charge of change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Thompson, L. (1994). Mastering the challenges of change. New York: American Management
Association.
Ulrich, D., Zenger, J. & Smallwood, N. (1999). Results-based leadership: How leaders build the business
and improve the bottom line. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Weick K.E. & Quinn R.E. (1999). “Organizational change and development,” in J.T. Spence, J.M.
Darley, & D.J. Foss (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology. Palto Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, pp. 361-
386.
Werr, A., Stjernberg, T. & Docherty, P. (1997). “The functions of methods of change in management
consulting,” Journal of Organizational Change Management, 10 (4): 288-307.
Wilson, A. (2008). Innovation tools for an innovation society. Presentation at the 2008 Copenhagen
Innovation Symposium, Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, Denmark (November).
[CONTINUE TO]
SHARE THE
LEARNING
SYSTEM-WIDE
[CONTINUE TO]
IMPLEMENT
ACTIONS
& IMPROVISE
[CONTINUE TO]
HOLD ACCOUNTABLE & LEARN
[RE-] ESTABLISH DIRECTION &
[RE-] DESIGN ACTIONS
Figure 1 The Guided Changing Spiral
Source: Adapted from Kerber and Buono (2005)
Low
Low High
High
Planned
Guided
Business
Complexity
Directed
Figure 2 Complexity, Uncertainty and Approaches to Change
Source: Kerber & Buono (2005)
LEVEL FOCUS ILLUSTRATIVE ACTIONS
Macro Creating a change-facilitative
culture
•
Emphasize learning and information sharing
• Encourage questions and experiments
• Valuing alternative viewpoints
• Tolerance for mistakes in the interest of learning
• Stakeholder orientation
• Shared purpose with a common language about
change
Ensuring ongoing strategizing
•
Creating a shared purpose
• Thinking dynamically and systemically so that
strategies can change quickly
• Examining future markets, competitors, and
opportunities
• Factoring future scenarios into today’s decisions
• Stringing together a series of momentary
advantages
• Creating and communicating a change friendly
identity both internally and externally
Meso Building a change-supportive
infrastructure
•
Frequent meetings to identify and critically assess
opportunities
• Encourage low-cost experiments with new ideas
• Recognize and reward those who support,
encourage, lead and share learning about change
• Creation of a fluid structure that allows the easy
formation of new groups
• Creation of systems to share knowledge,
information and learning across boundaries
• Responsive and proactive training and education
Providing appropriate resources
•
Designate an owner of the goal to develop change
capacity
• Devote resources to continually scanning the
environment for new ideas
• Encourage external contact with stakeholders,
especially with customers
• Appoint committed change sponsors for specific
initiatives
• Target key change initiatives with enough
resources to get public successes
• Shelter breakthroughs with their own budgets and
people
Micro Developing an acceptance of
different change approaches
•
Adopt a common, enterprise-wide framework for
thinking and talking about change
• Develop widespread knowledge about different
approaches to change and when each is appropriate
• Develop deep expertise about change in the
organization
•
Provide change coaching and consulting services
• Establish change agent networks to share best
practices, tools and insights about changing
• Debrief change initiatives with a focus on learning
from experience
Enhancing willingness and ability
to change
•
Select, hire, evaluate and reward people based on
their ability to thrive on change
• Form diverse teams to encourage innovation and
creativity
• Develop, reward and promote supervisors and
managers who enable change
• Enhance the personal credibility of organizational
leaders
• Listen to, encourage, and reward mavericks and
trailblazers
• Create a climate of trust, honesty, and transparency
Table 1 Building Change Capacity
Source: Adapted from Buono & Kerber (2008)
DIMENSIONS DIRECTED
CHANGE PLANNED
CHANGE GUIDED
CHANGING
Character
Top-down, hierarchical Linear, “road map” Iterative spiral
Change Goals (Ends) Tightly defined,
unchanging goal Clear goal, with some
modification as needed Loosely defined
direction
Change Process (Means) Tightly constrained Flexible, participative Experimental,
improvisation
Change Leadership
(Role) Tell, order, command Devise a plan to accomplish
the goal Point the way, guide and
watch over, instruct
Changemaker Dynamics Persuasion Influence, cooperation Collaboration
Pace of Change Urgent, fast, “just do it” Go slow during planning to
go fast during
implementation
Act quickly, improvise,
learn, react and continue
to iterate
Table 2 Differentiating Approaches to Managing Change
Adapted from Buono & Kerber (2008)
