Revisiting Organizational Change: Exploring the Paradox of ...web.it.nctu.edu.tw/~uen/courses-2017-Spriing/Strategic Change... · Revisiting Organizational Change: Exploring the Paradox

Revisiting Organizational Change:Exploring the Paradox of ManagingContinuity and Change

SABOOHI NASIM∗ & SUSHIL∗∗

∗Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, New Delhi, India,∗∗Centre for Development of Technological Leadership (CDTL), University of Minnesota, USA

ABSTRACT This article presents a conceptual review of the repository of organizational changeliterature from the perspective of a ‘paradox lens’, highlighting a clear shift in approach fromtrade-offs (either–or) to paradoxical thinking. This reiterates the fact that ‘managing change isinvariably managing paradoxes’. An analysis of emerging concepts and frameworks present in asubstantial body of literature that advocate balancing the paradox of ‘continuity and change’brings to light a serious deficit of empirical research and actionable framework in the area.Addressing this research gap, propositions relating to the constructs of change, continuity andorganizational performance have been outlined for directed research in this area.

KEY WORDS: continuity, continuity and change, organizational change, organizationalmanagement, paradox

Introduction

Management literature is replete with thought, theories and models on organiz-ational change and its management, with articles contributing to change acrossdifferent academic disciplines (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995; Sturdy and Grey,2003). However, despite the scope of thinking by management gurus on changeand transformation, the voyage of change has not been smooth for a largenumber of organizations. A success ratio of 1:3 is rightly acknowledged byexperts as simply wasteful, from both a social and economic point of view.This reiterates the need for revisiting the existing repository of the epistemology

Journal of Change Management

Vol. 11, No. 2, 185–206, June 2011

Correspondence Address: Saboohi Nasim, Department of Management Studies, Indian Institute of Technology

Delhi, Vishwakarma Bhavan, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India. Email: [email protected]

1469-7017 Print/1479-1811 Online/11/020185–22 # 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/14697017.2010.538854

and ontology of organizational change management to explore the emergingalternatives beneath and beyond it (Sturdy and Grey, 2003).

A conceptual review of the extensive body of organizational change literature,undertaken in the first part of the article, suggests a clear shift in approach fromtrade-offs (either–or) to paradoxical thinking (Eisenhardt, 2000; Lewis, 2000),reiterating the fact that ‘managing change is invariably managing paradoxes’.Amongst the various paradoxical approaches, the concept of ‘balancing changewith continuity’ has gained momentum in our view, and has the potential toprovide a logical pathway in balancing contradictions in the ever-changingorganizational context. Drawing upon this, a case for managing the paradox ofcontinuity and change is presented in the second part of the article, analysingthe emerging concepts and frameworks advocating it. In the concluding section,the article highlights gaps in the knowledge and research base in this sphereand presents propositions for future research.

Organizational Change – A Conceptual Review

Reviews on organizational change invoke Heraclitean dicta ‘All is flux, nothingstays still’, ‘Nothing endures but change’ (Heraclitus, from Diogenes Laertius,Lives of Eminent Philosophers) while stressing the unprecedented change andtransformation around us, almost as a truism (Chia, 1999). Not surprisingly,explaining change has become a central concern and an enduring quest for organ-izational scholars (Perrow, 1994; Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). However, much ofthe theories and research on organizational change presented without rich contexthas drawn criticism, perceived as having caused more confusion than clarity intheir epistemological contribution (Mintzberg and Westley, 1992). Furthermore,Sturdy and Grey (2003) have comprehensively articulated the epistemological con-cerns of organizational change management as having a ‘pro-change bias’ and alsofor its ‘managerialism’ and ‘universalism’. They observe that the ‘pro-change bias’has taken an ‘ontological nature’, and even claim a ‘totalitarianism for change’,offering no option for ‘no change’. Against the backdrop of such concerns, arevisit to the repository of organizational change management is imperative.

Because significant studies surveying organizational change theories andreviews of empirical results already exist (Barnett and Carroll, 1995; Van deVen and Poole, 1995; Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999; Weick and Quinn, 1999),a different approach adding some value to the existing body of knowledge inmanaging change was considered. With ‘paradox’ becoming the ‘cliche of ourtimes,’ (Handy, 1994) and with ‘contradictions’ hailed as key phenomena forunderstanding change (Putnam, 1986; O’Connor, 1995), a conceptual review oforganizational change with what Luscher and Lewis (2008) call a ‘paradoxicallens’ is attempted here, in order to delineate the dominant logic (either/or vs.and/also) underlying organizational change theories and research, and identifyany observable trends.

‘Paradoxes’ have surfaced as a popular and prominent theme in various organ-izational studies (O’Connor, 1995; Vince and Broussine, 1996; Lewis, 2000;Whittle, 2006; Luscher and Lewis, 2008. True to definition, most researchersagree that paradoxes are expressions of contradictions and tensions challenging

186 S. Nasim & Sushil

formal logic and hence can be used as a vehicle for epistemological advancement(Putnam, 1986, 2004; Handy, 1994; Van de Ven and Poole, 1989; Luscher et al.,2006. Theorists and researches have strongly recommended exploring paradox orapplying the ‘paradox lens’ as it provides opportunity for greater understanding orsense-making in dynamic settings characterized by inconsistencies, contradictionsand polarities (Van de Ven and Poole, Van de Ven and 1989; Handy, 1994;Eisenhardt, 2000; Lewis, 2000). Because the vast repository of organizationalchange research is replete with polarized concepts and is inherently paradoxical(Van de Ven and Poole, 1988; Luscher et al., 2006, a revisit with a ‘paradoxlens’ seemed logical.

A comprehensive review of the literature on ‘organizational change’ was under-taken, to identify the underlying dilemma or paradox in explaining organizationalchange. A key word search on ‘organizational change’, ‘organizational changemanagement’, ‘organization change and paradox’, and ‘strategic managementof change’ across major online resources like EBSCO, ProQuest, Elsevier andEmerald, covering almost all premier management books and journals, provideda sizeable body of material for review and analysis from the said perspective.

Dominant Dilemmas In Organizational Change Literature

The dominant dilemmas, concerns and the emerging paradoxes in the epistem-ology of organizational change is discussed and summarized herein.

Planned vs. Emergent Organizational Change. A world renowned scholar oforganizational change ‘dedicated to changing the norms of the academy’(Argyris, 1989), Kurt Lewin is rightly credited with having created the mostdebated planned approach to change (Marrow, 1969; Cooke, 1999; Burnes,2004a). His ‘Three Step Model of Change’ (Lewin, 1958) – unfreezing,change, and refreezing – an unintended consequence of his other significant con-tributions on action research, field force theory and group dynamics (Lewin, 1951;Weatherbee et al., 2005), is deemed to have ‘changed fundamentally the course ofsocial science in its most critical period’ (Cartwright, 1951). The elegance andsimplicity of Lewin’s work on planned approach to organizational change con-tinue to influence both academicians and practitioners. Whereas authors likeBullock and Batten (1985; four-phase model) and Cummings and Huse (1989;eight-phase model) attempted improvising the model, Lewin’s concept ofchange and ‘action research’ laid the foundation for the specialized field of ‘organ-ization development’ (French and Bell, 1973), which is essentially a plannedapproach to change using ‘behavioral science knowledge’ (Beckhard, 1969).

Although the concept of planned change dominated the organizational changediscourse for decades, criticisms surfaced in the form of the new ‘emergentapproach’, largely focused on challenging the ‘planned approach’ (Bamford andForrester, 2003). Proponents of the emergent approach criticized the episodiclinear movement of change from one state to another, given the uncertainty andturbulence in the environment (Wilson, 1992; Garvin, 1994). Dawson (1994)too highlighted the limitation of the one-dimensional change interventions andthe need to link it to its complex business environment.

Revisiting Organizational Change 187

Static vs. Dynamic Models of Organizational Change. The challenge posed by theemergent perspective of change to the planned, endogenous and static models ofchange paved the way for ‘dynamic models of change’, reflecting the discontinu-ous nature of organizational change (Nelson, 2003). According to protagonists ofthe dynamic models of change, ‘organizations’ are dynamic fields of complexitychallenged by ever-present demands of ‘change’ (Burke and Trahant, 2000;Pettigrew et al., 2001). They further argue that change should not be conceptual-ized as a linear exercise in moving from A to B. ‘Change’, therefore, should beseen as a departure from the norm, or alternatively as a natural response toenvironmental and internal conditions (Leifer, 1989). Some of the prominentthinkers who made significant contributions to the dynamic view of changeinclude Pettigrew’s (1985) contextual and processual approach, the concept ofconvergent change by Tushman et al. (1986), Greenwood and Hinnings’ (1988)discussion of design archetypes, Dawson’s (1996) determinants of organizationalchange, Stace and Dunphy’s (1994) concept of fine-tuning and distinction betweenincremental adjustments and transformations, Mintzberg and Westley’s (1992)depiction of change as system of moving cycles, and Senge’s (1990) viewsbased on complex dynamic systems focused on learning.

Incremental vs. Revolutionary Change. Although a typological review of organiz-ational change is not intended, avoiding an introduction to the ‘incremental vs.revolutionary’ debate would surely render our review incomplete. For this isone of the long haul debates, analogous to the debates surrounding CharlesDarwin’s ‘evolutionary theory’ and Stephen Jay Gould’s theory of ‘punctuatedequilibrium’ (Mintzberg et al., 1998). The concept of incremental organizationalchange in strategy discourse owes its origin to Quinn’s (1980) theory of ‘logicalincrementalism’, which posited that continuous incremental change takes placein the organization, orchestrated by top executives. Nelson and Winter’s (1982)‘evolutionary theory’ too was related to Quinn’s theory subscribing to incre-mental, evolutionary change emerging from cumulative interaction among basicaction systems called ‘routines’.

As opposed to the incremental change theories, Miller and Friesen (1980, 1982)described change in organization as ‘quantum’, often revolutionary or radical innature, which led to ‘quantum theory of change’ (Miller and Friesen, 1984) and‘models of punctuated organizational change’ (Tushman and Romanelli, 1985).According to these theories, changes in organizations are marked by occasionaldramatic revolution or punctuations to overcome inertia, thus exhibiting twomodes of behaviour – one during stability and the other during revolutionarychange. Several other studies have supported the propositions of ‘punctuatedorganizational change’ (Greenwood and Hinnings, 1988; Gersick, 1991).

Piecemeal vs. Holistic View of Organizational Change. By 1985, one of the mostconvincing criticisms of organizational change literature, as being ‘acontextual,ahistorical, and aprocessual’ was offered by Pettigrew. Based on his seminalstudy of the Imperial Chemicals Inc. (ICI), he not only established the longitudinaland processual perspective of studying organizational change, but also highlightedthe importance of the context (Pettigrew, 1985, 1987, 1988). This drew the


attention of change researchers towards a more comprehensive approach of ‘why,what, and how’ for addressing organizational change. Several empirical andtheoretical studies have tried to be more comprehensive in their approachlinking the content, context, process and outcome of organizational changeinitiatives. While many reviews on organizational change have focused on anyone of these aspects, Armenakis and Bedeian (1999) organized a review ofresearch studies conducted during 1990–1998 across all these four aspects.

The ‘content’ or ‘what’ of change is one of the most researched aspects of organ-izational change. Burke (1994) provides a review of various content models oforganizational change between 1960 and 1980. Some of the content models,such as those presented by Burke and Litwin (1992) and Vollman (1996), focuson various content factors pertaining to strategic orientation, organization structureand organization–environment fit. Mintzberg’s ‘change cube’, however, providesa comprehensive view of organizational change. According to Mintzberg, ‘seriouschange in organizations includes the entire cube: strategy and organization, fromthe most conceptual to the most concrete, informally as well as formally’(Mintzberg et al., 1998, pp. 326–327). Besides addressing ‘what comprehensivechange in an organization really is’, Mintzberg’s ‘mapping of change methods’,ranging from micro to macro aspects of the various types of planned (programma-tic), driven (guided) and evolved (organic) change is indeed a simplified overviewof change processes (Mintzberg et al., 1998). Other models of change processesinclude Beer et al.’s (1990) bottom-up approach of ‘six steps to effectivechange’, Judson’s (1991) ‘five phase model’ of implementing change, Kotter’s(1995) ‘eight steps of organizational transformation’ and ‘Galpin’s wheel’(Galpin, 1996), comprising a nine-step process of change corresponding to eachwedge of the wheel with ‘culture’ as the foundation of each step. Armenikas andBedeian (1999) proposed two models – one to create readiness for change andthe other to facilitate the adoption and institutionalization of desired change.Oakland and Tanner (2007) have also developed an ‘organization change frame-work’ based on readiness for change and implementing change, emphasizing theneed to understand, measure and improve the core processes that link strategicobjectives and operational improvement for effective change. Adcroft et al.(2008), however, have attempted to provide a holistic view of change in theorganization explaining different forms and processes of analysis.

Macro vs. Micro Approach. Another contradictory theme that distinguishedresearchers on change was the ‘macro vs. micro approach’. Researchers focusingon factors affecting change at the organizational level subscribed to the macroview of change. While most of the earlier studies adopted this view, the focusof contemporary researchers of change notably continues to remain the same.Further, while exploring ‘Why change efforts fail?’ most of the recent studieshave focused on identifying factors critical for effective change at the organiz-ational level. For example, Washington and Hacker (2005) established the linkbetween the ‘knowledge of change and resistance to change’, i.e. managers whounderstand the change programme/efforts are more likely to be less resistant tochange; Khan (2006) reiterated the importance of ‘relationships and communi-cation’, Adamson et al. (2006) emphasized the importance of ‘story telling in


driving strategic change’, Kenny (2006) proposed the ‘learning based approach totransformational change’ and Chrusciel (2008) highlighted the significance of‘strategic change champions in the change process’.

Although most researchers continue to uphold the macro view, there arecritiques advocating the contrary view. According to Bamford and Forrester(2003), most studies being macro in nature, focusing on the organizational dimen-sions of change, neglect the individual perceptions and reaction to change.Tsoukas and Chia (2002) too, have argued for a reversal of ontological prioritiesin organizational change research – from a perspective of stability to continuouschange and from studying macro-processes to studying micro-processes. Buildingon this approach, Tsoukas and Chia (2002) presented the concept of ‘organiz-ational becoming’. According to them, uninstitutionalized microscopic changesgoing on naturally in the organization are by no means less important, as theymay even reflect the ‘actual becoming of the organization’.

The Need to Look Beyond ‘Change’

Published work on organizational change is not only ‘extensive’, full of frameworksand models, but also ‘ubiquitous’, be it books, practitioner or academic journals(Bamford and Forrester, 2003; Washington and Hacker, 2005; Oakland andTanner, 2007). Nonetheless, the record of change success is startlingly low(Kotter, 1995; Beer and Nohria, 2000a; Sturdy and Grey, 2003). Published estimatesof success from re-engineering or strategic re-orientations are barely around 30%(Hammer and Champy, 1993; Pfeifer et al., 2005). Surveys of European firmsshow a mere 20% reporting ‘substantial’ success with implementing change initiat-ives, with another 63% claiming only ‘temporary’ success (The Economist, 2000).Based on their own experience, Oakland and Tanner (2007) report that changeinitiatives do not deliver as expected, in fact the estimate of success levels couldbe as low as 10%, as against the average of 30% quoted by others.

This highlights the inadequacies of the existing body of knowledge on organiz-ational change management – no matter how indispensable it may be. Severalorganizational change researchers and theorists have called for reorienting andrethinking organizational science and management practices for a better changeoutcome (Eccles et al., 1992; Pettigrew, 1992, 2000; Beer and Nohria, 2000a;Weick, 1998; Tsoukas and Chia, 2002). Against the backdrop of the discussionon inadequacies and epistemological concerns, it is imperative to explore alterna-tive change resources text by revisiting the concept of organizational change andpresent the emerging dualities and paradoxes.

Exploring Alternatives: Paradoxes in Organizational Change Management

By the end of the 1900s, the bulk of the prevalent literature on organizationalchange was criticized as being ‘synoptic in nature’ – viewing change as an accom-plished event with its causes and consequences explored and described (Tsoukasand Chia, 2002). This led some thinkers to question the very notion of managingchange, thus making the whole concept of organizational change an ‘oxymoron’.Jim Clemmer (1995) in his book Pathways to Performance claimed that ‘change


cannot be managed . . . it cannot be made to march to some orderly step-by-stepprocess’. The best way perhaps to deal with change ‘is to allow for it to happen. . . setting up conditions where people follow their natural instincts to experimentand transform their behaviors’ (Mintzberg et al., 1998). A similar argument is pre-sented by Chia (1999), who proposes that the concept of ‘complex organization’ isan ‘oxymoron’. According to him ‘organization and change must be construed, notas complementary terms but as intrinsically opposing tendencies . . . These oppos-ing tendencies provide the necessary creative tensions for the natural process oforganizational evolution and transformation to take place of their own volition’(Chia, 1999, p. 210). Such views re-enforced the presence and significance ofthe paradoxes and dualities in organizational change discourses.

Paradoxes intrinsically present contradictions which may be a source of tensionsthat must be addressed. Over the years, management thinkers have deliberated andproposed several approaches to handle paradoxical situations: resolving (either–or), embracing, patching and balancing (genius of the AND). Resolving a‘paradox’ by adopting a simplistic ‘either–or’ approach may be tempting, butgoes against its very nature of being a true statement. While some thinkers havecalled for ‘embracing paradox’ and living uncomfortably with the tensionstherein (Dunphy, 2000), others have introduced the concept of ‘patching’ forsolving such ‘complex and conflict-laden tasks’(Kauffman, 1995; Eisenhardtand Brown, 1999). However, there appears to exist a greater consensus on the ‘bal-ancing’ approach, which calls for managing both the opposing forces, either alter-natively or concurrently, requiring the ‘genius of the AND’. As Collins and Porras(1994) put it, the ‘genius of the AND’ is the ‘ability to embrace both extremes of anumber of dimensions at the same time’ (p. 44). According to Collins and Porras,visionary companies figure out a way to integrate both A and B options in tandem,instead of choosing between A or B.

Whereas change management researchers have reiterated the need to recognizethe power of the ‘AND’ to achieve balance between the opposing forces (Evansand Doz, 1992; Pettigrew, 2000), March (1999) cautioned that ‘balance’ is a‘cruel concept’ requiring trade-offs in a highly sensitive context, and undoubtedlythe toughest of all managerial challenges (O’Reilly III and Tushman, 2004).March’s (1991) article on ‘exploitation and exploration in organizational learning’triggered research in the area of organizational ambidexterity, although the termwas first used by Duncan (1976). Citing the examples of three successful ambidex-trous organizations, O’Reilly and Tushman (1996) illustrated how organizationsbalance the tension between evolutionary and revolutionary change. Accordingto them, ambidextrous organizations have ‘the ability to simultaneously pursueboth incremental and discontinuous innovation and change’ (O’Reilly andTushman, 1996, p. 24). Birkinshaw and Gibson (2004) also explored the tensionbetween organizational alignment and organizational adaptability, and concludedthat organizations should be ‘ambidextrous to effectively reconcile these twotensions’. In more recent times, Raisch and Birkinshaw (2008) have extensivelyreviewed organizational ambidexterity, developing a model outlining the antece-dents, moderators and outcomes of organizational ambidexterity.

Another significant approach to managing the tensions/paradoxes inherent inorganizational change is the ‘Theory E and Theory O’, as postulated by Beer


and Nohria (2000b), different aspects of which were thoroughly debated by intel-lectuals in the field as a part of the conference on ‘Breaking the Code of Change’.‘Theory E and O’, according to Beer and Nohria (2000a), represent two paradox-ical archetypes of why and how change occurs. While ‘Theory E’ advocates aplanned change focusing on shareholder value maximization and following atop-down approach, ‘Theory O’ is paradoxically opposite, based on an emergentchange approach following a bottom-up leadership aiming to develop organiz-ational capabilities. For change to be effective and sustainable, authors argue infavor of the integration of these two theories – that might either be in the formof a sequence (i.e. E followed by O) or a simultaneous integration of bothapproaches. Concluding the theory, Beer and Nohria (2000b) state that ‘leaderswho break the tyranny of either/or and embrace the paradox of and/also aremost likely to break the code of change’ (p. 31).

Yet another emerging approach that seems to be gaining space and attention inorganizational change literature is the paradox of managing ‘continuity andchange’. Continuity and change have been traditionally treated as mutually exclu-sive elements in management discourses, as an invariable ‘either–or’ situation.Until the 1970s and 1980s when the environment was relatively stable and thepace of change was comparatively slow, organizations focused more on ‘incre-mental strategies’ (Quinn, 1978, 1980) with greater thrust on continuity. In thelast two decades, however, the increasing pace of change has compelledbusinesses to evolve a more flexible approach (Volberda, 1998; Sushil, 2000) tomanaging change and transformation, thus calling on them to strike a balancebetween change and continuity. Protagonists of such a view advocate not justleveraging change by managing continuity, but also managing both simul-taneously (Mintzberg, 1988; Collins and Porras, 1994; Volberda, 1998; Leanaand Barry, 2000; Huy, 2002; Sturdy and Grey, 2003; Sushil, 2005).

Reflection

When reviewed through a ‘paradoxical lens’, the organizational change literaturesuggests a certain persistent logic dominant in organizational change thinking,evolving or progressing from the logic of exclusion (either–or) to the logic ofinclusion (i.e. ‘genius of the AND’). There seems to be a clear shift from thedilemma approach – recommending one over the other – to a paradoxical think-ing advocating the balance of the opposing forces. Some of the early dominantdilemmas in organizational change theories and research include approacheslike planned vs. emergent, static vs. dynamic, incremental vs. revolutionary,micro vs. macro, and piecemeal vs. holistic views of explaining change. Organiz-ational theorists and researchers subscribed to the either-of-the-two opposing viewof explaining change, trading off one over the other. This approach to explainingorganizational change continued for decades until the inadequacy of the theorieswas demonstrably, reflected in the poor ratio of change success. While exploringthe reasons for the low rate of change success, researchers looked beyond theexisting epistemology, paving the way for a new perspective of definingchange, calling for balancing the opposing views rather than choosing oneover the other. This marked a clear shift from the ‘logic of exclusion’ of the


‘either/or’ to the ‘logic of inclusion’ of the ‘and/also’, allowing the emergence ofideas like managing both evolutionary and revolutionary changes (theory ofpunctuated equilibrium), balancing Theory E and Theory O, developing strategicambidexterity to exploit as well as explore, managing continuity to leveragechange, etc. A summary of the conceptual review of organizational changefrom paradoxical perspective is presented in Table 1.

We may therefore conclude that ‘managing organizational change invariablyrequires balancing paradoxes’. Because the paradox of managing ‘continuityand change’ has attracted considerable attention and shows promise of sufficientpotential to provide a logical way forward, it is imperative to delve deeper into theconcept, which is now deliberated at length.

Managing the Paradox of Continity and Change

Building upon the need to manage the paradox of continuity and change for effectiveoutcomes, we present persuasive arguments in favour of this by reviewing emergingapproaches that attempt to manage the confluence of both – continuity and change.

Continuity and Change: A Case for Confluence

The notion of continuity and change had been acknowledged as far back as Lewin(1947) in his exposition on ‘field theory. He posited that ‘change and constancy arerelative concepts; group life is never without change, merely differences in theamount and type of change exist’ (Lewin, 1947, p. 199). Mintzberg et al. (1998)too, after exploring the wilderness of strategic management literature admittedthat ‘despite all current hype about change not all organizations need to changeall the time’ (p. 331). This concept was, however, popularized in the businesspress after Collins and Porras (1994) highlighted in their much celebrated bookBuilt to Last that the ‘ability to manage continuity and change is the secret to anenduring great company’ (p. xv). Researchers further argued that althoughradical changes may be required for organizational adaptation, continuity andchange are simultaneously present in an organization and need to be balanced forcontinuous adaptation over the long term (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997; Leanaand Barry, 2000). Tension between continuity and change is thus an inevitablepart of organizational life and change leadership must balance both (Leana andBarry, 2000; Burke and Trahant, 2000; Pettigrew et al., 2001). Huy (2002),further suggested that this tension between continuity and change exists at theindividual level also and that a part of continuity-change trade-off requires emotion-al balancing of the middle level managers especially during periods of radicalchange.

Sturdy and Grey (2003), elaborating on how to manage continuity and changesuggest that ‘continuity and change be managed not as alternative states but asco-existent ones’ (p. 652). They further state that it is imperative for managerstoday to embrace stability and learn to manage continuity if they want to survive.Bianco and Schermerhorn (2006) also reiterated that ‘organizational leadershipshould allow for coexistent states of both continuity and change’ (p. 466).Practitioners have also testified and extended support to this idea. Martinez


Table 1. Paradoxical views dominating organizational change literature

Dominant views onorganizational change Theme/author/year Paradoxical logic

Planned vs. emergent Planned view of change – Organizationalchange is a series of pre-planned stepsLewin (1951), Schein (1985),Bullock and Batten (1985),Cummings and Huse (1989)Emergent view of change – Challengedthe planned view given theincreasing uncertaintyin the environmentWilson (1992), Garvin (1994)

Either/or

Static/episodicvs. dynamic

Static/episodic view of change – Subscribe tothe planned view depicting change asmovement from one fixed state to anotherLewin (1958), Bullock and Batten (1985),Cummings and Huse (1989)Dynamic view of change – Change shouldnot be conceptualized as a linear exercise inmoving from A to B, but a natural response toenvironmental and internal conditionsPettigrew (1985), Tushman et al. (1986),Greenwood and Hinning (1988), Leifer(1989), Senge (1990), Mintzberg andWestley (1992), Stace and Dunphy (1994),Dawson (1996)

Either/or

Incrementalvs. revolutionary

Incremental view of change – Continuousincremental change takes place in theorganization orchestrated by top executives.Quinn (1980), Nelson and Winter (1982)Revolutionary view of change – Describeschange in organization as ‘quantum’,whichis often revolutionary or radical in natureMiller and Friesen (1980, 1982, 1984),Tushman and Romanelli (1985)

Either/or

Piecemeal vs. holistic Piecemeal view of change – Narrow focus oneither content or process or context oroutcome of organizational change.Focus on content, e.g. Burke and Litwin(1992) and Vollman (1996); Focus onprocess, e.g. Beer et al. (1990), Kotter(1995), Galpin (1996)Holistic view of change – Comprehensiveapproach of ‘why, what, and how’ foraddressing organizational change linkingthe content, context, process and outcome ofthe change initiativesPettigrew (1985, 1987, 1988), Damanpour(1991), Mintzberg et al. (1998), Oakland andTanner (2007),Adcroft et al. (2008).

Either/or

(Continued)


(1997) – CEO cum change agent of a 125-year-old retail giant – in his narration onthe transformation of his company (Sears Roebuck & Co.), admits that ‘managingchange and continuity simultaneously – is a task far more delicate than managingchange alone’ (p. 31). He went on to recommend the line of investigation to bepursued in order to identify the elements of continuity or things to be preserved inan organization. Virgil Carter, the then Executive Director of the AmericanSociety of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), is also credited with reversing a six-year trend of deficit financial performance by implementing his famous ‘Continuityand Change’ programme for governance and business operations at ASME(Falcioni, 2008).

Table 1. Continued

Dominant views onorganizational change Theme/author/year Paradoxical logic

Macro vs. micro Macro view of change – Focusing theorganizational dimensions of change whileexploring ‘Why change efforts fail?’, havere-iterated the importance of certain factorsfor effective change.Washington and Hacker (2005), Adamsonet al. (2006), Kenny (2006), Khan (2006),Chrusciel (2008).Micro view of change – Focus on micro/individual perceptions and reactions tochange.Clemmer (1995), Chia (1999), Tsoukas andChia (2002)

Either/or

Epistemologicalconcerns: imperativesforexploring alternatives

Reorienting and rethinking organizationalscience and management practices for abetter change outcomeEccles et al. (1992), Pettigrew (1992, 2000),Weick (1998), Beer and Nohria (2000),Tsoukas and Chia (2002)

Recommended logicof inclusion

Exploitation andexploration

Need for ambidextrous organizations tobalance both ‘Exploitation and Exploration’approach.March (1991), Tushman and Reilly III(1996), Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004),Reilly III and Tushman (2004), Raisch andBirkinshaw (2008)

And/also

Theory E and Theory O Represent two paradoxical archetypes of whyand how change occurs. Authors recommendthe integration of these two theories.Beer and Nohria (2000a, 2000b)

And/also

Continuity and change Protagonists of such a view, advocate not justleveraging change with continuity but alsomanaging both simultaneously.Mintzberg (1988), Collins and Porras (1994),Volberda (1998), Leana and Barry (2000),Huy (2002), Sturdy and Grey (2003), Sushil(2005, 2009), Burchell and Kolb (2006)

And/also


Strategic Frameworks for Managing the Confluence of Continuity and Change

One of the earliest schools of thought on reconciling change and continuity instrategy making was recommended by Mintzberg (1988) in his excerpts on ‘craft-ing strategy’. Since then, management writers have tried to draw attention towardsthe need to manage change and continuity together for better performance; butvery few have actually attempted to present a framework for doing so. The firstattempt to consciously manage the confluence of continuity and change as partof corporate strategy was recommended by Collins and Porras (1994). Shermanet al. (2007), however, recommended an approach emphasizing the importanceof the pre-planning phase, wherein the organization’s strategic profiling and strat-egy formulation are done in such a way that organization’s ‘key strategic strength’is not changed.

In his much acclaimed, yet controversial, discourse on planned vs. emergentstrategy, Mintzberg (1988) established that strategy making is both ‘deliberateand emergent’ and hence needs to be crafted rather than just planned. Accordingto him ‘a fundamental dilemma of strategy making is the need to reconcile theforces for stability and for change – to focus efforts and gain operating efficiencieson the one hand, yet adapt and maintain currency with a changing externalenvironment on the other’ (Mintzberg, 1988, p. 82). While explaining what ‘craft-ing strategy’ means, he categorically highlights the need for the strategist to‘manage stability, detect discontinuity, know the business and manage patternsand, finally, reconcile change and continuity.’ It may be noted that this frameworkfocuses on emergent strategy and is at variance with the concept of planned andemergent change as discussed under the organizational change review.

Volberda’s (1998) ‘paradox of flexibility’ similarly calls for the simultaneousneed of an organization to manage change and continuity. The basic premise ofhis framework is that every organization should balance change and stability.However, this is possible only if the firm is adequately flexible. ‘Flexibility’ inan organization, as per Volberda (1997), is generated by or depends upon the inter-play of two basic things – managers’ capacity to exert dynamic or variable controlwithin the organization (called ‘dynamic management capabilities’) and theresponsiveness or ‘controllability’ of the organization. These two dimensionsare at the heart of Volberda’s analysis of flexibility. Although this frameworkattempts to address the issue of change and continuity, it might be subjected tothe limitations similar to those of the contingency theory.

Huy (2002) suggested that the tension between continuity and change exists notjust at the organizational level (Leana and Barry, 2000), but also at the individuallevel. Building on this, he further argues that continuity–change trade-offs requireemotional balancing of middle level managers – particularly because they areexpected to perform in both areas and maintain continuity as well as implementchange. He presents an inductive model linking emotional balancing of ‘commit-ment to change’ and ‘attending to recipients’ emotions to maintain continuity’ toemotional states, which eventually affect change project group outcomes.

Burchell and Kolb (2006) emphasized the need to change with the need forstability to create sustainable organizations for future. Drawing from systemsthinking, they associate ‘change’ with differentiation and ‘stability’ with


integration. According to Burchell and Kolb, ‘sustainability could be said toinvolve stability and change tendencies in balance’. That is, increasing changewithout increasing stability would lead to chaos and disaster, whereas thereverse leads to stagnation and inertia.

Graetz and Smith (2009) have recently proposed a ‘dualities aware perspective’as a potential way forward in balancing the contradictory forces of continuity andchange. Drawing from a survey of organizing forms in Australia’s largest publiccompanies they demonstrate the need for coexistence of contradictory forms oforganizing – both bureaucratic and flexible forms. They further offer a conceptualplatform of arbitrating the dualities through the medium of five duality character-istics: simultaneity, relational, minimal thresholds, dynamism and improvization.They employed these characteristics as principles in explaining the balance ofcontradictory forms of organizing.

The ‘flexible strategy framework for managing continuity and change’ appearsto be a direct attempt to balance the continuity–change paradox at the organiz-ational level. According to Sushil (2005, 2011), strategic management ofchange could be better leveraged with a clear understanding of the continuity ofthe organization. Hence, instead of leaving the continuity to be managed bydefault, it is imperative to ‘consciously manage the vital and desirable areas ofcontinuity along with change’. Sushil then proposes the principal metaphor of a‘flowing stream’ to depict the management of continuity and change concurrently.According to Sushil, just as a flowing stream exhibits continuity (being a stream)and change (as characterized by continuous flow of water) at the same time, organ-izations are acted upon by both ‘forces of change’ and ‘forces of continuity’,which need to be balanced concurrently for successful change.

Reflections

As evident from the review, the management fraternity – be it organizational the-orists, change researchers or strategy gurus – is unanimous in acknowledging theneed to manage continuity for organizational change to be effective (Pettigrew,1987; Mintzberg, 1988; Srivastava and Fry, 1992; Collins and Porras, 1994;Volberda, 1998; Leana and Barry, 2000; Huy, 2002; Sturdy and Grey, 2003;Sushil, 2005; Burchell and Kolb, 2006; Graetz and Smith, 2009). Mintzberg’sviews set the tone for managing the paradox of ‘continuity and change’, and theother frameworks also provide some direction towards managing the confluence.Whereas Volberda (1998) attempts it through the ‘flexibility’ route, Sushil (2005)calls for leveraging change by managing continuity consciously and concurrently.Volberda’s framework subsequently becomes a discourse exclusively on ‘flexi-bility’ per se, ignoring the continuity part, whereas the the ‘flowing stream strat-egy’ remains a conceptual framework with no empirical research to support it.The theoretical lens of ‘emotional balancing’ proposed in Huy’s (2002) modelseems equally promising, although largely applicable in a radical changecontext. Burchell and Kolb’s (2006) approach on stability, change and sustainabil-ity, however, remains ‘ideas’ with only a template, but no clear propositions forfuture research and empirical validation. Graetz and Smith’s (2009) application


of duality theory in organizing forms, however, does present an interesting wayforward by delineating the principles of duality.

An analysis of the emerging thoughts and concepts on managing continuity andchange indicates that although a large number of change researchers acknowledgethe need to balance the paradox, very few have actually attempted to explain the‘how’ part. There is indeed a serious deficit of empirical research and actionableframework required for managing the confluence of continuity and change, reiter-ating By’s (2005) findings of lack of empirical research and validated frameworkfor managing organizational change in general.

Directions for Future Research

Theoretical Perspective

‘Change’ has been a controversial issue in the traditional theoretical frameworkof Selznick’s (1948) ‘institutionalism’, because it favored inertia, passivity oforganizations and determinism of institutional context. However, for organizationsto be accepted as complex nonlinear systems, the old institutional theory gave wayto ‘neo-institutionalism’ because it required a fundamental shift (Beeson and Davis,2000) in both approach and theory. Thus, with the application of ‘complexitytheory’ in the organizational domain, ‘change’ took center stage in organizationaltheory development (Burnes, 2004b). Although protagonists of ‘neo-institutional-ism’ demonstrated how the theory explains the sources and processes of insti-tutional changes (Dacin et al., 2002; Seo and Creed, 2002), there remainedunaddressed challenges in resolving the paradox of inertia versus change (Fernan-dez-Alles and Valle-Cabrera, 2006). However, as evident from the paradoxicalreview presented here, strategy and change researchers seem to have convergedon the idea of balancing the paradox of continuity and change, i.e. managingboth concurrently. As a result, of late, researchers have started drawing from the‘duality theory’ to explain the contradictions in various aspects of organizationalchange management (Graetz and Smith, 2009). Although paradoxes can be usedto build management and organization theories (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989),theory building is not intended here because it is a complex phenomenon requiringan explanation for ‘who, what, where, when, why, and how’ of a theoretical contri-bution (Whetten, 1989). However, drawing from the ‘flexible strategy frameworkfor managing change and continuity’ (Sushil, 2005) and using the ‘dualitiesaware perspective’ (Graetz and Smith, 2009), some propositions for future researchin this direction are can be explored.

Research Constructs

The theoretical discussion on continuity and change as per the ‘flexible strategyframework’ seems to be based on two broad sets of constructs: ‘forces ofchange’ and ‘forces of continuity’.

Forces of Change. This typically refers to the drivers or imperatives for changearising from either the external or internal environment of an organization.


Broadly speaking, they refer to contextual factors as depicted in various changemodels (Pettigrew, 1985; Greenwood and Hinnings, 1988; Dawson, 1996), andare largely rooted in the Lewin’s field theory (Lewin, 1947). In the context of aSAP (situation, actor, and process) framework, they emanate largely from situation(Sushil, 2001) and may include forces like globalization, stakeholder needs andexpectations, the emergence of new technology, government policies and legis-lations. Haberberg and Rieple (2008), however, refer to them as factors thatenhance the likelihood of organizational change, requiring an analysis of theorganization’s environment, resources and stakeholders to delineate those forces.

Forces of Continuity. The term ‘continuity’ is widely used across disciplines andhas various connotations. In the context of organizations, it has been defined as‘the connectedness over time amongst organizational efforts and a sense or experi-ence of ongoingness that links the past to the present and the present to futurehopes and ideals’ (Srivastava and Fry, 1992, p. 2). In the context of organizationalchange, however, the construct ‘forces of continuity’ refers to those factors thatcontribute to inertia in an organization (Haberberg and Rieple, 2008) and whichtherefore need to be managed for effective change. Continuity forces in an organ-ization for, for example, core ideology, core competence, culture and existinghigh-performance, add to the inertia of the organization (Trompenaars andWoolliams, 2003; Sushil, 2005). These continuity forces are continued by defaultand if not consciously managed may come in the way of constructive change.Not all continuity forces obstruct change, however, some, for example, coreideology and strong culture, may even be vital or desirable to leverage change.

Organizational Performance. Eventually, all endeavors should achieve the strategicdeliverables intended. Similarly, managing the forces of continuity and change wouldrequire strategic actions that should be reflected in the organizational performance,i.e. better delivery of the strategic goals set for the organization over a period. Tomeasure organizational performance, however, there is a wide array of tools andapproaches for researchers to select from. Although approaches like the balancedscorecard, measuring both financial and non-financial aspects of organization(Kaplan and Norton, 1992), and other performance measurement tools recommendedby Carton and Hofer (2006) exist, they largely assess performance from the organiz-ation’s perspective. In the present context, however, a more comprehensive approachmeasuring organizational performance from various perspectives is required. Forthis, a strategic approach recommending a dual perspective of performance(Sushil, 2009) may be adopted. The dual approach to performance includesassessment from two key stakeholders’ perspectives, the ‘enterprise/firm’ and the‘customer’, in order to have a comprehensive view of organizational performance.However, in the context of organizations embarking on behaviuoral or culturalchange programmes, defining performance parameters explicitly remains achallenge. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that performance being an outputvariable, other factors may affect it and need to be carefully delineated andacknowledged. The basic premise of this article, however, is to suggest that theremay be a positive link between the proposed constructs of managing change andcontinuity and the strategic deliverables of an organization.


Propositions for Future Research

Having defined the research constructs, the propositions for future empiricalresearch may further be outlined as follows.

Proposition 1: Organizational performance is influenced by both forces of conti-nuity and forces of change acting on an organization.

While researchers have proposed the idea that organizations are acted upon byboth ‘forces of change and continuity’ (Sushil, 2005; Haberberg and Rieple, 2008)and that a blend or mix of these forces is required to be managed for successfulchange and sustainability (Leana and Barry, 2000; Sturdy and Grey, 2003;Sushil, 2005; Burchell and Kolb, 2006; Graetz and Smith, 2009), there has beenno study establishing such a link. It is vitally important to empirically validatethe extent of association between the forces of continuity, change and organiz-ational performance at the very outset (Figure 1).

Proposition 2: Managing the forces of continuity and change simultaneously (i.e.interaction of both forces) lead to higher organizational performance.

It is further proposed that managing the forces of continuity and change simul-taneously would lead to better organizational performance. This is in sync with the‘simultaneity’ characteristics of the duality perspective presented by Graetz andSmith (2009). Managing two opposing forces invariably requires organizationsto be ‘ambidextrous’ and therefore they do run the risk of being mediocre atboth (March 1991). Nevertheless, empirical research relating ambidexterity withperformance outcomes has shown a positive link (Birkinshaw and Gibson,2004; He and Wong, 2004; Venkatraman et al., 2007). Other researchers havesuggested that long-term success requires organizations to balance continuityand change (Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008). It may, therefore, be construed thatmanaging continuity and change concurrently i.e. interaction of continuity andchange forces, lead to higher organizational performance, as depicted in Figure 2.

Proposition 3: Management of the forces of change plays a mediating rolebetween management of continuity forces and organizational performance.

Figure 1. Continuity and change forces and organizational performance.


Researchers addressing the ‘continuity and change’ paradigm posited back inthe early 1990s that ‘all change serves continuity in organizations’ (Srivastavaet al., 1992). Brown and Eisenhardt (1997) proved that firms engage in continuouschange more than radical change, and that managing rapid and relentless continu-ous change is a crucial capability for the survival and sustainability of firms(Eisenhardt, 1989). With this as a background, it may be hypothesized thatmanaging the forces of change plays a mediating role between management ofcontinuity forces and organizational performance, as illustrated in Figure 3.

Proposition 4: Management of continuity forces moderates the relationshipbetween management of change forces and organizational performance.

From the perspective of change management, researchers have often attributedlow rates of change success to excessive focus on change and inadequate attentionto continuity forces (Beer and Nohria, 2000a; Oakland and Tanner, 2007). Othershave expressed that management of change can be better leveraged by managingcontinuity or stability forces consciously (Sturdy and Grey, 2003; Sushil, 2005;Burchell and Kolb, 2006). Drawing on these views, it may be hypothesized thatmanagement of continuity forces moderates the relationship between managementof change forces and organizational performance, as illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 2. Management of continuity and change forces concurrently affect organizationalperformance.

Figure 3. Mediating role of change forces.


Conclusion

A revisit to the vast repository of literature on organizational change managementwith a ‘paradoxical lens’, reiterates the fact that ‘managing change invariablyrequires balancing paradoxes’. Various approaches to managing such dualitiesand paradoxes have emerged as a solution for better change outcomes. One signifi-cant approach that calls for ‘managing continuity and change concurrently’ seemsto have gained considerable attention. Despite the growing consensus amongchange researchers on the need to balance change and continuity, there is adearth of validated models and frameworks required for managing the duality.Based upon the ‘flexible strategy framework’ and ‘duality aware perspective’,propositions relating to the constructs of change, continuity and organizationalperformance have been outlined for directed research in this area. Empiricalvalidation of the hypothesized research model would not only strengthen thetheoretical foundations of the continuity and change paradigm, but also breakground for a more actionable strategic framework for practitioners at large.

References

Adamson, G., Pine, J., Steenoven, V.T. and Kroupa, J. (2006) How storytelling can drive strategic change,

Strategy and Leadership, 34(1), pp. 36–41.

Adcroft, A., Willis, R. and Hurst, J. (2008) A new model for managing changes: the holistic view, Journal of

Business Strategy, 29(1), pp. 40–45.

Armenakis, A.A. and Bedeian, A.G. (1999) Organizational change: a review of theory and research in the 1990s,

Journal of Management, 25(3), pp. 293–308.

Argyris, C. (1989) A review of Kurt Lewin’s field theory in social sciences and resolving social conflicts,

Academy of Management Review, 14(1), pp. 96–98.

Bamford, D.R. and Forrester, P.L. (2003) Managing planned and emergent change within an operations manage-

ment environment, International Journal of Operation and Production Management, 23(5), pp. 546–564.

Barnett, W. and Carroll, G. (1995) Modeling internal organizational change, Annual Review of Sociology, 21,

pp. 217–226.

Beckhard, R. (1969) Organization Development: Strategies and Models (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley).

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A. and Spector, B. (1990) Why change programs don’t produce change?, Harvard Business

Review, Nov–Dec, pp. 158–166.

Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000a) Cracking the code of change, Harvard Business Review, 78, pp. 133–141.

Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000b) Cracking the Code of Change (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).

Beeson, I. and Davis, C. (2000) Emergence and accomplishment in organizational change, Journal of Organiz-

ational Change Management, 13(2), pp. 178–189.

Figure 4. Moderating role of continuity forces.


Bianco, A.T. and Schermerhorn, J. Jr. (2006) Self regulation, strategic leadership and paradox in organizational

change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(4), pp. 457–470.

Bullock, R. and Batten, D. (1985) It’s just a phase we’re going through: a review and synthesis of OD phase

analyses, Group and Organization Studies, 10, pp. 383–412.

Burchell, N. and Kolb, D.G. (2006) Stability and change for sustainability, University of Auckland Business

Review, 8(2), pp. 32–41.

Brinkshaw, J. and Gibson, C. (2004) Building ambidexterity into an organization, MIT Sloan Management

Review, 45(4), pp. 47–55.

Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K. (1997) The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced

evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, pp. 1–34.

Burke, W. (1994) Diagnostic models for organization development, in: A. Howard and Associates (eds) ,

Diagnosis for Organizational Change: Methods and Models, pp. 53–84 (New York: Guilford Press).

Burke, W. and Litwin, G. (1992) A causal model of organizational performance and change, Journal of

Management, 18, pp. 523–545.

Burke, W.W. and Trahant, B. (2000) Business Climate Shifts: Profiles of Change Makers (Boston, MA:

Butterworth Heineman).

Burnes, B. (2004a) Managing Change (Harlow, UK: Prentice Hall).

Burnes, B. (2004b) Kurt Lewin and complexity theories: back to the future?, Journal of Change Management,

4(4), pp. 309–325.

By, R.T. (2005) Organizational change management: a critical review, Journal of Change Management, 5(4),

pp. 369–380.

Carton, R.B. and Hofer, C.W. (2006) Measuring Organizational Performance – Metrics for Entrepreneurship

and Strategic Management Research (Boston, MA: Edward Elgar).

Cartwright, D. (1951) A Review of Kurt Lewin’s Field Theory in Social Science (New York: Harper).

Chia, R. (1999) A rhizomic model of organizational change and transformation: perspective from metaphysics of

change, British Journal of Management, 10, pp. 209–227.

Chrusciel, D. (2008) What motivates the significant/ strategic change champion(s)? Journal of Organizational

Change Management, 21(2), pp. 148–160.

Clemmer, J. (1995) Pathway to Performance: A Guide to Transforming, Your Team, and Your Organization

(Toronto: Macmillan).

Collins, J.R. and Porras, J.I. (1994) Built to Last (New York: Harper Collins).

Cooke, B. (1999) Writing the left out of management theory: the historiography of the management of change,

Organization, 6(1), pp. 81–105.

Cummings, T. and Huse, E. (1989) Organization Development and Change (St. Paul, MN: West).

Dacin, T., Goodstein, J. and Scott, R. (2002) Institutional theory and institutional change: introduction to the

special research forum, Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), pp. 45–57.

Dawson, P. (1994) Organizational Change: A Processual Approach (London: Chapman).

Dawson, P. (1996) Beyond conventional change models: a processual perspective, Asia Pacific Journal of Human

Resources, 34(2), pp. 57–70.

Duncan, R. (1976) The ambidextrous organizations: designing dual structures for innovation, in: R.H. Killman,

L.R. Pondy and D. Sleven (eds) , The Management of Organization, pp. 167–188 (New York: North

Holland).

Dunphy, D. (2000) Embracing paradox: top-down versus participative management in organizational change, in:

M. Beer and N. Nohria (eds) Breaking the Code of Change, pp. 123–135 (Boston, MA: HBS Press).

Eccles, R.G., Nohria, N. and Berkley, J.D. (1992) Beyond the Hype: Rediscovering the Essence of Management

(Boston, MA: HBS Press).

Economist Change management: an inside job, (2000), Economist, July 15, p. 61.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building theories from case study research, The Academy of Management Review, 14(4),

pp. 532–550.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (2000) Paradox, spirals, ambivalence: the new language of change and pluralism’, Academy of

Management Review, 25, pp. 703–705.

Eisenhardt, K.M. and Brown, S.L. (1999) ‘Patching - Restitching business portfolios in dynamic markets’,

Harvard Business Review, May–Jun 1999, pp. 72–82.

Evans, P. and Doz, Y. (1992) A paradigm for human resource and organization development in complex

multinationals, in: V. Pucik, N.M. Tichy, and C.V. Bartlett (eds), Globalizing Management (New York:

Wiley).


Falcioni, J.G. (2008) Virgil Carter: bidding adieu, Mechanical Engineering-CIME, June: 1–3. (www.asme.org/

change).

Fernandez-Alles, M. and Valle-Cabrera, R. (2006) Reconciling institutional theory with organizational theories:

how neo-institutionalism resolves five paradoxes, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(4),

pp. 503–517.

French, W. and Bell, C. Jr. (1973) Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization

Improvement (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).

Galpin, T. (1996) The Human Side of Change: A Practical Guide to Organization Redesign (San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass).

Garvin, D.A. (1994) Building a learning organization, Harvard Business Review, July/August, pp. 78–91.

Gersick, C.J. (1991) Revolutionary change theories: a multi level exploration of the punctuated change paradigm,

Academy of Management Review, 16, pp. 10–36.

Greenwood, R. and Hinnings, C.R. (1988) Organizational design types: tracks and dynamics of strategic change,

Organization Studies, 9, pp. 293–316.

Graetz, F. and Smith, A.C.T. (2009) Duality theory and organizing forms in change management, Journal of


Haberberg, A. and Rieple, A. (2008) Strategic Management: Theory and Application, pp. 695–706 (New York:

Oxford University Press).

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993) Re-Engineering the Corporation (New York: Harper Collins).

Handy, C. (1994) The Age of Paradox (Cambridge, MA: HBS Press).

He, Z.L. and Wong, P.K. (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of ambidexterity hypotheses,

Organization Science, 13, pp. 232–248.

Huy, Q.N. (2002) Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: the contribution of

middle managers, Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, pp. 31–69.

Judson, A. (1991) Changing Behavior in Organizations: Minimizing Resistance to Change (Cambridge, MA:

Blackwell).

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992) The Balanced Scorecard: measures that drive performance, Harvard

Business Review, Jan–Feb, pp. 71–80.

Kauffman, S.A. (1995) At Home in the Universe (New York: Oxford University Press).

Kenny, J. (2006) Strategy and the learning organization: a maturity model for the formation of strategy, The

Learning Organization, 13(4), pp. 353–368.

Khan, O.S. (2006) The case for real change, Strategy and Leadership, 34(1), pp. 32–35.

Kotter, J.P. (1995) Leading change: why transformation efforts fail, Harvard Business Review, March–April,

pp. 59–67.

Leana, C.R. and Barry, B. (2000) Stability and change as simultaneous experiences in organizational life,

Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 753–759.

Leifer, R. (1989) Understanding organizational transformation using a dissipative structural model, Human

Relations, 42(10), pp. 899–916.

Lewin, K. (1947) Frontiers in group dynamics, in: D. Cartwright (ed) Field Theory in Social Science (London:

Social Science Paperbacks).

Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science (New York: Harper and Row).

Lewin, K. (1958) Group decision and social change, in: G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb and E.L. Nartley (eds),

Readings in Social Psychology, pp. 197–211 (New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston).

Lewis, M.W. (2000) Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide, Academy of Management Review,

25(4), pp. 760–776.

Luscher, L.S. and Lewis, M.W. (2008) Organizational change and managerial sense making: working through

paradox, Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), pp. 221–240.

Luscher, L.S., Lewis, M.W. and Ingram, A. (2006) The social construction of organizational change paradox,

Journal of Organizational Change Management, 19(4), pp. 491–502.

Martinez, C.A. (1997) Transforming the legacy of sears, Strategy and Leadership, 25(4), pp. 30–35.

March, J.G. (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning, Organization Science, 2, pp. 71–87.

March, J.G. (1999) Organizational Intelligence (Oxford: Blackwell).

Marrow, A.F. (1969) The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin (New York: Basic Books).

Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1980) Archetypes of organizational transitions, Administrative Science Quarterly,

25, pp. 268–299.


www.asme.org/change

www.asme.org/change

Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1982) The longitudinal analysis of organizations, Management Science, 28,

pp. 1013–1034.

Miller, D. and Friesen, P.H. (1984) Organizations: A Quantum View (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

Mintzberg, H. (1988) Crafting strategy, The McKinsey Quarterly, Summer, pp. 71–90.

Mintzberg, H. and Westley, F. (1992) Cycles of organizational change, Strategic Management Journal, 13,

pp. 39–59.

Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998) Strategy Safari: The Complete Guide through the Wilds of

Strategic Management (Singapore: Pearson Education).

Nelson, L. (2003) A case study in organizational change-implications for theory, The Learning Organization,

10(1), pp. 18–30.

Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S.G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change (Cambridge, MA: Belknap

Press).

Oakland, J.S. and Tanner, S.J. (2007) A new framework for managing change, The TQM Magazine, 19(6),

pp. 572–589.

O’Connor, E.S. (1995) Paradox of Participation: Textual analysis and organizational change, Organization

Studies, 16(5), pp. 769–803.

O’Reilly, C.A. III and Tushman, M.L. (2004) The ambidextrous organizations, Harvard Business Review,

April, pp. 74–81.

Perrow, C. (1994) Dialogue: Pfeffer slips, Academy of Management Review, 19, pp. 191–204.

Pettigrew, A.M. (1985) The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in ICI (Oxford: Blackwell).

Pettigrew, A.M. (1987) Context and action in the transformation of the firm, Journal of Management Science,

24(6), pp. 649–670.

Pettigrew, M.A. (ed.) (1988) Introduction: researching strategic change, in: The Management of Strategic Change

(Oxford: Blackwell).

Pettigrew, A.M. (1992) The character and significance of strategy process research, Strategic Management

Journal, 13, pp. 5–16.

Pettigrew, A.M. (2000) Linking change processes to outcomes, in: M. Beer and N. Nohria (eds), Breaking the

Code of Change, pp. 243–246 (Boston, MA: HBS Press).

Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W. and Cameron, K.S. (2001) Studying organizational change and development

challenges for future research, Academy of Management Journal, 44, pp. 697–713.

Pfeifer, T., Schmitt, R. and Voigt, T. (2005) Managing change: quality oriented design of strategic change

processes, The TQM Magazine, 17(4), pp. 297–306.

Putnam, L.L. (1986) Contradictions and paradoxes in organizations, in: I.L. Thayer (ed) Organization Communi-

cation: Emerging Perspectives, pp. 151–167 (Norwood, CT: Ablex).

Putnam, L.L. (2004) Dialectic tensions and rhetorical tropes in organizations, Organization Studies, 25(1),

pp. 35–53.

Quinn, J.B. (1978) Strategic change: logical incrementalism, Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp. 7–21.

Quinn, J.B. (1980) Strategies for Change (Homewood, IL: Irwin).

Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators,

Journal of Management, 34(3), pp. 375–409.

Schein, E.H. (1985) Organizational Culture and Leadership: A Dynamic View (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).

Selznick, P. (1948) Foundations of the theory of organizations, American Sociological Review, 13, pp. 25–35.

Seo, M. and Creed, W.E.D. (2002) Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: a dialectical per-

spective, Academy of Management Review, 27(2), pp. 222–247.

Senge, P.M. (1990) The leader’s new work: building learning organizations, Sloan Management Review, 32(1),

pp. 7–23.

Sherman, H., Rowley, D.J. and Armandi, B.R. (2007) Developing a strategic profile – the pre-planning phase of

strategic management, Business Strategic Series, 8(3), pp. 162–171.

Srivastava and Fry, D. E. (eds) (1992) Executive and Organizational Continuity: Managing the Paradoxes of

Stability and Change (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass).

Stace, D.A. and Dunphy, D. (1994) Beyond the Boundaries: Leading and Recreating the Successful Enterprise

(Sydney: McGraw Hill).

Sushil (2000) Concept of systemic flexibility, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 1(1), pp. 77–80.

Sushil (2001) ‘SAP-LAP Framework’, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 2(1), pp. 51–59.

Sushil (2005) Flexible strategy framework for managing continuity and change, International Journal of Global

Business and Competitiveness, 1(1), pp. 22–32.


Sushil (2009) Dual perspective of performance, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 10(4),

Editorial.

Sushil (2011) Leveraging strategic change with continuity, Journal of Enterprise Transformation, [Invited

Paper].

Sturdy, A. and Grey, C. (2003) Beneath and beyond organizational change management: exploring alternatives,

Organization, 10, pp. 651–662.

Trompenaars, F. and Woolliams, P. (2003) A new framework for managing change across cultures, Journal of


Tsoukas, H. and Chia, R. (2002) On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational change, Organization

Science, 13(5), pp. 567–582.

Tushman, M.L. and Romanelli, E. (1985) Organizational evolution: a metamorphosis model of convergence and

reorientation, in: L.L. Cummings and B.M. Staw (eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, pp. 172–222

(Greenwich, CT: JAI Press).

Tushman, M.L., Newman, W.H. and and Romanelli, E. (1986) Convergence and upheaval: managing the

unsteady pace of organizational evolution, California Management Review, 29(1), pp. 29–44.

Tushman, M.L. and O’Reilly, C.A. III (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolu-

tionary change, California Management Review, 38(4), pp. 8–30.

Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S (1988) Paradoxical requirements for a theory of organizational change, in:

R.E. Quinn and K.S. Cameron (eds), Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in

Organization and Management, pp. 562–578 (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company).

Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S (1989) Using paradox to build management and organization theories,

Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp. 562–578.

Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S (1995) Explaining development and change in organizations, Academy of

Management Review, 20, pp. 510–540.

Venkatraman, N., Lee, C.H. and Iyer, B. (2007) Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: A longitudinal test in

the software sector. Unpublished manuscript (earlier version presented at the Academy of Management

Meetings, 2005).

Vince, R. and Broussine, M. (1996) Paradox, defense and attachment: accessing and working with emotions and

relations underlying organizational change, Organization Studies, 7(1), pp. 1–21.

Volberda, H.W. (1998) Building the Flexible Firm –How to Remain Competitive (Oxford: Oxford University

Press).

Volberda, H.W. (1997) Building flexible organization for fast moving markets, Long Range Planning, 30(2),

pp. 169–183.

Vollman, T. (1996) The Transformation Imperative (Boston, MA: HBS Press).

Washington, M. and Hacker, M. (2005) Why change fails: knowledge counts, Leadership and Organization

Development Journal, 6(5), pp. 400–411.

Weatherbee, T.G., Dye, K. and Mills, A.J. (2005) There is nothing as good as a practical theory: the paradox of

management education. ASAC Conference. Toronto.

Weick, K. (1998) Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analyses, Organization Science, 9, pp. 543–555.

Weick, K. and Quinn, R.E. (1999) Organizational change and development, Annual Review of Psychology, 50,

pp. 361–386.

Whetten, D (1989) What constitutes a theoretical contribution?, Academy of Management Review, 14(4),

pp. 490–495.

Whittle, A. (2006) The paradoxical repertoires of management consultancy, Journal of Change Management,

19(4), pp. 424–436.

Wilson, D.C. (1992) A Strategy of Change (London: Routledge).


Documents

Revisiting Organizational Change: Exploring the Paradox of ...web.it.nctu.edu.tw/~uen/courses-2017-Spriing/Strategic Change... · Revisiting Organizational Change: Exploring the Paradox