Who says change can be managed? Positions, perspectives and problematics

Strat. Change 11: 243–251 (2002)Published online in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jsc.600

Who says change can be managed?Positions, perspectives andproblematicsIan Palmer1∗ and Richard Dunford21 University of Technology, Sydney, Australia2 Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

• We pick up a current challenge in the change management literature — whether changecan be managed. The answer to this question depends upon the underlying image onehas of both managing and change.

• We develop a model based upon two images of managing (management as controlling;management as shaping) and three images of change outcomes (intended, partiallyintended and unintended).

• From this we identify six views on managing change: directing, navigating, caretaking,coaching, interpreting and nurturing.

• We outline different theories associated with each of these views.• Theorists and practitioners hold differing images of what ‘managing change’ actually

means — which leads them to talk past each other when attempting to engage indialogue around how change can be managed.

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction

At the 2001 Academy of Management Con-ference in Washington, DC the prominentchange writer, Warner Burke, quipped:‘Change management: now there’s an oxy-moron!’ His statement was probably tongue-in-cheek but it prompts us to reflect on thequestion of whether change is manageable.We argue that the answer to this questiondepends upon the images one holds aboutboth managing and change. We develop amodel based upon differing images and iden-tify six change management positions whichcan be applied to answering this question.

* Correspondence to: Ian Palmer, School of Manage-ment, University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123,Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia.E-mail: [email protected]

We then outline each of these positionsand conclude by identifying how argumentsabout this question occur when people hold-ing alternative images seek to engage indialogue.

Images of managing and change

Table 1 sets out our model for understand-ing images of change management. It is basedupon two images of managing (managementas controlling; management as shaping) andthree images of change outcomes (intended,partially intended and unintended). First,we set out the rationale for these images. Inthe subsequent part of the paper we outlinethe six views on managing change, and thechange theories associated with them, which

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Strategic Change, August 2002

244 Ian Palmer and Richard Dunford

Table 1. Images of change management

Images of managing

Images of change outcomes Controlling(activities)

Shaping(capabilities)

Intended Image of managing change: Image of managing change:DIRECTING COACHING• N -step models • Organization development• Contingency models

Partially intended Image of managing change: Image of managing change:NAVIGATING INTERPRETING• Processual • Sensemaking

Unintended Image of managing change: Image of managing change:CARETAKING NURTURING• Life cycle • Chaos/complexity• Population ecology • Confucian• Institutional

emerge in this model: directing, navigat-ing, caretaking, coaching, interpreting andnurturing.

Images of managing

We suggest that two images dominate writ-ings on management: management as con-trolling and management as shaping. Amanaging as controlling image underliesthe classic Fayol (1949) characterization ofmanagement as planning, organizing, com-manding, coordinating and controlling. Thisis a pervasive view historically and one whichcontinues to be in use today (e.g. see Hig-gins, 1994: 5). Later developments of thisview can be found in the work of Luthanset al. (1988) and Minztberg (1975) who out-line a variety of managerial roles and activitiesunderpinned by an image of management ascontrol. Management as shaping is an alter-native image developed from different partic-ipative forms of managing and refers to thetaking of actions designed to enhance orga-nizational capabilities. Capabilities providethe organization with operational require-ments to assist in its effective functioning,even in times of high ambiguity. Typical ofthis approach is the following view:

Corporate capabilities are embedded inthe fabric of the organization — in itspractices, processes, systems, structures,

culture, values, know-how and technolo-gies. Importantly this is as true for reshap-ing capabilities as it is for operationalones. While personal capabilities leave theorganization when their owner does, cor-porate capabilities tend to endure, despitethe comings and goings of individuals(Turner and Crawford, 1998: 15).

In this approach good management pro-duces strong corporate capabilities. Buildingin the capacity to both respond to, and shape,external changes is a key rationale for engag-ing in change (see Beer and Nohria, 2000:35–36).

Images of change outcomes

Table 1 identifies three different images ofchange outcomes, that is, three differentways in which new social practices areestablished in organizations. The notionof planned or intended outcomes is atthe core of much of the change literatureand is argued to have dominated thepractice of changing organizations for over50 years (Burnes, 1996: 170). Change isthe realization of prior intent throughthe action of managers. An alternativeimage of change is one which producespartially intended change outcomes, thatis, some but not all change intentions areachieved. Power, processes, interests and


Who says change can be managed? 245

skill variations act to modify intended changeoutcomes (e.g. see Mintzberg and Waters,1985). Finally, while there is less focuson it within the change literature a thirdimage is unintended change outcomes, theassumption being that individual managersmay have little role in producing intentionalchange outcomes. This is because changeoutcomes occur through actions, usuallyexternal to the organization or even to wholeindustries, which are outside the influenceor control wielded by individual managers.Managers and their intentions are swampedby these actions. Occasionally outcomes andintentions may collide, but this is the result ofserendipity of events rather than the outcomeof planned, intentional change actions.

Images of managing change

Arising from our model are six differingchange approaches each of which has embed-ded in them quite different ways of answeringthe question of whether change is manage-able. We outline these six approaches andprovide examples of change theories associ-ated with them. In doing this we acknowl-edge that each approach represents a Webe-rian ‘ideal type’ and that not every theoryfits neatly into each category. This is forthree reasons. First, within each approachthere are variations, arguments and debatesso that it will always be possible to find aposition which appears to be ‘the exceptionto the rule’. Second, the images of managingand images of change outcomes are, them-selves, not necessarily mutually exclusive. Forexample, we retain three images of changeas an analytical device but recognize thata continuum from intended to unintendedchange outcomes operates in practice. Third,sometimes multiple images can be detectedin the arguments of particular writers whomay not be even aware that they are movingamong arguments which have a grounding indiffering assumptions. Accepting these limi-tations, however, we argue that the changetheories we identify and discuss in relationto each change management approach are

broadly representative of the relevant under-lying images of change and managing.

Change management as directing

The directing approach, in which intendedchanges are achieved through deliberatemanagement actions, can be identified instrategic change management models, orwhat Collins (1998: 82) refers to as ‘n-stepguides’. The general contention of thesemodels is ‘that strategic choice can deter-mine an organization’s formal developmentand survival is a matter of self-determination’(White et al., 1997: 1384). Managementengages in intentional changes in orderto align their organization with the chang-ing environment (Rajagopalan and Spre-itzer, 1996: 49). Directed mainly at achiev-ing large-scale, transformational change anarray of multi-step models are available fromwhich to choose such as Pendlebury et al.’s(1998: 40–41) ‘Ten Keys’ model, Taffinder’s(1998: 40–42) five ‘transformation trajecto-ries’ model and Nadler’s (1998) ‘12 ActionSteps’ model. Authors of these models acceptthat minor modifications may be needed intheir use although most argue that all stepsare necessary to achieve intentional change.While some authors recognize that not every-thing is always able to be controlled (e.g.Kanter et al., 1992: 390) what unites themis an optimistic view of achieving intentionalchange (e.g. see Ghoshal and Bartlett, 2000:220). Contingency models, such as found inStace and Dunphy (2001) and Huy (2001)share with change management models theassumption that change can be directed, butthe nature of this direction depends on arange of organizational factors such as thescale of the change, the urgency of the changeand the receptivity of organizational mem-bers for engaging in the change. There willbe different ‘best ways’ depending upon theconfluence of such factors.

Change management as navigating

In the navigating approach to change controlis still seen as at the heart of management



actions, although a variety of factors exter-nal to managers mean that while they mayachieve some intended change outcomes,others will also occur over which they havelittle control. Outcomes are often emergentrather than planned and result from a varietyof convergent influences, competing inter-ests, and processes. The contextualist orprocessual approach typifies this position.Associated with the work of writers such asDawson (1994) and Pettigrew and Whipp(1993) the approach shares an assumptionwith contingency theory that change unfoldsdifferently over time and according to thecontext in which the organization finds itself.However, it parts company from contin-gency theory in assuming ‘that change shouldnot be and cannot be solidified, or seenas a series of linear events within a givenperiod of time; instead, it is viewed as acontinuous process’ (Burnes, 1996: 187).Change is therefore ‘a process that unfoldsthrough the interplay of multiple variables(context, political processes and consulta-tion) within an organization’ (Burnes, 1996:187). Directing is not an option as ‘therecan be no simple prescription for manag-ing transitions successfully’ (Burnes, 1996:187). It is up to change managers to navigatetheir way through this complexity by iden-tifying the range of options open to them,gathering and monitoring information andavailing themselves of appropriate resources(Burnes, 1996: 189–192).

Change management as caretaking

In the caretaking approach the (ideal) imageof management is still one of control,although the ability to exercise controlis severely constrained by external actionswhich propel change relatively independentof individual management intentions. Atbest, individual managers are caretakers,shepherding their organizations along asbest they can. For example, life cycle theorydraws on a biological analogy by providinga developmental view of organizations aspassing through well-defined stages frombirth to growth, maturity and then decline

or death. The assumption in this theoryis that organizational change is to beexpected as a natural, developmental cycleof organizations. There is an underlying logicor trajectory and the stages through which itpasses are sequential (Van de Ven and Poole,1995: 512–520). Managers may engage indiffering activities at differing stages but havea limited role, helping to smooth the varioustransitions rather than controlling whetheror not they occur.

Population ecology theory stresses ‘the dif-ficulty, rarity, and liabilities of organizationalchange and the weak impact of managerialchoice on organizational outcomes’ (Ger-sick, 1994: 10). Drawing on biology andneo-Darwinian logic population ecologistsargue that the environment selects organiza-tions for survival or extinction (White et al.,1997: 1384) and that whole populations oforganizations change as a result of ongoingcycles of variation, selection and retention.In all this, managers have little sway overchange. While some adherents have arguedfor at least a (very) limited role that managersmight take (Hall, 1996: 192–200) the under-lying assumption remains, that is, that man-agers themselves are rarely able to achieveintended organizational change.

Like population ecology, institutional the-ory assumes that the environment pushesorganizations to change in similar ways. How-ever, whereas population ecology assumesthat similarity, or isomorphism, occursthrough competitive (Darwinian) pressuresfor survival in the marketplace, institu-tional theory argues that isomorphism occursthrough pressures associated with the inter-connectedness of organizational populations(Oliver, 1988: 543). DiMaggio and Powell(1991: 67–74) identify three such pres-sures — coercive, mimetic and normative.They acknowledge that not all organizationssuccumb to isomorphic pressures — thereare ‘‘deviant peers’’ (DiMaggio and Pow-ell, 1991: 73; see also Hoffman, 1999: 351).However, the underlying thrust of this the-oretical approach views managing as at bestcaretaking, being buffeted by change actions



and outcomes over which individual man-agers have very limited influence. Again, the(ideal) image of managing is still one of con-trol — except that individual managers areunable to achieve this to any large degreegiven the circumstances confronting them.

Change management as coaching

Taking a coaching approach to manag-ing change is one where managers (orchange consultants) achieve intended out-comes through helping to shape the orga-nization’s capabilities in particular ways.We consider the Organization Development(OD) approach as an example. The tradi-tional OD focus is on incremental, devel-opmental, first-order change. A typical ODconsultant acts as a coach by helping to‘structure activities to help the organiza-tion members solve their own problems andlearn to do that better’ (French and Bell,1995: 4). Where this is based upon actionresearch it involves a variety of steps suchas (1) problem identification, (2) client con-sultation, (3) data gathering and problemdiagnosis, (4) feedback, (5) joint problemdiagnosis, (6) joint action planning, (7)change actions, (8) further data gatheringto determine outcomes of change and iden-tification of further actions (Cummings andWorley, 1997: 28–30). Such methods cameunder attack as being insufficient to dealwith the large-scale changes needed by orga-nizations to cope with the hyper-competitivebusiness world which confronts them (Man-ning and Binzagr, 1996: 269). As a result,organization development is argued to havemoved its focus from micro-organizationalissues to macro, large system issues includ-ing aligning change to the strategic needs ofthe organization (see Worley et al., 1996).This has led to the development of a range oftechniques designed to get the whole orga-nizational system into a room at one and thesame time (Fuller et al., 2000; Bunker andAlban, 1992). Proponents of these ‘coaching’techniques are glowing, sometimes almostevangelical, in expounding how they help to

achieve their intended outcomes. For exam-ple, they are argued to produce results ‘withgreater speed and increased commitmentand greatly reduced resistance by the restof the organization’ (Axelrod, 1992: 507).

Change management as interpreting

Taking an interpreting approach to changeplaces managers in the role of creatingmeaning for other organizational membersand helping them to make sense of thediffering meanings attached to events. How-ever, because sensemaking in organizationsis not necessarily a consensual activity butmay be a contested terrain, this suggeststhat there will be competing meanings andthat only some meanings — and thereforechange intentions — are likely to be realized;other change outcomes are likely to emergefrom alternative actions of others which arebased upon differing sensemaking schema.In Karl Weick’s (2000) sensemaking modelof organizational change he suggests that acentral focus is needed on the structuringprocesses and flows through which orga-nizational work occurs. Adopting the latterperspective leads one to see organizations asbeing in an ongoing state of accomplishmentand re-accomplishment with organizationalroutines constantly undergoing adjustmentsto better fit changing circumstances (Weick,2000: 229–232; see also Feldman, 2000).In this constant movement are four driversof organizational change: animation, direc-tion, paying attention and candid inter-action (Weick, 2000: 235–236). Adoptingthese sensemaking actions assists individualsin developing their capabilities for manag-ing the ambiguity of organizational change(Weick, 2000: 234–235). In this perspectiveit is up to managers of change:

to author interpretations and labels thatcapture the patterns in those adaptivechoices. Within the framework of sense-making, management sees what the frontline says and tells the world what itmeans. In a newer code, managementdoesn’t create change. It certifies change(Weick, 2000: 238).



Change management as nurturing

Taking a nurturing role to managing changeassumes that even small changes may havea large impact on organizations (Thietartand Forgues, 1995: 1) and individual man-agers are not able to control the outcomeof these changes. However, they may nur-ture their organizations, facilitating orga-nizational qualities which enable positiveself-organizing to occur. Like a parent nurtur-ing a child, future outcomes are shaped butnot directly controlled. Specific outcomes ofchange are not intentionally produced butrather emerge from the positive qualities andcapabilities of the organization. Chaos the-ory takes this perspective in its assumptionthat organizational change is non-linear, fun-damental rather than incremental, and doesnot necessarily entail growth (Lichtenstein,2000: 131).

Drawing on complexity theory it is arguedthat ‘companies continuously regeneratethemselves through adaptive learning andinteractive structural change. These effortsperiodically result in the spontaneous emer-gence of a whole new dynamic order,through a process called self-organization’(Lichtenstein, 2000: 131). Self-organizingrecognizes the chaotic nature of organiza-tions which results from having to engagesimultaneously with both change and stabil-ity (see Thietart and Forgues, 1995: 28). Mar-shak (1993) also points out that fundamen-tally different assumptions underlie a Con-fucian/Taoist approach to change comparedto Western views of organizational change.He argues that Confucian/Taoist assumptionsview change as cyclical (constant ebb andflow), processional (harmonious movementfrom one state to another), journey oriented(cyclical change therefore no end state),based on maintaining equilibrium (achievenatural harmony), observed and followed byinvolved people (who constantly seek har-mony with their universe) and that it isnormal rather than the exception. In thissense organizational change outcomes arenot intended so much as produced through

the nurturing of a harmonious Yin–Yang phi-losophy in which each new order contains itsown negation.

Conclusion

We take seriously the question of whetherchange is manageable and argue that theanswer to this question depends upon thediffering images that one has of managingand of change. Based on two images ofmanaging (controlling actions versus shap-ing capabilities) and three images of changeoutcomes (intended, partly intended, unin-tended) we have identified six change man-agement images: directing, navigating, care-taking, coaching, interpreting and nurturingwhich are relevant both to how academicsstudy organizational change (the assump-tions they make in what they research) andhow practitioners engage in change actions(the assumptions they make in terms ofwhat they can achieve and how they shouldapproach it).

Each of these contains its own logic inwhich change can be viewed as manage-able — and each position varies in termsof the criteria for establishing change man-ageability. Some critiques of the manage-ability of change fail to recognize thebounded nature of these images and howthey impact upon answers to this ques-tion. For example, Anderson and Anderson(2001: 9) say that developmental and tran-sitional change can be managed, but nottransformational change. They argue thatthere are too many intangibles which caninhibit the arrival of predetermined out-comes; what is required is a mindset whichaccepts that organizations can be led intothe unknown without the end point beingpredictable in advance. In relation to thisargument we suggest that the notion of trans-formation not being able to be managedonly occurs if the notion of managementas control is retained. Where managementis viewed as shaping capabilities it might beaccepted that transformation change mightbe managed — although there will be vari-able answers in terms of the extent to



which change outcomes are intentionallyachieved.

Notions of managing are also boundup with measurements of success — was itmanaged well? What went right? What wentwrong? However, such questions are stilllocked into a particular view of change (thedirecting view) and fail to appreciate thateven judging change ‘success’ is problematic.As Pettigrew et al. argue ‘Judgments aboutsuccess are also likely to be conditional onwho is doing the assessment and when thejudgments are made’ (Pettigrew et al., 2001:701). We suggest that the framework wehave provided makes another contributionto understanding not just whether changecan be managed, but how change as asuccessful set of management actions is tobe viewed. If management is viewed asbeing only about control, then this closesdown the potential for meaningful dialoguewith other theorists and practitioners whoview managing as about shaping capabilities.Our framework is one way of opening updialogue around the question of whetherchange can be managed by enabling aclearer understanding of how our imagesof managing and change outcomes affect ourinterpretation, deliberations and judgementson the question.

Biographical notes

Ian Palmer is a Professor in the School ofManagement, University of Technology, Syd-ney. His current research and consultingis on organizational change, new forms oforganizing and downsizing. His publicationshave appeared in journals such as Academyof Management Review, Journal of Organi-zational Behavior, Journal of ManagementStudies, Sociology, Journal of Organiza-tional Change Management, Journal of Man-agement Education, Nonprofit Managementand Leadership, Organizational Dynamics,and Human Relations. His recent book(2000), co-authored with Cynthia Hardy,Thinking about Management: Implicationsof Organizational Debates for Practice ispublished by Sage (UK).

Richard Dunford is a Professor at theMacquarie Graduate School of Management,Macquarie University, Sydney. He has alsoheld full-time positions outside universities,both in the private sector (oil industry) andin the public sector (technology policy).His current research is centred on corpo-rate restructuring, particularly in regard tothe emergence of new organisational forms.Richard has produced over seventy publica-tions including papers in the AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Academy of ManagementReview, Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, Human Relations, Journal of Organiza-tional Change Management, and the Journalof Management Studies.

ReferencesAnderson LA, Anderson D. 2001. Awake at the

wheel: Moving beyond change management toconscious change leadership. OD Practitioner33(3): 4–10.

Axelrod D. 1992. Getting everyone involved:How one organization involved its employeessupervisors and managers in redesigning theorganization. Journal of Applied BehavioralScience 28(4): 499–509.

Beer M, Nohria N. 2000. Purpose of change:Economic value or organizational capability? InBreaking the Code of Change, Beer M, Nohria N(eds). Harvard Business School Press: Boston;35–36.

Bunker BB, Alban BT. 1992. Editors’ introduc-tion: The large group intervention — a newsocial innovation? Journal of Applied Behav-ioral Science 28(4): 473–579.

Burnes B. 1996. Managing Change: A StrategicApproach to Organizational Dynamics. (2ndedn). Pitman: London.

Collins D. 1998. Organizational Change:Sociological Perspectives. Routledge: London.

Cummings TG, Worley CG. 1997. OrganizationDevelopment and Change. (6th edn). WestPublishing Company: Minneapolis/St Paul, MN.

Dawson P. 1994. Organizational Change: AProcessual Approach. Chapman: London.

DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. 1991. The ironcage revisited: Institutional isomorphism andcollective rationality in organizational fields. InThe New Institutionalism in OrganizationalAnalysis. Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ (eds).University of Chicago Press: Chicago; 63–82.



Fayol H. 1949. General and IndustrialManagement. Pitman: London. (original:Administration Industrielle et Generale 1916.)

Feldman MS. 2000. Organizational routines as asource of continuous change. OrganizationScience 11(6): 611–629.

French WL, Bell CH. 1995. Organization Devel-opment: Behavioral Science Interventions forOrganization Improvement. Prentice Hall:Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Fuller C, Griffin T, Ludema JD. 2000. Appreciativefuture search: Involving the whole systemin positive organization change. OrganizationDevelopment Journal 18(2): 29–41.

Gersick CJG. 1994. Pacing strategic change:The case of a new venture. Academy ofManagement Journal 37(1): 9–45.

Ghoshal S, Bartlett CA. 2000. Rebuildingbehavioral context: A blueprint for corporaterenewal. In Breaking the Code of Change.Beer M, Nohria N (eds). Harvard BusinessSchool Press: Boston, MA; 195–222.

Hall RH. 1996. Organizations: StructuresProcesses and Outcomes. Prentice Hall:Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Higgins JM. 1994. The Management Challenge:An Introduction to Management. (2nd edn).Macmillan: New York.

Hoffman AJ. 1999. Institutional evolution andchange: Environmentalism and the U.S.chemical industry. Academy of ManagementJournal 42(4): 351–371.

Huy QN. 2001. Time temporal capability andplanned change. Academy of ManagementReview 26(4): 601–623.

Kanter RM, Stein BA, Jick TD. 1992. TheChallenge of Organizational Change: HowCompanies Experience it and Leaders Guideit. Free Press: New York.

Kotter JP. 1996. Leading Change. HarvardBusiness School Press: Boston, MA.

Lichtenstein BB. 2000. Self-organized transitions:A pattern amid the chaos of transformativechange. Academy of Management Executive14(4): 128–141.

Luthans FR, Hodgetts M, Rosenkrantz SA. 1988.Real Managers. Ballinger: Cambridge, MA.

Manning MR, Binzagr GF. 1996. Methodsvalues and assumptions underlying largegroup interventions intended to changewhole systems. International Journal ofOrganizational Analysis 4(3): 268–284.

Marshak RJ. 1993. Lewin meets Confucius: A re-view of the OD model of change. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science 29(4): 393–415.

Mintzberg H. 1975. The manager’s job: Folkloreand fact. Harvard Business Review 53: 49–61.

Mintzberg H, Waters JA. 1985. Of strategies delib-erate and emergent. Strategic ManagementJournal 6: 257–272.

Nader DA. 1998. Champions of Change: HowCEOs and their Companies are Masteringthe Skills of Radical Change. Jossey-Bass: SanFrancisco, CA.

Nicholl D. 1998. From the Editor: Is OD meant tobe relevant? — part I. OD Practitioner 30(2).

Oliver C. 1988. The collective strategy framework:An application to competing predictionsof isomorphism. Administrative ScienceQuarterly 33: 543–561.

Pendlebury J, Grouard B, Meston F. 1998. TheTen Keys to Successful Change Management.John Wiley: Chichester.

Pettigrew A, Whipp R. 1993. Understandingthe environment. In Managing Change.Mabey C, Mayon-White B (eds). Open Univer-sity/Chapman: London.

Pettigrew AM, Woodman RW, Cameron KS. 2001.Studying organizational change and develop-ment: Challenges for future research. Academyof Management Journal 44(4): 697–713.

Rajagopalan N, Spreitzer GM. 1997. Towarda theory of strategic change: A multi-lens perspective and integrating framework.Academy of Management Review 22(1):48–79.

Stace D, Dunphy D. 2001. Beyond TheBoundaries: Leading and Recreating theSuccessful Enterprise. (2nd edn) McGraw-Hill:Sydney.

Taffinder P. 1998. Big Change: A Route-Mapfor Corporate Transformation. John Wiley:Chichester.

Thietart RA, Forgues B. 1995. Chaos in the theoryand organization. Organization Science 6(1):19–31.

Turner D, Crawford M. 1998. Change Power:Capabilities That Drive Corporate Renewal.Business and Professional Publishing: War-riewood, Australia.

Van de Ven AH, Poole MS. 1995. Explainingdevelopment and change in organizations.Academy of Management Review 20(3):510–540.

Weick KE. 2000. Emergent change as a universalin organizations. In Breaking the Code of



Change. Beer M, Nohria N (eds). HarvardBusiness School Press: Boston, MA; 223–241.

White MC, Marin DB, Brazeal DV, Friedman WH.1997. The evolution of organizations:Suggestions from complexity theory aboutthe interplay between natural selection

and adaptation. Human Relations 50(11):1383–1401.

Worley CG, Hitchin DE, Ross WL. 1996. Inte-grated Strategic Change: How OD Builds Com-petitive Advantage. Addison-Wesley: Reading,MA.


Documents

Who says change can be managed? Positions, perspectives and problematics