Summary OC&C 2024 PDF

T1 - Summary Van De Ven & Poole: Explaining development and change in organiza?ons This ar(cle introduces four basic theories that may serve as building blocks for explaining processes of change in organiza(ons: life cycle, teleology, dialec(cs, and evolu(on → these represent diﬀerent structures of change events that are driven by diﬀerent conceptual motors and operate at diﬀerent organiza(onal levels. There are many theories borrowed from diﬀerent disciplines to explain change. This ar(cle wants to develop new theory that is stronger than before → interdisciplinary literature review. We contend that all speciﬁc theories of organiza(onal change and development can be built from one or more of the four basic types. Terminology explana/on Motor: four basic types of process theories (life cycle, teleology, dialec(cs, and evolu(on) Process: progression of events in an organiza(onal en(ty’s existence over (me Change: empirical observa(on of diﬀerence En/ty: individual’s job, work group, organiza(onal strategy, program, product, or overall organiza(on. Development: change process Process theory: explana(on of how and why change occurs. Four Ideal-Type Developmental Theories In our explora(on of various process theories, we iden(ﬁed four main types of developmental theories. Here’s a summary of each: 1. Life-Cycle Theory: This theory compares an organiza(on to a living organism that goes through speciﬁc stages: birth, growth, maturity, and decline. Just like a plant grows from a seed to a full-grown plant, organiza(ons develop from their start to an eventual end. Change is seen as inevitable, driven by a natural process that guides the organiza(on from one stage to the next. 2. Teleological Theory: This theory emphasizes that organiza(ons develop with a speciﬁc goal in mind. Unlike a ﬁxed path, this approach focuses on achieving a desired outcome. Development is shaped by inten(ons and goals rather than following a set sequence of stages. 3. Dialec/cal Theory: This theory suggests that change happens through conﬂicts and opposing forces within and outside the organiza(on. Similar to a struggle between diﬀering values or interest groups, organiza(ons evolve as these conﬂicts play out. Dialec(cal change can involve compe(ng goals or groups within the organiza(on that challenge each other. 4. Evolu/onary Theory: This theory uses the idea of "compe((ve survival" to explain development. It’s based on the Darwinian concept that organiza(ons, like species, must compete for resources in their environment. Organiza(ons that adapt best to their surroundings survive and succeed, while those that don’t may fail. Change is gradual and builds over (me, similar to how species evolve through natural selec(on. A Typology of Change Process Theories Figure 1 shows a way to categorize the four main theories of change based on four key characteris(cs: ® Motor of Change: What drives the change process. ® Unit of Change: Whether change happens within one organiza(on or between several organiza(ons. ® Mode of Change: If change follows a set path or happens in an unpredictable way. Mode of Change The four theories can be compared based on how change events are structured. They can either follow predetermined rules or emerge as the change happens: Prescribed Mode of Change: This approach guides organiza(ons in a speciﬁc direc(on, focusing on maintaining and gradually adap(ng their current forms. It’s stable and predictable (like in life-cycle and evolu(onary theories). Construc/ve Mode of Change: This approach leads to new and unexpected forms. The change is oVen surprising and doesn’t follow past paWerns (like in dialec(cal and teleological theories). Some teleological theories also explain gradual processes to achieve goals, combining elements from both teleological and life-cycle theories into a mixed model. 1. Theories of Complex Development and Change Processes Speciﬁc Theories as Composites of the Ideal Types Most theories about organiza(onal change and development are more complex than the basic types for two main reasons: 1. Mul/ple Motors: OVen, more than one driving force inﬂuences change and development at the same (me. 2. Incomplete Models: No single model can explain everything. For example, the evolu(onary model talks about random changes but doesn’t explain where those changes come from. Similarly, the dialec(cal model doesn’t fully address how conﬂicts arise. Because of these complexi(es, we believe that most theories of organiza(onal change actually combine two or more of the ideal-type motors. An Array of Composite Theories of Development and Change Each ideal-type theory describes a way that change happens, and by combining these ways, we can create hybrid theories of change. By looking at whether each of the four motors is present or absent in a situa(on, we can iden(fy 16 possible explana(ons for organiza(onal change and development (as shown in Table 3). The rows marked with a "?" indicate areas where we couldn’t ﬁnd a speciﬁc theory in the literature, which suggests opportuni(es for developing new theories. Here are a few examples: Row 5 (Life-Cycle and Teleological Motors): As a product goes through its life cycle, it may become more rigid. Interac(on between designers and customers can aﬀect how the product develops. While the natural progression usually moves down a hierarchy, customer demands might push designers to explore diﬀerent paths or revisit previous stages. Row 9 (Life-Cycle and Dialec/cal Motors): Greiner (1972) described ﬁve stages of organiza(onal growth: crea(vity, direc(on, delega(on, coordina(on, and collabora(on. This is based on life-cycle theory, while dialec(cal theory explains that each stage can lead to its own conﬂicts as the organiza(on evolves. Row 10 (Teleological and Evolu/onary Motors): This theory looks at how change happens at a larger scale over long periods, with occasional interven(ons from top managers who direct change. However, it doesn’t clearly explain what causes the shiVs between stable periods and (mes of transforma(on. Row 14 (Life-Cycle, Teleological, and Evolu/onary Motors): This ambi(ous theory outlines three stages—enactment, selec(on, and reten(on—that form a life cycle for organizing. As behaviors are chosen and kept, individuals can use their crea(vity to inﬂuence the process, which allows the teleological motor to play a role. Over (me, the evolu(onary motor helps decide which organiza(onal forms succeed. Row 15 (All Four Motors): This is the most complex and sophis(cated theory, but there are no examples found in the literature yet. Beneﬁts of the Framework for Theory and Research 1. Clear Explana/on: The framework provides a simple way to understand many diﬀerent theories of organiza(onal development and change. 2. Tool for Improvement: It can be used to cri(que exis(ng theories and help reformulate them. 3. New Insights: The framework highlights areas of organiza(onal change and development that haven’t been explored yet. 4. Founda/on for Research: It oﬀers a solid base for conduc(ng empirical research. Conclusion Each theory is based on a diﬀerent motor of change, which can be represented as a unique ac(on cycle. By examining which motors are present or absent, we create a framework with 16 possible explana(ons for organiza(onal change and development. A key next step is to explore how these four change motors interact with each other. The balance between construc(ve and prescribed motors at diﬀerent levels is likely to be crucial in understanding stability and change within an organiza(on. Discussion ques(ons: Which examples come to mind for each of the four change process theories? How might change agents use this change-process taxonomy? T2 - Summary Stouten et al.: Successful organiza?onal change: Integra?ng the management prac?ce and scholarly literatures Many forces prompt organiza(ons to engage in and manage change. Change management is therefore important. The authors seek to iden(fy ways to improve both prac(ce and research on planned change. First challenge regarding change management: scien(ﬁc literature lacks consensus regarding basic change processes. The second challenge change management prac((oners face is the diﬃculty of learning from experience à organiza/onal change results can take years to materialize, thereby limi(ng the opportuni(es the change manager has to repeatedly make comparable change-related interven(ons and obtain feedback regarding their outcomes. The present ar(cle provides a review and synthesis of prescrip(ve wri(ngs and scien(ﬁc studies on the management of planned organiza/onal change with the goal of iden(fying opportuni(es for integra(on that add value to each. Prescrip/ve Models of Planned Organiza/onal Change The change management literature is full of prescrip(ve models, advising organiza(ons how to best implement planned organiza(onal change. We present them roughly in chronological order of appearance: 1. Lewin’s Three-Phase Process: Kurt Lewin (1948) proposed a three-phase change process that is ubiquitous in the prac(ce literature: (1) unfreezing, (2) transi/oning to a new stage, and (3) refreezing. Unfreezing includes establishing a change vision and developing a change plan. Doing so prepares the organiza(on for the transi(on to new systems, structures, or procedures. This transi(on involves puing the change in place and modifying exis(ng systems in support of the change. Refreezing entails the consolida(on of the change so that it aligns with other organiza(onal structures and procedures. 2. Beer’s Six-Step Change Management Model: Michael Beer - (1) It ﬁrst emphasizes the need to join two aspects of change, an accurate diagnosis of the problem situa/on, which in turn helps mobilize commitment to the change. (2) A change vision then should be developed specifying the focus of the change by deﬁning new roles and responsibili(es. (3) A consensus in support of this vision needs to be established, a step involving communica(ng the vision to stakeholders. (4) The change should now be implemented and spread throughout the organiza(on through the involvement of stakeholders. (5) The change should then be ins(tu(onalized, that is, integrated with formal structures and systems. (6) Finally, the change should be monitored and adjusted as needed, a unique feature of Beer’s model rela(ve to others. 3. Apprecia/ve Inquiry (AI): dis(nguishes among the stages of discovery, dream, design, and des(ny. Starts from a posi(ve perspec(ve: (1) The discovery stage comprises thinking about what goes well in the current organiza(on and what factors contribute to this success. (2) The dream stage encourages employees to think about their “ideal,” new features that would make the organiza(on even beWer. (3) The des/ny stage next involves crea/ng change plans to enable these “dreams,” and execu(on is begun. 4. Judson’s Five Steps: (1) analyzing and planning the change, (2) communica(ng about it, (3) gaining acceptance for the required changes par(cularly in behavior, (4) making the ini(al transi(on from the status quo to the new situa(on, and (5) consolida(ng the new condi(ons and con(nuing to follow-up to ins(tu(onalize the change. à no single approach can possibly account the enormous variability of all the factors present in each unique situa(on and organiza(on. 5. Kanter, Stein, and Jick’s Ten Commandments: (1) analysis of the organiza(on and the need for change, (2) the crea(on of a shared vision and common direc(on in which emphasis is put on (3) the separa(on from the past and (4) crea(ng a sense of that important change is needed. (5) A strong leader role should support the change to increase its legi(macy, (6) where poli(cal sponsorship is sought to create a solid base for the change then sets the stage for (7) the development of an implementa(on plan. (8) Enabling structures should be put into place to help implement the change such as pilot tests, training, and reward programs. (9) Change communica(on should be open and honest and involve all stakeholders in the change process. (10) Finally, the change needs to be reinforced and ins(tu(onalized to incorporate new behaviors in day-to-day opera(ons. 6. Ko_er’s Eight-Step Model: (1) establishing a sense of urgency in which employees are alerted to the fact that change is essen(al. (2) A guiding coali(on is formed which in turn (3) develops the change vision. (4) This vision is communicated to employees and (5) the coali(on (and employees) is involved in the change process by developing change plans. (6) The next step promotes for short-term wins to reinforce the change implementa/on. (7) Then, he deﬁnes the consolida(on stage which strengthens and con(nues the change by making addi(onal changes that were not implemented yet but need to be taken care for as otherwise processes in the organiza(on would not be suﬃciently aligned with the ini(al change vision. (8) The ﬁnal stage ins(tu(onalizes the change by integra(ng it with the organiza(on’s structures and systems. 7. Hia_’s ADKAR Model: 1) “Awareness” involves promo(ng employee beliefs that change is needed. It involves crea(ng a change vision and communica(ng it. (2) The “desire” stage entails the implementa(on of the change vision and focuses on empowering employees to be ac/vely involved in the change. (3) Employee knowledge and skills are developed to support their par(cipa(on in the change. (4) In the reinforcement stage, the changes are strengthened and consolidated into the organiza(ons’ processes and structures. Integra/ng Exis/ng Prescrip/ons with Scien/ﬁc Evidence The seven prescrip(ve models we reviewed share many similari(es, especially in the steps they recommend for managing change. We iden(ﬁed 10 key steps or success factors across these models. 1. Assess the Opportunity or Problem Mo/va/ng the Change: Many models suggest star(ng with a diagnosis to gather informa(on about the speciﬁc problems or opportuni(es for change. It’s important to collect input from all stakeholders and involve employees from the beginning. Diagnosis is a crucial ﬁrst step! Disputes: Some models don’t emphasize the need for a diagnosis or assume that top management's view of the problem is enough to take ac(on. Instead, they focus on crea(ng awareness about the need for change, the reasons behind it, and the risks of not changing. There’s also a strong emphasis on genera(ng a sense of urgency early on. For example, Lewin (1948) suggests crea(ng anxiety among employees to mo(vate them to change (Unfreeze), while KoWer (2012) emphasizes the need for a strategic and emo(onally compelling opportunity to create urgency, although he doesn’t explain how to iden(fy that opportunity. KoWer (1996) believes urgency should encourage seing very ambi(ous goals. However, some experts argue that urgency isn’t always the right approach. Another debate is whether the diagnosis should focus on weaknesses or strengths. 1. Select and Support a Guiding Change Coali/on A key aspect shared by many prescrip(ve models is the role of a guiding coali(on of organiza(on members in managing the change process. This coali(on is encouraged to maintain suppor(ve rela(onships and ongoing communica(on with top management. Disputes: The tasks and makeup of the guiding coali(on vary across models. While they all take a leading role, there’s diﬀerent advice regarding their connec(on to top management. KoWer (1996) suggests that the coali(on should include 5 to 50 trusted individuals, some of whom should be “outstanding leaders.” There’s debate about whether the CEO should be part of this group. Kanter et al. (1992) recommend including stakeholders aﬀected by the change, along with those who have the necessary resources to make the change work, such as informa(on, funding, or poli(cal support. KoWer (1996) advises against including people with big egos or those who spread nega(vity and mistrust. Scien/ﬁc evidence: Evidence on the role of the guiding coali(on is limited. 2. Formulate a Clear Compelling Vision of the Change It’s important to create a clear and mo(va(ng vision that outlines the change, separa(ng the content of the vision from how it is communicated. A strong vision should appeal to a broad range of stakeholders. Beer (1980) argues that organiza(ons should deﬁne their desired future state, including not just numerical goals but also the necessary behaviors and aitudes. Disputes: Models diﬀer on who should be involved in crea(ng the vision—whether it’s the guiding coali(on, a large group of employees, or diﬀerent stakeholders. Scien/ﬁc evidence: Research highlights the importance of seing aWrac(ve goals when pursuing change, which can take the form of a compelling vision. A challenge in crea(ng a vision is addressing poten(al losses, as changes can be seen nega(vely by employees. The legi(macy of the reasons for change becomes especially important when losses are involved. Research suggests that people will support a vision diﬀerently based on how well it aligns with their exis(ng beliefs and their view of the change’s impact. 3. Communicate the Vision How the vision is communicated is crucial for genera(ng awareness (HiaW, 2006) and support for the change (KoWer, 2005). A compelling vision becomes more eﬀec(ve when it’s easy to understand and remember, and when it addresses the interests of those aﬀected by the change, including fairness and future opportuni(es. HiaW (2006) suggests that awareness is more easily achieved when the reason for change is clear and visible. A key way to communicate the vision is through execu(ves ac(ng as role models (HiaW, 2006; KoWer, 2005), which shows their commitment to the change and emphasizes its importance. Open and honest communica(on is essen(al for ensuring employees fully understand the change. Disputes: Ques(ons arise about the channels and methods of communica(on. Is complete transparency necessary? Should diﬀerent groups receive diﬀerent messages about the vision? Scien/ﬁc evidence: Research supports using a mul(-channel strategy to communicate a compelling vision. A major issue is being clear about any poten(al nega(ve impacts of the change, and whether these should be discussed in the vision. 4. Mobilize Energy for Change Mobilizing energy for change means planning the implementa(on of change at all levels of the organiza(on. Many models also recommend gathering informa(on during this phase to help plan change interven(ons and sequence speciﬁc ac(vi(es. Disputes: The main diﬀerence across models is how quickly mobiliza(on should happen. Judson (1991) suggests that change should start slowly to reduce threats and help employees adjust. Beer (1980) states that the pace should depend on management’s readiness. In contrast, KoWer (1996) encourages a sense of urgency and suggests crea(ng crises and seing high targets that cannot be achieved through normal opera(ons. Scien/ﬁc evidence: Research is limited on the (ming of change processes, but it acknowledges that management might not always be ready for change and may need prior investments to support more complex changes. When change is frequent, it becomes con(nuous, and the history of change impacts how new changes are perceived. Research on the theory of planned behavior (TPB) highlights three cri(cal areas for successful planned change: (1) Ability: the capability of individuals, groups, and organiza(ons to engage in new behaviors; (2) Mo(va(on: the willingness to behave in new ways; and (3) Opportunity: the support available for demonstra(ng new behaviors. 5. Empower Others to Act Employees should be empowered to act in alignment with the vision, allowing them to develop new ideas and ways of working based on their understanding of the change. For change recipients, empowerment means crea(ng opportuni(es to take posi(ve ac(ons that meet their needs during the change process. Team ac(vi(es can also be focused on this stage, with local managers encouraging involvement from employees. Management should foster an environment where employees feel comfortable proposing ini(a(ves and rewarding their eﬀorts, while also being open to their concerns. Disputes: There are no signiﬁcant disputes here. Scien/ﬁc evidence: The literature supports the idea that ac(ve involvement encourages employee engagement, allowing them to provide input and learn in their work environment. Empowering others to act highlights the importance of expanding change-related ac(ons beyond just leadership, reﬂec(ng the signiﬁcance of grassroots ini(a(ves and proac(ve behavior. 6. Develop and Promote Change-Related Knowledge and Ability Successful change oVen requires learning new skills and knowledge. Developing knowledge and abili(es related to the change focuses on the learning aspects of organiza(onal change, helping employees understand the vision and how to prac(ce new behaviors. Among the seven approaches, only HiaW (2006) speciﬁcally men(ons a step for learning and knowledge development. Both HiaW (2006) and KoWer (1996) recognize that even mo(vated employees may lack the necessary knowledge or skills. Learning is facilitated by providing suﬃcient support and resources (Beer et al., 1990; HiaW, 2006). Beer emphasizes that a key managerial role is to support employees in ac(ng independently. HiaW’s framework suggests that removing barriers to using new skills is essen(al, and organiza(ons should ensure employees are ready to develop and apply these new skills. Disputes: There’s no clear agreement across models on how knowledge should be acquired. Scien/ﬁc evidence: Developing knowledge and abili(es is crucial for successful change, helping employees understand the vision and mo(va(ng them to change. 7. Iden/fy Short-Term Wins and Use as Reinforcement of Change Process The models reviewed emphasize the importance of showing progress. Evidence of progress should be clearly communicated and visible to many, reinforcing the change vision. Short-term wins should be meaningful to employees. Disputes: Only KoWer focuses speciﬁcally on short-term outcomes, while HiaW refers to progress indicators, and others say liWle on this topic. Scien/ﬁc evidence: Research supports the importance of using meaningful indicators to signal progress. Metrics that reﬂect changes in important outcomes valued by employees, such as health and safety or customer sa(sfac(on, may be more impactul than metrics that appeal primarily to management, like ﬁnancial indicators. 8. Monitor and Strengthen the Change Process over Time Most models agree on the need to keep managing the change over (me. This means con(nuously inves(ng resources (like leader (me, staﬃng, and money) to remind people of the change’s urgency and maintain momentum (KoWer, 2012). A second aspect of this ongoing management is monitoring the change process and adjus(ng plans as necessary (Beer et al., 1990). Disputes: Only Beer (1980) highlights the need for con(nuous audi(ng or monitoring of the change process. Scien/ﬁc evidence: Research supports Beer’s recommenda(on. 9. Ins/tu/onalize Change in Company Culture, Prac/ces, and Management Succession The ﬁnal step is to embed the change in everyday ac(vi(es. According to KoWer (2005), two key aspects are: ﬁrst, making it clear to employees that performance has improved because of the change; and second, ensuring that both top and middle management align with the change vision and the behaviors it entails (Beer, 1980). Disputes: There’s general agreement across models on the need to ins(tu(onalize change. Scien/ﬁc evidence: There is extensive academic discussion about how to eﬀec(vely ins(tu(onalize change. Implica(ons The ten steps change management experts prescribe reveal a degree of agreement regarding ac(vi(es to enable organiza(onal change interven(ons. At the same (me, each speciﬁc framework includes other dis(nc(ve and oVen unique dimensions (see Table 1). Importantly, they tend, with the excep(on of AI and Beer, to assume a top/down planning process. Insights from the Scien/ﬁc Literature on Change Management The outcomes usually highlighted in studies on organiza(onal change mainly focus on (1) employee commitment to change and (2) the adop(on and use of new prac(ces within the organiza(on, which in turn aﬀects desired organiza(onal results. We aimed to understand the factors that inﬂuence change acceptance, adop(on, and organiza(onal outcomes. Our ﬁndings are based on three types of studies: (1) individual-level studies, (2) group-level studies, and (3) organiza(on-level studies.. Micro: Individual-Level Findings Regarding Change Recipients Micro: Individual-Level Findings Regarding Change Recipients Research places signiﬁcant emphasis on the individual diﬀerences that inﬂuence commitment to and acceptance of change. These individual diﬀerences include two key factors: a person's belief in their ability to successfully engage in change and their personal preferences for change experiences. Þ Predisposi/ons toward change: Certain personal traits can lead employees to respond posi(vely to change and feel commiWed to it (e.g., being ﬂexible and adaptable). Moreover, having a posi(ve outlook and a sense of control over the change can boost employees’ readiness to embrace it. Conversely, a tendency to resist change is linked to nega(ve aitudes towards it. Þ Aﬀec/ng recipient mo/va/on: Several factors are essen(al for mo(va(ng employees to accept change. One key factor is how favorable they perceive the change to be. Research suggests that change eﬀorts that emphasize beneﬁts and lessen losses (e.g., providing extra resources to reduce uncertainty) can enhance acceptance. If employees believe they understand the reason behind a change and ﬁnd it meaningful, they are likely to have a more posi(ve aitude toward it. Addi(onally, employees’ overall commitment to the organiza(on helps facilitate acceptance of change. Stress is common during change, and it’s important to recognize what triggers this stress, as change can oVen feel harmful or frustra(ng to personal goals. Þ Percep/ons of fairness: Beliefs about fairness play a crucial role in how well change is accepted and seen as eﬀec(ve. While some models men(on fairness, they oVen do not clearly explain its importance. Employees also tend to rely on their expecta(ons of fairness to shape their current views on jus(ce. Þ Iden/ﬁca/on: When employees feel a strong connec(on to the organiza(on, they are more likely to focus on the processes of implemen(ng change, even if those processes seem nega(ve. In contrast, employees who do not strongly iden(fy with the organiza(on tend to focus more on the outcomes of the change. Meso-Level Findings Meso-level phenomena involve eﬀects that occur across diﬀerent levels: Þ Social /es and rela/onship quality: The ability to implement change is strongly inﬂuenced by social connec(ons. Individual readiness and willingness to accept change can be shaped by the quality of rela(onships within the organiza(on and how peers’ rela(onships aﬀect them. Meso-level eﬀects in change can involve the combined inﬂuence of mul(ple rela(onships. Social (es also play a role in determining who should be chosen as change agents. Þ Emergent processes of change: Emergent processes refer to small changes that can lead to larger eﬀects. Employees within a team or department are oVen in a good posi(on to iden(fy obstacles to change and can take small steps to address change-related issues. Addi(onally, when peers make small improvements, it can encourage those who are less commiWed to the change to become more accep(ng, as ﬁrsthand experience with new rou(nes posi(vely inﬂuences later adopters. These small local changes are vital for successfully implemen(ng more complex, larger-scale changes. Þ Shared goals and beliefs: The level of agreement among individuals in a larger group is an important meso-level process related to change, especially concerning shared beliefs and goals. Among various team-level factors like communica(on and support for innova(on, having a shared vision has the strongest impact. Macro: Organiza/on-Level Findings Organiza(onal characteris(cs play a signiﬁcant role in change processes: Þ Leadership competency: One key factor is how skilled leaders are at implemen(ng change. Eﬀec(ve management is linked to successful implementa(on. Research suggests that having several change leaders with diﬀerent but complementary skills can be valuable. Leadership competency also aﬀects how well managers handle change themselves. Þ Trust in leaders: Employees who trust their leaders are generally more open to change and are more likely to view what leaders say about the change as credible. Þ The nature of the change itself: Changes can be technical, social, or managerial, and this can lead to diﬀerent outcomes for the organiza(on and its members. In complex changes, it can be helpful to implement mul(ple related changes, known as “bundles,” which should align with the organiza(on’s strategic goals to be eﬀec(ve. Þ Readiness of the organiza/on for change: Organiza(ons vary in their overall readiness for change. The organiza(on’s history is par(cularly important in shaping the quality of employee rela(onships and its impact on change. Integra/ng Prescrip/ve and Empirical Literatures on Change Management Combining the ﬁndings from research on change leads us to ten key, evidence-based principles for managing change eﬀec(vely. #1 Get Facts Regarding the Nature of the Problem(s) – Diagnosis Step 1 The ﬁrst step is to gather facts to help diagnose whether change is needed. This means collec(ng informa(on about the organiza(on, how it works, its results, and outcomes from diﬀerent sources and stakeholders. Two types of facts are crucial: (1) insights into the need for change and (2) informa(on about exis(ng condi(ons or barriers that might aﬀect how change can be implemented. #2 Assess and Address the Organiza(on’s Readiness for Change – Diagnosis Step 2 Another important part of gathering facts is assessing how ready the organiza(on is for change. First, look at the organiza(on's history and past successes or failures with change, as these inﬂuence how employees view upcoming changes. Second, consider the current stress levels that employees face. Third, evaluate the ability of senior leadership to guide and implement change. If there are weaknesses in any of these areas, take early steps to improve the organiza(on’s and its members' capacity to support and implement change. #3 Implement Evidence-Based Change Interven(ons The next step is to iden(fy solu(ons. A good diagnosis will highlight the types of changes needed and how to improve readiness. First, involve a diverse group of people inside and outside the organiza(on who understand the problem to help iden(fy possible solu(ons. Second, engage stakeholders, including aﬀected employees and managers, to gather informa(on about poten(al solu(ons and test alterna(ves. Third, look for scien(ﬁc evidence on the beneﬁts and risks of speciﬁc changes and how to implement them eﬀec(vely. #4 Develop Eﬀec(ve Change Leadership Throughout the Organiza(on Leaders who are trustworthy, suppor(ve, honest, and transparent about the change and future are more likely to create a safe environment where employees feel comfortable sharing their thoughts, making mistakes, and learning. Eﬀec(ve change requires training current leaders in skills related to managing change, focusing on how to handle change themselves and how to help their employees manage change eﬀec(vely. #5 Develop and Communicate a Compelling Change Vision There is strong agreement on the importance of having a clear and mo(va(ng vision for change. However, it’s less clear what speciﬁc elements make a vision compelling. There is more consensus on how to communicate the vision eﬀec(vely, which should include (1) repea(ng the message and (2) providing strong evidence to support it. #6 Work with Social Networks and Tap Their Inﬂuence Social networks play a vital role in inﬂuencing change. The eﬀec(veness of change agents depends not just on their personal skills but also on their connec(ons within the organiza(on. Building rela(onships with inﬂuen(al members who support the change can help persuade those who are hesitant. #7 Use Enabling Prac(ces to Support Implementa(on A range of enabling prac(ces can help support various change ini(a(ves. These can assist with the ini(al rollout of complex changes and aid ongoing progress. o Goal sejng: Clearly deﬁning change-related goals for individuals, teams, and the organiza(on is crucial for driving change and addressing mo(va(on issues. o Learning: Learning is central to all change processes. o Employee par/cipa/on: Involving employees helps with sharing informa(on and gathering feedback. o Fairness and jus/ce: Fair treatment and transparent processes are key to successfully implemen(ng change. o Transi/onal structures: A gradual approach to change can include pilot tests, experiments, and local ini(a(ves to make complex changes easier. #8 Promote Micro-Processes and Experimenta(on Small-scale processes are essen(al for eﬀec(ve change. These involve using mul(ple small interven(ons to promote learning by doing and create opportuni(es to test what works. Instead of focusing solely on short-term wins, the research emphasizes “small wins,” where employees at lower levels make improvements that show the poten(al beneﬁts of change. #9 Assess Change Progress and Outcomes over Time Regular assessments are needed to check if the planned change is leading to the expected ac(vi(es, experiences, and outcomes. #10 Ins(tu(onalize the Change to Sustain Its Eﬀec(veness Sustaining change means integra(ng it into the organiza(on’s broader systems, including its culture and management prac(ces. Implica/ons for Prac/ce We encourage prac((oners to take (me for careful thought, reﬂec(on, and experimenta(on when managing planned change. Recognize that all evidence-based principles may need local adjustments. Ul(mately, change prac((oners should aim to align individual, team, and organiza(onal goals throughout the change process. Finally, there is limited evidence on the best speed for implemen(ng change, and even expert models vary on this point. Summary Rousseau & ten Have: Evidence-based change management Abstract: Evidence-Based Change Management is the science-informed prac(ce of managing planned organiza/onal change. It reﬂects two key principles: 1) Planned change is more likely to succeed when using science-informed prac/ces, and 2) Regular use of four sources of evidence (scien/ﬁc, organiza/onal, stakeholder, and prac//oner experience) improve the quality of change-related decisions. We describe two sets of science-informed prac(ces: 1) Ongoing Ac/ons used throughout the change process (e.g., goal seing, vision communica(on, and feedback/redesign) and 2) Phased Ac/ons each /med to a speciﬁc change phase (e.g., early diagnosis or late-stage ins(tu(onaliza(on). This ar(cle presents evidence-based prac(ces for successful planned organiza(onal change. The Role of Evidence In Change Management Poor Change Decisions From Untrustworthy Informa/on Trustworthy informa(on is cri(cal to successful change-related decisions. It’s Tough to Learn to Manage Change Using Experience Alone Change managers ﬁnd it diﬃcult to learn what works and what doesn’t by relying solely on their experiences. Each planned change in an organiza(on has its own goals and ac(ons, making it hard to get clear feedback on success. Un(l now, change managers haven’t had solid guidelines based on evidence to follow. Because their ac(ons oVen lack a systema(c approach, they may misunderstand why they achieved certain results. So, relying on experience alone isn’t eﬀec(ve for them. The good news is that change managers can improve their decisions by doing two things: 1) seeking reliable informa(on about the organiza(on, its stakeholders, and the change strategies they are considering, and 2) using this informa(on along with the evidence-based guidelines we provide What About Consultants? The ques(ons we have about the exper(se of change managers also apply to consultants. There isn’t much research showing whether outside consultants are truly valuable in change management. Some studies suggest that consultants can help share knowledge, but it’s oVen hard to judge the quality of the consultants themselves. Important Change-Related Informa/on Comes from Mul/ple Sources A success factor in eﬀec(ve change is use of quality evidence from mul/ple sources (Table 1). Ac(ng without iden(fying the real problem is the root of many failed changes. An evidence-based approach means considering several possible problem deﬁni/ons and evalua/ng their plausibility—by checking out scien/ﬁc evidence, reviewing organiza/onal data, consul/ng experienced prac//oners, and gathering input from key stakeholders. Doing so makes it more likely you will iden(fy a real problem in need of aWen(on—and develop solu(ons to match. Four steps help you obtain facts from mul(ple sources: 1. Get ﬁrst-hand observa/ons, your own and from knowledgeable others, regarding the problem the change should solve. 2. Obtain reliable quan(ta(ve metrics and representa/ve qualita/ve data about the problem situa(on. 3. Gather informa/on from various stakeholder groups regarding their percep/ons of the problem, concerns, and possible solu(ons. Assure people that speaking up is safe and no individual will be iden(ﬁed– and keep their conﬁdence. Take pains to get representa(ve informa(on and diverse viewpoints. 4. Conduct a targeted search of the scien/ﬁc literature. A change informed by trustworthy facts tends to make sense to change recipients and increases their commitment to change. Trustworthy facts are a key ingredient in eﬀec(ve change. Employees tend to trust managers who provide evidence for the decisions they make and using mul(ple sources signals the care taken to make a good decision. Trust is a Two-way Street Using reliable informa(on is essen(al for being a trustworthy change manager, and gaining the trust of your employees is crucial for successful change. Change oVen fails for two main reasons: employees don’t trust their leaders, and leaders rely too much on top-down approaches because they don’t trust their teams to support the change. Both of these issues create doubt and fear, which can weaken employee commitment to the change. Trust is vital because successful change depends on the skills and dedica(on of many people. Research shows that when employees have more freedom and ac(vely par(cipate at work, they are beWer able and more willing to make changes in their own tasks. For change to be truly eﬀec(ve, it needs both top-down and boWom-up eﬀorts, giving it the unique energy and momentum it needs to succeed. ONGOING ACTIONS THROUGHOUT THE CHANGE PROCESS We present a framework (Fig. 2) to help you think about change-suppor(ng ac(ons in two ways: Ongoing Ac/ons throughout the change process and Phased Ac/ons /med to a speciﬁc phase of a change. Goal Sejng Goals are strong mo(vators for behavior. Seing clear, change-related goals helps mo(vate and guide the change process. These goals should be based on organiza(onal facts, industry metrics, prac((oner experience, and stakeholder concerns about important outcomes. Eﬀec(ve goals can help solve common change challenges. For goals to be mo(va(ng, people need to see them as valid and appropriate. Goal acceptance is higher when employees trust their leaders and when the goals make sense to them. There are two key types of goals for eﬀec(ve change: learning goals (which specify the skills and knowledge to be gained) and performance goals (which focus on speciﬁc behaviors and outcomes related to the change). Communica/ng Change Vision A vision is a clear picture of a compelling future that inspires change. Throughout all phases of change, regularly referring to the vision in both public messages and private conversa(ons helps everyone understand and focus on the change. You can ask stakeholders about the vision to see how many can explain it. This can also show whether they understand and accept the reasons for the change. The vision should be communicated frequently and is most eﬀec(ve when shared with groups and teams, rather than just individuals through email. This communica(on is reinforced by ac(ons that highlight the vision. When employees face challenges or losses due to change, sharing the vision helps clarify the reasons for the change and encourages more posi(ve reac(ons. Promo/ng Fairness Fairness is essen(al for successful change, meaning trea(ng people fairly and respectully and addressing unequal outcomes. This is par(cularly important because change can have uneven eﬀects, where some people beneﬁt more than others. There are several forms of fairness to consider in change management: Distribu/ve Fairness: How beneﬁts and burdens are shared among individuals. o Managing poten(al losses from change is crucial. Procedural Fairness: Ensuring that the processes and criteria for making change decisions are consistent and fair. This includes giving everyone, regardless of their role, a chance to speak up and correct any misinforma(on. Reliable informa(on is key to good change decisions, and procedural fairness helps improve this. Commiing to fair processes can also help rebuild trust if past changes didn’t go well. Interpersonal Fairness: Showing respect to individuals and groups. Transi/on Structures Change oVen requires crea(ve temporary arrangements, or "transi(on structures," to meet short-term needs. Mul(ple transi(on structures can be used at once to build the organiza(on’s ability to change. Short-term experiments can be launched as "pilots" to create new prac(ces that employees can learn from, making acceptance and implementa(on smoother. Other transi(on structures include "rites of passage," such as celebra(ons and recogni(on events when an old system is replaced by a new one. These rituals help mark the change and reduce the likelihood of returning to old ways. Another temporary measure is oﬀering "special deals" to individuals in exchange for their support in changing their roles or workloads. These deals can provide necessary resources to help drive change. Feedback and Redesign Based on Change Progress Over Time Regular monitoring helps track how change is progressing. Combining organiza(onal metrics with par(cipant feedback allows for adjustments to change prac(ces as needed. Learning Change involves learning at every stage. It’s important to iden(fy gaps in knowledge and skills during change planning, as these gaps can arise over (me. Together, these ﬁve ongoing ac(ons create energy, direc(on, and capability throughout the change process. PHASED ACTION: CRITICAL STEPS AT THE RIGHT TIME We now describe Phased Ac(ons and their (ming within the four cri(cal phases of change: 1) Geing Ready (the prepara(on phase), 2) Ini(a(ng Change (the early launch), 3) Transforming or Implementa(on (when major changes happen), and 4) Sustaining (integra(ng change into the organiza(on). While steps within a phase can happen in diﬀerent orders, what occurs in each phase depends on eﬀec(ve ac(ons taken earlier—you can’t make a change last if it wasn’t properly done ﬁrst. So, although some steps might come earlier or later than described here, the goal is to take the best ac(ons possible at each stage of the change process. Phase One: Gejng Started by Fact Gathering and Assessing Readiness A well-done Geing Started phase lays a strong founda(on for change. Its goal is to iden(fy real problems, remove obstacles, and ﬁnd suitable solu(ons. This includes Goal Seing (Ongoing Ac(ons). 1. Fact Gathering and Problem Deﬁni/on: Careful diagnosis helps avoid star(ng change based on misunderstandings. This involves gathering informa(on about the current situa(on and what changes are needed. It’s best done by a team with diverse members who have knowledge and skills relevant to the organiza(on, along with strong support from leaders. 2. Assess and Address the Organiza/on’s Readiness for Change: Readiness means the organiza(on’s current ability to handle the demands of change. People need the mental and physical capacity to do the hard work involved. Understanding readiness can help iden(fy necessary adjustments in the change’s scope or scale, especially for those who are less ready or already busy. Early aWen(on to barriers improves the chances of success, and ini(al ﬁxes should come before major change eﬀorts begin. 3. Iden/fy Evidence-Based Change Interven/ons: Developing eﬀec(ve solu(ons for change is the next step. A thorough diagnosis reveals what needs to be addressed to move the organiza(on closer to its goals. Successful interven(ons typically focus on three areas: o Ability: Building the skills needed for new behaviors. o Mo/va/on: Increasing willingness to adopt new behaviors. o Opportunity: Making it easier to change by providing support and removing obstacles. Phase Two: Ini/a/on by Building Change Capacity and Expecta/ons Once change is set in mo(on, the Ini(a(on phase enhances the organiza(on’s capacity for change. This phase helps create new expecta(ons for both managers and employees about their roles and aligns with what is oVen seen as the unfreezing phase of change. Senior leaders or a change team may guide this phase, encouraging broader par(cipa(on and sharing of informa(on. Ongoing Ac(ons during this phase include seing change goals, communica(ng the vision, and ensuring fairness as solu(ons are implemented. 1. Develop Change Leadership Throughout the Organiza/on: Leadership is key to change. Eﬀec(ve change leadership happens at all levels, and anyone can be a change agent or role model. Trustworthy and suppor(ve leaders create a safe environment, encouraging employees to share their thoughts and learn from mistakes. It’s important to train and coach people to help them understand their roles in the change and manage its demands and uncertain(es. Useful skills include running and evalua(ng trials. Leaders oVen face challenges from high job demands, so they need to be prepared for the ac(vi(es involved in both ini(a(ng and execu(ng change. 2. Develop a Compelling Vision: A clear and meaningful vision is crucial for success. It should describe a desirable future that resonates with everyone involved. This vision should be coherent and inspiring, rooted in shared hopes and aspira(ons, and promote posi(ve beliefs about the reasons for change. Phase Three: Transi/on to Expand and Scale Up Change The Transi(on phase focuses on ramping up the implementa(on of new prac(ces. Common ac(vi(es include training more people, expanding to new areas, and encouraging experimenta(on with new ways of working. This phase can make full use of Ongoing Ac(ons. 3. Tap the Inﬂuence of Social Networks: Change is accelerated by engaging social networks, reaching out to groups instead of just individuals. When groups par(cipate in change ac(vi(es, they can inﬂuence each other more eﬀec(vely. Having representa(ves from these networks on change teams can enhance their impact. 4. Promote Micro-Processes (“Small Wins”) and Experimenta/on: Local, small-scale processes are important for transforming the organiza(on. Employees at lower levels can suggest improvements, showing clear signs of a change’s poten(al. Leaders who respond posi(vely to employee-ini(ated ac(vi(es encourage local innova(ons or “small wins.” These small changes help support larger change plans. Crea(ve and eﬀec(ve change ideas can come from employees themselves. Phase Four: Sustaining the Change The goal of the Sustaining Phase is to solidify the change, help it last, and achieve intended results. Ongoing Ac(ons are important here, par(cularly goal seing to focus on desired outcomes, feedback and redesign eﬀorts to enhance implementa(on, and learning. The Ongoing Ac(on of Learning involves collec(ve reﬂec(on to capture lessons learned, which should be documented and shared. 5. Ins/tu/onalize to Sustain the Change: Making change last means incorpora(ng it into the organiza(on’s overall systems. This aligns with the refreezing stage of change. Ins(tu(onaliza(on involves aligning new prac(ces with the organiza(on’s exis(ng systems to remove obstacles and promote acceptance. Once the change becomes rou(ne, employees who were slow to adopt it are more likely to get on board. Ins(tu(onaliza(on ensures the change remains stable, reducing the risk of rever(ng to old ways, even with new leaders or team members. New hires may also need training on the new skills and prac(ces. This process not only sustains changes but can also lead to improvements as employees become more adept at their new roles. Conclusion Using quality evidence and the prac(ces that arise from it can transform the change process, build trust in change leaders, and ac(vely involve members at all levels. Your ac(ons as an evidence-based change manager will become more eﬀec(ve as you reﬂect, cri(cally assess, and stay curious about your organiza(on and its experiences. With reliable evidence and a structured process, change becomes easier to manage, making your experience as a change prac((oner more valid and trustworthy. Discussion ques(ons: What advantages/disadvantages does each change management model have? Do you have a favorite model? Why? T3 - Summary Yin et al.: Understanding how people react to change: A domain of uncertainty approach. Introduc/on The ar(cle explores the role of change in organiza(ons and how individuals’ reac(ons to it are crucial for success. Change can happen internally (like new policies or procedures) or externally (like economic or technological shiVs) and is an important part of modern organiza(onal life. Understanding how individuals respond to change is essen(al for eﬀec(ve transforma(on. While change is oVen deﬁned in speciﬁc ways (such as strategic or radical), all types share a common trait: they move away from the status quo. The review combines research from management, psychology, and marke(ng, focusing on individual reac(ons to change. It introduces a "domain of uncertainty" (DOU) framework to address the common ques(ons people have when facing change and how diﬀerent factors aﬀect their responses. This framework aims to explain why some people accept change while others resist it and suggests direc(ons for future research on managing change beWer. REVIEW OF SEVEN CLUSTERS STUDYING REACTIONS TO CHANGE The cluster analysis found seven dis(nct research groups studying how individuals react to change, highligh(ng the isolated nature of research across ﬁelds like marke(ng, crea(vity, and organiza(onal change. Each cluster mainly references studies from its own area, limi(ng knowledge sharing across disciplines. To connect this fragmented research, three main ques(ons were iden(ﬁed: 1. How do individuals (as consumers, users, or evaluators) decide to accept or reject new products, ideas, and technologies? 2. How do decision-makers in organiza(ons evaluate change? 3. How do those aﬀected by organiza(onal change respond aVer a decision is made? #1 How People Evaluate New Things: Insights from the Crea/vity, Marke/ng, and Technological Innova/on Adop/on Clusters Each cluster looks at how people evaluate changes, such as new products, ideas, or technologies, focusing on uncertain(es around their value and ease of use. 1. Marke/ng studies how consumers react to new products, considering their perceived beneﬁts, ease of use, and possible costs of switching. A challenge arises with "really new" products that consumers may ﬁnd hard to understand. Generally, moderate novelty is preferred; extreme novelty can be overwhelming due to increased uncertainty. 2. Technological Innova/on Adop/on examines how employees and consumers adopt new technologies, focusing on usability and value. Common concerns include anxiety about learning new systems (especially worries about skills and control) and doubts about the beneﬁts of innova(on. Training and large user networks can ease these anxie(es, with older individuals and women oVen feeling more inﬂuenced by their sense of control over technology. 3. Crea/vity looks at reac(ons to new ideas, oVen in organiza(onal seings. Because new ideas come with uncertainty, evaluators assess them based on criteria they ﬁnd important. This oVen leads to undervaluing novel ideas due to their uncertainty. Decision-makers who are less tolerant of uncertainty or who focus on avoiding risks are more likely to show this bias. Strategies like promo(ng a posi(ve outlook, using visual aids, or crowdfunding can help reduce these biases and improve acceptance of new ideas. Across all three clusters, there is a common tendency to prefer the status quo due to fear of uncertainty. All clusters recognize that people evaluate the value of change, and the eﬀort needed to achieve that value. Moderate novelty is usually favored, while high novelty poses challenges that diﬀerent clusters address through techniques like mental simula(on, analogical thinking, and familiariza(on strategies. #2 How Decision-Makers in Organiza/ons Evaluate Change: Insights from the Voice and Macro- Organiza/onal Change Clusters This sec(on looks at two groups of research: the voice cluster and the macro-organiza(onal change cluster, both focusing on how decision-makers assess change in organiza(ons. 1. Voice Cluster: This research studies how managers respond to employees’ sugges(ons for change. Managers oVen worry about how these sugges(ons might impact their own status. They may feel threatened, especially if they lack conﬁdence or see a poten(al loss of control. How a manager reacts depends on factors like their focus on goals, the nature of the sugges(on, and the characteris(cs of the employee making the proposal. 2. Macro-Organiza/onal Change Cluster: This group examines how top managers respond to major changes in the external environment, such as shiVs in the market or disrup(ve technologies. Unlike mid-level managers, top managers oVen view these changes as chances to boost their organiza(on’s or their own status. However, they can be held back by cogni(ve iner(a (the tendency to s(ck with the status quo) and a strong commitment to exis(ng ways of doing things. Their perspec(ve—shaped by their professional iden(ty—can also inﬂuence how they view innova(ons. Key Insights: Managers consider both the poten(al beneﬁts and broader eﬀects of change. Mid-level managers might resist changes suggested by lower-level employees due to perceived threats, while top managers may see large changes as opportuni(es for advancement. Cogni(ve iner(a and a commitment to the status quo are signiﬁcant obstacles to embracing change. Change is more likely to be accepted when it aligns with managers' goals. #3 How Change Recipients Evaluate Change: Insights from the Macro-Organiza/onal Change, Micro- Organiza/onal Change, and Individual Adapta/on Clusters Each research group provides valuable insights into how employees assess and respond to changes. 1. Macro-Organiza/onal Change: o Focus: Big organiza(onal changes like strategic shiVs, restructuring, or cultural changes. o Key Concerns: Employees worry about how the change will happen and its overall impact. They oVen ques(on whether the change aligns with organiza(onal values and if it oﬀers more beneﬁts than s(cking with the old ways. Unclear details about the change can lead to nega(ve feelings. o Insights: Nega(ve reac(ons are more common when changes are dras(c, complicated, or poorly explained. Eﬀec(ve strategies include clear communica(on, good framing of the change, and addressing emo(onal responses. 2. Micro-Organiza/onal Change: o Focus: Changes within speciﬁc teams or departments, such as new procedures or structures. o Key Concerns: Employees focus on how the change is put into prac(ce and how it aﬀects them personally. o Insights: Reac(ons are inﬂuenced by leadership style, trust in managers, and how fair the process seems. Posi(ve factors include transforma(onal leadership, support, and clear communica(on about the change. 3. Individual Adapta/on: o Focus: How individuals adjust to changes in their tasks or work environments. o Key Concerns: The emphasis is on how people cope with and adapt to changes in their roles. o Insights: Individuals with higher cogni(ve and emo(onal intelligence, as well as traits like openness and conscien(ousness, adapt beWer. Using self-regula(on strategies, having a learning mindset, and receiving suppor(ve leadership can help with adapta(on. Common Insights Across Clusters: Change recipients mainly care about how changes are implemented and how they personally feel about them, beyond just the func(onal beneﬁts to the organiza(on. Complex, challenging, or unclear changes oVen lead to nega(ve reac(ons. Transforma(onal leadership, fair processes, and suppor(ve organiza(onal environments are essen(al for posi(ve responses to change. A DOU Integra/ve Framework This document presents a framework to understand how individuals respond to change, highligh(ng four key themes from the research: 1. Types of Uncertainty: o Conceptual Uncertainty: What exactly is the change? o Func/onal Value Uncertainty: What beneﬁts does the change oﬀer? o Process Uncertainty: How will the change be implemented? How hard will it be? How do I adjust to it? o Impact Uncertainty: What are the wider eﬀects of the change on the organiza(on and on me? o People focus on diﬀerent uncertain(es based on their goals. For instance, someone trying to understand the change will concentrate on conceptual uncertainty, while someone assessing the beneﬁts will focus on func(onal value uncertainty. 2. Direct vs. Indirect Reduc/on of Uncertainty: o Direct Reduc/on: This involves geing speciﬁc informa(on about the uncertainty, like tes(ng a product or reading reviews. o Indirect Reduc/on: This involves relying on secondary cues or feelings, like trus(ng a manager or using mental shortcuts. 3. Diﬃculty of Reducing Uncertainty: o Novelty and Ambiguity: The more new or unclear a change is, the harder it becomes to directly reduce uncertainty. This leads people to depend more on indirect methods. 4. Disposi/onal Tendencies: o Comfort with Uncertainty: People diﬀer in how comfortable they are with uncertainty and what outcomes they expect. Those who are comfortable and expect posi(ve results are more likely to support change, while those who are uncomfortable or expect nega(ve outcomes may resist it. The framework, shown in Figure 2, illustrates how goals shape the type of uncertainty people focus on, how the novelty and ambiguity of a change aﬀect how they deal with uncertainty, and how personal traits inﬂuence their reac(ons to change. Understanding these aspects can help create strategies that encourage posi(ve responses to change by eﬀec(vely addressing uncertainty. The Four DOUs This document connects individual goals to the speciﬁc domains of uncertainty (DOUs) that inﬂuence how people react to change. Here are the main points: 1. Goals and DOUs: o Understanding the Change (Conceptual Uncertainty): When people want to fully understand a change, they focus on what the change is. For example, experts need to know the details of new technology. o Assessing Value (Func/onal Value Uncertainty): When the goal is to evaluate a change's value, individuals ask how beneﬁcial it is. This is important for decision- makers and consumers looking at products or organiza(onal changes. o Enac/ng or Using the Change (Process Uncertainty): Those who need to implement or use a change focus on how it will be carried out, including ques(ons about execu(on. o Broader Impact (Impact Uncertainty): When considering how a change aﬀects larger aspects, people look at its overall impact, like how it inﬂuences job security or status. This is par(cularly important for managers and employees. 2. Types of Uncertainty: o Conceptual Uncertainty: Involves understanding what the change actually is. This oVen leads to nega(ve reac(ons when changes are new or unclear. o Func/onal Value Uncertainty: Concerns whether the change is valuable compared to the current situa(on. This is signiﬁcant in areas like marke(ng and innova(on. o Process Uncertainty: Relates to how the change will be implemented and learned, aﬀec(ng reac(ons when this process is unclear. o Impact Uncertainty: Focuses on the broader eﬀects of the change beyond its immediate value, such as impacts on job security. How Individuals Answer Ques/ons about the Relevant Uncertainty Domains The document discusses how certain features of change can make it harder for people to reduce uncertainty and how these features aﬀect their reac(ons: 1. Features Inﬂuencing Uncertainty Reduc/on: o Novelty: New changes that are very diﬀerent from the norm are harder to understand. Radical innova(ons can challenge exis(ng knowledge. o Ambiguity: Changes that lack clear meaning are diﬃcult to grasp and evaluate. For instance, vague strategic changes can increase uncertainty. 2. Stages of Change: o Early changes are oVen both new and unclear, making them hard to evaluate. Informa(on about these changes is usually limited, increasing unpredictability. 3. Informa/on Processing: o Direct vs. Indirect Answers: When uncertainty is high, people may struggle to ﬁnd clear informa(on. They might rely on indirect cues or general feelings, like trus(ng the change agent’s reputa(on. 4. Types of Uncertainty and Informa/on Sources: o Conceptual Uncertainty: People seek direct informa(on about what the change involves. Experts might ﬁnd it especially challenging when changes are very diﬀerent from what they know. o Func/onal Value Uncertainty: Individuals look for informa(on on whether the change is beneﬁcial compared to the current state, using personal experience or indirect cues like the change's creator's reputa(on. o Process Uncertainty: Informa(on is sought about how diﬃcult it will be to implement the change. Direct info can include planning details, while indirect cues might involve how others perceive those suppor(ng the change. o Impact Uncertainty: People assess whether the change will have posi(ve or nega(ve broader consequences. Direct informa(on comes from personal experiences, while indirect cues involve fairness percep(ons. In summary, the novelty and ambiguity of a change can make it hard for individuals to address uncertainty, leading them to rely more on indirect informa(on when evalua(ng the change The Eﬀects of Disposi/onal Tendencies Associated with How People React to Uncertainty Change comes with uncertainty, which can be managed but not completely removed. How people react to change is inﬂuenced by their personal tendencies toward uncertainty. These tendencies fall into two main types: 1. Comfort with Uncertainty: o Tolerance of Ambiguity: Comfort with not knowing outcomes. o Intolerance of Uncertainty: Discomfort with uncertainty. o Need for Closure: Desire for certainty and closure. o Risk Aversion: Preference to avoid risks. o Openness to Experience: Willingness to embrace new experiences. o Disposi/onal Resistance to Change: Natural resistance to change. 2. Expecta/on under Uncertainty: o Regulatory Focus: Orienta(on towards achieving goals or avoiding nega(ve outcomes. o Self-Eﬃcacy: Belief in one’s ability to succeed. o Locus of Control: Belief in control over outcomes. o Posi/ve Aﬀec/vity: Tendency to experience posi(ve emo(ons. o Cogni/ve Flexibility: Ability to adapt thinking to new situa(ons. Strategies for Change Agents 1. Conceptual Uncertainty: o Direct: Use analogies and metaphors to connect new concepts with familiar ones. o Indirect: Use stories and concrete examples to aid understanding. 2. Func/onal Value Uncertainty: o Direct: Share posi(ve informa(on about the change's value, use comparisons, and highlight small successes. o Indirect: Align the change with what evaluators care about, using eﬀec(ve framing for diﬀerent audiences. 3. Process Uncertainty: o Direct: Provide clear communica(on about the change process, set clear expecta(ons, and oﬀer support and training. o Indirect: Improve percep(ons of fairness and address nega(ve emo(ons. 4. Impact Uncertainty: o Direct: Communicate the change's posi(ve impacts, highlight status enhancement, and align the change with organiza(onal culture. o Indirect: Enhance trust in change agents and percep(ons of fairness. By addressing these uncertain(es, change agents can encourage more posi(ve reac(ons and improve the success of change ini(a(ves. DISCUSSION Key Points of the DOU Framework: 1. Integra/on of Research: The DOU framework brings together diﬀerent research by focusing on how uncertainty aﬀects reac(ons to change. It combines various types of uncertainty (conceptual, func(onal value, process, impact) and their eﬀects on how individuals respond. 2. Central Levers: The framework highlights two main factors inﬂuencing reac(ons to change: o Individuals' Goals: People’s goals shape which uncertainty domains they focus on and what informa(on they seek. o Change Features: The novelty and ambiguity of a change aﬀect how individuals interpret and respond to it. 3. Role of Goals: The framework suggests that focusing on individual goals is more eﬀec(ve than just looking at their organiza(onal roles. Diﬀerent roles don’t always dictate the focus of uncertainty; goals are cri(cal. 4. New Research Avenues: o Antecedents and Consequences of Domain Relevance: Inves(gate what makes certain uncertainty domains more relevant based on goals and responsibili(es. o Handling Mul/ple Uncertainty Domains: Explore how people assess changes across diﬀerent uncertainty domains and how mixed evalua(ons aﬀect overall reac(ons. o Mo/va/onal Uncertainty: Study cases where conﬂic(ng goals lead to ambivalence and explore how people adapt to these conﬂicts. 5. Posi/ve Aspects of Uncertainty: The framework suggests that uncertainty can also oﬀer opportuni(es. It can evoke posi(ve feelings like excitement and curiosity, which may enhance reac(ons to change. Overall, the DOU framework provides a structured way to study how people react to change, emphasizing the role of uncertainty and individual goals. #1 Crea/vity Cluster: How People React to New Things Current Focus: Tradi(onal crea(vity research looks at whether new ideas are seen as novel and useful and how this percep(on aﬀects endorsement. DOU Framework Expansion: Conﬂic/ng Findings Reconcilia/on: The DOU framework can help explain mixed ﬁndings on crea(vity assessments and idea endorsement by considering diﬀerent evalua(on goals. Beyond Novelty and Usefulness: Future research could explore how reac(ons to ideas are inﬂuenced by goals beyond novelty, such as their impact on iden(ty and status. Ambiguity vs. Novelty: Research might inves(gate how ambiguity aﬀects reac(ons to ideas, with ambiguity leading to either rejec(on or deeper considera(on based on personal values. #2 Voice Cluster: How Decision-Makers React to Change Current Focus: Research examines how managers evaluate ideas from subordinates, considering factors like the idea's impact on their status and self-eﬃcacy. DOU Framework Expansion: Implementa/on Concerns: Future studies could look at not just resources needed for implementa(on, but also factors like organiza(onal support. Managerial Decision-Making: Explore how managers handle new and unclear ideas, including stress and cogni(ve overload. This could provide insights into why they might reject early- phase ideas. Mixed Reac/ons: Research could study how diﬀerent managerial roles inﬂuence reac(ons to ideas, including how understanding or misunderstanding aﬀects evalua(ons. #3 Organiza/onal Change Cluster: How Change Recipients React to Change Current Focus: Research has looked at various uncertain(es related to organiza(onal change but lacks interac(on between macro- and micro-organiza(onal change research. DOU Framework Expansion: Macro vs. Micro Dialogue: The DOU framework encourages more interac(on between macro- and micro-organiza(onal change research to understand diﬀerent perspec(ves on uncertainty. Func/onal Value vs. Impact: Future research could inves(gate how employees weigh the func(onal value of changes against their impact on job security. Strategic Ambiguity: Study how strategic ambiguity can create diﬀerent interpreta(ons and impact implementa(on, leading to both posi(ve and nega(ve reac(ons depending on individual goals. Prac/cal Implica/ons of the DOU Framework 1. Tailor Strategies to Speciﬁc DOUs: Change agents should address not only conceptual uncertain(es but also other relevant concerns, like iden(ty, to eﬀec(vely manage resistance. 2. Leverage Uncertainty: Use uncertainty as an opportunity to provide posi(ve informa(on and guidance, especially when dealing with unclear interpreta(ons. 3. Challenges with Low Uncertainty: When uncertainty is low, it can be harder to shape posi(ve reac(ons because there’s less room for interpreta(on. 4. Focus on Targeted Strategies: Address speciﬁc DOUs instead of general change processes to eﬀec(vely overcome challenges and use resources Discussion Ques/ons Which ques(ons do people ask themselves when confronted with change? What kinds of uncertain(es (“domain of uncertainty”) do people experience when facing change? T4 - Summary Mikel-Hong et al. (2024): Resistance to Change: Unraveling the Roles of Change Strategists, Agents, and Recipients Introduc/on Resistance to change (RTC) is viewed as a complex issue that arises when individuals move from a state of certainty to one of uncertainty. To successfully manage change, it's crucial to iden(fy and address the sources of resistance. Recent views highlight that RTC results from the interac(ons between diﬀerent roles in the change process, including change agents, recipients, and strategists. Factors contribu(ng to resistance may include personal aitudes, how oVen changes occur, and the eﬀec(veness of change agents' networks. RTC is deﬁned as a phenomenon where individuals or groups within a system show noncompliance or lack of commitment in their behaviors or aitudes. Notably, resistance isn't always nega(ve; it can provide valuable feedback about the change process. The review categorizes change par(cipants into three main roles: strategists, who create high-level change plans; agents, who carry out those plans; and recipients, who are impacted by the change and adjust their behaviors. These roles can overlap—for example, a manager may also be a change agent. Resistance can arise at various levels, including among leaders and groups. Organizing Framework This review organizes the roles involved in resistance to change (RTC)—strategists, agents, and recipients—across four levels of analysis: organiza(onal, group/interpersonal, individual, and meso- level. Organiza/onal Level: Change strategists make high-level strategic decisions. Group/Interpersonal Level: Change agents manage rela(onships and help facilitate change. Individual Level: This focuses on how change recipients, the ones most aﬀected by change, adapt or resist. Meso Level: This examines interac(ons across levels, especially how strategists, agents, and recipients work together in both top-down and boWom-up processes. This framework highlights important themes and suggests areas for further research. Organiza/on Level: Strategists Resistance to change (RTC) has been studied for many years, star(ng with Coch and French's work in 1948 and Lewin's organiza(onal change model from 1952. Early research focused on resistance at the organiza(onal level, highligh(ng how par(cipa(on in change eﬀorts can help reduce resistance. More recent studies have looked at RTC in rela(on to organiza(onal factors like structural iner(a and outcomes like organiza(onal survival. A newer area of research emphasizes how change strategists can inﬂuence RTC through how they communicate about change. By framing change as a natural part of the organiza(on’s iden(ty, leaders can help reduce resistance. Studies show that posi(vely framing change and emphasizing con(nuity can ease resistance. This highlights the importance of how strategists communicate and frame change, rather than just the structural decisions they make. However, some cri(cs argue that resistance is more complex and cannot simply be seen as opposi(on to change. Individual-level studies consider RTC as a mul(-faceted concept that includes emo(onal, cogni(ve, and behavioral aspects. Researchers like Piderit and Orem describe RTC as involving feelings, thoughts, and ac(ons during change eﬀorts. Individual Level: Recipient Research at the individual level looks at the beliefs, aitudes, and behaviors of change recipients, oVen assuming they are the main source of resistance. Oreg's concept of disposi(onal RTC iden(ﬁes four key traits: rou(ne-seeking, emo(onal reac(on, short-term focus, and cogni(ve rigidity. Studies show that these traits aﬀect how individuals respond to change, oVen leading to emo(onal exhaus(on, lower readiness for change, and nega(ve views on project risks. However, in some cases, high RTC can actually improve performance in rou(ne tasks and spur innova(on when feedback is strong. Other studies challenge the idea that people inherently resist change, showing that context and percep(ons (like seeing beneﬁts) play a major role. Recent research also looks at factors like general cynicism and change-speciﬁc cynicism, which can increase resistance. Traits like mindfulness and a posi(ve aitude toward change can reduce RTC by promo(ng op(mism and self-conﬁdence. Individuals may also feel ambivalent toward change, holding both posi(ve and nega(ve views, which can lead to mixed behaviors in response. Subtle forms of resistance, such as outward compliance paired with private opposi(on, show that people may appear to accept change while undermining it behind the scenes. Cri(cs of individual-level research argue that it oVen blames recipients for not conforming, sugges(ng the need to also consider the roles of change agents and group dynamics. Group / Interpersonal Level Research on RTC at the group and interpersonal level highlights the complex interac(ons between change agents and recipients, as well as among the agents themselves. Instead of focusing solely on spontaneous resistance from recipients, this perspec(ve emphasizes the rela(onships that shape RTC. 1. Agent-Recipient Interac/ons: Resistance can be inﬂuenced by how change agents and recipients perceive and interact with each other. Agents might think there is more resistance than recipients report, especially when agents try to connect emo(onally. When agents restrict recipients' autonomy or break promises, it can lead to nega(ve feelings and increased resistance. Building trust and shared expecta(ons can help reduce resistance. Leadership styles like transforma(onal or empowering leadership can lessen RTC, while unethical or overly charisma(c leadership may provoke it. 2. Agent-Agent Interac/ons: Change agents can either resist or support change based on their roles and rela(onships within the organiza(on. Middle managers can act as bridges, either blocking or facilita(ng change. Agents who have strong connec(ons to resisters may inadvertently increase resistance, especially if the changes go against established prac(ces. High-status agents may resist change if they feel it threatens their inﬂuence. 3. Agent-Strategist Interac/ons: Resistance can also arise from the dynamics between strategists and agents. Agents may resist if they prefer the status quo, par(cularly when faced with mul(ple or conﬂic(ng changes. However, diﬀering interpreta(ons between strategists and agents can lead to construc(ve discussions and new strategies. Overall, group and interpersonal-level research shows that resistance comes from complex rela(onal dynamics, not just individual traits, and that the roles of agents, strategists, and recipients are interconnected. Meso Level Meso-level research on RTC examines how resistance occurs across diﬀerent organiza(onal levels, focusing on interac(ons between strategists, agents, and recipients. 1. Strategist-Recipient Interac/ons: Recipients' resistance can inﬂuence the direc(on of change, oVen ac(ng as "produc(ve resistance" that encourages new approaches. Resistance can be construc(ve, involving the expression of concerns that, through dialogue, can improve the change process. Studies show that even ideas ini(ally rejected can gain trac(on and be implemented when supported by allies. Addi(onally, resistance oVen arises from poor change implementa(on rather than from individuals resis(ng change, shiVing the focus to addressing structural problems. 2. Agent-Strategist-Recipient Interac/ons: This research also explores how change agents, strategists, and recipients interact to shape the change process. Change roles are ﬂuid; recipients can become agents and inﬂuence ini(a(ves. Resistance oVen reﬂects a dynamic process where compe(ng ini(a(ves or nego(a(ons help clarify rather than block change. Studies indicate that feedback from employees and middle managers can help shape the change process. In summary, meso-level research emphasizes that RTC is an interac(ve and dynamic process, showing that resistance can enhance change eﬀorts rather than simply obstruct them. Taking Stock and Future Direc/ons 1. Established Themes: o Organiza/onal-Level Research: Early studies framed RTC as an organiza(onal issue, focusing on aspects like employee par(cipa(on and, more recently, cogni(ve factors like organiza(onal iden(ty. o Individual-Level Research: Recent decades have examined personal factors that contribute to resistance and how individuals perceive change. This research has also looked at ambivalence and subtle forms of resistance, though it oVen blames recipients without considering the roles of change agents. 2. Emerging Themes: o Dynamic Roles: New research highlights how roles can shiV during organiza(onal change, where individuals can move between being change recipients and agents. Leadership behaviors also signiﬁcantly inﬂuence RTC. o Co-Construc/on: This theme looks at how change and resistance arise through interac(ons, emphasizing nego(a(on and how roles evolve over (me. Instead of focusing solely on top-down change, co-construc(on acknowledges boWom-up resistance that can reshape change eﬀorts. Theory-Building Opportuni/es Organiza/on Level: Recent studies challenge tradi(onal views of resistance as a barrier, sugges(ng instead that boWom-up resistance can inﬂuence change direc(on. This shiVs away from linear models and highlights the need for a more holis(c understanding of RTC. Meso Level: Meso-level research focuses on how top-down and boWom-up eﬀorts interact, especially regarding voice. How individuals express their views can depend on their organiza(onal posi(on. Event system theory can help understand how events shape change processes over (me, providing a framework for analyzing RTC dynamics in various contexts. Group/Interpersonal Level: Expanding the use of social network theory could help study interpersonal interac(ons during change. Future research can explore how networks aﬀect percep(ons of resistance and change, especially in poli(cal contexts. Individual Level: RTC is increasingly seen as complex and can provide valuable feedback. Ambiguity and compe(ng changes can lead to unintended resistance. Construc(ve resistance can improve change eﬀorts, and more work is needed to understand the rela(onship between RTC and concepts like change readiness. It’s also important to diﬀeren(ate the mo(va(ons of resistance from change agents and strategists compared to recipients. In summary, future research should explore RTC in a dynamic, context-speciﬁc way across diﬀerent levels, focusing on evolving roles, the interac(on between eﬀorts, and the inﬂuence of social networks. Empirical Challenges Data Collec/on: Most research on RTC is qualita(ve, making it hard to quan(fy and generalize ﬁndings. While qualita(ve studies provide valuable insights, they oVen focus on limited contexts, which restricts broader applicability. Quan(ta(ve studies, especially at higher levels, are scarce due to challenges in gathering data across mul(ple organiza(ons. However, recent advances in methods like simula(ons and big data oﬀer new ways to collect quan(ta(ve data at these levels. Reconciling Measures: There's a wide variety of ways RTC is measured across studies, complica(ng the integra(on of ﬁndings and the development of a uniﬁed framework. Some studies use standardized scales to directly measure resistance, while others focus on aitudes. This diversity can make it hard to compare results. Some research relies on indirect indicators of resistance, which can lead to diﬀerent interpreta(ons. Others use qualita(ve methods that don't directly measure RTC, making it harder to consolidate ﬁndings across the ﬁeld. Theory-Tes/ng Opportuni/es Alterna/ve Research Methods: Given challenges in accessing tradi(onal data or experimental seings, mixed-methods approaches can help triangulate nuanced ﬁndings. Big Data: Analyzing big data from platorms like TwiWer or LinkedIn can provide opportuni(es for quan(ta(ve analysis of RTC, helping to iden(fy general paWerns and dynamics. Advanced Analy/cal Approaches: Several methods can capture long-term resistance processes: Machine learning can ﬁnd paWerns in communica(on data between change agents. Latent growth modeling can track resistance trends and categorize resistance proﬁles. Agent-based simula(on can model interac(ons among change par(cipants. Situated Experiments: These experiments study causal rela(onships in realis(c seings, blending laboratory and ﬁeld experiments. For example, government employees during Brexit could provide a context for tes(ng RTC-related hypotheses. Measurement Development: Due to RTC's complexity, crea(ng a single measurement scale isn't recommended. Instead, a systema(c approach to deﬁning and measuring RTC is needed. Developing mul(ple scales can capture diﬀerent resistance forms, including both overt and subtle behaviors. New methods, like observa(onal techniques and nonverbal cues, combined with machine learning, could help capture these subtler forms of resistance. Summary Ford et al.: Resistance to Change: The Rest of the Story We believe it's (me to expand the conversa(on about resistance to change in three keyways: 1. Resistance as Change Agent Sensemaking When change occurs, both change agents (those leading the change) and change recipients (those aﬀected by it) try to make sense of what’s happening. Change agents ask, “How can we make this happen?” while recipients wonder, “What will happen to me?” This sensemaking process involves seeking informa(on, assigning meaning, and responding to behaviors. OVen, change agents blend these events and meanings into a single narra(ve, trea(ng it as if it exists independently of their inﬂuence. This implies that change agents are more involved than just interpre(ng events; they are also ac(vely crea(ng the context around those events. Expecta/on Eﬀects What change agents expect can shape their understanding of resistance. If they enter a situa(on an(cipa(ng pushback, they’re more likely to no(ce it. This expecta(on leads them to plan for resistance and to take steps to minimize it. As a result, they might conﬁrm their belief that people resist change, which reinforces the idea that resistance is a given. A Self-Serving Account When explaining their ac(ons, change agents oVen present narra(ves that jus(fy their choices. These accounts help maintain posi(ve rela(onships with their audience. Typically, change agents will take credit for successes while blaming resistance for failures, thereby shiVing responsibility for any issues that arise. 2. Change Agent Contribu/ons to Resistance Broken Agreements and Trust Issues Change agents can contribute to recipient reac(ons by breaking promises or failing to rebuild trust. When people feel treated unfairly, they may react nega(vely—this could mean less coopera(on, lower produc(vity, or even sabotage. If change agents repair rela(onships and restore trust, they are less likely to face resistance. Communica/on Breakdowns Change agents can also create resistance through poor communica(on: o Failure to Legi/mize Change: It’s essen(al for change agents to explain why changes are necessary. When they dismiss scru(ny as mere resistance, they miss the chance to build understanding and support. o Misrepresenta/on: Some(mes, change agents might present informa(on in a way that looks good but is misleading. They might uninten(onally oversell the posi(ves while downplaying the nega(ves, leading to accusa(ons of dishonesty. Being honest and realis(c can help prevent misunderstandings. o No Call for Ac/on: Just talking about change isn’t enough to spark ac(on. When change agents think understanding alone will lead to ac(on, they may neglect to mobilize people eﬀec(vely, mislabeling the lack of ac(on as resistance. Resis/ng Resistance Change agents may also resist the ideas and feedback from recipients, believing that ignoring these concerns will lessen their impact. 3. Resistance as a Resource (Posi/ve Aspects of Resistance) Reac(ons to change can actually be valuable rather than just obstacles. They can enhance the strength and engagement of a change ini(a(ve: o Existence Value of Resistance: Resistance keeps conversa(ons alive about the change, allowing for par(cipa(on and further clariﬁca(on. Although oVen viewed nega(vely, this dialogue can help ensure that everyone is engaged in the change process. o Engagement Value of Resistance: Some(mes resistance indicates a deeper commitment to the change. Thoughtul resistance can generate important discussions that lead to a more robust understanding and acceptance of the change. o Strengthening Value of Resistance: Resistance can create conﬂict, which may improve decision-making and commitment among those involved. By framing resistance as a nega(ve, change agents miss out on the poten(al beneﬁts that construc(ve conﬂict can bring. Reconstruc/ng Resistance We propose a new view of resistance that includes the roles of change agents and the dynamics between agents and recipients. This view suggests that “resistance to change” should be seen as a dynamic interac(on among three elements: 1. Recipient Ac/on: Any behavior or communica(on that responses to change ini(a(ves. 2. Agent Sensemaking: How change agents interpret and respond to recipient ac(ons. 3. Agent-Recipient Rela/onship: The context in which these interac(ons happen, inﬂuenced by ongoing dialogues. Key Takeaways: Public Nature of Resistance: What we see as resistance comes from observable ac(ons by recipients, which prompt change agents to respond. Agent Sensemaking as Determinant: Resistance does not exist separately from how change agents interpret it. Ac(ons become labeled as resistance only when agents deﬁne them as such. Overcoming "Resistance": To eﬀec(vely manage change, agents should focus on the rela(onship with recipients and openly address both ac(ons and interpreta(ons. Engaging with all sides—recipient ac(ons, agent sensemaking, and their rela(onship dynamics—can lead to a more construc(ve process. Self-Fulﬁlling Prophecy: If change agents expect resistance, they are likely to ﬁnd it, crea(ng a cycle where expecta(ons shape outcomes.

Summary OC&C 2024 PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue