Practising change

1 management

Our argument in this book is that much of the time in organizations we are
managing change through the deliberate selection of practices that we
hope will produce particular results. The triggers for such change work may
emanate from within the organization or from shifts in the external environ-
ment. They may be optional or unavoidable, and they may be rapid and radical
or slow and evolutionary. There are many tools and techniques that pertain
to change situations, but choosing what to do, and how to do it, is not
straightforward. In this book we elaborate a framework that does not dictate
a prescribed path to managing change but treats the process as one of enquiry
and action. This entails being skilled at asking searching questions so that
the circumstances and purpose can be understood and matched to action.
Action in this field is normally somewhat experimental, as even the most
popular ‘tried and tested’ practices can fail in new situations. Therefore,
the approach adopted here is to build up a repertoire of options and to be
active both in the selection of which action option (or combination of options)
to take and in the adaptation and development of change practices.
Hence, change management is regarded as being based on skills of judging
situations, selecting and adapting from prior practices in order to develop
new ones and subsequently being able to understand and evaluate how these
actions are working and thus make appropriate adjustments. In short, the
change manager is an active learner, engaged in a continuous cycle of enquiry
and action.
We refer to the activities relating to planning, executing and responding to
organizational change as ‘change work’.
4 Foundations

Managing change is very likely to entail some degree of disruption. Often the
situations that managers encounter are difficult, perhaps even intractable. It is
not that all change is inherently problematic but, rather, that when things are
simple and doable there is less call for management intervention. As a result, it is
normal that change managers find themselves in the midst of so-called ‘sticky’ or
‘wicked’ problems that it is not easy to resolve. Such problems are composed of
divergent perspectives and tensions. The perspectives come from those directly
involved in the situation, such as staff, managers and internal experts, and from
people in the social context of the change. The social context includes as stake-
holders a wide community of people with some interest in the way that the
change works out. These can include customers, service users, suppliers and
competitors, amongst other groups.
Our view is that change is hardly ever an objective thing – that is, it is hardly
ever the case that one can say unequivocally ‘This is the right and only thing to
do’ and be correct in such an assertion. Different stakeholders normally have
perspectives that result in there being more than one view of what the right thing
is. Even when a change has been conducted we are unlikely to be able to say with
certainty that it was the right or wrong thing. Most claims of success are
disputable. For example, making efficiency gains through process improvement
and headcount reduction might be seen as exactly what was needed by some
stakeholders, but perhaps not by those who lose jobs or those who hold on to jobs
but were friends with those who did not (Extended Case 6, Power Provision plc,
provides an example of this). Similarly, developing a more sustainable way of
working might not be applauded by those who believe that their investments may
be adversely affected. In addition, the changes we are concerned with do not
happen in a laboratory. There are many uncontrollable contextual factors that
impact real-world situations. The apparent success of a new strategy may not be
solely to do with the actions of the organization but may also be attributable to
the behaviour of competitors, the general state of the economy or customers’ level
of confidence and disposable income. Many of these factors are simply beyond
the control of the managers. Therefore, when trying to manage change, one is not
dealing with a situation in which best practice can be rolled out across all
contexts. There is no guarantee that what appeared to work last time will do so
next time, nor that techniques that did not lead to the desired results in one
context will fail again if used elsewhere.
The matter of best practice in change management is a contentious one.
There have been many efforts to produce best-practice prescriptions or theories
of change, and, like change itself, they constitute a disputed territory. What we
 Practising change management 5

mean by the word ‘theory’ is an attempt to explain and generalize from one
instance to another. For example, research might be conducted that examines
many cases for their strengths and weaknesses and then concludes with a
generalized list of things to do (and actions to avoid). However, many people
operating in practice also produce their own theories of change. Working on the
basis of previous experience, or on received practical wisdom, people develop a
preferred way of acting. This is a local theory, in the sense that it generalizes
from what has worked (or is perceived to have worked) in the past to what
should be done in the future. Our purpose in this book is to help people improve
their theorizing such that, as they make judgements about what to do next, they
do so on a considered basis and draw from as wide a range of ideas and
experiences as is appropriate for the change at hand. We would regard this
type of theorizing as being practical at heart. It is not about producing elegant
statements or models but esoteric ones. It is about helping to make decisions
about how to act when time and other resources are pressing and the context is
problematic, with divergent demands, multiple perspectives and no single best
way to answer the problems.
Hence, being able to grapple with such situations and make actionable judge-
ments promptly are the first skills that change managers need. Change manage-
ment entails being able to understand rapidly how things are going (from
multiple perspectives), and this relies on the learning abilities of the change
manager and those enacting the change. Putting judgements into action with
others, experimenting, reviewing, making new decisions and acting as a source
and stimulation for learning are the next set of skills. These present a challenge,
as they require a style of leadership that is about facilitating others when there is a
lack of certainty (because something new is being undertaken) and being able to
acknowledge things that are not working, and then seeking to improve them. It is
not about knowing the answers, because change is a journey into the unknown.
Therefore, it is important to establish relationships and expectations that include
the realization that the change leader is not always right and an awareness that
the path is not likely to be smooth. Lastly, there is a process of reflective learning
by looking back at how things went and extracting personal and organizational
lessons for the future. This entails skills of enabling honest (self-)criticism and
getting beyond defensive rhetoric and into generative dialogue.
This list of skills is demanding, and it reflects the demanding nature of
change management. This book is intended to provide some guidance and
insight into working with these skills in order to be able to grapple with
6 Foundations

difficult change issues. Our starting point is to propose a framework that is

intended to help make these judgements.

The enquiry–action framework

The enquiry–action framework sets out three key areas of practice that change
managers undertake, and we suggest that there are choices available within
each of these three practice areas. The enquiry–action framework focuses on
questioning and understanding the context, content and process of change as
well as developing a repertoire of alternative ways of enacting change. We are
mindful of the dangers of separating enquiry and action, since action is part of
our enquiry process and, equally, enquiring is a form of action. Indeed, we
would suggest that, although it can be helpful to separate these focal areas
analytically, in practice they are integrated as aspects of change management
practice. Figure 1.1 represents the relationship between these activities within
the framework.
On first reading, there is a natural ordering to the themes in the enquiry–
action framework, but we would not regard them as following a strictly linear
sequence. Each of the three focal areas (diagnosing, enacting and explaining)
incorporates a number of possibilities that provide ways of enacting that aspect
of change. For example, activities within the diagnosis could focus on under-
standing the current and desired states of the organization. Diagnosis can be

Diagnosing

Explaining Enacting
Figure 1.1 The enquiry–action framework
 Practising change management 7

about setting a clear purpose, but on other occasions it can be about under-
standing the different interpretations that people make of the purpose and
recognizing the consequences (both positive and negative) of such ambiguity.
It can concentrate on how far people are (potentially) engaged with a change or
the state of play politically and whether stakeholders are aligned or not.
Equally, diagnosis may need to uncover the cultural context of change, people’s
established habits and ways of thinking, in order to recognize where it is
possible and desirable to introduce innovations. Each of these areas of diag-
nostic activity is discussed in the chapters in Part B. Depending on the require-
ments of the change being proposed and the context of the change, diagnosis
might need to be an extensive area of activity with several variations being
worked through, or it could be a ‘light touch’ diagnosis in which the aim is to act
with speed. This principle holds for each of the three focal areas in the frame-
work. We would advise at least some activity in each area, but the actions
chosen and the time and effort expended will vary with the nature and impor-
tance of the change and its context.
In enacting change it is rarely the case that one form of action will work well
for all aspects of the change and all the people who are involved, so it is important
to establish a repertoire of options for action. This means embarking on change
with a combination of options and enough flexibility to be able to cope with the
unexpected events, tensions and paradoxes that arise. Accordingly, the second
focal area entails the change agent and other participants making informed
choices about a set of interventions that can involve different foci. The choices
include: changing the structure or the organization; exploring and engaging with
the identity aspects of change – that is, who we are as a group and what we see
ourselves doing as a result of who we are; choosing customers and competitors;
changing processes; aligning people and their activities; fostering learning and
development; and, finally, developing change through dialogue. Of course, the
specific circumstances of any change situation may require a blend of more than
one set of actions, and the diagnostic work undertaken in the previous focal area
may highlight complementary courses of action.
The next focal area involves a switch in emphasis from enactment to explain-
ing. Communication is often cited as being central to organizational life in
general and to change in particular (one expression of this is John Kotter’s
observation that we under-communicate ‘by a factor of ten’ in change situa-
tions: Kotter, 1996). Our argument is that communication is too often consid-
ered as the monodirectional transfer of instructions or explanation of the
change, typically from senior figures to more junior members of the
8 Foundations

organization. Similarly, the idea of piloting a new process in one area and then
‘rolling it out’ across the organization can be experienced by those who receive
the roll-out as a hierarchical imposition. This style of communication, however
well intended, is likely to elicit some degree of resistance, and so alternative
styles of communication are generally worth considering. A specific literature
explores relationships between different managerial levels (for example, in the
context of strategy development, see Floyd and Wooldridge, 2000), and our
focus here is on the nature of dialogue within the organization and across its
boundaries. Dialogues often incorporate narrative structures as participants,
recipients and leaders of the change create stories in which the change process is
made meaningful in the lived reality of everyday organizational life. Such
dialogues and narratives offer opportunities to understand leadership behav-
iours, political positioning and cultural norms (Alvesson and Karreman, 2000;
Bebbington et al., 2007). As such, we see them as central to attempts to
introduce and sustain change.
No change effort – indeed, no managerial or organizational act – can ever be
fully understood in isolation (Marshak, 2009). Rather, the ways in which people
respond to the intended change have an impact on the future nature of the
organization and the actions that become regarded as normal. Our emphasis
here is on becoming attuned to reading signals and reactions by developing and
interpreting evidence. Although we would contest an overly simplistic sense in
which ‘evidence’ proves that change is working, we believe that reflexivity on
the part of those leading and enacting change is significant (Nutley, Walter and
Davies, 2006). With all the abundant complexity of organizational life, taking
the time and effort to reflect on the ways in which the change process was
enacted offers the best hope of developing an attitude of enquiry within the
organization.
In some circumstances there is a natural ordering to these three focal areas:
from diagnosis, via enactment, to explanation. However, the diagram seeks to
indicate that change can start in any of the areas. In some cases enactment is
under way, and it is helpful to explain what is going on and then to diagnose,
because the change is having unintended consequences. Alternatively, it is
possible to start by explaining things and in so doing to recognize the need to
analyse the situation and then act in a new way. Equally, the sequence can
reverse, and explanation can lead to a realization that a particular line of action
is needed.
We introduce the three focal areas in the framework and cover each in a
separate section. We use a mixture of cases to illustrate the application of the
 Practising change management 9

tools to practical situations. Extended cases are presented in the final section of
the book. The nine extended cases are a mix of public domain cases (ABB, Oticon,
Admiral Insurance, Nokia, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) and
Apple) and cases drawn from our research that have been anonymized (ITS
Canada, Island Opera and Power Provision plc.). A further seven mini-cases are
embedded in the chapters, and, again, these are a mix of well-known organiza-
tions and anonymized illustrations. The frequent referral to examples is intended
to reinforce the practicalities of the various tools used in the book and to offer a
way of encouraging critical consideration of models and theoretical constructs.
However, the mini- and extended cases serve a second purpose, which is to
provoke a response to two questions. First, what would I do in the situation as
described? Second, in what ways is the situation in the case similar to, and
different from, the situations that I face in my own organization? Hence, theory
is engaged with the purpose of enabling practice.
The three areas of activity should not be thought of as completely separate but,
rather, as having permeable boundaries such that the conduct of work in one
focal area can be directly influenced by activities within either or both of the
other two areas. For example, what is enactment of practice for some might also
be treated as part of a diagnostic by others if it is simultaneously a pilot study to
uncover practices that might be considered elsewhere in the organization.
Equally, the enactment of changing dialogue in an organization could rely on
reflexive learning as part of the process.
This approach offers a structure within which managerial judgement can
be translated into thoughtful action. When a change within a particular
context is considered, the change agent can decide if a focal area is highly
significant, and therefore should have time and resources spent on it, thereby
exploring several activities within the area in some depth. Alternatively, a
theme might be regarded as less important for the change at hand, and so it
might be dealt with in a ‘light touch’ way. The cultural context can also play a
role in these decisions. A common issue in change is the need to win the support
of senior managers and organizational members who will be affected by
the change. In some cultures, showing that there is a careful diagnostic phase
in which solid research will be conducted is important, as without this the
change will encounter a sceptical response (‘What is the basis for this?’).
Conversely, in a culture that sees itself as action-oriented, doing too much
diagnosis could build up resistance. Therefore, the framework can be regarded
as providing resources from which the change manager can choose suitable
combinations.
10 Foundations

REFERENCES
................................................................................
Alvesson, M., and Karreman, D. (2000) Taking Reconceptualizing Strategy Process.
the linguistic turn in organizational London: Sage.
research. Journal of Applied Behavior Kotter, J. P. (1996) Leading Change. Boston:
Science, 36(2): 136–58. Harvard Business School Press.
Bebbington, J., Brown, J., Frame, B., and Marshak, R. (2009) Organizational Change:
Thomson, I. (2007) Theorizing engagement: Views from the Edge. Bethel, ME:
the potential of a critical dialogical Lewin Center.
approach. Accounting, Auditing and Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., and Davies, H. T. O.
Accountability Journal, 20(3): 356–81. (2006) Evidence Use: How Research
Floyd, S. W., and Wooldridge, B. (2000). Can Inform Public Services. Bristol:
Building Strategy from the Middle: Polity Press.
 Current perspectives and
2 classic ideas

The aims of this chapter are to:

* introduce concepts and frameworks from the literature on change management;
* enable readers to distinguish between different modes of change;
* consider the relationship between change management practices and modes
of change;
* encourage reflection on the theories that can support the enquiry–action
and other frameworks; and
* help students develop an understanding of classical ideas and contemporary
thinking alike about change.

Change has a long history in the organizational and management literatures,

and it is prudent to place contemporary developments in context relative to
other prior contributions. We therefore review contributions from respected
scholars that we have found helpful before discussing their application in the
enquiry–action framework. The review in this chapter is necessarily limited, since
there is a vast amount of work that could be included. We have selected four
approaches to conceptualizing change that have been influential in the literature,
so as to offer a partial yet indicative and constructive means of introducing
change.

Approach one: foci and modes of change

Change in organizations can be thought of in many different ways, and Andrew

Van de Ven and Scott Poole (1995; 2005) have developed a useful framework
12 Foundations

that helps in systematically arranging the plethora of alternatives. There are

two axes to their framework. First is the issue of change focus, or what they
term the ‘unit of change’. Some ways of thinking about change focus relatively
closely on a particular company, product or process. For example, someone
seeking to champion a new product might be expected to be concerned princi-
pally with change in relation to that product, rather than the whole company.
Other models focus more broadly on multiple entities interacting together in a
system, such as several companies competing in the same market, or several
proposals for new products competing with each other for limited investment
funding. The second axis is the issue of the mode of change, dealing with where
the change originates and what influences its direction. Some change is ini-
tiated outside the organization, for example by governments or by competitors
who introduce a new dominant product. In such cases the change is almost
‘prescribed’, as the organization has little choice but to change, and often the
prescription also extends to which choices of direction are viable. Alternatively,
change can be generated inside the organization by pursuing a new strategy or
following an innovative idea, and then internal actors can have more say in the
direction of travel. Van de Ven and Poole refer to this type of change as
‘constructive’ (see Figure 2.1).
The change focus is the process, practice, product or person in which change is
being developed.
The mode of change relates to the origins and direction of the change.

Multiple
entities

(1) Evolution (2) Dialectic

Prescribed Constructive

(4) Life (3) Teleology

Single
entity

Figure 2.1 Van de Ven and Poole’s framework of change

 Current perspectives and classic ideas 13

When we combine these axes, the result is a framework that enables us to see
clearly how some common models of change relate to each other. There are four
prevalent types. Life cycle models (Stark, 2006) are seen as being prescribed
(external influence) and having a narrow focus (single entity). Products, project
teams and even organizations are often spoken of as having life cycles. This
organic metaphor implies that there are phases of initiation, growth, production
or ‘harvesting’ and decline and death. This metaphor assumes that external
pressures have a big impact (hence it is relatively ‘prescribed’) and that, generally,
the life cycle impacts on a single entity. There are various implications of
adopting this metaphor for the way that we practise change management. It
would be assumed when starting a new project or product that its value to the
organization will be for a limited period, and so a measured stance is adopted
towards investment and exclusive attachment to the product or project. It is
unlikely, for instance, that a company that thinks like this would be satisfied if it
did not have several replacement products in preparation for the time when the
current one begins to decline.
At each stage of the cycle there are somewhat different implications for what
managers should do. For example, during initiation it is necessary to help people
develop ideas, to challenge old ways of thinking and to be willing to indulge in
trial and error. However, as the product or process develops and comes to
maturity, the managerial effort is to encourage people away from trial and
error and towards efficient performance, in order to reap the benefits before
overseeing the withdrawal from this product and the simultaneous build-up of
the replacement. At such stages, it is natural for people to feel disappointed and
emotionally attached to the old way of doing things, and so managerial practices
will tend towards supporting people out of established ways of acting and helping
them into new (and less ‘secure’) areas of performance. Therefore, this way of
thinking about change implies a set of practices that are contingent on the stage
of the life cycle and relate closely to the experiences and competences of people
who are going through the change.
The next type of change maintains an external or prescribed mode, but
enlarges the focus from the individual entity to a system containing many
entities. This could be, for instance, a market that contains many companies
competing with each other, or a single company that has many projects vying
with each other to be selected for investment. The type of change envisaged in
this way of thinking is evolution. Evolutionary change is dominated by external
conditions and the extent to which any particular entity is fit to survive in those
conditions. Within a population of companies that are competing, variety will
14 Foundations

come about as the companies seek to develop new competitive strategies and
offer alternative products or services to the market at particular prices. Some will
be more successful than others, and a process of ‘selection and retention’ occurs
through which some are profitable and continue and others either fail or have to
introduce innovations in order to survive. If these new innovations are successful
they, in turn, can produce a threat to the continued existence of other companies.
As a result, change in the market (both products and the companies that supply
them) occurs through an evolutionary process of those that are most able to
win in the environment, becoming leaders in that environment until the next
threat impacts upon them. Hence, it can be said that there are ‘waves’ of change,
and effective organizations need to be ready to meet the next wave (Morgan,
1988). The management of change for an organization that perceives itself to be
in a multiple entity/prescribed situation will start with an external vision.
Stakeholder mapping and understanding what competitors and customers are
thinking are high priorities, as is the ability to sense changes in the environment
and make early adaptations within the company in order to cope. It is an
advantage in such circumstances to have a flexible structure, so that people
can be deployed at short notice to those activities that are demanded by the
changing environment. The rhetoric associated with this style of thinking is often
deployed by chief executives and those leading change when they argue that
‘there is no choice but to change’, or that ‘doing nothing is not an option’. If the
other members of the organization are convinced by this rhetoric it can greatly
assist the speed and ease of change.
Stakeholder mapping is a technique for mapping the parties involved accord-
ing to the level of interest they have in the change and the amount of power
they have either to support or to resist the change (see Chapter 5 for further
details).
The next model of change we consider is what Van de Ven and Poole term
teleology. This style of change is when a single entity is changing in a purposeful
and internally driven (‘constructive’) way. A teleological perspective is often the
way in which ‘change champions’ think. There is an internal drive to improve
things or develop a completely new way of doing things, and the inspiration is a
great idea or a vision. This is a notable contrast to the evolutionary perspective, in
which new ideas are made necessary because the external environment demands
them if the company is to survive. The teleological perspective seeks to develop
something that it will impose on the environment. Teleological perspectives can
entail a cognitive or problem-solving approach. This implies a series of mana-
gerial actions that start with some degree of dissatisfaction with the way things
 Current perspectives and classic ideas 15

are done at the moment. Once a problem or an opportunity has been identified
there is a search for possible solutions/actions. Then the best solution is chosen,
often by reference to the purpose and values of the organization. Following this,
goals for the change are set and implemented. This resembles classic theories of
decision making (see, for example, Lindblom, 1959) and seeks to make change
an analytical process. Conflict and politicking are regarded as inappropriate in
teleological change, and managerial effort is put into building consensus and
ensuring that sufficient options are examined and that the chosen path of change
is managed towards the expressed goals. Hence, there is an emphasis on clear
communication, establishing a set of agreed criteria for decision making and
keeping people focused on the goal.
Teleological change is aimed at a specific outcome and is defined by its end
point.
The last conceptualization is of change as dialectic (Cunha and Da Cunha, 2003).
In this view, change occurs when one idea or entity comes into conflictual
contact with another. In the classic terminology, this is a thesis, or idea, being
met by an alternative or antithesis. The antithesis is not a complement to the thesis
but seeks to displace it. Some of the classic theories of dialectical change are
concerned with how societies and economies change, for example from an econ-
omy based on ownership of land to one based on the ownership of capital for
industrial production. The conflict is realized as one seeks to replace the other.
Once the conflict is resolved the new state of affairs becomes the thesis, and in time
this too is likely to be challenged by a new antithesis. When these ideas are
applied to organizations the changes tend to be more modest and shorter-lived.
However, there are many instances in which one idea, such as centring activities
on a customer focus, is in conflict with and replaces a prior one, such as
centring activities on efficient production. In some cases the antithesis replaces
the thesis and in others the thesis is displaced but, rather than the antithesis being
established, a new synthesis occurs. The synthesis is a new idea but may contain a
combination of aspects from the thesis and antithesis, often along with additional
novel ideas.
Dialectic change entails a conflict or struggle between two opposing
propositions.
When this perspective is adopted, managerial activities will not be about
reducing conflict (as they are in managing teleological change) but, conversely,
will be concerned with stimulating the right sort of conflict. Some forms of
conflict are personalized whilst others remain at the level of ideas (Friedman
et al., 2000). In the main, change managers seek to avoid personalized conflict,
16 Foundations

although some managers believe that some degree of personal competition can
inspire higher performance (Jehn, 1997). However, this is a disputed view, and
probably relates best to very particular environments; in some sporting teams, for
example, it is assumed that having competition for places raises the standard of
play by everyone. However, idea-based conflict can be very positive as long as it
is managed carefully. It is important to ensure that ideas that will be competing
with each other are not seen as belonging to particular individuals. In other
words, all participants in the change process should be joint owners of the process
and be equally committed to whichever idea wins out. This is a proposition that
many people will agree with, but in practice it takes some skill in team manage-
ment and communication to maintain. There are structural aspects to this. If
people believe that rewards or promotion will be connected to their association
with the ‘winning’ idea, then the conflict may move from being about ideas to
being more personal. Accordingly, careful attention should be paid to rewarding
the team-oriented behaviour that is needed.
Van de Ven and Poole’s framework is particularly useful in helping change
managers recognize the situation that they are in and identify which activities to
prioritize. We illustrate this by reference to a company that we will call Festival Co.,
which is responsible for the world’s largest festival of its type. The festival mainly
presents folk music but there are many other events as well, such as art collections,
workshops, storytelling and educational concerts. The festival takes place over
three weeks, and its 300 concerts take place at a range of venues, some of which are
owned by Festival Co. but many of which are not. In addition, Festival Co. runs a
number of other, smaller festivals in jazz and classical music and provides the main
concert venues in its area. The start-up of the festival that, fifteen years later, is the
world leader in its field can be seen as teleological. The first ideas came from
enthusiasts within the company and the change was focused on a single entity. The
company started the festival within its own main venue and the intentions were
both to support a particular form of live music making and to generate profit at a
time of year when bookings at the venue were minimal. The festival was very
successful, and it grew quickly in its early years.
Fast-forwarding through the story, some years on there were questions over
the directions that Festival Co. should take. Many others had copied Festival Co.,
and in fact Festival Co. had been very supportive of what it regarded as ‘sister
festivals’ in other countries and had helped several to become established. At the
same time, the idea of festivals as a primary mode of organizing live music had
developed as a significant business model (Paleo and Wijnberg, 2006). As a result,
the external environment had changed considerably and there was much greater
 Current perspectives and classic ideas 17

competition for the spending of festival goers. There was a concern that the
festival might be in danger of entering another phase of its life cycle in which the
environment would have a greater impact on what it could do, and if there was no
renewal then the festival could begin to decline. Festival Co. started to change
some of its practices towards those that others in the field had adopted. For the
first time they appointed an external artistic director. They sought and recruited a
very high-profile performer, who brought a considerable artistic reputation and
greater media awareness to the festival. However, this also meant reorganizing
internally and putting a professional management team around the artistic
director in order to bring the new artistic vision to life. They refocused the festival
on marketable ‘strands’, which are musical themes that concerts and other
activities could be clustered under. Strands have included a focus on the music
of particular countries and have incorporated bringing international musicians
from that country to perform and exploring the influences of that country’s
music on others. The festival was expanded, more venues were used and a new
venue was taken over and restored by Festival Co. This can be thought of as an
evolutionary phase, as Festival Co. was responding to external pressures by
developing its distinctive offering to the market and bringing about significant
change in its size, make-up and activities.
The evolutionary change blurred into more teleological change, because,
although they were responding to externalities, as things progressed the decisions
about which strands to develop were decided on the basis of internal discussions
rather than being market-led. In fact, Festival Co. would be seen as a market
leader in its field. Therefore, at different points the ongoing change over fifteen
years could be seen as being teleological, then evolutionary/life-cycle, then
teleological again. There was no significant evidence of dialectical change,
because, internally, change was driven through consensus and, externally,
although there was competition, there was still a high degree of respect for and
collaboration with other festivals. For example, managers would normally visit
and often help out at other sister festivals. As a result, there was a sharing of
learning rather than traditional ‘fight to survive’ market politics (Lampel, Lant
and Shamsie, 2000).
As the nature of change altered, so did management practices. During teleo-
logical phases there was more of an internal focus, building on people’s ideas,
developing proposals and working collaboratively across departments. For
example, the arts team, which was responsible for programming, and the com-
mercial team, which was responsible for managing income from non-ticket
sources such as catering, merchandising and other sales, worked together to
18 Foundations

find the best blend of concerts that would enable both furthering of the artistic
vision and sufficient income to make a profit, which could entail some cross-
funding of less popular but aesthetically valuable events. During evolutionary
changes there was more of an external focus to management practices. For
example, managers conducted a search for, and appointed, a new artistic director
in order to lead the festival in a new direction. They placed greater emphasis on
learning from other festivals and on managing their stakeholders. Subsequently,
the management put a great effort into building up internal cooperation and
multifunctional teams as they entered a new teleological phase. Thus, connec-
tions can be made between the type of change and the practical approach to
managing the change.
However, it is also important to draw attention to the nature of the model when
it is in use. It is not an ‘absolutist’ model, which is used to categorize changes and
practices as if they are fixed, solid and unquestionable. Rather, it is an aid to
managerial judgement. The point is not to spend large amounts of time debating
the exact position of a change in a particular quadrant of the model. The aim is to
enable those involved in the change to debate and come to an agreement on the
general approach they are adopting and then decide how best to act. In the brief
discussion of Festival Co., one quadrant was not used at all (dialectical change). It
is not uncommon that one or more quadrant is not used, and the point is not to try
and force-fit experience into the model; rather, the intention is to understand and
aid practice.

Approach two: speed and scale

Bernard Burnes (2009) offers an alternative framework (see Figure 2.2). This is
equally useful, but it helps change managers decide how to act on the basis of a
different form of analysis that is more applicable in some situations. Burnes also
has two axes in his model, and the first concerns the speed of change. Some
change will be relatively slow and take a considerable time to complete; for
example, changing an organizational culture can take several years in reality.
Conversely, rapid change can take place almost overnight; for example, the
structure of an organization can be changed in what Burnes terms a ‘bold stroke’.
The other axis combines the nature of the environment and the scale of the
change. At one extreme, turbulent environments are combined with large-scale
organizational change, while, at the other end of the scale, relatively stable
environments are associated with smaller-scale changes.
 Current perspectives and classic ideas 19

Turbulent
environment;
large-scale change

(1) Culture change (2) Structural change

Slow Rapid
change change

(4) Attitudes/behaviour (3) Tasks/procedures

Stable environment;
small-scale change

Figure 2.2 Burnes’s framework of change

The first type of change is slow and large-scale and is exemplified by culture
change programmes. The whole organization, or at least large parts of it, will be
involved. The change impacts on everyone and has deep significance, as
culture involves the values, beliefs and fundamental assumptions that operate
in the organization. Most people are not in the habit of changing their beliefs and
basic assumptions overnight, and so such change is often gradual, with backward
steps as well as forward ones, and it is typical for several change initiatives to be
part of the overall change programme. Because of the length of time involved, it is
often the case that this sort of change is emergent (Weick, 2000) – that is,
although there may be plans set out at the beginning, it is necessary to learn as
things progress and to adapt to the circumstances (Chia and Holt, 2009).
Adaptation can entail changing plans, improvising and sometimes taking
unforeseen directions. Hence, the necessary management practices include chal-
lenging the old culture, engaging people in defining the new culture, setting in
place symbols and support processes as people start to change and persevering so
as to make sure the change becomes the new normal practice. It is important that
all the parts of the system support the change; for example, it is self-defeating to
try to change an individualistic culture into a team-oriented one but to keep
20 Foundations

individual performance-related pay, which discourages team work. Chapter 6

discusses this type of change in more detail, and Case 2, ITS Canada, provides an
example.
The second type of change remains at the large-scale or organizational level,
but in this case is fairly rapid. It is typified by changes in organizational
structures or processes. A restructuring is a major undertaking and is very
disruptive for most organizations. Hence, they are typically undertaken only
when there is a pressing need. They can occur because of rapid expansion
through the acquisition of other companies, or because of a need to produce a
radical shift in the way things are done, such as moving from a function-based
hierarchy to a dispersed geographical structure. The point about a structure is
that it organizes how people operate. In a functional hierarchy, for example, the
focus is on groups of people who do the same thing working in close proximity.
This has the advantages of enabling skills and expertise to be shared and
excellence to be achieved in the function. However, the specialists can become
remote from those who receive their services. Change to a dispersed geographic
structure is often effected in order to avoid the problems of a functional
hierarchy and to put specialists into multifunctional teams located closer to
their customers. Hence, the focus is on the customer’s needs. However, this
structure is less good at developing and sharing expertise across the organiza-
tion. Once it has been decided to make such a change, the structural part of the
change can happen almost overnight. However, there may well be a longer
learning period in which people need to adapt to the new working arrange-
ments. The managerial practices associated with this type of change include
clear decision making and prioritization. There is a need to communicate the
reason for the change and what will happen so that ambiguity is reduced. In
addition, coordination is needed so that all the aspects of the change are neatly
executed simultaneously. In short, good project management skills come to the
fore in this type of change.
The next type of change takes place in a more stable environment and is
smaller in scale. The third type is small-scale and rapid. Examples would include
changes to technical systems or developments in procedures through a kaizen
approach. Such changes are not a major disruption to people and would leave
most of the normal ways of working in place. Management practices can be a
top-down spreading of good practice, in which a new procedure is trialled and
then rolled out to others, or there can be a more engaged approach, in which staff
in their local environment are encouraged to develop improvements to the
systems they operate.
 Current perspectives and classic ideas 21

‘Kaizen’ is a Japanese term meaning ‘continuous improvement’, and it is often

used in the context of total quality management.
The fourth type of change is concerned with small-scale change that is
relatively slow. This would include behavioural change, in which people need
to develop new skills and activities that can take time to learn. Typically this can
be achieved in a developmental and collaborative way, and so the associated
managerial practices tend towards an engaged approach, stimulating staff mem-
bers’ understanding of a need to develop new ways of behaving, and supporting
any training to develop these skills.
The crisis of digitalization in the music industry (Hesmondhalgh, 2009) pro-
vides an illustration of how technological change in an industry provokes a range
of changes that Burnes’s model is helpful in analysing. The increase in the
downloading and file sharing of music is seen as a major threat to established
music companies, which have made most of their profits through the production
and distribution of CDs and records. These companies grew their market share
and profit by controlling contractually the releases of artists, and almost all
artists needed such a relationship in order to reach their market. However,
significant changes in the marketplace have occurred, and traditional record
and CD shops have been early casualties. Currently, major producing companies
are struggling with matters of copyright and the ability to generate revenue from
the digital availability of recordings (commercially sanctioned versus person-to-
person non-profit transactions). Musicians are refocusing from an environment
in which live performance promoted a CD release to a situation in which over 80
per cent of CDs released do not make any profit (Frith, Cloonan and Williamson,
2009). As a result, those who can make money effectively from live performance
or from other uses of their music, such as in film or advertising, are those who can
thrive in the new environment. In some ways, this takes us back to a model of the
music industry that pre-dates the prevalence of recorded music, when live
performance was the dominant mode of production and of revenue (as has
always remained the case in some genres).
These changes in the music industry can be represented as different types of
change depending on which focal organization is chosen. In musical retail there
is large-scale and turbulent change, such that web-based retailers are likely to
increasingly replace record/CD shops in a restructuring of the industry. If the
music producers are to survive they will need to invest in large-scale change that
revolutionizes their cultures and procedures. Focusing on CD production alone
is not likely to be the main plank of profitable survival without modification to
take account of the purchasing/sharing practices of consumers in the future
22 Foundations

(Snowball, 2005). For some musicians, moving to a focus on live performance

may be a relatively major shift, entailing changes in the way they produce music,
the number of musicians used and the amount of equipment, adding to the cost of
touring. However, for others, it would represent a relatively small-scale change to
their practices (Randall, 2010). Hence, when considering one technological
change, we can see that different actors in a market may occupy different
positions on Burnes’s framework and face quite different change challenges.
Equally, a single organization might go through several of these types in its
history. Like the Van de Ven and Poole model, Burnes’s approach can help
managers evaluate the situation they are in, define the type of change that they
want to engender or have to face and make informed judgements about the
change practices they should undertake.

Approach three: metaphors of change

The third approach to understanding change that we outline comes from what is
known as the linguistic turn in management (Alvesson and Karreman, 2000). The
use of metaphorical analysis has developed strongly in recent decades (Tsoukas,
1991). The way that people incorporate metaphors into their language can reveal
insights into the way they conceive reality, both explicitly and (more signifi-
cantly) implicitly. To those who are living out these metaphors, the fact that they
are metaphors and ways of conceiving reality rather than being reality itself can
be a surprise. Robert Marshak (2009) argues that metaphors carry with them
implications for action because practices are often guided by the way people see
the world through their ‘dominant metaphors’. However, unintended problems
can occur when the metaphors are inappropriate for the change objective or when
incongruous metaphors are operating within the organization. Marshak identi-
fies four common metaphors that people use regarding organizational change:
‘fix and maintain’; ‘build and develop’; ‘move and relocate’; and ‘liberate and
recreate’.
The ‘fix and maintain’ metaphor sees the organization as a mechanistic system.
Change practices are about identifying breakdowns in the system and repairing
or replacing them. This type of change is aimed at relatively small-scale alter-
ations that do not make radical changes to the system itself but instead, for
instance, improve the efficiency of the functioning of one part of the system.
The ‘build and develop’ metaphor, like the ‘fix and maintain’ one, seeks to work
from established practices, but is less focused on simply fixing problems and
 Current perspectives and classic ideas 23

more concerned with managing expansion or developing a new opportunity. This

process may be understood as being more ‘organic’, and hence managers may act
as coaches, mentors or trainers who are there to help staff develop their practices.
In the ‘fix and maintain’ metaphor there is typically a clear problem definition
and a view of what the solution is. Conversely, in the ‘build and develop’ way of
thinking there may be a more open-ended, and hence somewhat uncertain,
prescription of the outcome of the change.
The third metaphor, ‘move and relocate’, is also known as transitional change.
This is a more radical form of change (Huy, 2002), and it entails the organization
substantially altering how it operates, for example by decentralizing decision
making or by expanding or contracting operations. The management practices in
such a change include the exploration and investigation of alternative ways
forward, planning for change and acting as a guide for people as they go through
the change.
The fourth metaphor is of change as a transformation: ‘liberating and recreat-
ing’. In this way of thinking about the change it is not only about moving forward
but is about changing the ‘state of being’. The common image is of the organ-
ization as being in a process of ‘becoming’ (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002) – that is, a
consistent dynamism that has deep significance. In other words, the organization
is not just changing ‘what we do’ but ‘who we are’. (This topic is discussed in more
depth in Chapter 8.) Changing the culture in an organization can be regarded as
transformational change as it leads to the alteration of the basic principles as well
as the practices and activities (Brown, 1998).
For Marshak, the first use of metaphorical analysis is to diagnose unarticulated
assumptions and beliefs on the basis of the imagery that is present in language. In
a number of long term-research projects in which we have interviewed change
agents, participants and key stakeholders, we have heard talk of ‘toolkits’, ‘not
fixing what isn’t broken’, change as ‘modular’ or ‘putting solutions in place’. In
Marshak’s model, these signals indicate a ‘fix and maintain’ metaphor. When a
‘build and develop’ metaphor is operating, the talk may be of ‘building on our
strengths’, ‘developing new features’, ‘increasing’ or ‘growing’ certain aspects of
the organization. In a ‘move and relocate’ metaphor, change leaders may talk
about ‘getting from A to B’, ‘desired end states’ or ‘being on a journey’. Finally, a
‘liberate and recreate’ metaphor may be indicated by an expressed desire to
undergo ‘organizational reinvention’, ‘thinking outside the box’ or ‘creating a
new vision’. The language used by those involved in and receiving the change is
one indicator, but it is also necessary to pay attention to behaviour and the
meanings associated with the language. For example, it is possible for a leader to
24 Foundations

talk about being on a journey when what he or she means is that some people
need to develop in order to catch up with everyone else. Thus, the words of ‘move
and relocate’ may actually belie an unspoken ‘fix and maintain’ or ‘build and
develop’ mindset. In addition, language can deliberately be used to mislead.
Hence, in this book we pay particular attention to the diagnostic process of
observing both words and actions, since actions are no less a part of the metaphor
that people are living out in the change process.
Metaphorical analysis can highlight potential problems in change. For exam-
ple, having diagnosed the metaphors in play, one might question whether or not
they are the most appropriate for the change at hand. To introduce transforma-
tional change in a culture in which ‘don’t fix what isn’t broken’ is a common
attitude will be highly problematic unless careful preparatory steps are taken.
Equally, significant problems can occur when there is a misalignment of ways of
thinking. For example, in one of the cases discussed later in the book there was a
merger of two public health sector organizations that performed broadly the same
function in neighbouring areas. The chairman talked about the change as being
‘modular’ and said that the ‘new’ area could in effect be ‘bolted on’. This was
indicative of a ‘fix and maintain’ way of thinking. However, others experienced
the change as being much more radical, as it impacted on their daily practices, the
targets that guided their behaviours, the teams that they led, who they reported to
and – for some – even the uniforms that they wore. It was not uncommon to find
people from the ‘new’ area (which, of course, did not regard itself as new) who
saw the change as both transformational and an unwelcome imposition. They felt
that the effective ways of working that they had developed were being ‘trampled
down’ and that, although there were also improvements, the ‘merger’ was really a
‘takeover’. From the chairman’s perspective there was less of a problem, because
what was happening was simply a roll-out of best practice. Therefore, metaphor-
ical analysis can be used to diagnose how people are conceiving change, to gauge
the extent to which there is a fit with the change itself and between different
people’s conceptions in the organization and to decide what sort of management
practices should be prioritized.
Stephen Fineman, David Sims and Yiannis Gabriel (2005) introduce an alter-
native metaphor, which we find particularly useful when seeking to manage
change. Their view is that we should focus not on the ‘object’ of an organization
but on the processes of organizing: not on the noun ‘management’, but on the
verb ‘to manage’. In line with this more dynamic way of thinking, they introduce
the metaphor of a river. Like a river, the ‘raw materials of organizing – people,
their beliefs, actions and shared meanings – are in constant motion’ (2005: 11).
 Current perspectives and classic ideas 25

Depending on where you are, the river can look quite different. From high above
it can look like a continuous line; if you are in a boat you are more aware of the
currents, the wind and other river users; and if you are swimming you will be
even more aware of the movements of the water, the shapes of the banks,
underwater plants, and so on. Equally, your reasons for looking at the river will
lead to you notice some qualities and ignore others. For example, cartographers
will be concerned with the overall size and direction. Conversely, swimmers will
be concerned with their immediate context and their own safety in the water.
Similarly, with processes of managing change, in order to understand the com-
plexity of what is going on we need to be able to look from the perspective of
others who are either closer to or more distant from the change, and who will be
there for quite different reasons.

Approach four: complexity and change

Another development in the change literature has been the use of complexity
thinking to explain, explore and even prescribe how to manage change in
organizations. Complexity theory draws on a diverse range of source literatures,
including physical chemistry, biology and computing science. Two broad schools
of thought have developed as complexity theory has been applied to organiza-
tional settings. One group of researchers adopts a punctuated equilibrium model
of change, which describes periods of relative stasis periodically interrupted by
episodes of rapid and often radical change (see, for example, Gersick, 1991).
Another group suggests that change is continuous, or at least a rapid series of
incremental adjustments (see, for example, Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997).
There are some helpful resources that offer an introductory overview of
examples applying complexity to organizational settings (MacIntosh et al.,
2006), as well as texts that gather together contemporary contributions to
organizational complexity (Allen, Maguire and McKelvey, 2011). In essence,
complexity thinking tends to be organized around a few key concepts. First is
the observation that small signals can be amplified to produce large-scale out-
comes. This is the so-called ‘butterfly effect’ (Lorenz, 1963). Second, significant
change tends to occur when the system under consideration is not in equilibrium.
This is challenging, since much of our organizational theorizing has historically
assumed that equilibrium is the default position, yet Prigogine suggests that
systems in highly unstable states become susceptible to tiny signals and random
perturbations that would have had little impact were they still in equilibrium.
26 Foundations

Processes of positive feedback can turn these tiny changes into ‘gigantic structure
breaking waves’ (Prigogine and Stengers, 1984: xvii). Third, feedback processes
are central to the relationship between stability and change, and in particular the
balance of negative (i.e. restorative or damping) and positive (i.e. amplifying)
feedback influences the extent to which system-wide change occurs. Fourth,
order emerges through the repeated enactment or application of simple rules.
For instance, Reynolds managed to simulate the flocking behaviour of birds using
only three rules.1 Eisenhardt and Sull (2001) suggest that organizations in high-
velocity environments work with simple rules to determine which products to
launch, which markets to operate within, etc. Most complexity theorists suggest
that self-organization occurs when these concepts are simultaneously present,
and the challenge of managing change is transformed when one conceptualizes
the organization itself as a self-organizing phenomenon.
The conditioned emergence framework (MacIntosh and MacLean, 1999) offers
one way of operationalizing complexity thinking in relation to organizational
change. This framework suggests that there are three interacting gateways to
change (MacIntosh and MacLean, 2001). The organization must reconfigure its
simple rules (sometimes referred to as order-generating rules or deep structure),
ensure that the organization experiences sufficient instability and make explicit
efforts to encourage positive feedback (since most organizations are dominated
by processes that engender negative feedback).
Pascale (1999: 85) notes that ‘one cannot direct a living system, only disturb it’,
and Stacey’s extensive work in this area (see, for example, Stacey, 1995) centres
on the assertion that, for complex systems, we cannot accurately predict (or
control) what happens in the future. Nevertheless, the conditioned emergence
framework suggests that managerial influence, if not control, can be exerted by
working through the three interacting gateways of rules, feedback and
disequilibrium.
Each of the four contributions reviewed above developed separately with its
own purposes and set of underlying assumptions in mind. Looking across the four
theoretical contributions, it is possible to see that they might offer a useful
starting point in forming a judgement about how to deal with a specific change

1
In 1986 Reynolds managed to produce a computer simulation, which he called Boids. In the simulation,
each individual boid follows three simple rules: (1) steer to avoid crowding and collision; (2) align
towards the average line of flight of other local boids; and (3) head towards the average positional
location of other boids in the flock. Using these three rules, a whole flock of boids can emulate the
flocking behaviour of real birds. An internet search for the term ‘boids’ will identify several online
versions of the simulation that you can experiment with.
 Current perspectives and classic ideas 27

challenge. A first step could be to decide which question, or combination of

questions, offers most insight into your change situation.

(1) Are we inclined to think of this specific change situation as episodic/contin-

uous and controllable/emergent (complexity scholars)?
(2) Can we determine the nature of the change we face or are we strongly
influenced by external constraints (Van de Ven and Poole)?
(3) Is this an internal change or are we in a situation in which several organ-
izations are changing at the same time, such as a group of competitors (Van
de Ven and Poole)?
(4) Is slow and careful change needed or is there a need to move more quickly
(Burnes)?
(5) Is this a large-scale change impacting on major processes or a lot of people, or
is it more minor (Burnes)?
(6) What are the divergent perspectives at play in this change:
(i) fix and maintain;
(ii) build and develop;
(iii) move and relocate; or
(iv) liberate and recreate (Marshak)?

Building an understanding of typologies and classification systems, such as

those described in this chapter, offers a means of locating your own approach to
change. Each of the typologies foregrounds some issues whilst setting others to
one side. We are not advocating any one of these three contributions to the
literature in isolation, but, as a set, they offer an excellent basis for scholarly and
practical analysis alike. There are many more propositions in the literature that
we might describe as prescriptive or recipe-oriented, such as Kotter’s eight-step
framework (Kotter, 1996), which suggests that change involves:

(1) establishing a sense of urgency;

(2) creating a coalition with sufficient power to lead the change;
(3) creating a vision to direct the change;
(4) communicating that vision throughout the organization;
(5) empowering colleagues to act on the vision;
(6) creating and delivering quick wins;
(7) consolidating improvements and reassessing the plan; and
(8) reinforcing the change by linking change activities to outcomes.

Some find structured advice in this form extremely helpful, and prescriptive
models such as Kotter’s have had significant impact on the practice of change in
28 Foundations

many organizations. However, we would argue that such prescriptions overlook a

prior stage of establishing which kind of change process is appropriate for the
challenge at hand. In this sense, the typologies and models developed by Van de
Ven and Poole, Burnes and Marshak offer a more situated means of diagnosing
change and moving forward to action in ways that are sensitive to the particular
circumstances. These models inform the exploration of the enquiry–action
framework that follows. Addressing the questions posed above aids diagnosis
of the type of change, the actions that are likely to be more appropriate and what
should be looked for in evaluation and explanation. In the next chapter we
consider four options that can be used in diagnosing why there should be change
and how it should be managed.

REFERENCES
................................................................................
Allen, P., Maguire, S., and McKelvey, B. (2011) Fineman, S., Sims, D., and Gabriel, Y. (2005)
The Sage Handbook of Complexity and Organizing and Organizations, 3rd edn.
Management. London: Sage. London: Sage.
Alvesson, M., and Karreman, D. (2000) Taking Friedman, R. A., Tidd, S. T., Currall, S. C., and
the linguistic turn in organizational Tsai, J. C. (2000) What goes around comes
research. Journal of Applied Behavioral around. International Journal of Conflict
Science, 36(2): 136–58. Management, 11(1): 32–55.
Brown, A. (1998) Organisational Culture, Frith, S., Cloonan, M., and Williamson, J.
2nd edn. Harlow: Pearson. (2009) On music as a creative industry, in
Brown, S. L., and Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997) Pratt, A. C., and Jeffcutt, P. (eds.) Creativity,
The art of continuous change: linking Innovation and the Cultural Economy: 74–
complexity theory and time-paced 90. London: Routledge.
evolution in relentlessly shifting Gersick, C. J. G. (2002) Revolutionary change
organizations. Administrative Science theories: a multilevel exploration of the
Quarterly, 42(1): 1–34. punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Academy
Burnes, B. (2009) Managing Change, 5th edn. of Management Review, 16(1): 10–36.
Harlow: Pearson. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2009) The digitalisation
Chia, R., and Holt, R. (2009) Strategy without of music, in Pratt, A. C., and Jeffcutt, P. (eds.)
Design: The Silent Efficacy of Indirect Creativity, Innovation and the Cultural
Action. Cambridge University Press. Economy: 57–73. London: Routledge.
Cunha, M. P. E., and Da Cunha, J. V. (2003) Huy, Q. N. (2002) Emotional balancing of
Organizational improvisation and change: organizational continuity and radical
two syntheses and a filled gap. Journal of change. Administrative Science Quarterly,
Organizational Change Management, 16(2): 47(1): 31–69.
169–85. Jehn, K. A. (1997) Affective and cognitive
Eisenhardt, K. M., and Sull, D. N. (2001) conflict in work groups: increasing
Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business performance through value-based
Review, 79(1): 107–16. intragroup conflict, in de Dreu, C. K. W.,
 Current perspectives and classic ideas 29

and Van de Vliert, E. (eds.) Using Conflict Pascale, R. T. (1999) Surfing the edge of chaos.
in Organizations: 87–100. London: Sage. Sloan Management Review, 40(3): 83–94.
Kotter, J. P. (1996) Leading Change. Boston: Prigogine, I., and I. Stengers (1984) Order out
Harvard Business School Press. of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with
Lampel, J., Lant, T., and Shamsie, J. (2000) Nature. New York: Bantam.
Balancing act: learning from organizational Randall, C. (2010) Communication, artists and
practices in cultural industries. Organization the audience, in Townley, B., and Beech, N.
Science, 11(3): 263–9. (eds.) Managing Creativity: Exploring the
Lindblom, C. E. (1959) The science of Paradox: 157–76. Cambridge University Press.
muddling through. Public Administration Snowball, J. D. (2005) Art for the masses?
Review, 19(2): 79–88. Journal of Cultural Economics, 29(2): 107–25.
Lorenz, E. (1963) Deterministic non-periodic Stacey, R. D. (1995) The science of complexity:
flow. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, an alternative perspective for strategic
20(2): 130–41. change processes. Strategic Management
MacIntosh, R., and MacLean, D. (1999) Journal, 16(6): 477–95.
Conditioned emergence: a dissipative Stark, J. (2006) Product Lifecycle Management:
structures approach to transformation. 21st Century Paradigm for Product
Strategic Management Journal, 20(4): Realisation. London: Springer.
297–316. Tsoukas, H. (1991) The missing link: a
MacIntosh, R., and MacLean, D. (2001) transformational view of metaphors in
Conditioned emergence: researching change organizational science. Academy of
and changing research. International Management Review, 16(3): 566–85.
Journal of Operations and Production Tsoukas, H., and Chia, R. (2002) On
Management, 21(10): 1343–57. organizational becoming: rethinking
MacIntosh, R., MacLean, D., Stacey, R., and organizational change. Organization
Griffin, D. (2006) Complexity and Science, 13(5): 567–82.
Organization: Readings and Conversations. Van de Ven, A. H., and Poole, M. S. (1995)
London: Routledge. Explaining development and change in
Marshak, R. (2009) Organizational Change: organizations. Academy of Management
Views from the Edge. Bethel, ME: Review, 20(1): 510–40.
Lewin Center. Van de Ven, A. H., and Poole, M. S. (2005)
Morgan, G. (1988) Riding the Waves of Change: Alternative approaches for studying
Developing Managerial Competencies for organizational change. Organization
a Turbulent World. San Francisco: Studies, 26(9): 1377–404.
Jossey-Bass. Weick, K. E. (2000) Emergent change as a
Paleo, I. O., and Wijnberg, N. M. (2006) universal in organizations, in Beer, M.,
Classification of popular music festivals. and Nohria, N. (eds.) Breaking the Code
International Journal of Arts Management, of Change: 223–41. Boston: Harvard
8(2): 50–61. Business School Press.