Theories of Change 63 

One of the features that emerges in an analysis of the change management literature is that there is no one theory that defines or explains organisational change. Theories of change and in particular organisational change often have a secondary focus on change per se with a primary focus on another theory such as culture, leadership, and decision-making. These concepts will be explored in more detail below.

Lewin (1947:13) described organisational change as being a combination of change and constancy: ‘change and constancy are relative concepts; group life is never without change, merely differences in the amount and type of change exist’. His theory of resistance to change involved key phases that sought to explain how attitudes to change could be managed within an organisational change management theory depicting the phases of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing.

Lewin (1947) indicated that the first stage of change involves preparing the organization to accept that change is necessary or ‘unfreezing’. This involves breaking down the existing practices before building a new way of operating the organisation. After the organisational uncertainty that is created in the unfreeze stage, the ‘change’ stage is where employees begin to resolve their uncertainty and move to accept the identified new ways to operate in the organisation. When the changes are taking shape and employees have embraced the new way in which the organisation

operates, then it is time to ‘refreeze’ and ensure that the changes are embedded into the day to day operations of the organisation.

Dunphy (1996) noted that there is an absence of consistent and widely accepted theory in the field of organisational change management. In his analysis of change theories he identified five factors that can inform a theoretical consideration of organisational change. These comprise: ‘a basic metaphor’ of the nature of the organisation; ‘an analytical framework or diagnostic model’ that assists in understanding the organisational change process; ‘an ideal model of an effectively functioning organisation’ which explains the directions for change and the values used to assess the change; ‘an intervention theory’ which explains how the change process will move the organisation; and ‘a definition of the role of the change agent’ that explains the initiator and manner of change (1996:543). Each factor is considered below.

Firstly, the ‘basic metaphor’ factor encourages the organisation to be considered as an open system and one that is in active interchange with its environment. This allows the organisation to be considered in the context of the wider prevailing economic, political and social forces. Secondly, the ‘analytical framework’ factor involves considering change as a series of processes or systems arising from the external environment. By analysing the external environment it is possible to identify the key variables to be managed during change. Thirdly, the ‘ideal model’ factor suggests the directions for the change and the values which will be used to assess the effectiveness of the change once completed. These can include workforce satisfaction, rate of growth or decline, opportunities to benchmark organisational performance. Fourthly, the ‘intervention theory’ factor outlines the approach the organisation will take in the management of organisational change and the specifics of when, where and how to initiate the change in the organisation. This features the design of integrated organisational change and related human resource management programs. And finally the ‘definition of the change agent’ allows for the role of management, as well as employees, to articulate their role in responding o the process of change. It recognises the differing interests of the parties within the organisation during the change process. Together, Dunphy’s (1988) five factors provide a theoretical basis in which it is

possible to consider the nature of the organisation and then its relationship and interaction with the process of change.

Another prominent change management theory was provided by Van de Ven and Poole (1995). The authors developed a model of change that places primacy on two key dimensions of change, namely the unit of change, and the mode of change. Their typology of change identified four basic process theories of change; each characterised by a different event sequence and associated change mechanism (Weick and Quinn, 1999). The four theories comprised:

1. life cycle theories which considers change as part of the establishment of an organisation;

2. teleogical theories which considers change as a series of defined goals;

3. dialectical theories, which considers change as a form of organisational conflict; and

4. evolutionary theories which considers change as a natural form of organisational development.

These four theories place change in the context of how it occurs within the organisation and the manner in which it impacts on organisational development. Life cycle theory and evolutionary theory consider change as more of a gradual and natural process, the first relating to the establishment, growth and finally demise of an organisation through its natural life cycle, and the second relating to the ongoing development of the organisation as it adapts to its environment. Teleogical and dialectical theories of change consider workplace change more in the sense of discrete episodes in an organisation. The first relates to specific outcomes, and the second to organisational conflict. These theories are important as they can shape the manner in which both managers and employees address and respond to change.

An alternative theoretical approach to change management is that of De Wit and Meyer (1999) who describe two theories of change management: evolutionary and revolutionary. This typology in turn allows for two different sets of strategies to approach change management. Evolutionary change adopts a longer term focus, an approach that is more akin to continuous improvement and one that seeks to build

acceptance of change over a longer term period. Alternatively, revolutionary change focuses on an approach that is more radical, immediate, and involved targeted outcomes to ensure change is achieved. It can be discontinuous in the sense that it brings about changes which were not part of the original organisation’s operations (De Wit and Meyer, 1999; Kenny, 2003).

The notion that there is no one definitive model for change has articulated by many of the change management writers (Palmer and Dunford, 2002; Kenny, 2003). The desire for a single theory of change, and the arguments against adopting such a concept, was articulated by Dunphy (1996): ‘What we do need instead, however, as do all truly scientific fields, is not a single theory but comprehensive competing theories of change and a healthy debate about their respective value bases and biases (1996:545-546).

Dunphy (1996) proposed the view that organisational change is of itself a failure of the organisation to continuously adapt the organisation. The need to initiate change arises where continuous improvement has not been undertaken and the organisation requires corrective action. This view was also espoused by Weick and Quinn (1999:362): ‘The basic tension that underlies many discussions of organisational change is that it would not be necessary if people had done their jobs right in the first place’. Weick and Quinn (1999) also discussed the concept of continuous change within the workplace and identified continuous change as ongoing, evolving and cumulative. They wrote that: ‘The distinctive quality of continuous change is the idea that small continuous adjustments, created simultaneously across units, can cumulate and create substantial change’ (1999:370).

The reality of the modern workplace is that it is more common to experience large forms of major change, or what is described in the literature as ‘episodic change’. Such change is seen to be infrequent, discontinuous and deliberately intentional and requires systematic management agendas to ensure it is implemented in an orderly manner that does not seriously disrupt the workplace (Weick and Quinn, 1999).

Having considered some of the theoretical approaches to change management discussed above, and identified the issue of change in the context of the evolution of

the organisation, this chapter now moves to consider the notion of resistance to change before using this as a framework to consider strategies for managing workplace change.