C r e a t i n g O r g an i z at i o n a l C a p a ci t y f o r C o n t i n u ou s an d Ad a p t i v e C h an g e

S u b mi t t e d t o :

M i d w e s t A c a d e my o f M an a g e me n t
October, 2008

Sarah A. Malone Ph.D.

B e n e d i c t i n e U n i v e rs i t y
7 7 3 / 3 3 4 - 47 8 4
S a r a h m a l o n e @ ya h o o . c o m

K E Y W O R D S : C o n t i n u ou s ad a p ti v e c h a n g e

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 1 of 20

Introduction
Today‘s global business environment is dynamic and highly uncertain. Making sense of
rapid and complex environmental fluctuations in global markets, (Apfelthaler, Muller & Rehder,
2002), and global interdependencies are presenting formidable challenges to continued
organizational viability. The current environmental conditions in which organizations now
operate, call into question classical theories of organizational change. Organizational members
and leaders are learning that the accepted wisdom about how organizations perform and change
is rapidly losing its relevance (Glover, Jones, & Friedman, 2002).
The agile and continuously adaptive organization is broadly agreed to as the ideal
organization form. Examples in practice of this achievement evidenced in organizations ―not
born this way‖, however, are few and far between (Kanter, Stein & Jick, 1992, p. 5). The
challenge organizations face is fundamentally one of constant change—they are always in the
process of ―becoming‖ (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002, p. 567), always in the process of ―getting from
here to there‖ (Kanter et al., 1992, p. 5). The there, however, is not a static state. There is
moving target—a constant set of continuously morphing conditions.
Throughout history, organizations have viewed change through the lens of a stable
business environment—an environment in which routine and order were dominant constructs
that framed business reality. Operating in an environment thought to be reliable, leaders and
organizational members acted with a sense of security and certainty (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002).
The classical response to change was to introduce change through ―silver bullet‖ (Schneider,
1996, p. 10) interventions such as total quality management (TQM), reengineering, organization
redesign, new structures, processes and training programs. These change interventions, however,
at best achieved mixed results (Kotter, 1995). What leaders and organizational members now
better understand is implementing silver bullet change interventions is ―fruitless‖ (Glover, Jones,
and Friedman, 2004, p. 15) without also developing and enabling organizational capacity for
continuous adaptation. As noted by Glover, Jones, and Friedman, implementing change
initiatives ―do not always create adaptation‖ (p 18).
A continuous state of change readiness and adaptation, an unending state of preparedness
versus periodic initiation of change through planned change events, is fundamental to
organizational viability (Rowden, 2001). The new reality, agility and the ability to morph as the
operating environment changes are requisite for sustained organizational viability because there
is no fixed point at which the organization arrives at success; the organization is always in a
perpetual state of arriving. Change readiness and adaptation, an unending state of organizational
agility is no longer a nice to have set of skills—this capacity is now essential organizational
competency.

Organizational Change Perspectives: Context for the Study

Weick and Quinn (1999) note that the study of organizational change done in the 1990s
distinguishes between episodic, intermittent, and continuous, emerging organizational change.
This difference, they note, is central to the evolution of the theoretical and operational
framework for organizational change. When viewed from a distance, the changing nature of
organizations appears as ―repetitive action, routine inertia, dotted with occasional episodes of
revolutionary change‖ (p. 361). When organizational change, however, is seen from an ―on the
ground‖ perspective, (Tsoukas and Chia, 2002, p. 568), the interchange of organization
members‘ activities viewed as ―routine inertia‖ are revealed as multiple cycles of ―ongoing
adaptation and adjustment‖ (Weick and Quinn, 1999, p. 361)of organization members‘ activities.

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 2 of 20

Feldman (2000) suggests that the key to understanding organizational change as an emergent and
modifying process is to examine the transformational character of ordinary human action.
In their article ―On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change,‖
Tsoukas and Chia, (2002, p 568) pose an interesting question. They ask, ―What would be the
benefits if organizational change, both as an object of study and as a management preoccupation
were to be approached from the perspective of ongoing change rather that stability?‖ They offer
three responses to this inquiry. First, one benefit would be enabling researchers to better
understand the organization‘s ―micro processes‖ (p. 568) of change. Second, they suggest it
would support acquiring a more comprehensive understanding of how change is actually
―accomplished on the ground.‖ Third, Tsoukas and Chia suggest that viewing change as an
ongoing process, a ―stream of interactions‖ (p. 569) and flow of positioned initiatives will help to
overcome implementation issues inherent in change programs.
My interest and motivation for pursuing this line of inquiry is to-fold: First, my interest is
influenced by experiences and observations related to challenges organizations face when
dealing with continuous change. A seasoned practitioner with over 20 years experience in
organizational development (OD) and organizational change, I have long asked the question why
organizations are able to initiate change, yet are unable to realize ongoing change
sustainability—why they do not have the capacity for continued and adaptive change. My
second reason for pursuing this line inquiry is the belief that further development of the body of
knowledge in this research area will have significant implications for theory development as wall
as advancing practice.

Study Purpose and Guiding Questions

The purpose of the study was to gain a deep understanding of the phenomena that create
organizational change sustainability through discovering factors and conditions through
establishing causal relationships between and among these factors and conditions. The emergent
design research strategy was to follow the data—allow the data to lead and guide the research
versus steering the direction of the study through a priori determinations. The study was
initiated in fall 2005, during which time interviews were conducted with eight research
respondents. Questions that guided this preliminary research phase were as follows:
What is organizational change sustainability?
What are the phenomena that create organizational change sustainability?
What are the causal relationships between these phenomena?
How do these phenomena / conditions bring about organizational change sustainability?

Literature Review
Organizational Change Sustainability

The study of organizational change has a rich history—a history that has paved the way
for contemporary exploration of the topic. The evolution of organizational change theory and
practice dates back to Frederick Taylor‘s work in the late 1800s through early 1900s (Burke,
2002). Taylor‘s thinking and his work with organizations were heavily influenced by the
industrial revolution. He viewed organizations as machines, studied them in scientific terms.

Following Taylor, several evolutions of organizational change were the forerunners of

contemporary study and practice of organization development (OD). The Hawthorne studies

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 3 of 20

beginning 1924, industrial psychology which emerged during the late 1940s, survey feedback,
Kurt Lewin‘s work (1946) with T-groups and laboratory training, Eric Trist‘s work in action
research (1946), studies done at Union Carbide (McGregor), Exxon (Kolb & Shepard), General
Mills (McGregor & Bechard), Blake and Mouton‘s (1968) ―grid organization development‖ (p.
37), and the evolution of the field of management consulting are forerunners to the contemporary
study of organizational change. In addition to classical change theory, contemporary research in
the research area of organizational change sustainability was consulted.
Schneider proposes that to achieve organizational change sustainability, the change must
be effected in both the organization‘s climate and its culture. He suggests that change initiatives
fail because the change does not alter the ―fundamental psychology‖ or ―feel‖ of the organization
to its members (1996, p. 6). To sustain change goals and everyday protocols, processes and
routines (climate) must altered and these changes and these changes must significantly impact
beliefs and values that guide behaviors. Total organizational change reaches penetrates the
organization‘s way of existence, creating change in that which the organization becomes, not
merely change in what members do. Change penetrates throughout multiple levels of the
organization‘s architecture, culture and climate.
Frankford (2003) proposes that when beliefs are changed and when institution systems
and rituals to put these beliefs into practice are embedded throughout the organization, ―radical‖
(sustained) change is achieved (p. 512). Through exerting will and exercising choice, belief and
institutional systems function in concert to bring about change sustainability. Frankford further
maintains institutional systems that align with cultural constructs are dynamically self-
sustaining—the rhythmically balance one another.
A study related to organizational change sustainability conducted by Rosenborg (2003)
discusses concepts of participative management and learning that occur in a ―complex setting‖
(p. 64). In her research, she observed that during early implementation of change, organizational
members found it near impossible to achieve the stated desired results. Initially change was
implemented using a conventional approach, one that emphasized intended outcomes and results.
Rosenborg found that a focus on intended outcomes alone was insufficient to bring about the
expected level of organizational change. Participative methodologies and the creation of
networks were implemented. These approaches fostered self-determined learning, problem
solving, and self organized collaborative action. Rosenborg‘s study suggests that a dynamic,
non-traditional approach to change, an approach that involves everyone, is self-driven,‖ ―self-
sustaining,‖ and fosters a ―new way of thinking (p78) about organizational change is required in
order to create the capacity for change sustainability.
Clark (2003) adds insight to this discussion. In early 1990s he conducted research in five
European universities and identified ―pathways of transformation.‖ His study examines the
passage these universities made ―from transformation to sustainability‖ (p. 99). He proposes
three underlying causes of their sustained change: (a) reinforced interaction among transforming
organizational constituencies; (b) continuous adaptation through incremental change; and (c)
collective desire, commitment, and institutional will.
Clark‘s, Rosenborg‘s, Frankford‘s and Schneider‘s insights strengthen our understanding
of the complex nature of organizational change sustainability. Their findings indicate that
mutually reliant concepts of institutional will, engagement (mobilization, systems (practices,
structures, methods,) learning (individual and organization, focus, and self-sustaining

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 4 of 20

collaborative action, are key ingredients for creating change sustainability within a complex
system.
Continuous and Adaptive Organizational Change: An organic and Complex System
In their book The Management of Innovation (Burns & Stalker, 1961), the authors draw a
distinction between ―organic‘ and ―mechanistic‖ organizations. The central differentiators
between the two are the environmental conditions within which each organization thrives.
Mechanistic organizations operate under relatively stable conditions, while organic systems
(living systems) operate in complex and unpredictable environments—they adapt to ―unstable
conditions‖ (p. 5). The nonlinearity of a living system makes it impossible to quantify it based on
―additive equations,‖ and as such cause and effect cannot be proportionally linked. In
mechanistic linear systems, however, cause and effect are proportional—output is equal to input
(Bloom, 2000, p. 2). Complex social systems are organized by webs of relationships that thrive
on information and are capable of reorganizing themselves in response to changes in the
environment (Wheatley, 1997). Fluidity, emergent response to the environment and adaptive
capacity are attributes found in the organic system Burns and Stalker studied. These
differentiating features, as others discussed in this paper, have significant implications on the
theory that emerged from this research.
Linking Complexity to Organizational Change
All organizations experience change and all, in some way adapt to shifting environmental
conditions. Yet, most efforts to bring about meaningful organizational change do not work
(Burke, 2002). Burke attributes these failures to ―times have changed‖ (p. 5), but organizations,
have not demonstrated capacity to effective adapt to rapidly changing conditions. Lawler &
Worley agree, arguing that to expect ―stable,‖ mechanistic organizations to perform well in
complex and rapidly changing environments is ―following a recipe for failure‖ (Lawler &
Worley, 2006, p. 18). Many organizations rely on a planned change which is implemented
through the application of linear methodology (Cummings & Worley, 2005). Change in
organizational life, however, is ―messy and complicated‖ (Bloom, 2000, p. 2) It does not fit
within the linear cause and effect theoretical model.
While the metaphor of planned change provides a way to view the enactment of change,
Burke (2005) calls for a deeper understanding of the nature of organizational change and the
theoretical foundation upon which the study of organizational change is built and guided.
(Lawler and Worley) 2006) agree saying in today‘s demanding and complex environment,
organizations have to be built on change not merely change as a result of a change program or
silver bullet intervention. Advocating for deeper knowledge of organizational change, Burke
proposes a synthesis of life science theory and organization change theory to better comprehend
and describe complex nature of living systems. Burke hypothesizes that living systems require
three interdependent characteristics; 1) pattern, 2) structure, and 3) process. This self-directed
and self-organizing capacity is embedded in the system‘s DNA. Burke speaks of a living
system‘s process as the system‘s ―way of knowing‖ (p. 56). ―Knowing‖ he posits, can only be
understood in relationship to a living system‘s interaction with the environment within which it
functions (p. 57)
Similar to Burke‘s theory, Weick refers to the ―interlocked behaviors and organizing‖
capacity of social systems (1979, p. 89). The emergent, self-organization of member actions
forms webs of interdependently contingent and interlocked actions throughout the organization.

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 5 of 20

Weick identifies connections and interdependencies as essential characteristics of complex living
systems (1979). Weick asserts there is progression from one emergent, self-organized process to
the next, and these overlap and meld together to create multiple combinations of self-formed
processes patterns designed to anticipate and respond to the environment in which they function.
Weick further maintains that more than one process is active at any given time and the ―speed‖
with which organizing processes adapt to environmental conditions varies (p. 145). This
contention supports the idea that living systems‘ processes are synchronous; they are non-linear,
non-isolated and have ‗open or fuzzy rather than fixed boundaries‖ that promote open flow,
exchange and integration of ―matter, energy, and information (Minus, 2005, p 34). Processes and
characteristics essential to complex living systems form together (p. 145) to create a lattice of
distributed, aligned and interdependent activities.
The ability to collectively adapt to rapidly changing environmental conditions, link,
overlap and function holistically creates an illusion of messy state of affairs. Within the
messiness, however, there is method to the madness—an inherent order exists even in the midst
of apparent chaos (Fairholm, 2004, p 1). Marge Wheatly (2006) similarly reflects that in today‘s
complex environment a sense of order materializes out of chaos when people exercise choice—
make decisions about what affects them based on shared meaning and values.

Methodology
Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory

Qualitative research methodology was the selected approach for conducting this study as
it provides a process for characterizing, examining, and interpreting insights discovered in
everyday experiences (Stokrocki, 1997). This methodology its well with my interest in studying
how organizational leaders, OD practitioners and scholars view understand and interpret (Rubin
& Rubin, 2005) their experiences with and perceptions of organizational change sustainability.
A holistic form of inquiry (Patton, 1990), qualitative research enabled me to bring who I am to
the research process—to intimately relate to the data—to explore the fertile terrain of diverse
experiences, perspectives, and insights—to tell a story honoring the complexity of many
representations and contexts (Rubin & Rubin, p. 2), including those from my own experiences.
Engaging my scientific faculties, my ability to think abstractly and conceptualize complex data,
and my intuitive skills. The qualitative approach provided a way to become immersed in the
research process.
The grounded theory research method consists of three major qualitative research
components, each of which is a building block and arterial medium for comparative analysis.
While each component is distinct, they integrate, overlap, and occur simultaneously. The first
component of the grounded theory methodology is data collection. As applied in this study, data
were derived from interviews. The second component is coding of data. Coding (open, axial and
selective) is the analytic method and associated procedures used to analyze and organize data.
Coding results in conceptualization, data reduction, and the development, articulation and
relating of categories, properties and dimensions. Other coding procedures used in this study
included sampling, memo writing, and diagramming. The third aspect of grounded theory
research is the preparation of written and verbal reports (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
The study was approached with no prescribed or preferred theory, only an inquisitive
mind eager to explore an area of study in which I was greatly interested. I entered the process
open to learning and trusting that deeper knowledge and theory would emerge from the data.

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 6 of 20

Figures 1, 2 and 3 while illustrated in linear form, attempts to show coding and data analysis as
dynamic processes moving continuously back and forth between streams of data and data points
in order to discover, break down, and rebuild concepts to form meaning.

Open Coding In Vivo Coding

Researcher Comments

Figure 1. First Cycle Coding

Deep Dive
Open Coding Properties/Dimensions Categories
In Vivo Coding

Stream of Conscious Theoretical

Memo Writing Propositions

Figure 2. Second-Cycle Coding and Comparative Analysis Process

Deeper Dive
Quotes Properties/Dimensions Categories

Stream of Conscious Memos Conceptual Theoretical Propositions

In Vivo Coding Ordering Conceptual Ordering
Researcher Comments

Figure 3. Third-Cycle Coding and Comparative Analysis Process

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 7 of 20

Data Collection—Responsive Interviews
The interview process was designed to stimulate respondents‘ recollection and sharing of
their experiences, perspectives, values and enabling characteristics of organizational change
(Rubin & Rubin, 2005). Interview questions included open ended as well as focused inquiries
intended to solicit breadth as well as narrowly focused meaning. Intentionally, research
participants were engaged as conversational partners. They had key influence in shaping and
guiding the dialogue and direction of the research. Together, we explored the research topic to
develop shared understanding. In the role of researcher, I had the flexibility to, in real time, adapt
to changes in direction, dept and scope of interview content, allowing for full, colorful, and
contextual exploration of conversational partner‘s experiences and perspectives.

Interview Design
The interview protocol was based on Appreciative Inquiry design. Appreciative Inquiry
(AI) is an approach to inquiry that is about the ―search for the best in people, their organizations,
and the world around them‖ (Cooperrider, Whitney, 2001, p. 7). It is a systematic discovery of
what gives life to an organization when it is most vibrant and performing at its highest
productive capability. Appreciative interview protocol was designed to focus conversational
partners‘ reflections on characteristics that give life to organizations as opposed to what is not
working and problems to be solved.
Using an Appreciative Inquiry protocol was relevant to the focus of the study. Prior to
starting the formal research, several organizational development professionals were informally
queried about experiences with creating organizational change sustainability within their
organizations. Surprisingly, each overwhelmingly recounted negative experiences. Based on
their accounts and personal experience, I had a good sense of what organizational change
sustainability was not. During this process, I also became more aware that my interest was to
discover and study what organizational change sustainability was—what it looked like and what
circumstances made it possible. Based on this reflection, the decision was made to focus the
research for this study on an organization‘s sustained capacity for change; in other words, I
wanted to develop learning about what it is working within and what it looks like when
organizations demonstrate organizational change sustainability.
The interview protocol consisted of five regions of inquiry. Each region explored a study
area consequential to the research. The purpose of the first region of inquiry was to facilitate
sharing a vivid account of conversational partners‘ stories. The second region of inquiry drew
out and explored the characteristics of success. The purpose of the third region of inquiry was to
make visible values, essential qualities and distinguish this experience from other experiences
the conversational partner had with organizational change sustainability. Region four surfaced
and inquired into conditions, actions and behaviors required for characteristics, values and
essential qualities to be present in the organization at all times; and region five explored the
leader‘s reflections on organizational change sustainability, and drew out key concepts related to
how the conversational partners envisioned and defined organizational change sustainability.
Each region of inquiry was explored through an appreciative open question, designed to explore
breadth of meaning. Each main question was assisted, should it be needed, with follow-up
questions designed to explore specific meaning and clarify understanding (Rubin, Rubin, 2005).
The interview guideline included the following questions:

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 8 of 20

 Table 1. Appreciative Interview Questions

Region of Inquiry I Please share with me a story about a time when an

organization you were affiliated with functioned at its best in
organizational change sustainability?

(To draw out the story—what took place.)

Region of Inquiry II What contributed to creating organizational change
sustainability? What are the core factors and/or conditions that
made this possible?

(To discern important characteristics of success.)

Region of Inquiry III What distinguishes this from other experiences you‘ve had
with sustaining organizational change?

(To discern positive core, values, and essential qualities.)

Region of Inquiry IV What would need to be in place for these attributes to be
characteristic of an organization all of the time?

(To identify requirements, conditions – circumstances,

actions, and behaviors needed for change sustainability.)
Region of Inquiry V Reflecting on what has been discussed, how do you define
―sustaining organization?‖ What does it mean to ―sustain
organization change?‖

To determine key concepts related to the definition of

―organizational change sustainability.)

Conversational Partners
This research evolved as an emergent design, grounded theory study. The initial data
collection interviews were conducted with eight organization leaders who were practitioners and
scholars engaged in advancing change sustainability within their organizations or client
organizations. Leaders‘ backgrounds included secular, non-secular, profit, and non-profit sectors.
Leaders were selected based theoretical relevance (Glaser & Strauss, 1999) and their
organizational change and change sustainability experiences. Roles of leaders who participated
in the initial data collection were: Director of organization development (OD) for a Fortune 100
pharmaceutical company, Director of a U.S. government agency, Senior Pastor of a large
metropolitan Baptist church (former CEO for a national organizational development consulting
company), president of a large multiple business unit home health organization, Vice President
of human resources for a major healthcare organization, organizational development theorist,
author, consultant and visiting faculty member of Benedictine University, Director of
environmental and security services for a major teaching healthcare organization and Associate
pastor for a large metropolitan Baptist church.
Based on the insights from the initial interviews, an additional 12 US OD leaders,
scholars, and practitioners were interviewed. As with initial data collection, interviewees were
selected from profit and non-profit sectors and they were selected based on their OD and

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 9 of 20

organizational change work and study. Practitioners and scholars who participated in the
expanded research included: Internal consultant for a diversified financial services company,
Doctoral program director with an independent university, Manager of OD for Europe, Africa,
and Asia with a global communications company, Sr. Leader of OD with a super regional
wireless company, Roman Catholic priest and activist, Director and professor, for an
independent university, Director of training and OD of an international pharmaceuticals
company, Fire Chief for a suburban municipality, Scholar and OD consultant, Chief HR Officer
with a global real state and investment management company, Manager of global product and
sales training and development for a global interconnect solutions company, and scholar and OD
consultant. A total of twenty interview respondents participated in the study.

Grounded Theory Data Analysis

Data from each interview was analyzed using the constant comparative method (Glaser &
Strauss).This form of discovery generates, properties, dimensions, and hypothesis. The approach
fuses data collection, data analysis, and theory development as a continuous and seamless
process that culminates in theoretical findings that are anchored in the data (Glaser & Strauss).
Classical data analysis methods as well as computer data analysis software were used to
organize and analyze data. ATLAS.ti data analysis software was used to organize and analyze
large amounts of qualitative data. The program provides a suite of tools for systematically
analyzing unstructured data. ATLAS.ti tools help manage, extract, compare, explore and
reassemble a large amount of facts, observations and materials from which conclusions can be
drawn in creative, flexible, yet systematic ways (Muhr, 2006). To supplement ATLAS.ti, 3/5
index cards were used for conceptualizing interrelationships among and between properties,
categories, and theoretical phenomena. Cards were written for each of the nine concepts. In
constant consultation with the data and using speculation, cards were positioned, repositioned,
and repeatedly rearranged in an attempt to formulate and organize an illustration of the
theoretical construct interpreted and depicted in the data. Findings derived from qualitative
interviews for this research were triangulated with a comprehensive literature review, knowledge
and ―preunderstanding‖ (Gummesson, 2000, p. 57) – insights gained through over 20 years
experience leading, designing, and facilitating organization change in organizations throughout
the U.S. and Canada.

Research Results
The initial set of data resulted in two crucial insights that established the base from which
further research was conducted. The first insight was a clearer understanding and articulation of
the topic under study—―sustaining organizational change.‖ this was profound breakthrough. The
fifth region of inquiry in the interview protocol asked respondents to define what ―organizational
change sustainability‖ meant to them based on their experiences.
Key themes emerged from the data. These themes created the framework for the
following definition that was developed: ―Sustaining organizational change is the continuous,
anticipative, and adaptive movement (thinking and actions) taken by organizational members to
achieve a desired future.‖ This definition created the context for calibrating a clear definition of
the topic as well as the naming of the research topic. This discovery resulted in recalibration of
the initial focus of ―sustaining organizational change‖ to ―continuous and adaptive change.‖

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 10 of 20

 The second major finding made during the initial data analysis was the discovery that
higher level codes did not take the form of neatly constructed clearly defined concepts and causal
relationships. Emerging from the data were a series of nonlinear, inexact concepts—concepts
that appeared to be multi-dimensional versus singular in character. In addition, these concepts
appeared to be mutually reinforcing, interacting with and influencing one another. Based on the
findings from the initial data analysis, research questions were recalibrated and a second round
of interviews was conducted to broaden the inquiry and meet the rigorous standards for
theoretical saturation. Questions that guided the second round of data collection were:
 What are the phenomena that create continuous and adaptive organizational change?
 What are the causal relationships between these phenomena?
 How do these phenomena/ conditions bring about continued and adaptive organizational
change?
The comparative data analysis from the twenty interviews resulted in the discovery and
interpretation of nine (9) multifaceted grounded dimensions of continuous and adaptive change.
These dimensions embody the concepts leadership, learning / teaching, systems, mobilization,
environmental savvy, focus, beliefs, will / exercising choice, and values concurrence. Table 2.
depicts dimensions of continuous and adaptive organization change and the grounded
subcategories that emerged from the data; provides descriptive narratives typifying participant
perspectives and experiences, and exhibits concepts embodied within the dimensions.

Table 2. Continuous & Adaptive Change Dimensions and Subcategories

Dimensions of Continuous and Grounded Subcategories

Adaptive Organizational Change

Leadership Mobilize the organization. Set example, convey

vision, teaching / learning, and focus.
Mobilization Collaborative involvement of organizational
members in deciphering, planning and taking
collective action. Collaborative involvement of
stakeholders, participation and diverse levels of
organization members involved in the process.
Meaningful connections are developed. Hearts and
minds are engaged.
Learning/Teaching Maximize own potential. Create learning
opportunities for others, and maximize potential of
others. Believe in and promote collective and
reciprocal learning throughout the organization.
Environmental Savvy Understand current and future state. Scan, anticipate
and look for changes in the environment.
Comprehend emerging internal and external
conditions, understand implication of actions.
Disseminate information throughout organization.
Systems Structure, methods, processes, strategy, models,
frameworks and tools/measures to support learning,
align, alter and reinforce behavior are in place.
Focus Have an end in mind. Pay attention and keep what is

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 11 of 20

 important in sight. Sustain cohesion of everyone
pursuing the same goal. Continuously link tactical
execution with strategy.
Belief Expectation of success. Confident in self and
others‘ ability to achieve success. See what is
possible; build success from shared belief and
values. Believe in individual and collective
potential.
Will/The Exercising of Choice Intentional deliberation of multiple possibilities.
Having resolve. Exercising free will / personal
choice. Take risks and take responsibility for
choices.
Values Concurrence Have shared values. Act with shared values.

Deeper analyses of data lead to three further observations. First, dimensions of

continuous and adaptive organizational change are multi-dimensional—dimensions overlap and
meld together, and embedded in their DNA is the intrinsic properties of the other concepts.
Secondly, each of the nine dimensions was adaptive—morphic in nature versus unvarying.
Thirdly, the nine concepts, while distinctly different did not function independently. Instead, the
relationship between them resembled, in form and function, that of an association—they were
interrelated, inter-reliant upon each other; they informed and were informed by each other. The
presence of these three characteristics (multi-dimensionality, inter-reliance, morphic nature)
reflects the holistic nature of CAOC.
To capture and illustrate the dynamic and complex nature of CAOC, theory development
was approached from a non linear, non static perspective that accommodates the emergent and
complex nature of organizational change.
CAOC is a multi-directional, multi-dimensional, inter-relational holistic system in which the
nine concepts act in concert to create the capacity for continuous and adaptive organizational
change. Six of the nine dimensions (environmental savvy, leadership, mobilization, focus,
systems and learning/teaching) are fields where highly adaptive behaviors are initiated in
anticipation of and in response to perpetual waves of environmental change.
Shared values and belief in individual and collective ability to achieve success constitute
the underlying and stabilizing force that informs and anchors behaviors and creates order in the
midst of the sensation of chaos and volatility. Guided by values and beliefs, will/the exercising
of choice is the agent of change—the conduit for activating organization members‘ behaviors
and actions. Will/the exercising of choice triggers and sets in motion the organization‘s adaptive
capacity. Figure 4 illustrates CAOC interacting with emerging environmental conditions.

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 12 of 20

 Figure 4. Continuous and Adaptive Organizational Change

Legend: L = Leadership E = Environmental Savvy

M = Mobilization Lg = Learning/Teaching
S = System F = Focus
B = Beliefs V = Values Congruence
WC = Will/The Exercising of Choice

Continuous and Adaptive Organizational Change: As Seen Through the Lens of

Complexity

Mobilization, Leadership, Learning/Teaching, Environmental Savvy, Systems, Focus,

Will/the exercising of Choice, Beliefs and Values Congruency are fundamental elements of
continuous and adaptive organizational change. The interdependent aligned and synchronous
working together of these nine dimensions enacts capacity for continuous and adaptive
organizational change within an organization. This organizational capacity, embodies six
characteristics; they are 2) non-linear form and function, 2) multi-dimensionality, 3) adaptive
capacity, 4) maximized velocity, 5) diametrical forces and 6) relational dependency. Table 3
summarizes CAOC as a complex social system.

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 13 of 20

 Table 3. CAOC Complex Social System

Complex system Characteristic Description

Non-linear form and function Fragmented, ―straight line,‖ (Franklin and

Streeter, 1998) and neatly ordered
meeting points delineating cause and
effect are not found in CAOC. The nine
dimensions of CAOC have ―open, fuzzy,
rather than fixed boundaries,‖ (Minus,
2005, p. 34) and small changes in one or
more dimensions can have unsymmetrical
impact on the other dimensions.
Multi-Faceted and multi dimensional The nine dimensions of continuous and
adaptive organizational overlap and blend
together. Embedded within each
dimension, is the essence of other
dimensions. These two features create the
multi-faceted, multi-dimensional
functioning of CAOC dimensions.
Adaptive capacity Adaptation occurs as a result of sensing,
anticipating and responding to changing
environmental conditions. Adaptation is a
way of existence versus a series of
episodic events.
Speed and Velocity The nine dimensions adapt and
reconfigure at different speeds and
velocities. The speed (how fast adaptation
occurs) and velocity (―direction aware‖
movement) (Henderson, 1996) of people,
practices, systems and structures within
the (take out) seven dimensions, is
influenced by external and internal
environmental change.
Diametrical Forces Values and beliefs anchor and inform
behavior and member actions, and
provide stability and a sense of order in
the midst of turbulence and chaos.
Relational Dependency Dimensions of continuous and adaptive
change function as an association—they
are distinct yet interdependent; they
influence and are influenced by each
other; they inform and are informed by
each other.

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 14 of 20

CAOC is viewed as a complex system that adapts to fluctuations in the environment. Figure 5, 6,

and 7 illustrate CAOC taking place throughout the inter-relational patterns among the nine

dimensions of CAOC, which flex and alter in response to shifts in the external and internal

environment.

Figure 5. CAOC Dimensions Responding to Internal/External Environment

Figure 6. CAOC Dimensions Responding to Internal/External Environment

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 15 of 20

 Figure 7. CAOC Dimensions Responding to Internal/External Environment

Conclusion
The nine dimensions that make up CAOC function as a complex living system in
continuous and adaptive relationship with its environment. The interdependent, aligned, and
synchronous working together of the nine dimensions foster an organization‘s capacity for
CAOC. Seeing continuous and adaptive organizational change through the lens of a complex
living system has compelling implications for both the development of change theory and the
practice of organizational development and change.
Advances in knowledge and theory development will be stymied by using
singularly dimensioned theoretical frameworks that promote the study of change process
depicted as simple cause and effect relationships. What is called for is a nonlinear, theoretical
framework that allows for multi-dimensional, multi-directional, holistic, and adaptive
illustration, and working understanding of organizational change. Advancement of knowledge
will come through theoretical models that support examination of (a) the relationships between
and among CAOC dimensions, (b) new ways of perceiving and talking about organizational
change, and (c) better understanding of the relationship between CAOC and environmental
change.
Implications for the practice of OD and organizational change are also evident. The
discipline of organizational change is, by and large, practiced within the context of in-step,

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 16 of 20

episodic processes that assume change is achieved within a relatively fixed set of circumstances.
This static and linear view of change may have had relevance when marketplace dynamics were
local, regional, or national. Today, an organization‘s ability to respond to constantly shifting and
emerging global environmental conditions calls for a new worldview—a new way of seeing,
thinking about, and responding to ever-shifting environmental conditions.
Practitioners must discontinue promoting this less valuable and less valid view of change
and raise awareness that organizational change is not a noun—not a person, thing, or place that
the organization, at some time in the future, arrives at. Organizational change is networks of
people in action—people who are continuously predicting, preparing for, and responding to
changes occurring in the environment. The term continuous and adaptive organizational change
connotes continuous movement toward achieving a set of non-static strategies and goals that
flow in and through a constantly broadening, extending and often simultaneously contracting
environment. It is a normal state of affairs, not the exception to the rule (Purser & Petranker,
2005).
There are two levels of implications for OD practice. First, practitioners must see with
new eyes and secondly they must practice with new understanding. Seeing with new eyes is
seeing CAOC as a complex social system—recognizing the dimensionality, interconnection, and
inter-reliance that each of the nine dimensions has with one another –altering one, alters them all.
Additionally, the complex nature of CAOC requires balancing prescription and creative action in
the performance of carrying out the organization‘s business recognizing that within the dynamic
of CAOC, prescriptive and creative actions reside together in harmony.

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 17 of 20

 References

Apfellthaler, G., Muller, Helen., Rehder, R., (2002). Corporate global culture as competitive
advantage: learning from Germany and Japan in Alabama and Austria? Journal of World
Business, 37, No.2, Summer 2002. p. 108-18.

Bloom, S. (2000). Chaos, Complexity, Self-Organization and Us. Psychotherapy Review, 2, No.
8, August, 2000. p. 1-5. Retrieved March 1, 2007 from
www.freeinfosociety.com/pdfs/mathematics/chaos.pdf

Burke, W. (2002). Organization Change Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.

Burnes, T., Stalker G. (1961).The Management of Innovation, London: The Travistock Institute.

Clark, B. (2003). Sustaining Change in Universities: Continuities in Case Studies and Concepts.
Tertiary Education and Management. European Management Journal, 16, 31-38.
Abstract obtained from Kluwer, 2003.

Cooperrider, D.L., Whitney, D. (2001). Positive Revolution in Change: Appreciative.

Appreciative Inquiry an Emerging Direction for Organizational Development.
Champaign, IL. Stipes Publishing L.L.C.

Cummings, T., Worley, C. (Ed). (2005). Organization Development & Change, OH. South-
Western.

Fairholm, M. (2004). A New Sciences Outline for Leadership Development, The Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 25. 369-383.

Feldman, M. (2000). Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change. Organization

Science, 11, 611-629.

Franklin, C., Streeter, C., & Warren, K. (1998). New directions in systems theory: Chaos and
complexity. Social Work, 43. Retrieved February 22, 2007 from
http://www.questia.com/read/500135862

Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory strategies for qualitative
research. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.

Glover, J., Jones, G., & Friedman, H. (2002). Adaptive leadership: When change is not enough
(part 1). Organizational Development Journal, 20, 15-32.

Gummesson, E., (Ed.). (2000). Qualitative Methods in Management Research, Thousand CA:
Sage Publications, Inc.

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 18 of 20

Henderson, T. (1996). The physics classroom, lesson 1: Describing motion with words, speed
and velocity. Retrieved March 1, 2007 from
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/CLASS/1DKin/U1L1d.html

Kanter, R. M., Stein, R., & Jick, T. (1992). The challenge of organizational change how
companies experience it and leaders guide it (pp. 3-62). New York, NY: The Free Press.

Kotter, J.P. (1995). Leading Change: Why Transformation Efforts Fail. Harvard Business
Review, 73), 9-67.

Lawler, E., Worley. C (2006). Built To Change, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Minas, H. (2005). Leadership for change in complex systems. Australasian Psychiatry, 13, 33-
39.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications, Incorporated.

Purser, R., & Petranker, J. (2005). Unfreezing the future. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 41, 182-203.

Rosenborg, L. D. (2003). A facilitated approach to developing collaborative action in primary

healthcare. International Journal of Healthcare Technology and Management, 2, 63-80.

Rowden, R. W. (2001). The learning organization and strategic change. SAM Advanced
Management Journal, 66, 1. Retrieved February 17, 2007 from
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001040001.

Rubin, J., & Rubin, I. (Eds.). (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data,
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Schneider, B. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable organizational change.
Organizational Development Journal, 24(4), 6-15.

Stokrocki, M. (1997). Qualitative forms of research methods. In S. D. LaPiere & E. Zimmerman

(Eds.), Research methods and methodologies for art education. 33-56. Reston, VA:
NAEA. Retrieved April 30, 2006 from
http://www.public.asu.edu/~ifmls/artinculturalcontextsfolder/qualformsarted.htm

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change.
Organization Science, 13, 567-582.

Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 19 of 20

Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 361-386. Retrieved February 17, 2007, from
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=5001249962

Wheatley, M. (1997, Summer). Goodbye, command and control. Leader to Leader

Magazine. Retrieved April 19, 2007 from
http://web.sau.edu/RichardsRandyL/Leadership_Readings_Goodbye%20Comman
d%20and%20Control.htm

Wheatley, M. (2006, Summer). Leadership lessons for the real world. Leader to Leader
Magazine. Retrieved February 28, 2007 from
http://margaretwheatley.com/articles/leadershiplessons.html

© 2007 Sarah A. Malone Page 20 of 20