A framework for transformational change in
organisations
Keywords
Organizational development,
Change management, Strategy
Abstract
This article presents a framework
for planned change processes that
are transformational in nature.
The framework provides a clear
alternative to traditional
approaches in organisation
development (OD) which are
generally suited to situations
where smaller scale or
incremental adjustments are
required. It is structured around
three core issues in organisational
change management: the nature
of organisations and what
constitutes an improvement to
them, appropriate strategies for
levering change, and change
agent roles. In the framework,
special emphasis is placed on
attitudes, beliefs and values as
the key change levers in an
organisational transformation.
The usefulness and power of the
framework are illustrated by a
case analysis of a successful
intervention involving over 50
consultants and a large number of
organisations. The article
concludes with a discussion of
processes supportive of
successful transformational
change.
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
23/1 [2002] 16±25
# MCB UP Limited
[ISSN 0143-7739]
[DOI 10.1108/01437730210414535]
[ 16 ]
Judith Ann Chapman
University of Western Sydney, School of Management, Penrith DC,
New South Wales, Australia
Introduction
When organisation development (OD)
emerged in the 1960s it was primarily
concerned with individual and group level
interventions to support gradual or
incremental organisational change (Lewin,
1951; Bennis, 1969). Later, as the momentum
and scope of change increased, the field
broadened to encompass large-scale
interventions including strategic change.
The OD literature reflected this trend by
distinguishing among the different levels of
change. Golembiewski and his colleagues
(Golembiewski, 1979; Golembiewski et al.,
1976) developed a rigorous system for
making conceptual distinctions among three
categories of change which were termed
alpha, beta and gamma change. They
argued that such distinctions were
necessary as a basis for judging which
OD interventions were most appropriate for
the circumstances, and for assessing their
impact and success. Both alpha and beta
change infer an alteration to behavior
within system boundaries that are
already well established. With alpha change,
the participants simply extend what they
are currently doing, whereas with beta
change, the standards by which behavior is
assessed are also altered. Gamma change
involves a transition from one state to
another, or a quantum shift in the
way that work and its purpose is
understood.
Earlier, Watzlawick et al. (1974)
distinguished two levels of change as
first-order and second-order change. Their
approach encompassed the critical
distinction between qualitative changes to
the system itself (analogous to gamma
change) and adjustments within it (alpha
and beta change). In further efforts towards
The research register for this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregisters
clarifying this distinction, Bartunek and
Moch (1987) described first-order change as
gradual modifications that make sense
within an established framework, while
second-order change requires alteration to
the framework. For Levy (1986), the former
proceeds by incremental adjustments that
do not change the system's core, while the
latter involves differences in the basic
governing rules. Ford and Backoff (1988) saw
second order change as a movement to a
different plane of understanding, or a shift
in deep structures. For reason of its part in
redefining reality for participants in a
system, second-order change is now
commonly described as ``transformational''.
Transformational change within
organisations requires a basic shift in
attitudes, beliefs and cultural values,
reframing (Bartunek, 1988), or as
Golembiewski (1979, p. 413) put it,
``a redefinition of the relevant psychological
space''. In his view, resources, time and effort
expended on an intervention need not be
large to induce such change. It can occur
seemingly easily or even mercurially if the
system has already reached a certain
developmental point.
Despite the increasing incidence of
transformational change, OD frameworks
largely reflect traditional assumptions and
approaches developed at a time when
first-order change predominated. This
paper proposes an alternative framework
that supports the attitudinal and cultural
shifts needed for second-order or gamma
change. This framework also functions as a
useful guide to OD practitioners in situations
that require transformation as opposed to
mere developmental or incremental
adjustment. It is structured around three
core issues in organisational change
management:
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
Judith Ann Chapman
A framework for
transformational change in
organisations
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
23/1 [2002] 16±25
Table I
Core elements of a transformational change approach vs first order change
Central issues for OD
Nature and scope of organisations and the
purpose of change
Change management strategy
Change agent roles
1 the nature and scope of organisations and
what constitutes an improvement to them;
2 appropriate strategies for levering
change; and
3 change agent roles.
The usefulness and power of the framework
is illustrated by a detailed case analysis of
transformational change in a large number of
``social businesses'' (Handy, 1995, p. 187),
entities that turn inputs into outputs for the
benefit of their clients rather than owners or
shareholders. The case describes the
interventions of a group of consultants
known as the National Technical Assistance
Unit (NTAU), and focuses on its success in
facilitating a fundamental change in
strategic direction among a large number of
Australian organisations generically known
as sheltered workshops. Pivotal to this
success were interventions for generating
new attitudes and mindsets among the
management, staff and other stakeholders,
while at the same time transcending the
misunderstandings and conflict that had
wrecked previous attempts at progress. The
case study is followed with a discussion of
processes supportive of successful
transformational change.
Three core issues in OD
While OD encompasses a variety of
approaches and intervention techniques
(Beckhard, 1969; Schein, 1969; 1987), a set of
common orientations characterises a
traditional approach (e.g. Cummings and
Huse, 1989; King and Anderson, 1995). In
Table I they are grouped around the three
Core elements of transformational change
Organisations are multiple overlapping
systems
Change improves internal organisational
performance and individual development and
interlinks purposes with business partners and
society
Primary change levers are attitudes, beliefs
and values
Secondary change levers are processes,
structures and systems
Involvement of stakeholders is informed by
the notion of ``organisational citizenship''
CEOs provide visionary leadership and enable
change
All members of the system can be change
agents
External consultants partner the change
process
core issues mentioned above, along with a
contrasting set of orientations characterising
transformational change.
Nature and scope of organisations and the
purpose of change
Traditionally, OD uses an open systems
perspective in which focal organisations
engage in exchange processes with the
external environment and are structured to
achieve paramount goals determined by the
senior management group. Change processes
are designed to improve business
efficiencies, provide a better adjustment to
the external environment or address quality
of work life aspects. Following Brown and
Covey (1987), an ecological perspective is
appropriate for situations of
transformational change, as it allows for the
interconnectedness of organisations within
networks of business partners, consumer
groups, regulatory bodies, community
interest groups and competitors, with
extended links to other organisational
systems. The impetus for change can come
from any part of this networked system while
changes made can extend to a dynamic
realignment with one or more of the
intersecting groups and organisations.
Transformational change has the potential
to be mutually enhancing through an
inter-linking of purposes, rather than be
limited to the central organisation initiating
or sponsoring the change.
Change management strategy
In situations of first-order change,
interventions usually target formal
structures and systems, work processes or
Core elements of first order change
Organisations are discrete focal units
Change improves organisational performance
and individual development
Primary change levers are people, processes or
structures
Secondary change levers are attitudes, beliefs
and values
Participation and collaboration are enablers of
change
CEOs are drivers of change
Those affected by change participate in the
change process
External consultants facilitate the change
process
[ 17 ]
Judith Ann Chapman work group relations. The usual intention is
A framework for to prepare employees for doing more of the
transformational change in
organisations same things (alpha change) or to lift their
standard of performance (beta change)
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal through training or the raising of awarenes.
23/1 [2002] 16±25 Later, behavioural changes may be
reinforced by changes in attitude or culture.
In contrast, for transformational (gamma)
change to occur, values, beliefs and attitudes
must be altered in the early stages, because
these provide the foundation for subsequent
alterations in work patterns, structures and
systems. As Argyris (1964) explained,
organisational arrangements reflect the
psychological states of their participants, and
significant shifts are difficult to accomplish
successfully unless people change first.
Traditionally, participation is an
important feature of OD. In first-order
change its purpose is primarily to encourage
cooperation. In practice, however, its role
often slips to that of inducing compliance and
combating resistance (McKendall, 1993, p. 93),
or it is limited to relatively trivial issues
(Pasmore, 1994). In the case of
transformational change, the psychological
engagement required for reframing is not
normally possible without a deeper level of
involvement among stakeholders in the
system. It occurs, for example, when
participants take part in ``communities of
practice'' where new cultures are constructed
through experiential learning and reworking
of cognitive structures (Hendry, 1996). Such
deep psychological engagement is exhibited
as ``organisational citizenship'' where
participation becomes a platform for
transcending current patterns and creating a
more hospitable environment for the system
to inhabit (Pasmore and Fagans, 1992, p. 381).
Bartunek (1988) and Bartunek and Louis
(1988) elaborated a four-stage reframing
model that focuses on the psychological
challenges that transformation presents for
individuals and groups. Challenge to the
original frame (stage 1) revolves around the
unsettling of current beliefs and values
consequent to a crisis exposing the
inadequacy of present modes of operation.
Preparation for reframing (stage 2) requires
the generation of new information and
perspectives. Different participants may
form ideas that are contrasting or even
contradictory. During frame generation
(stage 3) new understandings and
frameworks begin to form and take shape.
Conflicts may surface as participants become
attracted to various approaches. Frame
testing and decision-making (stage 4) sees a
new framework chosen and tested, either
mentally or behaviorally. When participants
[ 18 ]
are comfortable with the new frame, they are
likely to adopt it fully.
Change agent roles
Transformational change benefits from
strong leadership that identifies new
pathways for organisations to follow, and
builds the momentum for change even
though the future state of the organisation
remains undefined. It requires the creation of
a vision which stretches the organization
beyond its current limits and capabilities, a
holistic perspective, an implementation
process that is sustained by organizational
learning and the creation of resources to
support the change (Miles, 1997). In contrast,
first-order change is more concerned with
``blueprints'' and ``end-states'' (Kanter et al.,
1992), since the architects of change know
where they expect to be and how the
organisation is going to get there.
In transformational change, every person
affected by the change is a change agent to
the extent that his or her personal
involvement in reframing contributes to a
successful outcome, supplemented by
involvement in structural and other changes
(Tichy and Devanna, 1990; Weisbord, 1987).
For all levels of change the external change
agent (where employed) is a helper who
``intervenes as a facilitator'' (Schein, 1987,
p. 9). With transformational change the role
encompasses the design of processes:
to get the whole system involved,
knowledgeable, aligned around a set of goals,
and moving in concerted action (Bunker and
Alban, 1997, p. 6).
In terms of Bartunek (1988) and Bartunek and
Louis' (1988) reframing model, external
change agents need the skills to deal with
particular psychological challenges that
arise during each stage. In stage 1 they are
likely to meet anxiety, shock and
defensiveness as the original frame is
unsettled. In stage 2 they may face feelings of
ambiguity and hopelessness in the light of
contradictory information and perspectives.
In stage 3 they may need to resolve conflicts
or deal with forces pushing individuals and
groups in different directions. In the final
stage their encouragement may be needed for
participants to finally adopt a new approach.
Background to the NTAU
consultancy project
The earliest sheltered workshops were
established by philanthropists and church
groups in the late nineteenth century and
proliferated in the 1950s when parent groups
established their own community-based
Judith Ann Chapman organisations. The main function of these
A framework for organisations was to segregate young people
transformational change in with physical and intellectual disability from
organisations
the mainstream community and provide
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal them with a lifetime of protection and
23/1 [2002] 16±25 support. The service users, later referred to
as ``consumers'', were typically housed in
hostels sited near workshops where a range
of businesses including services (e.g.
laundry, printing), horticulture, and light
industry (e.g. wood products, packaging,
recycling) were conducted. Administrative
structures and legally constituted boards ran
the hostels and businesses, and managed the
employment of paid and volunteer staff.
From 1967 income from philanthropic
activity and workshop businesses was
supplemented with government funding,
upon which most organisations were soon
highly dependent.
The Year of the Disabled (1981) marked a
change in general community attitudes and
greater understanding of the needs and
aspirations of people with disabilities.
Various state government inquiries followed.
In New South Wales, the 1983 Richmond
Report argued for taking people out of
institutional work and care and integrating
them into the community. At federal
government level, the Handicapped
Programs Review of 1983 took a fresh look at
services for people with disability and the
forms of government support available. A
new piece of legislation, the Disability
Services Act 1986, became the centerpiece of
a wide range of strategies to provide training,
mainstream employment and living options
in the broader Australian community. Under
its terms, sheltered workshops were no
longer eligible for funding because they were
not considered capable of delivering the
outcomes required. They were, however,
given a five-year reprieve. If, by then, they
had transformed themselves into
organisations providing consumers with the
skills and support to live and work as
independently as possible, then funding
would be maintained.
There were some successes. One
organisation bought a toy manufacturing
business, retained most of the original staff
and integrated their own consumers into
suitable jobs. It forged enclave agreements
with mainstream businesses, which
gradually absorbed consumers into their
workforces. Surplus funds were used for
more intensive development of consumers
with high support needs. Despite such
positive outcomes, by the middle of 1991 only
five of 267 sheltered workshops in Australia
had actually achieved the transformation
required (Walton and Shueman, 1991). About
12,000 consumers remained in sheltered
workshops that had made little, if any
progress.
Although the five-year period had almost
passed, the government was reluctant to cut
funding to workshop organisations without
further attempts to stimulate change.
Accordingly, the NTAU was formed in 1991 as
a quasi-independent consultancy group by
the responsible government minister.
Headed by an executive director, the NTAU
also included seven part-time project
managers and over 50 experienced
consultants, sourced from the non-
government sector on contracts around
Australia. Under its terms of reference the
NTAU provided ``technical'' advice and
support to sheltered workshops as they
devised their own strategies to achieve
transformation.
Scope and purpose of the change
process
For a period of almost three years the NTAU
worked with sheltered workshops across
Australia. The writer conducted the research
which is discussed in this article, and
although independent of the NTAU and other
stakeholders in the project, she proceeded
with their full knowledge and cooperation.
Several field research methods (Bryman,
1988) were used, including interviews with a
selection of sheltered workshop managers in
the eastern states of Australia, officers of the
responsible government agency (Disability
Services Program or DSP), the NTAU
executive director and all project managers;
documentary data; observations in sheltered
workshops; and a survey of NTAU
consultants. Consultants were too widely
scattered across the country for interviews to
be practicable so questionnaires were mailed
to them (29 were returned from 52).
Prior to the start of the consultancy project
a serious conflict had developed between
most of the groups and individuals associated
with sheltered workshops (e.g. parents,
community workers, church representatives,
management staff and philanthropists) and
those championing the changes required by
legislation (led by officers of the DSP who
were supported by other progressive
employment services, consumer advocacy
groups and some professional staff in
workshops). The former were very anxious
and extremely suspicious about government
proposals which they thought would remove
the protection and care that they had
provided for consumers. The latter were
frustrated over the lack of progress. Attitudes
[ 19 ]
Judith Ann Chapman were highly polarised: workshop supporters
A framework for resented attempts by the DSP to ``impose
transformational change in
organisations their vision'', while DSP officers were
frustrated by people who ``lived a paradigm
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal 20 years old''.
23/1 [2002] 16±25 At the start of the NTAU consultancy
project, the executive director identified this
conflict as a major impediment to change.
The insularity of sheltered workshops was
also contributing to their inability to plan, or
make progress. Most had their origins as
isolated community-based centers, and
tended not to communicate with similar
establishments or have regular contacts with
outside agencies that could provide training,
employment or other support. His initial
focus was therefore on establishing channels
for communication and the sharing of
problems and solutions across a wide range
of organisations. The benefits were to be
threefold:
1 transform sheltered workshops into
business organisations capable of
supporting people with disabilities as they
transition into mainstream work;
2 provide consumers with opportunities to
achieve their goals and aspirations; and
3 enrich the Australian community by
creating a more open, supportive work
and living environment.
The NTAU consultancy project progressed
through four stages: ``building bridges'',
``creating futures'', ``getting connected'' and
``spirit of change''. During the first phase the
NTAU concentrated on establishing its
credentials as a circuit breaker and building
trust among stakeholders. The consultants
opened discussions with opinion leaders
(CEOs of the larger umbrella organizations
administering several workshops), stressing
goals of improving outcomes for consumers
rather than the closing of sheltered
workshops, and facilitating rather than
forcing change. The NTAU then organised a
three-day ``structural difficulties'' conference
for about 80 representatives of stakeholder
groups who were invited to nominate factors
that were inhibiting change. These factors
were distilled by the consultants into five
categories, including organisational
rigidities, attitudinal aspects and
government bureaucracy. Ways to transcend
these difficulties were discussed,
documented and disseminated as a basis for
further planning.
``Creating futures'' began with
demonstration projects in targeted
organisations to foster a sense of
empowerment and self-determination. Most
of these projects aimed to make the
workshops better as businesses so that they
[ 20 ]
could provide more realistic workplace
training for consumers, and to establish
transition pathways for individuals.
Successes were communicated through a
regular newsletter that was sent to the
management group in every sheltered
workshop. As a result, other organisations
began to approach the NTAU for help. Within
two years, 74 organisation-based consultancy
projects covering a majority of the
workshops had been completed or were
under way. During this period of time, many
of the managers from these workshops also
attended a five-day residential course
designed to complement all aspects of the
changes taking place.
``Getting connected'' marked the beginning
of six ambitious networking projects to
formalise linkages among workshops in the
same geographical area, and to bring them
into contact with employment agencies,
training providers and potential business
partners. These projects fostered an outward
focus by extending boundaries (in both a
concrete and attitudinal sense) to include any
organisation that could provide
opportunities for consumers or contribute to
the resource base of the core group. Early
benefits included better access to product or
service markets, better deals on insurance
and sharing of skills.
The last stage, ``spirit of change'', was
intended to consolidate the gains and
galvanise action for the future. Its
centerpiece was four one-day seminars in
different locations where representatives of
groups that had been actively engaged in
NTAU projects recounted their experiences
and outlined their visions for an emerging
industry of supported employment services.
These were followed a month later by a think
tank to plan employment strategies and
related resourcing issues. This final stage
culminated in a two-day meeting of peak
representative bodies, government agencies
and unions to forge a national ``jobs accord''
for people with disability. By this time a new
sense of shared purpose and direction was
beginning to emerge nationally, underpinned
by recognition of the benefits from sharing
ideas, resources and strategies.
Change management strategy
The NTAU wanted those associated with
sheltered workshops to think differently
about what they were doing and their place
in the world. With the process of reframing
underway, structural and related changes to
sheltered workshops seemed less
problematic. However, the continuing
Judith Ann Chapman success of the consultancy depended upon the
A framework for NTAU's capacity to involve stakeholders,
transformational change in
organisations direct organisational energy towards the
clarification of visions and goals and to begin
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal the process of planning and implementing
23/1 [2002] 16±25 new strategies.
A detailed analysis of the change process in
eight relatively large organisations revealed
a similarity in the steps towards
implementation and their order of
progression (Table II). In phase 1, the broad
parameters of the project were decided and
two committees were formed (seven of the
eight organizations):
1 a steering committee, comprising the
CEO, NTAU project manager, board
member, consumer and DSP
representatives, and stakeholders from
other organisations such as employment
or training providers; and
2 for the detailed work, a project team
which included one or more NTAU
consultants, workshop staff and consumer
representatives.
Phase 2 was designed to collect realistic
information about the internal and external
situation, as well as the attitudes and
aspirations of consumers. During phase 3
stakeholder groups (including parent,
advocacy, consumer, staff and DSP) were
invited to attend a two-day conference where
future directions were considered in the light
of information from phase 2. After initial
presentations, participants formed into
discussion groups where they considered
changes in community attitudes towards
people with disability and government policy
directions. Next, they reflected on the
situation facing their own organisation. In
most instances they confronted serious
deficiencies in organisational management
and the realization that consumers were
more interested in personal autonomy and
employment opportunities than anticipated.
Participants then worked through each
difficult issue that had been raised and began
to sketch strategy options. By the close of the
conference, a broadly accepted vision and
statement of purpose and mission for the
organisation had been prepared.
Table II
Five phases of the NTAU change process in organisation-based consultancies
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Scoping Analysis Exploration
Engaging consultants Environmental analysis Clarifying vision, purpose,
Project agreement Internal analysis mission
Forming committees Consumer data collection and Considering options and
analysis ideas
The purpose of phase 4 was to develop or
refine objectives, strategies and plans for the
future state of the organisation. Since most
organisations had previously underutilised
resources such as valuable assets and their
potential to network, there was often scope
for initiatives to deal with some current
shortcomings. Four of the eight
organisations called another conference for
this phase, while the remaining four relied
on project teams to draw up draft plans.
Phase 5 implementation was a longer-term
undertaking, which organisations were to
manage with minimal NTAU assistance.
The survey of consultants indicates that
the changes were indeed transformational.
Survey items chosen with a high level of
frequency described the organisational
change process as requiring ``a break with
the past'' and one which ``challenged the
attitudes and outlook of managers''. Overall,
the interventions worked well, since
projects were generally ``completed in the
timeframe allocated'' and ``according to a
pre-determined sequence'', with ``minimal
disruption from unexpected events and staff
changes''. However, the process was able to
accommodate ``new options as they arose'',
the continuation of diagnostic activities
throughout the project if needed, and had the
flexibility ``to backtrack to matters or issues
previously covered'', if necessary.
Some survey respondents were critical of
the timeframes (these ranged from about four
to 11 months to the end of phase 4 in the
above cases), believing them to be too short
for the magnitude and scope of the changes
required. However, 48 per cent indicted that
they were ``fairly satisfied'' and 38 per cent
were ``very satisfied'' with the specific
projects they had worked on. On the other
hand, satisfaction with specific outcomes
varied. It was better with regard to
organisational management where, for
example, 78 per cent of respondents indicated
``good'' or ``excellent'' improvement in
financial management and 54 per cent in the
case of management capacity to solve
problems. Only 32 per cent could see the same
level of progress with regard to better wage
outcomes for consumers and 23 per cent in
Phase 4 Phase 5
Planning Implementation
Identifying critical issues, Carrying out plans by
objectives, strategies managers and staff of
Preparing action plans organisation
Institutionalising change
[ 21 ]
Judith Ann Chapman regard to better open employment
A framework for opportunities.
transformational change in
organisations
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal Change agent roles
23/1 [2002] 16±25
The key role played by CEOs was confirmed
by the survey of consultants. In ranking the
importance of six factors for achieving
project objectives, ``commitment of CEOs and
senior managers to change'' was first, in
advance of ``the involvement and cooperation
of all those affected by the project'' and
``resolution of differences between groups
with divergent interests''. This is consistent
with other research which attests to the
importance of CEO support (Boss and
Golembiewski, 1995). Other stakeholders
were involved in different roles and at
different stages of the change process. Some
consumers, for example, participated as
members of steering or project committees,
or in the ``structural difficulties'', phase 3 and
``spirit of change'' seminars, and occasionally
as members of advocacy groups. Many more
consumers expressed their views through the
consumer surveys that were done during
phase 2 of the organisation-based
consultancy.
Self-reporting from the survey and
interviews with project managers revealed
the complexity of the role of NTAU
consultants. In the survey they rated the
importance of 16 consultancy activities,
which were grouped into three categories
(rare activity, somewhat important and very
important activity). Table III lists 12
activities, grouped ipso facto by type, rated by
more than 50 per cent of respondents as very
important (the range overall was from
82.8 per cent to 37 per cent).
In terms of Bartunek (1988) and Bartunek and
Louis' (1988) reframing model, the scoping
and analysis phases of the organisation-
based change projects was the time for
challenging the original frame and
preparating for reframing. One project
manager saw empowerment of individuals
through the development of knowledge and
skills, and personal growth as pivotal to
progress during these phases. Another
project manager referred to the investment of
time needed to ``get some sense of where they
are ready to make changes and where they
are not'' and to marry this with issues that
needed to be addressed within the
organisation.
During frame generation and frame testing
(primarily the exploration and planning
phases of the consultancy process)
consultants were faced with differing views
on the future role of sheltered workshops and
interpersonal conflict. One project manager
spoke of the key challenges as ``creating
partnerships'' between a number of
stakeholders and ``managing resistance to
change''. For another they were in
convincing stakeholders from different
positions of the need for change, and gaining
their commitment to the process. A third
explained that the skill was in bringing
people closer together while avoiding a
further polarisation of views and
deterioration in relationships, since
arguments used by one side can have an
``alienating effect'' such that bringing them
into the same room ``can potentially pull
them further apart''. Consultants needed to
find out ``where there is something in
common at the moment'' and build ``a cascade
of different strategies'' as trust developed.
Ultimately, the process was about ``reshaping
relationships, redefining boundaries and

Table III
Consultant activities and percentage of ``very important'' respondent ratings
Percentage of
respondents
rating very
Type of activity Activity description important
Facilitating involvement Identifying the main stakeholders 79.3
Clarifying expectations of project scope 79.3
Working towards participation of all 65.5
Facilitating discussion among divergent groups 64.3
Using knowledge of power/influence structures 63.0
Encouraging reframing Creating opportunities for new attitudes and values to emerge 82.8
Challenging beliefs, assumptions, values 75.9
Maintaining the Actively seeking opportunities to move project forward 75.0
momentum of change Encouraging managers to act on options 71.4
Monitoring progress 51.9
Providing expertise Identifying resources within and externally 75.0
Providing expertise to improve outcomes 73.1

[ 22 ]
Judith Ann Chapman helping people to reframe what they are
A framework for doing''.
transformational change in From his experience of working with a
organisations
board who were ``real protagonists'' a fourth
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal project manager found sudden advances
23/1 [2002] 16±25 were possible ``provided you can get the right
ground''.
Interviews with 21 sheltered workshop
managers revealed that the project managers
and consultants were generally considered to
be independent, open-minded, realistic and
providers of expert advice which ``helped
turn us around'' and to see the ``bigger
picture''. They had also encouraged wide
participation in the change process, creating
a climate of trust and cooperation. Despite
such views, the change process was often
difficult. The manager of a small sheltered
workshop, for example, described her initial
feelings as including fear (over the loss of
care for consumers) and excitement (from
learning and sharing ideas). She then began
to realise that she and her board had been
overprotective, and that there were more
options for consumers than previously
imagined. Emerging plans for the future
focused on upgrading the business and
providing emotional support rather than
total care for consumers. The process was
more difficult for a large laundry service
managed by a religious order: early optimism
turned to shock and disappointment when
the business was found to be nonviable. Staff
were confused and the parents of consumers
were ``very apprehensive''. After a difficult
process, resolution came through the
clarification of the core mission (to support
people in need) and a determination to find
new ways to put this into practice.
From the perspective of the DSP officers
interviewed, the NTAU had understood the
cultures of workshop organisations and
fostered a change in values. Some
consultants were particularly skilled in
creating a climate of trust, encouraging wide
involvement and cooperation, and getting
various stakeholders to ``interlink purposes''.
Further, the NTAU drew upon business
management expertise and helped
workshops to form links with others in the
same industry. There was also a lingering
concern that attitudinal change had not gone
deep enough and that the NTAU had merely
served to make sheltered workshops ``better''
(as businesses) rather than ``different'' (as
service providers for consumers). However,
the facilitation of the NTAU had brought DSP
officers back into the discussions with
sheltered workshops, reducing the negativity
and so to be seen as partners in the process of
change.
Conclusions
In 1991 few involved with sheltered
workshops would have identified themselves
as part of a fledgling industry providing
supported employment services for people
with disability, let alone one that was
forward-looking and capable of creating its
own future. Yet in the space of three years
``new players and a new field of play'' had
begun to emerge. This new field of play was
built on a developing sense of trust and
shared purpose among organisations that
previously were inward-looking, isolated and
suspicious of change.
The group of sheltered workshops in this
case study are similar to many organisations
which have reached a stage of crisis in their
life cycle because of strong pressure for
change from the external environment, but
are ill-prepared to deal with it. This is
because both their readiness to change
(recognition of the need to do so or
dissatisfaction with the status quo) and the
availability of sufficient resources are low
(Miles, 1997). The framework for
transformational change presented in this
article and the strategies used by the NTAU
suggest some ways for dealing with both
impediments.
Readiness for change comes from a
knowledge that the organisation is poorly
aligned with its environment, or that
opportunities are being forfeited. But this is
not sufficient in itself to precipitate change,
especially if the organisational culture
values exclusiveness and difference. An
additional requirement is an acceptance of
the need to change and a positive willingness
to engage in processes that may be difficult
and challenging. Change agents can build
this in two ways: first, by empowering
participants, and second, by encouraging
them to broaden their perspective with
regard to the nature of change and its
purpose and benefits.
A sense of empowerment can be developed
through a number of strategies, which
include:
. reassuring stakeholders or participants
that predefined outcomes will not be
imposed but that the organisations
concerned will create their own solutions;
. encouraging broad-based and genuine
participation in the change process;
. promoting the development of skills and
competencies that enable participants to
be effective in the change process; and
. encouraging open communication so that
individuals, units and organisations can
build on the successes of others.
[ 23 ]
 The second task in building readiness for
Judith Ann Chapman
A framework for
change is to unsettle any narrow
transformational change in
organisations preoccupation with the immediate concerns
Leadership & Organization
of isolated or fragmented groups and to
Development Journal clarify ways in which the futures of different
23/1 [2002] 16±25 units are interlinked. This requires
reframing so that participants can see their
contributions, work processes and
relationships in a new light and move beyond
unconstructive behaviour patterns,
parochial attitudes and conflicts. Useful
strategies for reframing include:
. the identification and involvement of all
stakeholder groups;
. the collection of diagnostic information
and discussion material that reflects a
wide range of ideas and perspectives;
. skilled facilitation of change processes to
foster cooperation and commitment
rather than polarisation; and
. appreciation of and respect for the efforts
and feelings of individuals.
Consistent with the transformational change
approach presented in this article, shifts in
relevant attitudes, beliefs and values are the
springboard for other planned changes to
processes, structures and systems.
An additional benefit of reframing is that it
can help build the resources needed for a
transformation when they are seemingly low.
This is possible because full organisational
capacity is often obscured behind
unproductive and self-limiting patterns and
processes. When these begin to change, new
ways of using skills and other resources are
likely to be tried, especially when
participants feel empowered. In addition,
the boundaries that define who is a member
of the system or network are often
redrawn during transformation. As a result,
the cluster of available resources is likely to
be enhanced through the inclusion of new
stakeholders, ideas or arrangements.
Transformational change is unavoidable
in many organisations whose environments
are complex and turbulent. Its outcomes
often include a fundamental reevaluation of
organisational purpose and vision as well as
an expanded view of the groups and
organisations that are critical to its success.
The framework for transformational change
presented in this article has been developed
for such situations. While it could be applied
across a wide range of organisations, it may
have particular efficacy for the enhancement
of interorganisational networks, OD in
highly departmentalised organisations such
as traditional universities, and the
development of consultative arrangements in
community and business settings.
[ 24 ]
References
Argyris, C. (1964), ``T-groups for organizational
effectiveness'', Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 42, March.
Bartunek, J.M. (1988), ``The dynamics of personal
and organisational reframing'', in Quinn, R.E.
and Cameron, K.S. (Eds), Paradox and
Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change
in Organization and Management, Ballinger,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 137-62.
Bartunek, J.M. and Louis, M.R. (1988), ``The
interplay of organization development and
organizational transformation'', in
Woodman, R.W and Pasmore, W.A. (Eds),
Research in Organizational Change and
Development, Vol. II, JAI Press, Greenwich,
CT, pp. 97-134.
Bartunek, J.M. and Moch, M.K. (1987),
``First-order, second-order, and third-order
change and organization development
interventions: a cognitive approach'', Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 483-500.
Beckhard, R. (1969), Organizational Development:
Strategies and Models, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Bennis, W. (1969), Organization Development:
Its Nature, Origins and Prospects,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Boss, R.W. and Golembiewski, R.T. (1995),
``Do you have to start at the top? The chief
executive officer's role in successful
organisation development efforts'', Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 259-77.
Brown, L.D. and Covey, J.G. (1987), ``Development
organizations and organization development:
towards an expanded paradigm for
organization development'', in Woodman, R.W.
and Pasmore, W.A. (Eds), Research in
Organizational Change and Development,
Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 59-87.
Bryman, A. (1988), Quantity and Quality in Social
Research, Unwin Hyman, London.
Bunker, B.B. and Alban, B.T. (1997), Large Group
Interventions: Engaging the Whole System for
Rapid Change, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA.
Cummings, T.G. and Huse, E.F. (1989),
Organization Development and Change,
4th ed., West Publishing, St Paul, MN.
Ford, J.D. and Backoff, R.H. (1988),
``Organizational change in and out of
dualities and paradox'', in Quinn, R.E. and
Cameron, K.S. (Eds), Paradox and
Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change
in Organization and Management, Ballinger,
Cambridge, MA, pp. 81-121.
Golembiewski, R.T. (1979), Approaches to Planned
Change Part II: Macro-level Interventions and
Change-agent Strategies, Marcel Dekker,
New York, NY.
Golembiewski, R.T., Billingsley, K. and Yeager, S.
(1976), ``Measuring change and persistance in
Judith Ann Chapman human affairs: types of change generated by
A framework for OD designs'', Journal of Applied Behavioral
transformational change in Science, Vol. 11, pp. 143-55.
organisations
Handy, C. (1995), Beyond Certainty: The Changing
Leadership & Organization Worlds of Organisations, Hutchinson,
Development Journal
23/1 [2002] 16±25 London.
Hendry, C. (1996), ``Understanding and creating
whole organisational change through
learning theory'', Human Relations, Vol. 49
No. 5, pp. 621-41.
Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A. and Jick, T.D. (1992),
The Challenge of Organizational Change,
The Free Press, New York, NY.
King, N. and Anderson, N. (1995), Innovation and
Change in Organizations, Routledge, London.
Levy, A. (1986), ``Second-order planned change:
definition and conceptualization'',
Organizational Dynamics, Summer, pp. 5-20.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science,
Harper and Row, New York, NY.
McKendall, M. (1993), ``The tyranny of change:
organisational development revisited'',
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 93-104.
Miles, R.H. (1997), Corporate Comeback,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Pasmore, W.A. (1994), Creating Strategic Change,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Pasmore, W. A. and Fagans, M.R. (1992),
``Participation, individual development, and
organizational change: a review and
synthesis'', Journal of Management, Vol. 18
No. 2, pp. 375-97.
Schein, E.H. (1969), Process Consultation:
Its Role in Organization Development,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Schein, E.H. (1987), Process Consultation Volume
II: Lessons for Managers and Consultants,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Tichy, N.M. and Devanna, M.A. (1990), The
Transformational Leader, 2nd ed., John Wiley
& Sons, New York, NY.
Walton, T. and Shueman, S. (1991), ``Overcoming
structural difficulties: negotiating the
common ground'', unpublished report to the
Hon. Brian Howe, National Technical
Assistance Unit, Canberra.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J.H. and Fisch, R.
(1974), Change: Principles of Problem
Formation and Problem Resolution, Norton,
New York, NY.
Weisbord, M. (1987), Productive Workplaces:
Organizing and Managing for Dignity,
Meaning, and Community, Jossey-Bass,
San Francisco, CA.
[ 25 ]