Bartunek - Woodman2015 - A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change

arop2Bartunek ARI 17 December 2014 21:51
Review in Advance first posted online

on December 24, 2014. (Changes may
still occur before final publication
online and in print.)
Beyond Lewin: Toward

a Temporal Approximation
of Organization
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Access provided by New York University - Bobst Library on 02/16/15. For personal use only.
Development and Change

Jean M. Bartunek1 and Richard W. Woodman2
1
Management and Organization Department, Boston College, Chestnut Hill,
Massachusetts 02467; email: Bartunek@bc.edu
2
Department of Management, Mays Business School, Texas A & M University,
College Station, Texas 77843; email: dwoodman@mays.tamu.edu
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015. Keywords

2:8.1–8.26
Kurt Lewin, temporality, process, organizational change, dialog,
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior is online at social construction
orgpsych.annualreviews.org
Abstract
This article’s doi:
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111353 We describe the new dialogic organization development (OD) fleshed
Copyright © 2015 by Annual Reviews. out by Bushe & Marshak (2009). In comparing this approach with the
All rights reserved old diagnostic OD, we explore the limitations of Lewin’s unfreeze-
change-freeze model for depicting organizational change over time.
We develop an approach that more fully approximates an adequate
temporal model of change by incorporating attention to sequence,
timing, pacing, rhythm, and polyphonic dimensions present in
change. We use this approach to explore longitudinally how the
new OD came to be, as well as how it is now entrained with the
old OD, and show that our approach reveals a number of dimensions
of change that are masked by Lewin’s model. We illustrate the use of
our approach beyond OD to depict the temporal dimensions of
Tushman & Romanelli’s (1985) model of convergence and reorien-
tation. Finally, we suggest next steps for theory, research, and
practice.
8.1
Changes may still occur before final publication online and in print
INTRODUCTION
Schubert was an ignoramus, even in music; he knew less about polyphony, which is the mother
of harmony, which is the mother of music, than the average conservatory professor.
(Mencken 1917, p. 95)
Planned organizational change, most frequently referred to as organization development (OD),

has undergone multiple changes over the course of the sixty plus years that it has been recognized
as a discrete area of focus (e.g., Beckhard 1969; French & Bell 1995; Marrow 1969; Mirvis 1988,
1990; Seo et al. 2004). Nevertheless, the sequential model of change developed by Kurt Lewin in
1947 to characterize how change should unfold—unfreeze-change-refreeze—has remained largely
untouched. This is true even though Lewin’s model leaves out fundamental temporal dimensions
of organizational change. Such an oversight means that, when considering crucial polyphonic
dimensions of change, it is not only Schubert, but most change scholars, who are ignoramuses.
In this review, based on the change from an old diagnostic to a new dialogic OD that is
a contemporary focus of OD (Bushe & Marshak 2009, 2014), we suggest a more adequate
approach to understanding change processes over time. Our approach incorporates—or at least
approximates—temporal dimensions much more fully than Lewin’s model, and it is applicable
not only to OD but to organizational change more generally.
Our plan for the review is as follows: As an introduction we summarize how new develop-
ments in OD have been presented in prior Annual Reviews chapters in comparison with older
approaches and use this as a model to show how the new dialogic approach is being presented in
relation to the earlier diagnostic OD on which it purports to improve. We then introduce Lewin’s
model as Lewin himself described it and as it has been expanded over time. We describe how the new
OD has come to be and how Lewin’s model leaves out elements that are central to this process.
Following this, we explain the importance of and ways of thinking much more broadly about
temporal dimensions inherent in change. We show how temporal dimensions enable a better un-
derstanding of how the new OD came to be than does Lewin’s model. To put it briefly, we suggest that
the unfreeze-change-refreeze sequence represents a partial, linear, monophonic understanding of
change. The more adequate model that we propose includes additional dimensions of sequence,
timing, pace, rhythm, and polyphony. We use these dimensions to trace the development of the new
OD over time and then to provide a temporal lens on Tushman & Romanelli’s (1985) model of
convergence and reorientation. We conclude with implications for theory, research, and practice.
DEPICTING CHANGE IN ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT

How Changes in OD Have Been Described in Annual Reviews Chapters
Six review chapters about OD appeared in the Annual Review of Psychology (Alderfer 1977, Beer &
Walton 1987, Faucheux et al. 1982, Friedlander & Brown 1974, Porras & Silvers 1991, Weick & Quinn
1999). Although there have been multiple other review papers as well (e.g., Burnes & Cooke 2012,
Martins 2011, Woodman 1989) the Annual Reviews articles are particularly important benchmarks
indicating how discussion of new approaches in OD takes place in relation to established approaches.
A common theme in many of these chapters was a description of a new approach to OD or
planned organizational change that identifies problems with and criticizes the narrowness of (some
parts of) an older approach while promoting the more “correct” approach as a change. Certain
chapters were largely positive about the prior work and built on it, whereas other chapters were
8.2 Bartunek Woodman
more dismissive. For example, whereas Alderfer (1977) was largely positive about Friedlander &
Brown’s (1974) discussion of OD, Faucheux et al. (1982) were somewhat dismissive of OD. They
introduced newly emerging approaches to the quality of worklife (QWL) and suggested that QWL
would likely replace OD. Beer & Walton (1987) emphasized the need that OD be relevant to general
managers and argued that this would happen only if it addressed strategy and change problems,
which had previously received little attention. Porras & Silvers (1991, p. 51) emphasized the need
that OD be linked with organizational transformation and “be guided by generally accepted and
unified theories of organizations and organizational challenge—neither of which currently exists.”
Weick & Quinn (1999) contrasted continuous with episodic approaches to planned change but did
not dismiss episodic approaches.
Thus, it is fairly standard for papers and chapters summarizing the state of the field in OD to
contrast the present with the past and to recommend the present approach, though they do this in
varying ways. What is not recognized is that the ways the chapters contrast a new perspective with
a past one establishes a temporal relationship between them.
Introducing a New Emphasis in OD

A new emphasis has arisen in OD since Weick & Quinn’s 1999 review, one seen as integrating
multiple contemporary developments. That is, Bushe & Marshak (2009, 2014) and their col-
laborators have placed a strong emphasis in recent years on what they call a new dialogic OD, an
approach to change based on complexity theory, narrative, conversation, and a positive orien-
tation. This new approach repudiates the emphases on organizational diagnosis and problem
solving that characterized the old diagnostic OD (French & Bell 1995).
Although it is labeled as new (Burnes & Cooke 2012, Bushe & Marshak 2009), a dialogic
emphasis has actually been evolving since the 1980s, with roots that go back at least to the late
1950s. Yet these roots saw almost no attention in their early years from mainstream reviews of the
field. The way a dialogic approach has evolved, in comparison with the newness of its depiction, is
important in itself for understanding temporal processes of organizational change.
In this chapter we summarize the new dialogic approach to organizational change, how it
emerged, and how it is distinguished from the older approach. Unlike several previous Annual
Reviews chapters, we do not primarily advocate for the value of the new (in this case dialogic)
emphasis as opposed to earlier ones. Rather, we use the occasion of this review to develop a more
complete understanding of temporal processes in change than does Lewin’s model, as well as
suggest implications for further work in this area.
LEWIN’S MODEL OF CHANGE

By far the most prominent approach to change discussed by OD scholars is the unfreeze-change-
refreeze model developed by Lewin (1947) and expanded by Schein (1996). Based on his force field
conceptualization, Lewin developed his model to prescribe initiatives that should be taken to
improve group performance and maintain the improvement.
The sum total of what Lewin (1947, later repeated verbatim in Lewin 1951) said about his
change model is shown in the sidebar, Lewin’s Complete Description of the Unfreeze-Change-
Refreeze Model. This model is, as is evident from reading it, solely prescriptive. There is nothing in
the model that is discussed as describing a naturally occurring sequence. (Lewin used the term
freeze at the end, though the term refreeze has been used so consistently that we adopt it here.)
www.annualreviews.org A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.3
As is evident in the sidebar, Lewin’s Complete Description of the Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze

Model, the focus of Lewin’s model was on levels of group performance, not organization change.
Furthermore, there was nothing cognitive included; this model was developed long before the
cognitive revolution in the social sciences. In later years Schein (1996) explicitly added interpretive
characteristics to Lewin’s model. Several other authors have also ascribed cognitive dimensions to
it (e.g., Isabella 1990, Weick & Quinn 1999, Sonenshein 2010).
Lewin recognized that emotional experience plays a role in change (something that has rarely
been picked up on by later scholars), and his model also incorporated a type of systems dynamics
framework, with causal loops fostering permanence of a change. This recognition has not been
particularly explicit in others’ uses of his model.
In his cognitive amendments to Lewin’s model, Schein (1996) argued that unfreezing must start
with some type of dissatisfaction or frustration that disconfirms expectations and hopes. Change
largely consists of cognitive restructuring, such as semantic redefinition, cognitive broadening, and
new standards of judgment or evaluation (Schein 1996, p. 30), which involves some type of
reframing that may enlarge concepts and change our standards for assessing them. Schein also
argued (p. 31) that “The most basic mechanism of acquiring new information that leads to
cognitive restructuring is to discover in a conversational process that the interpretation that
someone else puts on a concept is different from one’s own.” Furthermore (p. 34–35), refreezing
requires “that new behavior must be, to some degree, congruent with the rest of the behavior and
personality of the learner, or it will simply set off new rounds of disconfirmation.” Thus, Schein
included conversation as an integral part of the change model.
Use of Lewin’s Model

Lewin’s model has been socially constructed (cf. Mizruchi & Fein 1999) to characterize not only
OD (e.g., Burnes & Cooke 2012) but also a wide range of other types of organizational change
(e.g., Corley & Gioia 2004, Mantere et al. 2012, Mintzberg & Westley 1992, Rodell & Colquitt
2009, Sonenshein 2010, Zietsma & Lawrence 2010). Some scholars simply cite the model
LEWIN’S COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF THE UNFREEZE-CHANGE-REFREEZE MODEL
Changing as Three Steps: Unfreezing, Moving, and Freezing of Group Standards
A change toward a higher level of group performance is frequently short lived; after a “shot in the arm,” group life
soon returns to the previous level. This indicates that it does not suffice to define the objective of a planned change in
group performance as the reaching of a different level. Permanency of the new level, or permanency for a desired
period, should be included in the objective. A successful change includes therefore three aspects: unfreezing (if
necessary) the present level L1, moving to the new level L2, and freezing group life on the new level. Since any level is
determined by a force field, permanency implies that the new force field is made relatively secure against change.
The “unfreezing” of the present level may involve quite different problems in different cases. Allport [1945] has
described the “catharsis” which seems to be necessary before prejudices can be removed. To break open the shell of
complacency and self-righteousness it is sometimes necessary to bring about deliberately an emotional stir-up.
The same holds for the problem of freezing the new level. Sometimes it is possible to establish an organizational
set up which is equivalent to a stable circular causal process. (Lewin 1947, pp. 34–35)
(Corley & Gioia 2004), quote a few lines to partly flesh it out (Isabella 1990), suggest other
constructs with which it is (partly) connected (Mintzberg & Westley 1992), or present variants
that are based on some other conceptual approach, such as design theory (van Aken 2007). It has
been applied at very high organizational levels and at very specific individual levels. Mantere et al.
(2012) include Lewin’s stages as an integrative dimension of layers of radical strategic change.
Rodell & Colquitt (2009) suggest that individual employees with longer tenure at an organization
have a harder time with unfreezing. The use of Lewin’s model as a descriptive pattern for change is
so ubiquitous that Hendry (1996, p. 624) claimed,
Scratch any account of creating and managing change and the idea that change is a three-stage
process which necessarily begins with a process of unfreezing will not be far below the surface.
Indeed, it has been said that the whole theory of change is reducible to this one idea of Kurt Lewin’s.
Criticisms of Lewin’s Model

Some scholars have challenged one or more of the precepts they perceive in the model. For ex-
ample, Palmer & Dunford (1996, p. 709) argued that Lewin’s model “produces assumptions of
both linearity (that changes develop in sequence, always progressing) and teleology (that managers
know where they are taking the organization). Such assumptions may be at odds with the context
in which change occurs.”
There are other challenges to the linearity of the model as well. Kanter et al. (1992, p. 10) argued
vehemently that
Lewin’s . . . quaintly linear and static conception – the organization as an ice cube – is so wildly
inappropriate that it is difficult to see why it has not only survived but prospered. . . . Suffice it to say
here, first, that organizations are never frozen, much less refrozen, but are fluid entities with many
‘personalities’. Second, to the extent that there are stages, they overlap and interpenetrate one
another in important ways.
Somewhat more mildly, Weick & Quinn (1999, p. 361) commented that “Episodic change
follows the sequence unfreeze-transition-refreeze, whereas continuous change follows the se-
quence freeze-rebalance-unfreeze.” Purser & Petranker (2005, p. 6) both agreed with Kanter et al.
(1992) about serious problems with the language of “frozen” and questioned whether continuous
change passes through phases or stages: “The problem with this formulation is that time keeps
moving on, that is, continuous change is unceasing.”
In other words, commentators who have discussed Lewin’s model conceptually have raised
its multiple limitations. There have been practical concerns raised as well. For example, as
Helms Mills’s (2003) study made evident, there are many organizational change situations in
which it is not possible to assume that an organizational change will last long enough to (re)
freeze. New changes sometimes interrupt current changes in midstream, and the reasons
a particular organizational change was initiated sometimes disappear with environmental
shifts.
The concerns that have been raised about the model are, of course, serious, even though the
issues they raise are well beyond what Lewin imagined and expected his model to be about.
However, with the exception of recommending that the stages may go in a (continuously) different
direction than that in the model, there have not been serious attempts to think differently about the
temporal progression of change processes. More strikingly, there have been no attempts to cope
with multiple temporal and relational dynamics that the model doesn’t address at all. In addition to
several types of sequencing beyond unfreeze-change-refreeze, these dynamics include timing, pace,
and rhythm. They also include polyphony, which necessarily comprises relationships (e.g.,
between a change agent and change recipients), something ignored by Lewin. Rather, as
Marshak (1993, p. 406) noted, the stance of OD change agents who followed a Lewinian
approach was to “stand. . . apart, as a neutral catalyst, from the change itself.” Thus, though our
chapter is in part an update on current emphases in OD, it is also, and primarily, an attempt to
create a much fuller understanding of temporal patterns, including the relationships they imply,
that underlie change.
THE NEW DIALOGIC OD

In recent years there has been increasing awareness of the importance of language and discourse in
organizations (e.g., Boje et al. 2011, Gergen et al. 2004, Hardy et al. 2005, Heracleous & Barrett
2001, Maitlis & Christianson 2014, Phillips & Hardy 2002, Phillips & Oswick 2012, Tsoukas
1991). Consistent with social constructionist and other interpretive approaches that are in-
creasingly growing in importance (Avenier 2010, Van de Ven 2007), considerable agreement has
developed that organizations are not objective entities that exist independently of how they are
constructed by members and others. Rather, they are (continuously) constituted in conversations
and narrative.
Further, there has also been increasing attention to complexity theory in organizations
(Anderson et al. 1999) and recognition that the kinds of changes that may occur in this realm are
broader than the adaptive behaviors typically recognized by open systems approaches. Com-
plexity theories emphasize that particular types of triggers may create disequilibrium conditions in
organizations that generate emergent behaviors, including various new forms of self-organizing
(e.g., Burnes 2005; Lichtenstein 2014; Madden et al. 2012; Stacey 1996, 2005).
These new emphases, along with others related to them, have culminated in a new perspective
on OD, what Bushe & Marshak (2009) refer to as the new dialogic OD and Bushe & Marshak
(2014) describe as a new mindset regarding OD. Bushe & Marshak (2009, p. 361) summarized the
new perspective, arguing that “Dialogic OD practice is a conscious intent to engage the whole
system in dialogue and synergistic relationships in such a way that: mental models are surfaced;
new knowledge, structures, processes, practices, and stories are collaboratively created and
shared; and diverse stakeholder voices and perspectives are heard.”
Differences Between the New and Old OD

Recognizing a small number of characteristics they hold in common, Bushe & Marshak (2009)
differentiated between diagnostic and dialectic OD (cf. Burnes & Cooke 2012) according to
several dimensions, including epistemological foundations, data gathering that may inform action,
change characteristics, and what change should accomplish. In other words, they approached
diagnostic OD as the steady state of OD practice needing change and proposed several areas in
which it would be improved by the new OD.
Epistemology. Epistemologically, Bushe & Marshak (2009) described classic, diagnostic OD as

rooted in mid-twentieth century positivist orientations (e.g., Van Nistelrooij & Sminia 2010) that
operated under the illusion that there is an objectively valid reality that can be addressed. In
contrast, the new OD operates out of social constructivist or critical realist perspectives (Burnes &
Cooke 2012, Marshak & Grant 2008, Oswick 2009).
Data gathering. From the perspective of initial data gathering, diagnostic OD aims to collect
accurate information (Argyris 1976, Pasmore & Friedlander 1982, Nadler 1977) for problem
solving. The new OD, in contrast, assumes that problem-solving approaches are problematic in
themselves (Barge & Oliver 2003) and that the focus of initial data gathering should be to increase
“awareness of the variety of experiences contained in the system” (Bushe & Marshak 2009,
p. 360). This is best done through conversation and dialogue (Barge & Oliver 2003, Ford & Ford
1995, Isaacs 1999).
Intervention approach. Diagnostic OD typically includes interventions aimed at resolving iden-

tified problems. A dialogical approach, in contrast, emphasizes carefully planned dialog and
conversation. As Barrett et al. (1995, p. 366) pointed out, “through changing organizational
language and discourse new possibilities and actions emerge, as change occurs when a new way of
talking replaces an old way of talking” (also see Palmer & Dunford 1996).
There are multiple approaches to fostering productive conversation associated with dialogic
OD. The most common means are large group interventions (Bunker & Alban 1997, 2006;
Holman et al. 2007), which we discuss in more detail below.
Desired outcomes. Finally, the desired outcome from a diagnostic OD perspective is change in
organizational norms and the organizational culture, broadly defined (Bennis 1969, Schein 1990).
These are expected to lead to changes in how organizations and their members act to accomplish
particular goals (e.g., Beckhard 1969). In contrast, in a dialogic approach, the emphasis is not so
much on changing behavior as changing the conceptual frameworks out of which organization
members operate (Cooperrider & Srivastva 1987, Bushe & Marshak 2009), opening up the
possibility of emergent forms of organizing that may be very unpredictable.
As we have shown above, Bushe & Marshak (2009, 2014) have generated considerable dis-
cussion about major differences between diagnostic OD and dialogic OD. Their discussion
primarily emphasizes what is wrong with diagnostic approaches and what, in comparison, is
right about dialogical approaches.
Their approach is a fairly standard approach to unfreezing a current state in order to open
space for a new one, and it is consistent with how reviews of states of the field typically approach
change. However, a summary of how dialogic OD has come to emerge as a coherent approach
suggests that the relationship between the old and new OD is much more complicated temporally
than has been recognized (Woodman 2008). In fact, the new OD has been in development for more
than half a century, in one way or another, and its advances have been occurring at the same time as
developments in the old OD. To understand the change involving the old and new OD more
adequately it is necessary to understand the historical development of the new OD.
How Dialogic OD Came to Be

From the strict perspective of Lewin’s unfreeze-change-refreeze model, a new change suddenly
materializes after unfreezing. It has no meaningful existence before its appearance in a change
process.
However, various threads of dialogic OD have been evolving over the course of several dec-
ades, even though its development into a coherent approach did not begin to be recognized until
much later. Cooperrider & Srivastva (1987), Weisbord (1987), and then Bunker & Alban (1992,
1997) were some of the first to see strands of this approach linked together in coherent ways.
Bushe & Marshak (2009) and Marshak & Grant (2008) were the first to tie the complete set
of strands together that compose the new OD.
The strands, along with individuals and/or events associated with them, are shown in Table 1.
They include, in a somewhat chronological order of their development, work with the whole
system, emphasis on a desired future, social constructionism as a philosophical understanding, the
development of large group interventions, conversational approaches to change, appreciative
inquiry (AI), and, finally, articulation of the new OD. From the perspective of the new OD, these
different strands are particularly well expressed in the development of AI (Cooperrider & Srivastva
1987, Cooperrider & Whitney 2005), and we treat this intervention separately.
Work with the whole system. Pasmore & Fagans (1992) and Bunker & Alban (1997, 2014)
suggested that the earliest roots of dialogic OD can be found in the work of Fred Emery and Eric
Trist (Emery & Trist 1960) in the United Kingdom in the 1950s. In contrast to most early work in
OD that had focused on small groups (French & Bell 1995), Emery and Trist developed a theory of
sociotechnical systems that emphasized the importance of work with a whole system to accomplish
change. They developed what later came to be recognized as the first truly large group intervention
to enable a large number of organizational members (from two merged British aircraft engine
makers, Bunker & Alban 2014, p. 409) to work together “to consider what kind of new company
they wanted to become.” Emery & Trist (1960) eventually labeled this process of searching for
a desired future as the Search Conference, and it went on to be developed as a formal large group
intervention (Emery & Purser 1996).
The importance of considering the whole organization began to be articulated more fully in the
1970s when Beckhard & Harris (1987) started to write systematically about intervening in whole
systems, an insight that was later developed by Weisbord (1987). He and Janoff used this in the
development of a large group intervention called Future Search (Weisbord & Janoff 1995).
Emphasis on a desired future. Emphasis on the desired future was developed more fully by
Lindaman & Lippitt (1979). As Bunker & Alban (1992) describe, Lippitt was consulting with
a number of communities in the Ann Arbor, Michigan area in the late 1970s. He became frustrated
with continually trying to fix the past by problem solving, because he had observed that it was an
energy-depleting process. This led him to orient his intervention work toward releasing energy to
plan for a new future and involving as much of a system as he could in such planning.
Social construction as a philosophical underpinning. Berger & Luckmann’s (1967) formal de-
velopment of a social construction approach to knowledge and its resulting conceptual devel-
opments have had a profound impact on organizational scholarship and practice (e.g., Avenier
2010, Van de Ven 2007). Briefly, Berger & Luckmann contrasted positivist assumptions of a fixed,
objective external reality with a formulation that emphasized ways that individuals, in interaction
with each other, help create what we later come to recognize as real. Social constructionism has
developed considerably since the late 1960s (Burrell & Morgan 1979). Among other things, it has
become a foundation for the recognition that there may be different meanings among varying
groups and individuals regarding any particular phenomenon (Moch & Bartunek 1990). There is
unlikely to be one objective truth about organizational phenomena, including what a problem is
(Burnes & Cooke 2012, Oswick 2009) or what a change is (Wiebe 2010). Thus, understanding the
variety of perspectives present among members of a setting is important for understanding the
setting itself.
Large group interventions. Bunker & Alban (1997, p. xv) defined large group interventions as
“methods for involving the whole system, internal and external, in [a planned] change process.” In
such interventions large numbers of participants in a system, including everyone who has a stake in
Table 1 Illustrative events in the development of the strands of the new organization development (OD) over time
arop2Bartunek
Strands of the
ARI
new OD Decades
1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Work with Search Conference Beckhard & Weisbord (1987)
“entire system” (Emery & Trist Harris (1987)
1960)
17 December 2014
Emphasis on Search Conference Lindaman & Large group interventions

desired future Lippitt (1979); emphasize this
focus on
21:51
a positive future
Social Berger & Burrell &
constructionism Luckmann Morgan (1979)
and other (1967)
epistemologies
www.annualreviews.org
Development of Several large group interventions Articulation of World Café and

large group developed, including ICA large group many other new
interventions (Institute of Cultural Affairs) interventions as large group
Planning Process (Spencer, 1989), an approach interventions are
Future Search (Weisbord & Janoff (Bunker & created (Bunker &
1995), Real Time Strategic Alban 1992, Alban 2006,
Change (Jacobs 1997), Work- 1997) Holman et al.
Out (Tichy & Sherman 1993), 2007)
and Open Space Technology
(Owen 1994)
Conversational Gergen (1982) Ford & Ford Boje et al. (2004)

approaches to (1995)
change
Appreciative Theoretical foundations Appreciative Appreciative
A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change

inquiry developed (Cooperrider & inquiry as an inquiry as a large
Srivastva, 1987) intervention group intervention
8.9
(Ludema et al.
2003)
Articulation of Bushe & Marshak
the new OD (2009, 2014)
issues under discussion, gather together for several days of focused and guided conversation about
a topic. They intentionally search out multiple and differing perspectives; give all participants an
opportunity to influence deliberations; and search for common ground—what participants can agree
on—in the service of effecting positive change in their organizations (Bartunek et al. 2011, p. 2).
Since the 1980s a large number of large group interventions have developed (Bunker & Alban
1992, 1997). The earlier interventions included, among others, Real Time Strategic Change
(Jacobs 1997), the ICA (Institute of Cultural Affairs) Planning Process (Spencer 1989), Work-Out
(Tichy & Sherman 1993), and Open Space Technology (Owen 1994). Although these differ in
their particulars, they all have in common the importance of working with the whole system in
some way, in recognizing the diverse perspectives in the system and in focusing on a positive future
rather than a problematic past. Dozens of other interventions have appeared since 2000 (Bunker &
Alban 2006, Holman et al. 2007).
Conversational approaches to change. The view that organizations are largely socially con-
structed has led to considerable emphasis on the importance of discourse and conversation in them
(e.g., Barrett et al. 1995, Boje et al. 2004, Ford & Ford 1995, Heracleous & Barrett 2001,
Heracleous & Marshak 2004, Marshak & Grant 2008, Tsoukas 2005). Conversational practices
may strengthen current organizational practices and/or contribute to the creation of new ones
(Thomas et al. 2011). Thus, the types of conversations people have in their organization and those
with whom they have the conversations are crucial for change. Indeed, if organizational change is
to be accomplished, it will happen only through the conversations and dialogs in which orga-
nization members engage.
Consequently, attention has been given to the types of discourse and conversations that take
place in change. Ford & Ford (1995, 2009), for example, identified four different types of
conversations managers may have with employees at particular times during a change initiative
and suggested how these types of conversations may affect the initiative. These include initiative
conversations to introduce a change, understanding conversations to engage organizational
members in the change, performance conversations to support commitment to the change and
closure conversations to complete the change. There are also, of course, many types of con-
versations that employees have among themselves regarding change (Hardy et al. 2005, Maitlis &
Christianson 2014) that may differ considerably from their managers’ narratives. These are all
important, because narratives “make things happen” (Buchanan & Dawson 2007, p. 671).
Several of the more recently developed large group interventions have explicitly included types
of conversations as an integral dimension. The World Café (Brown & Isaacs 2005) intervention,
for example, is consciously based on types of café style conversations in small groups that are then
linked in wider and wider circles within larger organizational settings.
Appreciative inquiry. The dialogic change intervention that builds most explicitly on a social
constructivism and a conversational approach oriented toward creating a desired future state is AI.
In their landmark chapter introducing a conceptual foundation for AI, Cooperrider & Srivastva
(1987, p. 137) argued that
To the extent that social science conceives its role in the logical positivist sense. . . it underestimates the
constructive role science can have in the development of the groups and organizations that make up
our cultural world. . . .Realization of this fact furnishes the opportunity to refashion a social science of
vital significance to society. . . . . To do this, we need a bold shift in attention whereby theoretical
accounts are . . . judged in terms of their generative capacity-their ability to foster dialogue about that
which is taken for granted and their capacity for generating fresh alternatives for social action.
As a large group intervention (Ludema et al. 2003), AI explicitly uses the social construction of
reality as an epistemological foundation to invite organizational members to dream about,
imagine, and then create their own desired outcomes in organizations, and to do so by “fostering
conversation that inquires into the life-generating experiences, core values, and moments of
excellence in organizational life” (Barge & Oliver 2003, p. 124). AI includes four phases, each with
a pertinent type of conversation (Cooperrider & Whitney 2005, Gergen et al 2004). In the first,
discovery phase, participants share stories about when they have felt most positive or excited about
their work or their organization. They do this through one-on-one interviews, through writing
stories they share with each other, or through other means. Through this process their purpose is to
discover the optimal core of their organization. In the second, dream phase, participants talk with
each other in small groups to develop “what is the world calling for us to become” (Cooperrider &
Whitney 2005, p. 77).
The third phase is the design phase, when the small groups identify on the basis of their prior
discussion of the optimal core of their organization what the world is calling their organization to
be and what they desire of their organization, a collective vision of the future they want. They then
consider what needs to happen for their positive core to become their standard way of operating
and discuss this in detail. Finally, in the destiny phase, the organization adopts the design de-
veloped in the preceding phases, and in so doing strengthens the “capability of the whole system,
enabling it to build hope and sustain momentum for ongoing positive change and high perfor-
mance” (p. 78). Thus, AI well illustrates an approach in which whole systems work together with
a future oriented positive focus, applying social constructionism, conversation, and dialog to
create positive outcomes.
TEMPORAL STRUCTURES AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

To this point we have presented Lewin’s model and summarized the new OD, illustrating it with
large group interventions, especially AI, that flesh out its central components. The following
section describes the emergence of the new OD as it would be summarized on the basis of Lewin’s
model. We use this description to note what Lewin’s model both reveals and masks. Then we
suggest a more adequate temporal approximation of how dialogic OD came to be.
The Development of the New OD from the Perspective of Lewin’s Model

The description of the new OD that we have presented may be considered in terms of the unfreeze-
change-refreeze sequence. For example, the strong claims that dialogic OD is better than di-
agnostic OD (similar to Faucheux et al.’s 1982 claim that QWL was better than OD, or Porras &
Silvers’s 1991 claim that transformation was better than prior approaches) can be considered in
terms of unfreezing. The change itself, the new OD, is articulated in the articles by Bushe &
Marshak (2009, 2014) and their collaborators.
Some other changes have occurred that support the dominance of the new OD over the old OD.
For example, Coghlan (2011) described how contemporary approaches to action research—
a cornerstone of diagnostic OD—are actually more consistent with the new OD than the old. Such
rethinking may be thought of in terms of freezing the model of the new OD.
But this characterization does not add much to what it means that there is now a new OD.
Lewin’s approach, though addressing very important dimensions of change, did not consider
several questions that are, in essence, hiding in plain sight in change initiatives and scholarly
descriptions of them.
A Temporal Approximation of Change

As noted above, much of the criticism of Lewin’s model has been of its sequence, such as whether
a linear model is appropriate (Palmer & Dunford 1996) or whether events happen in the order
described (e.g., Weick & Quinn 1999), along with the improbability of anything truly being frozen
or refrozen (Helms Mills 2003, Kanter et al. 1992). Although these are important criticisms they
are, to some extent, focused narrowly around the rather linear prescription about the change
process as (implicitly, if not explicitly) experienced by change recipients. That is, all that is included
in Lewin’s model (see the sidebar, Lewin’s Complete Description of the Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze
Model) is a thin description of how the participants are supposed to feel and experience change
according to its sequential phases of unfreezing, changing, and freezing.
Since the 1980s, however, there has been considerable development in the understanding of
processes in organizational behavior, in part through the development of process models for
explaining how organizational phenomena come to be (Mohr 1982). Many of the models being
developed assume the existence of ongoing dynamic processes involving multiple parties (e.g.,
Langley 1999, Langley et al. 2013). The timing involved in these dynamic processes may be treated
as objective or subjective, continuous or episodic (Orlikowski & Yates 2002). Because planned
change scholars and practitioners tend to focus on objective episodes, we treat change as occurring
in discrete segments, even though we recognize that this is, in itself, a social construction (Purser &
Petranker 2005).
Many process approaches support the likelihood of an ordering of stages or phases of a change
process, from both research (e.g., Isabella 1990) and intervention (Cooperrider & Whitney 2005)
perspectives. More recent work has also made evident that there are multiple additional temporal
dimensions of change processes, including not only more sophisticated understandings of se-
quence than Lewin used but also such components as timing, pacing, rhythm, and, most im-
portant, polyphony (Albert 2013, Amis et al. 2004, Ancona & Chong 1996, Bingham & Kahl
2013, Bluedorn 2002, Brown & Eisenhardt 1997, Klarner & Raisch 2013). These temporal
dimensions are integral components of planned change, including OD as well as other types of
organizational change.
Pettigrew et al. (2001) argued that time, sequencing, pace, and so on are fundamental and
crucial aspects of organizational change processes that are underexplored, and, as such, in need of
much greater attention from the field’s scholars. These temporal dimensions have not yet received
the attention they deserve, but we are attempting to at least partially remedy that here. We have
sketched out each of these temporal dimensions and their components in Table 2, and summarize
them here.
Sequence. Briefly, as Albert (2013, p. 26–27), Amis et al. (2004), Bluedorn (2002), Langley
(1999), and others have described, sequence refers to a temporal ordering of events. A complete
sequence may include several dimensions, including recognizable steps and stages, order of events
within a particular stage or phase and the effect of this ordering on the overall sequence, interval
and duration of each stage, and when events appear within a sequence. A sequence need not
necessarily be linear. Greenwood & Hinings (1988), for example, showed that some sequences
associated with change involve considerable cycling back and forth or no movement whatsoever.
In the Lewinian model, the three-stage sequence is quite linear, with no room afforded for cycling
back and forth.
Timing. There are multiple possible dimensions of timing, including, as Langley (1999) notes,
the presence of deadlines, the simultaneity of alternative possibilities for action, and when
Table 2 Temporal dimensions of change, their components, and suggested questions

arop2Bartunek
Temporal dimensions
ARI
of change Components of temporal dimensions Questions suggested by the temporal dimensions and components
Sequence Stages What is/are the types of sequences present?

Events within stages How many sequences are present?
Intervals and durations of stages How extended or abbreviated are the sequences?
Locations of events within a sequence How are particular sets of events located within given sequences?
What are impacts of the ordering within a sequence?
17 December 2014
Is the sequence linear?

Timing Deadlines What roles do deadlines play in the change process?
Flexibility and alternative possibilities for action What is the relationship between when information pertinent to
21:51
When information is available for action change is available and when actions must be taken?
Timing norms How much flexibility is available in the timing of (parts of) change?
Periodic timing or timing based on environmental responsiveness Is timing solely periodic or does it depend on particular
Windows of opportunity/the “right” time environmental events?
What are the windows of opportunity for a particular change?
www.annualreviews.org
How can the “right” time for change be determined?

Pacing Overall speed of change How rapidly does the change process move?
Pacing/speed during different parts of a change process Does the pace remain the same at all times or lag and/or increase at
Momentum of change particular times? If so, in response to what conditions?
Does momentum build or inertia take hold? When?
What conditions are related to faster or slower pacing?
Rhythm of change Repetitive cycles of change What are the repetitive cycles built into the change?
Variability in intensity and frequency of change activities What types of periodic variability in intensity and frequency of
Times of accelerated and slowed activity change, and of accelerated activity, occur?
Focused, punctuated, temporarily switching, and regular What types of focused, punctuated, switching and regular rhythms
rhythms are built in to change?
Monophony/ Number of strands of sequencing, timing, pacing, and rhythms How many strands of sequencing are present?
polyphony Types of entrainment present How many different types of timing, pacing, and rhythms are
Structural polyphony, including aligned and overlapping events present?
A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change

Influential polyphony, including causation, competition, How do they overlap and align with each other?
cooperation, masking, amplification, cancellation, How are certain patterns entrained to others?
8.13
entrainment, control, and power What types of influence do certain patterns have over others at
different points in time?
To what are activity cycles regarding change entrained?
information is available in comparison with the need to act. Ancona et al. (2001) indicate
that there tend to be timetables in organizations against which organization members can
determine their progress; there also tend to be timing norms regarding when particular events
are appropriate. Ancona & Chong (1996, p. 252) add that the timing of events in organizations
may shift periodically regardless of the environment (like clockwork) or in relation to particular
types of environmental change (when external contexts shift dramatically).
An important dimension of timing regarding change is awareness of the best time to act. Huy
(2001, p. 613) comments on the importance of “good timing [which] captures windows of op-
portunity in which an intervention can benefit from better receptivity to change and more
bountiful resources.” Windows of opportunity (Tyre & Orlikowski 1994) represent the right time
for change (Albert 2013, Bartunek & Necochea 2000, Gersick 1988), occasions when there is
readiness for it (Armenakis et al. 1993). It would appear that, for Lewin (1947), unfreezing, likely
accompanied by an “emotional stir-up”, had to occur in order for there to be a window of

opportunity for change, although this was not explicit in his model, and he did not address any
other dimensions of timing.
Pacing. Pacing refers to the speed of change (Amis et al. 2004, Ancona & Chong 1996). This may
include overall speed, but it can also refer to different pacing at different times in a change process;
change can take on different speeds as it unfolds over time (Ancona & Chong 1996, Gersick 1988,
Huy 2001, Klarner & Raisch 2013). Some argue that speed, especially at the beginning of
a change effort, is necessary to generate enough momentum for a change (especially a radical
change) to be able to overcome inertia (Amis et al. 2004, Jansen 2004). Nothing in Lewin’s model
refers to speed or pacing of a change.
Rhythm. Rhythm refers to repetitions of cycles (cf. Ancona & Chong 1996, Mintzberg & Westley
1992) that create dominant temporal orderings and often become inertial. Huy (2001, p. 613)
described the rhythm of change as “a pattern of variability in the intensity and frequency of
organizational activities, typically characterized by periods of accelerated activity and slowed
activity.” As Klarner & Raisch (2013, p. 168) note, organizational changes likely occur in one or
more of four types of rhythms: focused (long periods of change and short periods of stability),
punctuated (long periods of stability and short periods of change), temporarily switching (al-
ternating stability and change), and regular (in which intervals between changes are relatively
equal).
The type of rhythm that is the most studied in organizational settings is punctuated. As Gersick
(1988) noted with regard to groups and Tushman & Romanelli (1985) noted with regard to
organizations, rhythms may change in connection with punctuated equilibria. Gersick (1988)
showed, for example, that groups that start working slowly before the (punctuated) midpoint of
their time together often speed up after the midpoint, whereas groups that work quickly before the
midpoint often slow down after it. There is nothing in Lewin’s model that refers to rhythmic
patterns.
Monophony/polyphony. Finally, a crucial dimension is whether change is monophonic, carried

out by one actor or in one series of events, or polyphonic, carried out by multiple actors in multiple
series of events. From a musical perspective, polyphony refers to “a form of composition in which
multiple melodies are performed at the same time, each retaining its own individuality as it
harmonizes with others” (Albert 2013, p. 155). It may appear similar to a jam session in jazz
(Barrett 2012). From an organizational perspective, polyphony refers to the fact that there are
often multiple sets of sequencing, timing, pacing, and rhythm in existence at once, and these are
interdependent and entrained to each other (Ancona & Chong 1996, Bluedorn 2002). That is, two
or more sets of activity cycles (Ballard 2009) depend on each other to be accomplished successfully,
just as change interventions require synchronized activity cycles on the part of both change agents
and change recipients to take place. This means that polyphony is by definition relational.
Albert (2013, p. 156) discussed two different types of relationships that may be present in
polyphony: “The first is structural: the extent to which one parallel event is aligned or overlaps
with another. The second is one of influence: the extent to which one event or process masks,
competes with, substitutes for, or amplifies another that is in process at the same time.” An
example of structural polyphony in change may refer to automatically reserving times for possible
meetings to times when facilities are available. Albert (p. 176–180) suggests several ways that
influence may happen within polyphony. These involve interactions that include causation,
competition, cooperation, masking, amplification, cancellation, entrainment, control, and so
forth. An example may include purposefully scheduling a change event at a time when there are
multiple work deadlines; these would conflict with each other. In human systems, in other words,
influential polyphony is typically not automatic but rather affected by individual initiative; such
initiative leads particular sets of events and activity cycles to be entrained to other events and
activity cycles.
This discussion makes evident that change involving human systems, unlike what is implied by
Lewin’s model, is not monophonic. There will always be multiple sequences, timing, pacing, and
rhythms occurring at once, and these will influence each other in complex ways. At the very least,
there will be people aiming to create change and other people who are, intentionally or directly, or
are not, recipients of their efforts. The initiatives and rhythms of change agents and of the design of
a change initiative influence the experiences and rhythms of the change participants, and vice versa
(Bartunek et al. 2006, Ford et al. 2008, Oreg et al. 2013). Thus, in virtually all change processes in
organizations there will likely be issues of influence inherent in the temporal processes underlying
change.
Taking into account these multiple temporal dimensions creates a very different perspective on
the emergence of the new OD than does an account like Lewin’s, which focuses sequentially only
on three phases of a change and says nothing about timing, pacing, rhythm, or polyphony. We
develop this more complete account below, analyzing the emergence of the new OD from the
perspective of the temporal approach we have sketched out.
The Temporal Development of the New OD

Consider the very complex sequence of the development of the new OD as depicted in Table 1.
What eventually came to be labeled the new OD started as one strand, a particular type of change
intervention in the United Kingdom the late 1950s that responded to a very practical need. The
next steps were conceptual and came from different strands that had nothing to do with the initial
Search Conference. These included the development of social constructionism as well as the
evolving recognition on the part of some change scholars that emphasizing a positive future was
more energy producing than starting with problems. This developing awareness eventually
intersected in what Bunker & Alban (1992) called large group interventions.
Due in part to ongoing movements in social constructionism, attention also grew regarding the
importance of discourse and conversation and how these can play a role in large group inter-
ventions, helping to foster emergence of new ideas. Change designers such as Brown & Isaacs
(2005), Cooperrider & Whitney (2005), and others explicitly integrated conversation and dis-
course into their interventions. After all these events happened, in Gehman et al.’s (2013, p. 102)
terms, “these isolated pockets became knotted together and reconfigured into a framework.”
When this reconfiguration took place there was recognition of a new, dialogic OD.
The timing of the different parts of this development was important. There were no established
norms for timing, especially because the different parts of the sequence developed along different
paths and timelines. There were also no deadlines; the timing occurred somewhat naturally.
However, windows of opportunity and recognition of the right time were crucial for the de-
velopment of some of the strands. The Search Conference (Emery & Trist 1960) developed when
Trist and Emery recognized that the time was right for a new type of intervention (Bunker & Alban,
2014). It still took three decades after the first Search Conference, as well as developments in other
strands, before Bunker & Alban (1992) articulated in a coherent form that a new type of event,
large group interventions, had come into existence.
In terms of pacing, the overall speed of change since the first articulation of the Search Con-
ference has been very slow; five decades passed before the new OD was recognized. However, in
recent decades, especially with recognition of convergence across aspects of the strands, such as in
the articulation of large group interventions, the pace has become more rapid, taking on con-
siderable momentum (Jansen 2004).
The rhythms associated with the development of the new OD can best be described as punc-
tuated. The punctuation, or inflection points, have been the times when there have been articu-
lations of coherence, such as those by Cooperrider & Srivastva (1987), Bunker & Alban (1992),
and, more recently, Bushe & Marshak (2009, 2014). These punctuations have tended to speed up
the pace of change by increasing the amount of activity associated with the new recognition.
Finally, the development of the new OD has multiple polyphonic, relational properties. Such
properties are recognizable in how events shown in one strand in Table 1 influence, and are in turn
influenced by, events in other stands. As we have indicated, AI could not exist without social
constructionism; neither could the types of narrative and conversation that have become central to
the new OD. In turn, some later events amplified certain earlier ones. AI, for example, amplified
social construction as not only an approach to academic knowledge but also as an approach to
opening up organizational possibilities in practice. The large group interventions are also
entrained to the Search Conference and to the recognition of the importance of having the whole
system together to search for a positive future. Those, such as Cooperrider & Srivastva (1987),
Weisbord (1987), and Bunker & Alban (1992), who created coherence of understanding across
multiple strands have also had a very influential role to play. Without their articulations, the
strands may have remained separate.
The Temporal Construction of the New OD in Relation to the Old OD

What we have shown in Table 1 reflects only one small dimension of polyphony as it pertains to the
new OD. There is another dimension as well, and that is in how the new OD is being portrayed in
relation to the old OD.
As we showed in our introduction of the new OD in comparison with the old OD, the re-
lationship between the two is largely portrayed as competitive. Some areas of overlap are iden-
tified; Bushe & Marshak (2009) recognize similarities between old and new OD in humanistic
values, the importance of systems awareness, consultant focus on process, and a concern for
systems development. However, they emphasize much more how the new OD is superior to the old
OD in a wide variety of ways. These include a focus on complex systems that enable nonlinear
change as opposed to open systems that foster alignment, as well as an epistemological foundation
rooted in social constructionist perspectives as opposed to (implicitly, if not explicitly) outdated
positivist perspectives. They also include an approach to data gathering that is aimed at surfacing
the variety of experiences contained in the system rather than an (implicitly fruitless) attempt to
collect valid data about a problem and an approach to intervention that emphasizes the positive
through productive conversation, narrative, and dialog as opposed to a (de-energizing) problem
solving approach oriented around finding a correct solution. Finally, as an outcome, they include
changes in the conceptual systems out of which participants operate, accompanied by new types of
conversation that open up emergent possibilities as opposed to changes in norms and the or-
ganizational culture within an already existing framework.
In other words, Bushe & Marshak (2009, 2014) and their colleagues quite clearly present the
new and the old OD polyphonically, and the format they use is primarily one of opposition and
competition. Woodman (2008) suggested that there were likely more overlaps between the new
and old OD than were being acknowledged, but his argument did not elicit responses in their
writing.
What has been created in the new OD in relation to the old is certainly not the type of po-
lyphony that Mencken (1917) had in mind in the opening quotation when he referred to po-
lyphony as the mother of harmony. Rather, it is a reflection of discord.
DISCUSSION
In the material presented above, we have sketched out temporal dimensions undergirding the
development of the new OD and its placement in relationship to the old OD as this is ongoing. We
have shown that Lewin’s model of unfreezing, change and refreezing leaves out much that is crucial
in describing temporal patterns associated with this development, including the fact that individual
strands may take a considerable amount of time to develop and that the standard way of presenting
a new approach as superior to others represents a type of competitive polyphony. A statement that
a pattern follows an unfreeze-change-refreeze model masks a good deal that is going on. The
temporal categories we have suggested, on the contrary, help us recognize patterns that would
otherwise not be noticed. In the subsequent discussion we flesh out the use of these categories in
additional detail.
Lewin’s model has, as Hendry (1996) said, been singularly influential, in part, probably,
because it said so little and because its terms are evocative on their face. In this it is similar to
motivation models, such as those of Maslow and Herzberg, which have long been discredited from
a scholarly perspective but continue to be used because they are straightforward and easy to
comprehend, seem consistent with readers’ experience, and appear to provide information on
which people can act. Lewin’s model is invoked frequently by practitioners but also, as we have
shown above, by a number of organizational scholars whose work is far removed from OD, who
appear to simply take it for granted as the process through which change occurs.
Appreciation of the more complete set of temporal dimensions we have developed here is likely
to provide much more insight into change processes, not only in OD but also beyond, than is
gained by Lewin’s model. What we have sketched out is not as catchy as Lewin’s model and not yet
fully fleshed out. Nevertheless, it provides a much closer approximation of temporal dimensions of
change than Lewin’s model did. Thus, in the third column of Table 2, in addition to summarizing
the dimensions we have described, we suggest particular research questions that may be asked
about dimensions of change in order to open up understanding of change processes more fully.
An Illustrative Use of the Temporal Model

To illustrate the potential of the dimensions and questions we have included in Table 2, we apply
them to developing a deeper temporal understanding of the well-known model of organizational
convergence and reorientation developed by Tushman & Romanelli (1985). These dimensions
enable us to see much more in Tushman & Romanelli’s description of two types of change than
would ordinarily be the case, certainly more than a focus on unfreeze-change-refreeze would
reveal. Their model (p. 173) proposed that
Organizations progress through convergent periods punctuated by reorientations which demark

and set bearings for the next convergent period. Convergent periods refer to relatively long time
spans of incremental change and adaptation which elaborate structures, systems, controls and
resources towards increased co-alignment. These convergent periods may or may not be associated
with effective performance. Reorientations are relatively short periods of discontinuous change
where strategies, power, structure, and systems are fundamentally transformed towards a new basis
of alignment.
Their argument is, of course, developed in much more nuanced detail in their complete paper.
However, even this one paragraph is enough to suggest differences in how their approach would
be viewed from the lens of Lewin’s model compared with the temporal dimensions we are setting
forth.
Lewin’s model would recognize that, after a time, convergence was no longer working and
needed to be unfrozen. This would occur with the commencement of the punctuated equilibrium
and the reorientation (change) taking place during it. The newly aligned approach would become
frozen again, in a new convergence.
Lewin’s model provides a useful label for the convergence-reorientation-convergence sequence.
However, it is evident that this model does not add very much to Tushman & Romanelli’s de-
piction. It does not paint a very vivid picture of the processes involved in convergence and
reorientation and does not distinguish between the different types of change present in these two
processes. If we look at the process depicted by Tushman & Romanelli from the perspective of the
temporal dimensions suggested here, it is possible to see much more in their model.
For example, Tushman & Romanelli suggest that long periods of convergence interspersed
with a short burst of reorientation are the standard sequences by which change occurs in
organizations. The duration of periods of convergence is much longer than the duration of periods
of reorientation.
The timing of reorientations is not automatic and periodic but depends on particular envi-
ronmental events taking place. There are deadlines for reorientation to occur; though not for
convergence; if reorientation does not take place over a relatively short period, it will not happen.
Furthermore, the types of changes that need to occur within a reorientation are not very flexible;
strategies, power, structure, and systems all need to change.
Consistent with the deadlines noted above, the pace of change during reorientation is very
rapid, gaining momentum from the multiple changes that must occur simultaneously. The pace of
change is much slower during convergent periods.
The convergence-reorientation-convergence pattern—all three parts of it—is a normal, re-
petitive, rhythm of change. The intensity of change and frequency of change events is much greater
during times of reorientation than during periods of convergence. The type of rhythm is
punctuated.
Finally, both convergence and reorientation patterns are polyphonous. In both cases, strate-
gies, power, structure, and systems are all evolving in relation to each other and in entrainment to
each other. In convergent times the changes in them are minimal and designed to create greater
alignment among them. In times of reorientation the changes are much more major. In such times
their alignment is disrupted by environmental events that are powerful enough to force strategy,
power, structure, and systems all to change together in a way that first leads to their misalignment
and then to a new alignment.
These temporal dimensions are not explicit in the Tushman & Romanelli model. However,
taking them into account enables a substantive exploration of how much the patterns implied by
the model are consistent with the patterns that actually occur. Are long periods of time interspersed
with short bursts of change the sequence in which reorientation (always) occurs? Is any of the
timing periodic or does it depend entirely on some sort of disruption? What kinds of deadlines are
implicit, if not explicit, during periods of reorientation? Is the pace of change faster during
reorientation? Is the rhythm of change (always) punctuated by the patterns the model suggests?
Finally, how are strategies, power, structure, and systems entrained to each other during both
reorientation and convergence? Is this entrainment structural or is it due to the influence of one or
more of the components? Which component(s) is most influential in pulling the others into
alignment during convergence? Which is most powerful in causing misalignment during reor-
ientation? These are just a few of the questions that could be asked about the Tushman &
Romanelli model, and, indeed, about any proposed model of change processes. These questions
would not even be imagined, let alone asked, by someone following Lewin’s model.
Implications for Theory and Research

As we have noted, this review only begins to understand change temporally, not conclusively
theorize. Our purpose has been to construct an approximation of the temporal elements of
planned change, both as they may occur across different strands and decades and as integral
elements of a particular type of planned change intervention. Thus, we have begun sketching ways
that such dimensions can play an integral role in thinking about, understanding, and exploring
organizational change processes. As we have illustrated, this type of approach brings to the surface
dimensions of change that would otherwise be hidden. These include the existence (and possible
long duration) of multiple strands of change present long before a change is recognized as well as
the crucial role of polyphony in change, including most especially the underlying role of influence
of one set of activity cycles over another and one set of people over another.
We suggest the importance of several next steps in building on the work we have begun here.
These steps are summarized in Table 3. First, we described several temporal constructs. They each
need to be developed more fully as constructs, and their relationships with each other in terms of
change and its outcomes must be fleshed out. Two of the dimensions that are most important to
address more fully are the notion of the right time (Bartunek & Necochea 2000) and polyphony as
it is expressed in entrainment (Albert 2013, Ancona & Chong 1996). Both constructs have seen
some initial development, but because they are so salient in change it is important to develop them
more fully.
Second, it will be valuable to conduct empirical research on change that enables careful
measures of the temporal elements that we have discussed. That is, the dimensions we have sug-
gested can be used to study underlying temporal structures of planned change. It is possible, for
example, to study large group interventions and other broad types of organizational change to
uncover their temporal properties as well as the effects of these temporal properties. Is the duration
of one sequence too long? Is the pace too fast? Do sequences carried out by change agents and
change recipients overlap in effective ways, or does one have undue influence on the other and with
what impact? Questions like these are ways to view the processes of particular change events and
their implications for change in much more detail.
Third, the temporal dimensions sketched out here alert us to how power and influence may be
present in temporal patterns in change that may not be recognized if one were solely to look for
Table 3 Implications for theory, research, and practice
Implications for Major tasks Specifics
Theorizing
Develop temporal constructs Develop the temporal dimensions of Focus on constructs such as the right time
change as well as their relationship with and polyphony in relation to change
each other in terms of change and its
outcomes
Expand process theorizing Explore change dimensions of process Integrate temporal dimensions of change
models more fully into process research
Research
Conduct empirical research Develop measures of the temporal Focus on constructs, such as sequence,
properties of change duration of sequence, pace of change as
these occur in change
Explore dimensions of change evoked by Explore how power and influence are Study how temporal dimensions such as
temporal considerations reflected in temporal dimensions sequencing, timing, pacing, and the
rhythm of particular change events are
influenced within change events
Practice
Take multiple temporal dimensions of Help change agents expand their Become more conscious of sequencing,
change into account awareness of the temporal dimensions timing, pacing, rhythm, and polyphony
Develop skills in utilizing temporal of their work and their impacts on change recipients
insights in the service of fostering change Apply richer, more nuanced temporal Use temporal dimensions of change
process models to organizational throughout all aspects of the change
interventions and change management process
interactions among people. When individuals affect sequencing, timing, pacing, and rhythm of
particular change events or when they recognize coherence across strands that have previously
been unacknowledged, they are exercising considerable influence whether recognized or not.
Fourth, the issues we discussed here are all integral elements of process models more generally
(Langley et al. 2013). Process models almost by definition explore change (though typically not
planned change of the type we are focusing on). However, in process models’ exploration, though
temporal dimensions are crucial, they are not always explored in as much depth as they may be.
Our approach suggests a way to integrate temporal dimensions of change and process research
more fully than is typically the case by careful attention to the dimensions we have indicated.
Implications for Practice

Lewin’s model was originally designed as a prescriptive approach aimed at improving the per-
formance of small groups. It focused on the particular sequence of steps that should be undertaken
to accomplish change. It did not consider the multiple sequences, timing, pacing, rhythm, and
polyphonic components of change, and it did not consider the influential role of the change agent.
In contrast, we suggest that the dimensions of change we sketched out can be helpful to change
agents in expanding their awareness of the temporal dimensions involved in a change process.
Awareness can help make agents more conscious of multiple sequences present, the importance of
timing (and the right timing), types of pacing and rhythms, and, most important, polyphony,
especially that involving their own influence. Thus, it can make agents more sensitive to the
impacts these dimensions are having on change recipients (Oreg et al. 2013). Grant & Marshak
(2011, p. 219) argued that: “Change agents need to recognize and attend to the organizational
power and political processes underlying the situations they address and the methods they employ.
This should be seen as an ethical if not a practical imperative.” Our review suggests ways such
power and political processes may be present temporally, as well as in other, more obvious ways.
Thus, it also suggests that consultants need to develop skills in utilizing temporal insights in the
service of leading change, and this is reflected in the application of more sophisticated temporal
process models than are now standard.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
We would be dismayed if readers judged our attempt toward developing a temporal approxi-
mation of organizational change as a criticism of the man who coined the term action research,
which is only one among a long list of other contributions he made to the field. As we noted, Kurt
Lewin proposed his three-stage change model many decades ago and was writing about changes in
levels of group performance, not the complex systems we more typically address today. We
imagine that Lewin would be astonished at the widespread and creative ways his model has been
(socially) reconstructed and bemused that change scholars and others would use it to attempt to
describe complex polyphonic changes in organizations.
Scholars of change and change agents may have a deeper understanding and intuition about
polyphony and temporal dimensions of change than they have articulated, as well as of how
polyphony may increase harmony rather than discord. Barrett (2012), for example, has written
eloquently on leadership lessons from jazz and the importance of improvisation as ways that
musicians who are originally playing different rhythms or chords can learn to adjust to each other
in practice. Improvisation in jazz and organizational change is a true type of harmonious po-
lyphony, whether recognized as such or not. Narrowing its understanding to a linear three step
monophonic sequence would be something that Lewin himself would likely consider an outrage.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are unaware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might affect the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are very grateful to Barbara Bunker, Gervase Bushe, Boram Do, Doug Lepisto, Bob Marshak,
Ryan Quinn, and Wendy Smith for their assistance and helpful comments, along with comments
from participants in the May Meaning Meeting on a draft of this review.
LITERATURE CITED
Albert S. 2013. When: The Art of Perfect Timing. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons
Alderfer CP. 1977. Organization development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 28:197–223
Allport GW. 1945. Catharsis and the reduction of prejudice. J. Soc. Issues 1:3–10
Amis J, Slack T, Hinings C. 2004. The pace, sequence, and linearity of radical change. Acad. Manag. J.
47:15–39
Ancona DG, Chong C-LS. 1996. Entrainment: pace, cycle, and rhythm in organizational behavior. In Research
in Organizational Behavior: An Annual Series of Analytical Essays and Critical Reviews, ed. BM Staw,
LL Cummings, pp. 251–84. Greenwich, CT: Elsevier Sci./JAI
Ancona DG, Goodman PS, Lawrence BS, Tushman ML. 2001. Time: a new research lens. Acad. Manag. Rev.
26:645–63
Anderson P, Meyer A, Eisenhardt K, Carley K, Pettigrew A. 1999. Introduction to the special issue: applications
of complexity theory to organizational science. Organ. Sci. 10:233–36
Argyris C. 1976. Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Adm. Sci. Q. 21:363–75
Armenakis AA, Harris SG, Mossholder KW. 1993. Creating readiness for organizational change. Hum. Relat.
46:681–703
Avenier M. 2010. Shaping a constructivist view of organizational design science. Organ. Stud. 31:1229–55
Ballard DI. 2009. Organizational temporality over time: activity cycles as sources of entrainment. In Time in
Organizational Research, ed. RA Roe, MJ Waller, SR Clegg, pp. 204–19. London: Routledge
Barge JK, Oliver C. 2003. Working with appreciation in managerial practice. Acad. Manag. Rev. 28:124–42
Barrett FJ. 2012. Yes to the Mess: Surprising Leadership Lessons from Jazz. Boston: Harvard Bus. Sch. Press
Barrett FJ, Thomas GF, Hocevar SP. 1995. The central role of discourse in large-scale change: a social
construction perspective. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 31:352–72
Bartunek JM, Balogun J, Do B. 2011. Considering planned change anew: stretching large group interventions
strategically, emotionally, and meaningfully. Acad. Manag. Ann. 5:1–52
Bartunek JM, Necochea RA. 2000. Old insights and new times: kairos, Inca cosmology, and their contributions
to contemporary management inquiry. J. Manag. Inq. 9:103–13
Bartunek JM, Rousseau DM, Rudolph JW, DePalma JA. 2006. On the receiving end: sensemaking, emotion,
and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 42:182–206
Beckhard R. 1969. Organization Development: Strategies and Models. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Beckhard R, Harris RT. 1987. Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley
Beer M, Walton AE. 1987. Organization change and development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 38:339–67
Bennis WG. 1969. Organization Development: Its Nature, Origins, and Prospects. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley
Berger PL, Luckmann T. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.
Garden City, NY: Anchor
Bingham CB, Kahl SJ. 2013. The process of schema emergence: assimilation, deconstruction, unitization and
the plurality of analogies. Acad. Manag. J. 56:14–34
Bluedorn AC. 2002. The Human Organization of Time: Temporal Realities and Experience. Stanford,
CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Boje D, Burnes B, Hassard J. 2011. The Routledge Companion to Organizational Change. New York:
Routledge
Boje DM, Oswick C, Ford JD. 2004. Language and organization: the doing of discourse. Acad. Manag. Rev.
29:571–77
Brown J, Isaacs D. 2005. The World Café: Shaping Our Future through Conversations that Matter. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM. 1997. The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced
evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 42:1–34
Buchanan D, Dawson P. 2007. Discourse and audience: organizational change as multi-story process.
J. Manag. Stud. 44:669–86
Bunker BB, Alban BT. 1992. The large group intervention—a new social innovation? J. Appl. Behav. Sci.
28:473–79
Bunker BB, Alban BT. 1997. Large Group Interventions: Engaging the Whole System for Rapid Change. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Bunker BB, Alban BT. 2006. The Handbook of Large Group Methods: Creating Systemic Change in
Organizations and Communities. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons
Bunker BB, Alban BT. 2014. Large group interventions. In The NTL Handbook of Organization Development
and Change: Principles, Practices, and Perspectives, ed. BB Jones, M Brazzel, p. 407–27. San Francisco:
Wiley. 2nd ed.
Burnes B. 2005. Complexity theories and organizational change. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 7:73–90
Burnes B, Cooke B. 2012. Review article: the past, present and future of organization development: taking the
long view. Hum. Relat. 65:1395–429
Burrell G, Morgan G. 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of
Corporate Life. London: Heinemann
Bushe GR, Marshak RJ. 2009. Revisioning organization development: diagnostic and dialogic premises and
patterns of practice. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 45:348–68
Bushe GR, Marshak RJ. 2014. The dialogic mindset in organization development. Res. Organ. Change Dev.
22:55–97
Coghlan D. 2011. Action research: exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing. Acad. Manag.
Ann. 5:53–87
Cooperrider DL, Srivastva S. 1987. Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. In Research in Organizational
Change and Development, ed. RW Woodman, WA Pasmore, Vol. 1, pp. 129–70. Greenwich, CT: JAI
Cooperrider D, Whitney DD. 2005. Appreciative Inquiry: A Positive Revolution in Change. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler
Corley KG, Gioia DA. 2004. Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Adm. Sci. Q.
49:173–208
Emery F, Trist E. 1960. Socio-technical systems. In Management Sciences: Models and Techniques, ed.
CW Churchman, M Verhulst, pp. 83–97. London: Pergamon
Emery M, Purser RE. 1996. The Search Conference: A Powerful Method for Planning Organizational Change
and Community Action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Faucheux C, Amado G, Laurent A. 1982. Organizational development and change. Annu. Rev. Psychol.
33:343–70
Ford JD, Ford L. 2009. The Four Conversations: Daily Communication that Gets Results. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler
Ford JD, Ford LW. 1995. The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 20:541–70
Ford JD, Ford LW, D’Amelio A. 2008. Resistance to change: the rest of the story. Acad. Manag. Rev. 33:362–77
French WL, Bell CH. 1995. Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization
Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Friedlander F, Brown LD. 1974. Organization development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 25:313–41
Gehman J, Trevino LK, Garud R. 2013. Values work: a process study of the emergence and performance of
organizational values practices. Acad. Manag. J. 56:84–112
Gergen, KJ. 1982. Toward Transformation in Social Knowledge. New York: Springer-Verlag
Gergen MM, Gergen KJ, Barrett F. 2004. Appreciative inquiry as dialogue: generative and transformative. In
Constructive Discourse and Human Organization: Advances in Appreciative Inquiry, Vol. 1, ed. DL
Cooperrider, M Avital, p. 3–27. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Gersick CJ. 1988. Time and transition in work teams: toward a new model of group development. Acad.
Manag. J. 31:9–41
Grant D, Marshak RJ. 2011. Toward a discourse-centered understanding of organizational change. J. Appl.
Behav. Sci. 47:204–35
Greenwood R, Hinings CR. 1988. Organizational design types, tracks and the dynamics of strategic change.
Organ. Stud. 9:293–316
Hardy C, Lawrence TB, Grant D. 2005. Discourse and collaboration: the role of conversations and collective
identity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 30:58–77
Helms Mills J. 2003. Making Sense of Organizational Change. London: Routledge
Hendry C. 1996. Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning theory. Hum.
Relat. 49:621–41
Heracleous L, Barrett M. 2001. Organizational change as discourse: communicative actions and deep
structures in the context of information technology implementation. Acad. Manag. J. 44:755–78
Heracleous L, Marshak RJ. 2004. Conceptualizing organizational discourse as situated symbolic action.
Hum. Relat. 57:1285–312
Holman P, Devane T, Cady S. 2007. The Change Handbook: The Definitive Resource on Today’s Best
Methods for Engaging Whole Systems. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. 2nd ed.
Huy QN. 2001. Time, temporal capability, and planned change. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26:601–23
Isaacs W. 1999. Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. New York: Currency
Isabella LA. 1990. Evolving interpretations as a change unfolds: how managers construe key organizational
events. Acad. Manag. J. 33:7–41
Jacobs RH. 1997. Real Time Strategic Change: How to Involve an Entire Organization in Fast and Far-
Reaching Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Jansen KJ. 2004. From persistence to pursuit: a longitudinal examination of momentum during the early stages
of strategic change. Organ. Sci. 15:276–94

Kanter RM, Stein BA, Jick TD. 1992. The challenge of organizational change. New York: Free
Klarner P, Raisch S. 2013. Move to the beat—rhythms of change and firm performance. Acad. Manag. J.
56:160–84
Langley A. 1999. Strategies for theorizing from process data. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24:691–710
Langley A, Smallman C, Tsoukas H, Van de Ven AH. 2013. Process studies of change in organization and
management: unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Acad. Manag. J. 56:1–13
Lewin K. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics: I. Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria.
Hum. Relat. 1:5–40
Lewin K. 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper
Lichtenstein B. 2014. Generative Emergence: A New Discipline of Organizational, Entrepreneurial and Social
Innovation. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Lindaman EB, Lippitt RO. 1979. Choosing the Future You Prefer: A Goal-Setting Guide. Ann Arbor, MI:
Hum. Resource Dev. Assoc.
Ludema JD, Whitney D, Mohr BJ, Griffin TJ. 2003. The Appreciative Inquiry Summit: A Practitioner’s Guide
for Leading Large-Group Change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Madden LT, Duchon D, Madden TM, Plowman DA. 2012. Emergent organizational capacity for compassion.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 37:689–708
Maitlis S, Christianson M. 2014. Sensemaking in organizations: taking stock and moving forward. Acad.
Manag. Ann. 8:57–125
Mantere S, Schildt HA, Sillince JA. 2012. Reversal of strategic change. Acad. Manag. J. 55:172–96
Marrow AJ. 1969. The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin. New York: Basic Books
Marshak RJ. 1993. Lewin meets Confucius: a review of the OD model of change. J. Appl. Behav. Sci.
29:393–415
Marshak RJ, Grant D. 2008. Organizational discourse and new organization development practices.
Br. J. Manag. 19:S7–19
Martins L. 2011. Organizational change and development. In APA Handbook of Industrial and Organi-
zational Psychology, Vol. 3, ed. S Zedeck, pp. 691–728. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
Mencken HL. 1917. A Book of Prefaces. New York: Knopf. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/19355
May 1, 2014
Mintzberg H, Westley F. 1992. Cycles of organizational change. Strateg. Manag. J. 13:39–59
Mirvis PH. 1988. Organization development: part I—an evolutionary perspective. In Research in Orga-
nizational Change and Development, Vol. 2, ed. WA Pasmore, RW Woodman, pp. 1–57. Greenwich,
CT: JAI
Mirvis PH. 1990. Organization development: part II—a revolutionary perspective. In Research in Orga-
nizational Change and Development, Vol. 4, ed. WA Pasmore, RW Woodman, pp. 1–66. Greenwich,
CT: JAI
Mizruchi MS, Fein LC. 1999. The social construction of organizational knowledge: a study of the uses of
coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Adm. Sci. Q. 44:653–83
Moch MK, Bartunek JM. 1990. Creating Alternative Realities at Work: The Quality of Work Life Experiment
at FoodCom. New York: Harper Bus.
Mohr LB. 1982. Explaining Organizational Behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Nadler DA. 1977. Feedback and Organization Development: Using Data-Based Methods. Boston: Addison-
Wesley Longman
Oreg S, Michel A, By RT, eds. 2013. The Psychology of Organizational Change: Viewing Change from the
Employee’s Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Orlikowski WJ, Yates J. 2002. It’s about time: temporal structuring in organizations. Organ. Sci. 13:684–700
Oswick C. 2009. Revisioning or re-versioning? A commentary on diagnostic and dialogic forms of organi-
zation development. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 45:369–74
Owen H. 1994. Open Space Technology. Potomac, MD: Abbott
Palmer I, Dunford R. 1996. Conflicting uses of metaphors: reconceptualizing their use in the field of orga-
nizational change. Acad. Manag. Rev. 21:691–717
Pasmore WA, Fagans M. 1992. Participation, individual development, and organizational change: a review
and synthesis. J. Manag. 18:375–97
Pasmore WA, Friedlander F. 1982. An action-research program for increasing employee involvement in
problem solving. Adm. Sci. Q. 27:343–62
Pettigrew AM, Woodman RW, Cameron KS. 2001. Studying organizational change and development:
challenges for future research. Acad. Manag. J. 44:697–713
Phillips N, Hardy C. 2002. Discourse Analysis: Investigating Processes of Social Construction, Vol.
50. Qualitative Research Methods Series. London: Sage
Phillips N, Oswick C. 2012. Organizational discourse: domains, debates, and directions. Acad. Manag. Ann.
6:435–81
Porras JI, Silvers RC. 1991. Organization development and transformation. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 42:51–78
Purser RE, Petranker J. 2005. Unfreezing the future: exploring the dynamic of time in organizational change.
J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 41:182–203
Rodell JB, Colquitt JA. 2009. Looking ahead in times of uncertainty: the role of anticipatory justice in an
organizational change context. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:989–1002
Schein EH. 1990. Organizational culture. Am. Psychol. 45:109–19
Schein EH. 1996. Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes toward a model of
managed learning. Syst. Pract. 9:27–47
Seo M, Putnam L, Bartunek JM. 2004. Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change. In Handbook
of Organizational Change and Innovation, ed. MS Poole, AH Van de Ven, pp. 73–109. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press
Sonenshein S. 2010. We’re changing—Or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and stability
narratives during strategic change implementation. Acad. Manag. J. 53:477–512
Spencer LJ. 1989. Winning Through Participation: Meeting the Challenge of Corporate Change with the
Technology of Participation. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
Stacey RD. 1996. Complexity and Creativity in Organisations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Stacey RD. 2005. Experiencing Emergence in Organizations: Local Interaction and the Emergence of Global
Patterns. New York: Routledge
Thomas R, Sargent LD, Hardy C. 2011. Managing organizational change: negotiating meaning and power-
resistance relations. Organ. Sci. 22:22–41
Tichy NM, Sherman S. 1993. Control Your Destiny or Someone Else Will: How Jack Welch Is Making General
Electric the World’s Most Competitive Corporation. New York: Doubleday
Tsoukas H. 1991. The missing link: a transformational view of metaphors in organizational science. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 16:566–85
Tsoukas H. 2005. Afterword: why language matters in the analysis of organizational change. J. Organ. Change
Manag. 18:96–104
Tushman M, Romanelli E. 1985. Organizational revolution: a metamorphosis model of convergence and
reorientation. Res. Organ. Behav. 7:171–222
Tyre MJ, Orlikowski WJ. 1994. Windows of opportunity: temporal patterns of technological adaptation in
organizations. Organ. Sci. 5(1):98–118
van Aken JE. 2007. Design science and organization development interventions: aligning business and hu-
manistic values. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 43:67–88
Van de Ven AH. 2007. Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research. New York:
Oxford Univ. Press
van Nistelrooij A, Sminia H. 2010. Organization development: What’s actually happening? J. Change Manag.
10:407–20
Weick KE, Quinn RE. 1999. Organizational change and development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 50:361–86
Weisbord M. 1987. Productive Workplaces. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weisbord M, Janoff S. 1995. Future Search: Finding Common Ground for Action in Organizations. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Wiebe E. 2010. Temporal sensemaking: managers’ use of time to frame organizational change. In Process,
Sensemaking and Organizing, ed. T Hermes, S Maitlis, pp. 213–41. Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
Woodman RW. 1989. Organizational change and development: new arenas for inquiry and action. J. Manag.
15:205–28
Woodman RW. 2008. Discourse, metaphor and organizational change: the wine is new but the bottle is old.
Br. J. Manag. 19:S33–37
Zietsma C, Lawrence TB. 2010. Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: the
interplay of boundary work and practice work. Adm. Sci. Q. 55:189–221

Bartunek - Woodman2015 - A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bartunek - Woodman2015 - A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

arop2Bartunek ARI 17 December 2014 21:51

Review in Advance first posted online

Beyond Lewin: Toward

Development and Change

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015. Keywords

(Mencken 1917, p. 95)

Planned organizational change, most frequently referred to as organization development (OD),

DEPICTING CHANGE IN ORGANIZATION DEVELOPMENT

8.2 Bartunek  Woodman

Introducing a New Emphasis in OD

LEWIN’S MODEL OF CHANGE

www.annualreviews.org  A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.3

As is evident in the sidebar, Lewin’s Complete Description of the Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze

Use of Lewin’s Model

LEWIN’S COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF THE UNFREEZE-CHANGE-REFREEZE MODEL

Changing as Three Steps: Unfreezing, Moving, and Freezing of Group Standards

8.4 Bartunek  Woodman

Criticisms of Lewin’s Model

www.annualreviews.org  A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.5

THE NEW DIALOGIC OD

Differences Between the New and Old OD

Epistemology. Epistemologically, Bushe & Marshak (2009) described classic, diagnostic OD as

8.6 Bartunek  Woodman

Intervention approach. Diagnostic OD typically includes interventions aimed at resolving iden-

How Dialogic OD Came to Be

www.annualreviews.org  A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.7

8.8 Bartunek  Woodman

1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s

Emphasis on Search Conference Lindaman & Large group interventions

Conversational Gergen (1982) Ford & Ford Boje et al. (2004)

A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change

8.10 Bartunek  Woodman

TEMPORAL STRUCTURES AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

The Development of the New OD from the Perspective of Lewin’s Model

www.annualreviews.org  A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.11

A Temporal Approximation of Change

8.12 Bartunek  Woodman

Table 2 Temporal dimensions of change, their components, and suggested questions

Sequence Stages What is/are the types of sequences present?

Is the sequence linear?

A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change

accompanied by an “emotional stir-up”, had to occur in order for there to be a window of

Monophony/polyphony. Finally, a crucial dimension is whether change is monophonic, carried

8.14 Bartunek  Woodman

The Temporal Development of the New OD

www.annualreviews.org  A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.15

The Temporal Construction of the New OD in Relation to the Old OD

8.16 Bartunek  Woodman

An Illustrative Use of the Temporal Model

www.annualreviews.org  A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.17

Organizations progress through convergent periods punctuated by reorientations which demark

8.18 Bartunek  Woodman

Implications for Theory and Research

www.annualreviews.org  A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.19

Table 3 Implications for theory, research, and practice

Implications for Major tasks Specifics

Implications for Practice

8.20 Bartunek  Woodman

www.annualreviews.org  A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.21

8.22 Bartunek  Woodman

www.annualreviews.org  A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.23

of strategic change. Organ. Sci. 15:276–94

8.24 Bartunek  Woodman

8.2 Bartunek Woodman

www.annualreviews.org A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.3

8.4 Bartunek Woodman

www.annualreviews.org A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.5

8.6 Bartunek Woodman

www.annualreviews.org A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.7

8.8 Bartunek Woodman

8.10 Bartunek Woodman

www.annualreviews.org A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.11

8.12 Bartunek Woodman

8.14 Bartunek Woodman

www.annualreviews.org A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.15

8.16 Bartunek Woodman

www.annualreviews.org A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.17

8.18 Bartunek Woodman

www.annualreviews.org A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.19

8.20 Bartunek Woodman

www.annualreviews.org A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.21

8.22 Bartunek Woodman

www.annualreviews.org A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.23

8.24 Bartunek Woodman

www.annualreviews.org A Temporal Approximation of OD and Change 8.25

8.26 Bartunek Woodman