Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/271722643
CITATIONS READS
35 3,262
2 authors, including:
Jean M Bartunek
Boston College, USA
166 PUBLICATIONS 6,973 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Jean M Bartunek on 15 April 2015.
157
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.
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
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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 Review 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.
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.
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
Review 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.
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
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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)
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.
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:157-182. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Indeed, it has been said that the whole theory of change is reducible to this one idea of Kurt Lewin’s.
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. 187) 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
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
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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 dialog 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.”
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.
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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 on 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.
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
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:157-182. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
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; see Bunker & Alban 2014, p. 409) to work together “to consider what kind of new
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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
Strands of the
new OD Decades
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 (Brown &
1995), Real Time Strategic Alban 1992, Isaacs 2005,
Change (Jacobs 1997), Work- 1997) Bunker & Alban
Out (Tichy & Sherman 1993), 2006, Holman
and Open Space Technology et al. 2007)
(Owen 1994)
Conversational Gergen (1982) Ford & Ford Boje et al. (2004)
approaches to (1995)
change
Appreciative Theoretical foundations Appreciative Appreciative
165
(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 &
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:157-182. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
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,
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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.
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.
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
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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, pp. 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
Temporal dimensions
of change Components of temporal dimensions Questions suggested by the temporal dimensions and components
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?
169
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
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:157-182. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
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.
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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.
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 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.
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).
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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 strands. 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 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.
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.
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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 much that goes 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.
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
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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 are 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,
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.
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:157-182. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
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
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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.
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
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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, and to those who com-
mented on a draft of this review at the May Meaning Meeting.
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
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
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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
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
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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
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
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.
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
Group Affect
Sigal G. Barsade and Andrew P. Knight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The Modeling and Assessment of Work Performance
John P. Campbell and Brenton M. Wiernik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Justice, Fairness, and Employee Reactions
Jason A. Colquitt and Kate P. Zipay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Methodological and Substantive Issues in Conducting Multinational and
Cross-Cultural Research
Paul E. Spector, Cong Liu, and Juan I. Sanchez . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Leadership Development: An Outcome-Oriented Review Based on Time and
Levels of Analyses
David V. Day and Lisa Dragoni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Beyond Lewin: Toward a Temporal Approximation of Organization
Development and Change
Jean M. Bartunek and Richard W. Woodman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Beyond the Big Five: New Directions for Personality Research and Practice in
Organizations
Leaetta M. Hough, Frederick L. Oswald, and Jisoo Ock . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
Corporate Social Responsibility: Psychological, Person-Centric, and
Progressing
Deborah E. Rupp and Drew B. Mallory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Time in Individual-Level Organizational Studies: What Is It, How Is It Used,
and Why Isn’t It Exploited More Often?
Abbie J. Shipp and Michael S. Cole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
vi
Dynamics of Well-Being
Sabine Sonnentag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
Low-Fidelity Simulations
Jeff A. Weekley, Ben Hawkes, Nigel Guenole, and Robert E. Ployhart . . . 295
Emotional Labor at a Crossroads: Where Do We Go from Here?
Alicia A. Grandey and Allison S. Gabriel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
Supporting the Aging Workforce: A Review and Recommendations for
Workplace Intervention Research
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:157-182. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Ethical Leadership
Deanne N. Den Hartog . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
Differential Validity and Differential Prediction of Cognitive Ability Tests:
Understanding Test Bias in the Employment Context
Christopher M. Berry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435
Organizational Routines as Patterns of Action: Implications for Organizational
Behavior
Brian T. Pentland and Thorvald Hærem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
Pay, Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, Performance, and Creativity
in the Workplace: Revisiting Long-Held Beliefs
Barry Gerhart and Meiyu Fang . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
Stereotype Threat in Organizations: Implications for Equity and Performance
Gregory M. Walton, Mary C. Murphy, and Ann Marie Ryan . . . . . . . . . . 523
Technology and Assessment in Selection
Nancy T. Tippins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
Workplace Stress Management Interventions and Health Promotion
Lois E. Tetrick and Carolyn J. Winslow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 583
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and
Organizational Behavior articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/
errata/orgpsych.
Contents vii
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2015.2:157-182. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Professor Jean Bartunek on 04/14/15. For personal use only.