Get started Open in app

Alfonso Fernández

Follow 131 Followers About

Theories of organizational change based on

the process
Alfonso Fernández Jan 5, 2018 · 6 min read

Introduction
Several theories allow us to explain organizational change and development. These
proposals can be grouped in different ways. According to a framework designed under
“mode of change” criteria and “unit of change” criteria, we define four ideal change
engines (Van de Ven 1995): (1) life cycle theories, (2) evolutionary theories, (3)
dialectical theories and (4) teleological theories. First of all, we will describe each of
them:

Lifecycle theories (regulated change)

This theory adapts the metaphor/analogy of organic growth to organizational context
as a tool permits us to explain different stages of development. Some theories can be
framed in this group: developmentalism, ontogenesis, metamorphosis …

According to lifecycle, we can state three fundamental groups (Aldritch 1999):

Developmental model: Change happens during a cycle always composed by the

emergency stage, growth stage, maturity stage and decline stage.

Scenario model: It assumes the previous sequence of development but modifies it

introducing different phases where the managers make decisions.

Metamorphosis model: It is halfway between theories of development and

evolutionary theories. They postulate that changes occur when the structure of the
organization does not fit the environment. In development, theories are the key to
 successful internal restructuring, while in metamorphosis models they state that
change occurs abruptly rather than gradually. There is a misunderstanding in
presuming that evolutionary models only undergo soft and incremental changes in
an organization. There is no pre-established rate of change in evolutionary models.
In this way, metamorphosis models can be classified as a specific case of an
evolutionary model.

Another kind of division could be composed according to whether the generative

mechanism is regulated by natural, logical or institutional norms. If the mechanism is
regulated by natural or logical forces, determinism is much greater than if it is by
institutional ones.

These theories emphasize a lot the sequentially of well-defined and unavoidable

stages. Where each one of the posterior states depends on a group of outputs framed in
previous cycle stages. Thus, they are theories with a prominent deterministic
component. The scope affects usually to one entity. Nevertheless, some models not
only fit into the organization as a unit of analysis but also are used with a higher unit of
analysis instead of the organization (Aldritch 1999).

Evolutionary theories (Change because of

competition)
This framework understands evolution as the set of changes accumulated in the
structural forms of organizations, communities, business or society in general.
Analogously to evolutionary biology, change comes from cycles of variation-selection
and retention. In the first variations occur randomly, simply happen. Selection is
produced because of competence for scarce resources, the ecosystem selects best-fit
entities. Finally, retention allows perpetuating or maintaining some kind of success
changes, so it is a “firewall” of the feedback effect in this process.

In this frame, the change is recurrent, accumulative and explained by probabilistic

distribution inside VSR (Variation-Selection-Retention) processes.

It exists on several currents inside the evolutionary theories field. We stress the
division between Darwinism advocates, establishing that the traits are inherited
through intergenerational processes (Hannan and Freeman, McKelvey), and
Lamarckian supporters, who consider traits like features acquired in a generation by
means of learning and imitation (Weck, Burgelman). The last approach, a priori, seems
more appropriate in an organizational scenario than the strict Darwinism.

These theories explain the change from a multi-entity perspective, and in terms of the
degree of determinism/voluntarism there are theoretical currents with a high degree
of determinism, such as population ecology, and other more deterministic ones such as
“Evolutionary theory”.

Dialectical theories (change because of conflict)

These theories are characterized by the assumption that organizations exist in a plural
world of forces and events constantly shocking and competing for domination and
control. This opposition can be treated not only from an internal perspective but also
taking into account the external forces to the organization.

In these theories stability and change are explained by the balance between power and
opposing forces. Changes are produced when one of the forces excels and breaks the
status quo.

There are two main approaches in this current:

The Hegelian perspective of permanent conflict between the thesis/antithesis and

the attainment of a synthesis as an outcome.

The Bakhtinian process, in this process strains generated by existing dualism,

remain constant and exist simultaneously, the change is produced by means of the
entity reaction to those strains (Werner and Baxter 1994). The reaction can be
negation, inverse spiral, segmentation, balance, integration, recalibration, and
reaffirmation.

Teleological theories (intentional change)

Another school of thought is the teleological theory. Examples of these approaches are
functionalism (Merton 1968), decision making (March and Simon 1958), epigenesist
(Etzioni 1963), voluntarism (Parsons 1951), adaptative learning (March and Olsen
1976) …
The teleological theories are characterized by representing an organization directed
towards specific objectives. It is determined, adaptive and structures its actions aimed
at an end, monitoring the way. The development is given by a constant reformulation
of those objectives, through a constant feedback cycle based on the perception of an
organizational problem.

These approaches have a bigger voluntarist component than the life-cycle ones and
interpret the development and organizational change from a single entity point of
view.

The reality of the change is a little more complex

Although we have defined two variables on which we have characterized 4 change
engines, the increasingly complex organizational contexts make it necessary to use
several engines to explain more exactly what is happening. In addition, the need to
analyze more extensive series temporarily increases the likelihood that more change
engines will come into play. Let’s illustrate this statement with several examples:

It is plausible that in some contexts the synthesis of the opposition described by the
dialectical theories is used as the origin of a variation within the cycle of
evolutionary theories.

The process of selection in the evolutionary cycle can be used to equate it with the
final stage in life cycle theories.

Thus, new theories have emerged which can be characterized by the defined
framework associating several change engines.

As we have seen, the engines can operate at distinct levels of analysis. So let’s see what
are the main ways in which these engines can be related (Van de Ven and Poole
Handbook of organizational change and innovation page 387):

Nested: The engines of the lower level of analysis are firmly linked to the higher
level, serving functions to them.

Both the upper and lower levels influence each other but there is no well-
defined and solid process that unites them, so they are not as synchronized as the
nested ones.
 Aggregates, when the action of several lower level motors ends up constituting a
process of the higher level motor. Therefore, there is a high dependency on the
high-level engines of the low-level ones.

Bibliography
Aldritch, H.E. and Ruef, M. (1999) Organizations Evolving, SAGE Publications.

Etzioni A. (1963). The epigenesis of political communities at the international

level. American Journal of Sociology, 68, 407–421.

Hannan, Michael T. And John Freeman (1977) “The population ecology of

organizations.” American Journal of Sociology.

Hannan, M.T. and J. Freeman (1989) Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A. ([1958]1993) Organizations, Cambridge,

MA: Blackwell.

March, J. G. & Olsen, J. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations.

Merton Robert K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure, Free Press.

Parsons T. (1951) The social system Glencoe, Ill: Free Press.

Van de Ven, A. H. and Poole, M. S. (1995) ‘Explaining development and change in

organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 20: 510–40.

Van de Ven and Poole (2004), Handbook of organizational change and innovation,
Oxford Universty Press.

Werner, c. m., and baxter, l. a. (1994). “temporal qualities of relationships:

organismic, transactional and dialectical views.” in handbook of interpersonal
communication, 2nd edition, ed. m. l. knapp and g. r. miller. newbury park, ca:
sage publications.

Some rights reserved

 Strategy Organizational Change Change Management How Change Happens

About Help Legal

Get the Medium app