Gabriel Kamau Kung’u

Mount Kenya University, Kigali, Rwanda

Doctoral student

gabkkamau@gmail.com

ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE AND

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

ABSTRACT

Organizational change is triggered by the ever changing business environment, political,

economic, cultural, competitor initiatives, technological innovations, globalization, or
restructuring, among others. This paper discusses the crucial aspects of dealing with the volatile
business environment looking at how best to manage change. It focuses on organization
development which is a broad term comprising, among other things, organizational culture and
organizational change. Organizational Development (OD) is seen as mostly proactive, that is, is
initiated by managers/owners and focuses on how best to develop an organization. It runs from
the initial stage of inception of ideas to form an organization (start-up stage) all through to the
development working structures and strategic goals. On the other hand, organizational culture
focuses on how best the so formed organization and structures can be safeguarded, how best to
achieve the set goals, how to carry ourselves around. In other words, organizational culture
attempts to freeze the developments or changes made so far in such a way that they are more
effective and efficiently used. However, the organization is surrounded by so many factors, both
within and without, that are ever changing and can trigger a change, even to the best laid plans.
Here is where organizational change comes in. Organizational change is both proactive and
reactive. If it is planned and initiated by management, then it is proactive. But if it is in response
to externalities or even internal shocks, then it is reactive. Organizational change focuses on
unfreezing the existing structures and cultures in an attempt to make the organization affluent
with the current technologies and challenges. Hence, there exists interplay between
organizational development, organizational culture and organizational change, which forms the
interest of this discussion.
Key Words: Organizational Development, Organizational Culture, Organizational Change, Kurt Lewin’s
Change Theory

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2686104

 Contents
ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ 0
1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 3
2.1.1 Theories Governing OD ........................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1.1 The Action Research Theory ................................................................................................. 4
2.1.1.2 Complexity Theory ............................................................................................................... 4
2.1.1.3 Social Constructionism Theory ............................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Steps Involved in OD ............................................................................................................... 5
2.1.3 Areas Where OD can be Applied.............................................................................................. 6
2.2 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ....................................................................................................... 6
2.2.1 Functions of Organizational Culture ........................................................................................ 7
2.2.1.1 Behavioral Control ............................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1.2 Encourages stability ............................................................................................................. 8
2.2.1.3 Provides Source of Identity ................................................................................................... 8
2.2.3 Liabilities of Culture ................................................................................................................ 8
2.2.3.1 Barrier to Change and Improvement .................................................................................... 8
2.2.3.2 Barrier to Diversity ............................................................................................................... 9
2.2.3.3 Barrier to Cross Departmental and Cross Organizational Cooperation .................................. 9
2.2.3.4 Barrier to Mergers and Acquisitions ..................................................................................... 9
2.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE ...................................................................................................... 10
2.3.1 Types of changes ................................................................................................................... 13
2.3.2 Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory .................................................................................................. 14
2.3.3 Barriers to Change................................................................................................................. 15
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 16
REFERENCE .................................................................................................................................... 16

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2686104

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Organizational change is triggered by the ever changing business environment, political,
economic, cultural, competitor initiatives, technological innovations, globalization, or
restructuring, among others. While organizations are focused on achieving their strategic goals,
the environment they are operating in may call for redesigning of the organization’s goals
sometimes to a small degree while sometimes an overhaul of how things are done. This paper
discusses the crucial aspects of dealing with the volatile business environment looking at how
best to manage change. It focuses on organization development which is a broad term
comprising, among other things, organizational culture and organizational change. A quick view
of organizational development is mostly proactive, that is, is initiated by managers/owners and
focuses on how best to develop an organization. It runs from the initial stage of inception of
ideas to form an organization (start-up stage) all through to developing working structures and
strategic goals. On the other hand, organizational culture focuses on how best the so formed
organization and structures can be safeguarded, how best to achieve the set goals, how to carry
ourselves around. In other words, organizational culture attempts to freeze the developments or
changes made so far in such a way that they are more effective and efficiently used. However,
the organization is surrounded by so many factors, both within and without, that are ever
changing and can trigger a change, even to the best laid plans. Here is where organizational
change comes in. Organizational change is both proactive and reactive. If it is planned and
initiated by management, then it is proactive. But if it is in response to externalities or even
internal shocks, then it is reactive. Organizational change focuses on unfreezing the existing
structures and cultures in an attempt to make the organization affluent with the current
technologies and challenges. Hence, there exists interplay between organizational development,
organizational culture and organizational change.

2
2.1 ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
The pace of global, economic and technological development makes change an inevitable feature
of organizational life. However, change that happens to an organization can be distinguished
from change that is planned by its members. That is, change that comes as a force from external
or from even within the organization from the change that is well planned and anticipated.
Organizational development is a field of research, theory, and practice dedicated to expanding
the knowledge and effectiveness of people to accomplish more successful organizational change
and performance. OD is a process of continuous diagnosis, action planning, implementation and
evaluation, with the goal of transferring knowledge and skills to organizations to improve their
capacity for solving problems and managing future change. Organizational development is meant
to bring about planned change to increase an organization’s effectiveness and capability to
change itself. It is generally initiated and done by managers, often with the help of an OD
practitioner from either inside or outside of the organization. Organizations can use planned
change to solve problems, to learn from experience, to reframe shared perceptions, to adapt to
external environmental changes, to improve performance, and to influence future changes. All
approaches to OD rely on some theory about planned change. The theories describe the different
stages through which planned change may be effected in organizations and explain the temporal
process of applying OD methods to help organization members manage change (Cumming &
Wolley, 2014).

Organization development can be distinguished from change management and organizational

change. OD and change management both address the effective implementation of planned
change. They are both concerned with the sequence of activities, the processes, and the
leadership that produce organization improvements. They differ, however in their underlying
value orientation. OD’s foundations support values of human potential, participation and
development in addition to performance and competitive advantage. Change management
focuses more narrowly on values of cost, quality and schedule. As a result, OD’s distinguishing
feature is its concerns with the transfer of knowledge and skill so that the organization is more
able to manage change in the future. Change management does not necessarily require the
transfer of these skills. In short, all OD involves change management, but change management
may not involve OD. Similarly, organizational change is a broader concept than OD. OD is
primarily concerned with managing change in such a way that knowledge and skills are

3
transferred to build the organization’s capability to achieve goals and solve problems. It is
intended to change the organization in a particular direction, towards improved problem solving,
responsiveness and effectiveness. Organizational change, in contrast, is more broadly focused
and can apply to any kind of change, including technical and managerial innovations,
organization decline, or the evolution of a system over time. These changes may or may not be
directed at making the organization more developed in the sense implied by OD (Cumming &
Wolley, 2014).

2.1.1 Theories Governing OD

Many theories have been put forward concerning organization development. This section only
looks at some of the major theories in the field of OD.

2.1.1.1 The Action Research Theory

This theory or model is credited to Kurt Lewin in the mid 1940’s. This theory is the foundation
stone of organizational development practice and states that there can not be action without
research nor research without action. The theory provides the very heart of the purpose of the
OD diagnostic stage in the OD cycle. It provides the basis to build the knowledge of the causes
and dynamics of organizational issues, the understanding of organizational change and the need
for collaborative inquiry between OD practitioner and the organizational players experiencing
the change. Ultimately the theory provides both the theoretical underpinnings and the pragmatic
applications of organizational change (McLean, 2006).

2.1.1.2 Complexity Theory

In complexity theory, as found in the work of Amagoh (2008), the future is unknowable and as
such the ability to learn is absolutely critical to ongoing organization effectiveness, navigating
the paradox of the desire for stability with that of the need to flex, adapt and change. Too much
stability will stagnant the organization and prevent proactive adaptive change, too little and the
organization becomes impossible to manage. Complexity theory therefore promotes the idea of
organizations as complex adaptive systems which need to respond to the external and internal
environment by remaining on the edge of chaos whilst at the same time self-organizing and
continuously re-inventing the organizational. The proponents include Morgan (1997), Wheatley
(1992), Black (2000) and Stacey (2000).

4
2.1.1.3 Social Constructionism Theory

In the field of OD, social constructionism aims to uncover the way in which employees, teams
and departments within the organization interact with each other and participate in their self
created groups to develop their own perceived reality of the organization. The social constructed
reality provides the backdrop for the culture and organizational traditions that make up ‘the way
things are done around here.’ The reality of what is isn’t at play, but rather the representations,
perceptions, ideas, language and beliefs that make up the perceived concrete reality of the
organization.

The meaning we derive from the actions and experiences within the organization are developed
through interacting and assimilating ideas with other people within a social situation. The
significance of this theory to OD practitioner is that organizational truth and reality is in fact a
socially constructed idea which is based on experiences and attitudes relating to the past,
possible futures, self, others and the organization. These ‘ideas’ can be disseminated by listening
to the stories and narratives within the system. Furthermore, the ‘reality’ of the organization
future prospects can be changed by injecting positive and modified alternatives through the
creation of conversation. This theory originated from sociology (Mead 1934, Berger and
Luckman 1966) but very applicable to an organization, which by the virtual of having people
becomes a social structure.

2.1.2 Steps Involved in OD

A common OD approach used to help organizations negotiate change, i.e. action research,
consists of four steps as suggested by Benard (2009).

1. Diagnosis
 Helps organization identify problems that may interfere with its effectiveness and
assess the underlying causes
 Usually done by OD enlisting the help of an outside specialist to help identify
problems by examining its mission, goals, policies, structures and technologies;
climate and culture; environmental factors; desired outcomes and readiness to
take action.
 Usually done through key informant interviews or formal surveys of all members.
2. Action planning

5
  Strategic interventions for addressing diagnosed problems are developed.
 The organization is engaged in an action planning process to assess the feasibility
of implementing different change strategies that lead to action.
3. Intervention
 Change steps are specified and sequenced, progress monitored, and stakeholder
commitment is cultivated.
4. Evaluation
 Assess the planned change efforts by tracking the organization's progress in
implementing the change and by documenting its impact on the organization

2.1.3 Areas Where OD can be Applied

OD might be used in some of the following situations: 1) to develop or enhance the

organization’s mission and vision statements and strategic plan; 2) to help align functional
structures in an organization so that they are working towards a common goal; 3) to manage
conflict that exists among individuals, groups, or functions; 4) to put into place processes that
will help improve the ongoing operations of the organization; 5) to create a collaborative
environment that helps the organization be more effective and efficient; 6) to create reward
systems that are compatible with the goals of the organization; 7) to assist in the development of
policies and procedures that will improve the ongoing operation of the organization; 8) to do a
SWOT analysis and improve accordingly; 9) to assist in creating systems for providing feedback
and that allow for further research and development; among other areas. (McLean, 2006)

2.2 ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE

According to Dessler (2011), organization culture refers to characteristics of values, traditions, or
behaviors that company employees share. A value is a basic belief about what is right or wrong;
or in other words, about what should be done or not done. Values are important because they
guide and channel a person’s behavior. Managing people and shaping their behavior therefore
depends on shaping the values they use as behavior guides. Organizational culture is divided into
three different levels. The first level of culture involves the artifacts. Artifacts and creations
include constructed physical and social environment, physical space and layout, technological
output, written and spoken language and overt behavior of group members.

6
Level two involves espoused values. These are values and beliefs that guide a person’s behavior.
While level three involves basic underlying assumptions. In this level, when a solution to a
problem works repeatedly, it comes to be taken for granted and becomes a norm of practice.
These are therefore, assumptions that actually guide behavior and determine how group members
perceive, think and feel about things (Aryasri & Aijaz, 2013).

Different types of organization culture can be found in an organization. Some of these include
power culture, role culture, task culture and person culture. The power culture depends on a
certain power source with rays of influence from a central figure throughout the organization.
This kind of culture is mostly found in small entrepreneurial organization and rules on trust,
empathy and personal communication for its effectiveness. Control is exercised from the center
by the selection of key individual. There are a few rules and procedures and little bureaucracy. It
is a political organization with decisions taken largely on the balance of influence. On the other
hand role culture is bureaucratic and works by logic and rationality. It rests on the strength of
organizational pillar, the functions of specialists. The work of and interaction between the pillars
is controlled by procedures and rules and coordinated by the pediment of a small band of senior
managers. Role or job description is often more important than the main sources of power
(Schein, 2010).

2.2.1 Functions of Organizational Culture

2.2.1.1 Behavioral Control

Most systems of social organization attempt to control the variability of member behavior.
Whether it is a business organization, a club, community or nation, social systems need to limit
certain behaviors and encourage others. At one level organizations setup rules, procedures and
standards along with various consequences for compliance and non-compliance. This system of
formalization is part of the organization's formal structure. However, we often find a high degree
of behavioral regularity (cross individual behavioral consistency) in system without a strong
formal system of rules and regulations. In these cases, it is often the organizational or group
culture that provides informal direction. Cultural plays an important role in providing
control mechanisms (Ashkansy, Wilderon, & Peterson, 2011).

7
2.2.1.2 Encourages stability

Turnover and transitions exists in most, if not, all social systems. Despite changes in membership
and leadership, many organizations maintain certain characteristics, problems are handled
essentially the same way, and behavior continues to be directed toward the same mission and
goals. An organization's culture is often passed on from "generation" to "generation" creating a
relatively high level of stability over time Schein, H. Edgar, (2010).

2.2.1.3 Provides Source of Identity

According to Ashkansy, et. al. (2011) individuals continually search to define their social
identities. Sometimes identities are defined by roles or professions and in other cases people
define themselves through their organizational membership. When taking on an organization as a
source of identity, people are taking on the values and accomplishments of that organization. The
organization also adopts its own identity by creating distinctive cultures.

2.2.3 Liabilities of Culture

Though culture plays an important role in an organization, it may bring conflicts within the set
structures and standards.

2.2.3.1 Barrier to Change and Improvement

The very fact that cultural derived norms, values and mental models are often internalized by
members makes them often resistant to change when they see these changes in conflict with
these values. This is especially true when organizational change is implemented through
structural change. For example, while a new reward or incentive system is implemented in
support of the change in direction or strategy, employee values and other cultural mechanisms
supporting the former direction are still deeply imbedded which conflict with the new structure.
This becomes a battle over the relative strengths of the structure and culture. Even if the structure
ends up being a more powerful force, the implementation of the change is slowed as multiple
forms of resistance emerge (Ashkansy, et.al. 2011).

8
2.2.3.2 Barrier to Diversity

Strong company cultures create uniformity and consistency of behavior among employees. This
is known as cross individual behavioral consistency. While this may be desirable in many ways,
it works against a company's goals of creating a diverse workplace and utilizing this diversity for
competitive advantage in at least two ways. The first is that one of way in which strong cultures
are created is through selection of new employees based on person-organization fit, that is
applicants are selected who are believed to "fit" into the organization. This practice tends to limit
diversity of any kind. A related issue is that when potential employees are choosing employers,
they tend to avoid companies with strong cultures not aligned with their values (Martins &
Terblanche, 2003).

The second way in which strong cultures acts as a barrier to diversity has to do with the way in
which a strong culture acts to homogenize the workforce. One the reasons why companies desire
increased diversity is based on the assumption that more diverse decision-making teams will be
more creative and make decisions more inline with a diverse marketplace. Any benefits achieved
through diversity hiring can be lost as the mechanisms of a strong culture as new employees
attempt to fit in with the team (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006).

2.2.3.3 Barrier to Cross Departmental and Cross Organizational Cooperation

While we often use the terms organizational culture or company culture, most large
organizations have sub-cultures associated with different geographic locals or different
functional units. For example the culture of an engineering department is often very different
than the culture of a marketing department. When communication and coordination is essential
between units with very different sub-cultures, messages are often misinterpret and conflict in
priorities hampers the ability of these units to work cooperative on a project of solve a problem
(Schein, 2010).

2.2.3.4 Barrier to Mergers and Acquisitions

One of the factors cited from the high percentage failure of merged organizations to meet their
goals, is the change process did not account for or do anything to deal with conflict in cultures
between the two original organizations. This is especially true when the merger plan seeks to

9
merge different departments into one and requiring them to operate as a single unit. This may be
as simple as dress codes, or a fundamental as leadership style and team decision-making
protocols (Richardo, 2006).

2.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

OD can help an organization to create effective responses to changes, whether triggered from
within or from without, and in many cases, to proactively influence the strategic direction of the
firm. Three major trends are shaping change in organizations: globalization, information
technology and managerial innovation (Cumming & Wolley, 2014).

First, globalization is changing the markets and environments in which organizations operate as
well as the way they function. The world is rapidly becoming smaller and more tightly
interconnected economically, socially and ecologically. Significant movements of goods and
services, technology, human resources and capital across international borders have intensified
the economic interdependence among nations and organizations. This globalization opens up
new markets and source of innovations and capital for organizations. But this brings risk of
economic problems that are due from another sector of the world. Moreover, social differences
along cultural, political and religious lines have rendered global markets increasingly uncertain,
complex and conflictive. Growing international debates about climate change and calls for more
responsible and sustainable organizational practices score the ecological consequence of
globalization (Cumming & Wolley, 2014).

Second, information technology is redefining the traditional business model by changing how
work is performed, how knowledge is used and how the cost of doing business is calculated.
Information technology is at the heart of emerging e-commerce strategies and organization. The
amount of business that is being done over the internet is increasing with a great magnitude. The
ability to move information easily and inexpensively throughout and among organizations has
fuelled the downsizing, de-layering and restructuring of firms. The internet has enabled new
forms of work such as virtual teams and telecommuting. It has enabled many companies to
outsource customer-service functions to global regions where labor is relatively inexpensive. It is
changing how organizations create and use knowledge. It assists in strategic decision making.
Information technology is also widely shared throughout the organizations. This reduces the

10
concentration of power at the top of the organization as employees now share the same key
information that senior managers once used to control decision making (Aryasri & Aijaz, 2013).

Third, managerial innovation has responded to the globalization and information technology
trends and has accelerated their impact on organizations. New organizational forms, such as
networks, strategic alliances, and virtual corporations, provide organizations with new ways of
thinking about how to manufacture goods and deliver services. The strategic alliance for
example, has emerged as one of the indispensable tools in strategy implementation. Some of the
new managerial approaches include search conferencing, strategic alliances, employee
involvement, and reactive rather than proactive only (Cumming & Wolley, 2014).

Organizational development plays a key role in helping organizations change themselves. It

helps organizations assess themselves and their environments and revitalize and rebuild their
strategies, structures and processes (Adeniji (2013) and McLean (2006). OD helps organization
members to gain the skills and knowledge needed to continuously improve and change the
organization. It helps members go beyond surface changes to transform the underlying
assumptions and values governing their behaviors. OD has become more responsive and
practically relevant to organizations’ needs to operate effectively in a highly volatile and
complex world (Cumming & Wolley, 2014).

According to Burke, W. Warner (2011) organizations change all the time, each and every day.
The change that occurs in organizations is, for the most part, unplanned and gradual. Planned
organization change, especially on a large scale, affecting the entire system, is unusual: not
exactly an everyday occurrence. Revolutionary change- a major overhaul of the organization
resulting in a modified or entirely new missing, a change in strategy, leadership, and culture-is
rare indeed. Most organization change is evolutionary. There is a clear and present need for a
greater depth of understanding of organization change. Current and future trends in the external
environment in which organization function necessitate such an understanding. The objective for
change is systematic, that is, some aspect of the system, such as the organization’s managerial
structure or the reward system, is selected for change. It should be systematic because when
some aspect of the system is changed, other aspects eventually will be affected. Hence, this calls
for a total system approach.

11
As reported by Martins & Terblanche (2003), partly owing to a cultural value, organizations are
under extreme pressure to constantly change. Cultural and market pressures that demand
constant change in competitive organizations can lead to disastrous outcome including adaption
of changes that are not in line with the set objectives of the organization, bad timing for change,
dysfunctional human resource management practices, exhaustion from repeated cycles of change
and loss of stability and consistency. Communication plays a vital role in fostering the fad of
change in organizations. Pressure to change also derives from complex organizational
environments that put many demands on organizations to adapt and innovate. Layoffs,
restructuring, mergers, store crossing, sell-offs, product redevelopment and introduction of new
strategies for marketing are increasingly viewed by decisions-makers as necessary business
survival techniques (Cameron & Robert, 2011). Nonprofit-making organizations also have been
hit hard by the economic conditions and struggle for new ways to fund their activities and
services while dealing in many cases, with increased needs from those individuals who are
spiraling into poverty, homelessness and financial crises. Governments at all levels struggle to
balance budgets, continue to provide necessary services and maintain staff on payrolls, resulting
in some cases of withholding state income tax returns. Few sectors, if any, are left untouched by
the recent major environmental jolts. And, often, the rationale that changing circumstances
demand changing tactics, responses and strategies makes it difficult for organizations to resist
trying to do something new or at least appear they are doing something new (Lewis, 2011).

McLean (2006) states that change can be triggered by many factors even in the most calm of
financial times. Triggers for change include the need for organizations to stay in line with legal
requirements (e.g. employment law, health and safety regulations, product regulation,
environmental protection policies), changing customer and/ or client needs (e.g. changing
demographics, fashions that spur desire for specific products and services, heightened problems
or needs of clients served), newly created and/ or out dated technologies, changes in availability
of financial resources (e.g. changes in investment capital, funding agencies) and alterations of
available labor pool (e.g. aging workforce, technological capabilities of workforce, immigration
among others. in addition, some organizations self-initiated change and innovation. Change
initiated within organizations can stem from many sources including the personal innovation of
employees (individuals developing new ideas for products, practices, relationships), serendipity
(stumbling across something that works and then catches on in an organization), and through

12
arguments espousing specific directions that stakeholders in and around organizations think
should be adopted or resisted. As stakeholders assert their own preferences for what
organizations do and how they operate, their interactions produce both evaluations of current
practice and visions for future practices that incite change initiatives (Yaegar, Thomas, & Peter,
2006).

2.3.1 Types of changes

Planned or unplanned changes: planned changes are those brought about through the purposeful
efforts of organizational stakeholders who are accountable for the organization’s operations.
Unplanned changes are those brought into the organizations due to environmental or
uncontrollable forces (e.g. fire burns down plant, governmental shutdown of production) or
emergent processes and interactions in the organization. ( e.g drift in practices, erosion of skills).
There is sometimes a fine distinction between planned change and planned responses to
unplanned change. For example, the death of a founder CEO would count as an unplanned
change but the process of replacing that founder with a successor would be considered planned
change. Major unplanned changes in the circumstances of organizations often require responses
that are more than mere crisis intervention. In some cases lengthy and complex planned changes
are necessary (Lewis, 2011).

Change can also be described in terms of the objects that are changed. These include such things
like technologies, programs, policies, processes and personnel. Organizational changes usually
have multiple components that are difficult to describe with a single term. For example,
technological changes usually have implications for new policy and new procedures and specify
new role relationships. Making a new technology available necessitates specifying the
appropriate use and users of the technology; the schedule and manner of use; and the personnel
who can use and approve use. Further, the purposes of technologies are often to improve process
or products. For these reasons, it may not be useful or very accurate to describe change type in
terms of whether they are technologies, procedures or policies. Such theorizing is likely to be
unreliable since so many changes have multiple components. In this regard differences may also
be drawn between discursive change and material change. Discursive change is a change that
involves the change of terminologies or words without necessarily doing things differently. On

13
the other hand, material changes involve changes that alter operations, practices, relationships,
decision-making and the like (Mason, 2007).

Another way to describe types of changes concerns the size and scope of change. This is usually
described in terms of first, second and third order change. First order changes are small,
incremental, predictable interruptions in normal practice. Second order changes are large
transformational or radical changes that depart significantly from previous practices in ways that
are somewhat frame-breaking. These changes call key organizational assumptions into questions.
Third order changes involve the preparation for continuous change (Lewis, 2011).

2.3.2 Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory

Lewin’s three step model states that organizational change involves a move from one static state
via a progression shift, to another static state. The model is also known as Unfreeze-Change-
Refreeze. This model has been cited by very many authors (like Burke, W. Warner (2011)
Lewis, (2011), McLean, (2006), Ravasi & Schultz, (2006)and Richardo, (2006).

Stage 1: Unfreeze

This stage involves creating the right conditions for change to occur. Unfreezing starts from
making the members understand the organizational crises or vision which motivates them to
change. Unfreezing normally goes through three stages. First of all, there must be enough
information indicating that the current organizational condition is not ideal. Secondly, this
information has to be related to the important goal of the organization, thus elicits members’
anxious feeling. Finally, a solution has to be proposed that will reduce the members’ insecure
feeling and resistance to change. By resisting change, people often attach a sense of identity to
their environment. In this state, alternatives, even beneficial ones, will initially cause discomfort.
The challenge is to move people from this ‘frozen’ state to a ‘change ready’ or ‘unfrozen’ state.

Stage 2: Transition

The transitional ‘journey’ is central to Lewin’s model and at the psychological level, it is
typically a period of confusion. People are aware that the old ways are being challenged, but
there is no clear understanding of the new ways which will replace them. Moving is taking
certain actions to transform the organization to an expected condition. The transition process is

14
quite complicated. It involves goal setting, support seeking, resource finding, planning and
execution. There are two forms of transitions, namely, problem-solving orientation and vision
orientation. The organization may adapt either one according to their specific situation . As roles
change, a reduced state of efficiency is created, where goals are significantly lowered. The end
goal of this stage is to get people to the ‘unfrozen’ state and keep them there, ready to change.
Stage 3: Refreeze

The end goal of the model is to achieve a ‘refreeze’, re-establishing a new place of stability and
elevate comfort levels by reconnecting people back into their safe, familiar environment.
Freezing is to stabilize the change achieved in the transitional stage. The individual, the
department, and the organization, all have an inertial way of thinking and doing, so that the
change achieved in the transition stage will return to the status quo before, if freezing is not
done. Form new rules, regulate members’ new behavior directly, reinforce appropriate responses,
are all possible ways to internalize the new value or behavior into the organizational culture.
Refreezing takes people from a period of low productivity in the transitional state to that of
organizational effectiveness and sustainable performance (Ravasi & Schultz, 2006).

2.3.3 Barriers to Change

It is difficult for organizations to avoid change as new idea promotes growth for them and their
members. But if the change is wrongly implemented, there can be resistance, sometimes very
severe to cause the change to falter. Good communication can be used to demystify the change
process. Some of the major barriers to change include fear of unknown, lack of innovation space,
organizational culture, hasty planning, poor communication, lack of involving all key players,
among others (Warner, 2011).

15
CONCLUSION
Due to the increase in globalization and advance in technology, organizations are nowadays
faced with a lot of competition and hence in need to style up from upstream to downstream. This
need calls for constant changes some of which are planned while others are unplanned. At the
same breathe, having strong organizational structures that are resistant to volatility calls for
organizational cultures. This discussion has shown the interplay between organizational
development, organizational culture and organizational change.

REFERENCE
Adeniji, A. A. (2013). Organizational Change and Human Resource Management Interventions: An
Investigation of the Nigerian Banking Industry. Serbian Journal of Management , 8(2), 139-154.

Amagoh, F. (2008). Perspectives on Organizational Change: Systems and Complexity Theories. The
Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 13(3), 1-14.

Aryasri, A., & Aijaz, S. S. (2013). Role of Organisational culture in shaping High performing organizations.
Journal of Business and Management Invention, 2(1), 7-17.

Ashkansy, M. N., Wilderon, P. M., & Peterson, F. M. (2011). The Handbook of Organizationan Culture
(2nd ed.). California: Sage Publications.

Benard, B. (2009). Managing Change (5th ed.). Harlow, England: Prentice Hall.

Cameron, S. K., & Robert, E. Q. (2011). Diagnosis and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the
Competing Values (3rd Ed.). San Fransisco: John Willey & Sons.

Cumming, G. T., & Wolley, G. C. (2014). Organization Development and Change, (10th ed.). Stamford,
USA: Cengage Learning.

Lewis, K. L. (2011). Organization Change: Creating Change through Strategic communication. U.K.: Wiley
Blackwell.

Martins, E. C., & Terblanche, F. (2003). Building Organizational Culture that Stimulates Creativity and
Innovation. European Journal of Innovation Management, 6(1), 64-74.

Mason, R. (2007). The External Environment’s Effect on Management and Strategy: A Complexity Theory
Approach. Management Decision 45(1), 10-28.

McLean, G. (2006). Organization Development: Principles, Processes and Performance. California:

Berrett-Kochler.

Mullins, J. L. (2010). Management and Organizational Behaviour (9th ed.). Harlow, England: Prentice
Hall.

16
Ravasi, D., & Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to Original Identity Threats: Exploring the Role of
Organizational Culture. Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 433-458.

Richardo, R. (2006). Corporate Culture Revolution: The Management Development Imperative. Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 11(2), 3-11.

Schein, H. E. (2010). Organizational Culture and Leardership (4th ed.) . San Francisco: John Willey & Sons.

Warner, B. W. (2011). Organization Change Theory and Practice, (3rd ed.). California: Sage Publications.

Yaegar, Y. T., Thomas, C. H., & Peter, F. S. (2006). Global Organization Development: Managing
Unprecedented Change. USA: Information Age.

17