Transformational change

Transformational change differs from other change-related concepts in terms of the following

dimensions: the philosophical nature of the new vision for the organisation, the required level of

involvement (commitment) from internal stakeholders and the prominence of transformation in the
business environment (Anderson & Ackerman Anderson, 2001:174; De Beer, 2002:ii; Cummings &
Worley, 2001:499; Gouillart & Kelly, 1995:6; and Jick & Peiperl, 2003:xvii-xviii).

Transformational goals shape an organisation into something “radically different”, very often from
having reflected one end of the continuum to reflecting the opposite side of the same issue:
organisational alchemy. (Alchemy is the ancient art and science of changing plain metals into precious
metals like gold and was a typical task of wizards.) Jick and Peiperl (2003:218) therefore also refer to
transformation as organisational reorientation.

This process is only possible in organisations through transition within its employees and the

modification of behaviour based on the internalisation of changes by people (Gouillart & Kelly, 1995:6).
Cummings and Worley (2001:498) and Grobler (in Verwey & Du Plooy-Cilliers, 2003:192) refer to
transformation as requiring paradigmatic modifications at individual and organisational levels: this
process involves qualitatively different ways of perceiving, thinking and behaving.

Cummings and Worley (2001:500-501) and Gouillart and Kelly (1995:6) describe organisational

transformation as arguably being the sole task of current day business leaders. Transformational change
is prevalent which requires that business leaders become transformational leaders. And successful
transformational leaders are “communicating leaders” (cf. Puth, 2002).

The view of the aforementioned authors also seems to have special significance within the South African
context since organisations face many external forces, which in turn, originate from transformation in
the wider socio-political context. These changes affect all spheres of life and are aimed at continuously
bringing about a new order based on a set of radically different values than those that characterised the
era of Apartheid. Following this logic, Grobler (in Verwey & Du Plooy-Cilliers, 2003:193) refers to South
Africa as “ … a nation in transition”.

Definition

There are varying definitions of transformation and frameworks for how transformation should be
implemented. The following definition has been taken for a healthcare perspective for the purposes of
this summary: “Transformation is a deliberate, planned process that sets out a high aspiration to make
dramatic and irreversible changes to how care is delivered, what staff do (and how they behave) and the
role of patients, that results in substantial, measurable improvement in outcomes, patient and staff
satisfaction and financial sustainability”

Method

A purposeful approach to identifying literature for inclusion in this summary was taken, including the
use of electronic searching of Google Scholar and PubMed. Key papers were selected that have
examined successful cases of transformational change in sufficient-depth for review and a very rapid
synthesis was conducted of the common features and principles across these.

What we found

Identified literatureTransformational change is considered from a number of different perspectives in

the literature. In healthcare, the King’s Fund and Health Foundation have examined a range of factors
important for successful transformation across different examples of transformation. The CIPD has
considered what makes transformation successful from the perspective organisational and people
development.

A number of peer reviewed research articles also examine evidence of how successful

transformation works in healthcare and in other sectors. The literature identified from searching is
summarised in Table 1.How transformational change is achieved Despite different perspectives and
models of transformational change in the literature, a number of common principles were identified
that help to explain how transformational change can be

achieved. These are summarised as follows:

 Communicating a vision of change

Being able to communicate a vision for transformation that is fundamentally different but also that
people find relatable and meaningful is described widely across the literature (1). Using themes that
people can understand and engaged with is given an example of the vision can be communicated
effectively (1). Leaders are described as having a key responsibility for communicating this vision and
inspiring staff to work towards it and which also requires a motivated workforce to be in place (2). The
King’s Fund’s examination of a number of different transformation models identified how
Revolutionary change

Revolutionary change is the change-by-mandate. You will often see this type of change in reaction to (1)
a leadership change or (2) a crisis. As examples: a new CIO comes in and reorganizes the department, or
the IT department fails an audit.

Advantages

Low risk of the change failing to take effect.

Change will occur quickly.

Change will have any resources needed.

Political cover. For example if another department doesn’t like the change for some reason, and they
escalate to their management, whoever mandated the change feels ownership over it and will be
unlikely to back down. (Aside: this is not necessarily a good thing if the change is at the expense of the
larger organization.)

Looks good on résumés and annual reports.

Feels planned. Mandates that come from the same person often fit together–for example a change this
year to create a new Service Desk, followed by a change next year to implement a new Service Desk
tool.

Disadvantages

Change may not become part of the culture before focus shifts. The change may roll back a few months
after leadership changes focus.

Loss of political capital: because the change was less inclusive up front, political capital is lost.

Job security for the leader: if the change does not provide the benefit expected, or otherwise fails, the
people who mandated the change may lose their job. (Aside: setting this expectation is definitely a bad
way to manage, as it creates huge incentives for leaders to make the change look like it worked.)

Opportunity cost: other improvements may be needed but everyone is tied up working on the
mandated improvement.

Not necessarily a “good fit” for the organization: the current situation was likely not understood well, so
the solution applied often leaves pain points or gaps.

Often treats people like robots.

Evolutionary change
Evolutionary change is change by convincing people. 🙂 One or more “change agents” see an
opportunity for the organization to improve, and they pursue it by talking with other people and
building a proposal/prototype that is iteratively shopped around. (Again, if you’re interested in this type
of change see also “Riding the Maturity Model Wave,” which addresses how to conduct evolutionary
change.)

As examples: project management techniques that spread with use or changes to an incident
management process as teams figure out shortcuts. (Note: these changes are not necessarily
documented.)

Advantages

Highly likely that, if the change is implemented, it will become part of the culture. More people have
been involved in the design. More people identify with the change.

Likely that the change fits the organization, understanding the current situation.

More brains around the problem, leading to more thoughtful solutions.

Disadvantages

Very risky up front. High likelihood that people will not understand or will not buy in to the change. Hard
to build momentum.

Haphazard. Changes may be introduced that do not move the organization towards where it needs to
go. This is compounded if there is not an organizational “True North” or target condition.

Can be “design-by-committee” where a sense of central direction is lost. Especially true if there is not
one clear owner/change agent.

Hard to find people who are good at making evolutionary change. It is a skill. What’s more, these people
rarely take credit for their work so you might not know who they are.

Incremental change gradually applies the change gradually, one step at a time. If an organization
chooses to adopt a new workplace protocol incrementally, for instance, then new rules and guidelines
would be implemented slowly over a period of time

What Is Evolution? 
The progression of evolution is slow. The strategy is developed collaboratively. Senior management
should be involved, but they are not pushing change. Leadership tends to empower individuals from all
levels of the company to embrace change.

Change comes in different stages and everyone is expected to comprehend and welcome it. Whether it
be a whole company project is a small digital marketing one, any form of evolution has various stages.

Organizations must have gradual development to survive. Those who effectively develop will have a
competitive advantage. The organization will fall into the economy’s tsunami of creative destruction if it
does not evolve.

Organizational development is a natural process in which both the organization and its employees
evolve to a greater degree of focus and awareness. It’s a type of evolution (without religion) that entails
honing the ability to think logically, as well as being trustworthy and transparent.

It’s about decentralized and participatory decision-making, as well as the recognition that everyone,
regardless of status, has a meaningful role to play. Adherence to higher living principles leads to solid
stability, commitment to ethics and values, as well as a determination to be more representative not
just of customers, but also of the broader world.

Evolutionary Stage

Another characteristic occurs as organizations age and grows long-term growth, which is called the
evolutionary era. Most developing businesses do not increase for two years and then contract for one;
instead, those that survive a crisis often experience a history of uninterrupted development without a
big economic setback or significant internal turmoil.

The word “evolution” is appropriate for describing these calm times because only little differences
appear to be required to continue development while following the same general management pattern.
(Source: https://www.sortlist.com/blog/evolution-vs-revolution/)