THEORIES OF PLANNED CHANGE

Conceptions of planned change have tended to focus

on how change can be implemented in organizations.
Called “theories of changing,” these frameworks
describe the activities that must take place to initiate
and carry out successful organizational change.
we describe theories of planned change including
Lewin’s change model, Lippit-Watson-Westly’s model
Burke-Litwin’s model, the action research model, and
the positive model.
These frameworks have received widespread
attention in OD and serve as the primary basis for a
general model of planned change.
Lewin’s Change Model
• One of the earliest models of planned change was
provided by Kurt Lewin.
• He conceived of change as modification of those forces
keeping a system’s behavior stable.
• Specifically, a particular set of behaviors at any moment in
time is the result of two groups of forces: those striving to
maintain the status quo and those pushing for change.
• When both sets of forces are about equal, current
behaviors are maintained in what Lewin termed a state of
“quasi-stationary equilibrium.”
• To change that state, one can increase those forces
pushing for change, decrease those forces maintaining the
current state, or apply some combination of both.
• For example, the level of performance of a work group might be stable because
group norms maintaining that level are equivalent to the supervisor’s pressures
for change to higher levels. This level can be increased either by changing the
group norms to support higher levels of performance or by increasing supervisor
pressures to produce at higher levels.
• Lewin suggested that decreasing those forces maintaining the status quo
produces less tension and resistance than increasing forces for change and
consequently is a more effective change strategy.
• Lewin viewed this change process as consisting of the following three steps.
Unfreezing.
This step usually involves reducing those forces maintaining the organization’s
behavior at its present level. Unfreezing is sometimes accomplished through a
process of “psychological disconfirmation.” By introducing information that shows
discrepancies between behaviors desired by organization members and those
behaviors currently exhibited, members can be motivated to engage in change
activities.
Moving.
This step shifts the behavior of the organization, department, or individual to a new
level. It involves intervening in the system to develop new behaviors, values, and
attitudes through changes in organizational structures and processes.
Refreezing.
This step stabilizes the organization at a new state of equilibrium. It is
frequently accomplished through the use of supporting mechanisms
that reinforce the new organizational state, such as organizational
culture, rewards, and structures.
• Lewin’s model provides a general framework for understanding
organizational change. Because the three steps of change are relatively
broad, considerable effort has gone into elaborating them.
• For example, the planning model developed by Lippitt, Watson, and
Westley arranges Lewin’s model into seven steps: scouting, entry,
diagnosis (unfreezing), planning, action (moving), stabilization and
evaluation, and termination (refreezing).
• Similarly, Kotter’s eight stage process can be mapped onto Lewin’s
phases: establishing a sense of urgency, creating the guiding coalition,
developing a vision and strategy, and communicating the change vision
(unfreezing); empowering broad-based action, generating short-term
wins (moving); and consolidating gains and producing more change, and
anchoring new approaches in the culture (refreezing).
Lippitt, Watson, and Westley’s Model
Ronald Lippitt, Jeanne Watson, and Bruce Westley arranges Lewin’s
model into seven following steps
1. developing a need for change
2. Establishing a change relationship. In this phase a client system
in need of help and a change agent from outside the system
establish a working relationship.
3. Diagnose and Assess the problem and resources and motivation
of the client system.
4. Examining alternative routes and goals establishing goals and of
actions.
5. Transforming intentions into actual change efforts.
6. Maintain the change through communication, feedback, and
group coordination.
7. Gradually remove the change agents from relationship, as the
change becomes part of the organizational culture.
Burke & Litwin Model
• Developed by Warner Burke & George Litwin.
• Model shows how to create first- order and second-
order change.
• In first order change some features of the organizations
are changed but the fundamental nature of the
organization remains them same.
• First Order( transactional, evolutionary, adaptive,
incremental, contentious etc)
• In second order change the nature of the organization is
fundamentally and substantially altered- the
organization is transformed.
• Second Order ( transformational, revolutionary, radical,
Discontinuous etc)
• Organizational Climate is people’s perception and
attitude about the organization.
• Whether it is a good or bad place to work, friendly
or unfriendly, hardworking or easy going etc.
• These perceptions are relatively easy to change.
• Results in first order change
• Organizational culture is deep seated assumptions,
values and beliefs about organization.
• Enduring and often unconscious, difficult to change.
• Interventions directed towards mission, strategy,
leadership and organization’s culture result in
second order change.
• B-L model suggests linkages that hypothesize how performance is
affected by internal and external factors.
• It provides a framework to assess organizational & environmental
dimensions that are keys to successful change and how these
dimensions should be linked causally to achieve a change in
performance.
• The causal model links what could be understood from practice to
what is known from research and theory.
• Burke-Litwin believe environmental factors to be the most
important driver for change. Indeed, most change can be traced
back to external drivers for change.
• The model not only discusses how different dimensions link with
each other but also discusses how external environment affects
the different dimensions in organization.
• The model focuses on providing a guide for both organizational
diagnosis and planned, managed organization change, one that
clearly shows cause-and-effect relationships
 The model revolves around 12 organizational
dimensions

1. External environment
2. Mission and strategy
3. Leadership
4. Organizational culture
5. Structure
6. Management practices
7. Systems
8. Work unit climate
9. Task and individual skills
10. Individual needs and values
11. Motivation
12. Individual and organizational performance
(Burke & Litwin,1992)
Burke-Litwin: Understanding Drivers for Change

• The Burke-Litwin model shows the various drivers of

change and ranks them in terms of importance.
• The model is expressed diagrammatically, with the most
important factors featuring at the top. The lower layers
become gradually less important.
• The model argues that all of the factors are integrated (to
greater or lesser degrees). Therefore, a change in one will
eventually affect all other factors.
• The model also distinguishes between transformational
and transactional organizational dynamics in organizations.
• Transformational dynamics: the top half of the model with
the performance variable.
• Transactional dynamics: the bottom half of the model.
Organizational Variables in the Burke-Litwin Model
Organizational Variables in the Burke-Litwin Model…con
Burke Says:
• There are two distinct set or organizational
dynamics.
• One set primarily is associated with the
transactional level of human behavior or everyday
interactions and exchanges that create the
climate.
• The second set of dynamics is concerned with
processes of human transformation that is sudden
“ leaps” in behavior: these transformational
processes are required for genuine change in the
culture of an organization
John Kotter’s Eight Stage Model
Step 1 – Create a sense of urgency
This first step of the 8 step Change Model is the most important step according to
Kotter. By making employees aware of the need and urgency for change, support
will be created. This requires and open, honest and convincing dialogue. This
convinces employees of the importance of taking action. This could be
accomplished by talking with them about potential threats or by discussing possible
solutions.
Step 2 – Create a guiding coalition
It is a good idea to establish a project team that can occupy itself with the changes
the organization wants to implement. This group manages all efforts and
encourages the employees to cooperate and take a constructive approach.
Preferably, this coalition is made up from employees working in different jobs and
positions so that all employees can rely on the group and identify themselves with
the team members. Because of the open character, the groups can also function as
a sounding board, which enables an open communication.
Step 3 – Create a vision for change
Formulating a clear vision can help everyone understand what the organization is
trying to achieve within the agreed time frame. It makes changes more concrete
and creates support to implement them. The ideas of employees can be
incorporated in the vision, so that they will accept the vision faster. Linking the
adopted vision to strategies will help employees to achieve their goals.
Step 4 – Communicate the vision
The most important objective of step 4 of the 8 step Change
Model is to create support and acceptance among the
employees. This can only be achieved by talking about the new
vision with the employees at every chance you get and by
taking their opinions, concerns and anxieties seriously. The new
vision must be fully adopted across the entire organization.
Step 5 – Remove obstacles
Before change is accepted at all levels, it is crucial to change
or, if necessary, remove obstacles that could undermine the
vision. By entering into dialogue with all employees, it will
become clear who are resisting the change. To encourage
acceptance of the vision by the employees, it helps when their
ideas are incorporated and implemented in the change process.
Step 6 – Create short-term wins
Nothing motivates more than success. Create short-term goals so that the
employees have a clear idea of what is going on. When the goals have been met,
the employees will be motivated to fine tune and expand the change. By
acknowledging and rewarding employees who are closely involved in the change
process, it will be clear across the board that the company is changing course.
Step 7 – Consolidate improvements
According to Kotter many change trajectories fail because victory is declared
too early. However, change is a slow-going process and it must be driven into the
overall corporate culture. Quick wins are only the beginning of long-term change.
An organization therefore needs to keep looking for improvements. Only after
multiple successes have been achieved, it can be established that the change is
paying off.
Step 8 – Anchor the changes
The last step of the 8 step Change Model. A change will only become part of the
corporate culture when it has become a part of the core of the organization.
Change does not come about by itself. Values and standards must agree with the
new vision and the employees’ behaviour must provide a seamless match.
Employees must continue to support the change. Regular evaluation and
discussions about progress help consolidate the change.
Action Research Model
• The classic action research model focuses on planned change as a
cyclical process in which initial research about the organization
provides information to guide subsequent action.
• Then the results of the action are assessed to provide further
information to guide further action, and so on. This iterative cycle of
research and action involves considerable collaboration among
organization members and OD practitioners.
• It places heavy emphasis on data gathering and diagnosis prior to
action planning and implementation, as well as careful evaluation of
results after action is taken.
• Action research is traditionally aimed both at helping specific
organizations implement planned change and at developing more
general knowledge that can be applied to other settings.
• Although action research was originally developed to have this dual
focus on change and knowledge generation, it has been adapted to
OD efforts in which the major emphasis is on planned change.
1. Problem Identification.
This stage usually begins when an executive in the
organization or someone with power and influence
senses that the organization has one or more
problems that might be solved with the help of an
OD practitioner.
2. Consultation with a Behavioral Science Expert.
During the initial contact, the OD practitioner and the
client carefully assess each other. The practitioner has
his or her own normative, developmental theory or
frame of reference and must be conscious of those
assumptions and values. Sharing them with the client
from the beginning establishes an open and
collaborative atmosphere.
3. Data Gathering and Preliminary Diagnosis.
This step is usually completed by the OD practitioner, often
in conjunction with organization members. It involves
gathering appropriate information and analyzing it to
determine the underlying causes of organizational problems.
The four basic methods of gathering data are interviews,
process observation, questionnaires, and organizational
performance data (unfortunately, often overlooked). One
approach to diagnosis begins with observation, proceeds to a
semi structured interview, and concludes with a
questionnaire to measure precisely the problems identified
by the earlier steps.
When gathering diagnostic information, OD practitioners may
influence members from whom they are collecting data. In
OD, any action by the OD practitioner can be viewed as an
intervention that will have some effect on the organization.
4. Feedback to a Key Client or Group.
Because action research is a collaborative activity, the
diagnostic data are fed back to the client, usually in a
group or work team meeting. The feedback step, in which
members are given the information gathered by the OD
practitioner, helps them determine the strengths and
weaknesses of the organization or unit under study. The
consultant provides the client with all relevant and useful
data. Obviously, the practitioner will protect confidential
sources of information and, at times, may even withhold
data. Defining what is relevant and useful involves
consideration of privacy and ethics as well as judgment
about whether the group is ready for the information or if
the information would make the client overly defensive.
5. Joint Diagnosis of the Problem.
At this point, members discuss the feedback and explore with the
OD practitioner whether they want to work on identified problems.
A close interrelationship exists among data gathering, feedback, and
diagnosis because the consultant summarizes the basic data from
the client members and presents the data to them for validation and
further diagnosis. An important point to remember, as Schein
suggests, is that the action research process is very different from
the doctor–patient model, in which the consultant comes in, makes
a diagnosis, and prescribes a solution. Schein notes that the failure
to establish a common frame of reference in the client–consultant
relationship may lead to a faulty diagnosis or to a communication
gap whereby the client is sometimes “unwilling to believe the
diagnosis or accept the prescription.” He believes that “most
companies have drawers full of reports by consultants, each loaded
with diagnoses and recommendations which are either not
understood or not accepted by the ‘patient.’ ”
6. Joint Action Planning.
Next, the OD practitioner and the client members jointly agree
on further actions to be taken. This is the beginning of the
moving process (described in Lewin’s change model), as the
organization decides how best to reach a different quasi-
stationary equilibrium. At this stage, the specific action to be
taken depends on the culture, technology, and environment of
the organization; the diagnosis of the problem; and the time and
expense of the intervention.
7. Action.
This stage involves the actual change from one organizational
state to another. It may include installing new methods and
procedures, reorganizing structures and work designs, and
reinforcing new behaviors. Such actions typically cannot be
implemented immediately but require a transition period as the
organization moves from the present to a desired future state.
8. Data Gathering After Action.
Because action research is a cyclical process, data
must also be gathered after the action has been taken
to measure and determine the effects of the action and
to feed the results back to the organization. This, in
turn, may lead to re-diagnosis and new action.
• The action research model underlies most current
approaches to planned change and is often considered
synonymous with OD. Recently, it has been refined and
extended to new settings and applications, and
consequently, researchers and practitioners have made
requisite adaptations of its basic framework
Hospital mealtimes: action research for change? (Dickinson
et al., 2005)
Background
• This study was designed to address the problem of poor
nutritional care within a hospital setting: specifically to
improve the patients’ experience of mealtimes. In order to
implement patient-centred mealtimes for older patients by
changing the focus from institutional convenience to one
that focused on their requirements, an action research
approach was used that focused on action and change. The
project was carried out within a 26-bed unit providing care
for older patients with complete discharge needs. Older
patients were referred to the unit from throughout the acute
NHS Trust, when the acute stage of the
 condition that had led to a hospital admission had been stabilized and
treated but an immediate return home was not possible because of
the resulting frailty and complex diagnosis that necessitated a change
in living or care arrangements. Patients generally stayed on the unit
for between two weeks and several months.
• The aims of the project were to implement patient-focused mealtime
practice for older patients within a hospital unit and to promote
healthy ageing through improving mealtime care by working towards
the implementation of a patient-focused and enabling culture.
• The objectives were to work with staff (using an action research
approach) to help them to describe and explore the mealtime
environment then current on the unit, to explore with staff ways of
focusing mealtimes towards the needs of the patients, and to help
staff to make changes to the mealtime environment and their
practice.
Methods
Qualitative methods were used, which included focus groups,
interviews, observations, and benchmarking that utilized the
‘Essence of Care’ benchmarking tool (Department of Health, 2001).
Focus group discussions were held at the beginning of the project,
before the action research intervention began, in order to identify
any difficulties with mealtimes and nutrition-related work on the
unit and this was to be repeated at the end of the implementation
phase. The focus group included members of staff working on the
unit, together with representation from healthcare assistants,
qualified nursing staff, and occupational therapy and physiotherapy
staff. Photographs representing mealtimes on the unit were shown
to participants as a stimulus to promote a discussion at the
beginning of the focus group and the questions used in the groups
highlighted various aspects of the mealtime experience.
Three focus groups involving 19 staff were undertaken.
Qualitative interviews were used to gather detailed in-
depth information. The focus was on each individual’s
experiences and the interviewee was at the centre of this
element of the enquiry. Interviews were used to assist
with seeing mealtimes from a patient perspective and to
explore patients’ experiences and views of unit mealtimes.
A sample of six patients were interviewed. Observations
included the location for eating, the involvement and
activity of nursing staff, and the timing and duration of the
events; all of these were recorded onto an observational
schedule. Data were analysed using interpretive, inductive
approaches such as categories, themes, and patterns.
Overview of outcomes
• The data fell into three main themes that each impacted on
patients’ experiences of mealtimes: institutional and organizational
constraints, mealtime
• care and nursing priorities, and the eating environment. When this
paper was published, only two of the three phases of the project
had been completed. The changes that had been made thus far
included alterations to practice at mealtimes that prioritised
mealtime care for all staff on the unit, such as making sure that
nursing staff were actively involved and had rescheduled other
work, e.g. giving out medication, in order to avoid mealtimes. The
‘Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool’ was also introduced in order
to identify those patients at risk of malnutrition, and changes had
been made to the physical environment to ensure it was more
conducive to mealtimes, including improving the ambience of the
dining room by purchasing new crockery and tablecloths, etc.
Researchers’ comments on the use of the action
research approach
• An action research approach was selected by the
researchers, as it aims to generate knowledge about
social systems as well as attempting to change these
(Hart and Bond, 1995). The researchers maintained
that by using action research, they were able to
improve the mealtime care of patients. They also
suggested that the action research approach worked
as a vehicle to enable practitioners and researchers
to collaborate in their efforts to improve the real
world of practice, including the clinical situation and
the outcome for patients.
The contingency model of change - Dunphy and Stace’s model of
change

• Expanding upon the three-step model as espoused by Lewin, Dunphy and Stace
(1988, 1992, 1993) investigated change from an organizational transformation
perspective. Within this perspective, Dunphy and Stace (1993) maintained that
organizations needed a model of change that was essentially a ‘situational’ or
‘contingency model’.

• This model should be one that indicated how to vary change strategies to
achieve ‘optimum fit’ with the changing environment (Dunphy and Stace 1993).

• Furthermore, these writers state that the contingency model to change is based
on the theory that situational variables determine the structure and
performance of organizations and because no two organizations are alike, they
will not face the same situational variables. Invariably, this may impact upon
their operations and structures (Dunphy and Stace 1993).
 The model developed by Dunphy and Stace includes both the
formulation and implementation requirements of various types of
change and leadership styles. Their typology of change and conditions

Incremental Change Strategies Transformational Change Strategies

Participative evolution  Charismatic transformation
Used when an organisation is in fit but Used when the organisation is out of fit
when minor adjustments are needed; or and there is little time for extensive
the organisation is out of fit but it has participation. However, most employees
time available to implement change. support radical change in the
Key employees favour change organisation.
Forced evolution  Dictatorial transformation
Used when the organisation is in fit but Used when the organisation is out of fit
when minor adjustments are needed; or and there is no time for extensive
the organisation is out of fit but it has participation. There is no support for
time available to implement change. radical change within the organisation
Key employees oppose change although radical change is important for
the survival of the company.
 conti
• Dunphy and Stace’s (1988, 1992) model of change is more
situational in design and supportive of the view that ‘that the
selection of appropriate types of change depends entirely on
a strategic analysis of the situation’ (Dunphy and Stace 1992,
p. 90).

• These authors also maintained that change does not always

occur on an incremental basis, but can also occur on a
discontinuous basis. They also suggested that
transformational change is not only consultative but is also
coercive in nature.
 Criticism on Model
• A major criticism of this model, in this researcher’s view, is its dependency
on the interpretation of the model by change initiators and
implementation, in that change may be influenced more by the style of
the ‘change driver’ than by an effective organizational change analysis.
• If the ‘change driver’ has a collaborative leadership style, then employees
would be allowed power, either through formal or informal process,
significant enough to influence both the goals and means of change.
• If the ‘change driver’ is characterized by a consultative style of leadership,
power would be placed more firmly in the hands of managers and would
involve managers consulting widely among employees and being open to
influence from employees about how change is affected.
• If the ‘change driver’ is characterized by a directive style of leadership,
this would involve the use of legitimate authority to bring about
organizational change, being most effective when subordinates respect
this authority.
• If the ‘change driver’ adopts a coercive style of leadership, this would
involve using explicit or implicit force by managers on employees, and an
autocratic mode of decision-making.
 Mintzberg and Quinn’s model of change

• According to Mintzberg and Quinn (1991), there

are four broad situational headings that play an
important role in determining the extent to
which an organisation can implement change.
• These include the age and size of the
organisation; its technical systems; the
environment in which the organisation is
situated; and the nature of control exerted
within and upon it from various sources.
 Conti…
• Firstly, the age and size of the organisation are important indicators of its
ability to accept and implement change. Mintzberg and Quinn (1991, pp.
340-341) asserted that ‘the older the organization, the more formalized the
behaviour’; ‘the larger an organization, the more elaborate its structure’;
‘the larger the organization, the larger the size of its average unit’; and
‘structure reflects the age of the industry from its founding’. Young
organisations have less time to establish a set of traditions and practices
that inhibit change.
• As a result, these organisations are more likely to adjust and accept the
changes being implemented. On the other hand, older organisations
maintain strong ties to established traditions and practices thus making it
difficult to accept new processes. Large organisations also tend to favour
more elaborate, complex structures and do not encourage flexibility in the
organisation. Rather, they tend to ‘specialize their jobs more finely’
(Mintzberg and Quinn 1991, p. 340). This in turn results in greater levels of
hierarchy required to supervise or coordinate the work of employees, and
in some instances, to maintain control.
 Conti…
• Secondly, the technical system, that is ‘instruments used in the
operating core to produce the outputs’ (Mintzberg and Quinn 1991,
p. 341) may also limit an organisation’s ability to change. According
to Mintzberg and Quinn (1991, p. 341) the technical system can
influence the organisational structure in three ways:
• Highly regulated organisations dominated by their technical
systems tend to display more bureaucratic structures;
• Organisations with highly complex technical systems delegate the
decision making process to professional or skilled staff with regard
to the management of the technical system; and
• Organisations with automated technical systems embrace more
organic structures that are characterised by fluidity and flexibility, in
order to accommodate particular circumstances.
 Conti..

• Thirdly, the environment also plays an important role in the

organisation’s ability to accept change. The environment, according to
Mintzberg and Quinn (1991, p. 341) ‘refers to various characteristics of
the organization’s outside context, related to markets, political
climate, economic conditions, and so on’. Organisations are influenced
by the above-mentioned characteristics in the following ways:
– Organisations located in dynamic environments tend to adopt more organic
structures;
– Organisations in complex environments adopt more decentralised structures;
– Organisations located in diversified markets adopt market based divisional
structures; and
– Organisations in hostile environments adopt centralized structures (Mintzberg
and Quinn 1991, p. 342).
 Conti..

• Fourthly, power also has a determining effect on

organisations. The exercise of power, either
internally or externally, may influence the
organisation’s response to change. Mintzberg
and Quinn (1991, pp. 342-343) explained that
power influenced organisations in the following
way:
– The greater the external control of the organisation,
the more centralized and formalized its structure.
 Conti…
• The role of managers in organisations, Mintzberg found that
although individual employee capabilities play a significant
contribution in the implementation of a role in the
organisation, it is the organisation that is responsible for the
creation of that role based on the belief that a particular skill
set will determine success.

• Effective managers, who are more often than not, the change
initiators, will develop relevant protocols for successful action
given their job description and personal preference, and match
these with the situation at hand in the organisation (Mintzberg
1979).
 Conti..

• It is also important to note that before implementing change

initiatives in the organisation, change initiators must pay
careful attention to the structure of the current organisation.

• According to Mintzberg (1992), organisations are made up of

five main components. (Operating Core, strategic Apex,
Middle line managers, Technostructure, and Support Staff)
 Conti…
• Operating core: Employees who perform the basic work related
directly to the production of goods and services.
• Strategic apex: Employees charged with ensuring that the organisation
serves its mission in an effective way. This tends to serve the needs of
those who are in control in the organisation or those who have power
in the organisation.
• Middle-line managers: These managers form a chain that joins the
strategic apex to the operating core through the use of delegated
formal authority.
• Technostructure: Employees (analysts) who serve the organisation by
affecting the work of others. These analysts may design the change,
plan the change, or train other employees to initiate the change.
• Support staff: These employees belong to specialised units. They
provide support to the organisation outside the operating work flow.
• These components need to fit together in a tightly knit fashion to
enable the organisation to perform well because each component has
the tendency to pull the organisation in a different direction