Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
Boundary activities and readiness for ... - Projekti-Instituutti
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Theoretical background<br />
disruption of the equilibrium. First, the unfreezing stage involves behavior<br />
that increases the system’s receptivity to change by destabilizing the status<br />
quo. Then, at the moving stage, the actual trans<strong>for</strong>mation is made,<br />
resulting in a shift of the equilibrium to a new level. Finally, at the freezing<br />
stage the new equilibrium is stabilized <strong>and</strong> maintained.<br />
Building on Lewin’s three-step model, many authors have described<br />
planned change as a sequence of stages or steps (e.g. Beer et al., 1990;<br />
Kotter, 1995; Levy, 1986; Phillips, 1983). The idea behind the models is<br />
usually that the stages cannot be bypassed without harming the progress of<br />
change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). While different models label the<br />
stages differently <strong>and</strong> contain a different number of steps, the contents of<br />
the models are to a large degree similar, typically starting with an analysis<br />
of the situation <strong>and</strong> development of a vision, <strong>and</strong> proceeding to making the<br />
actual change actions, after which the changes are institutionalized (see<br />
Buhanist (2000) <strong>and</strong> Lanning (2001) <strong>for</strong> a comparison of different stage<br />
models). Most of the stage models are practitioner-oriented <strong>and</strong> aim to<br />
codify the best practices of change management by providing<br />
recommendations <strong>and</strong> checklists <strong>for</strong> managers.<br />
The detailed stage models of change have received substantial criticism.<br />
They have been accused of oversimplifying the reality (Lanning, 2001), <strong>and</strong><br />
their universalist “one size fits all” approach has been questioned (Burnes,<br />
1996). It has also been pointed out that there is very little scientific evidence<br />
proving the effectiveness of the models (Farias, Johnson, Worren, Ruddle,<br />
& Moore, 2000). Organizational change tends to be nonlinear <strong>and</strong> iterative<br />
(Coram & Burnes, 2001; Higgs & Rowl<strong>and</strong>, 2005) <strong>and</strong> also unpredictable,<br />
as planned change ef<strong>for</strong>ts may involve unplanned elements (Bam<strong>for</strong>d &<br />
Daniel, 2005; Erakovic & Powell, 2006; Greiner, 1967). This conception<br />
brings planned change closer to the emergent view, making change less<br />
dependent upon detailed plans <strong>and</strong> embracing the related complexity <strong>and</strong><br />
uncertainty (Coram & Burnes, 2001; Bam<strong>for</strong>d & Daniel, 2005; Bam<strong>for</strong>d,<br />
2006).<br />
Despite the criticism, the literature on planned organizational change has<br />
increasingly produced lifecycle models <strong>and</strong> recipes <strong>for</strong> change management<br />
along the change initiative’s lifecycle. Even studies that do not lean on<br />
detailed stage models tend to make a distinction between the development<br />
phase <strong>and</strong> the implementation phase of a change endeavor (e.g. Dobson,<br />
2001; Stoddard & Jarvenpaa, 1995). Following this division, the current<br />
study focuses on the early stage of change, involving <strong>activities</strong> such as<br />
initiation, planning, solution development <strong>and</strong> preparation <strong>for</strong><br />
implementation. In terms of Lewin’s (1947) three step model, the focus is<br />
36