Organizational Change
What is Organizational Change?
Organizational change is the movement of or within an organization from one state of affairs to another, and change management the process of designing and implementing change. Organizational change can take many forms. It may involve a change in or to strategy, structure, policies, procedures, technology, or culture. The change may be planned in advance or may be suddenly forced upon an organization because of a shift in the environment. Organizational change can be radical and can profoundly alter the way an organization operates, or it may be incremental in changing the way things are done. In any case, change involves letting go of the old ways in which work is done and adjusting to new ways.
Types of Change
There are many different types of changes in organizations. One of the most common is technological change. Implementation of new technologies is often forced upon an organization as the environment shifts. For example, a transition to new software may require that employees learn new ways of working. Likewise, upgraded machinery or hardware may require employees to learn new procedures or restructure the way that they interact with one another.
Another common type of organizational change is structural change. Structural change refers to modifications in the formal relationships, roles, and frameworks within an organization. These changes often involve reorganizing departments or business units, creating new employee positions, or redefining job roles and responsibilities. Structural changes are typically implemented to align the organization with broader strategic goals, such as centralizing or decentralizing operations, empowering employees, or improving efficiency.
A third common type of organizational change is culture change. Organizational culture refers to the common patterns of thinking and behaving within an organization. Culture is rooted in the underlying beliefs and assumptions that people hold of themselves and of the organization. These beliefs and assumptions create mindsets that shape the culture. Culture change is among the most difficult kinds of changes to create within an organizational system. It often involves reshaping and reimagining the core identity of the organization.[1]
Resistance to Organizational Change
Change is often essential for a company to remain competitive over time. Yet employees do not always welcome change; their reactions may range from resistance to compliance to enthusiastic support of the change, with enthusiasm being the exception rather than the norm.[2]
Active resistance is the most negative reaction to proposed change. Those who engage in active resistance may sabotage the change effort and be outspoken objectors to the new procedures. In contrast, passive resistance involves being disturbed by changes without necessarily voicing these opinions. Instead, passive resisters may quietly dislike the change, feel stressed and unhappy, and even look for an alternative job without necessarily bringing their point to the attention of decision makers. Compliance, on the other hand, involves going along with proposed changes with little enthusiasm. Finally, those who show enthusiastic support are defenders of the proposed change who encourage others around them to give support to the change effort as well.
Resistance to change can serve as a valuable feedback tool that should not be ignored. Why are people resisting the proposed changes? Do they feel that the new system will not work? If so, why not? By listening to people and incorporating their suggestions into the change effort, it is possible to make a more effective change. Some of a company’s most committed employees may be the most vocal opponents of a change effort. They may fear that the organization is being threatened by the planned change effort and that the change will ultimately hurt the company. In contrast, people who have less loyalty to the organization may comply with the proposed changes simply because they do not care enough about the fate of the company to oppose the changes.[3]
Dimensions of Change
There are three key dimensions to organizational change: the scope of change, the level of change, and the intentionality of change.
Scope of Change
The scope of change refers to the degree to which the planned or required change will disrupt current patterns and routines. Incremental change refers to small refinements in current organizational practices or routines that do not challenge, but rather build on or improve, existing aspects and practices within the organization. Common incremental change practices are LEAN and Six Sigma, which are used to find relatively small changes that can generate greater efficiencies in a process. According to these approaches, an organization can improve by identifying small discrepancies in process, then fixing them in a systematic way.[4]
In contrast, transformational change refers to dramatic shifts in an organizational system that may cause significant disruption to some underlying aspect of the organization, its processes, or structures. Transformational change can be invigorating for some employees, but also highly disruptive and stressful for others. Examples of transformational change include large systems changes and organizational restructuring. Culture change often requires transformational change to be successful.[5]
Level of Change
The level of change refers to the target of change within an organization, which includes individual, group, and organizational levels. Individual-level change focuses on how to help employees to improve some active aspect of their performance or the knowledge they need to continue to contribute to the organization in an effective manner. Individual-level change programs include leadership development, training, and performance management. Group-level change centers on the relationships between people and usually focuses on helping people to work more effectively together. Team development, or teambuilding, is one of the most common forms of a team change process. Organization-level change is a change that affects an entire organizational system or several of its units. Higher-level change programs usually require changes at lower levels. In other words, an organization-level change may require change at both team and individual levels as well.
Intentionality of Change
Intentionality of change is the final dimension of change and refers to the degree to which the change is purposefully implemented. Planned change is an intentional activity or set of activities that are designed to create movement toward a specific goal or end. Planned change processes often involve step-by-step or phase-by-phase activities that unfold over a period of time. In contrast, unplanned change occurs randomly and spontaneously, and is generally imposed on an organization by unexpected internal or external forces. When an unplanned change occurs, in response to circumstances such as an employee strike or a sudden economic downturn, managers may be taken by surprise and change-related activities may not be as organized or methodical.
Planning and Executing Change
How do leaders and managers plan, organize, and execute change effectively? Two prominent change models—from Kurt Lewin and John Kotter—provide structured frameworks for organizations to plan and execute change effectively.
Lewin’s Change Model
One of the most well-known frameworks in change management is the three-stage model of planned change developed in the 1950s by psychologist Kurt Lewin.[6] This model assumes that change will encounter resistance. Therefore, executing change without prior preparation is likely to lead to failure. Instead, organizations should start with unfreezing, or making sure that organizational members are ready for and receptive to change. This is followed by change, or executing the planned changes. Finally, refreezing involves ensuring that change becomes permanent and the new habits, rules, or procedures become the norm.
Video 1: Lewin’s Change Theory – Unfreeze, Change, Refreeze Method. Closed captioning is available.
First, an organization must be “unfrozen” in that existing norms, routines, and practices need to be disrupted. This can be done in several ways. For example, structural changes that cause a disruption in the system can be introduced to the organization. Similarly, the introduction of a new technology or policy can cause an organization to “unfreeze.” Whatever the cause, unfreezing sets the stage for change.
Next, changes are introduced in the organization to shift the system to a new state or reality. Typically, people react to moments of disorder by creating a new form of order. As changes are introduced, managers might provide a number of interventions that help people adjust to the new norms of reality they are facing. For example, they might require employees to go through a training program, or they might hold discussion sessions or town-hall meetings with people talk about the changes and troubleshoot. The intent of this phase is to help people adjust to the expected change.
The final phase is to “refreeze” the organization. That is, leaders of the organization reinforce the new norms or practices that should accompany the change. They might adjust the resources, policies, and routines to fit the new expected norms.
Lewin’s model explains a very basic process that accompanies many organizational changes. That is, many people prefer a stable, predictable organization, and they become accustomed to the routines that exist in their organizational environment. For this reason, common routines and behaviors need to be disrupted. When past routines and behaviors are no longer available, people naturally adjust. As they react to a new reality, they establish new routines and patterns of behavior.
Lewin’s model is most understandable when we assume that an organization is generally stable unless otherwise acted upon. That is, this model seems to fit in organizations in which any change is likely to last for a long period of time. Such a stable organizational context is increasingly uncommon in contemporary society.
Kotter’s Change Model
John Kotter, a Harvard University professor, wrote a book in 1996 titled Leading Change in which he discussed eight steps to changing an organization.[7] Along with Lewin’s model, Kotter’s change model is one of the most widely used in organizations today. It is an eight-step model that relies on a centralized, top-down process for creating planned change.
Video 2: Leading Change by John P. Kotter. 8-step Change Model: Animated Summary. Closed captioning is available.
In the first step, managers establish a sense of urgency. They do this by creating a narrative about why the change is necessary. Top managers often use diagnostic tools to gather data that supports the case for change. They strive to convince key organizational leaders and employees that the change is absolutely necessary. A common metaphor is to “create a burning platform,” or to make it clear that the organization cannot survive if it continues doing what it has done.
In the second step, form a powerful guiding coalition, managers assemble a group of influential people to help shape the planned change. Ideally, the guiding coalition should represent the areas of an organization that will be affected by the change. The guiding coalition should become ambassadors for the change as it unfolds.
In the third step, create a vision of change, the manager and guiding coalition together create a vision of the expected change. They outline the scope of the change, the reason for the change, and what will be better or different as a result of the change.
The fourth step is to communicate the vision—reach out to all members of the organization and communicate the vision for change. Ideally, they connect with all the key areas of the organization that will be affected. They clearly explain why the change is needed and how the change should unfold. If needed, they answer questions and clarify problems.
The fifth step is to remove obstacles. This step is intended to reduce the resistance to change and/or to provide the necessary resources to make the change successful. The success of this step helps to smooth the way for successful implementation.
The sixth step is to create small wins. A very powerful way to encourage people to support changes to help them to see the path to success. Short wins signal to the organization that a change is possible and that tangible benefits will come once the change is fully implemented.
The seventh step is to consolidate improvements. Small changes build up over time and become big changes. As the organization successfully moves toward implementation, it is important to consolidate and solidify successes. Managers should reinforce and celebrate small wins and milestones. The unfolding success of the change helps to convince all members of the organization that the change is real and will produce its intended benefits.
The last step is to anchor the changes. In this step, the new norms and practices that accompany the change are standardized and refined. The mode of change moves from transformational to incremental. Refinements are implemented to fine-tune the change and to capture all the intended benefits.
Kotter’s model is especially useful in situations where the desired change is reasonably predictable and where leaders are empowered to drive the change down through an organization. One challenge is that many employees may resist change if they have had no hand in shaping the plans. This is especially true if they do not fully comprehend the urgency of the change or the vision for the change.
The Kotter and Lewin models are compared in Figure 1 below.
Chapter Review
Video 1: What is Change Management? Closed captioning is available.
Practice questions coming soon!
Optional Resources to Learn More
 |
Articles |
| Harvard Business Review: Change Is Hard. Here’s How to Make It Less Painful. | |
 |
Books |
| Change Management: The People Side of Change by Jeffrey Hiatt and Timothy Creasey | |
| Leading Change by John P. Kotter | |
 |
Podcasts |
| WorkLife with Adam Grant: How to Change Your Workplace | Apple Spotify Transcript | |
 |
Videos |
| GreggU: Organizational Change |
Chapter Attribution
[coming soon]
Media Attributions
[coming soon]
- Kotter, J. & Schlesinger, L. (1979). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57, 106-114. ↵
- Huy, Q. N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of Management Review, 24, 325–345. ↵
- Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Review, 33, 362–377. ↵
- SMU Global Online and Continuing Education. (2022, June 20). What are the differences between Lean and Six Sigma? https://blog.smu.edu/global/six-sigma-vs-lean-learning-the-differences/ ↵
- Eisenbach, R., Watson, K., & Pillai, R. (1999). Transformational leadership in the context of organizational change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(2), 80-89. ↵
- Lewin K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row. ↵
- Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. ↵
The movement of or within an organization from one state of affairs to another.
The process of designing and implementing change.
In change management, the most negative reaction to proposed change; those who engage in active resistance may sabotage the change effort and be outspoken objectors to the new procedure.
In change management, being disturbed by changes without necessarily voicing these opinions; instead, passive resisters may quietly dislike the change, feel stressed and unhappy, and even look for an alternative job without necessarily bringing their point to the attention of decision makers.
In change management, going along with proposed changes with little enthusiasm.
In change management, defenders of the proposed change who encourage others around them to give support to the change effort as well.
The degree to which the planned or required change will disrupt current patterns and routines.
Small refinements in current organizational practices or routines that do not challenge, but rather build on or improve, existing aspects and practices within the organization.
Dramatic shifts in an organizational system that may cause significant disruption to some underlying aspect of the organization, its processes, or structures.
The target of change within an organization, which includes individual, group, and organizational levels.
The degree to which the change is purposefully implemented.
