2024
Change Consultancy:
Approaches and
Instruments
BY ALEXANDER MAATJE
,Contents
(I) Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations.......2
(III) Smith et al. (2020) chapter 4 on biological lens................................................................................5
(VI) Barnett and Pontikes (2008). The red queen, success bias, and organizational inertia....................8
(V) Chia, R. (2014). Reflections: in praise of silent transformation–allowing change through ‘letting
happen’................................................................................................................................................11
(VI) Brown, SL and Eisenhardt, KM. (1997). The art of continuous change...........................................14
(VIII) Cummings and Worley (2008) Organization development and change, chapter 9.......................16
(X) Smith , Skinner & Read (2020). ch. 10, a cultural lens on change....................................................22
(XI) Wright, C. and Nyberg, D. (2017) An inconvenient truth: How organizations translate climate
change into business as usual...............................................................................................................22
(XII) Boonstra, J.J. (2013). Conclusion on interventions for cultural change, in: Cultural change and
leadership in organizations...................................................................................................................25
(XIII) Boonstra, J. (2004). Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning........................................25
,(I) Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining
development and change in organizations
This article introduces four basic theories that may serve as building blocks for explaining processes
of change in organizations: life cycle, teleology, dialectics, and evolution. These four theories
represent different sequences of change events that are driven by different conceptual motors and
operate at different organizational levels.
Life-cycle theory
Life-cycle theories include developmentalism, biogenesis, ontogenesis, and a number of stage
theories of child development, human development, moral development, organizational
development, group decision-making stages, and new venture development. Change is imminent: the
developing entity has within it an underlying form, logic, program, or code that regulates the process
of change and moves the entity from a given point of departure toward a subsequent end that is
prefigured in the present state. Thus, the form that lies latent, premature, or homogeneous in the
embryo or primitive state becomes progressively more realized, mature, and differentiated. External
environmental events and processes can influence how the entity expresses itself, but they are always
mediated by the immanent logic, rules, or programs that govern the entity's development.
The typical progression of change events in a life-cycle model is a unitary sequence (it follows a single
sequence of stages or phases), which is cumulative (characteristics acquired in earlier stages are
retained in later stages) and conjunctive (the stages are related such that they derive from a common
underlying process). Each of these events contributes a piece to the final product, and they must
occur in a prescribed order, because each piece sets the stage for the next. Each stage of
development is seen as a necessary precursor of succeeding stages.
, Teleological theory
Relying on teleology, that goal is the final cause for guiding movement of an entity. This approach
underlies many organizational theories of change, decision making, social construction, adaptive
learning, and most models of strategic planning and goal setting. According to teleology,
development of an organizational entity proceeds toward a goal or an end state. It is assumed that
the entity is purposeful and adaptive; the entity constructs an envisioned end state, takes action to
reach it, and monitors the progress. Proponents of this theory view development as a repetitive
sequence of goal formulation, implementation, evaluation, and modification of goals based on what
was learned or intended by the entity. The organization can decide for themselves what the goal is.
Teleology does not prescribe a sequence of events or specify which trajectory development of the
organizational entity will follow. This theory implies a standard for judging change: development is
something that moves the entity toward its final state. There is no prefigured rule or set sequence of
stages in a teleological process. Instead, proponents of this theory focus on the prerequisites for
attaining the goal or end state: the functions that must be fulfilled, the accomplishments that must
be achieved, or the components that must be built or obtained for the end state to be realized.
It also recognizes limits on action. The organization's environment and resources constrain what it
can accomplish. Some of these constraints are embodied in prerequisites defined by institutions and
other actors in the entity's environment.
Goals are socially reconstructed and enacted based on past actions. Influences in the external
environment or within the entity itself may create instabilities that push it toward a new
developmental path. Theories that rely on a teleological process cannot specify what trajectory
development of an organizational entity will follow. Proponents of such theories can at best list a set
of possible paths and then rely on norms of decision rationality or action rationality.
Dialectical theory
The organizational entity exists in a pluralistic world of colliding events, forces, or contradictory values
that compete with each other for domination and control. These oppositions may be internal to an
organizational entity because it may have several conflicting goals or interest groups competing for
priority. Also, oppositions may be external to the organizational entity as it pursues directions that
collide with the direction of other organizations. In any case, a dialectical theory requires two or more
distinct entities that embody these oppositions to confront and engage one another in conflict.
Stability and change are explained by reference to the balance of power between opposing entities.
Struggles and accommodations that maintain the status quo between oppositions produce stability.
Change occurs when these opposing values, forces, or events gain sufficient power to confront and
engage the status quo.
There is no assurance that dialectical conflicts produce creative synthesis. Sometimes an opposition
group mobilizes sufficient power to simply overthrow and replace the status quo. Thus, also, many
organizations persist by maintaining sufficient power to suppress and prevent the mobilization of
opposition groups. In the bargaining and conflict management literature, the desired creative
synthesis is one that represents a win-win solution, whereas either the maintenance of the thesis or
its replacement with an antithesis is often treated as a win-lose outcome of a conflict engagement. In
terms of organizational change, maintenance of the status quo represents stability, but its
replacement with either the antithesis or the synthesis represents a change, for better or worse.
Evolutionary theory
Change Consultancy:
Approaches and
Instruments
BY ALEXANDER MAATJE
,Contents
(I) Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining development and change in organizations.......2
(III) Smith et al. (2020) chapter 4 on biological lens................................................................................5
(VI) Barnett and Pontikes (2008). The red queen, success bias, and organizational inertia....................8
(V) Chia, R. (2014). Reflections: in praise of silent transformation–allowing change through ‘letting
happen’................................................................................................................................................11
(VI) Brown, SL and Eisenhardt, KM. (1997). The art of continuous change...........................................14
(VIII) Cummings and Worley (2008) Organization development and change, chapter 9.......................16
(X) Smith , Skinner & Read (2020). ch. 10, a cultural lens on change....................................................22
(XI) Wright, C. and Nyberg, D. (2017) An inconvenient truth: How organizations translate climate
change into business as usual...............................................................................................................22
(XII) Boonstra, J.J. (2013). Conclusion on interventions for cultural change, in: Cultural change and
leadership in organizations...................................................................................................................25
(XIII) Boonstra, J. (2004). Dynamics of Organizational Change and Learning........................................25
,(I) Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining
development and change in organizations
This article introduces four basic theories that may serve as building blocks for explaining processes
of change in organizations: life cycle, teleology, dialectics, and evolution. These four theories
represent different sequences of change events that are driven by different conceptual motors and
operate at different organizational levels.
Life-cycle theory
Life-cycle theories include developmentalism, biogenesis, ontogenesis, and a number of stage
theories of child development, human development, moral development, organizational
development, group decision-making stages, and new venture development. Change is imminent: the
developing entity has within it an underlying form, logic, program, or code that regulates the process
of change and moves the entity from a given point of departure toward a subsequent end that is
prefigured in the present state. Thus, the form that lies latent, premature, or homogeneous in the
embryo or primitive state becomes progressively more realized, mature, and differentiated. External
environmental events and processes can influence how the entity expresses itself, but they are always
mediated by the immanent logic, rules, or programs that govern the entity's development.
The typical progression of change events in a life-cycle model is a unitary sequence (it follows a single
sequence of stages or phases), which is cumulative (characteristics acquired in earlier stages are
retained in later stages) and conjunctive (the stages are related such that they derive from a common
underlying process). Each of these events contributes a piece to the final product, and they must
occur in a prescribed order, because each piece sets the stage for the next. Each stage of
development is seen as a necessary precursor of succeeding stages.
, Teleological theory
Relying on teleology, that goal is the final cause for guiding movement of an entity. This approach
underlies many organizational theories of change, decision making, social construction, adaptive
learning, and most models of strategic planning and goal setting. According to teleology,
development of an organizational entity proceeds toward a goal or an end state. It is assumed that
the entity is purposeful and adaptive; the entity constructs an envisioned end state, takes action to
reach it, and monitors the progress. Proponents of this theory view development as a repetitive
sequence of goal formulation, implementation, evaluation, and modification of goals based on what
was learned or intended by the entity. The organization can decide for themselves what the goal is.
Teleology does not prescribe a sequence of events or specify which trajectory development of the
organizational entity will follow. This theory implies a standard for judging change: development is
something that moves the entity toward its final state. There is no prefigured rule or set sequence of
stages in a teleological process. Instead, proponents of this theory focus on the prerequisites for
attaining the goal or end state: the functions that must be fulfilled, the accomplishments that must
be achieved, or the components that must be built or obtained for the end state to be realized.
It also recognizes limits on action. The organization's environment and resources constrain what it
can accomplish. Some of these constraints are embodied in prerequisites defined by institutions and
other actors in the entity's environment.
Goals are socially reconstructed and enacted based on past actions. Influences in the external
environment or within the entity itself may create instabilities that push it toward a new
developmental path. Theories that rely on a teleological process cannot specify what trajectory
development of an organizational entity will follow. Proponents of such theories can at best list a set
of possible paths and then rely on norms of decision rationality or action rationality.
Dialectical theory
The organizational entity exists in a pluralistic world of colliding events, forces, or contradictory values
that compete with each other for domination and control. These oppositions may be internal to an
organizational entity because it may have several conflicting goals or interest groups competing for
priority. Also, oppositions may be external to the organizational entity as it pursues directions that
collide with the direction of other organizations. In any case, a dialectical theory requires two or more
distinct entities that embody these oppositions to confront and engage one another in conflict.
Stability and change are explained by reference to the balance of power between opposing entities.
Struggles and accommodations that maintain the status quo between oppositions produce stability.
Change occurs when these opposing values, forces, or events gain sufficient power to confront and
engage the status quo.
There is no assurance that dialectical conflicts produce creative synthesis. Sometimes an opposition
group mobilizes sufficient power to simply overthrow and replace the status quo. Thus, also, many
organizations persist by maintaining sufficient power to suppress and prevent the mobilization of
opposition groups. In the bargaining and conflict management literature, the desired creative
synthesis is one that represents a win-win solution, whereas either the maintenance of the thesis or
its replacement with an antithesis is often treated as a win-lose outcome of a conflict engagement. In
terms of organizational change, maintenance of the status quo represents stability, but its
replacement with either the antithesis or the synthesis represents a change, for better or worse.
Evolutionary theory
