- Details
- Written by Brent Duncan, PhD
Traditional change management theory often begins with diagnosing an organization's issues, assuming this step precedes intervention. However, Edgar Schein (1995) challenges this notion by arguing that diagnosing itself is an intervention that alters the organizational dynamics. He elaborates on Kurt Lewin's idea that understanding an organization is intrinsically linked to changing it, stating, "Everything we do with a client system is an intervention… unless we intervene, we will not learn what some of the essential dynamics of the system really are" (Schein, 1995, p. 65). This perspective underscores that diagnosing and changing an organization are intertwined processes.
- Details
- Written by Brent Duncan, PhD
Traditional change theory tends to assume that intervention starts with a diagnosis. Schein (1995) argues that separating the diagnosis from the intervention is a “fundamental error” because diagnosing a situation changes the situation.
Building on Lewin’s proposal that “one cannot understand an organization without trying to change it,” Schein argues that change agents should assume that “everything we do with a client system is an intervention… unless we intervene, we will not learn what some of the essential dynamics of the system really are” (p. 65).
In other words, understanding and changing the system are interrelated acts.
- Details
- Written by Brent Duncan, PhD
Change literature identifies various change targets in organizational settings, like strategy, people, relationships, processes, and technology (Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek, 2004). Perceiving an organization as a dynamically complex social system can help focus limited change resources on individual, group, and culture. These dimensions of an organizing system are not separate parts but also are dynamically interconnected dimensions that build on the previous level: individuals form the group; individuals and groups form the culture. However, this influence not only radiates from individual to group to culture but dynamically interacts among all social dimensions within an organization’s boundaries, affecting the organization’s ability to adapt to the environment outside its boundaries.
- Details
- Written by Brent Duncan, PhD
A Silicon Valley manufacturing company decides to outsource manufacturing operations and lay off thousands of employees. Their approach is a model for transitioning employees into brighter futures while increasing operational efficiencies.
- Details
- Written by Brent Duncan, PhD
Summary: Organizational development is evolving towards embracing continuous change to adapt to increasingly dynamic environments, moving away from solely episodic change. Episodic change involves planned, macro-level interventions to manage organizational failures or opportunities, while continuous change reflects ongoing, micro-level adaptations through interactions of people, processes, and technology. Both views provide complementary insights into organizational change. Episodic change, with its structured approach like Lewin’s unfreeze-move-refreeze model, is criticized for not capturing the constant flux of organizational life. Continuous change, however, lacks clear metrics but offers a perspective of perpetual adaptation. Merging these perspectives allows for a more nuanced understanding of change, suggesting that leaders should integrate both to manage and anticipate change effectively in turbulent contexts.