Merging perspectives for a more complete picture of change
Rather than being mutually exclusive opposites, continuous change and episodic change approaches provide different views of the same phenomena. Peering through both lenses provides a clearer picture of change. The macro perspective provides measurable milestones, while the micro perspective of changes as they happen (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002).
Different views of the same phenomena
The distinction between micro and macro levels of analysis highlights one of the limitations in perceiving episodic and continuous change as mutually exclusive. From the macro perspective, the observer might see changes in strategy and processes. Observing the same change from the micro-level might show how dynamically interacting individuals influence the changes in strategy and process.
Driving change through an episodic change perspective might involve adjusting artifacts, the surface features of an organization. For example, for macro-level episodic change, leaders might alter the organizational chart, redefine working relationships, or impose a new set of rules to guide behavior. In comparison, seeing an organization as a complex adaptive system helps to recognize that leaders have to dig into the micro-level so they can identify and understand the deeply held beliefs, values, and assumptions that may be tacitly held by the organization and its members. What this starts to show is that organizational change is not just about changing macro-level artifacts, like charts and processes; but that it also involves digging into the micro-level phenomena that influence macro-level strategy and process (Anacona, 2001).
For example, continuous change perspectives predict that established employees will resist change, requiring external intervention that would “eliminate obstacles” (Kotter, 1996), which could mean replacing the resistant with the willingness to accelerate the implementation of new strategies. However, a four-year study of two Canadian medical facilities conducted by Reay, Golden-Biddle, and Germann (2006) showed that “embedded” employees contributed to change initiatives by applying their experience, connections, and familiarity with the culture and people.
Insiders can accomplish change that outsiders cannot because the insiders have deep knowledge of structure, culture, and politics to drive the changes they want. Considering the structural, cultural, political, and cognitive components of “embeddedness” provides an opportunity to understand how established employees create change. With strong knowledge and understanding of the context and people, astute actors can apply their experience with the system as a foundation for driving change.
Golden-Biddle and Germann’s (2006) conclusions contrast with traditional episodic change models, which suggest embedded employees are barriers to change because their work behaviors are fixed, and require change models that start with a jolt to unfreeze the status quo and external change agents to drive the change. The reality is that embedded employees who are most close to dealing with the consequences of leader decisions likely recognized the need for change long before leaders did, yet become the victims of change by the time the leaders realize that failure to act has put the organization at risk.
Recognizing the role that individual actors and collective action play in change processes, the multi-motor theory of organizational change proposed by Hinings, Greenwood, Reay, & Suddaby (2004) also shows the micro-level processes that continuously influence organizational change. Individuals interpret and recast institutions as they respond to them; reproducing, modifying, or creating new organizations. Hinings, et al. propose a model that shows the dynamics of institutional change as a closed-loop process, with the following steps:
- pressures for change;
- sources of new practices;
- processes of de- and re-institutionalization;
- dynamics of re-institutionalization and de-institutionalization;
- re-institutionalization;
A key limitation of this model is that a closed-loop does not depict a dynamic open system that evolves by interaction with its environment; but a closed-loop “crap circle” that magically fuels itself (Morse, 2005, p. 20); in other words, the model does not represent dynamic reality. The model proposed by Hinings et al. (2004), might be better drawn as a growing or expanding spiral rather than as a closed-loop; but they still offer an important conclusion: organizational change is the result of constant interactions among the organization, the people, and the processes in the organization—the micro and macro levels of analysis.
Linking opposites
Livne-Tarandach and Bartunek (2009) proposed an argument for connecting theories from episodic and continuous perspectives to provide a more comprehensive framework for understanding and influencing change. Analyzing change literature, the researchers identified five different approaches to handling the paradox between episodic and continuous change approaches, selection, separation, integration, transcendence, and connection, as follows:
- Selection. Selection is based on dualistic absolutism, which means the researchers consider one or the other approach without acknowledging that another approach exists.
- Separation. The separation approach acknowledges a dichotomy between episodic and continuous change approaches but recommends selecting one approach over the other depending on the situation.
- Integration. The integration approach attempts to offer a compromise between two opposites, creating a middle way that focuses on similarities; however, it ignores the unique contributions of each extreme.
- Transcendence. The transcendence approach attempts to synthesize the dichotomy by leveraging the contributions of each extreme; however, it fails to account for the interplay between approaches.
- Connection. Connection offers a more complete framework for understanding change because it “seeks ways to embrace, draw energy from, and to give equal voice to bipolar positions” (Livne-Tarandach & Bartunek, p. 17). Offering the Taoist concept of Yin and Yang as a metaphor, Livne-Tarandach and Bartunek proposed that linking the opposite perspectives allows researchers to see the essential elements viewed through each perspective.