Seo, Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek (2004) offer the concepts of duality and tension to explain the implications of different change practices and better understand the dynamics among the assumptions of different OD perspectives. Dualities are the polar opposites that work against one another. Dualities are not necessarily mutually exclusive alternatives, but “the choice to focus on one of the poles creates a tension and difficulty to enact both ends of the continuum simultaneously.” This section summarizes critical perspectives that have guided the field of Organizational Development, including the central debates, epistemological assumptions, strengths of weaknesses, and focus of each.

Western versus eastern

Lewin (1951) represented these tensions as forces on one side attempting to maintain stability and forces on the other side trying to change. A key to implementing change under the Lewinian model is strengthening the forces for change and weakening the forces for stability. Lewin’s rich duality has degraded into the simplistic unfreeze>move>refreeze steps for driving organizational change that requires introducing conflict to force change from the status quo to the desired state, replacing old with new for a better future. Herein lays a criticism of OD practice.

With theoretical foundations based on humanistic, democratic values that emphasize individual and organizational growth through collaboration (Marshak, 1993; Robbins & Judge, 2007), Lewinian OD practices do not necessarily work in non-western cultures (Marshak, 1993). Robert Marshak emphasizes this point by labeling American OD practices as biased[i]. He highlights the differences between Lewin’s three-stage model of change that serves as the core of western OD practice and the Confusion concept of Yin Yang that serves as a foundation of eastern cultural philosophy. Yin-Yang also provides a model for understanding how considering bipolar positions can allow OD practitioners to identify essential elements of and tensions between each (Livne-Tarandach & Bartunek, 2009; Marshak, 1993).

Yin Yang is not a change model but a foundation philosophy of East Asian cultures, which proposes that all existence and phenomena result from opposing forces balancing to achieve harmony. Yin-Yang represents duality as opposing forces in a cyclical balance around harmony (Marshak, 1993; Nuyen, 2001). Change happens through the continuous cycle of Yin-Yang and the Five Forces, as follows: Wood (birth), Fire (growth), Earth (maturity), decline (Metal), death (Water), and repeat. This universal principle explains all phenomena and through which all things are related to and balanced against one another. For example, this philosophy holds the stars can determine government policy and predict the future. The cyclical nature of Yin-Yang means that all things eventually recycle into their opposites, all phenomena contain the seeds of their opposite, no phenomena are void of their opposite. All things are related (Marshak, 1993).

Lewin’s force field model and Yin-Yang help explain the schemata through which cultures perceive reality, thereby suggesting practices for effective intervention in respective cultures. Marshak (1993) compares five assumptions of each model, proposing implications for each.

1. Linear progression versus cyclical process. Lewin’s model suggests that change is a linear process that strives for a better future; moving backward means failure. In contrast, the Confusion model assumes that change is a cyclical process that revolves around harmony. No stage is better than the next, but they are related and necessary to maintain an eternal cycle. The implication here is that a linear perspective considers any backward movement inappropriate, while the cyclical view sees circles as normal and necessary.
2. Destination versus journey. The Lewin perspective assumes that success means achieving a goal or desired state, while the Confusion perspective assumes that change is a journey. What matters is following the Way. The implication is that destination orientation requires establishing end states, while the journey orientation strives for continuous improvement following the Way. All things follow the Way, and all things are related.

[continued?][ii]

Theory E and Theory O

Beer & Nohria (2000) expose duality in OD perspectives by proposing Theory E and Theory O, change theories representing bipolar values, goals, and actions. With shareholder value as the critical measurement of organizational success, Theory E is a “hard” approach to change that uses drastic economic restructuring and incentives to drive radical change in the tangible structures of the organization. Theory E is a quick way to drive a turnaround through a radical transformation at the expense of long-term damage to organizational culture.

With the critical measurement being the organization’s ability to learn, Theory O is a “soft” approach to change that focuses on building organizational viability by addressing beliefs and social relationships while enhancing individual and organizational learning and continuous improvement. Theory O preserves organizational culture but can slow change processes to the point that the organization has difficulty adapting. At the same time, loyalty and commitment to employees can prevent managers from making necessary business decisions.

Although Theory E and Theory O represent bipolar approaches to change, Beer and Nohria (2000) do not believe they are not mutually exclusive. Organizations can risk fomenting distrust by jumping between cutthroat and nurturing behaviors; however, they argue, “Companies that effectively combine both approaches to change can reap big payoffs in profitability and productivity” (p. 131).

Episodic versus continuous change

Duality is also apparent in the philosophical shift from episodic change to continuous change that emerged as global competitive environments shifted from relatively static to continuously turbulent. Weick and Quinn (1999) define the metaphor of episodic change as the inertia-prone organization in which the pace of change is “infrequent, discontinuous, and intentional” (p. 365). This is “second-order change” through which outside agents create leverage to change the schema, meaning that the organization takes action to replace past practices with new strategies, structure, skills, and people (p. 365). Reviewing academic literature on change, Weick and Quinn (1999) conclude that “failure” (p. 365) triggers all episodic change, as follows: the organization suffers a loss, makes plans to change, implements the plan, and then deals with unintended consequences.

Continuous change theory can help leaders address the limitations of episodic change models by providing insight into the informal, continuous, and adaptive processes that dynamically interact with factors inside and outside the organization (Livne-Tarandach & Bartunek, 2009). Developing sensitivity to the change processes continuously at work within the organization can help leaders to evaluate and influence change readiness and create organizations that can readily adapt in a turbulent environment. Continuous change is the incremental change that happens to the organization through the dynamic interaction of people, processes, and the environment. Weick and Quinn (1999) define the metaphor of continuous change as the emergent and self-organizing organization that constantly evolves and adapts. This metaphor provides a view of “first-order change” (p. 365), which shows an extension and evolution of past practices with current people, knowledge, and skills.

Rather than occasional disruption, continuous change involves unending modifications in process and practice. The tempo of episodic change is “infrequent, discontinuous, and intentional” (Weick & Quinn, 1999, p. 365) events that spur the spontaneous evolution of the organization. Alert reactions to inherent instability drive change, as small changes cumulate and multiply to drive cycles of adaptation and evolution. Rather than throwing out old processes and people through an unfreeze-move-refreeze process, the agent driving continuous change redirects and shapes the change by identifying, clarifying, and reframing current patterns while fostering creativity, transformation, and learning. Weick and Quinn (1999) propose that this process is a “freeze, rebalance, unfreeze” (p. 379) sequence. In this sense, freezing means capturing and defining emergent processes. Rebalancing means reinterpreting the patterns and reframing issues as opportunities. Unfreezing after rebalancing means to “resume improvisation and learning” (p. 380).

Tensions between episodic and continuous change perspectives ease when change agents consider the unique aspects that each offers for different environments. Linking divergent views gives leaders a complete picture of the same phenomena. Episodic change theory provides executives with definable and measurable processes for driving change at the macro level of the organization. In contrast, continuous change theory offers an understanding of the inherent dynamic processes that affect change at the macro level. In static environments, organizational leaders have the luxury of long-range business plans that only require periodic, episodic adjustments to correct failures or take advantage of opportunities. Organizational leaders must develop continuous change as a core competency to survive in increasingly turbulent environments. In many change applications, leaders may find balancing both episodic and continuous change perspectives will result in the more effective and lasting change (Duncan, 2010).

First-order and second-order change

First-order and second-order change theories expose another duality in OD practice. First-order change attempts to solve problems within the existing framework, reinforcing established schemata. Many OD interventions focus specifically on first-order change and can fail if the change agent does not consider the support for the status quo. When change agents find that present schemes are adequate, they can introduce change within the existing framework; first-order change (Bartunek & Moch, 1987). Second-order change modifies existing schemata by gradually implementing change, phasing in new schemata while phasing out old. Second-order change efforts can fail if change agents do not consider that altering schemata may benefit some while restricting or threatening others. With the second-order change, the change agent serves as a consultant who establishes, advocates, and facilitates others toward a desired state that the change agent thinks is best for the client (Bartunek & Moch, 1987).

Second-order change usually requires the introduction of a crisis that unfreezes the status quo. A change agent introduces the desired state and then facilitates the organization toward the new schemata. Mechanisms for initiating second-order change usually involve introducing a state of cognitive dissonance in the change targets. For example, giving orders that cannot be carried out in the current schemes, relabeling behaviors, or showing how the existing schemata do not serve the interests of others. The change targets must recognize problems with the current schemata and present a viable alternative. Second-order change is usually ambiguous and conflictual but can occur (Bartunek & Moch, 1987).

Overcoming the oversimplification of duality

Reality is rarely as simple as a dichotomy suggests. Still, when considering reality through a dichotomous schema, the OD practitioner must recognize a complex collection of multiple competing dualities that create dynamically interrelated tensions. Considering the targets and motivation of change, Seo et al. (2004) identify tensions among the individual, group, and organizational level of an organization, the internal needs versus the external demands of the organization, the human systems, and the technical systems of the organization, and first-order versus second-order change. Considering the characteristics of change processes, Seo et al. identify tensions between negative and positive aspects of change, continuous versus episodic, proactive and reactive, and open versus closed.

In other words, change is not a matter of balancing between two dualities but also about recognizing multiple tensions that dynamically interact in and around the change target. Further complicating change processes, the tensions do not neatly fit on a spectrum between two opposing forces but are likely among multiple dimensions. For example, some OD literature recognizes the limitations of considering a change on a range between first-order and second-order change. First-order change represents planned change within the current framework; second-order change changes the framework.

However, these do not consider third-order change, the unplanned changes that naturally occur with or without planned change processes (Bartunek & Moch, 1987). Increasing awareness of schemata and encouraging client appreciation of other schemata can facilitate change. Third-order change trains members to be aware of their schemata and change their own schemata as necessary. Third-order change requires that the change agent fill a role as a teacher and trainer who helps organizational members determine when change is needed to implement it themselves. In this situation, the change agent has no established schemata; but is helping the client be aware of existing schemata, assess how the schemata influence actions and effectiveness, and develop new schemata.

Generations

Although the concept of dualities may be simplistic, Seo et al. argue that it provides a framework for understanding how the “relationships among and the management of these bipolar pairs are the keys to grasping the complexities and dynamics of planned change” (Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek, 2004, p. 102). Seo, et al. formalize the OD duality concept by categorizing OD approaches by three historical generations and then considering each generation against dualities and tensions in change targets and change process.

The dualities in change targets include individual versus organization, internal versus external, human systems versus technical systems, and first-order versus second-order change. The dualities and tensions in change processes include negative focus versus positive focus, continuous versus episodic, proactive versus reactive, and open versus closed. This section will summarize this framework and consider other perspectives within the framework proposed by Seo et al. (2004, p. 102).

First-generation OD approaches

Kurt Lewin established the foundation of OD by providing the theoretical foundation to guide OD practice and establishing research practices for testing real-world issues in laboratory settings. As stated by biographer Alfred Morrow (1969), “Lewin’s most enduring legacy was his innovative blending of science and practice” (p. 234). The OD practices that emerged from Lewinian foundations were built on the American management philosophy of humanistic, democratic values that emphasized individual and organizational growth through collaboration (Robbins & Judge, 2007). First-generation intervention approaches included action research, sensitivity training, team building, socio-technical systems, quality of work-life, and survey feedback.

Seo, et al. (2004) say that first-generation OD approaches tend to focus on the following change targets:

• Groups and individuals while disregarding tensions between the individual and the organization.
• Internal drivers for change while ignoring external forces;
• Favoring human needs over technical systems, and
• First-order change is more than second-order, meaning that organizations attempt to change the current framework (Bartunek & Moch, 1987).

The characteristics of change processes in first-generation OD practice focus on the following:

• Negatives while ignoring positives
• Episodic processes
• Separate proactive and reactive processes
• Open processes rather than closed processes.

Second-generation OD practices

Turbulent global competitive environments in the 1980s forced organizations to develop adaptability as a core competency. Second-generation OD emerged with planned change processes to drive large-scale interventions and organizational transformations for aligning organizations with their dynamic environments. Bertalanffy (1969) offered the biological organism as a metaphor to explain how organizations are a complex open system that survives by aligning with and exchanging resources with the environment, a concept Katz and Kahn (1966) would adapt for OD practice.

Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) proposed a contingency approach to organizational development, arguing that different environments place different requirements on organizations and that organizations exist because they have adapted to their environments. Similarly, congruence theory emerged to explain how aligning environment, strategy, and organizational components could enhance organizational adaptability and performance. While first-generation OD practices focus on gradually developing individuals and groups for organizational effectiveness, second-generation methods focus on radical change at the system level to enhance continuous survival and growth by breaking from the past (Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek, 2004).

Second-generation intervention approaches include organizational transformations and large-scale interventions. Seo, et al. (Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek, 2004) say that second-generation methods tend to focus on the following change targets:

• Organization-wide transformation rather than individual and group change.
• Both internal and external factors that drive change.
• Strategic issues over human systems, and first-order change over second-order change, meaning that change interventions attempt to break from the past by replacing the existing framework with a new framework (Bartunek & Moch, 1987).

Second-generation approaches to change also focus on the following characteristics of change:

• Negative sides while ignoring positive sides.
• Episodic more than dominant; both proactive and reactive processes.
• Open processes rather than closed.

Third-generation OD approaches

Seo, et al. (2004) propose a third-generation OD approach that parts from second-generation methods by assuming that the past plays a crucial role in understanding the development of an organization. Rather than breaking with the past, Kimberly and Bouchihkhi (1995) argue that transforming an organization requires visionaries who can consider the organizational biography to understand how the organization’s history shapes its present and constrains its future. The learning organization and inquiry serve as the vital third-generation approaches.

The learning organization

Senge (1990) offered the learning organization as a model for transformational change by arguing that a learning organization is “an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future” (p. 14). Senge offered five disciplines for a learning organization: systems thinking, personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning.

Seo, et al. (2004) say that the learning organization concept focuses on

• The individual, group, and organizational processes without recognizing tensions among them.
• Internal drivers and capacity for change rather than external drivers.
• Human systems as the means and the end of change rather than on technical systems.
• Second-order change over first-order change.

Although Seo et al. (2004) consider only first-order and second-order change in their analysis of OD approaches, the learning organization concept helps expose a limitation of considering change through a dichotomous perspective between first-order and second-order change. Neither of these alternatives adequately explains the third-order change. This natural change occurs as organizational members develop the capacity to recognize when change is necessary to implement change themselves (Bartunek & Moch, 1987; 1994). Third-order change is not planned and cannot be controlled. Instead, it emerges as people become aware of their assumptions and appreciate the alternatives. However, understanding third-order change means agents can influence or explain natural changes. The learning organization concept also focuses on the following characteristics of change processes:

• Both negative and positive aspects.
• Continuous aspects in preparation for episodic processes.
• Proactive in responding to changing environments.
• Open, rather than closed.

Appreciative inquiry

Appreciative inquiry has become widely used worldwide since Cooperrider and Srivastva introduced it in the mid-1980s as a philosophy for creating revolutionary change to implement global sustainable development strategies (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001). Appreciative inquiry assumes that people create their reality through dialogue with others, social systems have multiple positive outcomes, and social systems can build consensus around positive aspects. Watkins and Mohr (2001) [in (Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek, 2004)] inquiry proposes five generic processes for change, as follows:

• Focus on positive aspects of change.
• Explore stories of life-giving forces.
• Find themes in the stories that invite deeper inquiry.
• Create shared images of the preferred future.
• Find innovative methods to create the preferred future.

Seo, et al. (2004) say that the appreciative inquiry method focuses on the following targets of change:

• The individual, group, and system-wide processes, while not recognizing potential tensions.
• Internal drivers and capacity for change, rather than on external drivers.
• Human systems as the means and ends of change.
• Second-order more than first-order change.

As with the learning organization concept, appreciative exposes the limitation of the dichotomous perspective on change by not recognizing the natural change processes that appreciative inquiry attempts to manipulate. Through appreciative inquiry, change agents attempt to facilitate third-order change by making large social groups aware of established schemata so the members can believe they are creating their future alternatives. Regarding the characteristics of change processes, Seo, et al. (2004) say that appreciative inquiry focuses on the following:

• Positive aspects without acknowledging the negative.
• Episodic and revolutionary change rather than continuous change.
• Strong preference for proactive processes over-reactive processes.
• Open systems over closed systems perspective.

Conclusion

Historical approaches to planned change typically offer prepackaged processes for driving changes to achieve organizational goals. However, the complexity of dynamically interacting and divergent forces at work in and around organizations limits the possibility of selecting one single approach for a change intervention. Seo, et al. (2004) provided a framework for categorizing and understanding how to understand and manage dynamically interacting dualities among dimensions of planned change. When considering divergent perspectives and approaches to OD, practitioners should be careful to consider one method better than another should. Dualities do not necessarily mean mutual exclusivity but can represent different perspectives on and provide various solutions for the same problem.

Increasingly complex problems in dynamic environments require increasingly innovative solutions that apply different approaches or mixes of approaches to organizational change. As Huy (2001) suggested, no best way exists to implement change. Understanding situational conditions and various will lead to more innovative approaches for implementing an effective large-scale intervention. Adaptable organizations manage different mixes of change interventions to balance the tension between multiple competing dualities continuously. Organizations that effectively combine disparate approaches to change can achieve long-term competitive advantage while reducing the anxiety groups face during change events. Connection offers a 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, 2009, p. 17; Seo, Putnam, & Bartunek, 2004). Though it is a simplistic representation of reality, the duality concept helps OD practitioners understand how linking opposing perspectives can consider the essential elements of each to implement more effective and lasting change.

References

Bartunek, J. A., & Moch, M. K. (1994). Third-order change and the Western mystical tradition. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7 (1), 24-41.

Bartunek, J. M., & Moch, M. K. (1987). First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organizational development interventions: a cognitive approach. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23 (4), 483-500.

Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000, May-June). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business Review, 133-141.

Bertalanffy, L. V. (1969). General system theory. New York: George Braziller, Inc.

Duncan, B. (2010, June). Linking episodic and continuous change perspectives for understanding dynamic change processes. (M. Manning, & F. Barret, Eds.) Unpublished paper HOD707.

Hendry, C. (1996). Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning theory. Human Relations, 49 (5), 621-641.

Huy, H. N. (2001). Time, temporal capability, and planned change. The Academy of Management Review, 4 (26), 601-623.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York, NY: Wiley.

Kimberly, J. R., & Bouchikhi, H. (1995). The dynamics of organizational development and change: How the past shapes the present and constrains the future. Organization Science, 6 (1), 9-18.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1-47.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. (D. Cartwright, Ed.) New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.

Livne-Tarandach, R., & Bartunek, J. M. (2009). A new horizon for organizational change and development scholarship: Connecting planned and emergent change. In R. W. Woodman, W. A. Passmore, A. B. Shani, & D. Cotter-Lockard [précis] (Ed.), Research in Organizational Change and Development (Google Books & Dorianne Cotter-Lockard [Précis] ed., pp. 1-35). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Extracted on May 30, 2010, from http://books.google.com/books?id=ZX85sjUhlNgC&lpg=PA1&dq=Livne-Tarandach%20and%20Bartunek&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=connection&f=false.

Marrow, A. J. (1969). The practical theorist; the life and work of Kurt Lewin. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Marshak, R. J. (1993). Lewin meets Confucius: A re-appraisal of the OD model of change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 29 (4), 293-415.

Nuyen, A. T. (2001). Confucianism and the idea of equality. Asian Philosophy, 11 (12), 61-71.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2007). Organizational behavior. (I. Pearson Education, Ed.) New York, NY.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency [in Seo, Putman, & Bartunek (2004)].

Seo, M.-G., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). Dualities and tensions of planned organizational change. In S. M. Poole, & A. H. Van de Ven, Organizational change and innovation (pp. 73-107). New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Weick, K. W., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 30, 361-86.

Endnotes

[i] An important point to consider when entertaining criticisms of American management practices being culturally limited or biased is the degree to which non-American management practices are biased within their own realm if they even exist. For example, while proposing Yin and Yang as a change concept, Marshal admits that no contemporary change model exists in Asian cultures. When considered as a whole, Lewin’s force field theory starts to sound like the Yin and Yang concept by proposing that change produces two opposing forces. However, contemporary literature tends to relegate Lewin’s force field theory to a simplistic three-step idea.

 

[ii] In a genuine Confusion manner, Japanese managers I discuss change theory emphasize the “wa” in all things, meaning “consensus” or “harmony.” The Confucian concept of “Wa” is so dominant in Japanese culture that the nation represents itself with the Chinese character “和” (wa). Japanese management professionals and politicians consistently emphasize every individual’s role in promoting the “wa” of all things. However, while the Yin-Yang philosophy emphasizes achieving harmony by balancing conflicting forces, harmony in a Confusion construct generally limits opposition and reduces individual initiative (Nuyen, 2001).

In the words of one manager that I recently interviewed: “We must do whatever necessary to preserve the harmony in our group, so we do not tolerate different opinions. For us to establish and preserve harmony, we must all be the same.” I have seen this same approach alive in American political environments where collectivist activists declare, “We must all be of one mind.” Through this schema, the power structure reduces individual initiative and differences. Equality means that each individual is equal to all others, but each fills a different and unequal role in the social structure.