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).