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).