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.