Theories of organizational change based on the process

Introduction

Several theories allow us to explain organizational change and development. These proposals can be grouped in different ways. According to a framework designed under “mode of change” criteria and “unit of change” criteria, we define four ideal change engines (Van de Ven 1995): (1) life cycle theories, (2) evolutionary theories, (3) dialectical theories and (4) teleological theories. First of all, we will describe each of them:

Lifecycle theories (regulated change)

This theory adapts the metaphor/analogy of organic growth to organizational context as a tool permits us to explain different stages of development. Some theories can be framed in this group: developmentalism, ontogenesis, metamorphosis …

According to lifecycle, we can state three fundamental groups (Aldritch 1999):

• Developmental model: Change happens during a cycle always composed by the emergency stage, growth stage, maturity stage and decline stage.
• Scenario model: It assumes the previous sequence of development but modifies it introducing different phases where the managers make decisions.
• Metamorphosis model: It is halfway between theories of development and evolutionary theories. They postulate that changes occur when the structure of the organization does not fit the environment. In development, theories are the key to successful internal restructuring, while in metamorphosis models they state that change occurs abruptly rather than gradually. There is a misunderstanding in presuming that evolutionary models only undergo soft and incremental changes in an organization. There is no pre-established rate of change in evolutionary models. In this way, metamorphosis models can be classified as a specific case of an evolutionary model.

Another kind of division could be composed according to whether the generative mechanism is regulated by natural, logical or institutional norms. If the mechanism is regulated by natural or logical forces, determinism is much greater than if it is by institutional ones.

These theories emphasize a lot the sequentially of well-defined and unavoidable stages. Where each one of the posterior states depends on a group of outputs framed in previous cycle stages. Thus, they are theories with a prominent deterministic component. The scope affects usually to one entity. Nevertheless, some models not only fit into the organization as a unit of analysis but also are used with a higher unit of analysis instead of the organization (Aldritch 1999).

Evolutionary theories (Change because of competition)

This framework understands evolution as the set of changes accumulated in the structural forms of organizations, communities, business or society in general. Analogously to evolutionary biology, change comes from cycles of variation-selection and retention. In the first variations occur randomly, simply happen. Selection is produced because of competence for scarce resources, the ecosystem selects best-fit entities. Finally, retention allows perpetuating or maintaining some kind of success changes, so it is a “firewall” of the feedback effect in this process.

In this frame, the change is recurrent, accumulative and explained by probabilistic distribution inside VSR (Variation-Selection-Retention) processes.

It exists on several currents inside the evolutionary theories field. We stress the division between Darwinism advocates, establishing that the traits are inherited through intergenerational processes (Hannan and Freeman, McKelvey), and Lamarckian supporters, who consider traits like features acquired in a generation by means of learning and imitation (Weck, Burgelman). The last approach, a priori, seems more appropriate in an organizational scenario than the strict Darwinism.

These theories explain the change from a multi-entity perspective, and in terms of the degree of determinism/voluntarism there are theoretical currents with a high degree of determinism, such as population ecology, and other more deterministic ones such as “Evolutionary theory”.

Dialectical theories (change because of conflict)

These theories are characterized by the assumption that organizations exist in a plural world of forces and events constantly shocking and competing for domination and control. This opposition can be treated not only from an internal perspective but also taking into account the external forces to the organization.

In these theories stability and change are explained by the balance between power and opposing forces. Changes are produced when one of the forces excels and breaks the status quo.

There are two main approaches in this current:

• The Hegelian perspective of permanent conflict between the thesis/antithesis and the attainment of a synthesis as an outcome.
• The Bakhtinian process, in this process strains generated by existing dualism, remain constant and exist simultaneously, the change is produced by means of the entity reaction to those strains (Werner and Baxter 1994). The reaction can be negation, inverse spiral, segmentation, balance, integration, recalibration, and reaffirmation.

Teleological theories (intentional change)

Another school of thought is the teleological theory. Examples of these approaches are functionalism (Merton 1968), decision making (March and Simon 1958), epigenesist (Etzioni 1963), voluntarism (Parsons 1951), adaptative learning (March and Olsen 1976) …

The teleological theories are characterized by representing an organization directed towards specific objectives. It is determined, adaptive and structures its actions aimed at an end, monitoring the way. The development is given by a constant reformulation of those objectives, through a constant feedback cycle based on the perception of an organizational problem.

These approaches have a bigger voluntarist component than the life-cycle ones and interpret the development and organizational change from a single entity point of view.

The reality of the change is a little more complex

Although we have defined two variables on which we have characterized 4 change engines, the increasingly complex organizational contexts make it necessary to use several engines to explain more exactly what is happening. In addition, the need to analyze more extensive series temporarily increases the likelihood that more change engines will come into play. Let’s illustrate this statement with several examples:

• It is plausible that in some contexts the synthesis of the opposition described by the dialectical theories is used as the origin of a variation within the cycle of evolutionary theories.
• The process of selection in the evolutionary cycle can be used to equate it with the final stage in life cycle theories.

Thus, new theories have emerged which can be characterized by the defined framework associating several change engines.

As we have seen, the engines can operate at distinct levels of analysis. So let’s see what are the main ways in which these engines can be related (Van de Ven and Poole Handbook of organizational change and innovation page 387):

• Nested: The engines of the lower level of analysis are firmly linked to the higher level, serving functions to them.
• Both the upper and lower levels influence each other but there is no well-defined and solid process that unites them, so they are not as synchronized as the nested ones.
• Aggregates, when the action of several lower level motors ends up constituting a process of the higher level motor. Therefore, there is a high dependency on the high-level engines of the low-level ones.

Bibliography

• Aldritch, H.E. and Ruef, M. (1999) Organizations Evolving, SAGE Publications.
• Etzioni A. (1963). The epigenesis of political communities at the international level. American Journal of Sociology, 68, 407–421.
• Hannan, Michael T. And John Freeman (1977) “The population ecology of organizations.” American Journal of Sociology.
• Hannan, M.T. and J. Freeman (1989) Organizational Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• March, James G. and Simon, Herbert A. ([1958]1993) Organizations, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
• March, J. G. & Olsen, J. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations.
• Merton Robert K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure, Free Press.
• Parsons T. (1951) The social system Glencoe, Ill: Free Press.
• Van de Ven, A. H. and Poole, M. S. (1995) ‘Explaining development and change in organizations’, Academy of Management Review, 20: 510–40.
• Van de Ven and Poole (2004), Handbook of organizational change and innovation, Oxford Universty Press.
• Werner, c. m., and baxter, l. a. (1994). “temporal qualities of relationships: organismic, transactional and dialectical views.” in handbook of interpersonal communication, 2nd edition, ed. m. l. knapp and g. r. miller. newbury park, ca: sage publications.