The Nature of Planned Change

The pace of global, economic, and technological development makes change an inevitable feature of
organizational life. However, change that happens to an organization can be distinguished from change that is
planned by its members. In this book, the term change will refer to planned change. Organization development
is directed at bringing about planned change to increase an organization’s effectiveness and capability to change
itself. It is generally initiated and implemented by managers, often with the help of an OD practitioner from
either inside or outside of the organization. Organizations can use planned change to solve problems, to learn
from experience, to reframe shared perceptions, to adapt to external environmental changes, to improve
performance, and to influence future changes. All approaches to OD rely on some theory about planned change.
The theories describe the different stages through which planned change may be effected in organizations and
explain the temporal process of applying OD methods to help organization members manage change. In this
chapter, we first describe and compare three major theories of organization change that have received
considerable attention in the field: Lewin’s change model, the action research model, and the positive model.
Next, we present a general model of planned change that integrates the earlier models and incorporates recent
conceptual advances in OD. The general model has broad applicability to many types of planned change efforts
and serves to organize the chapters in this book. We then discuss different types of change and how the process
can vary depending on the change situation. Finally, we present several critiques of planned change.

THEORIES OF PLANNED CHANGE

Conceptions of planned change have tended to focus on how change can be implemented in organizations.1
Called “theories of changing,” these frameworks describe the activities that must take place to initiate and carry
out successful organizational change. In this section, we describe and compare three theories of changing:
Lewin’s change model, the action research model, and the positive model. These frameworks have received
widespread attention in OD and serve as the primary basis for a general model of planned change.

Lewin’s Change Model

One of the earliest models of planned change was provided by Kurt Lewin.2 He conceived of change as
modification of those forces keeping a system’s behavior stable. Specifically, a particular set of behaviors at any
moment in time is the result of two groups of forces: those striving to maintain the status quo and those pushing
for change. When both sets of forces are about equal, current behaviors are maintained in what Lewin termed a
state of “quasi-stationary equilibrium.” To change that state, one can increase those forces pushing or change,
decrease those forces maintaining the current state, or apply some combination of both. For example, the level
of performance of a work group might be stable because group norms maintaining that level are equivalent to
the supervisor’s pressures for change to higher levels. This level can be increased either by changing the group
norms to support higher levels of performance or by increasing supervisor pressures to produce at higher levels.
Lewin suggested that decreasing those forces maintaining the status quo produces less tension and resistance
than increasing forces for change and consequently is a more effective change strategy.
Lewin viewed this change process as consisting of the following three steps, which are shown in Figure 2.1(A):

1. Unfreezing. This step usually involves reducing those forces maintaining the organization’s behavior at
its present level. Unfreezing is sometimes accomplished through a process of “psychological
disconfirmation.” By introducing information that shows discrepancies between behaviors desired by
organization members and those behaviors currently exhibited, members can be motivated to engage in
change activities.3

2. Moving. This step shifts the behavior of the organization, department, or individual to a new level. It
involves intervening in the system to develop new behaviors, values, and attitudes through changes in
organizational structures and processes.
 3. Refreezing. This step stabilizes the organization at a new state of equilibrium. It is frequently
accomplished through the use of supporting mechanisms that reinforce the new organizational state,
such as organizational culture, rewards, and structures.

Lewin’s model provides a general framework for understanding organizational change. Because the three steps
of change are relatively broad, considerable effort has gone into elaborating them. For example, the planning
model developed by Lippitt, Watson, and Westley arranges Lewin’s model into seven steps: scouting, entry,
diagnosis (unfreezing), planning, action (moving), stabilization and evaluation, and termination (refreezing).4
Similarly, Kotter’s eightwstage process can be mapped onto Lewin’s phases: establishing a sense of urgency,
creating the guiding coalition, developing a vision and strategy, and communicating the change vision
(unfreezing); empowering broad-based action, generating short-term wins (moving); and consolidating gains
and producing more change, and anchoring new approaches in the culture (refreezing). Lewin’s model remains
closely identified with the field of OD, however, and is used to illustrate how other types of change can be
implemented. For example, Lewin’s three-step model has been used to explain how information technologies
can be implemented more effectively.

Action Research Model

The classic action research model focuses on planned change as a cyclical process in which initial research
about the organization provides information to guide subsequent action. Then the results of the action are
assessed to provide further information to guide further action, and so on. This iterative cycle of research and
action involves considerable collaboration among organization members and OD practitioners. It places heavy
emphasis on data gathering and diagnosis prior to action planning and implementation, as well as careful
evaluation of results after action is taken.
Action research is traditionally aimed both at helping specific organizations implement planned change and at
developing more general knowledge that can be applied to other settings. Although action research was
originally developed to have this dual focus on change and knowledge generation, it has been adapted to OD
efforts in which the major emphasis is on planned change. Figure 2.1(B) shows the cyclical phases of planned
change as defined by the original action research model. There are eight main steps.
1. Problem Identification. This stage usually begins when an executive in the organization or someone
with power and influence senses that the organization has one or more problems that might be solved
with the help of an OD practitioner.

2. Consultation with a Behavioral Science Expert. During the initial contact, the OD practitioner and the
client carefully assess each other. The practitioner has his or her own normative, developmental theory
or frame of reference and must be conscious of those assumptions and values. Sharing them with the
client from the beginning establishes an open and collaborative atmosphere.

3. Data Gathering and Preliminary Diagnosis. This step is usually completed by the OD practitioner,
often in conjunction with organization members. It involves gathering appropriate information and
analyzing it to determine the underlying causes of organizational problems. The four basic methods of
gathering data are interviews, process observation, questionnaires, and organizational performance data
(unfortunately, often overlooked). One approach to diagnosis begins with observation, proceeds to a
semistructured interview, and concludes with a questionnaire to measure precisely the problems
identified by the earlier steps. When gathering diagnostic information, OD practitioners may influence
members from whom they are collecting data. In OD, any action by the OD practitioner can be viewed
as an intervention that will have some effect on the organization.

4. Feedback to a Key Client or Group. Because action research is a collaborative activity, the diagnostic
data are fed back to the client, usually in a group or work-team meeting. The feedback step, in which
members are given the information gathered by the OD practitioner, helps them determine the strengths
and weaknesses of the organization or unit under study. The consultant provides the client with all
 relevant and useful data. Obviously,
the practitioner will protect
confidential sources of information
and, at times, may even withhold data.
Defining what is relevant and useful
involves consideration of privacy and
ethics as well as judgment about
whether the group is ready for the
information or if the information
would make the client overly
defensive.

5. Joint Diagnosis of the Problem. At

this point, members discuss the
feedback and explore with the OD
practitioner whether they want to work
on identified problems. A close
interrelationship exists among data
gathering, feedback, and diagnosis
because the consultant summarizes the
basic data from the client members and
presents the data to them for validation
and further diagnosis. An important
point to remember, as Schein suggests,
is that the action research process is
very different from the doctor–patient
model, in which the consultant comes
in, makes a diagnosis, and prescribes a
solution. Schein notes that the failure
to establish a common frame of reference in the client–consultant relationship may lead to a faulty
diagnosis or to a communication gap whereby the client is sometimes “unwilling to believe the
diagnosis or accept the prescription.” He believes that “most companies have drawers full of reports by
consultants, each loaded with diagnoses and recommendations which are either not understood or not
accepted by the ‘patient.’ ”

6. Joint Action Planning. Next, the OD practitioner and the client members jointly agree on further
actions to be taken. This is the beginning of the moving process (described in Lewin’s change model), as
the organization decides how best to reach a different quasi-stationary equilibrium. At this stage, the
specific action to be taken depends on the culture, technology, and environment of the organization; the
diagnosis of the problem; and the time and expense of the intervention.

7. Action. This stage involves the actual change from one organizational state to another. It may include
installing new methods and procedures, reorganizing structures and work designs, and reinforcing new
behaviors. Such actions typically cannot be implemented immediately but require a transition period as
the organization moves from the present to a desired future state.

8. Data Gathering After Action. Because action research is a cyclical process, data must also be gathered
after the action has been taken to measure and determine the effects of the action and to feed the results
back to the organization. This, in turn, may lead to rediagnosis and new action.
 The action research model underlies most current approaches to planned change and is often considered
synonymous with OD. Recently, it has been refined and extended to new settings and applications, and
consequently, researchers and practitioners have made requisite adaptations of its basic framework.
Trends in the application of action research include movement from smaller subunits of organizations to
total systems and communities. In these larger contexts, action research is more complex and political than in
smaller settings. Therefore, the action research cycle is coordinated across multiple change processes and
includes a diversity of stakeholders who have an interest in the organization. Action research also is applied
increasingly in international settings, particularly in developing nations in the southern hemisphere. Embedded
within the action research model, however, are “northern hemisphere” assumptions about change? For example,
action research traditionally views change more linearly than do Asian cultures, and it treats the change process
more collaboratively than do Latin American and African countries. To achieve success in these settings, action.
Finally, action research is applied increasingly to promote social change and innovation, as demonstrated most
clearly in community development and global social change projects. These applications are heavily value laden
and seek to redress imbalances in power and resource allocations across different groups. Action researchers
tend to play an activist role in the change process, which is often chaotic and conflictual.
In light of these general trends, contemporary applications of action research have substantially increased
the degree of member involvement in the change process. This contrasts with traditional approaches to planned
change, whereby consultants carried out most of the change activities, with the agreement and collaboration of
management. Although consultant-dominated change still persists in OD, there is a growing tendency to involve
organization members in learning about their organization and how to change it. Referred to as “participatory
action research,” “action learning,” “action science,” or “self-design,” this approach to planned change
emphasizes the need for organization members to learn firsthand about planned change if they are to gain the
knowledge and skills needed to change the organization.19 In today’s complex and changing environment,
some argue that OD must go beyond solving particular problems to helping members gain the competence
needed to change and improve the organization continually.
In this modification of action research, the role of OD consultants is to work with members to facilitate the
learning process. Both parties are “co-learners” in diagnosing the organization, designing changes, and
implementing and assessing them. Neither party dominates the change process. Rather, each participant brings
unique information and expertise to the situation, and they combine their resources to learn how to change the
organization. Consultants, for example, know how to design diagnostic instruments and OD interventions, and
organization members have “local knowledge” about the organization and how it functions. Each participant
learns from the change process. Organization members learn how to change their organization and how to refine
and improve it. OD consultants learn how to facilitate complex organizational change and learning.
The action research model will continue to be the dominant methodological basis for planned change in the
near future. But the basic philosophy of science on which traditional action research operates is also evolving
and is described below.

The Positive Model

The third model of change, the positive model, represents an important departure from Lewin’s model and the
action research process. Those models are primarily deficit based; they focus on the organization’s problems
and how they can be solved so it functions better. The positive model focuses on what the organization is doing
right. It helps members understand their organization when it is working at its best and builds off those
capabilities to achieve even better results. This positive approach to change is consistent with a growing
movement in the social sciences called “positive organizational scholar-ship,” which focuses on positive
dynamics in organizations that give rise to extraordinary outcomes. Considerable research on expectation
effects also supports this model of planned change. It shows that people tend to act in ways that make their
expectations occur. Thus, positive expectations about the organization can create an anticipation that energizes
and directs behavior toward making those beliefs happen.
The positive model has been applied to planned change primarily through a process called appreciative
inquiry (AI). As a “reformist and rebellious” form of social constructionism, AI explicitly infuses a positive
value orientation into analyzing and changing organizations. Social constructionism assumes that organization
members’ shared experiences and interactions influence how they perceive the organization and behave in it.
Because such shared meaning can determine how members approach planned change, AI encourages a positive
orientation to how change is conceived and managed. It promotes broad member involvement in creating a
shared vision about the organization’s positive potential. That shared appreciation provides a powerful and
guiding image of what the organization could be.
Drawing heavily on AI, the positive model of planned change involves five phases that are depicted in
Figure 2.1(C)
1. Initiate the Inquiry. This first phase determines the subject of change. It emphasizes member
involvement to identify the organizational issue they have the most energy to address. For example,
members can choose to look for successful male–female collaboration (as opposed to sexual
discrimination), instances of customer satisfaction (as opposed to customer dissatisfaction), particularly
effective work teams, or product development processes that brought new ideas to market especially
fast. If the focus of inquiry is real and vital to organization members, the change process itself will take
on these positive attributes.

2. Inquire into Best Practices. This phase involves gathering information about the “best of what is” in
the organization. If the topic is organizational innovation, then members help to develop an interview
protocol that collects stories of new ideas that were developed and implemented in the organization. The
interviews are conducted by organization members; they interview each other and tell stories of
innovation in which they have personally been involved. These stories are pulled together to create a
pool of information describing the organization as an innovative system.

3. Discover the Themes. In this third phase, members examine the stories, both large and small, to identify
a set of themes representing the common dimensions of people’s experiences. For example, the stories
of innovation may contain themes about how managers gave people the freedom to explore a new idea,
the support organization members received from their coworkers, or how the exposure to customers
sparked creative thinking. No theme is too small to be represented; it is important that all of the
underlying mechanisms that helped to generate and support the themes be described. The themes
represent the basis for moving from “what is” to “what could be.”

4. Envision a Preferred Future. Members then examine the identified themes, challenge the status quo,
and describe a compelling future. Based on the organization’s successful past, members collectively
visualize the organization’s future and develop “possibility propositions”—statements that bridge the
organization’s current best practices with ideal possibilities for future organizing. These propositions
should present a truly exciting, provocative, and possible picture of the future. Based on these
possibilities, members identify the relevant stakeholders and critical organization processes that must be
aligned to support the emergence of the envisioned future. The vision becomes a statement of “what
should be.”

5. Design and Deliver Ways to Create the Future. The final phase involves the design and delivery of
ways to create the future. It describes the activities and creates the plans necessary to bring about the
vision. It proceeds to action and assessment phases similar to those of action research described
previously. Members make changes, assess the results, make necessary adjustments, and so on as they
move the organization toward the vision and sustain “what will be.” The process is continued by
renewing the conversations about the best of what is.
Comparisons of Change Models
All three models—Lewin’s change model, the action research model, and the positive model—describe the
phases by which planned change occurs in organizations. As shown in Figure 2.1, the models overlap in that
their emphasis on action to implement organizational change is preceded by a preliminary stage (unfreezing,
diagnosis, or initiate the inquiry) and is followed by a closing stage (refreezing or evaluation). Moreover, all
three approaches emphasize the application of behavioral science knowledge, involve organization members in
the change process to varying degrees, and recognize that any interaction between a consultant and an
organization constitutes an intervention that may affect the organization. However, Lewin’s change model
differs from the other two in that it focuses on the general process of planned change, rather than on specific
OD activities.
Lewin’s model and the action research model differ from the positive approach in terms of the level of
involvement of the participants and the focus of change. Lewin’s model and traditional action research
emphasize the role of the consultant with relatively limited member involvement in the change process.
Contemporary applications of action research and the positive model, on the other hand, treat both consultants
and participants as co-learners who are heavily involved in planned change. In addition, Lewin’s model and
action research are more concerned with fixing problems than with focusing on what the organization does well
and leveraging those strengths.

GENERAL MODEL OF PLANNED CHANGE

The three models of planned change suggest a general framework for planned change as shown in Figure 2.2.
The framework describes the four basic activities that practitioners and organization members jointly carry out
in organization development. The arrows connecting the different activities in the model show the typical
sequence of events, from entering and contracting, to diagnosing, to planning and implementing change, to
evaluating and institutionalizing change. The lines connecting the activities emphasize that organizational
change is not a straightforward, linear process but involves considerable overlap and feedback among the
activities. Because the model serves to organize the remaining parts of this book, Figure 2.2 also shows which
specific chapters apply to the four major change activities.

Entering and Contracting

The first set of activities in planned change concerns entering and contracting.Those events help managers
decide whether they want to engage further in a planned change program and to commit resources to such a
process. Entering an organization involves gathering initial data to understand the problems facing the
organization or to determine the positive areas for inquiry. Once this information is collected, the problems or
opportunities are discussed with managers and other organization members to develop a contract or agreement
to engage in planned change. The contract spells out future change activities, the resources that will be
committed to the process, and how OD practitioners and organization members will be involved. In many cases,
organizations do not get beyond this early stage of planned change because one or more situations arise:
Disagreements about the need for change surface, resource constraints are encountered, or other methods for
change appear more feasible. When OD is used in nontraditional and international settings, the entering and
contracting process must be sensitive to the context in which the change is taking place.
Diagnosing
In this stage of planned change, the client system is carefully studied. Diagnosis can focus on understanding
organizational problems, including their causes and consequences, or on collecting stories about the
organization’s positive attributes. The diagnostic process is one of the most important activities in OD. It
includes choosing an appropriate model for understanding the organization and gathering, analyzing, and
feeding back information to managers and organization members about the problems or opportunities that exist.
Diagnostic models for analyzing problems explore three levels of activities. Organization issues
represent the most complex level of analysis and involve the total system. Group-level issues are associated
with department and group effectiveness. Individual-level issues involve the way jobs are designed and
performed.
Gathering, analyzing, and feeding back data are the central change activities in diagnosis. Chapter 7
describes how data can be gathered through interviews, observations, survey instruments, or such archival
sources as meeting minutes and organization charts. It also explains how data can be reviewed and analyzed. In
Chapter 8, we describe the process of feeding back diagnostic data. Organization members, often in
collaboration with an OD practitioner, jointly discuss the data and their implications for change.

Planning and Implementing Change

In this stage, organization members and practitioners jointly plan and implement OD interventions. They design
interventions to achieve the organization’s vision or goals and make action plans to implement them. There are
several criteria for designing interventions, including the organization’s readiness for change, its current change
capability, its culture and power distributions, and the change agent’s skills and abilities. Depending on the
outcomes of diagnosis, there are four major
1. Human process interventions at the individual, group, and total system levels

2. Interventions that modify an organization’s structure and technology

3. Human resources interventions that seek to improve member performance and wellness

4. Strategic interventions that involve managing the organization’s relationship to its external environment
and the internal structure and process necessary to support a business strategy.

Evaluating and Institutionalizing Change

The final stage in planned change involves evaluating the effects of the intervention and managing the
institutionalization of successful change programs so they persist. Feedback to organization members about the
intervention’s results provides information about whether the changes should be continued, modified, or
suspended. Institutionalizing successful changes involves reinforcing them through feedback, rewards, and
training.
Application 2.1 describes the initiation of a planned change process in a government organization. It provides
especially rich detail on the planning and implementing phase of change, and on how people can be involved in
the process