Projecting Backward and Forward on Processes of Organizational Change and Innovation

Abstract

This essay discusses how views of organizational change and innovation have traditionally focused on planned episodic change that focuses on rational, strategic, top-down and consensus-directed interventions following teleological or regulatory process models. Future scholarship seems to be focusing more on unplanned continuous organizational changes that emphasize experiential, emergent, bottom-up, pluralistic social movements following dialectical and evolutionary models of change. While planned-episodic and unplanned-continuous change may appear to be opposing views of organizational change, they are entangled in one-another, and provide a rich agenda of future scholarship on processes of organizational change and innovation.

Keywords

organizational change change management innovation innovation management

Projecting forward into the future of scholarship on organizational change and innovation requires projecting backward to build upon the past. As the philosopher Santayana (2006) stated, “To know your future you must know your past.” This essay does so by discussing how views of organizational change and innovation have traditionally focused on planned episodic change that focuses on rational, strategic, top-down and consensus-directed interventions following teleological or regulatory process models. Future scholarship seems to be focusing more on unplanned continuous organizational changes that emphasize experiential, emergent, bottom-up, pluralistic social movements following dialectical and evolutionary models of change. While planned-episodic and unplanned-continuous change may appear to be opposing views of organizational change, they are entangled in one-another, and provide a rich agenda of future scholarship on processes of organizational change and innovation.

These contrasting views are based on findings from co-editing (with Marshall Scott Poole) the Oxford Handbook of Organizational Change and Innovation, 2^nd Edition (Poole & Van de Ven, 2021). It presents 36 chapters by 60 leading authors from 47 universities in 20 countries who examine cutting-edge extensions on process models of organizational change introduced by Van de Ven and Poole (1995).

Since the Handbook's first edition in 2004, dramatic shifts have occurred in population demographics, technology, competitive survival, and social, economic, and environmental health and sustainability concerns. These shifts are influencing how scholars are studying how organizations change and develop. Although understanding why and what organizations change is generally well known with variance studies of its causes or consequences, the process of how organizations change over time has received less attention and is the central focus of the Handbook and this essay.

Processes of Organizational Change

The process of organizational change is an observed and/or experienced difference over time in some organizational characteristic, activity or idea. Organizations are changing all the time in many ways and directions. These changes vary greatly in frequency, size, novelty, and temporal duration.

Most changes are well known, recurrent and follow routine standard operating procedures (such as personnel recruitment and promotions, yearly planning and budgeting cycles, maintenance repairs and replacements). As they are repeated, people sometimes change the steps in their prescribed sequence, which leads to dynamic patterning processes in organizational routines (Pentland & Feldman, 2007; Pentland & Goh, 2021).

Some changes are larger planned initiatives (such as organizational mergers and acquisitions, structural reorganizations and strategic reorientations). While they are not new and may have occurred before in an organization's history, they entail extensive resources and vicarious learning from others since they occur relatively infrequently to the people involved (Burke, 2021).

Finally, some changes are new, not experienced before, and require novel constructions by the people involved. They are innovations, which are commonly defined as the creation and implementation of new ideas. The new idea may pertain to a technological innovation (new technical artifacts, devices, or products), a process innovation (new services, programs, or production procedures), or an administrative innovation (new institutional policies, structures, or systems). The idea may be a novel recombination of old ideas, a scheme that challenges the present order or an unprecedented formula or approach (Zaltman et al., 1973). As long as the idea is perceived as new and entails a novel change for the actors involved, it is an innovation (Van de Ven, 1986).

The process in which these changes unfold might begin with a dissatisfying experience that “shocks” an attentive manager or employee to launch an episodic change venture by generating support, resources, and a change team. The process might also emerge during an ongoing flow of everyday work activities as organizational participants change or fix routines to maintain stability in their operations. However, the change process unfolds, participants typically find that their plans or expectations often go awry, setbacks and mistakes occur, stakeholders conflict, new goals and plans emerge as different developmental paths are pursued. These experiences may provide opportunities for learning how to complete the change process or incorporate it in a never-ending flow of organizational changes (Van de Ven et al., 1999; 2008)

Having clarified our definitions, we can now proceed to examine how organizational scholars have studied organizational change over time. Traditionally, scholars have viewed the pattern of organizational change as being planned and episodic. This traditional view emphasizes rational, strategic, top-down and consensus-directed interventions following teleological or regulatory process models. Projecting forward the Handbook chapter authors seem to be focusing more on unplanned and continuous change (Van de Ven & Poole, 2021). This view emphasizes experiential, emergent, bottom-up, pluralistic social movements following dialectical and evolutionary models of change (see Table 1). I will discuss these contrasting views for the purposes of projecting future scholarship. I will explore how these contrasting views are entangled and instantiated in each other, and discuss when they apply on various topics, questions, and contexts for understanding and managing organizational change and innovation. In doing so I hope to build upon the past to create a broader and richer appreciation of organizational change and innovation processes.

Table 1.

Contrasting Views of Traditional and Emerging Views of Organization Change.

Dimension	Traditional view of organzational change	Emerging view of organizational change
Frequency	Episodic, infrequent, discontinuous change.	Continuous, constantly ongoing, evolving change.
Change	Planned change, driven by human choice, goal-directed typically top-down, controlled intervention	Unplanned, purpose emerges in the process, bottom-up, adaptive, pluralistic, social movements
Process	Goal-directed stages and prescribed steps requiring outside intervention	Sensemaking, improvisation & in-process learning from shared experiences in social networks
Assumptions	Rational, logical analysis with valid data on objective reality and consensus support of participants	Reality is socially constructed, negotiated, involves conflicts, contradictions, power, political processes & emotions
Models	Teleology, planned change Life cycle, regulated change	Evolutionary, competitive change Dialectical, conflict change
Change Agent/Leader Role	Change maker: Prime mover who creates, directs change goals, process & outcomes	Meaning maker: Sense maker who reframes how people think of changing
Governance	Top-down hierarchical fiat	Formal & informal contracts on decision rights & roles of stakeholders

Planned and Unplanned Change

Planned change is consciously conceived and implemented by knowledgeable actors. Burke (2021) points out that scholarship on organization change emerged during the 1950's with the founding of the field of Organizational Development (OD). It was based on an action research model developed initially by Lewin (1948) that involved groups of participants working with consultants or organizational researchers ‘to solve immediate, practical problems and also to make a scholarly contribution based on the outcome. OD scholars advanced a number of process models of planned change, including Lewin (1948), Weisbord (1976), Nadler and Tushman (1977), Tichy (1983), Beer et al. (1990), Burke and Litwin, (1992), and Kotter (1996). These models commonly consist of a prescribed set of stages (e.g., Lewin's unfreeze, change, and refreeze), and steps for undertaking a planned change process. These models became popular and widely used by practitioners even to today.

There is a prescriptive managerial orientation to these models of planned change. “They attempt to improve an organizational situation through use of behavioral science technologies, research and theory,” (Burke, 2021). Adopting rational, logical analysis with data that is assumed to be valid and objective, these planned change models are typically driven by top-level managers often with external consultants. Steps in these models include developing a need and vision for an organizational change, communicating and advocating it to organizational participants, and providing them training and incentives that support implementing and institutionalizing the change and overcoming resistance. A teleological model typically applies to goal-directed efforts of developing an envisioned end state by the change planners, followed by a life cycle model of prescribed and regulated implementation by the change doers.

A major challenge often experience with these planned change models has been resistance to change (Ford & Ford, 2020; Piderit, 2000; Zorn & Scott, 2021). Resistance is encountered and implementation often fails when planners are separated from the doers, or when events are caused and consequences are felt by different people. As Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) concluded from their now-classic study of the design and implementation of the Oakland Rehabilitation Project,

Implementation and evaluation must not be conceived of as processes that take place after, and independently of, the design of a program. Learning requires that design, implementation, and evaluation become fused in the change process and that interaction occur among the people principally concerned with design, implementation, and evaluation. (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973, p. 135)

A second challenge is that popular planned change models often rely on expert opinion as their foundation rather that scientific evidence. Burke (2021) and Stouten et al. (2018) addressed this challenge by reviewing the literature for research evidence for key tenets in practitioner-oriented planned change models. Overall they found good news that there is research evidence for many (but not all) of the tenets. They concluded by identifying the ten evidence-based steps in managing planned organizational change outlined in Table 2.

Table 2.

Evidence-Based Principles for Planned Change Management.

1. Get facts regarding the change (urgency has negative outcomes)

2. Assess organization's readiness for change (go with the flow)

3. Develop clear, compelling vision for change (and downsides)

4. Communicate the vision using multiple channels

5. Encourage involvement and voice to gain commitment

6. Social networks, shared experiences matter (practice overlooks)

7. Promote experimentation, local adaptations, short-term wins

8. Monitor change process, resistance & outcomes over time

9. Institutionalize change in routines, culture & mgmt. succession

10. Competent & trusted change leadership Sporce: Stouten et al. (2018) and Burke (2021)

Episodic and Continuous Changes

Going beyond these traditional practitioner-oriented models of planned change, more recently, scholars are taking a more social constructionist and emergent view of unplanned changes unfolding all the time in organizations. In part, this emerging view reflects dramatic shifts in new information technologies, social media platforms, flatter organizational hierarchies, generational shifts to Millennials, and demands for organizations contributing to societal welfare (Rheinhardt & Gioia, 2021). These shifts are leading to bottom-up, employee-emergent change initiatives that often produce pluralistic, divergent and conflicting views that are seldom planned in any unified way.

Hernes et al. (2021) and Tsoukas (2021) expand on Weick and Quinn’s (1999) initial discussion of episodic change as “infrequent, discontinuous and intentional” (such as in Lewin’s (1948) model of unfreeze-change-and refreeze), and continuous change as “ongoing, evolving and cumulative” (such as the bottom –up sensemaking process discussed by Rheinhardt & Gioia, 2021). The two forms of change are associated with different metaphors of the organization, analytical frameworks, theories of intervention and roles attributed to change agents, as shown in Table 1. The distinction between episodic and continuous change is similar to the distinction Feldman (2021) makes between exogenous (external) and endogenous (internal) organizational change. This distinction also fits with the new type of dialogic OD intervention that focuses on meaning making rather than problem solving (Bartunek et al., 2021).

As Table 1 outlines, this emerging view argues that organizational change is a dynamic, unpredictable, and evolving process, rather than occurring at preconceived planned intervals or certain life stages. It assumes that reality is socially constructed, involve conflicts and contradictions among many partisan change agents of unequal power and who get emotionally (as well as rationally) involved in dialectical change (Hargrave, 2021) and social movements (Davis & Kim, 2021). Purpose and directions of change emerge in the process through sensemaking, interactions, and shared experiences in social networks. Unlike the “change maker” role in the traditional view of episodic change, the change agent in this emerging view is a “meaning maker,” or a sense maker and giver who reframes how participants think of changing (Bartunek et al., 2021; Rheinhardt & Gioia, 2021).

Particularly noteworthy in this emerging view is the role of human agency, time, and a growing concern with governance of change processes. Traditionally, the literature focused on change agents as individuals who take control, create, and remake organizations such as Steve Jobs with Apple. These “great individuals” –executives, entrepreneurs, transformational leaders, strategic decision-makers, change agents –represent a potent expression of the human will as maker of the organization. However, this “great leader” concept of agency is subject to several qualifications. For one thing, external conditions limit the agent's power and capacity to control events and manage organizational change. Second, agency is more complex when multiple interacting agents are involved. For example, a less powerful agent may take the crucial action that determines the success or failure of a change. Multiple agency is difficult to deal with, because it is difficult to know whose intentions count in such cases. Unequal balance of power among multiple agents is triggering increasing attention to dialectical processes of managing contradictions, partisan mutual adjustment (Hargrave, 2021) and social movements (Davis & Kim, 2021).

Unequal power balance among stakeholders in organizational change processes is also leading scholars to call for governance structures of decision rights and roles for all parties affected by organizational changes. Traditional models of top-down change are largely silent on this and assume that that top management determines a governance structure by fiat (Alvarez et al., 2020). While power has been a core driver in traditional models of organizational change, some new institutional scholars have moved away from the focus on power and are directing their attention to institutional mechanisms that enable self-organized governance and coordination of common-pool resources (Ostrom, 2005). They include formal and informal working rules, norms, and shared strategies that liberate, enable and constrain the human rights of all stakeholders affected by an organizational change process (Commons, 1950; Ostrom, 2009). Participation and transparency in the formulation of change initiatives can improve success prospects for change. Better local knowledge in the formulation of change initiatives, and greater motivation through voice and self-determination can be advantages of such governance among diverse stakeholders in complex organizational changes (Pant et al., 2018). “Leadership must create a structure—a container—that ensures the psychological and career safety required for truth to speak to power” (Beer, 2020).

Entangling Past and Present Views of Organizational Change

In conclusion, it is important to note that while planned-episodic and unplanned-continuous change may be viewed as opposite ends of a continuum, it is also useful to consider them together, as done in a growing number of hybrid models of organization change. Viewing change as a continuous unfolding process enables us to look for emergence even in the most episodic and planned types of change (Tsoukas, 2021). Episodic change acquires emergent qualities as change projects are implemented in open-ended contexts. And vice versa, even emergent change can have an ongoing episodic character, as Garud and Turunen (2021) show in their discussion of Usher's cumulative synthesis theory.

Episodic and continuous changes often represent different micro and macro levels of analyzing a change process up close or from afar. From a macro-outsider's perspective, a structural reorganization or a technological innovation may be viewed as single major episodic event. However, up close from the perspective of insiders, the episodic event often entails a continuous flow of numerous every-day change events often occurring over an extended time. The closer we look into the process the more we see agency. The farther away we are removed from agency, the more we see continuities punctuated by episodic moments of disruption (Pettigrew, 1997). Since organizational members are both observers of, and contributors to, many changes going on in various levels and units of organization, they alternate between episodic and continuous change views, thus generating a more refined understanding of action: practitioners can view action from both within (i.e. experience its continuous flow of ongoing tasks and activities) and from outside (i.e. punctuate and reconstruct their experiences as episodic events in retrospect.

Most studies of organizational change find them to be highly complex and uncertain processes, where episodic change initiatives typically morph into continuous change patterns as plans go awry, and alternative goals and directions emerge during the process, as discussed by Sarasvathy and Venkataraman (2021) and Garud and Turunen (2021). All planned change occurs in the context of the ambient change processes that occur naturally in organizations. For example, Gaba and Meyer (2021) report of strategic planning processes in healthcare organizations that are going through their own life cycle and also adapting to hyper turbulent environmental jolts. The intersection of these change processes, one planned and the other two unplanned, shapes the organization. Knowledge of the ambient change processes can enable managers to conduct strategic planning more effectively. Conversely, unplanned change processes can be “domesticated” through interventions and driven in useful directions. For example, Maurer et al. (2021) discuss how a VSR (variation-selection-retention) theory of unplanned population evolution can be transformed into a planned model of organizational evolution and innovation. In order to do this, the planner takes a virtue of necessity. Drawing on his or her knowledge of how natural change processes unfold, the planner uses the processes’ momentum to push through needed measures. Jing (2021) advances this idea by discussing three strategies for seizing, entraining, and creating change momentum based on Eastern yin-yang philosophy.

Episodic and continuous views of change are entwined in time as reflections on significant experiences in an ongoing flow of continuous change. By viewing events as episodic breaks in actors’ experiences, they represent potentialities or affordances that actors may evoke from the past or project upon the future as they move through time. The potentiality is created as agents redefine events by relating them to other events over time. Hernes et al. (2021) illustrate this process through their study of how past and envisioned changes during an initially mundane meeting at a shipbuilding company led to the adoption of a new bow design. Similarly, Schultz and Hernes (2013) observed the managers of LEGO, to emerge with a new identity by evoking and reconstructing selective past events in light of anticipated futures.

Conclusion

Scholarship on organizational change and innovation has traditionally focused on planned episodic change that featured rational, strategic, top-down and consensus-directed interventions following teleological or regulatory process models. Projecting forward scholarship seems to be focusing more on unplanned continuous organizational changes that emphasizes experiential, emergent, bottom-up, pluralistic social movements following dialectical and evolutionary models of change. Future scholarship can build usefully on the past by exploring how these contrasting views are entangled and can be used for understanding different topics, questions, and contexts of organizational change and innovation. In particular, the entangled nature of episodic planned change and continuous unplanned change provides a richer and deeper understanding of processes of organization change from the perspectives of micro and macro levels, how they are entwined in time as reflections on significant experiences in an ongoing flow of continuous change, and how they broaden our appreciation of the complexity and uncertainty of observed organizational change processes. Finally from a managerial perspective, an episodic view of change is useful for launching planned change initiatives periodically required in organizations, while continuous change is necessary for repairing and maintaining organizational stability.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Alvarez

S. A.

Zander

Barney

J. B.

Afuah

(2020). From the editors: Developing a theory of the firm for the 21^st century. Academy of Management Review, 45(4), 711-716. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2020.0372

Bartunek

J. M.

Putnam

L. L.

Seo

M.-G.

(2021). Dualisms and dualities in the organizational development of organizational development. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 3) (pp. 50-76). Oxford Univ. Press.

Beer

(2020). Fit to compete: Why honest conversations about your company’s capabilities are the key to a winning strategy. Harvard Business Review Press.

Beer

Eisenstat

R. A.

Spector

(1990). Why change programs do not produce change. Harvard Business Review, 68, 158-166.

Burke

W. W.

(2021). Historical currents in scholarship of organization change. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 2) (pp. 23-49). Oxford Univ. Press.

Burke

W. W.

Litwin

G. H.

(1992). A casual model of organizational performance and change. Journal of Management, 18, 532-545. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306

Commons

J. R.

(1950). The economics of collective action. Univ. of Wisconsin Press.

Davis

G. F.

Kim

E. W.

(2021). Social movements and organizational change. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 9) (pp. 209-229). Oxford Univ. Press.

Feldman

M. S.

(2021). Entangled views of exogenous and endogenous change. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 36) (pp. 877-887). Oxford Univ. Press.

10.

Ford

J. D.

Ford

L. W.

(2020). The leadership of organization change: A view from recent empirical evidence. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 20, 1-36.

11.

Gaba

Meyer

A. D.

(2021). Discontinuus change in organizational fields. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 16) (pp. 364-396). Oxford Univ. Press.

12.

Garud

Turunen

(2021). Microfoundations of innovation as process: Usher’s cumulative synthesis model. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 23) (pp. 583-610). Oxford Univ. Press.

13.

Hargrave

T. J.

(2021). The paradox perspective and the dialectics of contradictions research. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 7) (pp. 161-185). Oxford Univ. Press.

14.

Hernes

Hussenot

Pulk

(2021). Time and temporality of change proesses: Applying an event-based view to integrate episodic and continuous change. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 27) (pp. 731-750). Oxford Univ. Press.

15.

Jing

(2021). Easter Yin-yang model of change. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 8) (pp. 186-208). Oxford Univ. Press.

16.

Kotter

J. P.

(1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.

17.

Lewin

(1948). Resolving social conflicts. Harper.

18.

Maurer

C. C.

Miner

A. S.

Crossan

(2021). VSR Models of change as normative practical theory. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 19) (pp. 496). Oxford Univ. Press.

19.

Nadler

D.A.

Tushman

M.L.

(1977). A diagnostic model for organization behavior. In Hackman

J.R.

Lawler

E.E.

III Porter

L.W.

(Eds.) Perspectives on behavior in organizations (pp. 85-100). McGraw-Hill.

20.

Ostrom

(2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press.

21.

Ostrom

. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5639), 419-422. https://doi.org/10.1126/Science.1172133

22.

Pant

Gaba

Puranam

(2018). Being a Change Agent (Parts A, B, C) Teaching Note, INSEAD.

23.

Pentland

B. T.

Feldman

M. S.

(2007). Narrative networks: Pattern of technology and organization. Organization Science, 18(5), 781-795. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0283

24.

Pentland

B. T.

Goh

K. T.

(2021). Organizational routines and organizational change. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 15) (pp. 339-363). Oxford Univ. Press.

25.

Pettigrew

A. M.

(1997). What is processual analysis? Scandinavian Journal of Management, 13(4), 337-348. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-5221(97)00020-1

26.

Piderit

S. K.

(2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 783-794. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2000.3707722

27.

Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(2021). Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation. Oxford Univ. Press.

28.

Pressman

Wildavsky

(1973). Implementation. Univ. of California Press.

29.

Rheinhardt

Gioia

D. A.

(2021). Upside-down organizational change: Sensemaking, sensegiving, and the new generation. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 4) (pp. 77-105). Oxford Univ. Press.

30.

Santayana

(2006). The life of reason or, The phases of human progress (five volumes in one). MIT Press, 2011. ISBN-13: 978-0262016742.

31.

Sarasvathy

S. D.

Venkataraman

(2021). An effectual entrepreneurial model of organizational change: Acting on, reacting to, and integrating with markets as artifacts. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 6) (pp. 131-185). Oxford Univ. Press.

32.

Schultz

Hernes

(2013). A temporal perspective on organizational identity. Organization Science, 24(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0731

33.

Stouten

Rousseau

D. M.

DeCremer

(2018). Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literature. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 752-788. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0095

34.

Tichy

N. M.

(1983). Managing strategic change: Technical political and cultural dynamics. New York.

35.

Tsoukas

(2021). The performative “picture”: Thinking about change as if change mattered. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 33) (pp. 847-856). Oxford Univ. Press.

36.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590-607. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.32.5.590

37.

Van de Ven

A. H.

Polley

Garud

Venkataraman

(1999; 2008). The innovation journey. Oxford Univ. Press.

38.

Van de Ven

A. H.

Poole

M. S.

(1995). Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 20, 510-540. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080329

39.

Van de Ven

A. H.

Poole

M. S.

(2021). Introduction: Central issues in the study of organizational change and innovation. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 1) (pp. 1-20). Oxford Univ. Press.

40.

Weick

Quinn

(1999). Organizational change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361-396. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.361

41.

Weisbord

M. R.

(1976). Organizational diagnosis: Six places to look for trouble with or without a theory. Group and Organization Studies, 1, 430-447. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117600100405

42.

Zaltman

G.R.

Duncan

Holbek

1973. Innovation and organizations. Wiley.

43.

Zorn

T. E.

Scott

(2021). Must we change? The dark side of change and change resistance. In Poole

M. S.

Van de Ven

A. H.

(Eds.), Oxford Handbook of organizational change and innovation (chapter 29) (pp. 766-790). Oxford Univ. Press.