Strat. Change 11: 243251 (2002) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/jsc.

600

Who says change can be managed? Positions, perspectives and problematics

Ian Palmer1 and Richard Dunford2
1 2

University of Technology, Sydney, Australia Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

We pick up a current challenge in the change management literature whether change

can be managed. The answer to this question depends upon the underlying image one has of both managing and change. We develop a model based upon two images of managing (management as controlling; management as shaping) and three images of change outcomes (intended, partially intended and unintended). From this we identify six views on managing change: directing, navigating, caretaking, coaching, interpreting and nurturing. We outline different theories associated with each of these views. Theorists and practitioners hold differing images of what managing change actually means which leads them to talk past each other when attempting to engage in dialogue around how change can be managed. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Introduction
At the 2001 Academy of Management Conference in Washington, DC the prominent change writer, Warner Burke, quipped: Change management: now theres an oxymoron! His statement was probably tonguein-cheek but it prompts us to reflect on the question of whether change is manageable. We argue that the answer to this question depends upon the images one holds about both managing and change. We develop a model based upon differing images and identify six change management positions which can be applied to answering this question.
* Correspondence to: Ian Palmer, School of Management, University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia. E-mail: I.Palmer@uts.edu.au

We then outline each of these positions and conclude by identifying how arguments about this question occur when people holding alternative images seek to engage in dialogue.

Images of managing and change

Table 1 sets out our model for understanding images of change management. It is based upon two images of managing (management as controlling; management as shaping) and three images of change outcomes (intended, partially intended and unintended). First, we set out the rationale for these images. In the subsequent part of the paper we outline the six views on managing change, and the change theories associated with them, which
Strategic Change, August 2002

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

244
Table 1. Images of change management

Ian Palmer and Richard Dunford

Images of managing Images of change outcomes Controlling (activities) Image of managing change: DIRECTING N-step models Contingency models Image of managing change: NAVIGATING Processual Image of managing change: CARETAKING Life cycle Population ecology Institutional Shaping (capabilities) Image of managing change: COACHING Organization development Image of managing change: INTERPRETING Sensemaking Image of managing change: NURTURING Chaos/complexity Confucian

Intended

Partially intended

Unintended

emerge in this model: directing, navigating, caretaking, coaching, interpreting and nurturing.

Images of managing
We suggest that two images dominate writings on management: management as controlling and management as shaping. A managing as controlling image underlies the classic Fayol (1949) characterization of management as planning, organizing, commanding, coordinating and controlling. This is a pervasive view historically and one which continues to be in use today (e.g. see Higgins, 1994: 5). Later developments of this view can be found in the work of Luthans et al. (1988) and Minztberg (1975) who outline a variety of managerial roles and activities underpinned by an image of management as control. Management as shaping is an alternative image developed from different participative forms of managing and refers to the taking of actions designed to enhance organizational capabilities. Capabilities provide the organization with operational requirements to assist in its effective functioning, even in times of high ambiguity. Typical of this approach is the following view: Corporate capabilities are embedded in the fabric of the organization in its practices, processes, systems, structures,
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

culture, values, know-how and technologies. Importantly this is as true for reshaping capabilities as it is for operational ones. While personal capabilities leave the organization when their owner does, corporate capabilities tend to endure, despite the comings and goings of individuals (Turner and Crawford, 1998: 15). In this approach good management produces strong corporate capabilities. Building in the capacity to both respond to, and shape, external changes is a key rationale for engaging in change (see Beer and Nohria, 2000: 3536).

Images of change outcomes

Table 1 identifies three different images of change outcomes, that is, three different ways in which new social practices are established in organizations. The notion of planned or intended outcomes is at the core of much of the change literature and is argued to have dominated the practice of changing organizations for over 50 years (Burnes, 1996: 170). Change is the realization of prior intent through the action of managers. An alternative image of change is one which produces partially intended change outcomes, that is, some but not all change intentions are achieved. Power, processes, interests and
Strategic Change, August 2002

Who says change can be managed?

245

skill variations act to modify intended change outcomes (e.g. see Mintzberg and Waters, 1985). Finally, while there is less focus on it within the change literature a third image is unintended change outcomes, the assumption being that individual managers may have little role in producing intentional change outcomes. This is because change outcomes occur through actions, usually external to the organization or even to whole industries, which are outside the influence or control wielded by individual managers. Managers and their intentions are swamped by these actions. Occasionally outcomes and intentions may collide, but this is the result of serendipity of events rather than the outcome of planned, intentional change actions.

broadly representative of the relevant underlying images of change and managing.

Change management as directing

The directing approach, in which intended changes are achieved through deliberate management actions, can be identified in strategic change management models, or what Collins (1998: 82) refers to as n-step guides. The general contention of these models is that strategic choice can determine an organizations formal development and survival is a matter of self-determination (White et al., 1997: 1384). Management engages in intentional changes in order to align their organization with the changing environment (Rajagopalan and Spreitzer, 1996: 49). Directed mainly at achieving large-scale, transformational change an array of multi-step models are available from which to choose such as Pendlebury et al.s (1998: 4041) Ten Keys model, Taffinders (1998: 4042) five transformation trajectories model and Nadlers (1998) 12 Action Steps model. Authors of these models accept that minor modifications may be needed in their use although most argue that all steps are necessary to achieve intentional change. While some authors recognize that not everything is always able to be controlled (e.g. Kanter et al., 1992: 390) what unites them is an optimistic view of achieving intentional change (e.g. see Ghoshal and Bartlett, 2000: 220). Contingency models, such as found in Stace and Dunphy (2001) and Huy (2001) share with change management models the assumption that change can be directed, but the nature of this direction depends on a range of organizational factors such as the scale of the change, the urgency of the change and the receptivity of organizational members for engaging in the change. There will be different best ways depending upon the confluence of such factors.

Images of managing change

Arising from our model are six differing change approaches each of which has embedded in them quite different ways of answering the question of whether change is manageable. We outline these six approaches and provide examples of change theories associated with them. In doing this we acknowledge that each approach represents a Weberian ideal type and that not every theory fits neatly into each category. This is for three reasons. First, within each approach there are variations, arguments and debates so that it will always be possible to find a position which appears to be the exception to the rule. Second, the images of managing and images of change outcomes are, themselves, not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, we retain three images of change as an analytical device but recognize that a continuum from intended to unintended change outcomes operates in practice. Third, sometimes multiple images can be detected in the arguments of particular writers who may not be even aware that they are moving among arguments which have a grounding in differing assumptions. Accepting these limitations, however, we argue that the change theories we identify and discuss in relation to each change management approach are
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Change management as navigating

In the navigating approach to change control is still seen as at the heart of management
Strategic Change, August 2002

246

Ian Palmer and Richard Dunford

actions, although a variety of factors external to managers mean that while they may achieve some intended change outcomes, others will also occur over which they have little control. Outcomes are often emergent rather than planned and result from a variety of convergent influences, competing interests, and processes. The contextualist or processual approach typifies this position. Associated with the work of writers such as Dawson (1994) and Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) the approach shares an assumption with contingency theory that change unfolds differently over time and according to the context in which the organization finds itself. However, it parts company from contingency theory in assuming that change should not be and cannot be solidified, or seen as a series of linear events within a given period of time; instead, it is viewed as a continuous process (Burnes, 1996: 187). Change is therefore a process that unfolds through the interplay of multiple variables (context, political processes and consultation) within an organization (Burnes, 1996: 187). Directing is not an option as there can be no simple prescription for managing transitions successfully (Burnes, 1996: 187). It is up to change managers to navigate their way through this complexity by identifying the range of options open to them, gathering and monitoring information and availing themselves of appropriate resources (Burnes, 1996: 189192).

Change management as caretaking

In the caretaking approach the (ideal) image of management is still one of control, although the ability to exercise control is severely constrained by external actions which propel change relatively independent of individual management intentions. At best, individual managers are caretakers, shepherding their organizations along as best they can. For example, life cycle theory draws on a biological analogy by providing a developmental view of organizations as passing through well-defined stages from birth to growth, maturity and then decline
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

or death. The assumption in this theory is that organizational change is to be expected as a natural, developmental cycle of organizations. There is an underlying logic or trajectory and the stages through which it passes are sequential (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995: 512520). Managers may engage in differing activities at differing stages but have a limited role, helping to smooth the various transitions rather than controlling whether or not they occur. Population ecology theory stresses the difficulty, rarity, and liabilities of organizational change and the weak impact of managerial choice on organizational outcomes (Gersick, 1994: 10). Drawing on biology and neo-Darwinian logic population ecologists argue that the environment selects organizations for survival or extinction (White et al., 1997: 1384) and that whole populations of organizations change as a result of ongoing cycles of variation, selection and retention. In all this, managers have little sway over change. While some adherents have argued for at least a (very) limited role that managers might take (Hall, 1996: 192200) the underlying assumption remains, that is, that managers themselves are rarely able to achieve intended organizational change. Like population ecology, institutional theory assumes that the environment pushes organizations to change in similar ways. However, whereas population ecology assumes that similarity, or isomorphism, occurs through competitive (Darwinian) pressures for survival in the marketplace, institutional theory argues that isomorphism occurs through pressures associated with the interconnectedness of organizational populations (Oliver, 1988: 543). DiMaggio and Powell (1991: 6774) identify three such pressures coercive, mimetic and normative. They acknowledge that not all organizations succumb to isomorphic pressures there are deviant peers (DiMaggio and Powell, 1991: 73; see also Hoffman, 1999: 351). However, the underlying thrust of this theoretical approach views managing as at best caretaking, being buffeted by change actions
Strategic Change, August 2002

Who says change can be managed?

247

and outcomes over which individual managers have very limited influence. Again, the (ideal) image of managing is still one of control except that individual managers are unable to achieve this to any large degree given the circumstances confronting them.

achieve their intended outcomes. For example, they are argued to produce results with greater speed and increased commitment and greatly reduced resistance by the rest of the organization (Axelrod, 1992: 507).

Change management as interpreting Change management as coaching

Taking a coaching approach to managing change is one where managers (or change consultants) achieve intended outcomes through helping to shape the organizations capabilities in particular ways. We consider the Organization Development (OD) approach as an example. The traditional OD focus is on incremental, developmental, first-order change. A typical OD consultant acts as a coach by helping to structure activities to help the organization members solve their own problems and learn to do that better (French and Bell, 1995: 4). Where this is based upon action research it involves a variety of steps such as (1) problem identification, (2) client consultation, (3) data gathering and problem diagnosis, (4) feedback, (5) joint problem diagnosis, (6) joint action planning, (7) change actions, (8) further data gathering to determine outcomes of change and identification of further actions (Cummings and Worley, 1997: 2830). Such methods came under attack as being insufficient to deal with the large-scale changes needed by organizations to cope with the hyper-competitive business world which confronts them (Manning and Binzagr, 1996: 269). As a result, organization development is argued to have moved its focus from micro-organizational issues to macro, large system issues including aligning change to the strategic needs of the organization (see Worley et al., 1996). This has led to the development of a range of techniques designed to get the whole organizational system into a room at one and the same time (Fuller et al., 2000; Bunker and Alban, 1992). Proponents of these coaching techniques are glowing, sometimes almost evangelical, in expounding how they help to
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Taking an interpreting approach to change places managers in the role of creating meaning for other organizational members and helping them to make sense of the differing meanings attached to events. However, because sensemaking in organizations is not necessarily a consensual activity but may be a contested terrain, this suggests that there will be competing meanings and that only some meanings and therefore change intentions are likely to be realized; other change outcomes are likely to emerge from alternative actions of others which are based upon differing sensemaking schema. In Karl Weicks (2000) sensemaking model of organizational change he suggests that a central focus is needed on the structuring processes and flows through which organizational work occurs. Adopting the latter perspective leads one to see organizations as being in an ongoing state of accomplishment and re-accomplishment with organizational routines constantly undergoing adjustments to better fit changing circumstances (Weick, 2000: 229232; see also Feldman, 2000). In this constant movement are four drivers of organizational change: animation, direction, paying attention and candid interaction (Weick, 2000: 235236). Adopting these sensemaking actions assists individuals in developing their capabilities for managing the ambiguity of organizational change (Weick, 2000: 234235). In this perspective it is up to managers of change: to author interpretations and labels that capture the patterns in those adaptive choices. Within the framework of sensemaking, management sees what the front line says and tells the world what it means. In a newer code, management doesnt create change. It certifies change (Weick, 2000: 238).
Strategic Change, August 2002

248

Ian Palmer and Richard Dunford

Change management as nurturing

Taking a nurturing role to managing change assumes that even small changes may have a large impact on organizations (Thietart and Forgues, 1995: 1) and individual managers are not able to control the outcome of these changes. However, they may nurture their organizations, facilitating organizational qualities which enable positive self-organizing to occur. Like a parent nurturing a child, future outcomes are shaped but not directly controlled. Specific outcomes of change are not intentionally produced but rather emerge from the positive qualities and capabilities of the organization. Chaos theory takes this perspective in its assumption that organizational change is non-linear, fundamental rather than incremental, and does not necessarily entail growth (Lichtenstein, 2000: 131). Drawing on complexity theory it is argued that companies continuously regenerate themselves through adaptive learning and interactive structural change. These efforts periodically result in the spontaneous emergence of a whole new dynamic order, through a process called self-organization (Lichtenstein, 2000: 131). Self-organizing recognizes the chaotic nature of organizations which results from having to engage simultaneously with both change and stability (see Thietart and Forgues, 1995: 28). Marshak (1993) also points out that fundamentally different assumptions underlie a Confucian/Taoist approach to change compared to Western views of organizational change. He argues that Confucian/Taoist assumptions view change as cyclical (constant ebb and flow), processional (harmonious movement from one state to another), journey oriented (cyclical change therefore no end state), based on maintaining equilibrium (achieve natural harmony), observed and followed by involved people (who constantly seek harmony with their universe) and that it is normal rather than the exception. In this sense organizational change outcomes are not intended so much as produced through
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

the nurturing of a harmonious YinYang philosophy in which each new order contains its own negation.

Conclusion
We take seriously the question of whether change is manageable and argue that the answer to this question depends upon the differing images that one has of managing and of change. Based on two images of managing (controlling actions versus shaping capabilities) and three images of change outcomes (intended, partly intended, unintended) we have identified six change management images: directing, navigating, caretaking, coaching, interpreting and nurturing which are relevant both to how academics study organizational change (the assumptions they make in what they research) and how practitioners engage in change actions (the assumptions they make in terms of what they can achieve and how they should approach it). Each of these contains its own logic in which change can be viewed as manageable and each position varies in terms of the criteria for establishing change manageability. Some critiques of the manageability of change fail to recognize the bounded nature of these images and how they impact upon answers to this question. For example, Anderson and Anderson (2001: 9) say that developmental and transitional change can be managed, but not transformational change. They argue that there are too many intangibles which can inhibit the arrival of predetermined outcomes; what is required is a mindset which accepts that organizations can be led into the unknown without the end point being predictable in advance. In relation to this argument we suggest that the notion of transformation not being able to be managed only occurs if the notion of management as control is retained. Where management is viewed as shaping capabilities it might be accepted that transformation change might be managed although there will be variable answers in terms of the extent to
Strategic Change, August 2002

Who says change can be managed?

249

which change outcomes are intentionally achieved. Notions of managing are also bound up with measurements of success was it managed well? What went right? What went wrong? However, such questions are still locked into a particular view of change (the directing view) and fail to appreciate that even judging change success is problematic. As Pettigrew et al. argue Judgments about success are also likely to be conditional on who is doing the assessment and when the judgments are made (Pettigrew et al., 2001: 701). We suggest that the framework we have provided makes another contribution to understanding not just whether change can be managed, but how change as a successful set of management actions is to be viewed. If management is viewed as being only about control, then this closes down the potential for meaningful dialogue with other theorists and practitioners who view managing as about shaping capabilities. Our framework is one way of opening up dialogue around the question of whether change can be managed by enabling a clearer understanding of how our images of managing and change outcomes affect our interpretation, deliberations and judgements on the question.

Richard Dunford is a Professor at the Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Macquarie University, Sydney. He has also held full-time positions outside universities, both in the private sector (oil industry) and in the public sector (technology policy). His current research is centred on corporate restructuring, particularly in regard to the emergence of new organisational forms. Richard has produced over seventy publications including papers in the Administrative Science Quarterly, Academy of Management Review, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Human Relations, Journal of Organizational Change Management, and the Journal of Management Studies.

References
Anderson LA, Anderson D. 2001. Awake at the wheel: Moving beyond change management to conscious change leadership. OD Practitioner 33(3): 410. Axelrod D. 1992. Getting everyone involved: How one organization involved its employees supervisors and managers in redesigning the organization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 28(4): 499509. Beer M, Nohria N. 2000. Purpose of change: Economic value or organizational capability? In Breaking the Code of Change, Beer M, Nohria N (eds). Harvard Business School Press: Boston; 3536. Bunker BB, Alban BT. 1992. Editors introduction: The large group intervention a new social innovation? Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 28(4): 473579. Burnes B. 1996. Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics. (2nd edn). Pitman: London. Collins D. 1998. Organizational Change: Sociological Perspectives. Routledge: London. Cummings TG, Worley CG. 1997. Organization Development and Change. (6th edn). West Publishing Company: Minneapolis/St Paul, MN. Dawson P. 1994. Organizational Change: A Processual Approach. Chapman: London. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW. 1991. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Powell WW, DiMaggio PJ (eds). University of Chicago Press: Chicago; 6382. Strategic Change, August 2002

Biographical notes
Ian Palmer is a Professor in the School of Management, University of Technology, Sydney. His current research and consulting is on organizational change, new forms of organizing and downsizing. His publications have appeared in journals such as Academy of Management Review, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Journal of Management Studies, Sociology, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Journal of Management Education, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, Organizational Dynamics, and Human Relations. His recent book (2000), co-authored with Cynthia Hardy, Thinking about Management: Implications of Organizational Debates for Practice is published by Sage (UK).
Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

250
Fayol H. 1949. General and Industrial Management. Pitman: London. (original: Administration Industrielle et Generale 1916.) Feldman MS. 2000. Organizational routines as a source of continuous change. Organization Science 11(6): 611629. French WL, Bell CH. 1995. Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions for Organization Improvement. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Fuller C, Griffin T, Ludema JD. 2000. Appreciative future search: Involving the whole system in positive organization change. Organization Development Journal 18(2): 2941. Gersick CJG. 1994. Pacing strategic change: The case of a new venture. Academy of Management Journal 37(1): 945. Ghoshal S, Bartlett CA. 2000. Rebuilding behavioral context: A blueprint for corporate renewal. In Breaking the Code of Change. Beer M, Nohria N (eds). Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA; 195222. Hall RH. 1996. Organizations: Structures Processes and Outcomes. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Higgins JM. 1994. The Management Challenge: An Introduction to Management. (2nd edn). Macmillan: New York. Hoffman AJ. 1999. Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal 42(4): 351371. Huy QN. 2001. Time temporal capability and planned change. Academy of Management Review 26(4): 601623. Kanter RM, Stein BA, Jick TD. 1992. The Challenge of Organizational Change: How Companies Experience it and Leaders Guide it. Free Press: New York. Kotter JP. 1996. Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA. Lichtenstein BB. 2000. Self-organized transitions: A pattern amid the chaos of transformative change. Academy of Management Executive 14(4): 128141. Luthans FR, Hodgetts M, Rosenkrantz SA. 1988. Real Managers. Ballinger: Cambridge, MA. Manning MR, Binzagr GF. 1996. Methods values and assumptions underlying large group interventions intended to change whole systems. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 4(3): 268284. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Ian Palmer and Richard Dunford Marshak RJ. 1993. Lewin meets Confucius: A review of the OD model of change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 29(4): 393415. Mintzberg H. 1975. The managers job: Folklore and fact. Harvard Business Review 53: 4961. Mintzberg H, Waters JA. 1985. Of strategies deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal 6: 257272. Nader DA. 1998. Champions of Change: How CEOs and their Companies are Mastering the Skills of Radical Change. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA. Nicholl D. 1998. From the Editor: Is OD meant to be relevant? part I. OD Practitioner 30(2). Oliver C. 1988. The collective strategy framework: An application to competing predictions of isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly 33: 543561. Pendlebury J, Grouard B, Meston F. 1998. The Ten Keys to Successful Change Management. John Wiley: Chichester. Pettigrew A, Whipp R. 1993. Understanding the environment. In Managing Change. Mabey C, Mayon-White B (eds). Open University/Chapman: London. Pettigrew AM, Woodman RW, Cameron KS. 2001. Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal 44(4): 697713. Rajagopalan N, Spreitzer GM. 1997. Toward a theory of strategic change: A multilens perspective and integrating framework. Academy of Management Review 22(1): 4879. Stace D, Dunphy D. 2001. Beyond The Boundaries: Leading and Recreating the Successful Enterprise. (2nd edn) McGraw-Hill: Sydney. Taffinder P. 1998. Big Change: A Route-Map for Corporate Transformation. John Wiley: Chichester. Thietart RA, Forgues B. 1995. Chaos in the theory and organization. Organization Science 6(1): 1931. Turner D, Crawford M. 1998. Change Power: Capabilities That Drive Corporate Renewal. Business and Professional Publishing: Warriewood, Australia. Van de Ven AH, Poole MS. 1995. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review 20(3): 510540. Weick KE. 2000. Emergent change as a universal in organizations. In Breaking the Code of Strategic Change, August 2002

Who says change can be managed? Change. Beer M, Nohria N (eds). Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA; 223241. White MC, Marin DB, Brazeal DV, Friedman WH. 1997. The evolution of organizations: Suggestions from complexity theory about the interplay between natural selection

251
and adaptation. Human Relations 50(11): 13831401. Worley CG, Hitchin DE, Ross WL. 1996. Integrated Strategic Change: How OD Builds Competitive Advantage. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Strategic Change, August 2002