Explaining Development and

Change in Organizations

Van de Ven &

Poole

Cecelie Lyngnes
Eirik sebak
Anirban Mukherjee
Presentation outline

Overview
Four ideal-type developmental theories
A typology of change process theories
Theories of complex development and
change process
Conclusion
Overview
On the basis of an interdisciplinary literature review, the
authors introduces four basic types of process theories that
explain how and why change unfolds in social or biological
entities: life-cycle, teleological, dialectical, and evolutionary
theories.
These four types represent fundamentally different event
sequences and generative mechanisms to explain how and
why changes unfold.
The four ideal-types are then arranged into a typology by
distinguishing the level and mode of change to which each
theory applies.
Finally one considers how the typology is useful for
understanding a variety of specific theories of change
processes in organizations
The authors contend that all specific theories of organizational
change can be built from one or more of the four basic types.
Typology
Motors
Generative mechanisms which explain how and why changes unfold

Process
Progression of events in an organizational entitys existence over time

Change
One type of event, is an empirical observation of differences in form, quality, or state
over time in an organizational entity

Entity
May be an individuals job, a work group, an organizational strategy, a program, a
product, or the overall organization

Development is a change process

i.e. a progression of change events that unfold during the duration of an entitys
existence from the initiation or onset of the entity to its end or termination

Process theory
Explanation of how and why an organizational entity changes and develops
 Families of ideal-type theories of social change

Family Life Cycle Evolution Dialectic Teleology

Members Developmentavism Darwinian evolution Conflict theory Goal setting, planning

Ontogenesis Mendelean genetics Dialectical materialism Functionalism

Metamorphosis Saltationism Pluralism Social constuction

Stage & cyclical Punctuated Collective action Symbolic interaction

models equilibrium

Pioneers Comte, Spencer, Piaget Lamarck, Darwin, Hegel, Marx, Freud Mead, Weber, Simon
Mendel, Gould &
Eldridge
Key Metaphor Organic growth Competitive survival Opposition, Conflict Purposeful cooperation

Logic Imminent program Natural selection Contradictory forces Envisioned end state
Prefiguredsequence among competitors in a Thesis, antithesis, Social construction
Compliant adaptation
population synthesis Equifinality

Event Progression Linear and irreversible Recurrent, cumulative, Recurrent, Recurrent,

sequence of prescribed & probabilistic discontinuous discontinuous
stages in unfolding of sequence of variation, sequence of sequence of goal
immanent potentials selection, & retention confrontation, conflict, setting, implementation,
present at the events and synthesis between and adaptation of
beginning contradictory values or means to reach desired
events end state

Generating Force Prefigured program/rule Populationscarcity Conflict & confrontation Goalenactment

regulated by nature Competition between opposing Consensus on means
logic, or institutions Commensalism
forces, interests, or Cooperation/symbiosis
classes
A typology of change process theories

The four theories provide for internally consistent

accounts of change processes in organizational
entities
Four distinguishing characteristics
Process is viewed as a different cycle of change
events
Governed by a different motor or generating
mechanism
Unit analysis

Mode of change
 Process theories of organizational development and change
Evolution Dialectic
Variation Selection Competition
Thesis
Multiple Conflict Synthesis
Entities Population scarcity Antithesis
Environmental selection Pluralism (diversity)
Competition Confrontation
Conflict
Unit of
Change
Life cycle Teleology
Stage 4 (Terminate) Dissatisfaction

Stage 3 Stage 1 Implement Search/

Single (Harvest) (Startup) goals Interact
Entity
Stage 2 Set/Envision
(Grow) goals
Immanent program, Regulation, Compliant adoption Purposeful enactment, Social construction,
Consensus
Prescribed Mode of change Constructive
 Theories of Complex Development
and Change Process

Reason for relative complexity of

specific theories vis-a-vis ideal types:
Org Development spreadover Space and
Time
Change influenced by diverse units and
actors (eg: Biomedical Innovation of
Cochlear Implant)
Inherent Incompleteness of Single Motor
Composite theories of Development and Change

By specifying the presence or absence of

the four motors in a given situation, an array
of 16 logically possible explanations of
organizational change and development
becomes apparent.
Single-motor theories
Dual-motor theories
Tri-motor theories
Quad-motor theories
 Example: Dual Motor
Life Cycle Vs Taleological : Gradual Evolution of
Technology

Early Fluid State Specific and Rigid

Product Determined
Product Innovation Optimisation and
Process Innovation
Standardization
Benefits of the framework
A step toward a more parsimonious
explanation of organizational change and
development
Heuristic for critique and reformulation
The framework points out previously
unexplored explanations of organizational
change and development
Supports inductive research by identifying
characteristics of the four motors, and the
conditions under which they are likely to
operate
Conclusion
Introduces a typology of four ideal-type theories of
organizational development and change: life-cycle,
teleological, dialectical and evolutionary.
Each theory relies on a different motor of change,
which can be mapped as a distinct action cycle
However, observed change and development
processes are often more complex than any one of
these theories suggest
A framework of 16 logically possible explanations of
underlying change and development is developed,
which provide a systematic way to compare and
contrast alternative theories of organizational
change
Conclusion

Important extensions of the framework

Nesting
Timing
Complementarity
Discussion

Can all models of development be

reduced to 4 relatively simple motors
and their interactions?
What would be the subsequent use of
this framework vis--vis further
research?
Limitations
Examples quoted in article seemed tailormade
Doesnt adress if the model is suitable for all
situations
High on Theory with distinct lack of emperical
foundation
Inability to illustrate higher degrees of composite
theories
Scope and purpose of the paper not very evident.