Page 81 - Managing Change in Organizations

CarnCh04v3.qxd 3/30/07 4:16 PM Page 64

Chapter 4 ■ Theories of change: traditional models
altogether too problematic. We will review those perspectives in the next
chapter. Suffice it to say here that while some of the theory reviewed in this
chapter is linear, or at least based on pretty simple assumptions, that is not
true for all, as we shall see. However, I have selected theory for inclusion in
this chapter where it seemed to be based on the idea that change and improve-
ment is both possible and desirable within the existing organizational arrange-
ments (or paradigm).
The process of change can be summarized as comprising two elements, namely
leaders and followers. Leaders give ‘signals’ that changes are needed, can be
described, ‘pathways’ to change can be sketched out and plans, resources and
support for implementation provided. But without ‘followers’ no change is pos-
sible because leaders cannot do everything. But not all ‘followers’ will embrace
change. Neither will all ‘followers’ resist change. Borrowing an idea from inno-
vation theory, we can identify a ‘change vanguard’ and ‘early adopters’. These are
the groups on whose support successful implementation is based. They carry
forward the change ideas and practices within the organization. As we shall see,
success in change management to some extent is based on identifying and sup-
porting those people. But leaders must also provide resources, facilities, training,
‘space’ and ‘organizational cover’. What does this mean? Well, early on in the
process of implementation, plans will go wrong, not work and be misunderstood.
Often indeed people implement plans incorrectly, sometimes just because they
do not understand. In these circumstances the change vanguard and early
adopters must necessarily experiment, problem solve and so on in order to get
things on the right track. But there will be detractors around. Senior people need
to provide those seeking to get things to work with the time and resources to do
so. Often this is as much about keeping the detractors at bay.
All of this happens at both the individual and the organizational level. At the
individual level leaders must articulate change ideas with ‘frame resonance’, to
use an idea from research on ‘social movements’(see next chapter) in which lead-
ers seek to direct attention not at descriptions of new values, nor indeed at new
behaviours, but rather at ‘acceptable’ ideas regarding the organization’s desired
‘direction of travel’. Thus they seek to use words and phrases which stakeholders

and others see as meaningful in relation to the organization’s purpose. Thus an
environmental organization might focus attention on ‘polluted streams’ hoping
that this will strike a chord with current and potential supporters, encouraging
them to action just as the phrases ‘save the planet’ and ‘feed the world’ have had
similar impact. Colt Telecom used to describe itself as ‘building rings around
cities’ at once symbolizing to its customers that it sought to service companies in
financial centres and that it offered certainty of access. This is similar to the idea
of ‘resonance’ in Howard Gardner’s book Changing Minds (2004). Leaders must
also provide for ‘quick wins’ and ‘demonstration projects’; showing that progress
is being made and is therefore possible in the future.
In turn, this argument suggests that the ideas which underpin any particular
change initiative need to be influential throughout the organization. We know
that adults learn best from direct experience, even allowing for what we cer-
tainly know about the varying learning styles across the human population. Ideas
are considered in relation to problems we seek to resolve. We test them in practice.

64