Research in Organizational Change and Development

Debra Noumair, Abraham B. (Rami) Shani, Debra A. Noumair, Abraham B. (Rami) Shani

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781787563537
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Organisational Behaviour
• Index: Business

This volume providesnew conceptual insights, robust empirical studies, and thought-provokingchapters to help organizations improve health and wellbeing insociety. Some chapters dothis by addressing macro-level change: for example, consulting at the eco-system level anddiscussing the challenges entailed in developing intervention capabilities toimpact highly interdependent eco-systems; or discussing the learning and experience of a large system transformation projectconducted at a national level that had an impact on societal health andwellbeing. Other chapters extendtheory and integrate perspectives that heretofore have remained separate, suchas the 2017 Pasmore-Woodman Award winners, who provide an overview of theircollaborative attempts at intervening and making a difference in organization studies. The richness of the diverse collaborative contributions to thisvolume by leading scholars and scholar-practitioners from around the globeprovide an enriching and emerging body of knowledge.

THE COLORS OF CHANGE REVISITED: SITUATING AND DESCRIBING THE THEORY AND ITS PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

Hans Vermaak and Léon de Caluwé

ABSTRACT

The colors of change is an overview of change paradigms, created about two decades ago, that has been intensively used, tested, refined, shared, and elaborated by practitioners and academics alike. Here, the “color theory” is presented as it is now, and is situated within the literature. Its four main applications are described as well as rules of thumb that have been derived from reflective practice. This chapter illustrates that the color theory is clearly not one thing to all people, as it is understood in very different ways, both in terms of its theoretical foundations as well as the complexity of its applications. This probably adds to the versatility of the theory. Bringing together key insights about the color theory for academics and practitioners, this chapter strives both to give a concise overview and to explore its richness.

Keywords: Change; metatheory; paradigms; paradoxes; diagnosis; strategy; change agent; communication

INTRODUCTION

As academic practitioners, we have been guiding clients and teaching colleagues how to create change more effectively. More than two decades ago, we set about creating a curriculum and a book on change management for practitioners. We searched the literature, reflected on practice, and summarized our best thinking. During this process, we felt that a piece of the puzzle was missing: an understanding of why change actually occurs. So we started to map key assumptions behind different approaches to change. This, in time, became a meta-model of change theories, with each approach assigned a distinguishing color. The rational approach to analyze the best solution, design a solution, and implement it in a structured manner was named blue-print change, and that stuck as an apt shorthand label. From there, we chose to attach color labels to the other paradigms as well, such as red-print change to a warmer motivational approach to change. This “color model” served as a common language, helped people understand phenomena, suggested action perspectives, and was grounded in literature and practice. With Lewin’s (1952, p. 169) statement in the back of our minds that “there is nothing more practical than a good theory,” the versatility of the model hinted that we had stumbled upon a theory.

The model is very much a product of two intersecting worlds. On the one hand, we have shared and researched it with academics, developing it in relation to a wider literature on change and testing it in practice. On the other hand, it is a practical set of concepts and guidelines that have been co-developed with practitioners to increase their understanding of real-life problems and suggest ways to address them. As such, it reflects the dichotomy highlighted by Woodman (2016) between “change process theory” and “implementation theory.” Where the first generates insights into change phenomena, the latter sheds light on the specific activities of change agents; where the first finds its way to academic journals, the latter is found in outlets for practitioners. The emphasis in our more academic publications has indeed been on the first, not on the latter. In this chapter, we seek to correct this bifurcation by providing a comprehensive overview of the practical applications that have emerged over the last 20 years. Still, we wish to strike a balance and thus commence with positioning the model within the literature and summarizing our present understanding of the color model itself. For those interested in the process of theory development, research conducted with the model, and more extensive studies of the color theory itself, we invite readers to see our other publications (e.g., de Caluwé & Vermaak, 2003, 2006, 2016; Vermaak & de Caluwé, 2017).

SITUATING THE COLOR THEORY

Overview of Approaches

In the late 1990s, we became convinced that the great diversity of change issues out there would never be sufficiently understood or effectively addressed using any one approach to change. We had noticed that many practitioners were versed in and attached to only a limited part of the spectrum of approaches to change, had witnessed how this could seriously impede their effectiveness as change agents. This created the impetus to create a meta-model that would depict the main strategies for change to be found in literature and practice, which could be used among practitioners to widen their views and repertoire. Our choice to construct this meta-model can also be regarded as part of a wider response in the literature over the last two decades against the dominance of linear and rational models of change, in which the top sets the direction, plans are devised by the experts, and the target group implements them to produce change in a way that is both controllable and predictable (e.g., Stacey, 1996). It also contrasts with literature seeking an integrative and overarching theoretical framework for change (e.g., Rajagopalan & Spreitzer, 1996) or positing that one approach to change might fit all (e.g., Kotter, 1995).

It has similarities to other meta-models in the literature that emerged around the same time or after (see Table 1). They are sometimes referred to as “strategies of change,” in which change traditions are grouped based on their underlying ideas and ideals. For instance, Bennis and colleagues (1985) trace the genealogy of certain traditions and the communities of practice where people share values, methods, activities, and language, and derive identity from doing so (e.g., Wenger, 1998). Others have made distinctions in terms of “approaches to change” (e.g., Higgs & Rowland, 2005; van der Zee, 1995) that can be read as a plea to choose a change approach that best fits the characteristics of a specific situation. Such models generally distinguish between two to four approaches of change. Graetz and Smith (2010) are among the few who come up with an ambitious 10-fold distinction.

Table 1. Examples of Meta-models of Change.

Bennis et al. (1985)	Power-coercive, rational-empirical, and normative-reeducative: General strategies for effecting changes in human systems
Van de Ven and Poole (1995)	Evolution, dialectic, life cycle, and teleology: Ideal-type theories of social change
van der Zee (1995)	Diffusion, direction, interaction, and development: Approaches to change
Beer and Nohria (2000)	Theory E (planned change based on economic value), Theory O (“OD” based on organizational capabilities): Theories of change
Huy (2001)	Commanding, engineering, teaching, and socializing: Assumptions of change intervention ideal types
Boonstra (2004)	Theory E (planned change based on economic value), Theory O (“OD” based on organizational capabilities), Theory C (continuous change based on constructing realities): Theories of change
Higgs and Rowland (2005)	Directive, master, self-assembly, and emergence: Approaches to change and its leadership
Caldwell (2005)	Rationalist, contextualist, dispersalist, and constructionalist: Discourses on agency and change in organization
Quinn and Sonenshein (2008)	Telling, forcing, participating, and transforming: General strategies for changing human systems
Graetz and Smith (2010)	Biological, rational, institutional, resource, contingency, psychological, political, cultural, systems, and postmodern: Philosophies of change

Discerning Underlying Paradigms

In the early years, we observed time and again that proponents of different approaches could not easily switch their thinking, let alone their actions, when discussing the best way forward in concrete cases. Discussions would often become quite heated, as people would have a hard time even comprehending why a colleague could see things so differently. It appeared their perspectives were shaped by deeply held, and often implicit, assumptions and values about change. In turn, these underlying beliefs played out in the characteristics of plans, designs, roles, interventions, outcomes, working mechanisms, etc. We set forth making these divergent belief systems as explicit as possible in our theory. This can also be seen in some of the other meta-models, for instance, when Van de Ven and Poole (1995) emphasize the impact of one’s intellectual roots on one’s preferred theory of change. Attention to underlying paradigms is not restricted to the literature of change, but extends just as much to discussions on the nature of organizing (e.g., Martin & Frost, 1996; Morgan, 1986), learning (e.g., Sauquet, 2004; Sturdy, 2004), and research (Boal, Hunt, & Joros, 2003; Burrell & Morgan, 1979). These discourses also overlap, as distinctions between change, organizing, learning, and research seem to blur more and more.

The meta-models have in common an understanding that our world is shaped by the way we think, in both an empowering and a debilitating way. The implication is that discerning and deconstructing our assumptions allows us to test them as well as explore more meaningful ones. The color model thus is a theory about thinking, situated in a body of literature discussing the impact of mindsets (e.g., Simons, 2013), mental models (Senge, 1990), espoused theory (Argyris & Schön, 1974), cause maps (Weick, 1969), belief systems (Gilbert, 1993), and metaphors (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980). Some argue that paradigms can be experienced not only as complementary but also as incommensurable, as it is difficult to view the different viewpoints from a neutral stance (Jackson & Carter, 1991; Kuhn, 1962; Scherer & Dowling, 1995). We have recognized this in how people find it hard to talk about real-life cases and the colors themselves without revealing their own inevitable biases, pointing to the difficulty of thinking “colorlessly.” People’s observations and preferences are intertwined. We see in this the self-referential nature of each of the colors, endlessly rich worlds in and of themselves that obscure alternatives or morph them into something more familiar. It then requires a kind of figure-ground reversal to appreciate how different another world can be: to consciously shift our attention from what we habitually notice to what else is always hiding in plain sight (van Dijk, 1989).

Dialog and Social Construction

As much as “choosing” a different approach to change is limited by our belief systems, “switching” our belief systems seems limited by the contexts in which people live. It is in these contexts that we acquire paradigms through experiences, socialization, mutual adaptation, and education and training. We have noticed that most groups and organizations consistently seem to favor some change perspectives over others. They often maintain such preferences over extended periods of time, which explains why some problems become persistent, as the dominant, habitual perspective continues to be insufficient for addressing them effectively. We have noticed how such dominance is reinforced by competency traps that occur when collectives venture beyond their habits (Levitt & March, 1988). This is also recognized in some other meta-models of change, in which the authors stress how beliefs or values are defined and restricted by social allegiances, professional identities, organizational boundaries, and communities (e.g., Beer & Nohria, 2000; Bennis et al., 1985).

This situates our meta-model within the field of social constructionism, where meaning is negotiated within the relationships we have with others and is enacted in common endeavors (e.g., Gergen & Gergen, 2003). Stable social-cognitive configurations occur when the same actors (the “who”) keep sharing the same ideas (the “what”) in the same type of (inter)actions (the “how”) (Termeer, 1993): meaning becomes fixed and any development impeded. Meaning can be renegotiated by shifting participation, introducing different frames, or altering interactions. There may also be institutional mechanisms at play here, where certain logic become legitimized, support habitual practice, and help reproduce the status quo (e.g., Greenwood, Raynard, Kodeih, Micelotta, & Lounsbury, 2011). The color theory here becomes a model to support organizational discourse to read, interrupt, and sway fixed or institutionalized practice (e.g., Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy, 2004). It acts as a boundary object that helps translate and connect across multiple logic and contexts (Oswick & Robertson, 2009). This also places the model within dialogic OD (e.g., Bushe & Marshak, 2009).

Dealing with Paradoxes

The more dominance is redressed and meaning renegotiated in organizations, the more the diversity of approaches to change – the full spectrum of colors – can be accessed and flourished. This seems good news: the colors stand for different perspectives and possibilities that enable organizations to deal flexibly with competing demands and increasing turbulence. However, it inevitably also leads to tensions and contradictions among the different paradigms. Over time, we were able to identify dozens of recurring contradictions among the colors that play out in organizations (de Caluwé, 2015). Where some view such complexity as a destructive force, others appreciate its potential for making organizations more innovative (e.g., Groleau, Demers, & Engeström, 2011; Jay, 2013). We recognize how both possibilities are quite real. Which way it goes depends on how willing people are to face divergent perspectives, manage the tensions they create, and do so in a skilled fashion that allows for learning and experimentation. Huy (2001, p. 616) suggests that:

to effectively enact intervention types with seemingly divergent assumptions and values, agents have to be aware of and comfortable with paradoxes in thought and action, able to explain these seeming contradictions to recipients, and coordinate well among one another.

The color theory thus relates to the surge of studies on paradoxes, in its related terms, tensions, contradictions, and dialectics (e.g., Lewis & Smith, 2014). A paradox involves contradictory yet interrelated elements (like the range of colors) that exist simultaneously and persistently. They seem logical when considered in isolation, but irrational, inconsistent, and even absurd when juxtaposed (Lewis, 2000). Paradoxical situations typically give rise to three types of responses: either-or, both-and, and more-than (Putnam, Fairhorst, & Banghart, 2016). Either-or responses are often regarded as defensive tactics that only temporarily reduce tensions and that hamper innovation. Both-and responses are seen as ways to accept and inquire into opposites, in order to develop an equilibrium or integrative solutions. More-than responses seek a new interplay between opposites that helps to transcend them and create novel outcomes (Romani, Primecz, & Topçu, 2011). The more complex issues are, or the more innovation is required, the better the latter responses work out. In following Bouchikhi’s (1998) recommendation to view paradigmatic conflicts as tensions that expose organizational paradoxes, the color model becomes a theory to deal with organizational complexity.

A Theory of Change, Not a Theory of Colors

It may be surprising that we have not situated the colors of change within the larger literature on colors. This is not an accidental lapse. The more we noticed how differ...