58 Academy of Management Perspectives August

A R T I C L E S

Breakdowns in Implementing Models of

Organization Change
by Andrew H. Van de Ven and Kangyong Sun

Executive Overview
Practice theories of implementing change are lagging behind process theories of organizational change and
development. To address this gap, this paper examines common breakdowns in implementing four process
models of organization change: teleology (planned change), life cycle (regulated change), dialectics
(conflictive change), and evolution (competitive change). Change agents typically respond to these
breakdowns by taking actions to correct people and organizational processes so they conform to their model
of change. Although this strategy commands most of the attention in the literature, we argue that in many
situations managers and scholars might do better if they reflected on and revised their mental model to fit
the change journey that is unfolding in their organization.

C
hange is an ongoing and never-ending process ceive a breakdown when participants resist or do
of organizational life. Although we would like not follow the change plans. These breakdowns
to explain, predict, and control the process, provide important occasions for change agents to
organizational change often does not unfold in take two kinds of strategies: action and reflection.
expected ways (Burke, 2009): Breakdowns in our The action strategy focuses on correcting the
models of change occur when organizations do not people or processes in the organization that pre-
change in a manner that is consistent with our vent the change model from unfolding as ex-
conceptual model: Breakdowns are perceived dis- pected. In our example, the change agent might
crepancies or gaps between the change process we explain to participants the logic and reasons for
observe in an organization and our mental model the planned change. This strategy reflects a main-
of how the change process should unfold. For stream view in the literature that change manage-
example, a change agent1 with a participative and ment largely entails an action-oriented problem-
consensual model of planned change would per- solving approach (Burke, Lake, & Paine, 2009).
As a problem solver, a change agent attempts to
We greatly appreciate useful comments and suggestions from Jean intervene in and control a change initiative by
Bartunek, John Bechara, and Warner Burke, as well as Garry Bruton diagnosing and correcting difficulties that prevent
(Editor), Chung Ming Lau (Associate Editor), and two anonymous review-
ers of Academy of Management Perspectives. the change process from unfolding as the change
1
The literature tends to refer to “change agents” as the managers or agent thinks it should. This strategy assumes that
consultants who direct and manage a change initiative. Employees and
other participants are viewed as the recipients of change and academic
researchers as outside observers (By, Burnes, & Oswick, 2011). We take a exercise agency or influence on the change process by their actions and
broader view of “change agents” as including all of these groups, for they all reflections.

* Andrew H. Van de Ven ([email protected]) is Vernon H. Heath Professor of organizational innovation and change at the Carlson
School of Management at the University of Minnesota.
Kangyong Sun ([email protected]) is Assistant Professor in the Graduate School of International Corporate Strategy at Hitotsubashi
University in Japan.

Copyright by the Academy of Management; all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, e-mailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written
permission. Users may print, download, or e-mail articles for individual use only.
2011 Van de Ven and Sun 59

the change agent’s mental model is correct and change processes in organizations tend to be com-
that observed activities that deviate from this plex, we encourage change agents to expand their
model are problems to be solved. repertoire of conceptual models for managing or-
A second strategy, reflection, focuses on revis- ganizational change. Following Conant and Ash-
ing one’s mental model to one that better fits the by’s (1970) principle of requisite variety, we argue
process of change unfolding in the organization. that change agents are more likely to be successful
For example, given the resistance to the planned when their mental models of change match the
change, the change agent might adopt a dialecti- complexity of the change processes unfolding in
cal model of change that promotes constructive their organization. As we will discuss, having mul-
conflict and debate among participants with op- tiple mental models of change (i.e., teleology, life
posing plans. The reflection strategy emphasizes cycle, dialectical, and evolutionary process theo-
how change agents make sense of and socially ries) permits us to adopt a contingency theory of
construct understandings of the “buzzing, bloom- implementation where one applies the model—
ing, and confusing” changes they experience in and interactions among them—that best fits a
organizations (Weick, 2011). It centers on: given situation.
Second, we propose a framework for diagnosing
meaning-making with a view to changing mindsets rather
weaknesses and typical breakdowns in models of
than changing more concrete phenomena (e.g., behavior,
procedures, or structures). The real-time social negotia- change and suggest remedies that may address or
tion of meaning associated with [reflection] offers a sig- mitigate these breakdowns. In doing so, we pro-
nificant challenge to the manageability of the process of vide some guidelines for diagnosing and interven-
change management insofar as it involves “coordinating” ing in process models of organizational change.
and “facilitating” change conversations in the moment This diagnosis of breakdowns, of course, becomes
and on a largely improvised and unscripted basis rather
more complex when multiple change models are
than engaging in more established forms of planned
change. (By, Burns, & Oswick, 2011, p. 3) held by multiple change agents who are involved
in multiple organizational changes. We know very
Most of the existing research focuses on diagnos- little about these interacting complexities; they
ing and correcting breakdowns in implementing a represent an important direction for future re-
model of change—the action strategy. Far less search on implementing organization change.
attention has been given to the reflection strategy Third, this diagnosis includes recognizing when
of revising one’s conceptual model to fit the peo- process breakdowns may have gone beyond repair
ple and organization undergoing change. or when the remedies create bigger organizational
We argue that the effectiveness of the action problems than they solve. Instead of escalating in
strategy without reflection is limited and some- failing actions designed to remedy breakdowns in
times self-defeating. In many situations, change change processes, we propose that change agents
agents would do better if they paid more attention reflect on and revise their conceptual model to
to reflecting on and revising their mental models better fit the change situation. In other words,
to fit the change journey that is unfolding in their instead of “swimming upstream,” the skillful
organization. Indeed, the action and reflection change agent reconceptualizes the situation in
strategies are highly related, for they represent the order to “go with the flow.” Switching mental
core activities in a cyclical process of trial-and- models to better fit changing circumstances, of
error learning while implementing change. Ac- course, implies that the change agent has a reper-
tions provide the trials and experiences for obtain- toire of several mental models (which brings us
ing feedback, and reflections on this feedback back to our first suggestion).
provide opportunities to reconceptualize future These three suggestions shift the research
actions. Learning is short-circuited when either agenda on organizational change toward a contin-
actions or reflections are missing. gency theory of implementation. This contin-
We make three suggestions for undertaking gency theory includes observing an organization
action and reflection strategies. First, because change initiative using multiple process models,
60 Academy of Management Perspectives August

identifying breakdowns perceived in implement- be managed in sustainable and constructive direc-

ing a model of change in particular situations, and tions over time?
diagnosing how and when to respond to these Van de Ven and Poole (1995) addressed the
breakdowns. The comparative merits of correcting first question by proposing a typology of four pro-
the organization to fit a model of change or chang- cess models of organizational change and devel-
ing one’s model to fit the organization becomes a opment, illustrated in Figure 1: teleology (planned
strategic question in this research agenda. change), life cycle (regulatory change), dialectics
(conflictive change), and evolution (competitive
Breakdowns in Models of Change change). As the figure indicates, these process
models differ in terms of whether they apply to

O
rganizational change is defined as a difference in
form, quality, or state over time in an organiza- single or multiple organizational entities and
tional entity (Van de Ven & Poole, 1995, p. whether the change process follows a prescribed
512). The entity may be an individual’s job, a sequence or is constructed (emerges) as the pro-
work group, an organizational subunit, the overall cess unfolds. The cells in the figure illustrate how
organization, or its relationships with other orga- each theory views the process of development as
nizations. Change can be measured by observing unfolding in a fundamentally different progression
the same entity over two or more points in time of change events and being governed by a differ-
on a set of characteristics and then observing the ent generative mechanism or motor. Understand-
differences over time in these characteristics. If ing these four process models of change, and in-
the difference is noticeable, we can say that the teractions among them, represents a major step in
organizational entity has changed. Much of the developing a repertoire of models for managing
voluminous literature on organizational change change.
focuses on two questions about this difference: (1) This paper focuses on the second question by
How and what produced it? and (2) How might it examining the implementation breakdowns typi-

Figure 1
Process Models of Organization Change

Note: Arrows on lines represent likely sequences among events, not causation between events.
Source: Van de Ven & Poole (1995).
2011 Van de Ven and Sun 61

Table 1
Breakdowns and Remedies in Process Models of Organizational Change
Teleology Life Cycle Dialectic Evolution
(Planned Change) (Regulated Change) (Conflictive Change) (Competitive Change)
Process cycle Dissatisfaction, search, goal Prescribed sequence of steps or Confrontation, conflict, and Variation, selection, and retention
setting, and stages of development synthesis between opposing among competing units
implementation interests
Situations when model Social construction of Prefigured program regulated Conflict between opposing Competition for scarce resources
applies desired end state; goal by nature, logic, or rules forces
(generating mechanism) consensus
Typical breakdowns • Lack of recognition • Resistance to change • Destructive conflict • Requisite variety
• Decision biases • Lack of compliance • Power imbalance • Lack of scarcity
• Groupthink • Monitoring and control • Irresolvable differences
• Lack of consensus
Remedies • Triggering attention • Responding to complaints • Conflict management • Niche development
• Critical thinking • Local adaptation • Negotiation skills • Marketing
• Consensus building • Internalizing mandates • Political savvy • Strategies for competitive
advantage

cally experienced with each model and possible Models of planned change assume that people
remedies for these breakdowns. Table 1 provides initiate efforts to change when their action
an overview of these breakdowns and remedies. thresholds are triggered by significant opportuni-
Understanding the different breakdowns and rem- ties, problems, or threats. Teleological processes
edies in implementing the four models of change often fail because only a minority of participants
provides a framework for diagnosing implementa- recognize the need for change. According to
tion processes, our second suggestion. After that, March and Simon (1958), dissatisfaction with ex-
we address complexities of interacting change isting conditions stimulates people to search for
models held by different change agents involved improved conditions, and people stop searching
in multiple change initiatives ongoing in organi- when a satisfactory result is found. A satisfactory
zations. These complexities deal with the relative result is a function of a person’s aspiration level,
merits of correcting breakdowns versus changing which is a product of his or her past successes and
one’s conceptual model, and emphasize the need failures (Lant, 1992; Lewin, Dembo, Festinger, &
for a contingency theory of implementing organi- Sears, 1944). When there is little difference between
zational change. perceptions of current situations and aspiration lev-
els, the need for change is hardly recognized (Greve,
Teleological Process Theory (Planned Change) 1998). Cognitive psychologists have shown that
A teleology or planned change model views de- when exposed over time to a set of stimuli that
velopment as a repetitive sequence of goal formu- change very gradually, individuals do not perceive
lation, implementation, evaluation, and modifica- the gradual changes—they unconsciously adapt to
tion of an envisioned end state based on what was the changing conditions (Helson, 1948, 1964; Hu-
learned or intended by the people involved. This lin, 1991; Hulin & Judge, 2003).
sequence emerges through purposeful social con- Direct personal experiences with opportunities
struction among individuals within the organiza- or problems are more likely to trigger individuals’
tional entity undergoing change. Teleological pro- action thresholds than are reports or exhortations
cesses of planned change break down because about the need for change (Van de Ven, 1980,
participants do not recognize the need for change, 1986). For example, site visits and face-to-face
they make erroneous decisions, or they do not meetings with demanding customers, technical
reach agreement on goals or actions (Burke, Lake, experts, or consultants increase the likelihood
& Paine, 2009; Nutt & Wilson, 2010). that action thresholds of organizational partici-
62 Academy of Management Perspectives August

pants will be triggered and stimulate them to pay man, 1984; McNamara et al., 2002; Staw et al.,
attention to changing environmental conditions 1997).
or customer needs (e.g., von Hippel, 1978).
Teleological change processes also break down Life Cycle Process Theory (Regulated Change)
when there is a lack of consensus on plans or goals A life cycle model depicts the process of change as
among organizational participants. Socialization progressing through a prescribed sequence of
activities provide a way of building consensus be- stages and activities over time. Activities in a life
cause teambuilding, training sessions, and social cycle model are prescribed and regulated by
gatherings, for example, facilitate frequent in- natural, logical, or institutional routines. In
teractions that in turn lead to shared under- most organizational applications of a life cycle
standings, common norms, and cooperative at- model, the rules prescribing the change process
titudes (e.g., Homans, 1950; Maloney, Shah, & are based on routines learned in the past for man-
Zellmer-Bruhn, 2010). Involvement in goal for- aging recurrent changes in efficient and effective
mulation also enhances consensus (Wooldridge ways (Cohen & Sproull, 1996; Feldman & Pent-
& Floyd, 1990). land, 2003), or they may be externally induced
A teleological process may also fail due to (Rogers, 2003); that is, they come from sources
faulty plans or goals because of biases in individual outside of the organizational entity undergoing
or group judgments— errors in critical thinking change. Life cycle theory is not simply a model of
and decision making (Nutt, 2002). Studies of de- passive compliance to mandated change by an
cision making have found that individuals system- entity; it also considers how proactive individuals
atically deviate from a rational ideal in making adapt to their environments and make use of rules
decisions, causal judgments, social inferences, and to accomplish their purposes (Gibson, 1977; Nor-
predictions (Bazerman, 1986; Cialdini, 2009). man, 1988).
Human beings lack the capability and inclination In deviating from prescribed change routines,
to deal with complexity (Kahneman, Slovic, & local adaptations are typically viewed as break-
Tversky, 1982). Common strategies for reducing downs by those who design and mandate a change
cognitive biases include engaging other infor- routine. Prescriptions for change are perceived
mants in focus groups or brainstorming processes differently by “planners,” who design a change
to provide information and interpretations of the program, and “doers,” who implement it but do
issue being considered (Delbecq, Van de Ven, & not participate in its development (Ford, Ford, &
Gustafson, 1975; Eden & Ackermann, 2010; D’Amelio, 2008). As Pressman and Wildavsky’s
Halpern, 1996; Nutt & Wilson, 2010). (1973) classic study found, breakdowns happen
Finally, teleological processes may fail because when planners are separated from doers because
of escalating commitments to failing courses of “learning fails when events are caused and conse-
action (McNamara, Moon, & Bromiley, 2002; quences are felt by different people” (Pressman &
Ross & Staw, 1986; Staw, 1976, 1981; Staw, Bar- Wildavsky, 1973, p. 135). Consistent with the
sade, & Koput, 1997). “Self-justification” is one of “not-invented-here” syndrome, people are more
the major reasons for escalation of commitment. likely to implement and comply with changes that
Individuals who are responsible for an initial de- they can adapt to fit their local situations (e.g.,
cision tend to become more committed to a failing Clagett, 1967; Katz & Allen, 1982; Lichtenthaler
course of action than individuals not involved in & Ernst, 2006). Cialdini (2009) synthesized an
the initial decision (Ross & Staw, 1986, p. 276). extensive number of psychological experiments
Studies have examined a number of ways to re- indicating that people are more likely to comply
duce escalating commitments to failing courses of with requests from others when a reason is pro-
action. One approach has different individuals vided for the request; reciprocity exists; an initial
make consecutive investment decisions in a proj- commitment is made; social proof exists that
ect, thereby decreasing felt commitments of focal many similar others are complying; requests come
decision makers (Bazerman, Giuliano, & Appel- from individuals they know and like; requests
2011 Van de Ven and Sun 63

come from a legitimate authority; or the opportu- struggles and accommodations that maintain the
nity is scarce, limited, or difficult to attain. status quo between oppositions. Change occurs
Rice and Rogers (1980) found that reinvention when challengers gain sufficient power to con-
facilitates adopting and implementing change front and engage incumbents. Change is gener-
programs. Reinvention is a process of reverse en- ated through the resolution of conflict between
gineering and adapting a change to fit a particular the current thesis (A) and an antithesis (Not-A),
applied setting. It is fundamentally a learning pro- which results in a synthesis (Not Not-A). Conflict
cess that is triggered by the inevitable setbacks is the core generating mechanism of dialectical
and mistakes people encounter as they attempt to change. Dysfunctional methods of conflict resolu-
implement a change program. Reinvention re- tion tend to impede dialectical change processes
quires some local autonomy to adapt mandated and may lead to undesirable win-lose outcomes.
changes. Marcus and Weber (1989) showed that To be a constructive force, conflict has to be
“autonomy,” defined as customizing mandated resolved effectively. Studies at individual and
safety guidelines, was necessary in order to imple- group levels suggest that problem solving and
ment new safety standards at 28 American nuclear open confrontation of conflicts are more likely to
power plants. They found that prior poor imple- lead to expressions and debates of different opin-
mentation records yielded “rule-bounded” ap- ions; this in turn facilitates the resolution of dif-
proaches, defined as “compliance with the stan- ferences and conflicts (Jehn & Bendersky 2003;
dard technical specifications” (p. 545), which Peterson & Behfar, 2003). In addition, Behfar,
produced a vicious cycle that perpetuated poor Peterson, Mannix, and Trochim (2008) found
outcomes. Marcus and Weber (1989) also con- that high-performing teams explicitly discuss rea-
cluded that managers or external regulators should sons for decisions reached and assign work to
be aware of the possible consequences of blind members who have the relevant task expertise
acceptance of prescribed changes. Implementers rather than using other common means such as
who strictly obey the prescribed change may be volunteering, default, or convenience. Gelfand,
complying in bad faith, which may not lead to the Leslie, and Keller (2008) found that a collabora-
intended results. tive conflict culture can foster adaptation to
Finally, Piderit (2000) and Ford et al. (2008) change, given that there is an emphasis on active
called into question the common assumptions of listening to others’ points of view and seeking the
resistance to change. They noted that change best solutions for all parties involved; in contrast,
managers tend to dichotomize individuals’ re- organizations with avoidant conflict cultures are
sponses into those who support or resist the pro- likely to be less adaptive to change because norms
posed change and to view the latter as being against open discussion and the lack of informa-
disobedient. Piderit (2000) and Ford et al. (2008) tion sharing can prevent effective solutions to
discussed a number of reasons why employees re- disagreements, and, therefore, may impede con-
sist a prescribed change, including constructive flictive change processes.
intentions to correct errors that may prevent im- Studies of formal conflict management prac-
plementation. The ambivalence employees feel tices in organizations tend to examine three types
toward an organizational change initiative does of dispute resolution methods (Bendersky, 2003,
not necessarily represent opposition as disobedi- 2007). The first method is “rights-based pro-
ence; instead, it may reflect the complexity of cesses,” which involve third parties determining
most organizational changes as having both posi- the outcome of a dispute based on laws, contracts,
tive and negative characteristics. or standards of behavior. Examples are arbitration,
formal complaint investigations, and peer review
Dialectic Process Theory (Conflictive Change) panels. The second method involves third parties
Dialectical theories explain stability and change who intervene in disputes, but help the parties
in terms of the relative balance of power between reach agreements that meet their mutual interests
opposing entities. Stability is produced through rather than determine if one party’s rights have
64 Academy of Management Perspectives August

been violated by the other. Examples are media- nizational population level of analysis (e.g., Car-
tors, ombudspeople, facilitators, and coaches. The roll & Hannan, 1989; Hannan & Freeman, 1977,
third type is “negotiation,” which covers all efforts 1989). Later, many organizational scholars shifted
by individual disputants to resolve conflicts their level of analysis to the organization or units
themselves, without any third-party interven- within it to apply an evolutionary theory of change
tion. Bendersky (2007) found that joint use of that recognizes the roles of managerial choice and
all three generated greatly improved outcomes in action. Burgelman (1991), Miner (1994), and
terms of employees’ approaches to conflict man- Baum and Rao (2004) adopted a Lamarckian view
agement, their attitudes toward conflict at work, of evolution, which argues that organizations
and their rate of success in resolving conflict. learn, adapt, and acquire novel variations at dif-
Power is another concept that is central to a ferent times throughout their life span. Burgelman
dialectical model of change. Conflict can be ex- (1991), for example, examined strategy making as
pressed when the opposing parties have sufficient an intraorganizational evolutionary process of
power to confront each other and engage in strug- variation, selection, and retention. He viewed
gle. Conflict tends to remain latent or to be variations as deriving from managers’ initiatives to
squelched by dominant actors until challengers compete for scarce resources, selection processes
can mobilize sufficient power to confront oppos- being exerted through corporate resource allo-
ing parties (Hargrave & Van de Ven, 2006). Stud- cation mechanisms, and retention taking the
ies of political strategies and tactics used by insti- form of corporate strategy that defines the areas
tutional entrepreneurs in social movements are in which the firm has learned it can operate
relevant for understanding the politics of organi- successfully.
zational change (Clemens, 1997; Davis, Morrill, Evolutionary processes, both at the population
Rao, & Soule, 2008; Garud, Jain, & Kumaras- and intraorganizational levels, are subject to two
wamy, 2002; Lounsbury, Ventresca, & Hirsch, common types of breakdowns: (1) a small number
2003; McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald, 1996; Rao, of homogeneous variations and selection criteria
1998; Rao, Monin, & Durand, 2003). Echoing and (2) lack of competition for scarce resources.
Alinsky’s (1971) “rules for radicals,” Fligstein An evolutionary model of change emphasizes the
(1997), for example, cataloged a variety of tactics need for a heterogeneous pool of variations and
and social skills that institutional entrepreneurs competition for scarce resources (Baum & Rao,
need to affect institutional change. 2004; Campbell, 1969).
Variations provide the raw materials from
Evolutionary Process Theory (Competitive which selection can be made. A greater number of
Change) diverse variations are more likely to produce in-
Evolutionary change unfolds as a recurrent and novations than a process that generates a small
probabilistic progression of variation, selection, number of homogeneous variations (Weick,
and retention activities (Campbell, 1969). Varia- 1989). A lack of diverse variations may result from
tions—the creation of novel forms—are often an organization’s imbalance between exploration
viewed as emerging by blind or random chance. (unprecedented) and exploitation (recurrent) ac-
Selection occurs principally through competition tivities. March (1991) pointed out that given the
among forms; customers or higher level decision success of existing routines, organizations tend to
makers select those forms that are best suited for be distracted from exploration because of the high
the resource base of an environmental niche. Re- probability of obtaining short-run rewards from
tention involves the forces and routines that per- exploitation. Some of the managerial practices of
petuate and maintain certain organizational forms institutionalized experimentation discussed by
(Aldrich & Ruef, 2006; Baum & McKelvey, Miner (1994) represent remedies to generate di-
1999). verse variations by investing more resources in
Initial applications of evolutionary theory ad- research and development, supporting innovation
opted a Darwinian view of evolution at the orga- “champion” and “entrepreneurial” roles, and cre-
2011 Van de Ven and Sun 65

ating parallel projects in which several teams com- tions and what kinds of breakdowns and remedies
pete on the same general problem. are likely to apply when implementing a change.
Miner (1994) also discussed approaches top Next, we propose several contingency theories for
management may use to engage selection pro- implementing organization change.
cesses, such as setting goals without methods to
reach them, establishing broad values, and setting Contingency Propositions on Breakdowns and
project screening and selection criteria. Finally, Remedies
retention processes are influenced by the applica- Juxtaposing the four process models of change, we
tion of consistent controls, formalized routines, find that:
and organization culture and values. Illustrating
1. A teleological model of planned change applies
Miner’s managerial evolution model, O’Reilly,
when a group of participants agrees on and
Harreld, and Tushman (2009) showed the role of
moves toward a shared organizational goal.
decentralized structure, common culture and vi-
The model breaks down when participants
sion, and supportive leadership in promoting the
cannot reach consensus on a goal or when the
variation-selection-retention process in the case
conclusions reached are subject to individual
of IBM’s Emerging Business Opportunities project.
and group biases— errors in recognition, criti-
A related difficulty is selecting among varia-
cal thinking and decision making, escalating
tions when the performance or fitness of varia-
commitments to failing courses of action, and
tions cannot be determined until after they are
groupthink.
selected. Weick’s (1989) remedy for this difficulty
2. Dialectical processes of change apply when dif-
is the same as for increasing the diversity of vari-
ferent organizational units conflict and con-
ations: apply many diverse selection criteria in a
front one another on an issue. Dialectics fail
consistent way to each variation. He emphasized
due to dysfunctional methods of conflict reso-
that if criteria are altered each time a variation is
lution and power inequalities that limit or in-
selected, few variations will be rejected and little
hibit confrontations among opposing parties.
understanding will accumulate (Weick, 1989).
3. Regulated life cycle models are appropriate for
A key characteristic of variation is its “blind-
managing many recurrent and predictable or-
ness” with respect to its ability to improve an
ganizational changes in efficient and effective
organization’s fitness (Campbell, 1969). When
ways. They break down when the rules are
variations are not blind, evolutionary selection
wrongly designed and when people or units
processes tend to be biased in directions that may
resist implementing the change mandates, re-
not promote adaptation and fitness. One source
sulting in sabotage of, or mere compliance
for this lack of blindness is the existence of pow-
with, mandates, rather than internalization of
erful “vicarious selectors” that lead decision mak-
them.
ers to favor variations that are believed to produce
4. Evolutionary processes of variation, selection,
good outcomes (Baum & Rao, 2004). Finally,
and retention apply when multiple units
evolutionary theory works only under conditions
within or between organizations compete for
of competition for scarce resources; it breaks down
scarce resources by developing different meth-
when resources are munificent and competition is
ods of products for a given market. Evolution
low (Baum & Rao, 2004). When resources are
breaks down when variations are homogeneous
munificent and competition is low, both efficient
and when resources are munificent or compe-
and inefficient variations tend to survive and grow
tition is low.
(Romanelli, 1999).
The four process models of change just dis- When breakdowns occur they tend to trigger
cussed represent simplified attempts to understand two kinds of remedial actions. Our propositions
and manage organization change. Juxtaposing above focus on the action or problem-solving
these models provides insights for deciding which strategy of correcting the people or processes in
model of change is appropriate in specific situa- the organization that prevent the change model
66 Academy of Management Perspectives August

from running as expected. Our discussion indi- ety of unprecedented changes ongoing in most
cates that an extensive and diverse body of re- organizational initiatives. In particular, we pro-
search (often not associated with organization pose that the more interdependent and novel the
change) is useful for diagnosing and correcting organizational changes, the greater the perceived
breakdowns with each of the four models of breakdowns, and the more likely change agents
change. However, the effectiveness of our propo- will shift from an action to a reflection strategy.
sitions is limited because many observed processes Van de Ven and Garud (1993) illustrated this
of organizational change are more complex than proposition in a study of the development of the
any one of the four models can adequately address. cochlear implant, which was shaped by change
Thus, a second strategy for dealing with break- processes occurring in multiple organizational
downs is to revise the mental model we have in units and levels over time. A teleological process
our heads to one that better fits the process of seemed to explain the course of development of
change unfolding in the organization. This reflec- the implant in the firm’s R&D lab. At a higher
tive strategy appears prudent only after reasonable organizational level the action of top managers in
attempts are made, but fail, to implement the first selecting and funding more than 250 competing
strategy. Thus we propose that change agents tend innovation projects was consistent with an evolu-
to be action oriented, and do not adopt the re- tionary model (as Miner, 1994, described). How-
flective strategy until they recognize that the ever, selection premises and timing of managerial
breakdowns in implementing their model of interventions moved at a different pace than that
change cannot be corrected or repaired. Hence, of the development team.
the greater the perceived breakdowns the more At a certain point in its development, the
likely a change agent shifts from an action to biomedical product had to be approved by the
reflection strategy. Food and Drug Administration, which required a
prescribed sequence of proposals, clinical trials,
Complexities of Interacting Models, Agents, and regulatory reviews and approvals. This pre-
and Changes scribed sequence, which embodied a life cycle
As we turn to consider breakdowns, we recognize motor, came into play later than the teleological
that not all sources of breakdowns are the same. and evolution motors, but it was judged important
Some are triggered by multiple changes ongoing enough that the other units had to rearrange their
in organizations, others by multiple change agents efforts to meet the FDA’s requirements. A dialec-
with different models for the same changes, and tical model seemed to operate at the larger pro-
others by temporal interactions among the change fessional community of researchers and clinicians
models themselves. We discuss each of these dif- concerned with hearing health. Following its ini-
ferent sources of breakdowns and propose condi- tial support for the firm’s pioneering implant de-
tions that lead change agents to change their sign, evidence mounted that led most researchers
action or reflection strategies. We caution that and clinicians to switch allegiance to a competing
these interacting complexities have received very firm’s design.
little empirical research, and represent an impor- As this example suggests, studying or managing
tant research direction for studying processes of organization change with one theory of change is
change implementation. unlikely to provide an adequate explanation of
observed processes unfolding in an organization.
Interdependent Organization Changes. Many change pro- As Graetz and Smith noted (2005, p. 311), “One
cesses are embedded and nested in complex orga- theoretical view can be misleading in understand-
nizational systems. Fortunately, the vast majority ing the subtleties and complexities of the actual
of these changes are recurrent and follow routines changes that occur.” Multiple models of change
prescribed by a life cycle (regulated) process model are needed, and a contingency theory is needed to
without much problem or attention. This permits determine when and where each model applies.
change agents and researchers to focus on a vari- An important direction for future research is to
2011 Van de Ven and Sun 67

examine contingencies (such as change novelty tion: perceptual awareness of a breakdown, open-
and interdependence) in diagnosing what strate- ness for learning, and the need to experiment with
gies change agents adopt to handle multiple different models of change. They stated:
changes unfolding in different organizational units
and levels, as the cochlear implant case illustrates. The implementation of an organizational learning process
[begins with a] perception by at least one actor of a
discrepancy in a given situation that will lead to an
Change Agents with Different Mental Models. In addition to interpretation in terms of errors; this discrepancy can be
multiple changes ongoing in an organization, an- translated as a gap between intentions and achievements
other complication is that different change agents . . . or between the capacities of an actor and the situa-
may adopt different conceptual models for the tion. . . . [This] allows us to highlight . . . the pertinence of
same changes. Because of individual differences, studying management situations as closely as possible to
experiences, and role responsibilities, it is well their unfolding order to grasp the contextual logic that
underlies the choice of mode of action and the pertinence
known that change agents and participants have of its performance, and the need to deepen these perspec-
different interpretations and mental models of a tives by grasping the subjective perception of the actors in
given change process in which they all participate the situations. (Aubry & Lievre, 2010, p. 42)
(Van de Ven, Polley, Garud, & Venkataraman,
1999). This variety of views provides opportuni- Unprecedented changes typically unfold in am-
ties to study how participants either triangulate biguous and uncertain ways. We propose that fre-
and learn from their divergent perspectives or quent reflective meetings during which change
undermine and suppress the efforts of other agents share and socially construct both cross-
change agents. As Huber and Lewis (2010) sug- understandings (Huber & Lewis, 2010) and some
gested, whether this cross-understanding of the shared understandings (Randolph-Seng & Norris,
mental models of other change agents leads to 2011) of their diverse mental models increase the
positive or negative outcomes depends on the likelihood of learning and maneuvering the
motivations of the change agents. Specifically, the change journey.
more a change agent is open to ideas and different
perspectives on a change initiative, the more Relations Among Models. Many organizational changes
likely it is that the cross-understandings lead to are far more complex than can be explained by
positive learning outcomes. any one of our simplified models of change. To
Aubry and Lievre (2010) provided an exem- address this limitation, Van de Ven and Poole
plary study of divergent mental models that (1995) considered 16 applied models that emerged
emerge during the change process. They examined from interactions among two or more of the four
two cases of polar expeditions where significant process models. We propose that underlying these
breakdowns in initial plans to undertake the ex- 16 models are three heuristics that may explain
peditions occurred due to unforeseen environ- when it may be useful to adopt a reflective strategy
mental events. These events led expedition team of shifting our mental models to fit the temporal
members to suggest alternative models of change contexts of change processes unfolding in an or-
and ambidexterity in maneuvering several change ganization. First, each of the change process mod-
processes concurrently and diachronically. In one els is limited and incomplete; the weaknesses of
case, a leader’s inability to adapt to the changing one model are the strengths of another. Second,
situation resulted in the entire project being placed the usefulness of a model changes depending on
at risk. Fortunately, a team member made up for the organization’s life cycle stage (Beer & Walton,
the leader’s failure by introducing an alternative 1987). Third, managing ambiguous and unprece-
approach to continue with the expedition. dented changes requires balancing opposing and
The study raises a key question: At what point often contradictory views of change. Our discus-
should one switch to a different model of change? sion concludes with an examination of these three
Aubry and Lievre (2010) focused on prerequisites proposed heuristics. Figure 2 illustrates these heu-
for organizational learning to address this ques- ristics.
68 Academy of Management Perspectives August

Figure 2
Temporal Relations Among Change Models

Note: Arrows on lines represent likely sequences among events, not causation between events.

Model Strengths and Weaknesses. Each of the four mod- can often be remedied by involving the people
els emphasizes a particular set of managerial chal- affected in a teleological model of planning and
lenges in managing organizational change that goal setting. People, after all, prefer to imple-
can sometimes be addressed and remedied by ment plans of their own making rather than
adopting a different conceptual model of change. those mandated by some external party.
For example: ● Breakdowns in one model can also contribute
to breakdowns in other models of change. For
● If participants are unable or unwilling to reach
example, a breakdown in the dialectical model
consensus on a goal after several attempts to do
of squelching opposing viewpoints and pro-
so, a change agent may do more harm than good
posals may contribute to breakdowns of
by exhorting disagreeing parties to “get on
groupthink in a teleological model and may
board because the train is leaving the station.”
contribute to a lack of heterogeneous varia-
While this disagreement and conflict represents
tions for competitive selection with an evo-
a breakdown in implementing a planned
lutionary model.
change (teleological) model, it serves as the
generating mechanism for implementing a dia- As these examples suggest, the incompleteness
lectical model of change. of one model of organizational change may be
● The frequently observed breakdown of resis- remedied by adopting the perspectives of other
tance to mandated changes in a life cycle model models. As Figure 2 illustrates, each model has
2011 Van de Ven and Sun 69

one or more components whose values are deter- Dialectical processes become more evident dur-
mined exogenous to the model. ing the developmental phase of organizational
change when networks of organizational actors
● The goal developed by a group with a teleolog- and units emerge to introduce competing alterna-
ical model may explain the emergence of the tive approaches or designs that entail different
antithesis in the dialectical model; at the same proposals for change. However, the efficacy of
time, the dialectical model enriches the teleo- competing alternatives remains moderately am-
logical model by calling attention to the con- biguous and questionable. Competing units, each
text in which planned change processes emerge. pursuing its own objectives, engage in political
● The source of variation in an evolutionary behavior to gain support and legitimacy from key
model is often the synthesis produced through constituencies for their own frames and proposals
dialectical struggle. A dialectical model also on the issues of organizational change in question.
makes salient that even when a particular During this period, a pluralistic field emerges as
change plan has been selected for implementa- networks of partisan groups mobilize political
tion in a teleological model, competing plans campaigns to advance their cause and discredit
nevertheless lurk, suppressed yet available for competing alternatives. In this phase, the signa-
mobilizing challengers of the status quo when ture of organizational change is no longer actors’
these challengers gain sufficient power. identities and goals but rather the dialectical dy-
namics of conflict, power, and politics among
Model Temporal Relations. Interactions among the multiple units. During this stage thesis and antith-
change models and their associated breakdowns esis have collided to produce a synthesis.
also have important temporal relationships. As Finally, the life cycle and evolution models
Hargrave and Van de Ven (2006) discussed, each may best explain implementation within units and
model of change represents a possible link in un- diffusion across multiple units once a particular
derstanding the temporal stages or cycles of orga- organizational form has won the political cam-
nizational change. The four models of change can paign and becomes legitimated and ratified.
be viewed not only as alternative perspectives on Thereafter, dialectical processes subside as the new
a single phenomenon but also as different tempo- organizational arrangements supporting the winning
ral phases in the journey of change in a complex design are adopted and diffused, while the proposals
organization. This change journey may unfold and designs of the losing groups are silenced and
over phases of emergence, development, implemen- submerged (at least temporarily) until the next
tation, and diffusion, with different models of opportunity arises to mobilize a campaign to re-
change playing a dominant role in each period. place or change the dominant organizational ar-
In the initial emergence phase, which corre- rangements. The synthesis produced during the
sponds to the teleological or planned change developmental phase has become a new thesis. Its
model, actors interact and socially construct a new antithesis lies dormant, not yet mobilized or the-
envisioned state, but they may not yet have mo- orized.
bilized plans and resources sufficiently to frame This conceptualization of organizational change
the issues and introduce their proposals for change as a progression through the models of change is
in the more macro level of the organizational consistent with a punctuated equilibrium view of
field. As a result, organizational action may be change (Anderson & Tushman, 1990; Tushman
driven by technical considerations, and there is & Romanelli, 1985) or an episodic view of change
little conflict. This is particularly true when plans (Quinn and Weick, 1999). Based on the idea that
for change are novel or frame-breaking and other once institutionalized, beliefs and practices be-
organizational units and actors are unable to make come taken for granted and experienced as objec-
sense of them. During this stage of organizational tive, enduring, and reliably reproduced (Berger &
change, opponents have not yet organized to mo- Luckmann, 1967; Tolbert & Zucker, 1996), we
bilize a dialectical response. propose that cycles of organizational change may
70 Academy of Management Perspectives August

consist of long periods of evolution in the incre- groups with opposing teleologies but subjugates
mental unfolding of regulated forms of organiza- and ignores the groups without sufficient power to
tional changes punctuated by relatively brief but confront opposing groups. Evolutionary theory
revolutionary periods of teleological and dialecti- celebrates open competition and “blind” market
cal processes of change. These revolutions may selection among multiple units, but tends to ig-
occur when the legitimacy or performance of an nore the planned and regulated changes that en-
organizational arrangement is shattered due to a able individuals to compete in the market. And
multiplicity of meanings, internal contradictions, life cycle models tend to celebrate institutionalism
and/or inconsistency with other institutions (i.e., the rules of the game that make life predict-
(Clemens & Cook, 1999; Sewell, 1992). able) and deny individualism (i.e., individual free-
Viewing organizational change as being brack- dom, creativity, and self-governance).
eted by discontinuous periods of teleology and The point is that every model of change creates
dialectics clarifies that even during incremental its own tensions; it favors some values and over-
and convergent periods of change, conflict is al- looks others. As Seo et al. stated (2004, p. 101),
ways latent, and the process of organizational “These tensions reflect the choice points that
change cycles endlessly between periods of life people make, either implicitly or explicitly, as
cycle and evolutionary convergence and teleolog- they initiate and/or implement a change program.
ical and dialectical divergence. New organiza- More importantly, this . . . emphasizes the impor-
tional forms emerging from divergence episodes tance of acknowledging and valuing . . . tensions
are both the synthesis of an existing dialectic and rather than (perhaps implicitly) assuming that
the (soon to be challenged) thesis of a new dia- change efforts should privilege one pole.”
lectic. Given the aforementioned complexities of or-
ganizational change, change agents may create
Balancing Tensions and Oppositions. Tensions and oppo- bigger organizational problems by sticking with
sitions are inevitable and play a central role in their mental model of change and focusing on
organization change. Seo, Putnam, and Bartunek correcting the breakdowns. In such “iatrogenic”
(2004) and Farjoun (2010) discussed a number of situations, “the decision maker should thoroughly
these tensions, including whether a change initia- examine all the potential system effects, and per-
tive is triggered by internal or external forces, haps refrain from action” (Boal & Meckler, 2010,
driven from the top down or the bottom up, open p. 333). Instead of “swimming upstream,” the
or closed to stakeholder participation, targeted at skillful change agent reflects on the situation and
individuals and groups or organization-wide, and revises his or her mental model in order to “go
takes a negative or a positive focus. While these with the flow.” This requires that change agents
dualities do not necessarily represent mutually ex- expand their repertoire of conceptual models for
clusive contradictions, they do make salient a managing organizational change, and have a con-
central ethical question: Who and what are priv- tingency theory for knowing what models to use in
ileged and ignored or subjugated during the pro- different circumstances. Having multiple mental
cess? models of change (i.e., teleology, life cycle, dia-
This question is equally relevant to assessing lectical, and evolutionary process theories) per-
the theories we use to manage and study organi- mits us to apply the model(s)—and interactions
zation change. Teleology celebrates freedom of among them—that fits a given situation.
choice in constructing an envisioned future, but
this privilege is often limited to top managers in Concluding Discussion

O
top-down and closed processes of planned change, bserved processes of organization change sel-
which subjugates other participants to implement- dom unfold as a theory in use suggests they
ing their mandates in a life cycle model of regu- should. Breakdowns may be due to difficulties
lated change. Dialectics celebrate an open, bot- in implementing a model of change that is appro-
tom-up approach to engaging in conflict among priate for the situation and/or for different situa-
2011 Van de Ven and Sun 71

tions where the change model no longer applies. A second strategy for dealing with breakdowns
Diagnosing the breakdowns and knowing what is to reflect on and revise the model to one that
strategy to follow in directing organization change better fits the process of change unfolding in the
remains an art. Three contributions of this paper organization. This strategy represents the scien-
make this art more accessible and researchable. tific method of testing and rejecting a theory if
First, a process model of change is a strategic data do not support it and then revising or adapt-
choice, and making this choice implies knowledge ing a theory that fits the observed data. This
of alternative models from which to choose. We second strategy appears prudent only after reason-
reviewed Van de Ven and Poole’s (1995) four able attempts are made but fail to implement the
process models of organization change and devel- first strategy.
opment and proposed that each model applies in Our discussion implies that an important future
the different situations outlined in Table 1. Other research agenda is to shift our research on organi-
scholars have proposed useful variations of these zational change toward a contingency theory of
four basic process models (Huy, 2001; Meyer, implementation. This contingency theory in-
Goes, & Brooks, 1993; Weick & Quinn, 1999). cludes determining when and where each change
The important point of these models is that they model—and interactions of multiple models—ap-
encourage managers and scholars to expand their plies, identifying breakdowns perceived in imple-
repertoire of models for managing organizational menting a model of change in particular situa-
change. This enables us to think beyond a single tions, and diagnosing how and when to respond to
change model—such as the dominant model of these breakdowns. To develop this contingency the-
planned change (Cummings & Worley, 2008)— ory, a number of research directions are needed.
and to propose a contingency theory of organiza- First, we need to empirically test propositions
tion change processes. that examine different situations when teleology,
“A way of seeing is a way of not seeing” (Pog- dialectical, evolutionary, and life cycle models—
gie, 1965, p. 284). Managing and researching or- and their interactions—reflect the change pro-
ganizational change can become more strategic cesses unfolding in an organization. For example,
and less myopic by increasing one’s repertoire of we suggested that a dialectical process of change
alternative models of change. Any single mental fails when power inequalities limit or inhibit con-
model provides only a partial account of complex frontation among opposing parties. Although this
processes. Juxtaposing several different models is generally accepted in theory, we lack empirical
provides insights for deciding which model of studies testing such propositions.
change is appropriate in different situations and Second, we need studies to better understand
what kinds of breakdowns and remedies are likely the interacting complexities of change processes.
to apply when implementing a change. Specifi- To date, studies tend to examine a single model to
cally, we introduced a number of contingency reflect a particular organizational change process.
theory propositions for implementing each of the We argue that multiple models are needed to
four models of organization change. address complexities of having multiple changes
We argued that when breakdowns occur, they ongoing in an organization, multiple change
tend to trigger two kinds of strategies: action and agents with different mental models of any given
reflection. Typically, the first strategy is to take change, and multiple interactions between change
actions intended to correct the people or processes models over time. This requires research on the
in the organization that prevent the change model interdependencies and interactions among various
from running as expected. An extensive and di- models, agents, and changes. For example, each
verse body of research literature (often not asso- model emphasizes a particular set of managerial
ciated with organization change) can be applied challenges in managing organizational change
in fruitful and imaginative ways to diagnose and that can sometimes be remedied by adopting a
correct breakdowns with each of the four models different model. It is important to study condi-
of change. tions or situations when change agents shift their
72 Academy of Management Perspectives August

conceptual model of change to the one that re- conflict management strategies, and team outcomes.
flects the change processes ongoing in their orga- Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 170 –188.
Bendersky, C. (2003). Organizational dispute resolution
nization. systems: A complementarities model. Academy of Man-
Finally, we need research that examines the agement Review, 28, 643– 656.
learning cycle of acting to correct an organization Bendersky, C. (2007). Complementarities in organizational
dispute resolution systems. Industrial and Labor Relations
to fit one’s model of change, and reflecting on
Review, 60, 204 –224.
how one’s model might be revised to better fit the Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction
processes unfolding in the organization. A central of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
challenge in studying and managing processes of Boal, K., & Meckler, M. (2010). Decision errors of the 4th,
5th, and 6th kind. In P. C. Nutt & D. C. Wilson (Eds.),
change in complex organizations is achieving bal- Handbook of decision making (pp. 327–348). West Sussex,
ance between implementation actions and feed- UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
back reflections on four generative motors of Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Interorganizational ecology of
change: consensus, conflict, competition, and reg- strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory
and field research. Organization Science, 2(3), 239 –262.
ulation. This is not to suggest that change agents Burke, W. W. (2009). Understanding organizations: The
can control or that researchers can predict these process of diagnosis. In W. W. Burke, D. G. Lake, &
relations. They can, however, engage in a process J. W. Paine (Eds.), Organization change: A comprehensive
of trial-and-error learning by engaging in a bal- reader (pp. 259 –272). San Francisco: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
anced and repetitive cycle of actions to implement Burke, W. W., Lake, D. G., & Paine, J. W. (Eds.). (2009).
their models of change and reflections on revising Organization change: A comprehensive reader. San
their social constructions of organization change. Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
By, R. T., Burnes, B., & Oswick, C. (2011). Change
management: The road ahead. Journal of Change Man-
References agement, 11(1), 1– 6.
Campbell, D. T. (1969). Variation and selective retention
Aldrich, H. E., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving, in socio-cultural evolution. General Systems, 16, 69 – 85.
2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (1989). Density delay in
Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals. New York: Random the evolution of organizational populations: A model
House. and five empirical tests. Administrative Science Quarterly,
Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological 34, 411– 430.
discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice, 5th ed.
of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, New York: Quill, Prentice Hall.
35, 604 – 633. Clagett, R. P. (1967). Receptivity to innovation: Overcoming
Aubry, M., & Lievre, P. (2010). Ambidexterity as a com- N.I.H. (Master’s Thesis). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
petence for project leaders: A case study from two polar Clemens, E. S. (1997). The people’s lobby: Organizational
expeditions. Project Management Journal, 41(3), 32– 44. innovation and the rise of interest group politics in the United
Baum, J. A. C., & McKelvey, B. (Eds.). (1999). Variations in States, 1890 –1925. Chicago: University of Chicago
organization science: In honor of Donald T. Campbell. Press.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clemens, E. S., & Cook, J. M. (1999). Politics and
Baum, J. A. C., & Rao, H. (2004). Evolutionary dynamics of institutionalism: Explaining durability and change. An-
organizational populations and communities. In M. S. nual Review of Sociology, 25, 441– 466.
Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organi- Cohen, M. D., & Sproull, L. S. (Eds.). (1996). Organiza-
zational change and innovation (pp. 212–257). New York: tional learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oxford University Press. Conant, R. C., & Ashby, W. R. (1970). Every good regu-
Bazerman, M. H. (1986). Biases. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), lator of a system must be a model of that system. Inter-
Psychological dimensions of organizational behavior, 2nd ed. national Journal of Systems Science, 1, 89 –97.
(pp. 199 –223). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2008). Organization
Bazerman, M., Giuliano, T., & Appelman, A. (1984). Es- development and change, 9th ed. Cincinnati, OH: South-
calation of commitment in individual and group decision Western College Publishing.
making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Davis, G. F., Morrill, C., Rao, H., & Soule, S. A. (2008).
33(2), 141–152. Introduction: Social movements in organizations and
Beer, M., & Walton, A. E. (1987). Organization change and markets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53, 299 –304.
development. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 339 –367. Delbecq, A., Van de Ven, A., & Gustafson, D. (1975).
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix E. A., & Trochim, Group techniques for problem solving and program planning.
M. K. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2010). Decision making in
2011 Van de Ven and Sun 73

groups. In P. C. Nutt & D. C. Wilson, (Eds.), Handbook Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 255–
of decision making (pp. 231–272). West Sussex, UK: John 276). New York: Wiley.
Wiley & Sons Ltd. Huy, Q. N. (2001). Time, temporal capability, and planned
Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond dualism: Stability and change change, Academy of Management Review, 26(4), 601–
as a duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 623.
202–225. Jehn, K., & Bendersky, C. (2003). Intragroup conflict in
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Re-conceptual- organizations: A contingency perspective on the con-
izing routines as a source of flexibility and change. Ad- flict-outcome relationship. Research in Organizational Be-
ministrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94 –118. havior, 25, 187–242.
Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skills and institutional theory. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1982). Judgment
American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 397– 405. under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge, UK:
Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D’Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance Cambridge University Press.
to change: The rest of the story. Academy of Management Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the not-
Review, 33(2), 362–377. invented-here (NIH) syndrome: A look at performance,
Garud, R., Jain, S., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2002). Institu- tenure and communication patterns of 50 R&D project
tional entrepreneurship in the sponsorship of common groups. R&D Management, 12, 7–19.
technological standards: The case of Sun Microsystems Lant, T. K. (1992). Aspiration level adaptation. Manage-
and Java. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 196 –214. ment Science, 38, 623– 644.
Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L., & Keller, K. (2008). On the Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, P. (1944).
etiology of organizational conflict cultures. Research in Level of aspiration. In J. M. Hunt (Ed.), Personality and
Organizational Behavior, 28, 137–166. the behavior disorders (Vol. 1, pp.333–378). New York:
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw Ronald Press.
& J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting and knowing. Lichtenthaler, U., & Ernst, H. (2006). Attitudes to exter-
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. nally organising knowledge management tasks. R&D
Graetz, F., & Smith, A. (2005). Organizing forms in change Management, 36, 367–386.
management: The role of structures, processes and Lounsbury, M., Ventresca, M., & Hirsch, P. M. (2003).
Social movements, field frames and industry emergence:
boundaries in a longitudinal case analysis. Journal of
A cultural-political perspective on US recycling. Socio-
Change Management, 5(3), 311–328.
Economic Review, 1, 71–104.
Greve, H. R. (1998). Performance, aspirations, and risky
Maloney, M., Shah, P., & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2010). The
organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly,
lasting imprint of teams: Project teams and intra-organiza-
43, 58 – 86.
tional network formation (Working Paper). Minneapolis,
Halpern, D. F. (1996). Thought and knowledge: An introduc-
MN: University of Minnesota.
tion to critical thinking, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in orga-
Erlbaum. nizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71– 87.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1977). The population March, J. G., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York:
ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology, Wiley.
82, 929 –964. Marcus, A. A., & Weber, J. J. (1989). Externally-induced
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1989). Organizational ecol- innovation. In A. Van de Ven, H. Angle, & M. S. Poole
ogy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Eds.), Research on the management of innovation: The
Hargrave, T. J., & Van de Ven, A. H. (2006). A collective Minnesota Studies (pp. 537–560). New York: Harper &
action model of institutional innovation. Academy of Row.
Management Review, 31(4), 864 – 888. McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., & Zald, M. N. (1996).
Helson, H. (1948). Adaptation-level as a basis for a quan- Introduction: Opportunities, mobilizing structures, and
titative theory of frames of reference. Psychological Re- framing processes toward a synthetic, comparative per-
view, 55, 294 –313. spective on social movements. In D. McAdam, J. D.
Helson, H. (1964). Current trends and issues in adaptation- McCarthy, & M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative perspectives
level theory. American Psychologist, 19, 23– 68. on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing
Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Har- structures and cultural framings (pp. 1–20). New York:
court, Brace and Company. Cambridge University Press.
Huber, G. P., & Lewis, K. (2010). Cross-understanding: McNamara, G., Moon, H., & Bromiley, P. (2002). Banking
Implications for group cognition and performance. Acad- on commitment: Intended and unintended conse-
emy of Management Review, 35(1), 6 –26. quences of an organization’s attempt to attenuate esca-
Hulin, C. L. (1991). Adaptation, persistence, and commit- lation of commitment. Academy of Management Journal,
ment in organizations. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hugh 45, 443– 452.
(Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology Meyer, A. D., Goes, J. B., & Brooks, G. R. (1993). Orga-
(2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 445–505). Palo Alto, CA: Consult- nizations reacting to hyperturbulence. In G. P. Huber &
ing Psychologists Press. W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organization change and redesign (pp.
Hulin, C. L., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes. In W. C. 66 –111). New York: Oxford University Press.
Borman & D. R. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Miner, A. S. (1994). Seeking adaptive advantage: Evolu-
74 Academy of Management Perspectives August

tionary theory and managerial action. In J. A. C. Baum zational change and innovation (pp. 73–107). New York:
& J. V. Singh (Eds.), Evolutionary dynamics of organiza- Oxford University Press.
tions (pp. 76 –93). New York: Oxford. Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality,
Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociol-
York: Basic Books. ogy, 98(1), 1–29.
Nutt, P. C. (2002). Why decisions fail: Avoiding the blunders Staw, B. M. (1976). Knee-deep in the big muddy: A study of
and traps that lead to debacles. San Francisco, CA: Berrett- escalation commitment to a course of action. Organiza-
Koehler. tion and Human Performance, 16, 27– 44.
Nutt, P. C., & Wilson, D. C. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of Staw, B. M. (1981). The escalation of commitment to a
decision making. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons course of action. Academy of Management Review, 6,
Ltd. 577–587.
O’Reilly, C. A., Harreld, J. B., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Staw, B. M., Barsade, S. G., & Koput, K. W. (1997).
Organizational ambidexterity: IBM and emerging busi- Escalation at the credit window: A longitudinal study of
ness opportunities. California Management Review, 51(4), bank executives’ recognition and write-off of problem
75–99. loans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 130 –142.
Peterson, R. S., & Behfar, K. J. (2003). The dynamic rela- Tolbert, P. S., & Zucker, L. G. (1996). The institutional-
tionship between performance feedback, trust, and con- ization of institutional theory. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy &
flict in groups: A longitudinal study. Organizational Be- W. Nord (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Studies (pp.
havior and Human Decision Processes, 92(1–2), 102–112. 175–190). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking resistance and recognizing Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational
ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes to- evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and
ward an organizational change. Academy of Management reorientation. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.),
Review, 25, (4), 783–794. Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 7, pp. 171–222).
Poggie, G. (1965). A main theme of contemporary socio- Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
logical analysis: Its achievements and limitations. British Van de Ven, A. H. (1980). Problem solving, planning, and
Journal of Sociology, 16, 283–294. innovation. Part 2. Test of the program planning model.
Pressman, S., & Wildavsky, H. (1973). Implementation. Human Relations, 33, 757–779.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Van de Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the man-
Quinn, R. E., & Weick, K. E. (1999). Organizational change agement of innovation. Management Science, 32(5),
and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361– 590 – 607.
386. Van de Ven, A. H., & Garud, R. (1993). Innovation and
Randolph-Seng, B., & Norris, J. I. (2011). Dialogue: Cross- industry development: The case of cochlear implants. In
understandings in groups: How to cross over without R. Burgelman & R. Rosenbloom (Eds.), Research on
dying. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 420 – 422. technological innovation, management, and policy (pp.
Rao, H. (1998). Caveat emptor: The construction of non- 1– 46). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
profit consumer watchdog organizations. American Jour- Van de Ven, A. H., Polley, D. E., Garud, R., & Venkatara-
nal of Sociology, 103(4), 912–961. man, S. (1999). The innovation journey. New York: Ox-
Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional ford University Press.
change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity Van de Ven, A. H., & Poole, M. S. (1995). Explaining
movement in French gastronomy. Annual Journal of So- development and change in organizations. Academy of
ciology, 108, 795– 843. Management Review, 20, 510 –540.
Rice, R., & Rogers, E. (1980). Reinvention in the innova- von Hippel, E. (1978). Successful industrial products from
tion process. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion and Utiliza- customer ideas. Journal of Marketing, January, 39 – 40.
tion, 1(4), 499 –514. Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory construction as disciplined
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4),
York: Free Press. 516 –531.
Romanelli, E. (1999). Blind (but not unconditioned) Weick, K. E. (2011). Reflections: Change agents as change
variation: Problems of copying in sociocultural evolu- poetson reconnecting flux and hunches. Journal of
tion. In J. A. C. Baum & B. McKelvey (Eds.), Variations Change Management, 11(1), 7–20.
in organization science: In honor of Donald T. Campbell Weick, K. E., & Quinn, R. E. (1999). Organizational change
(pp. 79 –91). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 361–
Ross, J., & Staw, B. (1986). Expo 86: An escalation proto- 386.
type. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 274 –297. Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S. W. (1990). The strategy pro-
Seo, M., Putnam, L. L., & Bartunek, J. M. (2004). Dualities cess, middle management involvement, and organiza-
and tensions of planned organizational change. In M. S. tional performance. Strategic Management Journal, 11,
Poole & A. H. Van de Ven (Eds.), Handbook of organi- 231–241.