ama20160095 752

r Academy of Management Annals2018, Vol. 12, No. 2, 752–788.https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0095

SUCCESSFUL ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE: INTEGRATINGTHE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE AND

SCHOLARLY LITERATURES

JEROEN STOUTEN1

KULeuven

DENISE M. ROUSSEAUCarnegie Mellon University

DAVID DE CREMERUniversity of Cambridge

Contemporary organizations often struggle to create meaningful, sustainable changes.At the same time, relevant organizational research lacks an easily accessible consensuson basic change management processes and principles. One consequence is practitionerreliance on popular change models that more often cite expert opinion as their foun-dation rather than scientific evidence. This article reviews both key tenets of widelyused practitioner-oriented change models and findings from scholarly research on or-ganizational change processes to develop an integrative summary of the available evi-dence of what is known, contested, untested, and underused in change management. Itidentifies ten evidence-based steps in managing planned organizational change alongwith implications for research and practice.

Advanced technology, a changing workforce,competitive pressures, and globalization are justa few of the forces that prompt organizations andtheir members to engage in and attempt to manageplanned change (Burnes, 2004b; By, 2005; Kotter,1996). We define planned organizational change asdeliberate activities that move an organization fromits present state to a desired future state (Harigopal,2006). Often conceptualized as a managerial skill,change management has been touted as a criticalcompetency in contemporary executive surveys(Leadership Competencies, 2008; McCauley, 2006).Making meaningful, sustainable changes can none-theless be difficult. Recent reports suggest that ex-ecutives believe that only one of three plannedorganizational change interventions actually suc-ceed (Jarrel, 2017;Meaney&Pung, 2008),whereas 38percent of respondents to aU.K. survey of executivesreported that change in their organization actuallyhad led to achieving high performance (Holbeche,2006: 6). At the same time, organizational change isa source of considerable stress to contemporary

workers. A panel study of more than 90,000 workersfound that organizational change led to increaseduse of stress-related medication (Dahl, 2011).Whether these attributions are generalizable, theyinform this article’s motivation, that is, to betteridentify what is known about organizational changeto improve the likelihood of successful change andreduce the adverse consequences of failed changeon organization members and stakeholders. In ful-filling this motivation, we seek to identify ways toimprove both practice and research on plannedchange.

Identifying ways to make meaningful and sus-tainable planned change is a challenge. One reasonfor this challenge is that the scientific literature lacksconsensus regardingbasicchangeprocesses (Bamford&Daniel, 2005; Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001),a long-standing problem even early reviews identi-fied (Friedlander & Brown, 1974). The fragmentedliterature on change management can make it diffi-cult to identify and apply change management prin-ciples based on scientific evidence. Instead, changemanagement practitioners may rely on more readilyavailable expert opinions from popular writers onchange (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987; Hiatt, 2006;Kotter, 1996; Senge,Kleiner, &Roberts, 1996)—fewof

Denise M. Rousseau thanks an H. J. Heinz II professor-ship for supporting work on this article.

1 Corresponding author.

752

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s expresswritten permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0095

which cite or make explicit use of the scientific liter-ature on change (see Beer, 1980; Kanter, Stein, & Jick,1992, for exceptions).

The second challenge change management prac-titioners face is the difficulty of learning from expe-rience. Research on the development of expertiseindicates that learning and resulting improvementsin performance occur over time through repeatedpractice in a specific domain and direct feedbackregarding results (Kahneman & Klein, 2009). Al-though individuals may acquire considerable ex-pertise by many hours of practice in a specificdomain (e.g., playing a musical instrument andsolving technical problems regarding waste man-agement or process consistency; Ericsson, 2009),change management differs from such practice do-mains in several ways. Playing the violin or solvinga specific technical problem is a discrete and re-peatable activity, the outcomes of which can be im-mediately known, making it clear to the practitionerwhich particular efforts are effective and which arenot. By contrast, organizational change results cantake years to materialize, thereby limiting the op-portunities the change manager has to repeatedlymake comparable change-related interventions andobtain feedback regarding their outcomes. The na-ture of change itself can also be quite diverse: changecan be one-shot or multiphase interventions andits forms can be various, from quality improvement(QI) (Coyle-Shapiro, 1999), work family initiatives(Kossek, Lewis, & Hammer, 2010), and facility re-location (Peach, Jimmieson, & White, 2005), torestructuring and strategic change (Wanberg &Banas, 2000), mergers (Kavanagh & Ashkanasy,2006), and downsizing (Day, Armenakis, Feild, &Norris, 2012). The very heterogeneity of change canmake it difficult to interpret its outcomes, feedbackon which is not always easily available.

The present article provides a review and synthe-sis of prescriptive writings and scientific studies onthe management of planned organizational changewith the goal of identifying opportunities for inte-gration that add value to each. We offer a synthesisof popular prescriptive advice on change manage-ment practices with scientific evidence from bothqualitative and quantitative research regarding or-ganizational change. Our goal is to identify areas ofconvergence, contested issues should they exist,understudied change prescriptions, and underusedresearch findings. We begin with the practitionerliterature on planned change, describing the mostpopular practice models and then specifying theircore prescriptions and relevant scientific evidence.

Next,we identify additional findings in the scientificliterature that may be incompletely addressed oroverlooked in popular prescriptions to highlightopportunities to improve the practice of changemanagement. Then, we offer a synthesis of ten em-pirically supported steps in managing change basedon scientific evidence, providing a foundation foran evidence-based approach to changemanagement.Finally, we address the research and practice im-plications of our review and synthesis.

PRESCRIPTIVE MODELS OF PLANNEDORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE

The change management literature is replete withprescriptive models, largely directed at senior man-agers and executives, advising them how to bestimplement planned organizational change. Typi-cally, these models specify a sequence of steps con-sidered applicable across a variety of organizationalchange interventions. We selected seven “canoni-cal” (i.e., popular and widely used) prescriptivemodels based on the criteria of Google web hits(ranging from 60,300 to 4,800,000), number of cita-tions these models receive in the scholarly literature(Web of Science, ranging from 401 to 23,300 cita-tions), and our own conversations with practicingmanagers and consultants. We note that with oneexception [the critique of Kotter (1996), byAppelbaum, Habashy, Malo, and Shafiq (2012)],these models have not been subject to direct empir-ical study, despite their popularity as evident incitations and publicity on practitioner-orientedwebsites (Leppitt, 2006; Phelan, 2005). We presentthem roughly in chronological order of appearance,sometimes using the author(s)’s later writings toflesh out core ideas.

Lewin’s Three-Phase Process

Kurt Lewin (1948), renown for the insight, “there isnothing more practical than a good theory” (Lewin,1952: 169), proposed a three-phase change processthat is ubiquitous in the practice literature: (1) un-freezing, (2) transitioning to a new stage, and (3)refreezing. Unfreezing includes establishing achange vision and developing a change plan. Doingso prepares the organization for the transition to newsystems, structures, or procedures. This transitioninvolves putting the change in place and modifyingexisting systems in support of the change. Refreezingentails the consolidation of the change so that italigns with other organizational structures and

2018 753Stouten, Rousseau, and De Cremer

procedures. The change thus becomes embedded inthe organization rather than remaining a separateunity. Critical readers of Lewin suggest that he hadnot only organizational changes in mind whenspecifying his model but also a wider array of groupand societal changes (Burnes, 2004a).

Beer’s Six-Step Change Management Model

The career-long focus on change managementby Michael Beer, a practice faculty member of theHarvard Business School, reflects a detailed systemsapproach to change (Beer, 1980). Its most popularand well-cited version is a popular six-step changemanagementmodel, developedwith colleagues (Beer,Eisenstart, & Spector, 1990). (1) It first emphasizes theneed to join two aspects of change, an accurate di-agnosis of the problem situation, which in turn helpsmobilize commitment to the change. (2) A change vi-sion then should be developed specifying the focusof the change by defining new roles and re-sponsibilities (i.e., establishing teams working onspecific issues such as the strategic direction ordeveloping the change planning in different de-partments). This allows organizing the change basedon specific and actual problems and involving stake-holders to plan and organize the change. (3) Next,a consensus in support of this vision needs to beestablished, a step involving communicating the vi-sion to stakeholders. (4) The change should now beimplementedand spread throughout the organizationthrough the involvement of stakeholders. (5) Thechange should then be institutionalized, that is, in-tegrated with formal structures and systems. (6) Fi-nally, the change should be monitored and adjustedas needed, a unique feature of Beer’s model relativeto others.

Appreciative Inquiry (AI)

AI, an approach developed by Cooperrider andSrivastva (1987), distinguishes among the stages ofdiscovery, dream, design, and destiny. Unlike otherchange models, AI starts from a positive view of or-ganizational features that employees feel are suc-cessful. (1) The discovery stage comprises thinkingabout what goes well in the current organization andwhat factors contribute to this success. (2) The dreamstage encourages employees to think about their“ideal,” new features that would make the organi-zation even better. (3) The destiny stage next involvescreating change plans to enable these “dreams,” andexecution is begun. AI is less specific on how dreams

should be implemented, focusing more on devel-oping a common conception of what should bechanged and involving stakeholders to become partof and provide support for the change. We note thatAI gives considerably more attention to change re-cipient participation than othermodels and framingthe change as an opportunity or positive event forimprovement.

Judson’s Five Steps

Arnold S. Judson (1991), a strategic managementconsultant, distinguishes five steps in the changeprocess: (1) analyzing and planning the change, (2)communicating about it, (3) gaining acceptance forthe required changes particularly in behavior, (4)making the initial transition from the status quo tothe new situation, and (5) consolidating the newconditions and continuing to follow-up to in-stitutionalize the change. Judson, like Kanter et al.(1992) in the following paragraph, explicitly arguesthat “no single approach can possibly account theenormous variability of all the factors present in eachunique situation and organization” (Judson, 1991:166), thus the need to adjust depending on specificsof the change and organization.

Kanter, Stein, and Jick’s Ten Commandments

Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Barry Stein, and Todd Jick(1992), Harvard colleagues and change consultants,prescribe ten steps, starting with (1) analysis of theorganization and theneed for change, followedby (2)the creationof a sharedvision andcommondirectionin which emphasis is put on (3) the separation fromthe past and (4) creating a sense of that importantchange is needed. (5) A strong leader role shouldsupport the change to increase its legitimacy, (6)where political sponsorship is sought to create a solidbase for the change then sets the stage for (7) the de-velopment of an implementation plan. (8) Enablingstructures should be put into place to help implementthe change such as pilot tests, training, and rewardprograms. (9) Change communication should be openand honest and involve all stakeholders in the changeprocess. (10) Finally, the change needs to be rein-forced and institutionalized to incorporate newbehaviors in day-to-day operations. Kanter and hercolleagues (1992: 388) contend that these ten stepsshould be challenged in their applicability duringchange implementation to allow for nuances andcontextual factors because “implementing changeis an ongoing process of discovery”.

754 JuneAcademy of Management Annals

Kotter’s Eight-Step Model

John Kotter (1996), a leadership professor at Har-vard popularized an eight-step model which startsthe change process with (1) establishing a sense ofurgency in which employees are alerted to the factthat change is essential. (2) A guiding coalition isformedwhich in turn (3) develops the change vision.(4) This vision is communicated to employees and(5) the coalition (and employees) is involved in thechange process by developing change plans. (6) Thenext step promotes for short-term wins to reinforcethe change implementation. (7) Then, he defines theconsolidation stage which strengthens and con-tinues the change by making additional changesthat were not implemented yet but need to be takencare for as otherwise processes in the organizationwould not be sufficiently aligned with the initialchange vision. (8) The final stage institutionalizesthe change by integrating it with the organization’sstructures and systems.

Hiatt’s ADKAR Model

Jeff Hiatt (2006), a management consultant, de-veloped the ADKAR change model, the acronymstanding for awareness, desire, knowledge and abil-ity, and reinforcement. (1) “Awareness” involvespromoting employee beliefs that change is needed. Itinvolves creating a change vision and communicat-ing it. (2) The “desire” stage entails the imple-mentation of the change vision and focuses onempowering employees to be actively involved inthe change. (3) Employee knowledge and skills aredeveloped to support their participation in thechange. (4) Finally, in the reinforcement stage, thechanges are strengthened and consolidated intothe organizations’ processes and structures. ADKARfocuses considerable attention on the processes thathelp employees to serve as ambassadors of the change.It does so, for example, by taking into account theirindividual needs and the consequences the changemight have for specific groups of employees.

INTEGRATING EXISTING PRESCRIPTIONSWITH THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Taken together, these seven prescriptive modelsshow considerable overlap, particularly in the pro-cesses or practices they advocate. As the modelsshare a temporal flow, our integration of them is or-ganized sequentially from the start of the change toits full implementation and institutionalization.Note that such an organizing strategy represents

what is referred to in mathematics as a fuzzy set(Zadeh, 1965) where elements representing a certainstep in onemodelmay bemissing in some or overlapa different set of steps in others. (N.B. fuzzy sets helpdelineate hard-to-define categories such as “turnslightly right,” “fairly tall,” or “quite beautiful”).In categorizing elements, it is not always crystalclear whether an element should belong to a cate-gory. Nonetheless, our synthesis incorporates eachmodel’s key success factors. Importantly, becausemost of these changemodels have been documentedin books rather than in journal articles, the level ofprecision that might result from peer review is oftenlacking. Thus, to specify each model’s essential fea-tures, we relied on the procedural or contextual in-formation authors provided in their original textalong with their other publications at times to pro-vide important details. We identified 10 steps orsuccess factors prescribed in the seven prescriptivemodels reviewed previously (Table 1 provides anoverview).

In our discussion of each success factor, we reflecton the evidence from scientific research relevant tothat factor. To conduct our review of empirical re-search on change management, we focus on peer-reviewed journal articles, systematic reviews, andbooks based on this literature. Scientific researchtests specific questions through empirical observa-tion or experimentation incorporating either quan-titative or qualitative methods. Using the Web ofScience and ABI Inform, we searched the peer-reviewed literature from 1990 using keywordsincluding “Organizational Change,” “PlannedChange,” and “Change Management” to identifystudies at the individual, group, and organizationlevels. TheWeb of Science revealed 1403 results andABI Inform showed 820 search results from whichwe identified 38 and 57 articles, respectively (13 ofthese were in both sources). We selected only em-pirical studies and reviews and read specifically forempirical results pertaining to planned change. Wecompared empirical studies with those included ina set of recent reviews to highlight topics that mighthave been overlooked (Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis,2011). We also sought out both narrative and sys-tematic reviews to evaluate previous conclusionsregarding change management (ten Have, ten Have,Huijsmans, & Otto, 2016; Wensing, Wollersheim, &Grol, 2006). The reviews we identified, described inthe following paragraph, differ in scope, purpose,and focus but all address studies involving plannedorganizational change andhowemployees and otherorganizational stakeholders respond. Table 2 gives


TABLE1

Summaryof

Prescriptive

Chan

geMod

els

Summaryof

Chan

geSteps

Lew

in(194

8)Bee

r(198

0,20

09)

Coo

perrider

andSriva

stva

(198

7)AI

Judson(199

1)Kan

teret

al.(19

92)

Kotter(199

6,20

12)

Hiatt(200

6)ADKAR

Assesstheop

portunity

orproblem

motivating

thech

ange

Unfree

zeMob

ilizeco

mmitmen

tto

chan

gethrough

joint

diagn

osis

ofbu

siness

problem

Disco

very

Analyz

ingthe

orga

nizationan

dplanningthech

ange

Analyz

ethe

orga

nizationan

ditsnee

dfor

chan

ge

Estab

lish

asense

ofurgen

cyAwaren

ess

Createasense

ofurgen

cySelecta

ndsu

pport

agu

idingch

ange

coalition

——

Lineuppolitical

spon

sorship

Form

apow

erful

guidingco

alition

Formulate

aclear

compellingvision

Transition

Dev

elop

ash

ared

vision

ofhow

toorganize

andman

agefor

competitiven

ess

Dream

—Createash

ared

vision

and

aco

mmon

direction

Createavision

Sep

aratefrom

the

past

Com

municatethevision

Fosterco

nsensu

sforthe

new

vision

,com

peten

ceto

enac

tit,an

dco

hesion

tomov

eitalon

g

—Com

municatingab

out

thech

ange

Supporta

strong

lead

errole

Com

municatethe

vision

Mob

ilizeen

ergy

for

chan

geSpread

revitalization

toall

dep

artm

ents

withou

tpush

ingitfrom

thetop

Design

Gainingac

ceptance

oftherequ

ired

chan

ges

inbe

hav

ior;mak

ing

theinitialtransition

from

thestatusqu

oto

thenew

situation

Craftan

implemen

tation

plan;c

ommuni-

cate,invo

lve

peo

ple,a

ndbe

hon

est

—Desire

Empow

erothersto

act

Destiny

Empow

erothersto

acto

nthevision

Dev

elop

andpromote

chan

ge-related

know

ledge

andab

ility

——

——

Know

ledge

Ability

Iden

tify

short-term

winsan

duse

asreinforcem

ento

fch

ange

progress

——

—Dev

elop

enab

ling

structures

Planforan

dcreate

short-term

wins

Reinforcem

ent

Mon

itor

andstrengthen

thech

ange

proce

ssRefreeze

Mon

itor

andad

just

strategies

inresp

onse

toproblem

sin

the

revitalization

process

—Con

solidatingnew

conditionsan

dco

ntinuingto

promotech

ange

toinstitution

alizeit

Con

solidate

improve

men

tsan

dproduce

morech

ange

—

Institution

alizech

ange

inco

mpan

ycu

lture,

practices,a

nd

man

agem

entsuc

cession

Institution

alize

revitalization

through

form

alpolicies,system

s,an

dstructures

—Reinforcean

dinstitution

alize

chan

ge

Institution

alize

new

approaches

—


an overview of the journals in which reviewed arti-cles were published. In addition to using the litera-ture specific to changemanagement, we also found itrelevant to apply more general research in organi-zational behavior in evaluating support for specific

steps (e.g., goal setting, leadership, and problem-solving). We now present 10 steps identified acrossthe prescriptive models. For each step, we describethe disputes or differences among the models andthe scientific evidence pertaining to them.

Assess the Opportunity or Problem Motivatingthe Change

Several models advise an initial diagnosis thatis gathering information to understand the specificproblem(s) or change opportunity (Beer, 1980;Judson, 1991; Kanter et al., 1992). Twomodels (Beer,1980; Kanter et al., 1992) emphasize that diagnosisis essential: collecting information from all stake-holders is a necessary first step, emphasizing theimportance of involving employees in the process.Beer (1980) further advocates that the diagnosisshould be shared preferably in a group setting.Kanter et al. (1992) also note that although diagnosisis a good start, copying practices of other companiesthat have successfully transformed is not.

Disputes. Practice models disagree on how plan-ned change should begin. Several models are silenton the need for diagnosis or assume that what topmanagement believes is the problem and providessufficient basis for action (Hiatt, 2006; Judson, 1991;Kotter, 2012). Instead, their initial focus is on creat-ing awareness of the need for change, the reasons forit, and the risks that come with its implementationand failing to do so appropriately. Judson (1991)further recommends the use of “balance sheets” inwhich managers place themselves in the position ofemployees and balance losses and gains (as well asthe importance for each) to predict implications foremployees and possible resistance. Lewin’s (1948)unfreezing process emphasizes the need to questionexistingviews regarding the organizationbutdoesnotindicate how this questioning should be undertaken.

Several models place special emphasis on earlycreation of a sense of urgency. Lewin (1948) stressesthe need to generate a state of anxiety that employeescan turn into a motivation to change. Kotter (2012)advocates creating a feeling of urgency arounda strategic and emotionally exciting opportunity—without specifying how to identify that opportunity.Along similar lines, Kotter (1996) argues that ur-gency should imply “boldness” by setting “exces-sive” goals which even if unreachable can help tocounter employee feelings of complacency, whichmight hinder change.

Other practitioners disagree that urgency is alwaysappropriate. Hiatt (2006) warns against overselling

TABLE 2Overview of Journals in Which the Literature Review

Articles Were Published

JournalNumber ofArticles

Academic Medicine 1Academy of Management Journal 11Academy of Management Review 1Administrative Science Quarterly 5British Journal of Management 4Employee Relations 1European Journal ofWorkandOrganizational

Psychology2

Group & Organization Management 1Group & Organization Studies 1Human Relations 5Human Resource Management 3Implementation Science 2International Journal of Human Resource

Management1

International Journal of Quality and ServiceSciences

2

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 9Journal of Applied Psychology 12Journal of Business and Psychology 4Journal of Business Ethics 2Journal of Business Research 2Journal of Change Management 10Journal of Healthcare Management 1Journal of Management 4Journal of Management Development 1Journal of Management Inquiry 1Journal of Management Studies 3Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology4

Journal of Organizational Behavior 9Journal of Organizational Change

Management2

Leadership Quarterly 2Management Science 2Medical Care Research and Review 1Organization Development Journal 1Personnel Psychology 2Personnel Review 1Psychology and Health 1Public Administration Quarterly 1Research in Organizational Behavior 1Research in Organizational Change and

Development1

Social Science and Medicine 1Strategic Change 1The Milbank Quarterly 1Vocations and Learning 1


change by putting too much stress on the urgencyof every change—reducing credibility. Similarly,Kanter et al. (1992: 383) caution that messages ofurgencymight appear to “crywolf” and fail to inducea felt need for change.

A related dispute is whether the diagnostic pro-cess should focus on weaknesses or strengths. AIbegins with describing what already might be donewell, rather than focusing on a problem or opportu-nity (Cooperrider & Srivastava, 1987). Managementproposes a theme around which changes might bestructured (e.g., teamwork and customer service),choosing it because of its energizing qualities(Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). Kanter et al. (1992)concur that companies should first look into theirstrengths to make the most of what is already there.Beer (1980) advises that organizations focus on theirstrengths but at the same time also detect weak-nesses. Beer et al. (1990) treat problem recognition asa catalyst for solution seeking, placing less emphasison creating a sense of urgent action and more on theneed to find ways to move the organization forward.Beer (1980) advocates both managerial and em-ployee involvement to identify ways the organiza-tion can improve and advices surveying employeesto obtain insight.

Scientific evidence. The importance of a de-liberate and well-conducted diagnosis to plannedchange is underscored by research on decision-making (Nutt, 1999) and problem-solving (Astor,Morales, Kiefer, & Repenning, 2016) and changemanagement itself (Armenakis & Harris, 2009).Assessing the opportunity or problemmotivating thechange is important from the rational perspective ofgood decision-making (Rousseau, 2018), particu-larly in understanding the underlying need for thechange rather than opting to implement a solutionto a poorly identified problem. Not surprisingly,change recipients who view the change as imple-mented in a rational, planful, and deliberate fashionare found to have more favorable reactions thanthose who see implementation as less planful(Rafferty & Griffin, 2006). Diagnosis has downstreameffects on the appropriateness with which thechange is viewed by both recipients and changeagents themselves (Armenakis & Harris, 2009). Inparticular, it is critical that what change recipientsunderstand because meaningful reasons are associ-atedwith amore favorable attitude to the change (Lau& Woodman, 1995; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999).

The focus on creating an initial sense of ur-gency, particularly in lieu of careful diagnosis, is notsupported by research. Urgency can lead to fear,

and accompanying rigidity and avoidance (Staw,Sandelands, & Dutton, 1981), that can undermineemployee responses to change. At the same time, tothe extent that urgency is achieved by setting ex-treme goals (Kotter, 1996), we note that extremelydifficult or impossible goals tend to be rejected(Locke & Latham, 1990) or encourage employees tocut corners to reach them (Schweitzer, Ordoñez, &Douma, 2004). Relatedly, employee stress from or-ganizational change interferes with their capacity totransition to new arrangements and states (Ashford,1988).

Select and Support a Guiding Change Coalition

A key feature prescriptive models share is the rolea guiding coalition of organizationmembers canplayin overseeing the change process. This coalition isadvised to maintain supportive relationships andongoing communication with top management(Beer, 1980; Kanter, 1999; Kotter, 2012). Kanter(1999) further suggests that each coalition memberhas an external managerial sponsor to enhance topmanagement’s buy-in and guarantee sufficient re-sources for the change to succeed. In addition toobtaining critical change support from top manage-ment, theother consistent taskof theguidingcoalitionis to communicate the vision (step #4 in the followingparagraphs). In doing so, the guiding coalition canreinforce the importance of the planned change(Judson, 1991; Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 2012).

Disputes. The tasks and composition of the guid-ing coalition differ across practitioner models. Beeret al. (1990) advocate that this coalition, which caninclude the management team and a variety of otherstakeholders, conduct problem diagnosis and alter-native solution identification. To Kotter (1996,2012), the coalition’s task is to further a sense of ur-gency, by helping employees and leaders throughoutthe organization understand the reasons for change.The coalition also can help advance a shared un-derstanding for the problem or opportunity the or-ganization is facing (Hiatt, 2006; Kotter, 2005) bybuilding ties to supporters of the change throughoutthe organization and bringing into the coalitionchange-related information from the organization’sdiverse array of departments and teams. Both Kotter(1996) and Judson (1991) advise that the coalitionshould determine strategic actions to promote thechange process. Judson also allows for an alterna-tive where all employees in small groups, not justthe coalition, can work to design the change.Kotter (1996) argues that to function effectively, the


coalition needs to develop trust on the part of changerecipients and should use adequate means of com-munication. The coalition also needs a commonlyshared goal which incorporates a striving for excel-lence (Kotter, 1996).

Diverse advice is offered regarding the connectionbetween the coalition and top management. Kotter(1996) notes that the guiding coalition should entailfrom 5 to 50 people who top management trusts,some of whom are considered “outstanding leaders”(Kotter, 2005). In any case, the most important linemanagers should be included (Kotter, 1996, 2005),although whether this includes the CEO or other topexecutives is unclear. Hiatt (2006) advises that topmanagement be included in the dominant coalitionto signal their continued support. By contrast, Judson(1991) argues that the originator of the change shouldonly have an advisory role. If top management orthe CEO introduced the change, Judson suggests thatthey only give advice and not be involved directlyin change-related decisions beyond developing thechange’s rationale, objectives, and scope.

Models also differ in their advice regarding how toselect coalition members, aside from top manage-ment’s trust in them. Kanter et al. (1992) advocateincluding stakeholders who will be impacted by theconsequences of the change along with stakeholders“powerholders,” that is, those who have the neces-sary supplies to make the change work such as in-formation (expertise or data), resources (money ormaterials), or support (legitimacy and political in-fluence). Beer (1980) agrees and describes howpower could be obtained by status, expertise, trust,credibility (as in competence), or capacity to repre-sent dissatisfied parties in the organization (here, hesuggests including those members able to meet theneeds of the dissatisfied). Kotter (1996) advocatesselections based both on trust by others as well asrelevant knowledge and expertise, and further sug-gests that individuals be allowed to volunteer. AIalso focuses on the participants’ competence andknowledge related to the specific change themewhile emphasizing the importance of incorporatingmultipleperspectives. It also advises including thosestakeholders affected by later stage recommenda-tions (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). Last, Kotter(1996) notes that two types of people should not bepart of the coalition: those with a big ego who wouldtake over the conversation and those who wouldcreate mistrust by engaging in pessimism andblaming.

Scientific evidence. The evidence is limited insupport of the role of the guiding coalition in

successful change, with only qualitative case studiesreporting on it (Appelbaum et al., 2012; Loeser,O’Sullivan, & Irby, 2007; McCracken & McIvor,2013). As ten Have et al. (2016) point out, identify-ing evidence related to the guiding coalition and itsrole in change can be accomplished by breaking theconcept of a coalition its constituent parts, includingthe basis of coalition member trustworthiness andcredibility, their position power in organization,relevant expertise, and leadership skills. Trustwor-thiness from a management perspective is the dom-inant issue in the practice literature on coalitions;however, their trustworthiness from an employeeperspective has received little attention. However,credibility, an aspect of trustworthiness, is related toindividuals with both trusted ties (Pornpitakpan,2004) to others in the organization and the powerto execute their roles (Nesler, Aguinis, Quigley, &Tedeschi, 1993).

There is little scientific study of the tasks per-formed by the guiding coalition and their role inchange success. However, research on social move-ments (Kellogg, 2012) indicates that reformers’ (cf.coalition members) frames and identities shouldmatch the beliefs of those in the organization.Furthermore, research on communication duringchange suggests that one task of such a coalition is toconvey bad news to employees in a fashion changerecipients can accept. Building a coalition of pow-erful and influential employees or other leaders canhelp signal consensus regarding a change message(Bies, 2013; Kellogg, 2012). Coalitions can also beimportant in aiding effective diagnosis because ofthe diversity of inputs members offer. Dutton andAshford (1993) observe that membership in the co-alition comprises an important part of the messagesent to change recipients (such as the choice of thesender of the message, message framing, and thebreadth of involvement). We note, however, there isvirtually no systematic research on change-relatedactivities by a “guiding coalition.”

Formulate a Clear Compelling Vision of the Change

Models focus on the nature and features of acompelling and motivating vision, separating thecomposition of the vision from how it is then com-municated (step #4). Vision is a compelling expres-sion of the change’s end goal or state and shouldsignal a separation from the past (Kanter et al., 1992).Kotter (2012) argues that vision translates opportu-nity into action. Vision would express where thechange process is intended to lead (Kanter et al.,


1992) and the goals being pursued (Kotter, 1996), butit should not be so specific that the vision’s actionsbecome ends in itself (Kanter et al., 1992). One fea-ture of an effective vision is its appeal to a broadrange of stakeholders (Kotter, 1996). Vision is seen asneeding to be feasible in the eyes of change re-cipients, easy for leaders and members to commu-nicate, emotionally appealing, and flexible enoughto allow for individual initiatives and alternativeactions (Kotter, 1996). Moreover, Beer et al. (1990)advocate a consistently expressed statement of thevision, such that it is clear to employees what theirroles and responsibilities in the change might be; atthe same time, advising that the vision avoid speci-fying the structures and systems to be changed toavoid inducing resistance. Vision in AI (Cooperrider& Srivastva, 1987) is developed byparticipants in the“dream” stage, developing a future image of the or-ganization and its possibilities. Kanter et al. (1992)would refer to a similar “organizational dream” inwhich change is defined in terms of rethinking whatis possible for the organization. Beer (1980: 84) ar-gues that organizations shoulddefine the “state of theorganization they desire in the future”, expressingnot only numerical targets but also relevant behav-iors and attitudes.

Disputes. Although models agree on the impor-tance and general nature of vision, they differ re-gardingwho shouldparticipate invision formulation.The guiding coalition should be well placed to elab-orate and expand on the central idea of the change oreven a rudimentary vision statement (Kotter, 2005).Beer et al. (1990) also advise involving a large groupof employees to expand on the vision to enhancechange commitment. We note that Judson (1991) andCooperrider and Srivastva (1987) already involvediverse stakeholders in vision expression at earlierstages in defining the problem to be addressed.

Scientific evidence. Research underscores the im-portance of formulating attractive goals in pursuingchange, which can take the form of a compellingvision (Baum,Locke,&Kirkpatrick, 1998;Unsworth,Dmitrieva, & Adriasola, 2013). Like a goal, visionitself is expected to be effective if individuals acceptand are committed to realizing it (Kirkpatrick, 2009).Research on goal setting informs how employeesmay be motivated to implement changes by settingclear objectives and regular feedback (Locke &Latham, 2006). Identifying appropriate content andemphasis for a compelling vision may be informedby a meta-analysis on group and individual-levelgoals (Kleingeld, vanMierlo, & Arends, 2011) wheregroup goals that focus on shared interests have

more positive effects on collective outcomes thanindividual-focused egocentric goals. To the extentthat a key assumption of change models is that thevision will address stakeholder needs, scholars noteit is less clear what this might mean if those needsare closely tied to the status quo (Proudfoot & Kay,2014). A major issue in formulating a compellingvision can be the extent to which it entails losses(departures from the status quo that employees re-act to negatively; Rousseau, 1995, 1996). Legitimacyof reasons for change is particularly important whenlosses occur (Rousseau, 1996).

We note that the characteristics of a vision thatmembers are likely to accept have received littleexplicit scholarly attention. Existing research sug-gests that individuals will differ in their endorse-ment of a vision, depending on its compatibilitywithexisting beliefs and their view of the favorability ofthe change it signals (Oreg et al., 2011). For example,Griffin, Parker, and Mason (2010) observe thata leader’s vision promoting employee initiative ismore likely to be effective among those employeeswho are open to change and see themselves as able tomove the vision forward. Thus, although researchseems to concur as to the importance of vision tochange management success, empirical study sug-gests unresolved challenges in creating visions thatyield shared understandings among change re-cipients. The vision may interact with the ways inwhich it is communicated in shaping how changerecipients respond, thematter towhichwenext turn.

Communicate the Vision

How the vision is communicated is essential forgenerating awareness (Hiatt, 2006) and support forthe change (Kotter, 2005). The effect of vision maythus depend on the other messages embedded in itscommunication, particularly the extent to whichthese other messages relate to change recipients’ in-terests and concerns. The support generated bya vision is aided not only by its accessibility andmemorability but also by the extent to which in-terests of change recipients are addressed in itscommunication, including fairness and future op-portunities. Hiatt (2006) argues that awareness ismore easily obtained when the reason for change isexternalandreadilyobservable (e.g.,newgovernmentregulations). Kotter (1996) warns against message in-consistencies in the process of communicating vision(e.g., if employees are let go while management takesluxury trips in private jets). He emphasizes thatmanagement should be open and transparent in their


communication while rooting out inconsistenciesthat encourage resistance.Furthermore, Judson (1991:175) argues that the initial change plans should becommunicated as proposals and not as fixed plansfor “those involved to believe that their commentsand suggestionswill be considered seriously”. Onlyafter this preparatory step, Judson argues, shouldthe specific changes be communicated, resemblingthe vision stage in other prescriptive models.

Change models agree that vision should be broad-casted using multiple channels including newslet-ters, articles, video, social media, or workshops. Animportant form of vision communication is execu-tives who serve as role models (Hiatt, 2006; Kotter,2005). By doing so, executives signal not only theirendorsement of the change but also put words intodeeds and express the importance of changes ahead(Kotter, 2005). Along these same lines, Beer et al.(1990) and also Kanter et al. (1992) emphasize therole of the general manager to embody the changeand offer support to those who help implement it.Rolemodeling by formal leaders and visible opinionleaders helps communicate vision, in a transparentfashion so its meaning is clear, disseminating theform the change might take and actions to come(Hiatt, 2006).

Open and honest communication is an importantaspect of vision communication. Judson (1991) andHiatt (2006) argue that managers should encourageemployees to ask questions and be open and honestin their answers. Judson, however, mentions thatemployees need not know the full details of thechange but need an overall understanding of thechange. Without it, employees would experiencefear and uncertainty. But, he does emphasize thatcommunication should be organized before any ac-tion is carried out and has the purpose to createa complete understanding about the reasons, objec-tives, benefits, and implications, aswell as the timingof the change. Kanter et al. (1992) also emphasizecomplete openness even though they also state thatnot every change situation may need full disclosure.Hiatt (2006) andKotter (1996) also stress the need for“repeating” change-supporting messages. Using thevision as a reference point in manager conversationswith employees ensures that the message is spreadand reinforced (Kotter, 1996). Judson (1991) alsoemphasized the skill to “listen” to evaluate the ef-fectiveness of managers’ communication. As earlier,the vision should be communicated through theguiding coalition (Judson, 1991; Kanter et al., 1992;Kotter, 2012). When the guiding coalition exists ofmembers fromdifferentdepartments in theorganization,

the vision communication is expected to better reachall the corners of the organization.

Disputes. Hiatt (2006) acknowledges that com-municating the vision may require adapting ap-proaches to different audiences affecting messaging,timing, and the communication channels used.Here,it is less clear what the order of communicationshould be as both top management and the coalitionare involved in communicating the change. It is alsonot clearwho should communicatewhat towhom asthis might effectively be different for top manage-ment and the coalition. Judson (1991) and Kanteret al. (1992) agree that complete openness may notalways be necessary, whereas Hiatt (2006) doessuggest full transparency. Judson also seems the onlyone focusing on the preparation of managers in de-livering themessage andhow to be open to questionsemployees may have. Interestingly, AI (Cooperrider& Srivastva, 1987)—as multiple groups would en-gage in the dream stage—remains silent in how thevision should be communicated to these differentgroups or how one overarching vision would have tobe created.

Scientific evidence. The prescription to imple-ment a multichannel strategy in communicatinga compelling vision is underscored by findings re-garding the importance of factors that motivatechange recipients to perceive the change as favor-able (Oreg et al., 2011). For example, if employeesbelieve they understand the reason for a change andconsider that reason to be meaningful, they tend tohave a more favorable attitude to the change (Lau &Woodman, 1995; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999). Thescientific literature supports the importance of trustin management in terms of accepting the reasonsoffered for change and the formation of a favorableattitude toward change (Rousseau & Tijoriwala,1999). At the same time, perceptions of meaningappear to have a greater impact on change recipientswhen there is a shared sense of meaning and un-derstanding supportedby thework groups and socialnetworks change recipients are part of (Hulsheger,Anderson, & Sargado, 2009; Rousseau & Tijoriwala,1998).

A major issue is the lack of clarity regarding whatharms change recipients may experience should beexpressed in communicating the vision. Explana-tions as in social accounts offered to explain badnews and consequential changes (Bies&Moag, 1986)have been shown to discourage negative perceptionsand reactions in terms of fairness perceptions, co-operation, retaliation, and withdrawal. Explana-tions enhance positive recipient reactions in layoffs


(Wanberg,Gavin, &Bunce, 1999), pay cuts (Greenberg,1990), company relocations (Daly & Geyer, 1994), andorganizational changes (Cobb, Folger, & Wooten,1995). For example, employees were 43 percent lesslikely to retaliate and resist change if an explanationwas given (Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003). Yet, expla-nations need to be adequate to be accepted. For ex-ample, explanations that are clear and reasonable aredefined as adequate,whereas inadequate explanationswould result in feelings of unfairness more so thanwhen no explanation at all would be given (Shapiro,Buttner, & Barry, 1994). Excuses signaling that therewasnoother optionpossible to engage in the changeorthat there were no other options feasible even havebeen shown to be more effective than mere justifica-tions. Justifications are particularly powerful in lowoutcome favorability situations such as situationswhich have high instrumentality (e.g., hiring and pro-motions). They are also more effective if employeesvalue being included in the organization and beingpart of the whole as well as when the topic is stronglymorally laden (e.g., change in diversity policies).Such explanations are consistent with research oninfluence tactics which showed that managers’ useof rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, andconsultation are the tactics most widely used andtend to be the most successful in gaining employees’acceptance of a message (Bennebroek Gravenhorst& Boonstra, 1998).

Mobilize Energy for Change

Mobilizing energy for change means planning theactual change implementation acrossmultiple levelsof the organization. Several models also advise in-formation gathering at this phase with the goal ofhelping to plan the change interventions, sequencespecific change activities, and roll out importantchange supports (Hiatt, 2006; Kanter et al., 1992).Hiatt (2006) also advises a change and readiness as-sessment at this point, targeting the number andparticular groups of employees who will be im-pacted by the change.

Models take different approaches to the timing ofassessment and planning. Assessing change readi-ness, according to the ADKAR model, involvesidentifying the impact and success of past changes,the frequency of change (e.g., all-at-once and se-quential), available resources, and theorganizationalstructure needed to support it (Hiatt, 2006). Thisprocess appears to come relatively late (in theADKAR’s Desire step right after creating Awareness)compared with Kanter et al. (1992) and Judson

(1991). In keeping with the notion of integrating as-sessment into a comprehensive change vision andguide to change planning, both engage in changeplanning after the change vision is developed.Kanter et al. (1992) refer to this as the “roadmap” inwhich all the specifics are detailed of the change.

Beer (1980) also suggests a readiness assessmentearly on in which the importance of the problem,capability, the values of the key managers, the prob-ability that a “criticalmass” is able to be achieved, thedegree of political support, and the competence ofthe change agent (manager or consultant) is takeninto account.

AI takes a somewhat different but related ap-proach. In the design stage, AI (Cooperrider &Srivastva, 1987) determines how the future imagesand organization’s potential translates into specificprocesses and change of systems.Here, employees inmultifunctional andmultistakeholder groups wouldalso determine what will be changed and how. Thiscould involve changes in different systems and pro-cesses such as staffing, leadership, or evaluationprocedures. AI proposes that this would go togetherwith setting ambitious goals so to hold on to the idealfuture image employees developed in the dreamstage.

Disputes. Perhaps, the biggest difference acrossmodels is the speed with which mobilization is ad-vised. Judson (1991) argues that time is an importantfactor as initially in the preparation, the changeshould be slow to be less threatening and allow em-ployees to get used to and process the change. Heargues that employees will tend to rationalize thethought that change is needed.Hence, sufficient timeshould be taken so that only once acceptance existsshould the change be implemented. Subsequently,Judson argues that the change needs to be imple-mented faster as otherwise the process would be tooprolonged; in deciding on timing, other consider-ations should be taken into account that could in-crease employee commitment such as the choice forother change events that could either facilitate orobstruct the focal change. Beer (1980) takes a relatedbut somewhat different perspective and argues thatthe pace of the change is dependent on the readinessofmanagement (possiblywhat Judson refers to as thepreparation) and the resources that are available. Ifresources are lacking, going too fast is a risk for fail-ure according to Beer as insufficient investments canbe made to properly develop change events [see alsoHiatt (2006)]. By contrast, Kotter (1996) advocatesurgency advising the creation of crises and high tar-gets that cannot be reached by business as usual.


Scientific evidence. The research literature isrelatively silent on the role of time in the changeprocess [see Kim, Hornung, & Rousseau (2011) for anexception]. However, it has a lot more to say aboutthe nature of change interventions and the kinds ofactivities that are likely to lead to effective changeoutcomes. Consistent with Beer, the empirical liter-ature recognizes that management itself may not beready for change and suggests that investments mayneed to be made in advance of more complicatedchanges to better support change. Management ef-fectiveness in managing change is positively relatedto implementation success (Lok, Hung, Walsh,Wang, & Crawford, 2005) and negatively related tochange recipient stress (Amiot, Terry, Jimmieson, &Callan, 2006) and skepticism regarding the change(Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2005). Thus, animportant part of actual change planning may bereadying managers for the change, their skills inimplementing change, and the extent to which theyare trusted by change recipients. An example inwhich time and the role of management is examinedis the study of Babalola et al. (2016). The authorsreasoned that if change is frequent, there is no clearbeginning or end, which creates uncertainty foremployees. Their study indicates that managers stillmay need to offer reassurance to employees un-dergoing frequent change. Carter, Armenakis, Feild,and Mossholder (2013) also showed that the linkbetweenahigh-quality relationwithone’s leader andorganizational citizenship behavior is stronger ifchange is frequent. This is consistent with Hiatt’s(2006) observation that change frequency should betaken into account in change implementation.Change history matters to how the current change isperceived (Bordia, Restubog, Jimmieson, & Irmer,2011; Rafferty & Restubog, 2017). Past change suc-cesses are related to a positive attitude towardchange (van der Smissen, Schalk, & Freese, 2013)and increased capacity for change (Heckmann,Steger, & Dowling, 2016).

Studies also inform the kinds of activities likely tosupport effective change. Research on the theory ofplanned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) identifiesthree categories of intervention essential to suc-cessful planned changes in human behavior (Ajzen,1991): (1) ability, the capability of individuals,groups, and organizations to engage in new behaviorand responses; (2) motivation, the underlying driveor willingness to behave and respond in new ways;and (3) opportunity to practice, the support availableto actually demonstrate newbehavior and responses.This framework, alternatively referred to as theAMO

mode, has been widely found to help explainchanges in behavior, for example, in systematic re-views as diverse as the effects of human resourcepractices (Bos-Nehles, Renkema, & Janssen, 2017;Marin-Garcia & Tomas, 2016) and health-care in-terventions (Bednall et al., 2013; Rich et al., 2015). Itsuggests that change interventions target skillbuilding related to the change, incentives, and re-wards that motivate new behavior and supports forengaging in new behaviors. We note that there isno systematic attention in the prescriptive modelsto the sets of change interventions likely to promotedesired outcomes.

Empower Others to Act

Employees should be empowered to act in waysconsistent with the vision, and in doing so developnew ideas andways ofworking that come out of theirown understanding of the change (Judson, 1991;Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 2005). Empowerment cantake the form of coaching and supporting employeesto solve problems (Hiatt, 2006) and removing obsta-cles to the change (Beer et al., 1990; Kotter, 2005) orallowing them to participate (Judson, 1991). AI(Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987) proposes that in thedesign stage, employees formulate specific changeplans so that they takeownership andcan implementchanges in processes and systems. They take up re-sponsibilities and develop specific actions for eachof the project. In this approach, AI argues that morepeople will be drawn into the process and take re-sponsibility in project teams. This is similar to thefindings of Judson (1991) who also argues that em-ployees can be involved in the development of thechange. Beer et al. (1990) suggest that employees intheir respective teams should be responsible forimplementing the change, coming upwith their ownsolutions as problems arise. Kotter (2012), relatedly,describes how employees can create self-managingchange teams inwhich they autonomously, andwiththe support from management, aim to implementchange. Employees organize their efforts and bringin expertise from other departments if needed.Empowering and encouraging employees to proac-tively implement change and solve problems basedon their day-to-day experience foster responsibility(Beer et al., 1990).

From the perspective of change recipients, em-powerment entails creating opportunities for them toact in ways they find positive to meet their needs inthe context of change. Hiatt (2006) argues for man-agers to have frequent conversations with their


employees to hear out about their concerns and ob-jections. Rather than neglecting or being defensiveregarding any objections raised, Hiatt (2006) stressesthe importance of employees’ voice for removingbarriers, so that employees see opportunities to act innew and valued ways. Managers should use variousinfluence tactics such as personal appeal (“I needyour help in this”) or the act of negotiation to gainsupport for the change. Hiatt (2006) focuses on in-dividual needs thatwhen fulfilled by the change alsowould enable desire for change. These needs wouldact as motivators for employees to help them keepfocusedon theirwork for the organization. To Judson(1991), influence tactics should be adapted based onthe motive for resistance. If resistance is triggered byeconomic motives, for example, influence shouldtarget giving rewards.

Group and team-level activities also can be tar-geted at this stage, with local managers taking ini-tiative to provide opportunity for change recipientsto get involved in the change, including use of tem-porary groups or task forces. Kanter et al. (1992),recognizing that different individuals and groupsmay become involved in the change, add that animportant element in building commitment is tospecify who is responsible for specific actions toavoid confusion. If groups or task forces are in-volved, it should be clear what their role is and howthey link to the rest of the organization, how theirperformance will be measured, and when they willdisband.

Management needs to encourage employees topropose initiatives and reward them for their efforts,whereas avoiding reacting defensively to their con-cerns and ideas (Beer et al., 1990; Judson, 1991;Kanter et al., 1992; Kotter, 2005). Hiatt (2006) andJudson (1991) also argue for the importance of man-agers helping employees through the change pro-cess, being in frequent touch (e.g., by having regularface-to-face meetings) and collecting feedback fromthem. Here, Kotter (1996) argues that an importantelement is to get rid of structural barriers such asrules or job descriptions that might obstruct em-ployees from acting in change-consistent ways. An-other important structural barrier is management’sconventional notions of its own role, which can bea barrier to empowerment if managers discourageemployees from taking initiative or react defensivelyto employee proposals for new practices.

Disputes. Despite the heterogeneous nature ofapproaches advocated to empower employees, weidentified no fundamental disputes across themodels.

Scientific evidence.Mobilizing energy for changereflects the essential role of motivation at all threelevels, individual, group, andorganization, addressedin the empirical literature. Research literature largelysupports the role of active behavior as a means ofexpressing employee agency, providing input, and instimulating new learnings and experiences in thework environment. Employees’ participation in-dividually or in a group (Eby et al., 2000) has beenargued to increase employees’ readiness to acceptchange. The early work by Coch and French (1948)demonstrated that involving employees in the changeprocess reduced resistance to change. Wagner (1994)underscored the centrality of information acquisitionand sharing in the context of participation, allowingpeople togainnew informationand feedback fromtheenvironment as they actively engage in autonomy-expressing behavior. Nurick (1982: 418) definedparticipation as the “perceived influence a given in-dividual may exert within a particular decision do-main.” Participation also may enhance employeechange-related abilities as it can increase the em-ployee’s sense of self-efficacy (Latham, Winters, &Locke, 1994).Wenote, however, that at the individuallevel, participation in change has inconsistent effectson commitment to change but appears more likely topromote positive attitudes when it occurs in thecontext of procedural justice (Oreg et al., 2011). Voice(as an element of procedural justice) especially ismentioned by Hiatt (2006) who emphasized the pos-sibility for employees to voice their opinion duringthe change process. Voice indeed has been shown tobe a valuable element in encouraging employee co-operation (Tyler & Blader, 2003). Dutton, Ashford,O’Neil, and Lawrence (2001) showed that managersuse influence tactics to bring up issues by providingemployees with data in a logical structure, as well asrepeating the issue many times. The authors also re-port that managers present changes as incrementalrather than as a full package in tounpack large changeoperations in smaller segments, which the authorsargue is more likely to create acceptance. However,the effectiveness of these strategies is less clear. Theliterature seems to dispute Judson (who stated that ifresistance is based on economic motives, then re-wards should be given) on the fact that attaching is-sues to already agreed on and valuable goals is morelikely to be successful for issue selling.

Empowering others to act gets at the importance ofexpanding change-related action beyond the lead-ership of the organization and may reflect the im-portance of bottom/up processes and proactivityunderscored by the empirical literature. Research


highlights the value of managerial efforts to supportbottom/up initiatives where an environment is cre-ated that encourages individuals to take initiativeand proactively initiate local changes (e.g., takingcharge, Morrison & Phelps, 1999, or job crafting,Wrzesniewski&Dutton,2001). In aquasi-experimentalfield study, Demerouti, Xanthopoulou, Petrou, andKaragkounis (2017) showed that training employeesto self-set job crafting goals predicted openness tochange. In fact, in his work with change processes atHarwood, it was Kurt Lewin’s conviction that thecontext needed to facilitate the change rather thanthe mere communication of change (Burnes, 2015),particularly in terms of creating opportunities fornew behavior. Employee control permits moreadaptive responses to the uncertainty organizationalchange generates (Bordia, Hobman, Jones, Gallois, &Callan, 2004). Energy may be mobilized by invitingindividuals to address local problems they identifyand to encourage such initiative in the context ofgroups and teams. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 work engagement interventions,Knight, Patterson, and Dawson (2017) find that in-terventions focused at the group-level rather than atthe individual were more effective, although effectswere small.

Develop and Promote Change-Related Knowledgeand Ability

Effective change typically involves learning newskills and knowledge. Developing knowledge andability related to the change emphases the learningaspects of organizational change and can be relatedto both understanding the vision and how to practicenew behaviors the change motivates. Of our sevenprescriptive approaches, however, only Hiatt (2006)specifies a change step for learning and knowledge[Kotter (1996) touches on learning indirectly in hisstep to empower others to act]. Both Hiatt (2006) andKotter (1996) argue that even employees who aremotivated to change can lack sufficient knowledgeor ability to do so. Learning is enabled by receivingsufficient support (Beer et al., 1990) and resources(Hiatt, 2006) to be able to implement change. In thatcontext, Beer argues that a key managerial role maybe to provide support so that employees can actautonomously and proactively.

In Hiatt’s framework, using new skills andknowledge is facilitated by removing barriers to theirapplication. Hiatt (2006) calls attention to potential“psychological blocks” employees may face whenthe new knowledge is not compatible with their

roles. He cites the example of a fire fighterwhohad toobtain a medical technician certification, but whenbeing called for his first severe road accident, hefroze and was unable to act. Organizations, hence,should make sure employees are psychologicallyready to develop and apply required new skills. Atthe same time, possessing new knowledge or skill isnot the same as being proficient in performance ofnew behaviors. Knowledge can be further developedthrough training, workshops (e.g., with exercises),coaching, or user groups. Yet,managers need to havethe specific expertise to be a good coach.An importantelement even though is that the environment shouldbe psychologically safe to make mistakes and learnfrom them. Hence, managers should be helpful toemployees and ask for feedback to assess how theyare progressing in the development of their abilities.Moreover, employees should have sufficient time todevelop new skills and knowledge, which would giveHRanimportant role in thisdevelopment (Hiatt, 2006).

Disputes.How that knowledge should be obtainedis not clear across models. The prescriptive modelspay little attention to how andwhen learning shouldoccur.

Scientific evidence. Developing knowledge andability related to the change emphases the impor-tance of learning to successful change and is relatedto both understanding the vision and being moti-vated to change. A critical factor in the TPB (Ajzen,1991) is having the requisite ability to engage innew behavior. In individual-level change, ability isa relatively early focus in planned change efforts,whereas in organizational change it often comes laterin the process. Research on learning related to orga-nizational change suggests that the uncertaintiesassociated with change can hamper both learningand the motivation to accept change. Perceived un-certainty makes it more difficult to store, retrieve,and put to use new information (Schechter &Qadach, 2012), whereas learning leads to self-efficacy, which itself is related to change motiva-tion (Kao, 2017). Effectively involving change,recipients in learning can include receiving theirsuggestions for learning, supporting individuallearning opportunities, and surfacing problemsarising in the course of learning (Valleala, Herranen,Collin, & Paloniemi, 2015). Finally, a set of studiesby Edmondson et al. (Edmondson, 1999, 2002;Edmondson, Bohmer, & Pisano, 2001) highlight theimportance of support for team learning as a keymechanism in promoting the uptake of change, in-cluding implementation of new technology andnew practices. Support includes gaining member


commitment by enrolling them in training, leadermodeling of new behavior, practice sessions, andearly trials to build psychological safety regardingnew behaviors.

Identify Short-Term Wins and Use asReinforcement of Change Progress

The change models reviewed here support theimportance of conveying a sense of progress, forexample, by explicating successes the change hasbrought. For the success of the change to be apparent,clear goals and objectives need to be specified. Evi-dence of progress should be clearly communicatedand visible to many, conveyed in a way that re-inforces the change vision (Hiatt, 2006; Kotter, 1996,2012). Kotter uses the term short-term wins, to referto the setting of short-term goals whose accom-plishment can create a sense of accomplishmentand progress toward longer term change objectives.These short-term goals need to be meaningful toemployees, else they might be disregarded. Such“short-term wins” should be achieved within one ortwo years after the start of the change (Kotter, 2005).These wins could be increased in productivity orcustomer satisfaction and new production facilitiesor offices which are celebrated. Kotter (1996) statesthat short-termwins not only positively reinforce thechange coalition’s efforts but also demonstrate thatthe vision can be practically implemented. At thesame time, short-term wins help convince thosemembers cynical about the change that it is viable.

Disputes. Only Kotter focuses on short-term out-comes,Hiatt speaks of progress indicators and otherssay little in this regard. The key issue we see iswhether short-term outcomes are change-enhancingactivities in themselves, as in the case of progressmade in customer satisfaction as an indicator of im-proved service quality. By contrast, an emphasis onshort-term financial outcomes may cause other lesseasily monetized activities such as learning or im-proved communication to be given short shrift.

Scientific evidence. Research findings under-score the importance of the kinds of indicators usedas signs of progress. For example, short-term resultsthat come at the sacrifice of long-term investmentsfor future success can give a false reading of changeprogress and even undermine change-related activ-ities. Two key issues from the scientific literaturehave to do with the kinds of indicators that changerecipientswill see as important and valuable and thekindsofmetrics that are indicative of futureprogress.Metrics that indicate change over time in important

outcomes employees value, fromhealth and safety topatient or client satisfaction, may be more salientthan metrics attractive to management, such as fi-nancial indicators. It can be important in change tofocus on learning new skills and putting the changeinplace before actuallymeasuring change outcomes;thus, relevant metrics may pertain to learning (Seijts& Latham, 2005) and implementation (Goodman,2000). Thus, for example, metrics that reflect prog-ress on important change mechanisms such aslearning (mastery of change-related knowledge,skills, and abilities), information sharing (percentageof employees serving on committees with othersoutside their department), and extent of employeecontributions to organizational improvement (#ideas/employee vs #ideas/year) may serve as leadindicators for outcomes that take a longer time tomanifest (e.g., innovation, coordination effective-ness) (Malina & Selto, 2001; Reiman & Pietikainen,2012).

Monitor and Strengthen the Change Processover Time

Models widely agree on the need to sustain atten-tion tomanaging the change. This entails continuingto invest resources (leader time and effort, staffing,and money) in the change process to remind peopleof the urgent character of the change and keep thepace moving (Kotter, 2012). Similarly, Hiatt (2006)argues for a continuous reinforcement of the changeso that people are encouraged to sustain change-related behavior. Kotter (1996) advises top manage-ment to continue focusing on the change vision andits urgency, whereas middle management and em-ployees keep working on specific projects that thechange requires.

A second aspect of sustained attention is themonitoring and strengthening of the change processby making adjustments in change plans as needed(Beer et al., 1990). This can include the modificationof initial change plans to increase the odds of re-alizing objectives (Judson, 1991). Making adjust-ments also pertains to consolidating gains to furtherthe change effort (Kotter, 1996). This might entailadopting additional changes not identified in theinitial change effort which are subsequently un-derstood to be misaligned with the change vision.Here, new project teams could be implemented torestructure current structures, systems, and pro-cedures to better reinforce the change.

The activities involved in monitoring and adjust-ing change progress should be shared among both


the guiding coalition and other important stake-holders. The monitoring can be informed by regularemployee surveys to identify how employees arereacting to the changes. Planning teams can beformed based on the challenges that the monitoringresults bring to light to tackle these effectively. Thiscan entail revising the change focus over time toaddress apparent structural or systemic features notwell aligned with the change (Kotter, 2005). Thesesubsequent implementation activities can also entailrevising change plans as new barriers are recognizedor opportunities to reinforce positive factors emerge(Judson, 1991; Kanter et al., 1992). The coalition canalso examine howchangehas been carried out acrossdifferent sites to capture change lessons.

Disputes. Only Beer (1980) calls attention to theneed for ongoing auditing or explicit monitoring ofthe change process over time, providing feedback asto progress and opportunity to identify needed cor-rections and course changes (Beer et al., 1990).

Scientific evidence. Research findings tend tosupport Beer’s advice. Failure to provide sufficientand appropriate resources undermines changeimplementation (Buchanan, 2011; Wiedner, Barrett,& Oborn, 2017) and ongoing monitoring andstrengthening of the change is critical to support thechange process (Cummings & Worley, 2009). Attimes, the stress of change may require suspendinginternal demands to promote more effective re-orientation after change interventions (Sastry, 1997),a change support that can only come when changeleaders are aware of the capacities and challenges ofthe organization in the face of change. At the sametime, well-timed adjustment to the changes imple-mented can improve their effectiveness by reducingstress and increasing change recipient sense of con-trol (Dirks, Cummings, & Pierce, 1996). The absenceof feedback makes improvements (via informed ad-justments) difficult (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Neubert,1998). At the same time, Nadler (1976) notes thatfeedback effects depend on the strategies used torespond to it (e.g., how managers use and react tofeedback).

Institutionalize Change in Company Culture,Practices, and Management Succession

The final step is incorporating the change in day-to-day activities (Beer et al., 1990; Kanter et al., 1992;Kotter, 2005, 2012). Two aspects are key according toKotter (2005). First, making it explicit to employeesthat performance has improved because of thechange. Explaining the results of the change using

multiple communication channels helps employeesto see the added benefit and support the credibilityand legitimacy of the changes now in place. Beer(1980), Judson (1991), and Kanter et al. (1992) alsofocus on the quantification (Kanter et al. refer to“routine data collection”) of change results to makeits outcomes visible and to see whether its intendedobjectives were met. These authors suggest thatmanagers might interview employees or organizefocus groups to gather this information. Second, topmanagement (Kotter, 2005) but also middle man-agement (Beer, 1980) succession should be consis-tent with the change vision and the behavior thatderives from it. If future (top) management does notembrace the behaviors or focus that have beenimplemented, change efforts are in vein. This alsostresses the importance of involving the board ofdirectors in the change process to ensure the changevision for management succession is taken intoaccount.

Disputes. Models largely agree as to the impor-tance of institutionalizing the change by betteraligning existing structures and routines with thechange’s new practices and processes.

Scientific evidence. There is widespread aca-demic discussion of the value of institutionalizationin thought pieces and summaries of case observa-tions (Armenakis, Harris, & Felid, 1999; Goodman,Rousseau, & Church, 2004). Actual systematic em-pirical evidence of institutionalization processes ismore limited and often focused less on change per seandmore oneffects of alignment ofdisparate systemson firm performance (Chan, 2002; Zheng, Yang, &McLean, 2010). Research does highlight the role ofcreating routines embedded in the larger organiza-tion (Edmondson, 2002; Rerup & Feldman, 2011) toboth introduce and sustain change. The processeswhereby loose ends of incompatible structures andrewards are aligned with the change have receivedless attention.

Implications

The ten steps change management experts pre-scribe reveal a degree of agreement regarding activ-ities to enable organizational change interventions.At the same time, each specific framework includesother distinctive and often unique dimensions (seeTable 1). Importantly, they tend, with the exceptionof AI and Beer, to assume a top/down planningprocess. This top/down focus appears consistentwith the typical audience for the writings of theseexperts, senior executives in organizations. To some


extent, these experts do recognize the importanceof bottom/up motivation and activity on the part oflower level employees in support of change—but areless specific on how to enable or activate it. Allmodels are neutral with regard to the nature of thechange (a relocation or a merger) and for the mostpart ignore the larger history of the organization andits management with respect to change [see Beer(1980) and Hiatt (2006) for exceptions].

Our examination of the scientific evidence relativeto practitioner models suggests a fair amount ofconvergence, some more nuanced findings relativeto prescriptive claims, and a few largely unstudiedtopics. Several prescriptions are well supported, in-cluding the importance of an initial diagnosis (andavoiding inducing a crisis or extreme sense ofurgency). Moreover, the importance of changeplanning underscored by practitioner models isconsistent with evidence that planning inspiresconfidence in change leaders and that planning(i.e., rational decision making) improves outcomes.However, the nature of change planning processes(Which activities? How sequenced?) has receivedonly limited attention in the models reviewed here.The prescription to empower others is well sup-ported by scientific research, which highlights bothtop/down and bottom/up approaches to doing so.The prescription to develop change-related knowl-edge, skills, and ability is supported by researchhighlighting the importance of learning in change.Advice to engage in ongoing monitoring andstrengthening of the change process is also sup-ported by research on the value of feedback andknowledge of results for improving performance.At the same time, the prescription to institutional-ize the change by aligning structures and systemswith the newly introduced practices and processesis understudied, although findings tend to besupportive.

More mixed is the research support for a focus onshort-term results because the indicators that mightcreate a sense of progress among change recipientsappear to be more nuanced from the perspective ofthe scientific literature on metrics and outcomesmeasures. Although the importance of a compellingvision is the consensus view among practitionermodels, there is little research on its attributes, suchas the degree of challenge, domain of focus, andrelative emphasis on employee vs organizationalneeds. On the other hand, scientific evidence sup-ports the criticality of vision communication, a mul-tifaceted process all models advise, particularly interms of the other messages in which the vision is

embedded and the degree of trust and fairness per-ceptions these messages generate.

One prescription receiving scant scholarly atten-tion is the central role practitioner models assign toa guiding coalition. This is particularly the case withregard to the appropriate composition of a coalitionoverseeing change or the kinds of tasks to assign it.The absence of research on guiding coalitions is notevidence of their irrelevance, but at the same time,we cannot rule out the value of broader participationamong employees and managers.

Having examined the link between change man-agement prescriptions and the research literature,we now turn to the change management practicesand processes identified in the scientific literaturewith the goal of gaining insights to enhance our un-derstanding of planned organizational change.

INSIGHTS FROM THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATUREON CHANGE MANAGEMENT

The typical outcomes focused on in the empiricalliterature on organizational change largely focus on(1) employee commitment to change (Oreg et al.,2011) and (2) uptake and use of new organizationalpractices, and relatedly the attainment of desiredorganizational effects (Wensing et al., 2006). Wesought to make sense of the factors related to changeacceptance, uptake, and organizational outcomes.Based on findings from the empirical literature wereviewed: (1) micro studies of individuals, particu-larly change recipients, (2) meso studies of interper-sonal, group, and intergroup phenomena, and (3)macro studies of organizational-level phenomena.

Micro: Individual-Level Findings RegardingChange Recipients

Although wide variation and inconsistency inmeasures used to assess individual-level outcomes isnoted, the review of quantitative studies conductedby Oreg et al. (2011) highlights the centrality of theoutcome employee commitment to change. As wasthe case in early research on commitment in orga-nizations (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990), empirical studiesfocus considerable attention on the individual dif-ferences that serve as antecedents to commitment toand acceptance of change (Oreg et al., 2011), a factorlargely ignored in the prescriptive literature wereviewed. Individual differences as contributors tochange commitment highlight two important dy-namics, an individual’s self-perceived ability or po-tential to engage successfully in change and his or


her personal preference for change experiences.Even though organizations may select members forcertain traits, dispositional factorsmay be somewhathard to change. However, micro studies report nu-merous instances where individual’s self-perceivedability and personal preference to change are af-fected by organizational practices, the matter towhich we next turn.

Predispositions toward change. Several individ-ual traits have been found to predispose employeesto respond to change with positive emotions andaffective commitment to the change itself. Examplesinclude dispositional employability (Fugate &Kinicki, 2008), the inclination toward being flexi-ble and adaptive (Hornung & Rousseau, 2007), tol-erance for uncertainty (Ashford, 1988), and a generalpredisposition referred to as positive change orien-tation or change self-efficacy (Fugate, Prussia, &Kinicki, 2012; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Further-more, employee optimism (Armstrong-Stassen,1994; Scheck & Kinicki, 2000) and the extent in-dividuals feel they can control the change (Nelson,Cooper, & Jackson, 1995) are shown to elevate em-ployees’ readiness to adopt change. Employeesmoreopen to change tend to show more adaptive perfor-mance and those who felt more efficacious showeda stronger proactive performance during the change(Griffin et al., 2010). Last, the effects of a pre-disposition toward self-efficacy can be more impor-tant to employee commitment to change when theorganization is underlying numerous simultaneousandoverlapping changes (Herold, Fedor,&Caldwell,2007).

Importantly, the predispositions change recipi-ents manifest may to some extent be a function ofsettings in which they work—for example, becauseof the degree of workplace autonomy and the controlindividuals can assert in their jobs (Frese, Garst, &Fay, 2007; Hornung & Rousseau, 2007; Parker,Williams, & Turner, 2006). Indeed, general individ-ual predispositions, especially those based on ex-periences on the job, can be indicative of theorganization’s overall readiness for change.

Dispositional resistance, a tendency to rejectchange, has been found to be negatively related toattitudes toward change (Soenen, Melkonian, &Ambrose, 2017). Fugate, Prussia, and Kinicki(2012) suggest that these change-related disposi-tions reflect the degree of self-threat associatedwith change. Self-efficacy is related to enhancedproblem-focused coping during a merger allowingindividuals to reduce their experience of threat(Amiot et al., 2006). Prescriptive models of change

give little attention to ways of reducing the threatexperienced by employees. Indeed, both Lewin(1948) and Kotter (1996) advocate creating a strongsense of urgency but remain largely silent on howone might cultivate employee adaptability in faceof change.

Affecting recipient motivation. Several factorsare found to be fundamental to recipients’ motiva-tion to change. The first is the perceived favorable-ness of the change. Favorableness is related tochange acceptance, reflecting an individual’s beliefsin anticipated benefits from the change. Importantly,anticipated or current changes are often associatedwith perceived losses on the part of change re-cipients (Ashford, 1988; Michela & Vena, 2012),making the balance of gains and losses, and theemotions it generates, a potentially important fac-tor in motivating change recipient acceptance(Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph, & Depalma, 2006).There are indications that change interventions thatwork toprovidebenefits (e.g., supports and rewards),and mitigate losses (e.g., offsetting losses with addi-tional resources such as involvement to reduce un-certainty and increase control) can increase changeacceptance (Soenen et al., 2017). Research as cited inour aforementioned discussion of vision highlightsthat if employees believe they understand the reasonfor a change and consider that reason meaningful,they tend to have a more favorable attitude to thechange (Lau & Woodman, 1995; Rousseau &Tijoriwala, 1999).

Importantly, the overall level of employee com-mitment to the organization itself appears to facili-tate change acceptance (Iverson, 1996). Employeecommitment to change is related to the support theirmanagers provide them for change implementation(Meyer, Srinivas, Lal, & Topolnytsky, 2007). Com-mitment may overlap the dimension of change re-cipient trust in leaders, which prescriptive modelsalso underscore as important (Hiatt, 2006; Kotter,2005). Employee commitment to change is related tothe support their managers provide for changeimplementation (Meyer et al., 2007). In shapingchange commitment, the extent to which changerecipients believe that a change is a benefit (ora harm) interacts with the change’s magnitude (sizeof effect on the organization or unit) and the nature ofthe effect on individuals’ job (Herold et al., 2007).Similarly, changes in the extent to which the in-dividual’s self-perceptions fit with the work envi-ronment are related to experiences in the changeprocess (such as Meyer et al., 2007), the extent ofchange, and certain change-related individual


differences (such as mastery orientation; Caldwell,Herold, & Fedor, 2004).

Stress is widespread in the experience of changerecipients (Ashford, 1988; Dahl, 2011; Schweiger &DeNisi, 1991). Thus, empirical research calls atten-tion to the importance of stress triggers, including thenegative appraisal of a change’s implications, re-ducing the recipients’ sense of control (Fugate &Kinicki, 2008). Change is often considered a sourceof harm or of frustration to individual goal attain-ment. Additional support that organizational changeis accompanied by harm and the lack of goal attain-ment is illustrated by the fact that change often elicitsnegative emotions such as fear (Ashford, 1988;Mirvis, 1985; Rafferty & Griffin, 2006; Robinson &Griffiths, 2005), indicative of perceived anticipationof negative outcomes and limited control (Lazarus &Folkman, 1984). Recipients are more likely to let goof the status quo and react less negatively if they seechange as inevitable (Laurin, Kay, & Fitzsimons,2012); however, theymaybemore likely toholdon tothe status quo if they feel the threat is external toprotect current established systems (Proudfoot &Kay, 2014).

Perceptions of fairness. Fairness beliefs are im-portant in implementing change both in terms ofacceptance and perceived efficacy (Daly & Geyer,1994) as well as change commitment (Bernerth,Armenakis, Field, & Walker, 2007). We note thatsome prescriptive models refer to the importance offairness in the change process (Hiatt, 2006; Kanteret al., 1992; Kotter, 1996) but are vague regarding theforms fairness should change. Rodell and Colquitt(2009), for example, showed that interpersonaljustice (e.g., employees’ perceptions of respectfultreatment by supervisors) was especially importantto change reactions. Still, they suggest that the typeoffairness reactions might well depend on the avail-able information. If information is available on howrespectfully theywere treated (i.e., interpersonal justice)or whether they were allowed to voice concerns(i.e., procedural justice), such forms might be moresalient.

Employees also appear to rely on anticipatoryjustice beliefs to shape their current justice percep-tions. Fairness anticipation is especially relevant ifemployees feel there is high uncertainty about thechange they experience and low outcome favor-ability (Rodell & Colquitt, 2009). Moreover, em-ployees can observe the fairness beliefs of theirsupervisors and incorporate them into their ownjudgments. In fact, employees are inclined to re-consider their initial anticipation on how fair the

change will be when leaders are exemplars for thechange (Soenen et al., 2017). This is consistent withresearch showing that perceptions of managers asexemplary role models are tied to employee co-operation with the change (Melkonian, Monin, &Noorderhaven, 2011). The focus on leader rolemodeling also was emphasized in several of thechange models (Beer et al., 1990; Hiatt, 2006; Kotter,1996) and has received some support based on re-search on ethical leadership (Babalola, Stouten, &Euwema, 2016; Sharif & Scandura, 2014). Given therelevance of fairness (see also Koivisto, Lipponen, &Platow, 2013) and fairness anticipation, researchseems to inform on the relevance of pre-change sur-veys to assess concerns and frustrations employeesmight experience (which underpin fairness percep-tions), so as to direct the change process to take thisinto consideration [this seems to be consistent withHiatt’s (2006), change and readiness assessment].

Identification.When employees identify with theorganization, it appears to shift their focus away fromthe outcomes of change, often viewed as negative,toward processes of change implementation (vanKnippenberg, Martin, & Tyler, 2006). In a field studyand an experimental study, van Knippenberg et al.’sresults showed that those high in organizationalidentification were more interested in whether thechange was implemented fairly and provided themopportunity to participate. By contrast, employeeslow in organizational identification were more in-terested in changeoutcomes. Identity transformationmay itself be part of the change process. Clark, Goia,Ketchen, and Thomas (2010) argued that creatinga transitional identity—which retains elements ofthe current identity but also captures elements ofthe changed state—helps employees evolve a newchange-supporting organizational identity. Socialmovement research shows that the identity frameused (e.g., by reformers) needs to match employees’beliefs (Kellogg, 2012).

Meso-Level Findings

Meso-level phenomena involve cross-level effects,such as between individuals and groups or groupsand the larger organization, where effects can be ei-ther higher to lower level (top/down) or the reverse(bottom/up).

Social ties and relationship quality. In the con-text of change, meso effects often involve the em-bedded effects of social influence and relational ties.Having the ability to implement a change has a largesocial component, whereby individual readiness


and willingness to accept change can be shaped bythe quality of relationships individuals have in theorganization and the effects of their peer’s relation-ships on them. For example, the readiness of em-ployees to change is related to the trust they have intheir peers (Soenen et al., 2017) and the support re-ceived from the larger organization (Rafferty &Simons, 2006). Importantly, in a controlled experi-ment, Lam and Schaubroeck (2000) demonstratedthat change could be more effectively promoted byidentifying key opinion leaders among a group ofpeers and training them to be change agents, an ap-proach that worked better than training randomlyselected change agents (see also Balogun, 2003).

Meso effects in change can entail the simultaneousinfluence of multiple relationships. For example,middle managers are often central nodes in the cas-cading implementation of change (Balogun, 2003).They often need to negotiate competing demands tohandle employee concerns regarding change whiledelivering positive results to higher management(Bryant &Stensaker, 2011;Valentino, 2004). Jugglingthese different roles, managers need to balance theirabilities to address the different interests of em-ployees, customers, their superiors, and themselves,while at the same time pushing the change further.

Social ties influence the appropriateness ofchoosing particular individuals as change agents.Battilana and Casciaro (2012) show that the con-nections employees have with other organizationmembers contribute to their personal adoption ofchange. Results demonstrate that employees whohave a strong connection to peers are well equippedto help endorse the change, particularly when thechange does not diverge from current systems andstructures. If the change does require a substantialdeviation from the status quo, employees with a fewquality connections with peers but lacking others(“structural holes”) are more likely to adopt changewhen they can go beyond their own network inseeking relevant information. Last, employees ap-pear to bemore responsive to changes introduced byleaders of their own group than they are to changeactivities initiated by leaders of other groups (Griffin,Rafferty, & Mason, 2004).

Emergent processes of change. Emergent pro-cesses refer to small-scale changes that can lead tohigher level effects. Research demonstrates that or-ganizational routines can be a source of emergentchange, serving as a source of both flexibility (asa target of change) and change implementation (byroutinizing new practices) (Feldman & Pentland,2003). Reay, Golden-Biddle, and Germann (2006)

describe implementation of a nurse practitionersystem in Canada through local creation of changeopportunities. Employees embedded in a team ordepartment can be well equipped to identify wherea change is hampered and take small initiatives toresolve change-related problems. In doing so, theymay initiate ways to incorporate new roles andpractices into the existing organization and demon-strate their value (Reay et al. 2006).Moreover, havingpeers who make small local improvements can leadless committed change recipients to increase theiracceptance of change, in line with the effect that di-rect experience with new routines can have on thechange acceptance of later adopters (Kim et al.,2011).

Small local changes are an important aspect ofimplementing more complex higher level changes.For example, Hornung, Rousseau, and Glaser (2008)found that when supervisors are charged with theresponsibility of approving customized work prac-tices, idiosyncratic deals (Rousseau, 2005) negoti-ated between employee and supervisor becomea vehicle for policy implementation. These negotia-tions also play a role in how managers can obtainsupport for change from their employees, by offeringindividuals particularly valuable work arrange-ments to motivate them to behave in ways that sup-port the change.

Shared goals and beliefs. The strength of agree-ment among individuals in a larger social unit is alsoameso-level process relevant to change, particularlyin the context of the effect of shared beliefs and goals.In comparison with other team-level variables suchas communication and support for innovation,shared vision has the highest impact (ten Have et al.,2016), an effect consistent with findings from meta-analyses on the positive impact group goals have ongroup performance (Hulsheger et al., 2009; O’Leary-Kelly, Martocchio, & Frink, 1994). Along these lines,Rousseau and Tijoriwala (1999) find that shared(unit-level) understandings regarding the reasonsfor change also positively affect implementation ofchange. The development of group-level shared be-liefs is an important building block of changeimplementation, capitalizing on the immediacy ofgroup influence andpower of local factors in shapingthe day-to-day work experience. Shared beliefs arecommonly related to joint interactions work groupmembers have with their managers and the devel-opment of local norms. Indeed, there may be paral-lels in change management with findings fromimplementation of human resource practices. Thatis, the intended practices that top management


believes it has introduced need to be realizedthrough the actual practices that lower level man-agers execute, resulting in the perceived practicesrank and file employees experience (Wright&Nishii,2013). Local management’s execution of new prac-tices is thus key to implementation.

The value of shared group-level beliefs in supportof change is underscored by a study of implementa-tion teams (Higgins, Weiner, & Young, 2012). Ina schooldistrict-wide changeproject, teams inwhichmembers were selected by the superintendent basedon each team’s focus provided a mechanism forimplementing instructional improvements. Coach-ing in support of team efforts along with team con-tinuity despite the coming and going of memberstogether facilitated learning and change imple-mentation. We note that this strategy of having anarray of teams throughout the organizations withsomewhat related and somewhat separate functions,a sort of “let many flowers bloom” approach, canfacilitate both local initiatives and change diffusionacross the organization (Bruch & Sattelberger, 2001).

Macro: Organization-Level Findings

Organizational characteristics themselves play arole in change processes. For example, a randomsample of public firms found that smaller organiza-tions tend to increase their rate of change when theirperformance is increasing, whereas larger firms doso when their financial performance is reduced(Bloodgood, 2006). Other organization-level factorshave been found to play a consistently powerful rolein change acceptance and results.

Leadership competency. A critical set oforganization-level factors involve employee percep-tions of their leaders. One important factor is leader-ship’s competency in implementing change (Babalolaet al., 2016; Battilana, Gilmartin, Sengul, Pache, &Alexander, 2010; Oreg et al., 2011). Management ef-fectiveness in managing change is positively relatedto implementation success (Lok et al., 2005) andnegatively related to change recipient stress (Amiotet al., 2006) and skepticism regarding the change(Stanley et al., 2005).

Research suggests there is value in having severalchange leaders working together with diverse butcomplimentary competencies (Battilana et al., 2010).Note that change leaders appear tododifferent thingsin managing a change depending on their compe-tencies. Those with task competencies appear tospend more time on mobilizing and evaluating ac-tivities, whereas those with interpersonal skills are

more likely to focus on communication activities.Similarly, the social skills of change agents cancontribute to new meanings and means for action inplanned change, for example, where change agentsare able to create new collective identities and man-aging meanings ascribed to them (Creed & Scully,2011; Fligstein, 1997). We note, however, that theliterature on change agency appears inconsistentand inconclusive regarding the skills or attributesof effective change agents (McCormack et al.,2013).

Leadership competency is linked to how wellmanagers themselves cope with change. Managerialcoping has itself been found to be related to dispo-sitional traits that fall into two factors, positive self-concept and risk tolerance (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik,& Welbourne, 1999). In this context, a strong self-concept and risk tolerance can help managers them-selves cope with their own role in change.

Trust in leaders. Trust in leaders is another cen-tral concept that accounts for employee responses tochange. Employees who can rely on and trust theirleader have been shown to be more open and readyfor change (Rafferty & Simons, 2006) andmore likelyto perceive what leaders say about the change ascredible (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999). Becausea core meaning of trust is willingness to be vulnera-ble to the intentions of another (Mayer, Schoorman,& Davis, 1995; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer,1998), the presence of trustmay contribute to severalchange-facilitating processes. Trust can help focusemployee attention on what leaders have to sayabout the change and also reduce the sense of threatthat change might bring.

The nature of the change itself. Many differentforms of planned organizational change exist andstakeholdersmaynot share the sameunderstandingswhen using the term (Marshak, 2002). The changecan be technical, social, or managerial (Greenhalgh,Robert, Macfarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004),a crosscutting aspect that can have different out-comes for the organization and its members (as hasbeen found in systematic reviews of organizationalinterventions to implement patient care improve-ments;Wensing et al., 2006). For example, work–lifeinitiatives have the potential for being a genuinebenefit to both the firm and employees (Kossek et al.,2010) that some organizational restructurings maylack (Simpson, 1998).

In complex change it can help to implementmultiple mutually reinforcing changes, which weterm “bundles,” to include critical success factors.A systematic review of QI strategies to improve


diabetes care combined 66 QI trials and found thatemploying more than one QI strategy at a time led toimproved implementation and clinician adherenceand better patient outcomes (Shojania et al., 2004).Along these same lines, a meta-analysis by Neuman,Edwards, and Raju (1989) found that multifacetedorganizational development interventions, whichcombined technostructural interventions suchas job redesign or flexitime with changes relatedto human functioning such as goal setting or train-ing, were more successful in altering employeechange-related attitudes than more narrowly fo-cused changes. Moreover, Lok et al. (2005) foundthat even bundled interventions need to be alignedwith the firm’s strategic objectives to be effective.That is, interventions that are well aligned withfirm strategy make it easier for employees to makesense of the change by helping them discern con-sistent patterns in the organization’s decision-making.

Several systematic reviews (on organization-widechanges in health-care settings) provide evidencefrom highly controlled studies regarding the effec-tiveness of specific interventions. Wensing et al.(2006) report that organizational interventions in-volving revision of professional roles generally im-provetheperformanceofprofessionals (e.g.,physicians).By contrast, interventions involving computer systemsimprove knowledge management. Patient outcomeswere generally improved by multidisciplinary teams,integrated care services, and computer systems. Costsavingswere attained from integrated care services. Thebenefits of quality management remained uncertain.These authors note that none of the specific strategiesreviewed produced consistent effects across all studies,raising issues of differences in implementation qualityand compliance, factors noted in other systematic re-views, and meta-analyses of specific interventions(Pritchard, Harrell, DiazGranados, & Guzman, 2008).Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that certain in-terventions can work better than others and affect dif-ferent outcomes.

Readiness of the organization for change. It isimportant to recognize that before a change, organi-zations differ in their overall readiness for change.For one, the general level of employee commitmentto the organization itself appears to facilitate changeacceptance, suggesting that a positive employee re-lations climate is valuable for organizations cop-ing with change (Iverson, 1996). Organizationalhistory is particularly implicated in the quality ofthe employee relations climate and its implica-tions for change (Bordia et al., 2011). Similarly, the

organizational factors aforementioned including trustin management and their change-related competen-cies appear important (Cinite, Duxbury, & Higgins,2009). Cunningham et al. (2002) observe that havingan active job that promotes decision-making andpersonal initiative increases employee readinessfor change. This observation is in line with the no-tion that organizations that promote the change-supporting individual-level motivations reviewedearlier to a critical mass are likely to supporta broader readiness for change. At the same time,a systematic review of the readiness literature(Weiner, Amick, & Lee, 2008) points to considerableinconsistency in frameworks for assessing readiness.Nonetheless, an important precursor of effectivechange management is likely to be how well the or-ganization and its workforce were managed beforethe change.

INTEGRATING PRESCRIPTIVE AND EMPIRICALLITERATURES ON CHANGE MANAGEMENT

Synthesizing the empirical literature on changeleads us to some general conclusions, which we willpresent in ten key evidence-based change manage-ment principles. These principles are sometimesconsistent with the prescriptive literature we havereviewed (e.g., the importance of change leadershipand communicating vision) and sometimes largelyignored (e.g., improving readiness for change and thevalue of pilot testing and experimentation). As wedescribe each, keep in mind that although someprinciples might apply earlier or later than others(e.g., diagnosis comes before implementation, whichcomes before assessing the change and its effects),most can be applied concurrently and repeatedlyover time (e.g., change leadership, vision commu-nication, and experimentation).

Get Facts Regarding the Nature of the Problem(s)—Diagnosis Step #1

A key first step is gathering facts to assist in a di-agnosis of whether change is needed. This key step,advocated by Beer and Kanter but ignored by others,involves obtaining information regarding the orga-nization, its functioning, outputs, and outcomesfrom several sources andmultiple stakeholders. Ourreview of the empirical literature suggests that twotypes of facts are important in this first key phase: (1)information to provide insight into the need forchange (Armenakis & Harris, 2009) and (2) informa-tion regarding preexisting conditions or constraints


thatmight affect implementation (Rafferty&Restubog,2017).

The “micro-level” empirical literature we re-viewed previously points to a key fact: change re-cipients and other stakeholders need to believe thatthe reasons for change are legitimate and its directionrational. Careful gathering of facts from multiplesources (metrics and qualitative information) andstakeholders (managers, employees, and customers)ensures that the underlying motive for change isbased on a good understanding of the organizationand its context—and not biased by a narrow pointof view (top management, HR, etc.). Obtaining in-formation from multiple sources also helps identifywhere important discrepancies exist between cur-rent assumptions and facts. A diagnosis can lead tonew thinking about the organization and its need forchange (Rousseau, 1996). Careful diagnosis avoidsbasing change initiatives on a poorly understoodproblem.

Assess and Address the Organization’s Readinessfor Change—Diagnosis Step #2

A related aspect of the fact-gathering phase in-volves assessing the organization’s readiness forchange, a factor identified as critical in the “macro-level” scientific literature. Readiness refers to thecapacity of the organization and its members totake on the demands effective change requires—a key principle prescriptive models tend tooverlook.

A first matter of readiness is the organization’shistory and previous change successes or failures,which shape change recipient perceptions and an-ticipations of change (Bordia et al., 2011). Historycan be generally positive where there is collectivememory of successful changes in structures, ser-vices, and capabilities, and where employees recallbeing fairly treated in the process. Change managerscan build on a positive history to maintain changestrength, potentially incorporating historical themesinto the change vision or its communication. Ifchange has been generally unsuccessful or imple-mentation was experienced as unfair, efforts need tobe taken to separate the present change from the pastand take credible actions to reduce fear and mistrust(Rafferty & Restubog, 2017).

A second matter of readiness identified in the“micro-level” scientific literature is the degree ofstress that change recipients currently face (Oreget al., 2011; Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005). Consistentwith research on the effects of stress on cognitive

bandwidth (Linden, Keijsers, Eling, & Schaijk, 2005;Meuris & Leana, 2016), change recipients strained byexisting demands are less able to respond adaptivelyto new demands and to engage in the cognitive andemotional work engaging in change requires. Thepresence of high stress can be a negative indicator forreliance on a sense of urgency as a basis for changeinitiation (Kotter, 1996).

A third matter of readiness is the capability of se-nior leadership to guide and implement change.Although change typically involves the need fortraining and development at all levels, particularlyin support of specific features of the change (de-scribed in the following paragraphs), the ability tomanage planned organizational change is likely tovary with managerial education and experience.Careful attention to the change skills of senior lead-ers is an important aspect in assessing readiness.

Identifying weakness in any of the three facets ofreadiness should be followed up by early efforts toimprove the capacity of the organization and/or itsmembers to support and implement change. Theseefforts may need to precede actual change imple-mentation or may be rolled out concurrently(Bruch & Sattelberger, 2001). The prescriptive lit-erature as we have observed is largely top/down. Itstarts from the premise that the change identifiedby senior leaders is needed and appropriate. Thus,it is largely silent on whether the planned changemakes sense given the concerns of other stake-holders. Our review of the empirical literaturesuggests wide variation in the readiness of bothorganizations and individuals to engage in change.By remedying weaknesses in the organization’sreadiness for change, an evidence-based approachto change management can help increase the oddsof success.

Implement Evidence-Based Change Interventions

Solution identification is the next step. A well-conducted diagnosis identifies the kind(s) of changeneeded andways to improve readiness. As shown inour review of the “macro-level” literature on thenature of the change, the specific changes put inplace affect the results attained (Neuman et al., 2006;Shojania et al., 2004). Prescriptivemodels are largelysilent onhow to identify appropriate interventions toaddress the problems found in diagnosis. However,based on the empirical literature and research onevidence-based practice (Barends & Rousseau, 2018;Sackett et al., 2002), we advise that three sources ofevidence be sought to identify appropriate solutions.


First, a diverse array of people inside and outside theorganization who are experienced with the prob-lem can help identify plausible solutions. Second,stakeholders, including affected employees andmanagers, are important sources of informationabout possible solutions and may be able to test al-ternatives to see what might work. Third, scientificevidence may exist on the likely benefits (and risks)of specific kinds of change and how to effectivelyimplement it. Scientific evidence canbeobtainedviagoogle scholar and other online research databasesgiving access to peer-reviewed journals. We suggestspecial attention be given to systematic reviews andmeta-analysis of particular interventions. Keep inmind that many changes require a combinationof interventions to be effective rather than a singlechange (Dutton et al., 2001; Neumann et al., 2006;Shojania et al., 2004). Practitioners should keep inmind that some change interventions work betterthan others andmanywork best in combinationwithsupporting interventions (e.g., intervention teamsappear towork betterwith coaching support,Higginset al., 2012).

Empirical research highlights the importance ofinterventions that develop change-related skills, of-fer rewards and incentives to motivate change, andprovide opportunities to practice change activities insupportive environments (Bos-Nehles et al., 2017;Marin-Garcia & Tomas, 2016). Relatedly, researchsuggests the value of using a set of mutually rein-forcing interventions (Neuman et al., 2006), alignedwith strategic objectives to help employees makesense of the change (Lok et al., 2005).

Intervention compliance also can matter, whensuccess depends on fully implementing key aspectsof a targeted change (Pritchard et al., 2008). There isa real danger in change effortswherewhat is actuallyadopted is the “label” but not the essential practicesthat underpin a particular intervention. For exam-ple, incentive systems that purport to build team-work but actually incentivize only individualperformance reflect the classic “Folly of RewardingA while Hoping for B” (Kerr, 1975, 1995). A betterapproach is to adhere to an evidence-basedprocess.For example, many interventions that attempt toalter behavior require adherence to specific prac-tices, including effective communication and per-suasion, setting clear and motivating change goals,increasing skills, modeling appropriate behavior,and providing appropriate planning and socialsupport (Hardeman, Johnston, Johnston, Bonetti,Wareham, & Kinmonth, 2002; Pritchard et al.,2008).

Develop Effective Change Leadership Throughoutthe Organization

Leaders play a central role in change. The “micro-and macro-level” scientific literature we reviewedpreviously calls attention to the roles played byleadership at multiple levels of the organization,including senior leaders, mid-level managers, andinfluential employees at lower levels, all of whomcan serve as change agents and role models. Individ-ual leaders who are trustworthy, supportive, honest,and transparent about the nature of the change andfuture plans are likely to effectively create a psycho-logically safe environment where there is room forvoice, mistakes, and learning.

Effective change requires training and developingexisting leaders in change-related skills (see Bruch &Sattelberger, 2001) with a focus both on how to dealwith change themselves and how to effectively man-age change from the perspective of their employees.Despite the general optimism of prescriptive modelsregarding the readiness and competence of leaders toimplement change, the empirical research indicatesthat leaders often struggle to reconcile the differentdemands change brings (Bryant & Stensaker, 2011).Top and middle managers can play different roles inchange andneed to beprepared for the varied activitiesinvolved in initiation and execution (Heyden, Fourne,Koene, Werkman, & Ansari, 2017). Relatedly, internalchange agent competency needs to be built and notassumed (Lam & Schaubroeck, 2000). Change leadersworking together with complementary competenciesand roles have been shown to be valuable (Battilanaet al., 2010).

Develop and Communicate a CompellingChange Vision

Theprescriptive and academic literatures stronglyagree on the importance of articulating a compellingchange vision (see the aforementioned managerialprescriptions #3 and #4 and the research evidencewe cite). What is still unclear, however, is whatcontentor featuresmake a compelling changevision.Advice often seems contradictory, from making thevision broad and appealing to being specific aboutthe roles employees play. What is clear from theempirical literature is that stakeholder perspectivesmatter to the content of an effective vision. In for-mulating a compelling vision, information fromstakeholder groups (e.g., employees, managers, andclients) can be gathered to help identify motivatingfeatures. Vision must reflect a goal that can bebroadly shared. A vision of improved shareholder


value, for example, might only appeal to those whohold stock in the company, whereas a vision ofquality service might have broader appeal. The“meso-level” scientific literature previously offersthat shared goals (Kleingeld et al., 2011) and positivebeliefs about the reasons for change that are inline with the vision (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999)improve the likelihood of successful changeimplementation.

More agreement exists on the process of commu-nicating vision. Prescriptive models emphasizeconsistently communicating the change visionthrough multiple channels (media, meetings, one-on-one, etc.). Research also supports the value ofa vision communication process based on (1) repe-tition and (2) quality evidence to convey a logicalstructure (e.g., by presenting specific numbers de-rived from change data; Dutton et al., 2001). How-ever, where stakeholders incur losses from thechange (e.g., job loss), it is less clear how to createa shared vision. Explanations that help change re-cipients to understand the reasons for the change canenhance their positive reactions (Bies &Moag, 1986).

Last, we note that although prescriptive modelsdiffer in the extent that they advise creating a sense ofurgency to motivate change, research does not sup-port urgency as a tactic (Staw et al., 1981). Consistentwith Hiatt (2006), urgency if overused can also un-dermine change credibility.

Work with Social Networks and Tap TheirInfluence

Social networks play a critical role in influencingchange, as demonstrated in the “meso-level” scien-tific literature previously, but prescriptive modelslargely overlook them. First, change agent efficacyderives not only from personal skills but also fromthe network ties the individual has (Battilana &Casciaro, 2012; Lam & Schaubroeck, 2000). The at-tachment of individuals to their team or professionalgroup (e.g., physicians, nurses, and academics)leaves them open to influence by that group (Ferlie,Fitzgerald,Wood, &Hawkins, 2005). From a changemanagement perspective, individuals in highlycohesive teams are likely to be more swayed byappeals directed to the team and by change effortsthat engage the team as a whole than to efforts dis-connected from their team. Finally, relational ties topotentially influential organization members whosupport the change can be important ways to cooptfence sitters who remain resistant (Battilana &Casciaro, 2013).

Use Enabling Practices to Support Implementation

A set of enabling processes are useful in support-ing a variety of change interventions. They can sup-port the initial rollout of complex change and overtime can be used to help the change progress.

Goal setting. Specifying individual, unit, and or-ganizational change-related goals is critical for re-alizing change, addressing fundamental motivationissues reviewed under “micro-level” research de-scribed above. Goal setting is important to helpaddress persistent conflicting goals and missionsbetween units, lack of managerial accountability forthe change, or the possibility that some units or in-dividuals might attempt to opt out of the change(Szamosi & Duxbury, 2002). The process of settingchange-related goals at the unit and organizationallevel also helps to identify the scope and scale of thechange that is required. If the change is more com-plex, it is reasonable to set goals related to the de-velopment of competencies and then build transitionteams to oversee the steps of change. Over time, goalsetting also can be used as a basis to monitor theprogress made in the change process (step #9).

Learning.Learning plays a central role in virtuallyall change processes—despite the inconsistent at-tention given to learning by prescriptive models.Group and team-level learning requires psychologi-cally safe environments supportive of practice, ex-perimentation, and behavioral change (Edmondson,1999; Kao, 2017). In implementation design, pro-viding room for learning and skill development helpprompt greater change motivation (Kao, 2017). The“macro-level” scientific literature also points to therelevance of learning for leaders.

Employee participation. Employee participationis emphasized in both prescriptive models and“micro-level” change research. Research highlightsthe role participation plays in information sharingand obtaining feedback (Wagner, 2009). It is en-hanced by structures inwhich employees are invitedand supported to express concerns and make deci-sions. Managers need to be ready to deal with activeemployees to respond effectively to bottom/up ini-tiatives. Employees should be encouraged to addresslocal issues themselves in groups or within depart-ments (Knight et al., 2017). As change inevitablyunravels many loose ends, employees need to be sup-ported to tackle the issues they encounter day-to-day.

Fairness and justice. Interpersonal andproceduraljustice are central to enacting change success-fully (Bernerth et al., 2007; Rodell & Colquitt, 2009),a key finding in the “micro-level” research reviewed


previously. Managers need to use fair proceduresin making decisions and treat people respectfully(Melkonian et al., 2011) because they set the tone forwhat employees anticipate will be the fairness ofchange (Soenen et al., 2017).

Employees with strong organizational identifi-cation have been found to focus largely on the fair-ness of change processes and opportunities forparticipation—whereas downplaying the outcomeschange generates (van Knippenberg et al., 2006).Importantly, procedural fairness appears to en-courage formation of an organizational identity(Tyler & Blader, 2003). And in turn, identity is rel-evant in the change process (Clark et al., 2010; vanKnippenberg et al., 2006) as identification with theorganization during change may alleviate adverseresponses employees otherwise have to the burdenschange brings.

Transitional structures. A gradual process ofchange implementation can include myriad pilottests, experiments, and local initiatives, which to-gether make complex change easier to implement(Golden-Biddle, 2013). This process can involve useof transitional structures that capitalize on the flex-ibility offered by “meso-level” emergent processesreviewed previously. These are temporary arrange-ments like task forces that help oversee the changeand special projects, rules, or trials that can be usedto modify and expand the change as needed. It is notunusual for an organization to have multiple transi-tion structures at the same time, seeking to reach theentire organization and build knowledge and changecapability at all levels (Westerlund et al., 2015).Moreover, experimenting with new routines andpractices can allow for greater flexibility and op-portunity to practice new skills and roles (Feldman&Pentland, 2003).

Promote Micro-Processes and Experimentation

Small-scale or micro-processes are central to ef-fective change, as indicated in the review of “meso-level” research on emerging processes previously,allowing change recipients to provide feedback andmake local adjustments to broader change plansbased on their own experience (Reay et al., 2006).These processes entail the use of multiple small in-terventions to support learning by doing and to cre-ate test beds for identifying effective interventions,experimenting to see which change elements bringthe best results. Small-scale interventions also allowadjustment to local elements in the organization orindustry.

By contrast, to the prescriptive models’ focus onshort-term wins, the empirical literature highlightsthe notion of “small wins,”where change recipients,often at lower levels in the organization, make im-provements that inform them about the changes’potential and provide proof of concept with respectto possible benefits. In this context, the prescriptivefocus onmanagerial interestsmaybe at oddswith thechange recipients’ need for first hand experiencesandopportunities to demonstrate locallymeaningfulresults (Golden-Biddle, 2013). At the same time,change proposals often can emerge bottom/up fromemployees themselves (see also Kellogg, 2012). Akey aspect of effective change implementation maywell be leader responsiveness to egalitarian changeprocesses (Piderit, 2000). In experimentation, failureis possible and even needed to adapt and come upwith better solutions.

Assess Change Progress and Outcomes over Time

Periodic assessment is needed to determine whe-ther the planned change is producing anticipatedactivities, experiences, and outcomes, consistentthe support we found for Beer’s (1980) change pre-scription (managerial prescription #9 previously;e.g., Cummings & Worley, 2009; Kluger & DeNisi,1996). It provides feedback to gain understanding ofthe change’s effects and make improvements(Wiedner et al., 2017). It involves collecting reliablemetrics from multiple stakeholders. Yet, the metricsto assess progress may need to differ depending onthe stakeholders involved, for example, measuringthe information sharing or learning employeesdemonstrate and change-supporting activities exe-cuted by managers. For tracking change success, at-tention can be paid to changes in change commitment,competency, and efficacy over time aswell aswhetherimplementation of new practices has increased. Theseassessments provide feedback important to supportlearning and change implementation.

Institutionalize the Change to Sustain ItsEffectiveness

Sustaining change means integrating it into thelarger systems of the organization, including itsculture andmanagement systems (e.g., HR practices,power structure, and governance), consistent withthe literature cited earlier for management pre-scription #10 (N.B. this departs from the emphasismost prescriptive models place on culture becausewenote thatmanychangesdonot require fundamental


shifts in values or beliefs). A committed board canhelp make change sustainable by providing criticalresources as needed and by following a processof replacing chief executives that ensures the conti-nuity of the change (Alange & Steiber, 2009). In-corporating the change into the firm’s standardpractices promotes uptake by later adopters: Em-ployees committed to theorganization are very likelyto follow through on practices once they have be-come routine, even if they were not supportive ini-tially (Kim et al., 2011). Institutionalization also caninvolve continuing to deploy the enabling structures(step # 7). Enabling structures help to maintain newpractices as well improving their efficiency and ef-fectiveness. For example, continuing to socialize andtrain newcomers regarding the change makes it ro-bust in the face of turnover and staff mobility. And asnew practices are applied, they can be used to en-hance learning as their focus may shift from solvingreactive problems to addressing more proactive, for-ward looking opportunities (Goodman et al., 2004).

RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS

Our review also identifies several important issuesfor future research. First and foremost is the oppor-tunity to apply the TPB (Ajzen, 1991) to researchingthe multilevel factors contributing to change accep-tance and implementation (Jimmieson, Peach, &White, 2008). As Hardeman et al. (2002) havepointed out, the TPB has produced replicable find-ings with regard to individual behavioral change;and it has been useful in understanding organiza-tional changes such as the adoption and imple-mentation of evidence-based practice (Rousseau &Gunia, 2016). Key issues to test include the factorscontributing to the multilevel capability to imple-ment the change including requisite skills and sup-ports, the underlying motivational mechanismsoperating on individuals, work groups and the largerorganization during change, and the opportunities toimplement new behaviors and practices in organi-zations more effectively while removing barriers totheir use. At the same time, given the managerialnature of much of the prescriptive literature, greaterattention to employees and other stakeholders isimportant to provide balance in understandingchange’s richness and complexity. For example, todate, little systematic attention has been given tohow change recipients understand and interpret theprocess of identifying the problems motivating or-ganizational change, let alone how organizations goabout identifying their potential solutions.

As we indicated earlier, little research exists toinform understanding of the potential role of a gov-erning coalition whom practitioners devise to over-see and support the change.Weknow little regardinghow large that coalition might need to be, the basesonwhich that selection should be done, whether topmanagement should be involved, or how the co-alitions should be trained. Importantly, the issue ofchange acceptance at the level of top and middlemanagement also merits attention because much ofthe focus to date has been on lower level employees.Moreover, some evidence suggests that employeesmay respond more favorably to change initiated bytheir immediate managers than they do to top ormore distant managers (Heyden et al., 2017); thus,the role ofmiddlemanagers as change leadersmaybeparticularly important. The different stakeholders ofa planned change raise issues regarding appropriaterepresentation on the guiding coalition and in thechangemanagement process. What information fromvarious stakeholders is retainedandwhat is lost in theprocess of change planning and representation?

Further questions include what should be com-municated by whom (top management, the co-alition?) and how to integrate different stakeholdergroups and interests in the formulation of a changevision and implementation plan. As we noted pre-viously, little research has directly examined thefactors that contribute to an effective change vision,a topic scholars and practitioners agree to be of par-amount importance. In addition, researchhas tendedto focus on change preparation while giving far lessempirical attention to how to keep people motivatedand working to solve ongoing change problems overtime (for a practical treatment, see Goodman et al.,2004).

We also strongly advise the development ofsystematic reviews and meta-analyses to informevidence-based change management. By and large,the empirical literature tends to test fairly smallsegments of broader change phenomena, one reasonfor the need to integrate change-related knowledgeand assess its state. On the upside, however, despitethe conclusion of a recent systematic review oforganizational development, namely, that few well-controlled studies exist to evaluate effective organi-zational change (Barends, Janssen, ten Have, & tenHave, 2013), we found several relevant systematicreviews in the context of planned change in health-care organizations (Greenhalgh et al., 2004;Wensinget al., 2006). The latter offers considerable insightinto change management practice. These informa-tive reviews suggest considerable future benefit can


be obtained from additional systematic reviews (seeRousseau, Manning, & Denyer, 2008) on specificquestions related to change management. So, a keyrecommendation is for additional systematic re-views on change management–related topics, in-cluding specific change interventions (e.g., coaching)or change management tactics (e.g., use of social net-works in change and developing change agent com-petency). We next identify some pertinent topics forreview.

The sheer variety of the changes implementedimplies an array of potentially relevant change fea-tures (its type(s), time frame, scope, levels, etc.). Yet,the literature often focuses on general behavioralconstructs (e.g., change fairness and leadership)while ignoring potentially consequential changefeatures. Such features might form the basis ofa synthesis of multiple studies to identify howchange type, time frame, scope, etc., relate to changeprocesses and outcomes. Moreover, several changeprocesses can take place concurrently and poten-tially interact, suggesting that synthesis can be moreuseful than any single study might be to identify ef-fects associated with change features.

The presence of systematic reviews on specifickinds of change suggests us that there is value inpaying attention to the nature of the planned change.First, there is the temporal nature of the change,whether it is ongoing as in the case of ongoing ad-aptations or prolonged transformations versus a one-time stand-alone adjustment. Second, there is theissue of scope, where the change affectsmany aspectsof the organization or unit (decision-making, report-ing structures, reward systems, etc.) or only one.Changes of broad scope are more likely to be disrup-tive of the status quo and require more careful man-agement of the change process, whereas narrowchange may be applied in a more accommodativefashion that limits disturbances to the status quo(Rousseau, 1995). Third, changes vary in scale fromorganization-wide interventions to more localizedones in a single department or work unit. The pre-scriptive literature largely ignores the kinds of changeinvolved, but we suspect that there are opportunitiesfor systematically reviewing studies according totheir temporal, scope, or scale dimensions to identifypatterns that can inform change practice and theory.

Last, we note that less recognized alternative changemodels also may merit attention in subsequentreviews, includingTichyandDeVanna’s (1986)Three-Act-Drama, Tushman and Romanelli’s (1985) punc-tuatedequilibrium,andLippitt,Watson, andWestley’s(1958) planned change. More recently, a promising

alternative to change management practice is the iter-ative change process described by Reay et al. (2006).

Implications for Practice

The present article affirms what others have rec-ognized (Appelbaum et al., 2012), the need for fur-ther translation of scientific and practitioner-basedmodels of change implementation to help changemanagers more effectively implement plannedchange. Regardless of the strength of the evidencebehind the principles we identify, change practi-tioners still need to adapt the advice to the situationsthey face. What constitutes a compelling vision forone organization or group of people may be irrele-vant to others. Having top management as keychange agents may be appropriate in small local or-ganizations in a stable environment and difficult ina large multinational organization in a turbulentenvironment. As such, we urge practitioners to taketime for deliberation, reflection, and experimenta-tion as they approach planned change, recognizingthat all evidence-based principles are likely to re-quire some local adaptation and adjustment. Pilottesting and experimentation can be essential toidentifyinghowbest to apply evidence-based changeprinciples, taking into account the capabilities of theorganization’s leaders and employees and needs ofits clients and other stakeholders.

We call attention to the centrality of goals inexplaining human behavior and in understandingchange implementation. Ultimately, change practi-tioners should seek to align individual, work group,and organizational goals in the context of change. Aswe noted previously, the most widely used pre-scriptive change advice often gives short shrift to theweb of behavioral processes involved at the micro,meso, and macro levels. Research findings un-derscore that effective change serves the goals ofmultiple stakeholders and is particularly likely toarise when it helps them meet important needs theyhold in common (e.g., opportunity, security, growth,and financial well-being). Organizational change islikely to be more readily implemented when it tar-gets multiple stakeholder needs in its goals and in-terventions. It is widely noted that organizationalchanges are often at odds with psychological con-tracts, that is, employee beliefs regarding what theyowe and are owed in return by the organization,giving rise to the common employee experience ofviolation in the implementation of change (Bellou,2007; Kickul, Lester, & Finkl, 2002). In this regard,attention to the goals of employees and the employer


offers a fresh perspective on ways to engender ac-ceptance and support for change—and may make itpossible for the psychological contract to remainintact (Rousseau, Hansen, & Tomprou, 2018).

Last, but not the least, there is little evidenceregarding the appropriate speed with whichchange should be implemented—and even pre-scriptive models do not agree. Practitioners shouldnot make assumptions about “the right speed.”Instead, we advise that you pay attention to howwell the necessary processes of change are beingimplemented.

CONCLUSION

At present, practicing managers appear to makelittle use of available scientific evidence in makingdecisions or changing their organizational practices(Barends et al., 2017), despite concurrent evidenceof their interest in doing so—if findings and theirimplications are clear. Our goal in writing this ar-ticle has been to promote the ability of practitioners,educators, and scholars to better appreciate andaccess the available knowledge base regarding or-ganizational change—and to recognize what re-mains unknown or untested. In doing so, we havehighlighted well-supported change practices thatcan help enhance both organizational and employeewell-being in a worldwhere change is commonplace.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organiza-tional Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50:179–211.

Alange, S., & Steiber, A. 2009. The board’s role in sus-taining major organizational change: An empiricalanalysis of three change programs. InternationalJournal ofQuality andService Sciences, 1: 280–293.

Amiot, C. E., Terry, D. J., Jimmieson, N. L., & Callan, V. J.2006.A longitudinal investigation of coping processesduring a merger: Implications for job satisfaction andorganizational identification. Journal of Manage-ment, 32: 552–574.

Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J. L., & Shafiq, H.2012. Back to the future: Revisiting Kotter’s 1996change model. Journal of Management Develop-ment, 31: 764–782.

Armenakis, A., & Harris, S. G. 2009. Reflections: OurJourney in organizational change research and prac-tice. Journal of Change Management, 9: 127–142.

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Feild, H. S. 1999.Makingchange permanent: A model for institutionalizing

changeinterventions. InW.A.Pasmore&R.W.Woodman(Eds.), Research in organizational change and devel-opment, vol. 12: 97–128. New York: JAI Press.

Armstrong-Stassen, M. 1994. Coping with transition: Astudy of layoff survivors. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 15: 597–621.

Ashford, S. J. 1988. Individual strategies for coping withstress during organizational transitions. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 24: 19–36.

Astor, T., Morales, M., Kiefer, D., & Repenning, N. 2016.What problem are you trying to solve: An introduc-tion to structured problem solving. MIT Report.http://mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents/?DocumentID52450.

Babalola, M. T., Stouten, J., & Euwema, M. 2016. Frequentchange and turnover intention: Themoderating role ofethical leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 134:311–322.

Balogun, J. 2003. From blaming the middle to harnessingits potential: Creating change intermediaries. BritishJournal of Management, 14: 69–83.

Bamford, D., & Daniel, S. 2005. A case study of changemanagement effectiveness within the NHS. Journalof Change Management, 5: 391–406.

Barends, E., Janssen, B., ten Have, W., & ten Have, S. 2013.Effects of change interventions:What kindof evidencedo we really have? Journal of Applied BehavioralScience, 50: 28–33.

Barends, E., & Rousseau, D. M. 2018. Evidence-basedmanagement: How to use evidence to make betterorganizational decisions. London: Kogan Page.

Barends, E., Villanueva, J., Rousseau, D. M., Briner, R. B.,Jepsen, D. M., Houghton, E., & ten Have, S. 2017.Managerial attitudes and perceived barriers regardingevidence-based practice: An international survey.PLoS One, 12: e0184594.

Bartunek, J.M.,Rousseau,D.M,Rudolph, J.,&Depalma, J.2006.On the receiving end: Sensemaking, emotion, and assess-ments of an organizational change initiated by others.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42: 182–206.

Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. 2012. Change agents, net-works, and institutions: A contingency theory of orga-nizational change. Academy of Management Journal,55: 381–398.

Battilana, J., & Casciaro, T. 2013. Overcoming resistanceto organizational change: Strong ties and affectivecooptation. Management Science, 59: 819–836.

Battilana, J., Gilmartin, M., Sengul, M., Pache, A. C., &Alexander, J. A. 2010. Leadership competencies forimplementing planned organizational change. Lead-ership Quarterly, 21: 422–438.


http://mitsloan.mit.edu/shared/ods/documents/?DocumentID&tnqh_x003D;2450



Baum, J. R., Locke, E. A., & Kirkpatrick, S. A. 1998. Alongitudinal study of the relation of vision and vi-sion communication to venture growth in entre-preneurial firms. Journal of Applied Psychology,83: 43–54.

Bednall, T. C., Bove, L. L., Cheetham, A., & Murray, A. L.2013. A systematic review and meta-analysis of an-tecedents of blood donation behavior and intentions.Social Science and Medicine, 96: 86–94.

Beer, M. 1980. Organization change and development:A systems view. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.

Beer, M. 2009. Sustain organizational performancethrough continuous learning, change and realignment.In E. A. Locke (ed.), Handbook of principles of orga-nizational behavior (2nd ed.): 537–555. Malden, MA:Blackwell.

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. 1990. Why changeprograms do not produce change. Harvard BusinessReview, 68: 158–166.

Bellou, V. 2007. Shaping psychological contracts in thepublic and private sectors: A human resources man-agement perspective. International Public Manage-ment Journal, 10: 327–349.

Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K. M., & Boonstra, J. J. 1998. Theuse of influence tactics in constructive change pro-cesses. European Journal of Work and Organiza-tional Psychology, 7: 179–196.

Bernerth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Walker,H. J. 2007. Justice, cynicism, and commitment: Astudy of important organizational change variables.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43: 303–326.

Bies, R. J. 2013. The delivery of bad news in organizations.Journal of Management, 39: 136–162.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. 1986. Interactional justice: Communi-cation criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard& M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations inorganizations: 43–55. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, C., Gallois, V., & Callan, J.2004. Uncertainty during organizational change: Types,consequences, and management strategies. Journalof Business and Psychology, 18: 507–532.

Bordia, P., Restubog, S. L. D., Jimmieson, N. L., & Irmer,B. E. 2011. Haunted by the past: Effects of poor changemanagement history on employee attitudes and turn-over.Group&OrganizationManagement,36:191–222.

Bos-Nehles, A., Renkema, M., & Janssen, M. 2017. HRMand innovative work behaviour: A systematic litera-ture review. Personnel Review, 46: 1228–1253.

Bruch, H., & Sattelberger, T. 2001. Lufthansa’s trans-formation marathon: Process of liberating and focus-ing change energy. Human Resource Management,40: 249–259.

Bryant, M., & Stensaker, I. 2011. The competing roles ofmiddle management: Negotiated order in the contextof change. Journal of Change Management, 11:353–373.

Buchanan, D. A. 2011. Reflections: Good practice, notrocket science–understanding failures to change afterextreme events. Journal of ChangeManagement, 11:273–288.

Burnes, B. 2004a. Kurt Lewin and the planned approach tochange: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management stud-ies, 41: 977–1002.

Burnes, B. 2004b. Managing change: A strategic ap-proach to organisational dynamics (4th rev. ed.).Essex, UK: Prentice Hall.

Burnes, B. 2015. Understanding resistance to change—Building on Coch and French. Journal of ChangeManagement, 15: 92–116.

By, R. T. 2005. Organisational change management: Acritical review. Journal of Change Management, 5:369–380.

Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D.M., & Fedor, D. B. 2004. Towardan understanding of the relationships among organi-zational change, individual differences, and changesin person-environment fit: A cross-level study. Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 89: 868–882.

Carter,M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., &Mossholder,K.W. 2013. Transformational leadership, relationshipquality, and employee performance during continu-ous incremental organizational change. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 34: 942–958.

Chan, Y. E. 2002. Why haven’t we mastered alignment?The importance of the informal organization struc-ture. MIS Quarterly Executive, 1: 97–112.

Cinite, I., Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. 2009. Measurement ofperceived organizational readiness for change in the pub-lic sector. British Journal of Management, 20: 265–277.

Clark, S. M., Gioia, D. A., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Thomas, J. B.2010. Transitional identity as a facilitator of organi-zational identity change during a merger. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 55: 397–438.

Cobb, A. T., Folger, R., &Wooten, K. 1995. The role justiceplays in organizational change. Public Administra-tion Quarterly, 19: 135–151.

Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr. 1948. Overcoming resistanceto change. Human Relations, 1: 512–532.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. 1987. Appreciative inquiryinorganizational life. InR.W.Woodman&W.A.Pasmore(Eds.), Research in organizational change and devel-opment: 129–169. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M. 1999. Employee participation andassessment of an organizational change intervention:


A three-wave study of total quality management.Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 35: 439–456.

Creed,W. E. D., & Scully, M. A. 2011. Songs of ourselves: Em-ployees’ deployment of social identity in workplace en-counters. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20: 408–429.

Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. 2009. Organizationdevelopment and change. New York: Wiley.

Cunningham, C. E., Woodward, C. A., Shannon, H. S.,MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D., & Brown,J. 2002. Readiness for organizational change: A lon-gitudinal study of workplace, psychological andbehavioural correlates. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 75: 377–392.

Dahl, M. S. 2011. Organizational change and employeestress. Management Science, 57: 240–256.

Daly, J. P., & Geyer, P. D. 1994. The role of fairness in imple-menting large-scale change: Employee evaluations ofprocess and outcome in seven facility relocations. Jour-nal of Organizational Behavior, 15: 623–638.

Day,K.M.,Armenakis,A., Feild,H. S., &Norris, D. R. 2012.Other organizations are doing it, why shouldn’t we?A look at downsizing and organizational identitythrough an institutional theory lens. Journal ofChange Management, 12: 165–188.

Demerouti, E., Xanthopoulou,D., Petrou, P., &Karagkounis,C. 2017. Does job crafting assist dealing with organi-zational changes due to austerity measures? Twostudies among Greek employees. European Journal ofWork and Organizational Psychology, 26: 574–589.

Dirks, K. T., Cummings, L. L., & Pierce, J. L. 1996. Psycho-logical ownership in organizations: Conditions underwhich individuals promote and resist change.Researchin Organizational Change and Development, 9: 1–23.

Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. 1993. Selling issues to topmanagement. Academy of Management Journal, 18:397–428.

Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., & Lawrence, K. A.2001.Moves thatmatter: Issue selling and organizationalchange.AcademyofManagementJournal,44:716–736.

Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J. E. A., & Gaby, S. H. 2000.Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Fac-tors related toemployees’ reactions to the implementationof team-based selling.Human Relations, 53: 419–442.

Edmondson, A. 1999. Psychological safety and learningbehavior in work teams. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 44: 350–383.

Edmondson, A. C. 2002. The local and variegated nature oflearning in organizations: A group-level perspective.Organization Science, 13: 128–146.

Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. 2001.Disrupted routines: Team learning and new

technology implementation in hospitals. Adminis-trative Science Quarterly, 46: 685–716.

Ericsson, K. A. (Ed.). 2009. Development of professionalexpertise: Toward measurement of expert perfor-mance and design of optimal learning environ-ments. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Feldman,M. S., & Pentland, B. T. 2003. Reconceptualizingorganizational routines as a source of flexibility andchange.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly, 48: 94–118.

Ferlie, E., Fitzgerald, L., Wood, M., & Hawkins, C. 2005.The nonspread of innovations: The mediating role ofprofessionals.Academy ofManagement Journal, 48:117–134.

Fligstein, N. 1997. Social skill and institutional theory.American Behavioral Scientist, 40: 397–405.

Frese,M., Garst, H., & Fay, D. 2007.Making things happen:Reciprocal relationships between work characteris-tics andpersonal initiative in a four-wave longitudinalstructural equation model. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 92: 1084–1102.

Friedlander, F., & Brown, L. D. 1974. Organization devel-opment.Annual Review of Psychology, 25: 313–341.

Fugate, M., & Kinicki, A. J. 2008. A dispositional approachto employability: Development of a measure and testof implications for employee reactions to organiza-tional change. Journal of Occupational and Organi-zational Psychology, 81: 503–527.

Fugate, M., Prussia, G. E., & Kinicki, A. J. 2012. Managingemployee withdrawal during organizational change.Journal of Management, 38: 890–914.

Golden-Biddle, K. 2013. How to change an organizationwithout blowing it up. MIT Sloan ManagementReview, 54: 35–41.

Goodman, P. S. 2000. Missing organizational linkages.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Goodman, P., Rousseau, D., & Church, A. 2004. Organiza-tional change that produces results: The linkage ap-proach [and executive commentary]. Academy ofManagement Executive, 18: 7–21.

Greenberg, J. 1990. Employee theft as a reaction to un-derpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts:Correction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 667.

Greenhalgh, T., Robert, G., Macfarlane, F., Bate, P., &Kyriakidou, O. 2004. Diffusion of innovations in ser-vice organizations: Systematic review and recom-mendations. Milbank Quarterly, 82: 581–629.

Griffin, M. A., Parker, S. K., & Mason, C. M. 2010. Leadervision and the development of adaptive and proactiveperformance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 95: 174–182.

Griffin, M. A., Rafferty, A. E., & Mason, C. M. 2004. Whostarted this? Investigating different sources of


organizational change. Journal of Business and Psy-chology, 18: 555–570.

Hardeman, W., Johnston, M., Johnston, D., Bonetti, D.,Wareham, N., & Kinmonth, A. L. 2002. Application ofthe theory of planned behaviour in behaviour changeinterventions: A systematic review. Psychology andHealth, 17: 123–158.

Harigopal,K. 2006.Managementoforganizational change:Leveraging transformation (2nd ed.). New Delhi,India: Response Books.

Heckmann, N., Steger, T., & Dowling, M. 2016. Organiza-tional capacity for change, change experience, andchange project performance. Journal of Business Re-search, 69: 777–784.

Herold, D., Fedor, D., & Caldwell, S. 2007. Beyond changemanagement: Amultilevel investigation of contextualand personal influences on employees’ commitmentto change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92:942–951.

Heyden, M. L., Fourne, S. P., Koene, B. A., Werkman, R., &Ansari, S. S. 2017.Rethinking ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ roles of top andmiddlemanagers in organizationalchange: Implications for employee support. Journalof Management Studies, 54: 961–985.

Hiatt, J.M. 2006.ADKAR:Amodel for change inbusiness,government and our community: How to implementsuccessful change in our personal lives and pro-fessional careers. Loveland, CO: Prosci Research.

Higgins, M. C., Weiner, J., & Young, L. 2012. Implementa-tion teams: A new lever for organizational change.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33: 366–388.

Holbeche, L. 2006. Understanding change: Theory,implementation and success. Oxford, UK: Butter-worth-Heinemann.

Hornung, S., & Rousseau, D. M. 2007. Active on the job—Proactive in change: How autonomy at work contrib-utes to employee support for organizational change.Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 43: 401–426.

Hornung, S., Rousseau, D. M., & Glaser, J. 2008. Creatingflexible work arrangements through idiosyncraticdeals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93: 655–664.

Hulsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. 2009.Team-level predictors of innovation at work: Acomprehensive meta-analysis spanning three de-cades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology,94: 1128.

Iverson,R.D. 1996. Employee acceptanceof organizationalchange: The role of organizational commitment. TheInternational Journal of Human Resource Manage-ment, 7: 122–149.

Jarrel, T. 2017. Success factors for implementing changeat scale. New York: McKinsey & Co Presentation,Behavioral Science & Policy Association.

Jimmieson, N., Peach, M., & White, K. M. 2008. Utilizingthe theory of planned behavior to inform changemanagement:An investigation of employee intentionsto support organizational change. Journal of AppliedBehavioral Science, 44: 237–262.

Judge, T., Thoresen, C., Pucik, V., Welbourne, T., &Murphy, K. R. 1999. Managerial coping with organi-zational change: A dispositional perspective. Journalof Applied Psychology, 84: 107–122.

Judson, A. 1991. Changing behaviour in organizations:Minimizing resistance to change. Cambridge, MA:Basil Blackwell.

Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. 2009. Conditions for intuitiveexpertise: A failure to disagree. American Psycholo-gist, 64: 515–526.

Kanter, R.M. 1999. Change is everyone’s job:Managing theextended enterprise in a globally connected world.Organizational Dynamics, 28: 7–23.

Kanter, R.M., Stein, B. A, & Jick, T. D. 1992.The challengeof organizational change: How companies experi-ence it and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.

Kao, R. H. 2017. The relationship between work charac-teristics and change-oriented organizational citizen-ship behavior: Amulti-level study on transformationalleadership and organizational climate in immigrationworkers. Personnel Review, 46: 1890–1914.

Kavanagh, M. H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. 2006. The impact ofleadership and change management strategy on organi-zational culture and individual acceptance of changeduring a merger. British Journal of Management,17: S81–S103.

Kellogg, K. C. 2012. Making the cut: Using status-basedcountertactics to block social movement implementa-tion and microinstitutional change in surgery.Organiza-tion Science, 23: 1546–1570.

Kerr, S. 1975. On the folly of rewardingA,while hoping forB. Academy of Management Journal, 18: 769–783.

Kerr, S. 1995. On the folly of rewardingA,while hoping forB. Academy of Management Executive, 9: 7–14.

Kickul, J., Lester, S. W., & Finkl, J. 2002. Promise breakingduring radical organizational change: Do justice in-terventions make a difference? Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 23: 469–488.

Kim, T. G., Hornung, S., & Rousseau, D. M. 2011. Change-supportive employee behavior: Antecedents and themoderating role of time. Journal of Management, 37:1664–1693.

Kirkpatrick, S. A. 2009. Lead through vision and values. InE. A. Locke (Ed.), Handbook of principles of organi-zational behavior (2nd ed.): 367–387. Malden, MA:Blackwell.


Kleingeld, A., vanMierlo, H., & Arends, L. 2011. The effectof goal setting on groupperformance:Ameta-analysis.Journal of Applied Psychology, 96: 1289–1304.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. 1996. The effects of feedbackinterventions on performance: A historical review, ameta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback interven-tion theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119: 254–284.

Knight, C., Patterson,M., &Dawson, J. 2017. Buildingworkengagement: A systematic review and meta-analysisinvestigating the effectiveness of work engagementinterventions. Journal of Organizational Behavior,38: 792–812.

Koivisto, S., Lipponen, J., & Platow, M. J. 2013. Organiza-tional and supervisory justice effects on experiencedthreat duringchange:Themoderating roleof leader in-group representativeness. Leadership Quarterly, 24:595–607.

Kossek, E., Lewis, S., & Hammer, L. B. 2010. Work—Lifeinitiatives and organizational change: Overcomingmixed messages to move from the margin to the main-stream. Human Relations, 63(1): 3–19.

Kotter, J. P. 1996. Leading change. Cambridge, MA: Har-vard Business Press.

Kotter, J. P. 2005. Leading change: Why transformationefforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73: 59–67.

Kotter, J. P. 2012. Accelerate! How the most innovativecompanies capitalize on today’s rapid-fire strategicchallenges—and still make their numbers. HarvardBusiness Review, 90: 43–58.

Lam, S. S., & Schaubroeck, J. 2000. A field experimenttesting frontline opinion leaders as change agents.Journal of Applied Psychology, 85: 987.

Latham,G. P.,Winters, D.C., &Locke, E.A. 1994. Cognitiveand motivational effects of participation: A mediatorstudy. Journal ofOrganizationalBehavior, 15: 49–63.

Lau, C.-M., & Woodman, R. 1995. Understanding organi-zational change: A schematic perspective. Academyof Management Journal, 38: 226.

Laurin, K., Kay, A. C., & Fitzsimons, G. J. 2012. Reactanceversus rationalization: Divergent responses to con-strained freedom. Psychological Science, 23: 205–209.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, andcoping. New York: Springer.

Leadership Competencies. 2008. Available at: https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/behavioral-competencies/leadership-and-navigation/pages/leadershipcompetencies.aspx. Accessed September15, 2017.

Leppitt, N. 2006. Challenging the code of change: Part 1.Praxis does not make perfect. Journal of ChangeManagement, 6: 121–142.

Lewin, K. 1948. Resolving social conflicts: Selected pa-pers on group dynamics. New York: Harper.

Lewin, K. 1952. Selected theoretical papers. London:Tavistock.

Linden, D. V. D., Keijsers, G. P., Eling, P., & Schaijk, R. V.2005. Work stress and attentional difficulties: An ini-tial study on burnout and cognitive failures. Work &Stress, 19: 23–36.

Lippitt, R., Watson, J., & Westley, B. 1958. The dynamics ofplanned change. NewYork: Harcourt, Brace andWorld.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 1990.A theory of goal settingand taskperformance. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. 2006. New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in PsychologicalScience, 15: 265–268.

Loeser, H., O’Sullivan, P., & Irby, P. 2007. Leadership les-sons from curricular change and the University ofCalifornia, San Francisco, School of Medicine. Aca-demic Medicine, 82: 324–330.

Lok, P., Hung, R. Y., Walsh, P., Wang, P., & Crawford, J.2005. An integrative framework for measuringthe extent to which organizational variables influ-ence the success of process improvement pro-grammes. Journal of Management Studies, 42:1357–1381.

Malina, M. A., & Selto, F. H. 2001. Communicating andcontrolling strategy: An empirical study of the effec-tiveness of the balanced scorecard. Journal of Man-agement Accounting Research, 13: 47–90.

Marin-Garcia, J. A., & Tomas, J. M. 2016. DeconstructingAMO framework: A systematic review. IntangibleCapital, 12: 1040–1087.

Marshak, R. J. 2002. Changing the language of change: Hownew contexts and concepts are challenging the wayswe think and talk about organizational change. Stra-tegic Change, 11: 279–286.

Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. 1990. A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and conse-quences of organizational commitment. PsychologicalBulletin, 108: 171–194.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. 1995. Anintegrativemodel of organizational trust.Academy ofManagement Review, 20: 709–734.

McCauley, C. 2006. Developmental assignments: Cre-ating learning experiences without changingjobs. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leader-ship Press.

McCormack, B., Rycroft-Malone, J., DeCorby, K., Hutch-inson, A. M., Bucknall, T., Kent, B., Schultz, A.,Snelgrove-Clarke, E., Stetler, C., Titler, M., Wallin, L.,& Wilson, V. 2013. A realist review of interventions


https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/behavioral-competencies/leadership-and-navigation/pages/leadershipcompetencies.aspx




and strategies to promote evidence-informed health-care: A focus on change agency. ImplementationScience, 8: 107.

McCracken, M., & McIvor, R. 2013. Transforming the HRfunction through outsourced shared services: Insightsfrom the public sector. International Journal ofHuman Resource Management, 24: 1685–1707.

Meaney, M., & Pung, C. 2008. McKinsey global results:Creating organizational transformations. McKinseyQuarterly: 1–7.

Melkonian, T., Monin, P., & Noorderhaven, N. 2011. Dis-tributive justice, procedural justice, exemplarity, andemployees’ willingness to cooperate in M&A in-tegration processes: Analysis of the air France-KLMmerger.HumanResourceManagement, 50: 809–837.

Meuris, J., & Leana, C. R. 2015. The high cost of lowwages:Economic scarcity effects in organizations. Researchin Organizational Behavior, 35: 143–158.

Meyer, J. P., Srinivas, E. S., Lal, J. B., & Topolnytsky, L.2007. Employee commitment and support for an or-ganizational change: Test of the three-componentmodel in two cultures. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 80: 185–211.

Michela, J. L., & Vena, J. 2012. A dependence-regulationaccount of psychological distancing in response tomajor organizational change. Journal of Change Man-agement, 12: 77–94.

Mirvis, P. H. 1985. Negotiations after the sale: The rootsand ramifications of conflict in an acquisition. Journalof Occupational Behavior, 6: 65–84.

Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. 1999. Taking charge atwork: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change.Academy of Management Journal, 42: 403–419.

Nadler, D. A. 1976. The use of feedback for organizationalchange: Promises and pitfalls.Group &OrganizationStudies, 1: 177–186.

Nelson,A., Cooper, C. L., & Jackson,P.R. 1995.Uncertaintyamidst change: The impact of privatization on em-ployee job satisfaction and well-being. Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 68:57–71.

Nesler, M. S., Aguinis, H., Quigley, B. M., & Tedeschi, J. T.1993. The effect of credibility on perceived power.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23: 1407–1425.

Neubert, M. J. 1998. The value of feedback and goal settingover goal setting aloneandpotentialmoderators of thiseffect: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 11:321–335.

Neuman, G. A., Edwards, J. E., & Raju, N. S. 1989. Organi-zational development interventions: A meta-analysisof their effects on satisfaction and other attitudes.Personnel Psychology, 42: 461–489.

Nurick, A. J. 1982. Participation in organizational change:A longitudinal field study.HumanRelations, 35: 413–429.

Nutt, P. C. 1999. Surprising but true: Half the decisionsin organizations fail. Academy of Management Ex-ecutive, 13: 75–90.

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Martocchio, J. J., & Frink, D. D. 1994.A review of the influence of group goals on groupperformance. Academy of Management Journal, 37:1285–1301.

Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. 2011. Change reci-pients’ reactions to organizational change. Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, 47: 461–524.

Parker, S. K.,Williams, H.M., & Turner, N. 2006.Modelingthe antecedents of proactive behavior atwork. Journalof Applied Psychology, 91: 636–652.

Peach, M., Jimmieson, N. L., &White, K. M. 2005. Beliefsunderlying employee readiness to support a build-ing relocation: A theory of planned behavior per-spective. Organization Development Journal, 23:9–22.

Pettigrew,A.,Woodman, R., &Cameron, K. 2001. Studyingorganizational change and development: Challengesfor future research. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 44: 697–713.

Phelan, M. W. 2005. Cultural revitalization movements inorganization changemanagement. Journal of ChangeManagement, 5: 47–56.

Piderit, S. K. 2000. Rethinking resistance and recognizingambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudestoward an organizational change. Academy of Man-agement Review, 25: 783–794.

Pornpitakpan, C. 2004. The persuasiveness of sourcecredibility: A critical reviewof five decades’ evidence.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34: 243–281.

Pritchard, R. D., Harrell, M. M., DiazGranados, D., &Guzman, M. J. 2008. The productivity measurementand enhancement system: A meta-analysis. Journalof Applied Psychology, 93: 540–567.

Proudfoot, D., & Kay, A. C. 2014. System justification inorganizational contexts: How a motivated preferencefor the status quo can affect organizational attitudesand behaviors. Research in Organizational Behav-ior, 34: 173–187.

Rafferty, A. E., & Griffin, M. A. 2006. Perceptions of orga-nizational change: A stress and coping perspective.Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1154–1162.

Rafferty, A. E., & Restubog, S. L. D. 2017. Why do em-ployees’ perceptions of their organization’s changehistory matter? The role of change appraisals.HumanResource Management, 56: 533–550.


Rafferty, A. E., & Simons, R. H. 2006. An examination ofthe antecedents of readiness for fine-tuning and cor-porate transformation changes. Journal of Businessand Psychology, 20: 325–350.

Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K., & Germann, K. 2006. Legiti-mizing a new role: Small wins and microprocessesof change. Academy of Management Journal, 49:977–998.

Reiman, T., & Pietikainen, E. 2012. Leading indicators ofsystem safety–monitoring and driving the organiza-tional safety potential.Safety Science, 50: 1993–2000.

Rerup, C., & Feldman, M. S. 2011. Routines as a source ofchange in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 54: 577–610.

Rich, A., Brandes, K., Mullan, B., & Hagger, M. S. 2015.Theory of planned behavior and adherence in chronicillness: A meta-analysis. Journal of Behavioral Medi-cine, 38: 673–688.

Robinson, O., &Griffiths, A. 2005. Copingwith the stress oftransformational change in a government department.Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41: 204–221.

Rodell, J. B., & Colquitt, J. A. 2009. Looking ahead in timesof uncertainty: The role of anticipatory justice in anorganizational change context. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 94: 989–1002.

Rousseau, D. M. 1995. Psychological contracts in orga-nizations: Understanding written and unwrittenagreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rousseau, D. M. 1996. Changing the deal while keepingthe people.Academy of Management Executive, 10:50–61.

Rousseau, D. M. 2005. I-deals: Idiosyncratic dealsworkers bargain for themselves. New York: M. E.Sharpe.

Rousseau, D. M. 2018. Making evidence-based organiza-tional decisions.Organizational Dynamics, in press.

Rousseau, D. M., & Gunia, B. C. 2016. Evidence-basedpractice: The psychology of EBP implementation.Annual Review of Psychology, 67: 667–692.

Rousseau, D. M., Hansen, S., & Tomprou, T. 2018. A dy-namic phase model of psychological contract pro-cesses. Journal of Organizational Behavior, in press.

Rousseau, D. M., Manning, J., & Denyer, D. 2008. Evidencein management and organizational science: Assem-bling the field’s full weight of scientific knowledgethrough syntheses. Academy of Management An-nals, 2: 475–515.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C.1998. Not so different after all: A cross-discipline viewof trust. Academy of Management Review, 23: 393–404.

Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. 1999. What’s a goodreason to change? Motivated reasoning and social ac-counts inpromotingorganizational change. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 84: 514–528.

Sackett, D. L., Straus, S. E., Richardson, W. S., Rosenberg,W., & Haynes, R. B. 2000. Evidence-based medicine:How to practice and teach EBM. New York: Chur-chill Livingstone.

Sastry, M. A. 1997. Problems and paradoxes in a model ofpunctuated organizational change. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 42: 237–275.

Schechter, C., & Qadach, M. 2012. Toward an organiza-tional model of change in elementary schools: Thecontribution of organizational learning mechanisms.Educational AdministrationQuarterly, 48: 116–153.

Scheck, C. L., & Kinicki, A. J. 2000. Identifying the ante-cedents of coping with an organizational acquisition:A structural assessment. Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 21: 627–648.

Schweiger, D. M., & DeNisi, A. S. 1991. Communicationwith employees following a merger: A longitudinalfield experiment.Academy of Management Journal,34: 110–135.

Schweitzer, M. E., Ordoñez, L., & Douma, B. 2004. Goalsetting as amotivator of unethical behavior.Academyof Management Journal, 47: 422–432.

Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. 2005. Learning versus per-formance goals:When should each beused?Academyof Management Executive, 19: 124–131.

Senge, P. M, Kleiner, A., & Roberts, C. 1996. Het vijfdediscipline praktijkboek: Strategieen en instru-menten voor het bouwen van een lerende organ-isatie [The fifth discipline practice book: Strategiesand instruments for building a learning organiza-tion], vol. 2. Schoonhoven, The Netherlands: Aca-demic service.

Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, E. H., & Barry, B. 1994. Explana-tions:What factors enhance their perceived adequacy?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-cesses, 58: 346–368.

Sharif, M. M., & Scandura, T. A. 2014. Do perceptionsof ethical conduct matter during organizationalchange? Ethical leadership and employee in-volvement. Journal of Business Ethics, 124: 185–196.

Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. 2003. To justify orexcuse? A meta-analytic review of the effects of ex-planations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 444–458.

Shojania, K. G., Ranji, S. R., Shaw, L. K., Charo, L. M., Lai,J. C., Rushakoff, R. J., McDonald, K. M., & Owens,D. K. 2004. Diabetes mellitus care. In K. G. Shojania,K.M.McDonald, R.M.Wachter & D. K. Owens (Eds.),


Closing the quality gap: A critical analysis ofquality improvement strategies. Technical Review9, vol. 2. Rockville, MD: Stanford University-UCSFEvidence-Based Practice Center. Agency for Health-care Research and Quality.

Simpson, R. 1998. Presenteeism, power andorganizationalchange: Long hours as a career barrier and the impacton the working lives of women managers. BritishJournal of Management, 9: 37–50.

Soenen, G.,Melkonian, T., & Ambrose,M. L. 2017. To shiftor not to shift? Determinants and consequences ofphase shifting on justice judgments. Academy ofManagement Journal, 60: 798–817.

Stanley,D. J.,Meyer, J. P.,&Topolnytsky,L.2005.Employeecynicism and resistance to organizational change.Journal of Business and Psychology, 19: 429–459.

Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981. Threatrigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multi-level analysis.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly, 25:501–524.

Szamosi, L. T., & Duxbury, L. 2002. Development ofa measure to assess organizational change. Journalof Organizational Change Management, 15:184–201.

ten Have, S., ten Have, W., Huijsmans, A. B., & Otto, M.2016. Reconsidering change management: Apply-ing evidence-based insights in changemanagementpractice, vol. 16. London: Routledge.

Tichy, N., & DeVanna, M. 1986. The transformationalleader. New York: Wiley.

Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. 1985. Organizationalevolution: A metamorphosis model of convergenceand reorientation. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior: 171–222. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. 2003. The group engagementmodel: Procedural justice, social identity, and co-operative behavior. Personality and Social Psychol-ogy Review, 7: 349–361.

Unsworth, K. L., Dmitrieva, A., & Adriasola, E. 2013.Changing behaviour: Increasing the effectiveness ofworkplace interventions increatingpro-environmentalbehaviour change. Journal of Organizational Be-havior, 34: 211–229.

Vakola, M., & Nikolaou, I. 2005. Attitudes towards orga-nizational change: What is the role of employees’stress and commitment? Employee Relations, 27:160–174.

Valentino, C. 2004. The role of middle managers in thetransmission and integration of organizational cul-ture. Journal of Healthcare Management, 49:393–404.

Valleala, U. M., Herranen, S., Collin, K., & Paloniemi, S.2015. Fostering learning opportunities through em-ployee participation amid organizational change.Vocations and Learning, 8: 1–34.

van der Smissen, S., Schalk, R., & Freese, C. 2013. Orga-nizational change and the psychological contract: Howchange influences the perceived fulfillment of obliga-tions. Journal of Organizational Change Manage-ment, 26: 1071–1090.

van Knippenberg, B., Martin, L., & Tyler, T. 2006.Process-orientation versus outcome-orientationduring organizational change: The role of organizationalidentification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27:685–704.

Wagner, J. A. 1994. Participation’s effects on perfor-mance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of researchevidence. Academy of Management Review, 19:312–330.

Wagner, J. A. 2009. Use participation to share informationand distribute knowledge. In E. A. Locke (Ed.),Handbook of principles of organizational behavior(2nd ed.): 445–460. New York: Wiley.

Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. 2000. Predictors and out-comes of openness to change in a reorganizingworkplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85:132–142.

Wanberg, C. R., Gavin, M. B., & Bunce, L. W. 1999. Per-ceived fairness of layoffs among individuals whohave been laid off: A longitudinal study. PersonnelPsychology, 52: 59–84.

Weiner, B. J., Amick, H., & Lee, S. Y. D. 2008. Conceptu-alization and measurement of organizational readi-ness for change: A review of the literature in healthservices research and other fields. Medical Care Re-search and Review, 65: 379–436.

Wensing, M., Wollersheim, H., & Grol, R. 2006. Organiza-tional interventions to implement improvements inpatient care: A structured review of reviews. Imple-mentation Science, 1: 2.

Westerlund, A., Garvare, R., Hoog, E., & Nystrom, M. E.2015. Facilitating system-wide organizational changein health care. International Journal of Quality andService Sciences, 7: 72–89.

Wiedner, R., Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. 2017. The emergenceof change in unexpected places: Resourcing acrossorganizational practices in strategic change.Academyof Management Journal, 60: 823–854.

Wright, P., & Nishii, L. H. 2013. Strategic HRM and orga-nizational behavior: Integrating multiple levels ofanalysis. In D. Guest, J. Paauwe & P. Wright (Eds.),HRM and performance: Achievements and chal-lenges: 97–110. Chichester, UK: Wiley.


Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. 2001. Crafting a job:Revisioning employees as active crafters of theirwork.Academy of Management Review, 26: 179–201.

Zadeh, L. A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information andControl, 8:338–353.

Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G. N. 2010. Linking or-ganizational culture, structure, strategy, and organiza-tional effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledgemanagement.JournalofBusinessResearch,63:763–771.

Jeroen Stouten is an associate professor at KU Leuven(Belgium) and an Associate Researcher of Judge BusinessSchool, University of Cambridge. He obtained his Ph.D.from Tilburg University in social and economic psychol-ogy. His research focuses on leadership, justice, andworkplace conflict.

Denise M. Rousseau is H.J. Heinz II University Professorat Carnegie Mellon in the Heinz College and TepperSchool of Business. Former Academy of Managementpresident and Journal of Organizational Behavior editor-in-chief, her research addresses positive organizationalpractices and employee well-being. Two-time winner ofAOM’s Terry book award, her most recent book is Evi-dence-Based Management with Eric Barends (KoganPage).

David De Cremer is the KPMG chaired professor in man-agement studies in the University of Cambridge and thehead of the Leadership and Organisational Decision-Making group at Cambridge Judge Business School. Hisresearch focuses on the areas of trust, organizational jus-tice, behavioral ethics, leadership, andChinamanagementand innovation.


ama20160095 752

Documents