Change is not a unique property of the social reality we see around us. In fact, the social reality is constantly changing and this is not experienced as something strange. The social reality, in turn, consists of organizations. If a group of people organize themselves for some purpose, an organization is born. Whether this group of individuals has organized itself to run a company which manufactures a certain product or for social purposes (friendship, charity, etc.), the most important fact is that people are subjected to numerous kinds of organizations in their daily life. Each person organizes part of his or her life, and the remaining part is organized by other forms of organizations. Organizational change is always difficult because behavioral patterns must be completely rearranged. This aspect will result in a tendency to resist change. The question is: how and when do organizations change? In this article three theories of organizational change will be discussed.
The first theory is that of Lewin who proposed a theory of change based on empirical data. This theory sees change as a three step procedure: unfreezing, moving, and freezing. According to Lewin, the study of conditions for change begins with an analysis of the state of equilibrium or the state where there is no change at all. This state of equilibrium is not a stationary, but a quasistationary equilibrium. Social change can be compared to a river which alters its velocity and/or direction. Humans can also change in time, but humans also have an ‘inner resistance’ to change. It is necessary to break the individual’s resistance to change for the stage of unfreezing. When the stage of unfreezing is established, then the stage of moving to a new level of group life can follow. When the group has actually reached a new level, then the stage of freezing will finalize the complete sequence.
Lewin’s theory is based on research into the behavior of individuals in groups. He discovered that individuals are usually passive and not active. An active attitude is a prerequisite for change, and in order to make people active, several strategies can be applied. One strategy is changing the entire group. It is, however, difficult to find a universal strategy for changing individuals, groups, and societies. In some cases, it is a relatively simple and easily executed procedure, but in other cases, it is a difficult and complex procedure which involves high risks and overwhelming chances of failure. So, change or the stage of unfreezing requires skill, knowledge, and a lot of experience. Lewin’s theory is actually a system’s theory. It is a cyclical process with a feedback mechanism.
Greiner’s theory maintains that growing organizations move through five distinguishable phases of development. Each phase contains a relatively calm period of growth which is followed by a revolution. So, the main conclusion drawn by Greiner is that organizations go through evolutionary and revolutionary phases as they grow. He stated that the speed at which an organization experiences phases of evolution and revolutions strongly depends on the market environment. So, his theory can also be identified as a contingency approach. For example, companies in an expanding market will grow faster and the evolutionary periods in those companies tend to be relatively short. In mature and slowly growing industries, the opposite is true because these industries are going through longer periods of evolution. Furthermore he stated that evolution can be prolonged and revolution delayed when the market is poor, revolutions are more difficult to resolve. What are the specific five phases of evolution and revolution?
Phase 1: Creativity stage will be followed by a leadership crisis;
Phase 2: Direction phase will be followed by an autonomy crisis;
Phase 3: Delegation phase will be followed by a control crisis;
Phase 4: Coordination phase will be followed by a red-tape crisis;
Phase 5: Collaborations stage will be followed by a consultation crisis.
Miller and Friesen published a theory which they called the quantum view of organizations. Their theory was a social change theory of organizations. First of all, they found from their research that organizations, especially successful ones, do not change in a piecemeal and incremental manner, but in a dramatic and quantum way. They found that organizations are not always static and unchanging or the opposite, constantly, but that these two aspects are intertwined. Most of the time, organizations favor a stable structure and nature. The activities are focused on the improvement of, for example, the products which are already successful. This is a logical phenomenon since stability is a prerequisite for order and institutionalization.
Like people, organizations cannot constantly change their jobs, divorce and remarry etc, because this would result in an absurd situation or a completely passive attitude. So organizations are actually great supporters of stability. Unfortunately the world around organizations is changing. These changes can sometimes happen slowly, but also very quickly and dramatically. In order to survive, organizations cannot afford to change incrementally because the environment is changing. A situation will then be created of a revolutionary nature. In a short time, organizations will have to change their old habits, activities, norms and values. These organizations are trying to find a new position where they can again reach stability. What has happened is actually a cultural revolution.
