In much of the recent debate regarding planned and emergent change, it is presented as a dichotomy, an either/or proposition. What if there was room for both, together, in this debate?

Planned and emergent change have been discussed in a previous post. Briefly, planned change focuses on improving the effectiveness of an organization’s human side through participative, group-based programs. But in the early 1980s, it began to be criticized for being too slow for the rapid transformations that many organizations needed to make in order to survive. Emergent change, on the other hand, consists of ongoing accommodations, adaptations, and alterations to the system that produce fundamental change without a priori intentions to do so. The emergent approach is based on the belief that key decisions about matching an organization’s resources with opportunities and constraints evolve over time as an outcome of interactions among organizational actors. Complexity theories, which view organizations as complex, self-organizing systems, have contributed to the rise of the emergent approach

In their research paper, “On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change,” Tsoukas and Chia (2002) challenge traditional views of organizational change as exceptional events, arguing instead that change is the inherent and continuous state of organizational life. They critique models, derivative of Lewin, that prioritize stability or homeostasis, highlighting their limitations in explaining the micro-processes of actual change and their failures in real-world change programs.

They propose a process-oriented perspective emphasizing organizational becoming, viewing organizations as emergent organisms of continuous change driven by actors’ ongoing interactions and reflexive reinterpretations of experiences. The paper advocates for a more nuanced understanding of change as an ongoing stream of interactions rather than a series of distinct stages. Planned and emergent change are characterized as residing on a continuum and a cascading approach to integrating them is proposed.

A cascading change model, as described by Edwards, Prætorius, and Nielsen (2020), reconciles planned and emergent change by establishing a structured process that allows for employee participation and engagement while maintaining top management’s overall control and direction. This approach recognizes the limitations of both purely top-down, planned change and completely bottom-up, emergent change. According to the authors, the process unfolds as follows:

By allowing employees to identify and solve problems that matter to them, the model fosters a sense of ownership and commitment to the proposed changes. The structured handovers, open communication, and top management’s commitment to implementing employee-generated solutions help to build trust and transparency throughout the process. And when employees are involved in shaping the change, they are more likely to support its implementation, reducing potential opposition and ensuring that the changes are effectively integrated into daily operations.

Evidentiary support for this cascading approach can be found in a study by Livne-Tarandach and Bartunek (2009). They propose a shift in organizational development (OD) from a “Diagnostic” to a “Dialogic” approach. This shift entails moving away from the traditional model of identifying problems and prescribing solutions, and towards fostering collective inquiry, learning, and emergent change. This perspective aligns with the core principles of the cascading model, which also emphasizes employee-driven problem-solving and solution development.

Further, Livne-Tarandach and Bartunek acknowledge that organizational reality is not fixed or objective, but rather shaped by shared meanings, interpretations, and interactions. This understanding supports the cascading model’s emphasis on engaging employees in co-creating change, recognizing that their perspectives and experiences are crucial in shaping the organization’s transformation.

These studies view organizations as complex systems where meaning is constantly negotiated and created through ongoing interactions and dialogues. They also emphasize the role of leadership in influencing how meaning is constructed and narratives are shaped within the organization. This perspective supports the cascading model’s emphasis on top management setting the initial direction and scope, as well as actively championing and supporting the implementation of employee-generated solutions.

It is worth noting that these studies reinforce the applicability of approaches from IdeaLeap and Lean Change, which advocate high degrees of participation and engagement to support change. Their emphasis on feedback response, iteration, and experimentation supports the proposition that organizations actually change through emergence, not through structured planning alone.

Employee-driven problem-solving, transparent communication, and a psychological contract built on reciprocal obligation between management and employees is critical for successful change. Ultimately, the model proposed can lead to increased productivity, improved collaboration, and higher rates of successful change implementation. Change agents can ensure better outcomes by integrating these ideas with their own experience to facilitate change.

Source:

Burnes, B. (2005). “Complexity Theories and Organizational Change”. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(2):73–90.

Edwards, K., Prætorius, T., & Nielsen, A.P. (2020). “A Model of Cascading Change: Orchestrating Planned and Emergent Change to Ensure Employee Participation”. The Journal of Change Management, 20(4).

Livne-Tarandach, R. & Bartunek, J.M. (2009). “A New Horizon for Organizational Change and Development Scholarship: Connecting Planned and Emergent Change”. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 17(3):1-35.

Tsoukas, H. & Chia, R. (2002). “On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change”. Organization Science, 13(5):567-582.