Difference between revisions of "Breakdowns in Implementing Models of Organization Change"

From Adaptive Cycle
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "== Author(s) - Andrew H. Van de Ven and Kangyong Sun == === Title - Breakdowns in Implementing Models of Organization Change === === Source - http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/...")
 
Line 1: Line 1:
== Author(s) - Andrew H. Van de Ven and Kangyong Sun ==
+
'''Author:''' Van de Ven, A.H. & Sun, K.
  
=== Title - Breakdowns in Implementing Models of Organization Change ===
+
'''Title:''' Breakdowns in implementing models of organization change
  
=== Source - http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a8c69b27-df27-4736-bb5f-964e17498986%40sessionmgr13&vid=4&hid=122 ===
+
'''Year of Publication:''' 2011
  
=== Year of Publication - 2011 ===
+
'''Journal:''' The Academy of Management Perspectives
  
=== Abstract ===
+
'''Volume:''' 25 '''Issue:''' 3
  
Practice theories of implementing change are lagging behind process theories of organizational change and development. To address this gap, this paper examines common breakdowns in implementing four process models of organization change: teleology (planned change), life cycle (regulated change), dialectics (conflictive change), and evolution (competitive change). Change agents typically respond to these breakdowns by taking actions to correct people and organizational processes so they conform to their model of change. Although this strategy commands most of the attention in the literature, we argue that in many situations managers and scholars might do better if they reflected on and revised their mental model to fit the change journey that is unfolding in their organization.
+
'''Source:''' http://amp.aom.org/content/25/3/58.full.pdf+html
 +
 
 +
'''Keywords:''' [[:Category:Business|business]], [[:Category:Change|change]], [[:Category:Gestalt Switch|gestalt switch]], [[:Category:Management|management]], [[:Category:Organization|organization]], [[:Category:Qualitative|qualitative]]
 +
 
 +
'''Abstract:''' Practice theories of implementing change are lagging behind process theories of organizational change and development. To address this gap, this paper examines common breakdowns in implementing four process models of organization change: teleology (planned change), life cycle (regulated change), dialectics (conflictive change), and evolution (competitive change). Change agents typically respond to these breakdowns by taking actions to correct people and organizational processes so they conform to their model of change. Although this strategy commands most of the attention in the literature, we argue that in many situations managers and scholars might do better if they reflected on and revised their mental model to fit the change journey that is unfolding in their organization.
  
 
[[Category:Literature]]
 
[[Category:Literature]]
 +
[[Category:Business]]
 +
[[Category:Change]]
 +
[[Category:Gestalt Switch]]
 +
[[Category:Management]]
 +
[[Category:Organization]]
 +
[[Category:Qualitative]]

Revision as of 05:33, 11 May 2013

Author: Van de Ven, A.H. & Sun, K.

Title: Breakdowns in implementing models of organization change

Year of Publication: 2011

Journal: The Academy of Management Perspectives

Volume: 25 Issue: 3

Source: http://amp.aom.org/content/25/3/58.full.pdf+html

Keywords: business, change, gestalt switch, management, organization, qualitative

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