Fluent Essays

Compose a cohesive document 3-5 pages that addresses the following: See attachment for details Introduction Establishing a Sense of Urgency Creating a Guiding Coalition  3 - 5 pages  No plagiarism  APA citing Assignment: Developing a Change Plan – Steps 1 and 2, Creating Urgency and Building a Guiding Coalition Throughout this course, you are going to build a change plan using Kotter’s eight-stage process for creating change. Each week, you will use the Learning Resources to guide you through the change process step-by-step. You will then submit the individual steps as your weekly assignment. At the end of the course, you will have practiced all of the steps you need to create and implement change within your organization or community. For the first stage of your change plan, you will begin by selecting a positive change you would like to implement to help improve your organization or community. You will then use Steps 1 and 2 in Kotter’s eight-stage process to begin creating urgency and building your coalition. In preparing for this assignment, think about the various organizations or communities with which you are involved. For example, think about the company you work for, the places where you volunteer, or the community you live in. What positive change do you believe could improve the organization or community of which you are a part? What key information is important to help develop your change plan? To prepare for this Assignment: Introduction, “The Heart of Change” See attachments Concept for Diagnosing and Developing Organizational Change - See attachments Exercise on pp. 34–35 of the course text, The Heart of Change See attachments Assignment: To complete Steps 1 and 2 in your Change Plan, compose a cohesive document that addresses the following: · Introduction · Identify a positive change that would improve an organization or community with which you are familiar. · Briefly describe the organization. · Discuss why you feel this change is necessary and how the organization would benefit from this change. · Be sure and build a firm case on why this change is crucial. · Establishing a Sense of Urgency · Identify any areas of complacency within the organization. · From Figure 1 in Schweiger, et al. (2016), which organizational change capability would you describe as a strength of your organization? Which would you describe as a weakness? What steps will you take to address the weakness as you create a sense of urgency? · Outline a plan for creating urgency for the positive change you have identified. · Use the Exercise on pp. 34–35 of the course text, The Heart of Change, as a guideline in the process. · Creating a Guiding Coalition · Outline the individuals that would be important to include in your guiding coalition. You do not need to use names, but describe the role each plays in the organization. · Identify the criteria you used for selecting your coalition. · Discuss the contributions each role would play in guiding the change process. · Defend why this group is ideal for this coalition over other possibilities. · 3-5 pages · No Plagarism · APA citing p Introduction The Heart of Change he single most important message in this book is very simple. People change what they do less because they are given analysis that shifts their thinking than because they are shown a truth that influences their feelings. This is especially so in large-scale organizational change, where you are dealing with new technologies, mergers and acquisitions, restructurings, new strategies, cultural transformation, globalization, and e-business- whether in an entire organization, an office, a department, or a work group. In an age of turbulence, when you handle this reality well, you win. Handle it poorly, and it can drive you crazy, cost a great deal of money, and cause a lot of pain. . . The lessons here come from two sets ofinterviews, the first com- pleted seven years ago, the second within the last two years. About 400 people from 130 organ izations answered our questions. We found, in brief, that • Highly successful organizations know how to overcome antibodies that reject anything new. They know how to grab opportunities and avoid hazards. They see that bigger leaps d 2 • THE HEART Ut l,MJ-\1'4U'- . . gl associated with winning big. They see that are 1ncreas1n Y . dual improvement, by itself, is no longer continuous gra enough. ful l rge -scale change is a complex affair that • Success a happens in eight stages. The flow is this: push urgency up, put together a guiding team, create the vision and strate- gies, effectively communicate the vision and strategies, remove barriers to action, accomplish short-term wins, keep pushing for wave after wave of change until the work is done, and, finally, create a new culture to make new be- havior stick. • The central challenge in all eight stages is changing people's behavior. The central challenge is not strategy, not systems, not culture. These elements and many others can be very im- portant, but the core problem without question is behavior- what people do, and the need for significant shifts in what people do. • Changing behavior is less a matter of giving people analysis to influence their thoughts than helping them to see a truth to influence their feelings. Both thinking and feeling are es- sential, and both are found in successful organizations, but the heart of change is in the emotions. The flow of see-feel- ch · ange is more powerful than that of analysis-think-change. These distinctions betw • . een seeing and analyzing between feehng and thinking · · ' 'are critical because, for the most part, we use the latter much m f comfortabl th ore requently, competently, an9 Y an the former. When we are frustrated we som . there is a decreasi ' etimes try to convince ourselves ng need for large- al h and unceasing forces ar d . . sc e c ange. But powerful e riving the turbulence. When frustrated, The Heart of Change • 3 we sometimes think that problems are inevitable and out of our control. Yet some people handle large-scale change remarkably well. We can all learn from these people. CEOs can learn. First-line supervisors can learn. Nearly anyone caught up in a big change can learn. That's the point of this book. The Eight Stages of Successful Large-Scale Change To understand why some organizations are leaping into the future more successfully than others, you need first to see the flow of ef- fective large-scale change efforts. In almost all cases, there is a flow, a set of eight steps that few people handle well. STEP 1 Whether at the top of a large private enterprise or in small groups at the bottom of a nonprofit, those who are most successful at signifi- cant change begin their work by creating a sense of urgency among relevant people. In smaller organizations, the "relevant" are more likely to number 100 than 5, in larger organizations 1,000 rather than 50. The less successful change leaders aim at 5 or 50 or 0, allow- ing what is common nearly everywhere-too much complacency, fear, or anger, all three of which can undermine change. A sense of urgency, sometimes developed by very creative means, gets people off the couch, out of a bunker, and ready to move. STEP 2 With urgency turned up, the more successful change agents pull together a guiding team with the credibility, skills, connections, reputations, and formal authority required to provide change lead- ership. This group learns to operate as do all good teams, with truSt and emotional commitment. The less successful rely on a single [ART Of CHANGE 4 • THE H ak task forces and committees, or co one we lltplex ~TSon or no ' all without the stature and skills and ..-- strUcurres, . . k . Po\\rer governance ds ape is littered with tas forces ill eq\li do the job. The lan c PJled to rod ce needed change. toP u sTEP3 . the d'niding team creates sensible, clear sun l In the best cases, o-- ' p e, . . . • s and sets of strategies. In the less successful ,..~~"A uplifting vzszon ~, nly detailed plans and budgets that, although neces~...,, thereareo --J, are insufficient, or a vision that is not very sensible in light of what is happening in the world and in the enterprise, or a vision that is created by others and largely ignored by the guiding team. In un- successful cases, strategies are often too slow and cautious for a faster-moving world. STEP4 Co . . h mmumcation of the vision and strategies comes next-simple, eartfelt messages sent through many unclogged channels. The goal is to induce und tandin . ers g, develop a gut-level commitmen~ andliberatemoreene gyfr .. are ft . r om a critical mass of people. Here, deeds o en more unportant th etition is ~ In an words. Symbols speak loudly. Rep-ey. the less su ful # tive conunum . ccess cases, there is too little euec-cation or peo 1 h Rernarkab1 ' P e ear words but don't accept them. . Y, Slllart peopl mcate all the time . e undercommunicate or poorly conunu· Without reco . . STEP 5 grtizmg their error. In the h est situar obstacles th ions, You find h J{eY Chan at stop Peo 1 a eavy dose of empowerment. ge lead P e frolll . "ed, infonnati ers focus on b acting on the vision are reill0 b on and . asses wh d. . dequate atliers in lllforinati O 1sempower, on ma not ''giVin People's lllind on systems, and on self-confideJlce g Power." Yi s. The issu h . . bstacles, ou can't h e ere 1s removing o c- and out power in a bag. In less sU ~ The Heart of Change • 5 . t'ons people are often left to fend for themselves de- ful s1tua 1 , cess . d'ments all around. So frustration grows, and change is ·te unpe 1 spl undermined. STEP 6 With empowered people working on the vision, in cases of great success those people are helped to produce short-term wins. The wins are critical. They provide credibility, resources, and momen- tum to the overall effort. In other cases, the wins come more slowly, less visibly, speak less to what people value, and have more ambigu- ity as to whether they really are successes. Without a well-managed process, careful selection of initial projects, and fast enough suc- cesses, the cynics and skeptics can sink any effort. STEP 7 In the best cases, change leaders don't let up. Momentum builds af- ter the first wins. Early changes are consolidated. People shrewdly choose what to tackle next, then create wave after wave of change until the vision is a reality. In less successful cases, people try to do too much at once. They unwittingly quit too soon. They let mo- mentum slip to the point where they find themselves hopelessly bogged down. STEP 8 Finally, in the best cases, change leaders throughout organizations make change stick by nurturing a new culture. A new culture- group norms of behavior and shared values-develops through co · ffi · t period of time. nsistency of successful action over a su cien . H loyee orientation, ere, appropriate promotions, skillful new emp a d ak big difference. In n events that engage the emotions can m e a k th f Agreatdealofwor 0 er cases, changes fl.oat fragile on the sur ace. h rt . . . a remarkably s o can be blown away by the winds of traditwn in Period of time. G • THE HEART OF CHANGE ~ , . ., .,.. The Eight steps for' Successful Large-Scale C~arr~e STEP ACTION NEW BEHAVIOR 1 Increase urgency People start telling each other, "Let's go, we need to change things!" 2 Build the guiding team A group powerful enough to guide a big change is formed and they start to work together well. 3 Get the vision right The guiding team develops the right vision and strategy for the change effort. 4 Communicate for buy-in People begi n to buy into the change, and this shows in their behavior. 5 Empower action More people fee l able to act, and do act, on the vision. 6 Create short-term wins Momentum builds as people try to fulfill the vision, while fewer and fewer resist change. 7 Don't let up People make wave after wave of changes until the vision is fulfilled. 8 Make change stick New and winning behavior continues despite the pull of tradition, turnover of change leaders, etc. The Flow of Change T~e process of change involves subtle points regar ding overlap- ping stages guidi g t . . . ' n earns at multiple levels in the organ1zat1 0n, handling multipl 1 . e eye es of change, and more. Beca use the world 1s complex som d ' e cases o not rigidly follow the eight-step flow. But I r - 1 I The Heart of Change • 7 I the eight steps are the basic pattern associated with significant use- ful change-all possible despite an inherent organizational inclina- tion not to leap successfully into a better future. Evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the most fundamental problem in all of the stages is changing the behavior of people. The core issue in step 1 is not urgency in some abstract sense. The core issue is the behavior of people who are ignoring how the world is changing, who are frozen in terror by the problems they see, or who do little but bitterly complain. In step 2, the issue is the behavior of those in a position to guide change-especially regarding trust and commitment. In step 3, the core challenge is for people to start acting in a way that will create sensible visions and strategies. For people who know how to plan but have never devised a winning change vision, this behavior change is very big. In step 4, the issue is getting sufficient people to buy into the vision via communica- tion. In step 5, it's acting on that communication-which for some employees will mean doing their jobs in radically new ways. And so on throughout the process. See, Feel, Change Significantly changing the behavior of a single person can be excep- tionally difficult work. Changing 101 or 10,001 people can be a Her- l · · t the future sue-cu ean task. Yet organizations that are leapmg m 0 ceed at doing just that. Look carefully at how they act and you'll fi nd fth t ge in the overall another pattern. They succeed, regardless o e s a • · d not center on for-process, because their most central activity oes . -a1 ·t· and presentat10ns- ·11 data gathering, analysis, report wr1 mg, . th . th' k'ng m order to e sorts of actions typically aimed at changmg m 1 h . 1 h eople what the c ange behavior. Instead, they compellmg Y s ow P 1 They provoke re-Problems are and how to resolve the prob ems. d d f fl eeded change, an sponses that reduce feelings that slow an s 1 en 8 • THE HEART OF CHANGE .c 1 . g that motivate useful actio n. The emotional they enhance 1ee m s . h vi'des the energy tha t propels people to push along reaction t en pro . . no ma tter how great the difficulties. the change process, The stories presented throug hout the book clarify this pa t- h · g what can be done to enab le the process. In chap- tern, s owm ter 1 (w hich deals with urgency), a pro curement manager starts a needed change by creating a dr amatic presentation. On the b oard- room table he piles 424 differen t kinds of glovesthat the firm is cur- rently buying for its workers a t dozens of different prices fo r the same glove and from dozens of different suppliers. First peop le are shocked, then the gut-level sen se of complacency shrinks an d ur- gency grows. It's not just a mat ter of the data saying that cha nges are necessary in the purchasing process so people alter their b ehav- ior. Instead, it's subtler and deep er. It's a loud sound that catche s at- tention in a day filled with thous ands of words and dozens of ev ents. It's an image, hard to shake, th at evokes a feeling that we mu st do something. In chapter 2 (guiding team), the army officer doesn't pull toget her his new change team with a rat ional argument. Instead, he s hocks them by taking a risk for the g reater good with his commen ts in a meeting. He then helps them b egin to tell emotion-packed s tories around a campfire. More posit ive feelings and trust grow, m aking them act as an effective team. The aircraft plant manager in chapter 3 (vision and strateg ies) ceases to just talk to his people about developing ambitious s trate- 1 gies to fit an ambitious quality vision. Instead he takes dra matic . , actwn. He st0Ps the normal p roduction process-just stops it-so everyone must stare all day l ong at a gigantic plane that can no longer move along the produc tion line. At the same time, he ex- pres~es a_ rock-solid belief th at they can find a way to im prove q~ality Wi th0ut delaying delivery. After the initial shock, and with his continuously upb t b h . ea e avior, employees begi n developing all The Heart of Change • 9 sorts of new strategies for leaping ahead in procurement, logistics, and quality control. In chapter 4 (communication), people logically explain why maintaining a lush executive floor is cost-effective in an age of cut- backs-the· logic being that it would cost more to change the archi- tecture and decor to make-it look less excessive. But that commu- nication convinces few employees and allows cynicism to grow. So they "nuke" the floor, making it less regal, and shock employees in a way that increases their faith in top management and their belief in the vision. In chapter 5 (empowerment), managers refuse to demote, fire, or "retrain" someone who is staunchly against change and who disempowers others from helping with change. Instead they loan him to a customer, where he is dramatically confronted each day with the problems the customer is having with his products. What he sees generates shock, then feelings that help the man rise to the occasion. He returns to his employer a manager reborn. Approach- ing his job in a whole new way, he helps the firm make changes that benefit customers, employees, and owners. In chapter 6 (short-term wins), a manager does not ignore an in- fluential state Senator or sell him on a change effort's progress with graphs and charts. Instead, the manager finds out what the Senator really cares about. Then he dramaticallY, reduces the number of ri- diculous, bureaucratic forms needed to be filled out in that area. He shows the Senator the result, surprising the man in the most posi- tive sense. As a result, the Senator begins actively supporting the change effort. In chapter 7 (not letting up), a task force knows top management behavior is slowing down the change process. But instead of duck- ing the issue, or trying to describe it in antiseptic terms, the task force creates a hilarious video with actors spoofing the problem. Th . . 1 •d g·ves those executives try- e amusing, nonconfrontat10na VI eo 1 I 10 • THE HEART OF CHANGE e a much-needed tool for legitimizing new to . g to create chang I> 1n . ment behavior. manage ( aking change stick), staff write a good spe h 1 hapter 8 m ec n c th firm has created and needs to strengthen a d bout the values e n a . formation is to be firmly entrenched. But th retain if their trans e hen they present a real customer to employee real power comes w . s. . pi·rational story showing the consequences of living He tells an ins those values. Stories like these reveal a core pattern associated with successful change. 1. SEE. People find a problem in some stage of the change process-too many of their colleagues are behaving com- placently, no one is developing a sensible strategy, too many are letting up before the strategy has been achieved. They then create dramatic, eye-catching, compelling situations that help others visualize the problem or a solution to the problem. 2. FEEL. The visualizations awaken feelings that facilitate useful change or ease feelings that are getting in the way. Urgency, optimism, or faith may go up. Anger, complacency, cynicism, or fear may go down. 3 · ~HANGE. The new feelings change or reinforce new behav- ior, sometimes very different behavior. People act much less comp~acently. They try much harder to make a good vision a reahty They d 't · f the d · on st0P before the work is done, even 1 roa seems long. Successful see-feel c and never cyu· - hange tactics tend to be clever, not clumsY, ically mani 1 · l w where the sto pu ative. They often have an afterg O ' · ry of the eve t · h e is a rernaining • . n is told again and again or where t er P Vls1ble sign f h . al eople over tirn , 1 n._ 0 t e event that influences addition e. vvnen d one Well over all eight stages of a change Almost Always the Core Method Is: SEE-FEEL-CHANGE 1. HELP PEOPLE SEE. Compelling, eye-catching, dramatic situations are cre- ated to help others visualize problems, solutions, or prog- ress in solving complacency, strategy, empowerment, or other key problems within the eight steps. As a result 2. SEEING SOMETHING NEW HITS THE EMOTIONS. The visualizations provide useful ideas that hit people at a deeper level than surface thinking. They evoke a vis- ceral response that reduces emotions that block change and enhances those that sup- port it. 3 · EMOTIONALLY CHARGED IDEAS CHANGE BEHAVIOR OR REINFORCE CHANGED BEHAVIOR. . The Heart of Change • 11 Rarely the Core Method Is: ANALYSIS-TH INK-CHANGE 1. GIVE PEOPLE ANALYSIS. Information is gathered and · analyzed, reports are written, and presentations are made about problems, solutions, or progr~ss in solvi~g urgency, teamwork, communication, momentum slippage, or other key problems within the eight steps. As a result 2. DATA AND ANALYSIS INFLUENCE HOW WE THINK. The information and analysis · change people's thinking. Ideas inconsistent with the needed change are dropped or modified. 3. NEW THOUGHTS CHANGE BEHAVIOR OR REINFORCE CHANGED BEHAVIOR. 12 • THE HEART OF CHANGE It an be breathtaking. Mature (old-fash. rocess, the resu s c . . Ioned, P ., ganizations take a leap into the future. Lag dun~ or heavy1 or gards ' 1 ders Leaders jump farther ahead. start to become ea . . . . t that careful data gather1ng, analysis, and pre The point 1s no . . sen- . . portant. They are impo rtant. Sometimes it is b tatwn are un1m . . e- . h g d by analysis that sends peo ple into a see-feel-chan havior c an e ge S met imes change launched through fee lings creates process. o a radically better approach to analysis. O ften small changes are a nec- essary part of a larger change effort, and the small changes are driven by analysis. Occasionally, careful anal ysis is required to get show- me-the-numbers finance people or engi neers in the mood to see. But analysis has at least three major limitations. First, in a re- markable number of cases, you don't n eed it to find the big truths. You may not need to do much work to fi nd that the old strategy isn't working and that a new one isn't being embraced. You don't need a fifty-page report to see there is insuffi cient new product develop- ment and that a number of factors ma ke it impossible for the en- gineers to do what is necessary. You do n't need reams of financial data to learn that you cannot stay out of e-business and that the first step is simply to take the first step. It is n't necessary for a team of psychologists to study Fred and his team to find out they are failing and must be replaced. Yes, there are ma ny exceptions-deciding on w~ic~ $IOO million IT system to buy, fo r example-but the general pomt 1s valid. Seco nd, analytical tools have their limitatio ns in a turbulent ~orld. These tools work best when para meters are known, assump- tions are minimal d h . ' an t e future is not fuzzy . Third, good anal s • It h Y Is rarely motivate s people in a big way. c anges thought but h t the do t . ' ow often does i t send people running ou or o act m signifi l . t a thinki . cant Y new way s? And motivation 1s no ng word; It's a feeling word We fail at change . controlled and efforts not beca use we are stupid, over- ' unemotional b · h t waY at times. We fa .1 b eings, although it can seem t a 1 ecause we h , h ·gh1Y aven t sufficiently experienced 1 The Heart of Change O 13 successful change. Without that experience, we are too often left pessimistic, fearful, or without enough faith to act. So we not only behave in less effective ways, we don't even try. Consider the implications of this pattern in an age of accelerat- ing change, at a time when we are making a mind-boggling transi- tion from an industrial to an information/knowledge economy. Consider the implications in light of how managers, management educators, and others today deal with large-scale change. Of course there are many difficulties here, but being uninformed and pessimistic does not help. We need more leaps into the future. And although we are becoming better at this, there is no reason that we cannot learn to become much better still. In light of the stakes, we must become better still. Using the Book Because they help show, the stories in the book are very im- portant. As a reader, glancing at the figures, reading a bit of the text, and moving on does not work especially well. If you are in a rush and want to learn from the book quickly, read three or four stories and look at the end-of-chapter figures. You might choose the stories in whichever chapter seems of most relevance. Or you might go to "Gloves on the Boardroom Table" in the step 1 chapter, "The Plane Will Not Move!" in the step 3 chapter, and "Retooling the Boss" in the step 5 chapter. No matter how you read the book, feel free to copy a story and send it to your colleagues. The more a relevant story circulates among your colleagues, and the more it creates useful dialogue, the better. In a recent edition of Fortune magazine, Jack Welch is quoted as saying, "You've got to talk about change every second of the day." That's a bit of an extreme position, but maybe extreme is what wins. 12 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE No 34/35 2015/2016 A Concept for Diagnosing and Developing Organizational Change Capabilities A Concept for Diagnosing and Developing Organizational Change Capabilities Christina Schweiger, Barbara Kump and Lorena Hoormann Abstract In modern industries, organizations are facing the need to continuously change and adapt to dynamic environmental conditions. To address this change, organizations require several specific capabilities, which will be referred to as organizational change capabili- ties. As the paper will outline, organizational change capabilities are a type of dynamic capability grounded in an organization’s change logic. The model of organizational change capabilities presented in this paper distinguishes search, ref lection, seizing, plan- ning, implementation, and strategy making capabilities. Based on this model, (a) concepts for diagnosing and improving change capabili- ties, and (b) an innovative intervention design for organizational development are devel- oped, which are generic and can be tailored to the needs of a specific firm. The theoretical analysis sketched in this paper may further stimulate theory development at the interface of dynamic capabilities and dominant logic. At the same time, the innovative intervention design is expected to be of high practical value for managers and practitioners in the field of organizational development. Key Words Change capabilities, dynamic capabilities, organizational change logic, organizational development, organizational diagnosis Introduction Due to increasing turbulence in the markets and intense competition, organizations need to continuously change and adapt to their envi- ronments to survive. Dynamically changing operating environments require a proactive approach, where change occurs in a strategic way in anticipation of prospective alterations (Judge & Douglas, 2009; Worley & Lawler, 2006). Proactive organizational change requires the identification and development of strategic options and the implementation of the planned strategic changes. To achieve these changes, organizations need certain capabilities, which have been referred to as organizational change capabilities (Soparnot, 2011). A lack of change capabilities may lead to struc- tural inertia; that is, the inability to address Christina Schweiger is Senior Researcher and Lecturer in the Entrepreneurship Competence Team at Vienna University of Applied Sciences of WKW (Austria). She has worked in international applied R&D projects for many years. Currently she works as a team leader in research and consultant projects in the field of the development of small and medium sized enterprises, strategic management, organizational develop- ment and change management. She holds a doctoral degree in Business Management and Business Education from the Uni- versity of Graz. E-mail: Barbara Kump is Endowed Professor of Organizational Development and Organizational Learning at the department of Human Resources and Organization at Vienna University of Applied Sciences of WKW (Austria). She holds both a diploma (MA) and a doctoral degree in cognitive psychology from the University of Graz. She has worked as a team leader in vari- ous international and interdisciplinary R&D and consulting projects in the field of change, organizational learning and knowledge management. She has co-authored more than 30 peer reviewed scientific articles. Her current research inter- ests include organizational knowledge creation, leadership and organizational development. Lorena Hoormann is Research Associate and Lecturer in the Entrepreneurship Competence Team at Vienna University of Applied Sciences of WKW (Austria). During her studies she worked in different projects in Germany, Spain, Chile and Aus- tria. She has been working for more than four years as a Junior Consultant at the Viennese Institute for Systemic Organiza- tional research (I.S.O.). Her current research interests include organizational development, applied research in evaluation and participation as well as systemic organizational research and interventions. 13 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE No 34/35 2015/2016 Christina Schweiger, Barbara Kump, Lorena Hoormann changing conditions. Negative development paths and corporate crises are possible conse- quences (Hannan & Freeman, 1984; Trispas & Gavetti, 2000; Vergne & Durand, 2011). Organizational change capabilities can inter- cept structural inertia and path dependencies, thereby sustaining competitive advantage over time, and increase the likelihood of long-term survival. Change capabilities may thus safe- guard organizations from being “stuck in the middle” – from being without targeted strate- gic positioning in relevant markets (Borch & Madsen, 2007). The aim of this article is to introduce concepts and methods that support the improvement of organizational change capabilities. More concretely, the developed methods will enable (a) organizational diagno- sis and (b) the initiation of capability develop- ment. The concept of organizational change capa- bilities, which will be outlined in this paper, builds on the dynamic capabilities framework (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Helfat, 1997; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997), but has a stron- ger focus on the implementation of strategic change. Moreover, it integrates the concept of organizational change capabilities with that of organizational dominant logic (Bettis & Pra- halad, 1995; Prahalad & Bettis, 1986) by intro- ducing the concept of organizational change logic. As an initial theoretical contribution, a model of change capabilities will be developed. The model builds on the concept of dynamic capabilities but takes into account the actual implementation of strategic changes. More- over, the link between organizational change capabilities and an organization’s change logic will be elaborated. As a second contribution, implications and requirements for diagnos- ing change capabilities and the organization’s change logic will be derived, and an interven- tion design for developing change capabilities will be developed. The design is standardized but can still be adapted to the demands of a specific firm. This paper is organized as follows. First, the theoretical concept of change capabilities will be outlined by extending the concept of dynamic capabilities and linking this with the concept of organizational dominant logic. Then, a multi-method approach to diagnosing change capabilities and organizational change logic and an intervention design for develop- ing change capabilities within organizations will be described. Finally, implications for future research and practice will be discussed. Change Capabilities and Change Logic This section provides the theoretical rationale for developing and diagnosing organizational change capabilities. Because change capabili- ties can be seen as specific types of dynamic capabilities (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Helfat, 1997; Teece et al., 1997), the section starts with a brief review of dynamic capabil- ity research, before the concepts of organiza- tional change capabilities and organizational change logic are introduced. Dynamic Capabilities The concept of dynamic capabilities emerged from contributions by Teece et al. (1997), Helfat (1997), and Eisenhardt and Martin (2000). It is grounded in the resource-based view of the firm, which assumes that competi- tive advantage is generated by a firm’s indi- vidual combination of internal resources such as knowledge, rules, routines and capabilities and by its capability to reconfigure existing resources into specific resource configura- tions (e.g. Barney, 1991; Grant, 1991; Nelson & Winter, 1982). These resource configurations enable firms to generate new valuable market strategies and innovations that are difficult to copy. Dynamic capabilities are usually defined as those capabilities that enable an organi- zation to recognize the need for changes, to understand the likely consequences of the change, and to reconfigure its firm-specific resource base to match the requirements of changing environments. 14 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE No 34/35 2015/2016 A Concept for Diagnosing and Developing Organizational Change Capabilities Since its introduction, the dynamic capabili- ties framework has been the subject of numer- ous theoretical debates (for overviews see, e.g. Ambrosini, Bowman, & Collier, 2009; Bar- reto, 2010; Di Stefano, Peteraf, & Verona, 2014; Vogel & Güttel, 2013). Dynamic capabilities are deemed responsible for seizing the oppor- tunities that a dynamic operating environment opens up and for presenting the innovations required to continuously maintain competitive advantage. Such capabilities include the bal- ance of the present and future activities of the firm; for example, the management of the cre- ation of product and process innovations, the operational management of the present busi- ness, and the improvement and advancement of present routines and competencies (Borch & Madsen, 2007; Wang & Ahmed, 2007; Winter, 2003; Zahra, Sapienza, & Davidsson 2006). Thereby, dynamic capabilities prepare the firm for prospective challenges. Teece (2007, see also Teece, 2014) presents a model of dynamic capabilities that dis- tinguishes sensing, seizing, and transform- ing capabilities. Sensing refers to various activities related to identifying new business opportunities, or innovations (e.g. searching, scanning). Seizing includes designing vari- ous new business opportunities and selecting among various strategies and business models, and it is closely related to investment decisions that primarily take place under uncertainty (e.g. changing markets). Transforming refers to conducting activities that aim to recombine and to reconfigure assets within an organiza- tion such that path dependencies and inertia are avoided (Vergne & Durand, 2011). Teece (2014) highlights the importance of strategic decision-making with regard to sustainable change. In line with previous approaches (e.g. Eisenhardt & Sull, 2001; Mintzberg, 1994), Teece emphasizes that strategy should build the basis for investment decisions and should be aligned with changing environmental con- ditions. Research into dynamic capabilities provides insights into how firms can strive to gain or to sustain a competitive advantage by strate- gically altering their resource base. However, this stream of research is largely disconnected from the question of how well firms can actu- ally implement strategic change (Soparnot, 2011). Therefore, the concept of change capa- bilities has been introduced. Change Capabilities Soparnot (2011: 642) defines a firm’s change capability as ‘the ability of the company to produce match- ing outcomes (content) for environmental (external context) and/or organizational (inter- nal context) evolution, either by reacting to the changes (adaptation) or by instituting them (pro-action) and implementing the transition brought about by these changes (process) in the heart of the company’. This definition, however, remains vague with regard to the concrete capabilities firms need for successful strategic change. To actually diagnose and improve change capabilities, the concept must be further refined. Teece’s (2007, 2014) distinction of dynamic capabilities into sensing, seizing, and trans- forming provides a useful starting point for further refining the concept of change capa- bilities, and Teece’s components can partly be transferred to change capabilities: First, orga- nizations need to sense ideas for change, from both outside and within the firm. Teece’s cat- egory of sensing is primarily oriented towards the organization’s environment, for exam- ple, towards identifying changing customer needs or new competitors. However, ideas for changes may also arise from within the orga- nization, for example, because the current pro- cesses do not lead to the expected outcomes. Second, ideas for change both from outside and within the organization must be seized, that is, formed into concrete opportunities for change that fit the firm’s strengths and weak- nesses and are in line with the firm’s strategy. 15 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE No 34/35 2015/2016 Christina Schweiger, Barbara Kump, Lorena Hoormann As described above, Teece (2014) highlights that dynamic capabilities can unfold their full potential only in conjunction with a strong organizational strategy. This also holds true for organizational change, which should take place in a strategic, planned manner. There- fore, decisions for implementing a change opportunity should be in line with an organi- zation’s strategy. Third, transformation must occur in the sense that the decided changes must be implemented. This aspect of imple- mentation goes beyond Teece’s concept of transformation: As Soparnot (2011: 645) puts it, even if the concept of dynamic capability ‘identifies the routines at the origin of the stra- tegic and organizational reconfigurations, it does not explain how these renewals may be carried out; this is what the change capacity is trying to identify’. By combining Soparnot’s (2011) concept with Teece’s (2007, 2014) components, the defini- tion of change capabilities can be refined by regarding them as those capabilities that enable an organization to recognize the need for change, both from inside the organization and its environment, develop and seize ideas for change opportuni- ties which fit the firm’s strengths and weak- nesses, make decisions for change, taking into account the firm’s strategy, and successfully plan and implement changes. From this definition, the following change capabilities can be derived: search, ref lection, seizing, planning, implementation and strat- egy making (see Figure 1; a similar model is presented by Güttel, 2006, in the context of strategic entrepreneurship). Search refers to a firm’s ability to effectively recognize, sense and explore the external envi- ronment for prospective innovative products, services and processes (e.g. Danneels, 2008). That is, they are all routines that support orga- nizations in observing their environment to find new relevant external information about, for example, the market, customer needs, competition and new technologies. Reflection focuses on processes and developments within the organization. It constitutes the firm’s abil- ity to continuously challenge internal organi- zational routines, behaviour and the general “status quo” (strategy, goals, vision, etc.; e.g. West, 2000). Ref lection is related to the ques- tions of what is working well within the orga- nization, what is not working and what has to be changed. Seizing, in the sense of Teece (2007, 2014), refers to all organizational processes that enable organizations to assimilate relevant information and to transform it into suitable change opportunities. With regard to orga- nizational change, this means that ideas for change, which the organization has devel- oped based on (external) search and (internal) ref lection processes, are adapted to a firm’s current characteristics. Concerning the implementation of the change, planning and implementation can be distin- guished. Planning becomes visible in the abil- ity to bring change visions “down to earth” by operationalizing strategic change goals (e.g. Kapsali, 2011; McElroy, 1996; Noble, 1999). This includes the planning of change and innovation projects and the identification of existing resources, potentials and barriers. Implementation refers to the firm’s ability to bring intended change activities into action and to transform change ideas consistently into new products, structures and systems (e.g. Davis, Kee, & Newcomer, 2010; Meyer & Stensaker, 2006; Vacar, 2013). Only through consequential action can change take place. Finally, the capability of strategy making is required for successful strategic change, which is closely related to all other capabili- ties. Strategy making is seen as the firm’s abil- ity to define long-term change goals, to take into account the existing means and resources, and to orient entrepreneurial decisions towards these goals. Strategy making includes pro- cesses for defining the vision, mission, value 16 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE No 34/35 2015/2016 A Concept for Diagnosing and Developing Organizational Change Capabilities statements and strategies for competition (e.g. Ackermann & Eden, 2011). Organizational Change Logic An organization’s change capabilities do not operate in a vacuum; they are deeply embed- ded in the organization’s basic assumptions, beliefs and emergent decision rules regarding change and learning. One framework, which elaborates on the emergence and effects of organizational beliefs and rules within orga- nizations, is the concept of a dominant logic introduced by Prahalad and Bettis (1986) (see also Bettis & Prahalad, 1995). The dominant logic constitutes the firm’s collective mind set or “view of the world”, which configures and arranges the business model, the management, and the firm’s structure to make decisions, to allocate resources, and to realize goals (Bettis & Wong, 2003; Drazin, Glynn, & Kazanjian, 2004; Eggers & Kaplan, 2013; Kor & Mesko, 2013). Expressed as the firm’s typical learning and problem solving behaviour, the dominant logic is “an emergent property of organizations as complex adaptive systems” (Bettis & Pra- halad, 1995: 10) and part of the organization’s deep structure or subconscious (Bettis & Pra- halad, 1995; Bettis & Wong, 2003; Gersick, 1991; Tushman & Romanelli, 1985), which underlies a firm’s visible strategy, structure and systems (Drazin et al., 2004; Eggers & Kaplan, 2013; Kor & Mesko, 2013; von Krogh & Roos, 1996). The organization’s dominant logic comprises, among others, values (e.g. trust, reliability), beliefs (e.g. “leaders must be strong”), mental models (e.g. what does “conf lict” mean) or norms (e.g. dress code, addressing extra hours). An organization’s dominant logic affects all aspects of organizing, including how the organization addresses change. This facet of the dominant logic, which addresses orga- nizational change, is defined here as organi- zational change logic. More specifically, an Figure 1: Organizational Change Capabilities (search, reflection, seizing, planning, implementation, strategy making) that Operate on the Organizational Change Logic 17 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE No 34/35 2015/2016 Christina Schweiger, Barbara Kump, Lorena Hoormann organization’s change logic is seen as that part of the dominant logic that conceptualizes its change and learning processes through basic assumptions, beliefs and emergent decision rules, structures and systems. Therefore, the organizational change logic is the organiza- tion’s collective mind set, which shapes and steers all types of change and learning pro- cesses within an organization. Because each organization has its unique dominant logic, it also has a specific way of addressing change; that is, a particular, idiosyncratic, organiza- tional change logic. In more practical terms, the organizational change logic is the organization’s typical way of addressing change (e.g. avoiding risk, involv- ing many people in decisions). The organiza- tion’s change logic may affect questions such as “How important is change in general for the organization?”, “Who usually makes sugges- tions for change?”, “Who decides whether an idea is actually being implemented?”, or “To what extent are changes being planned?” As a set of invisible, cognitive rules, assump- tions and beliefs, the organizational (change) logic is responsible for prospective changes and for maintaining present routines and behaviour (Bartunek & Moch, 1994). The organizational change logic therefore can be seen as the framework on which change capa- bilities may bring out the intended change and innovations. Although it was not in the focus of their work, Kor and Mesko (2013) described a similar link between dynamic capabilities and the organizational logic. In line with these considerations, the presented model suggests that the development of change capabilities is shaped by the firm’s change logic, and in turn, the development of change capabilities may shape the organizational change logic (Bettis & Wong, 2003; Kor & Mesko, 2013). Diagnosing Change Capabilities and Change Logic The aim underlying this article was to develop concepts for organizations to improve their change capabilities, taking into account their change logic. Therefore, concepts were developed for diagnosing both change capa- bilities and the change logic. Due to the dif- ferent nature of the two, different methods are needed to diagnose them, which will be out- lined in the following. An Outcome-oriented Approach to Diagnosing Change Capabilities Organizational change capabilities mani- fest themselves in practice when firms are addressing change. They are basically observ- able and measurable. They may appear in various shapes in different organizations but they have similar outcomes regardless of how these outcomes are achieved. This property of achieving similar outcomes with different means has been referred to as equifinality by Eisenhardt and Martin (2000). To account for this property of equifinality, the extent of change capabilities may be best measured by focusing on outcomes. Therefore, a definition of outcomes was developed that may indicate a high level of the competence under consideration (e.g. “How well are you aware of what our competitors are doing?”). This output orientation allows for measuring change capabilities regardless of how they are enacted in the firm under consideration. The definition of outcomes for each of the com- ponents of change capabilities can be seen in Table 1: Firms with high search capability are aware of what happens in their environment and are able to identify ideas for change. If the reflection capability is high, firms are aware of what happens inside their organization and are able to identify ideas for change from within. Firms with high seizing capability are able to recognize ideas that bear market oppor- tunities and to derive ideas for innovation and 18 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE No 34/35 2015/2016 A Concept for Diagnosing and Developing Organizational Change Capabilities change that fit the organization’s strengths and weaknesses. A firm with good planning capa- bility is able to realistically plan changes. If the implementation capability within a firm is well developed, the firm is able to allocate the required resources, to define appropriate pro- cesses and to acquire the required know-how once the change has been initiated. Organiza- tions with high capability of strategy making in the context of organizational change have long-term goals and strategies with which to achieve these goals, and they are able to align their change-related decisions with these long- term goals. Starting from this output-oriented operation- alization, change capabilities may be diag- nosed with the help of (quantitative) surveys or semi-structured (qualitative) interviews. A quantitative survey-based diagnosis may be useful to gain an overview of different (aggre- gated) perspectives on each of these change capabilities. A survey-based quantitative operationalization may enable the collection of data in more breadth (e.g. many employees in different positions). In addition, qualitative interviews may take place individually or in group settings, and they may focus on the question of how each of these capabilities is enacted in practice within an organization. Qualitative methods help achieve greater depth and richer pictures of how change capabilities manifest within the organization at hand and of their strengths and weaknesses. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods may provide an over- view of the status quo of each of the change capabilities, concerning both their extent (quantitative) and their shape (qualitative). An Interpretative Method for Diagnosing the Organizational Change Logic Because a firm’s logic is rooted in its “deep structures”, a firm’s members are largely unaware of it (Bettis & Wong, 2003). There- fore, the organizational change logic cannot be directly diagnosed with, for example, a survey or direct interview questions such as “How would you describe the change logic of your firm?” Instead, more indirect methods are needed with which the organizational change logic is inferred from other data (e.g. Alderfer, 1987; 2011). The method that has been devel- oped for diagnosing the organizational change logic is based on an associative-interpretative analysis (e.g. Alderfer, 2011; Dijksterhuis & Nordgren, 2006) of qualitative data from multiple sources (e.g. qualitative interviews, observations, analyses of the website). The following basic assumptions underlie the developed method for diagnosing the change logic: (a) An organization’s change logic is Table 1: Output-oriented Definition of Organizational Change Capabilities Organizational change capability Output-oriented definition Search We are aware of what happens in our organization’s environment, and we are able to identify ideas for change. Reflection We are aware of what happens inside our organization, and we are able to identify ideas for change. Seizing We are able to recognize ideas that bear market opportunities and to derive ideas for innovation and change. Planning We are able to realistically plan changes within our organization. Implementation Once we initiate a change in our organization, we are able to allocate the required resources, to define appropriate processes, and to acquire the required know-how. Strategy making We have long-term goals and strategies of how to achieve these goals, and we are able to align our decisions with these long-term goals. 19 JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND CHANGE No 34/35 2015/2016 Christina Schweiger, Barbara Kump, Lorena Hoormann idiosyncratic; that is, each organization has its unique change logic; (b) the organization’s change logic manifests in patterns that re- occur in different organizational contexts; (c) an organization’s change logic is a collective phenomenon, but each individual has his own perspective on it; (d) some aspects of the logic are directly observable, whereas others must be inferred; and (e) an organization’s change logic develops based on experiences and rein- forcement learning from the past. From these assumptions, several methodologi- cal implications were derived: Because the change logic is assumed to manifest as an idio- syncratic pattern that re-occurs in different organizational contexts, multiple data sources should be considered for data collection. In addition to interviews, as much additional information as possible should be collected, which could potentially reveal insights into a firm’s change logic (e.g. explicated values on walls, layout of offices, salient symbols). Because it is assumed to be a collective phe- nomenon, multiple members of the organiza- tion should be asked to provide information. To identify the more observable/conscious aspects of the change logic, semi-structured interviews should be conducted. The inter- view protocol could include questions about the firm’s foundation and past handling of change, the significance of change within the organization, the general attitude towards change, the frequency of change, how the need for change is recognized and communicated, how ideas for change are developed and by whom, who makes decisions for change, to what extent changes are planned, and what are typical obstacles with regard to change. Moreover, to better understand the firm as a whole, the interview protocol should also con- tain questions about the current market situa- tion and questions regarding the firm’s overall strategy. To extrapolate an organization’s change logic; that is, the pattern of how it usually addresses change, from the vast amount of informa- tion from multiple sources (e.g., interviews, field protocols), a group interpretation proce- dure was developed. This procedure foresees involving multiple individuals (we suggest four to six) who have varying degrees of famil- iarity with the organization under consider- ation. For the group interpretation, interview transcripts and documentation of all other data collections are needed. The procedure pro- posed for the group interpretation follows six Table 2: Procedure of the Group Interpretation to Diagnose an Organization’s Change Logic Step Content Preparation Multiple researchers …