Fluent Essays

Cohesive response  based on your analysis ...See attachment for detailed instructions   Cohesive response No plagiarism  APA citing 3-4 paragraphs  ** Due 48 hours or ASAP **** Discussion 2: Developing a Change Plan – Forming a Guiding Coalition As a sense of urgency for change is developed within an organization, there needs to be a structure in place to manage the change. In the Kotter model, this need is filled by the establishment of a change management team composed of a variety of individuals with different competencies and roles. The composition of the key players in the change process is important, and while those with solid management skills may be needed, leadership skills are vital. These key players must align together in a coalition based on trust and common goals. A successful coalition is not necessarily composed of top management, but a blend of people within an organization—a selection based on position, skills, integrity, and leadership qualities that will garner the necessary commitment of the entire organization. Key players in the change process can exist at all levels of an organization. To prepare for this Discussion: · Review this week’s Learning Resources, especially: 1. Step 1: Establishing a sense of urgency – see attachment 2. Step 2: Creating a guiding coalition – see attachment 3. Leading change management Retrieved from: 10 principles of leading change management (strategy-business.com) Post a cohesive response based on your analysis of the Learning Resources and your professional experience. Be sure to discuss the following: · If you were tasked with establishing a network for change, which types of individuals within your organization would you select? Why? · Do these individuals represent all areas in your organization that would be affected by the change? · As the change project evolves, it will be necessary to include key individuals from every level of the organization that is affected. Explain how you have included these managers and leaders in your guiding coalition. · What challenges might a manager or leader face when enlisting individuals from diverse areas within the organization? · What could be the consequences of not identifying key individuals or of not including individuals that represent all areas of the organization? What additional work would that then create in managing change? · 3 – 4 paragraphs · No plagiarism · APA citing John Kotter’s Eight Step Change Model John Kotter (1996), a Harvard Business School Professor and a renowned change expert, in his book “Leading Change”, introduced an 8 Step Model of Change which he developed on the basis of research of 100 organizations which were going through a process of change. The 8 steps in the process of change include: creating a sense of urgency, forming powerful guiding coalitions, developing a vision and a strategy, communicating the vision, removing obstacles and empowering employees for action, creating short-term wins, consolidating gains and strengthening change by anchoring change in the culture. Kotter’s 8 step model can be explained with the help of the illustration given below: (Source: Adapted from Kotter 1996) 1. Creating an Urgency: This can be done in the following ways:  Identifying and highlighting the potential threats and the repercussions which might crop up in the future.  Examining the opportunities which can be tapped through effective interventions.  Initiate honest dialogues and discussions to make people think over the prevalent issues and give convincing reasons to them.  Request the involvement and support of the industry people, key stakeholders and customers on the issue of change. 2. Forming Powerful Guiding Coalitions This can be achieved in the following ways:  Identifying the effective change leaders in your organizations and also the key stakeholders, requesting their involvement and commitment towards the entire process.  Form a powerful change coalition who would be working as a team.  Identify the weak areas in the coalition teams and ensure that the team involves many influential people from various cross functional departments and working in different levels in the company. 3. Developing a Vision and a Strategy This can be achieved by:  Determining the core values, defining the ultimate vision and the strategies for realizing a change in an organization.  Ensure that the change leaders can describe the vision effectively and in a manner that people can easily understand and follow. 4. Communicating the Vision  Communicate the change in the vision very often powerfully and convincingly. Connect the vision with all the crucial aspects like performance reviews, training, etc.  Handle the concerns and issues of people honestly and with involvement. 5. Removing Obstacles  Ensure that the organizational processes and structure are in place and aligned with the overall organizational vision.  Continuously check for barriers or people who are resisting change. Implement proactive actions to remove the obstacles involved in the process of change.  Reward people for endorsing change and supporting in the process. 6. Creating Short-Term Wins  By creating short term wins early in the change process, you can give a feel of victory in the early stages of change.  Create many short term targets instead of one long-term goal, which are achievable and less expensive and have lesser possibilities of failure.  Reward the contributions of people who are involved in meeting the targets. 7. Consolidating Gains  Achieve continuous improvement by analysing the success stories individually and improving from those individual experiences. 8. Anchoring Change in the Corporate Culture  Discuss the successful stories related to change initiatives on every given opportunity.  Ensure that the change becomes an integral part in your organizational culture and is visible in every organizational aspect.  Ensure that the support of the existing company leaders as well as the new leaders continue to extend their support towards the change. Advantages of Kotter’s Model  It is an easy step by step model which provides a clear description and guidance on the entire process of change and is relatively easy for being implemented.  Emphasis is on the involvement and acceptability of the employees for the success in the overall process.  Major emphasis is on preparing and building acceptability for change instead of the actual change process. Retrieved from: https://www.managementstudyguide.com/kotters-8-step-model-of-change.htm on 5/30/2018 https://www.managementstudyguide.com/kotters-8-step-model-of-change.htm 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 …