Content uploaded by Andrew Sturdy
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew Sturdy on Feb 06, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Beneath and Beyond
Organizational Change
Management: Exploring
Alternatives
Andrew Sturdy and Christopher Grey
Imperial College London, UK, and University of Cambridge, UK
Abstract. This essay introduces contributions to a special issue explor-
ing alternative accounts of organizational change management (OCM). It
begins with identifying why such alternatives are needed by pointing to
core assumptions within OCM, including a practical and ontological pro-
change bias, managerialism and universalism. The alternatives to OCM
are then framed in terms of the constructionism associated with various
forms of discourse analysis. It is argued that the contributions show, both
theoretically and empirically, the limitations of OCM as conventionally
understood. Key words. critique; discourse; organizational change;
stability
‘We live in a world of unprecedented stability. Technology continues to
shape how we communicate, travel, work and live. Most of the world
remains poor and dependent on those who control capital and govern-
ments. For the relatively well-off, consumerism is established as a core
activity, and a lifetime with a small number of employers can be expected.
In organizations, key decisions continue to be concentrated among a small
cadre, and other activities are still largely formalized. Those organizations
where change is attempted usually fail in their efforts (66% according to
one estimate) or achieve only marginal effects. Some disappear altogether
as competition ensures that such failures prove costly in time and effort. It
is therefore imperative that today’s managers embrace stability and learn
to manage continuity if they want to survive.’ (The Alternative Change
Text)
Volume 10(4): 651–662
Copyright © 2003 SAGE
(London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi)
1350-5084[200311]10:4;651–662;036667 www.sagepublications.com
articles
The extent to which this fictitious quotation seems amusing, paradoxical,
ridiculous or simply wrong is a testament to the solidity of the power
effects of discourses of change and change management in organization
studies and related fields. Yet it is, in our view, no less sustainable than
the mass of hyperbole arguing the opposite. It has been claimed that
‘organizational change may well be the most oft-repeated and widely
embraced term in all of corporate America’ (Beer and Nohria, 2000a:
cover). Despite this, there is little evidence of critique or genuinely
alternative voices, perhaps because critics as much as protagonists
describe and desire change, albeit in different forms and directions.
1
In
this sense, notions of change are not so much contested between critics
and managerial advocates as co-constructed by them. In the process,
much of importance is left unsaid and rendered almost unsayable.
Certainly, there are always important whispers questioning the claimed
extent of changes such as globalization, empowerment or technological
advance. There are also critics pointing to practical/theoretical difficul-
ties or the harmful consequences of change and its management methods
(e.g. Collins, 1998). But these voices are muted or marginalized compared
with those of the protagonists of change and change management. More-
over, no one, it seems, argues that stability or continuity is either possible
or desirable. Instead, stability is configured as what happens when
nothing happens. It is either a problem or a nullity.
An important initial point to make is that change and continuity are
not alternative objective states: they are not alternatives because they are
typically coexistent and coterminous; and they are not objective because
what constitutes change or continuity is perspective dependent. We are
not, then, arguing against change—its existence, desirability or, even,
achievability—and for stability or continuity. Instead, we want to make
out a case against organizational change management (OCM) discourses
and their one-sided nature, which endorses change as an abstract ideal
but is also highly restrictive about what sorts of change should be
pursued. OCM is therefore silent about the possibility of stability and
about many of the possibilities for change. In particular, then, the aim of
this short and somewhat polemical introductory article is to begin to
make the case for the construction and legitimacy of alternative voices
to those that insist upon the inevitability and desirability of change
management.
The article is organized in terms of an articulation of different problem-
atic features of OCM: its reproduction of the familiar terrain of writings
on management and organization generally; its growing boldness in
articulating change as an ontological condition; and its unitarism. We
then move towards offering some alternative directions for theorizing
change, including approaches that draw on notions of translation and
discourse. In this way, we open up a different kind of terrain, one that
could be inhabited by the kinds of analyses offered by the other contribu-
tions to this special issue.
Organization 10(4)
Articles
652
Everything Changes Except Change
Organizational change and its management have become a huge field of
study and practice.
2
Readers of this journal will need little introduction
to the dominant approaches or perspectives (e.g. rationalist, processual,
humanist, political and contingency), or the various typologies of change
(e.g. emergent, planned, first order, second order) or the seemingly
endless models for organizational change (see Ford and Ford, 1994;
Morgan and Sturdy, 2000; Van de Ven and Poole, 1995). What holds
together this variety is, within OCM, a core assumption that change can,
should and must be managed. It is that assumption about
controllability—an assumption shared, of course, by managerial dis-
courses in general—that informs perhaps the most enduring of OCM
metaphors, that of unfreeze–change–refreeze (Lewin, 1951; see Kanter et
al., 1992). We believe that this fundamentally mechanistic understanding
of change is ubiquitous in OCM, but we are also conscious of the danger
that discussing such ‘classics’ is seen as constructing a ‘straw person’ by
being insufficiently attentive to recent and, supposedly, more sophisti-
cated writings. Therefore, in this section we will discuss two recent texts
purporting to set out a number of issues and challenges to OCM.
In a review of academic literature, Pettigrew et al. argue that ‘research
and writing on organizational change is undergoing a metamorphosis’
(2001: 697; see also Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999), which would be to
say that OCM itself is changing. In particular, they point to a greater
recognition of the importance of context–action connections, time, proc-
ess (‘changing’ rather than ‘change’) and sequencing and, especially, the
need to explore continuity (not stability) as well as change. Overall, they
note and support a growing pluralism in approaches, including those
arising from a stronger engagement between management and social
science. Some of this may seem to echo what we said in the introduction
to this article. However, what remains inviolate and apparently unno-
ticed in this ‘new’ formulation of OCM is that its efforts should be
directed primarily towards a taken for granted (i.e. managerial) ‘practical
relevance’ and that they are occurring in an ‘ever-changing world of
practice’ (Pettigrew et al., 2001: 709). This is not to deny that there is
some interesting nuance within the Pettigrew collection. For example, an
attempt is made to incorporate understandings of economic and socio-
logical institutionalism into accounts of change, thus moving the focus
beyond the organization as an isolated entity. Closer attention is also
given to the unintended consequences of OCM. In these respects, the
review represents an improvement on the highly prescriptive ‘how to’
texts on organizational change. However, the core assumptions continue
to give voice to managerial perspectives but neglect others, and to give
voice to the ubiquity of change but neglect stability. The ‘metamorphosis’
of OCM goes so far, then, but no further. For us, that is not far enough.
Organizational Change Management
Andrew Sturdy and Christopher Grey
653
The second text is an edited volume that brings together often high-
profile academics and practitioners in an attempt to overcome the high
project failure rate by ‘breaking the code of [organizational] change’ (Beer
and Nohria, 2000a). The contributions are organized around a theme of
contrasting dominant OCM approaches or objectives: economic value
(‘Theory E’) and organizational capabilities (‘Theory O’). The Theory E/O
distinction may be read as yet another iteration of the distinction that has
permeated so much management theory: for example, Theories X and Y;
top–down and participative; structure and culture; programmatic and
emergent change; hard and soft human resources management (HRM);
rational and normative control; and so on. Some contributors to the
volume argue for one side of the distinction at the expense of the other.
Uniquely, Weick (2000) is critical of planned change programmes, favour-
ing management through building on or amplifying continual emergent
changes (see also Shaw, 2002). Overall, however, the editors and con-
tributors seek synthesis through combining elements of E and O and/or
variations of contingency theory. Pettigrew (2000), for instance, sees
emergent and planned change as being associated with different periods
or phases of change. But, whether the emphasis is either/or or both/and,
debate remains captured within seemingly inviolable dualisms, a subject
to which we will return.
If these contributions restate the familiar terrain of debate in organiza-
tion behaviour, so too do they replicate that terrain in being framed
unquestioningly in the interests of management. Admittedly, the editors
conclude (Beer and Nohria, 2000b) by pointing to the importance of
underlying values in shaping OCM approaches and to the need to make
these more explicit, contrasting the primacy of shareholder value in
Theory E with more humanist concerns in Theory O. This hardly
challenges managerialism, given that it is well established within critical
understandings of management that humanism represents a refinement
of, rather than an alternative to, managerial control. In introducing
values, it does mark a departure from claims of value-free science that
remain common in OCM, but it hardly exhausts the full range of value
possibilities. So, again, the new approaches to OCM go so far but no
further.
If even the latest and most sophisticated contributions to OCM remain
within some rather unchanging parameters, it is worth exploring a little
more fully what these parameters are.
Pro-change Bias
A longstanding internal criticism in the study of technological innova-
tion has been a tendency towards a ‘pro-innovation bias’ in the sense of
assuming that innovating is desirable or inevitable, regardless of the costs
and consequences (Rogers, 1995)—‘new’ is always good, ‘old’ is bad. It is
unsurprising that such an accusation can also be made of OCM, although
Organization 10(4)
Articles
654
there has been much less reflection on the issue within the latter
literature. The fact that change is seen as necessarily desirable is illus-
trated in the demonization and pathologizing inherent in the commonly
used OCM phrase ‘irrational resistance to change’. Boudon (1986: 49)
describes this as an ‘appallingly prejudice-ridden and authoritarian
expression’, and certainly it sets some interesting markers around OCM
discourse in terms of the desirability of change.
Of course, it can be (and usually is) argued that it is not so much that
planned change is good, but that it is necessary in (i.e. determined by) the
current period of ‘unprecedented’ competition and market change. Yet
the two arguments are not distinct, for if change is necessary then it is
also considered good when compared with the alternative of ‘no change’.
Indeed, that alternative is rarely if ever voiced within OCM. Even
contingency models of change management (which include contexts of
organization–environment fit) do not include a ‘no change’ option (see
Dunphy and Stace, 1988). OCM seems, like the early Henry Ford, to have
a peculiar notion of choice: you can do whatever you like except stay as
you are.
Although OCM literature has long promoted change in this prescriptive
sense, more recently its bias for change has taken on an ontological
nature. Earlier versions of OCM—including the freeze/unfreeze
metaphor—envisaged change as an intervention in systems that were
kept stable through various tensions or forces of equilibrium (e.g. Nadler,
1981: 197). More recent formulations have a much more ebullient feel.
OCM has begun to posit that it is not that everything changes but that
everything is change: people, organizations, ideas, etc. are abstractions or
fixings of movement, temporary, identifiable ‘resting points’ (Ford and
Ford, 1994). Similarly, but in a more populist manner, Kanter et al. (1992)
suggest that stability is unnoticed change. In this sense, being is change
and change has no outside. This is not so much a bias for change as a
totalitarianism of change.
Naturally, OCM writings do not trade in explicit claims about ontology.
Instead, just as strategy writers invoke Clausewitz or Sun-Tzu, the OCM
favourite is Heraclitus. Thus:
As Heraclitus noted 2,500 years ago: ‘All is flux, nothing stays still.’ Sadly,
this is as true today as it was then. (Beer and Nohria, 2000b: 476)
Such an invocation further extends the notion that change has no
outside. For not only is it seen as inappropriate in post-industrial times
to value periods or forms of stability, but change is, in fact, the only
reality. Yet, of course, this notion has a peculiar paradox: if everything
changes, how can it be that thinking that is almost 3000 years old
captures an unchanging truth? And note, too, the word ‘sadly’ in this
quotation. The ineluctable nature of change takes on an almost tragic
note. It explains why some (misguided) individuals might resist change
but it also configures the change manager as a heroic figure, facing the
Organizational Change Management
Andrew Sturdy and Christopher Grey
655
tragedy of the changing world armed with only the techniques of OCM.
In keeping with Jacques’ (1996) Procrustean analogy, ontological claims
about change do not typically preclude the possibility or desirability of
managing change (see Weick, 2000), nor do they extend to favouring or
observing chaos in the economic system. In short, they are deployed in a
managerialist and/or modernist way (see also Willmott, 1992)—
‘everything is change’ except, it seems, the ability to control it and the
structure of power and inequality. How is this control and structure
envisaged in OCM?
Managerialism and Universalism
The demands of an ever competitive and changing environment are
increasing the need for knowledge about how to lead and manage organiza-
tional change rapidly, efficiently and effectively. The management mantra
. . . is ‘lead change.’ (Beer and Nohria, 2000c: ix)
To criticize OCM for being managerialist is hardly a profound
contribution—indeed it is almost a tautology—and so this section will be
brief. Nevertheless, as with stability, it is important to give voice to such
views, especially because the ethos in much of the literature is of OCM
being a science of universal laws for the benefit of all. Admittedly, as
noted earlier, there has been some softening of this positivist version of
OCM. Nevertheless, there is scant suggestion that, even if managerial
values are, precisely, values, these should not form the prevailing logic of
change initiatives. Indeed, although recognizing the ‘fears’ and ‘irration-
ality’ of employees, the task of ‘leading change’ entails leading those
employees to an eventual acceptance of that which they initially res-
isted.
That irreconcilable conflicts of interest or inevitable uncertainties or
paradoxes inhibit (and induce) change programmes is not simply
obscured through unitary or pluralist assumptions or pragmatism, it is
written out—radical prescriptions are hardly likely to get published in
management journals or generate consultancy income. OCM is also
blinkered by its organizational, as well as its managerial, focus. In
common with management discourses more generally, studies and mod-
els rarely look to the broader social consequences of change models,
programmes and their methods. These consequences are explored out-
side of OCM, in general accounts of social change and (un)employment
for example (e.g. Bourdieu, 1999; Sennett, 2000), where reference is made
to the part played by OC aims and methods. However, the reverse does
not apply to OCM, which resolutely ignores wider social consequences in
favour of a narrow calculus of organizational advantage.
Some may object to such a characterization of OCM and point to long
and established, if in practice marginal, humanist traditions of participa-
tion in organizational development and socio-technical systems for
example, or to more recent pluralist concerns with stakeholders, ethics
Organization 10(4)
Articles
656
and corporate social responsibility—giving voice to those who are
‘changed’. Where such concerns are raised, they might resonate with
Parker’s (2002) recent call for alternative or non-managerial ways of
organizing (coordination, cooperation, citizenship, etc.). However, these
possibilities cannot occur in a vacuum and are intimately linked with
challenges to hierarchies of reward, skill and status as well as, crucially,
alternative market forms (Parker, 2002). Moreover, it is a question not
simply of political assumptions and awareness, but of epistemological
concerns as well. OCM (and other managerial disciplines) tend to seek
out universal approaches and patterns and these reinforce the view that
change is manageable (see Stacey, 1993).
In his broad study of theories of social change, Boudon (1986) points to
their longstanding appeal in terms of the prospect of being able to predict
the future. He is highly critical of this, showing how theories have
consistently been contradicted by ‘facts’ and underestimated the com-
plexity, randomness and variability of the world and change. A similar
sentiment can be found in MacIntyre’s (1981) contention that the social
sciences have completely failed to develop predictive generalities, and,
moreover, that they will never do so. OCM has no such inhibitions. For
example, in Pettigrew et al., although there is a familiar recognition of a
‘complex, dynamic and internationally conscious world’, a ‘search for
general patterns of change’ remains (2001: 697). If OCM is, as we have
suggested, both managerialist and universalist, what might be done to
articulate a different kind of understanding of change?
Towards Alternatives
The articles contained within this special issue draw upon and extend
some emerging alternatives to mainstream OCM thinking. Despite their
variety, they have as their shared core a concern with understanding the
socially constructed nature of OCM. For readers of this journal, this will
hardly seem like a bold move. Yet such an understanding corrodes the
assumptions upon which OCM is built, whether about ubiquity, onto-
logical status, the primacy of managerial interests or the universalism of
OCM prescriptions. This is crucial because, if change is not inevitable
and desirable but contingent and contested, then the organizational and
political consequences are potentially profound.
A key term within such an analysis is ‘discourse’. Discourse analysis in
organizational studies has grown in popularity and coverage in recent
years, and in many senses, but not all, it can be seen as a re-emergence of
social constructionism (see Grant et al., 1998). This is not the place to
address all the variations and nuances (see Alvesson and Karreman,
2000; Chia, 1999; Reed, 1998). Rather, the aim is to point to possibilities
for studying change through discourse analysis as a way of providing a
different voice in OCM. Heracleous and Barrett (2001) attempt such a
task. They map out three established types of discourse analysis (as
Organizational Change Management
Andrew Sturdy and Christopher Grey
657
meaning, power/knowledge and a communicative tool), attributing a
dominant theory of change to each one. They then present an alternative
‘structurational’ approach to discourse (see Giddens, 1984). Here, deep
structures are not as conventionally defined (see Kirkpatrick and
Ackroyd in this volume), but linguistic features such as metaphors and
rhetorical strategies. Their approach to change is presented as being
descriptive, rather than critical, and focuses on seemingly discrete
change episodes, such as an IT implementation, rather than on the
emergence and transformation of broader ‘meta-discourses’ such as strat-
egy and the customer (see Morgan and Sturdy, 2000).
Another important example of a ‘different voice’ is Czarniawska and
Sev´on’s (1996) analysis of change as translation (see Callon, 1986) or the
materialization of ideas into objects and practices. Drawing on what they
describe as Scandinavian institutionalism, their explicit aim is to tran-
scend the conventional oppositions between stability and change; plan-
ned and emergent (adaptive) change; or imitation (old) and innovation
(new). Rather, change is seen as the result of intentions, random events
and institutional norms. Attention is focused on the construction (or
translation) of meaning, as in the translation of ideas to fit problems,
regardless of their form. For example, Czarniawska and Joerges (1996)
develop the theme of translation (of people and objects as well as ideas)
in presenting organizational change in terms of the ‘travels of ideas’ into
disembedded ‘quasi-objects’ (e.g. graphical representations) and then
more embedded institutions and identities and, from there, ‘new’ ideas.
Although we are not suggesting that they provide a definitive answer to
the analysis of change, these kinds of invocations of the discursive frame
that alternative in two ways. First, they refuse the standard OCM device
of focusing on the organizational domain without recourse to the wider
social patternings and effects associated with organizational change.
Secondly, they refuse what discourse analysis has sometimes been
accused of, namely focusing purely on the textual or linguistic. Whether
inspired by Giddens, Foucault, Fairclough or Callon, there is an emerging
understanding of discourse that sees text and practice as indivisible.
Thus, the practices of OCM both instantiate and reproduce writings,
theories and ideologies of change.
The Special Issue Contributions
Du Gay’s contribution exemplifies these linkages. For him, the reshaping
of public administration is inseparable from a discursive arena of
‘epochalism’—a feature quite as much of ‘high theory’ as of OCM—the
significance of which is to close off alternatives in advance by silencing
other discursive possibilities. Here we see the political possibilities of, in
broad terms, constructionism. What is presented as natural or inevitable
is recast as a contested terrain of interpretation and, as such, our
attention is drawn to the power effects of change discourse.
Organization 10(4)
Articles
658
This theme runs through all of the contributions. Francis and Sinclair
locate their analysis of HRM-based change within Fairclough’s notion of
a ‘discursive event’—the imbrication of text and practice—linked to
hegemonic struggles over meaning. This analysis is pursued through case
studies of manufacturing organizations, which illustrate the shifts, con-
testations and ambiguities that characterize the instantiation of OCM.
Badham et al.’s account of cultural change in an Australian manu-
facturing company reveals similar complexities with change practice.
They too proceed from a broadly discursive perspective informed in part
by post-structuralism. However, they draw in particular on a reworking
of Becker’s classic contribution to the sociology of deviance to show how
organizational development interventions create a complex political
landscape in which conduct and motivation and identity become the site
of a power struggle.
Kirkpatrick and Ackroyd also draw on established theoretical
traditions—the sociology of the professions—as well as more recent
critical theory. In contrast to the other contributors, they adopt a critical
realist perspective, drawing on the work of Archer and her ‘morphogenic’
approach. However, in challenging functionalism, unitarism and univer-
salism and pointing to the necessarily constrained and contested nature
of organizational change and broader issues of power, they share many of
the concerns outlined above. In particular, they focus on the limitations
of the neo-institutionalist theory of organizational archetypes, which has
become dominant in accounts of attempted transitions from ‘profes-
sional’ to ‘managerial’ organization of professional services.
Finally, Doolin describes just such an initiative in the context of health
care in New Zealand and points to similar issues of occupational power
and resistance. However, his approach is explicitly constructionist. Fol-
lowing the work of Law and others, the concept of ‘ordering narratives’ is
deployed to draw together the (mutually implicated) social, discursive
and, in particular, material dimensions of organization and change. The
emphasis on materiality is discussed partly in terms of how discourses,
such as that of ‘clinical leadership’ in hospitals, are embedded and
contested through IT systems, and points to an otherwise neglected area
of organizational change.
Concluding Comments
This special issue arises from our concern about the dominance of the
view that organizational change is inevitable, desirable and/or manage-
able and that this view seems to be taken for granted, receiving relatively
little critical attention. The aim was to argue a case, not against change,
but for research that provides alternative (additional) voices and, there-
fore, choices. We briefly reviewed some of the core, and problematic,
assumptions of OCM before suggesting that alternatives are to be found
Organizational Change Management
Andrew Sturdy and Christopher Grey
659
in the broadly constructionist approaches associated with discourse
analysis.
The contributions to the issue illustrate the potential, and the variety,
of this form of analysis, as well as other critical concerns arising out of
realist perspectives. One thing they show along the way is just how
widespread and pervasive the discourse of OCM has become. Whether in
the British Civil Service, in manufacturing plants around the world or in
professional services such as health care, a common repertoire emerges,
which, as we have suggested, incorporates a practical and ontological
pro-change bias, unitarism, dualism and managerialism. In the face of
this, the articles, taken together, contribute in two important ways. First,
they explore alternatives to the OCM repertoire, whether by undermining
the bias for change or by introducing non-managerial voices into the
discussion of change programmes. Secondly, they call into question the
conceit of manageability, which, on any account, is central to the claims
of OCM. The articles reveal the shifting, ambiguous and inherently
political arena lying beneath and beyond the bland clich´es, pious nos-
trums and simplistic recipes that are the stock in trade of organizational
change management.
Notes
Thanks to Glenn Morgan, Yiannis Gabriel, Mike Brocklehurst and Craig Prichard
for their comments on an earlier draft of this article.
1 Contrast this lack of critique with the growth of critical accounting and, more
recently, marketing and strategy.
2 Van de Ven and Poole (1995) found around 1 million articles on change and
development from many different academic disciplines.
References
Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. (2000) ‘Varieties of Discourse: On the Study of
Organisations through Discourse Analysis’, Human Relations 53(9): 1125–50.
Armenakis, A. and Bedeian, A. (1999) ‘Organisational Change—A Review of
Theory and Research in the 1990s’, Journal of Management 25(3): 293–315.
Beer, M. and Nohria, N., eds (2000a) Breaking the Code of Change. Boston, MA:
HBS Press.
Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000b) ‘Epilogue’, in M. Beer and N. Nohria (eds)
Breaking the Code of Change. Boston, MA: HBS Press.
Beer, M. and Nohria, N. (2000c) ‘Preface’, in M. Beer and N. Nohria (eds) Breaking
the Code of Change. Boston, MA: HBS Press.
Boudon, R. (1986) Theories of Social Change. Cambridge: Polity.
Bourdieu, P., ed. (1999) The Weight of the World. Social Suffering in Contempor-
ary Society. Cambridge: Polity.
Callon, M. (1986) ‘Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation’, in J. Law (ed.)
Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Organization 10(4)
Articles
660
Chia, R. (1999) ‘Discourse Analysis as Organizational Analysis’, Organization
7(3): 513–18.
Collins, D. (1998) Organizational Change: Sociological Perspectives. London:
Routledge.
Czarniawska, B. and Joerges, B. (1996) ‘Travels of Ideas’, in B. Czarniawska and G.
Sev´on (eds) Translating Organizational Change. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Czarniawska, B. and Sev´on, G., eds (1996) Translating Organizational Change.
Berlin: de Gruyter.
Dunphy, D. C. and Stace, D. A. (1988) ‘Transformational and Coercive Strategies
for Planned Organizational Change: Beyond the OD Model’, Organization
Studies 9(3): 317–34.
Ford, J. D. and Ford, L. W. (1994) ‘Logics of Identity, Contradiction and Attraction
in Change’, Academy of Management Review 19(4): 756–85.
Giddens, A. (1984) The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity.
Grant, D., Keenoy, T. and Oswick, C., eds (1998) Discourse and Organization.
London: Sage.
Heracleous, L. and Barrett, M. (2001) ‘Organizational Change as Discourse:
Communicative Actions and Deep Structures in the Context of IT Implementa-
tion’, Academy of Management Review 44(4): 755–78.
Jacques, R. (1996) Manufacturing the Employee: Management Knowledge from
the 19th to 21st Centuries. London: Sage.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A. and Jick, T. D. (1992) The Challenge of Organizational
Change. New York: Free Press.
Lewin, K. (1951) Field Theory in Social Science. New York: Harper & Row.
MacIntyre, A. (1981) After Virtue. London: Duckworth.
Morgan, G. and Sturdy, A. J. (2000) Beyond Organisational Change: Discourse,
Structure and Power in UK Financial Services. London: Macmillan.
Nadler, D. A. (1981) ‘Managing Organizational Change: An Integrative Per-
spective’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 17(2): 191–211.
Parker, M. (2002) Against Management. Cambridge: Polity.
Pettigrew, A. M. (2000) ‘Linking Change Processes to Outcomes’, in M. Beer and
N. Nohria (eds) Breaking the Code of Change. Boston, MA: HBS Press.
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W. and Cameron, K. S. (2001) ‘Studying Organiza-
tional Change and Development: Challenges for Future Research’, Academy of
Management Journal 44(4): 697–713.
Reed, M. (1998) ‘Organizational Analysis as Discourse Analysis’, in D. Grant, T.
Keenoy and C. Oswick (eds) Discourse and Organization. London: Sage.
Rogers, E. M. (1995) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th edn. New York: Free Press.
Sennett, R. (2000) Work and the Corrosion of Character. New York: Norton.
Shaw, P. (2002) Changing Conversations in Organizations: A Complexity
Approach to Change. London: Routledge.
Stacey, R. D. (1993) Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics. Lon-
don: Pitman.
Van de Ven, A. H. and Poole, M. S. (1995) ‘Explaining Development and Change
in Organisations’, Academy of Management Review 20(3): 510–40.
Weick, K. E. (2000) ‘Emergent Change as a Universal in Organizations’, in M. Beer
and N. Nohria (eds) Breaking the Code of Change. Boston, MA: HBS Press.
Willmott, H. (1992) ‘Post-Modernism and Excellence: The De-differentiation of
Economy and Culture’, Journal of Organisational Change Management 5(1):
58–68.
Organizational Change Management
Andrew Sturdy and Christopher Grey
661
Andrew Sturdy is a Reader in Organisation Theory at the Business School of Imperial
College London. His research interests are focused on the global and local
translation (or otherwise) of management ideas and practices. He is currently
researching the role of management consultancy in organizational transforma-
tions. Address: The Business School, Imperial College, University of London, 53
Prince’s Gate, Exhibition Road, London SW7 2AZ, UK.
[email: a.sturdy@imperial.ac.uk]
Christopher Grey is Senior Lecturer at the Judge Institute of Management at the
University of Cambridge, UK, and a Fellow of Wolfson College. He has research
interests around professional socialization, management education, critical man-
agement studies and organization theory generally. He is Editor-in-Chief of
Management Learning. Address: Judge Institute of Management, University of
Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1AG, UK.
[email: c.grey@jims.cam.ac.uk]
Organization 10(4)
Articles
662
