Content uploaded by Filip Chybalski
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Filip Chybalski on Feb 19, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Journal of Contemporary Management
Volume 16 (2017) Number 2, s. 127–150
doi:10.4467/24498939IJCM.17.013.7526
www.ejournals.eu/ijcm
A PRAXEOLOGICAL APPROACH TO
CHANGE MANAGEMENT: A PROBLEM OF
MEASURABILITY
Małgorzata Gumola*, Filip Chybalski**
Abstract
Background. Change management is a demanding and complex concept, which
has recently gained great popularity among organisations. Managers have become
aware that change is an inevitable part of the business. Nevertheless, even if they
are able to manage the change process properly, they often face a problem with the
measurement of its results.
Research aims. The main goal of this paper is to propose a praxeological approach
to the measurement of the effects of a change management process. We also try to
discuss some statistical issues concerning the measurability of change management
effects, perceiving a change as a distance in metric categories.
Methodology. The paper is of a theoretical and methodological nature. The
research is mainly based on a literature review in the eld of change management,
praxeology, and statistics.
Key ndings. The distinction between a change measurement and a measure-
ment of change management performance on the background of praxeology in the
evaluation of the change management process is substantive. The former refers to
the effectiveness and the latter to the efciency in the praxeological meaning. For
the evaluation of the change management process, the perception of a change as
a distance in metric terms and the inclusion of inputs in the analysis is also justied.
This results from the fact that a planned and conscious change requires input, and
therefore, it has to be managed.
Key words: change management, change process, performance measurement,
praxeology
* Politechnika Łódzka. E-mail: malgorzata.gumola@p.lodz.pl
** Politechnika Łódzka. E-mail: lip.chybalski@p.lodz.pl
128 Małgorzata Gumola, Filip Chybalski
INTRODUCTION
Both in private and professional life, change has been an integral
part of human life since one can imagine, but recently, it has gained
even more special signicance. This is clearly visible mainly in the
organisations operating in today’s turbulent times, which have to
constantly struggle to survive on the already saturated market. It
is the result of constant changes taking place in the environment,
which are caused by globalisation, high speed of technological devel-
opment, and increased competitiveness. The market is overlled with
a number of business transformations, which result in changes of the
organisational structures. All these external and internal sources of
changes make the market a very dynamic place, which requires a great
dose of exibility from its participants. Thus, the organisations are
forced to adapt to new environmental conditions or even overtake
them, enhance their processes and increase the effectiveness of their
activities. As W. Deming said, “It is not necessary to change. Survival
is not mandatory” (Coburn, 2006). Nevertheless, those who want to
survive need to keep changing, learn how to manage such a process
and how to measure its results, including both changes as well as
inputs to changes. This last aspect seems to be especially important,
but it is still poorly explored and developed in the literature. Without
measuring the results of the undertaken actions, organisations are
not able to assess their effectiveness and efciency, and thus they can
fail in making the right decisions in the future. A measurement of
change management performance allows the organisation to become
more objective and rational. Therefore, the main goal of this paper is to
propose a praxeological approach to the measurement of the effects of
the change management process. We also try to discuss some statistical
issues concerning the measurability of the change management effect,
perceiving a change as a distance in metric categories.
This paper contributes to the literature on the general methodology
of measurement in the change management process in two ways.
Firstly, we try to propose a concept based on the separation of the
effectiveness and efciency of change management. The main premise
to such an approach is an important difference, which we see between
the change itself and the change management process. This justies the
employment of praxeology since, in our view, the evaluation of change
A Praxeological Approach to Change Management: A Problem of Measurability 129
refers to effectiveness, whereas the evaluation of change management
performance refers to efciency. That is what distinguishes our
approach from the one usually presented in the literature. Secondly,
we perceive a change as a distance in metric terms and try to indicate
some measurability problems referring to the scales on which the
change is measured. Our intention is to indicate a different approach
to change and change management in terms of measurement, and to
initiate a discussion in this eld.
The paper consists of four sections and conclusions. First, the
concept of a change in management science is reviewed. Then, the
measurability of the change management process is discussed. The
next section includes the proposition of a praxeological approach to
the change management process. Afterwards, the technical problems
of the change management evaluation and the concept of a change as
a distance are considered. Finally, concise conclusions concerning the
recommendations and limitations of the paper are included.
THE CONCEPT OF A CHANGE: A LITERATURE REVIEW
The concept of a change looms large in the managers’ minds, as it can
be either the reason of organisational success or the factor contrib-
uting to its failure. As P. Drucker stated, in today’s turbulent times,
organisations cannot assume that the future will be an extension of
the present. On the contrary, they have to be aware of the inevitable
changes, which are both an opportunity and a threat (Drucker, 1995).
Referring to the economic theory, organisations should form their
predictions on the basis of rational expectations rather than adaptive
or even naive ones (Samuelson & Nordhaus, 2003; Snowdon et al.,
1998). As E. Masłyk-Musiał rightly observed, changes are not a new
phenomenon, but the pace of their implementation is (Masłyk-Musiał,
1995). J. Penc broadens this thought by characterising today’s changes
not only as quicker, but also as more innovative, expensive, difcult to
predict, and deviating from previous experience. Therefore, management
becomes a more and more difcult task, as it has to create the conditions
for a business to adapt to a turbulent environment and create success
factors that allow it to work more effectively than its competition (Penc,
2008). Moreover, the implementation of changes is a big challenge,
as it always involves people. Although most of the society declares to
130 Małgorzata Gumola, Filip Chybalski
be progressive, change is not something natural in the human nature
when it takes place quickly and in excess (Nadziakie wicz, 2015).
Most people prefer to use trusted methods and follow proven paths.
Therefore, changes are often associated with uncertainty, threat, risk
and fear. Consequently, they are also connected with the resistance
of people involved who are afraid of losing the feeling of security and
stability. As Machiavelli noted, the reformer has strong enemies in all
those who reaped the benets of the old order and some unenthusiastic
supporters in all those who will reap the benets of the new order
(Clarke, 1997). Nevertheless, changes also have many positive aspects,
as they can enable an organisation to meet the demands dictated by
the competition and provide it with a safe position on the market, if
only they are properly implemented and well managed. To make this
possible, we have to understand what change is in the rst run, why it
is so important to face it properly and how to make sure that it brings
the organisation the intended results.
According to T. Kotarbiński, a change takes place when the particular
thing is different at the beginning of a particular period and at the end
of that period (Kotarbiński, 1961). By interpreting a change in this
way, we can dene it as the transformation from one state to another,
which is the new one. This approach suggests that a change may be
perceived as a distance in terms of metric, which is important for our
further considerations. Nevertheless, according to E. Masłyk-Musiał, not
every transformation can be dened as a change. First, it has to meet
three conditions, namely it must be perceived, empiric, and planned.
This means that it can be observed and described; it should be feasible
and possible to be tested and proven; and nally, its process has to
be controllable, which means that it should be possible to monitor it,
correct it if necessary and evaluate its results according to the initial
plan (Masłyk-Musiał, 2003). Changes can take place at the individual,
group, or organisational level. They can refer to the whole organisation
or only to its selected areas (Żbikowski, 2004).
Referring to Z. Mikołajczyk’s observations, the change concept
should be investigated in two dimensions, which are the content
and the process. The former one relates to human needs while the
latter one focuses on the way of reaching the intended goals. These
two elements are closely related to each other and neither of them
can exist independently, as they are complementary in their nature
(Mikołajczyk, 2012). These considerations correspond well with the
A Praxeological Approach to Change Management: A Problem of Measurability 131
distinction of change dimensions made by A. Pettigrew and R. Whipp,
who believe that there exists a strong interplay between the content,
the process and the context of a change. The rst one relates to the
purpose of transformation and answers the question on what is
supposed to be changed. The second one refers to the method of imple-
mentation. Finally, the third one focuses on the internal and external
environment, which inuence the direction of a change (Pettigrew &
Whipp, 1991). According to the research team led by B. Kuipers, to
understand the change process better, it should not only be analysed in
detail by identifying its content, process, and context factors, but also
outcomes and leadership ones. The outcomes describe all the results
of the change (both intended or unintended and positive or negative)
including human attitudes and behaviours. Leadership, on the other
hand, focuses on progress monitoring and evaluation throughout the
whole change process (Kuipers et al., 2014).
Furthermore, as L. Clarke observed, three fundamental facts
concerning the change process have to be accepted if the implemen-
tation is to be completed successfully. The rst one is that change
always hurts; the second is that it is a predictable process, which
can be managed; and the third one is that prior knowledge about the
change process and some inevitable resistance sources may allow
managers to turn undesirable negatives into positives (Clarke, 1997).
Change is strongly associated with the human factor, as the process
of transformation cannot exist without the immersion of people.
The change process should not only involve the top management of
the organisation, but also as many stakeholders as it is possible. If
the employees are well acquainted with the benets of the change
(including, in particular, personal prots), the resistance towards the
transformation will be reduced, and consequently, the change itself will
have a greater chance of success. The ability to create an atmosphere,
which is favourable to openness and involvement towards changes,
can contribute to the creation of a special system in the organisation,
which is called the Total Managing Change (Masłyk-Musiał, 2003). It
is characteristic for developing and learning companies, which know
how to build a competitive advantage and take care of their market
position. Nevertheless, the research on the behaviour of enterprises
during a crisis showed that, contrary to general expectations, the
companies where the employees had a positive attitude to changes
were less resistant to the crisis than the companies where people were
132 Małgorzata Gumola, Filip Chybalski
neutrally or even negatively oriented towards them. This could have
been caused by a too large dose of the employees’ optimism, which
was the reason for making too risky decisions, many of which turned
out not to be fully rational (Gregorczyk et al., 2016).
The sources of changes can be divided into internal and external
ones. The former refer to the internal environment of the organi-
sation and can relate to resource constraints, staff development,
organisation’s structure, declining prots or some internal conicts.
The latter ones, on the other hand, refer to the external environment
and are connected with globalisation, development of technology,
internationalisation of markets, evolving legal, political, and economic
conditions or the increase in competitiveness on the already saturated
market (Chemengich, 2013). One can imagine that the organisation,
which cannot adapt to changing conditions of the environment, is also
not able to meet the customer needs, and consequently, it loses the
opportunity to gain a competitive advantage and maintain its market
position. As the environment keeps changing all the time, no entity
can feel secure unless it strives to keep up with or even be ahead of
ongoing changes.
As J. Penc noted, one of the biggest threats of potentially stabilised
and well prospering companies is their self-satisfaction. If the organ-
isation has a tendency to act in accordance with some widespread
patterns and, at the same time, it ignores external inuences and
new competitors, it can easily lose its market share and business
viability (Penc, 2005). This problem of the ignorance of changes or their
delayed perception was also observed by M. Romanowska who studied
six Polish holding companies in terms of their strategic responses to
a macroeconomic crisis. She concluded that, although the studied
companies managed to face the crisis, their strategic behaviour included
some mistakes and irrational decisions. Their reaction to the crisis
was delayed, which was caused by an unjustied conviction that they
had been well prepared for the crisis and they were able to follow the
changes in the macroeconomic environment, if needed (Romanowska,
2014, pp. 14–19). D. Sull called this phenomenon an “active inertia”
and he stated that it is characterised by four main symptoms. Firstly,
the “strategic frames become blinders”, making it very difcult for
managers to notice new chances and threats in the developing envi-
ronment. Secondly, the “processes harden into routines”, which hold
back the organisation from looking for new, better solutions. Thirdly,
A Praxeological Approach to Change Management: A Problem of Measurability 133
the “relationships become shackles”, which prevent the company
from changing its stakeholders, even if it is advisable. Finally, the
“values harden into dogmas” and they are becoming less exible and
inspirational (Sull, 1999, pp. 45–49). Considerations concerning the
active inertia contradict, on the other hand, the well-known proverb:
“If it ain’t broke, don’t x it”. This statement, which has been widely
used for years, encouraging non-activists to maintain a status quo,
nowadays, seems to be rather outdated and unprotable.
Taking the presented denitions and approaches to the change
concept into account, in this paper, we perceive it as an intended and
planned process of transformation, which can relate to almost each
aspect of the organisation’s activity. It aims to improve the current and
future situation of the entity, increase its effectiveness and enhance
its exibility towards the developing environment and resilience to the
crisis. As it can be planned, it can be managed as well, since it requires
specied inputs. The direction of a given change is well dened since
an organisation knows where it wants to be after a given change. We
do not focus on a particular type of change (remedial or developmental,
incremental, or fundamental, caused by internal or external factors/
determinants), but consider any planned and conscious change. When it
comes to the management concept, we refer to elementary management
functions. In such an approach, the change management is included
in the cycle of activities that include planning, organising, motivating,
and controlling (Jasińska, 2015). In further considerations, we focus
on the last function of management, as it contains the measurement of
the achieved results. The point is that we notice a signicant difference
between the result/effect of a change and the result/effect of a change
management process. The rst one refers only to the magnitude (or
degree) of a change, whereas the other one accounts additionally for
input to the change management process (time, money, people, other
sources). As a result, a measurement referring to the change and
a measurement referring to the change management process (change
management performance) require a quite different approach that,
in our view, refers directly to praxeology. This approach to change
management results from the fact that two different organisations
may achieve the same change, however, in a quite different manner
(by different inputs).
134 Małgorzata Gumola, Filip Chybalski
MEASURABILITY OF A CHANGE MANAGEMENT
PROCESS
Performance measurement is always associated with some difcul-
ties. Generally, people do not like being observed and have their
actions monitored. The same situation takes place when a change
is implemented and the progress of the process is evaluated. People
feel uncomfortable and they can even treat such observations as
a personal attack. Consequently, the measurements can become
a reason for increasing resistance towards change or for decreasing
morale in the team. Moreover, the organisation can face a problem
with a proper interpretation of measures, as they are not always
clear and unambiguous. There may also exist a problem with the
employees’ attempt to smooth over the results in order to present the
process in brighter colours than it actually is, so as to be perceived
better, for example, by the top management of the organisation.
Therefore, it is crucial to not only answer the question on how to
measure the change management process, but also who should be
responsible for measuring it. The next difculty associated with the
measurement accompanying change management relates to data
accessibility. Organisations may have some problems with that due
to the reluctance and lack of engagement of employees or because
of a lack of appropriate systems or databases, which are used to
store some meaningful information. Furthermore, the changes that
take place in organisations differ in their source, character, range,
and duration. That is why it is a real challenge to design a general
measuring procedure for any change management process. According
to the results of the National Change Management Study, about
30% of respondents (people who were involved in change processes
within their organisations) were neither aware of the process results
nor the impact of the introduced changes on the company’s market
position (Janigacz & Rubin, 2016). Many companies do not know
how to measure the results, so they do not do it at all. This problem
is not only faced by organisations, but also by the researchers who
deal with this topic. This observation can be conrmed by the fact
that we can nd lots of information on the classication of chang-
es, the methods of change implementation or the reasons for change
failure in the change management literature. Nevertheless, there
A Praxeological Approach to Change Management: A Problem of Measurability 135
still exists a deciency in the information concerning the performance
measurement subject.
According to the denition of change presented before, it is a com-
plex process, which can be considered in many respects. We focus on
the division of change aspects into “soft” and “hard” ones. The former
ones concern the social, cultural, and psychological aspects, which are
generally characterised by subjectivism, while the latter ones relate
more to the technical and economic aspects, which are characterised
by a greater dose of objectivism. The soft aspects seem to be rather
unmeasurable, contrary to their opposites, which can be veried as
measurable.
There already exist some change management concepts, which
distinguish the soft and the hard side of changes, and differentiate
the method of operation and choice of the applied tools depending on
the approach. One of them relates to Theory E (the “E” stands for
“Economic”, which is a hard approach) and Theory O (the “O” stands
for “Organisational”, which relates to a soft approach). These theories
were designed by M. Beer and N. Nohria who had been studying the
nature of change for over forty years. Referring to their observations,
the target of Theory E is to increase prots and to maximise the
shareholder’s value, while the goal of Theory O is to develop the
organisational capability and increase the organisation’s potential.
The hard approach to change (Theory E) is characterised by top-down
management and it is focused on the organisation’s structures and
systems. The process is thoroughly planned and the people involved
are motivated by some nancial incentives. Consultants are often
hired to analyse existing problems and to develop some solutions.
The soft approach to change (Theory O) is characterised by bottom
up management and it is focused on building up the organisational
culture by changing employees’ attitudes, motivating them, and
encouraging their participation. The process is based on experiments
and continuous development. The people involved are motivated by
commitment and consultants are hired only in case of an emergency
in order to support the employees in creating solutions to existing
problems (Beer & Nohria, 2000).
Another approach where division into soft and hard aspects of
a change process can be noticeable is the integrated approach to
individual and organisational change management developed by the
Prosci organisation. The individual change management corresponds
136 Małgorzata Gumola, Filip Chybalski
to human factors of a change process, which can be identied as soft
ones. The organisational change management relates more to the
business aspects of a change process, which can be described as hard
ones (Hiatt & Creasey, 2012). By taking both types of change factors
into account, the organisation is able to develop change competency
and to manage the change effectively and efciently. According to
Prosci, to achieve these goals, two special tools should be applied by
the organisation. The rst one, called the ADKAR model, refers to
the individual change management, which can be dened as being
outcome oriented. This tool identies ve stages that an individual
has to go through during the change process:
1. Awareness of the need to change.
2. Desire to participate in and support the change.
3. Knowledge about how to change.
4. Ability to implement new skills and behaviours.
5. Reinforcement to keep the change in place.
As the ADKAR model relates to the human side of a change (soft
aspects), we should be aware that the time of its implementation can
differ among the employees and the pace of passing from one stage to
another can vary depending on the prevailing conditions. The second
tool designed by Prosci, called the 3-Phase process, corresponds to the
organisational change management, which seems to be more action
oriented. It consists of three phases:
1. Preparing for change, which includes developing a strategy
and acquiring the resources.
2. Managing change, which consists of creating a change man-
agement plan and implementing this plan.
3. Reinforcing change, which is accessing the results by collecting
and analysing feedback and making some corrective actions
in case of some mistakes or gaps.
The next change management concept, which differentiates between
the soft and hard aspects of change, is a method called “the change
ladder” proposed by M. Cope. He distinguishes ve elements, which
should be taken into consideration while implementing a change.
These are: asset, blueprint, capability, desire, and ethos (Cope, 2010).
Although he denes them as the levels, which have to be reached by
the organisation if it wants to achieve stable and long-term results,
they should not be treated hierarchically. Therefore, we agree with
J. Brdulak and P. Banasik who consider the term “ladder” a bit
A Praxeological Approach to Change Management: A Problem of Measurability 137
confusing in this case (Brdulak & Banasik, 2015). The rst two
elements, which are the asset and the blueprint, relate to the hard
aspects of change. The other three, namely capability, desire, and ethos,
refer to the soft approach. The assets take into account all tools and
equipment, which are in the possession of the organisation and which
can be used while implementing the change. The blueprint relates to
procedures, processes, systems, and strategies binding in the entity.
The capability refers to the knowledge and skills, which have to be
acquired by people engaged and inuenced by the transformation. The
desire concerns the motivation of individuals to develop and accept
the change. Finally, the ethos relates to factors, which drive people’s
behaviour, including their attitudes and beliefs. The identication of
these elements in the organisation should allow not only to diagnose
its ability to change and manage the implementation process properly,
but also to evaluate the potential results and access their convergence
with previous assumptions.
Taking into account that all concepts that have just been described
reached great popularity among different organisations and their
usage brings the entities a lot of benets, one can conclude that the
distinction between soft and hard aspects of a change can be helpful
for the choice of the approach to measurement accompanying the
change management process.
CHANGE VS. CHANGE MANAGEMENT
PERFORMANCE: A PRAXEOLOGICAL APPROACH
According to L. Lapide, we cannot manage what we do not measure
(Lapide, 1999). This also applies to change management. Measuring
accompanying the change management process (its soft and hard
aspects) helps us to keep on the right track and to introduce some
improvements whenever needed. That is why it is so important to
control the results of change management through the entire length
of the process. This problem is broadly discussed in the literature on
change control (see e.g. Lewandowski, 2012; Burns & Vaivio, 2001;
Ford & Greer, 2005; Chenhall & Euske, 2007). However, we nd it
worth emphasising the distinction between the control or the evaluation
of a change and the control or the evaluation of change management
performance. Such a distinction is rather disregarded in the literature.
138 Małgorzata Gumola, Filip Chybalski
The change management performance is a broader concept since it
not only includes a difference between the initial and the nal stage
of a process (change), but also the way (input) in which a change is
implemented. This difference is crucial for our further considerations,
regardless of whether the soft or hard aspects of a change are con-
trolled or evaluated. We recognise a signicant difference between
change measurement and the measurement of change management
performance, as change is obviously not synonymous with change
management. To distinguish between these two subjects of control
or evaluation, we propose a praxeological approach since we see two
dimensions of the change management process referring to the two
crucial praxeological categories: effectiveness and efciency. We refer
to T. Kotarbiński, according to whom effectiveness is a measure of the
convergence between a result and a goal. The efciency is a broader
concept, which refers the result (or the convergence between the result
and the goal) to the input (Kotarbiński, 1982). The approach by T. Ko-
tarbiński is very similar to that by P. Drucker who wrote: “Efciency
is doing things right. Effectiveness is doing right things” (Drucker,
1993). In our view, change measurement refers to effectiveness since it
accounts mainly for the magnitude or degree of a change (disregarding
any input). The measurement of change management performance
touches more the concept of efciency since it provides not only for
the change, but also for the way (input) it is achieved. Below, we try
to justify and develop such an approach.
The nal goal of any change management process is obviously
a change. However, the path to achieving this goal also matters. This
means that an organisation runs a change management process, but
under a given input (cost, resources, including time). If only a change
perceived as a difference between an initial stage (before a change)
and a given stage during or after transformation (during or after
a change) is evaluated, the measurement actually refers only to the
change. This means that the effectiveness of the change management
process is only measured (according to Drucker: “Effectiveness is doing
right things”). In such a case, two different organisations – A and B
– similar at the initial stage of change management (starting point),
are equal in terms of the change measure if, at the nal stage, they
are both equal in terms of the result. In such a case, the input to the
change management process is disregarded, so both organisations
are similar in terms of the effectiveness of the change management
A Praxeological Approach to Change Management: A Problem of Measurability 139
(or simply, in terms of change). Only if the input is included in the
evaluation, the efciency of the change management process is taken
into account. Then, in fact, the process of change management (or
change management performance) is evaluated since the difference
between the starting and nal point is referred to the efforts incurred
during the change implementation. In such a case, two organisations
– A and B – may be equal in terms of the change; however, they may
differ in terms of the input that contributed to making this change.
Such an approach is based on the praxeological concept of efciency
(according to Drucker: “Efciency is doing things right”).
To summarise, the measure of change refers to the effectiveness,
whereas the measure of change management performance refers to
the efciency. Actually, the efciency is the measure of the change
management process, whereas effectiveness only measures the change
and does not refer to the manner in which the change is implemented,
so it disregards an input at all. If we suppose that the main input to
the change implementation is time, the evaluation of a sole change
disregards this input and only includes the change, which means the
difference between the initial stage and the nal state (effectiveness).
Meanwhile, the evaluation of change management performance is
broader and includes not only the change, but also the time consumed
to implement it (efciency).
According to the praxeological approach presented above, the rela-
tion between the measure of change management performance (CMP)
and the measure of a change (C) or an input (I) may be expressed by
the following formula: CMP = f(C, I). If the measure of a change (C)
increases by a constant level of input or by a decreasing input (I), the
efciency of the change management process (CMP) increases. If the
measure of a change (C) decreases by a constant or increasing input
(I), the efciency of the change management process (CMP) decreases.
If both the effect (C) as well as the input (I) remain constant, the
efciency (CMP) does not change. Decreasing the change measure (C)
and decreasing the input (I) requires a more in-depth analysis in order
to examine whether a decrease in the input (I) results in a greater
or lower decrease in the change measure (C). The increasing change
measure (C) and increasing input (I) should provoke to examine if
the additional input (I) results in a greater or lower increase in the
change measure (C). The above analysis is based on the assumption
that changes do not have a negative direction (are not divergent
140 Małgorzata Gumola, Filip Chybalski
from the goal of the change management process). However, such
a situation is also possible, at least theoretically, and results in the
anti-effectiveness of the process.
HOW TO EVALUATE A CHANGE MANAGEMENT
PROCESS? CHANGE AS A DISTANCE
As it has been already mentioned, the soft side of a change relates
to human aspects, such as staff behaviour, relations, and emotions.
It also includes employees’ engagement and the level of satisfaction,
organisational culture, and core values. Moreover, it concerns not
only the internal communication, but also the external one, taking
politics and relations with the organisation’s stakeholders into
account. To gather information on the soft aspects of changes, such
techniques as an interview, questionnaire, focus group, documenta-
tion review, or stakeholders’ analysis may be employed. Since the
soft aspects are rather intangible and have a qualitative nature,
they may seem difcult to measure directly. However, the question
appears whether an organisation is able to transform this set of
qualitative information into the quantitative score. According to
W. Trochim, “all qualitative data can be coded quantitatively”, as
the meaningful numerical values can be assigned to any qualitative
results (Trochim, 2006). In such a way, they can become a precious
input for other measuring methods. We believe that it applies well
in change management considerations. Data gathered in surveys,
both during interviews and within questionnaires, can be used, for
example, in cultural or skill assessments as well as in the design of
a change commitment curve. These tools usually require granting
the numerical values to particular characteristics, for example, in
the form of ranks, so the transformation from qualitative measures
to quantitative ones can be visible. Moreover, the questionnaires
can be designed in such a way that the assignment of numerical
values to individual responses is intuitive and not labour intensive,
e.g. through the application of the Likert scale. Furthermore, data
gathered from qualitative research methods can be used to design
some indicators, e.g. speed of adoption. Such a measure can present
the percentage of employees who adapt to a new situation and accept
a change in a dened period of time.
A Praxeological Approach to Change Management: A Problem of Measurability 141
The hard side of a change relates, on the other hand, to business
aspects or the applied methods and tools. It takes organisational
structures, strategies, and nancial results into account. It corresponds
more to the technical and economic aspects of change, which seem to
be rather tangible and measurable. Therefore, quantitative measuring
methods like Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), cost-benet analysis,
or the DICE model can be useful in this approach. KPIs enable the
measurement of the results of activities undertaken by an organisation.
They also allow tracking the change process and monitoring if the
transformation heads in the right direction. By comparing current
and past values of indicators referring to the effects of changes or the
measures of input, the organisation is able to access the performance
and introduce some corrections if needed. KPIs should be designed
individually depending on both the type of a change and type of an
organisation in which the change is implemented. They should be
adjusted to the characteristics of the situation and they should have
specied the norms constituting the reference point. The set of indicators
should not be too numerous, as they ought to focus on the fundamental
aspects of change and they should only provide the organisation with
concise and meaningful data (Rydzewska-Włodarczyk & Sobieraj,
2015). The cost-benet analysis refers directly to the concept of change
management efciency. Although this method is commonly used in
order to check if the net impact of a particular change or project is
positive or negative before the implementation, it can also be applied
during the change process or even at its end to access the reform’s
results and check if it turned out to be worthwhile. The analysis carried
out before the implementation may be treated as a baseline, so that
the organisation will be able to compare the change results with its
initial assumptions. Moreover, the cost-benet analysis enables the
organisation to calculate the payback period of a particular project.
Having measured this, after the specied period of time, the entity
is able to easily check if the change was efcient or not. Another
method, which corresponds to the hard factors of a change, is the
DICE model. It is a quantitative measuring method developed by
the Boston Consulting Group, which gained great popularity among
different organisations. To apply this tool, managers are supposed to
thoroughly analyse four factors inuencing the change process perfor-
mance. These are: duration of the change implementation (D), team
performance integrity (I), commitment of managers and employees (C),
142 Małgorzata Gumola, Filip Chybalski
and additional effort, which has to be made (E). One has to evaluate
each factor and assign to it a numerical value from the four-point scale.
After that, the special formula has to be applied and the result has to
be veried according to a division proposed by the authors. It includes
three spheres: win, doubt, and failure. The application of this method
is very simple, as the authors provided the user with some auxiliary
questions and special rules concerning point awarding (Sirkin et al.,
2009). The DICE model, similarly to the cost-benet analysis, can be
applied before the change implementation, during or at the end of the
change process. The interesting fact is that two out of four factors in
this framework, namely commitment and effort, concern more the
human side of a change, which is classied as the soft approach in our
paper. The reason why the Boston Consulting Group representatives
classied them as the hard factors may result from the fact that they
“made” them measurable.
Regardless of what tools for data gathering or the methods of their
analysis we employ, a change may usually be perceived as a distance
between the initial and the nal stage of a process. Therefore, we can
express it with the following formula:
Ct,n = d(Xn, Xt)
where Ct,n stands for a change (measured as a distance d) of a given
variable characterising a given process between moments t and n.
This process may be simple (one-dimensional) and require only one
variable for the description, or it may be multidimensional and require
at least two variables for the description. Such a formula, referring
to our praxeological approach to change management, expresses the
effectiveness of this process. If we refer a distance (Ct,n) to an input
to the change process (time, money, people, or other resources), the
efciency (change management performance) of the process is mea-
sured. A general formula expressing this efciency is a function of two
variables – distance and input:
CMPt,n = f(Ct,n, It–n)
where CMPt,n stands for the change management performance between
moments t and n, and It-n stands for the input into the change process
incurred in the period from t to n.
A Praxeological Approach to Change Management: A Problem of Measurability 143
The crucial problem of the effectiveness or efciency measurement
of a change management process refers to the distance, since the choice
of a metric depends on the scale on which a change is measured. The
soft aspects of a change are usually expressed by qualitative data
whereas the hard aspects of a change are usually represented by
quantitative data. Referring to the measurement scales, nominal and
ordinal are classied as qualitative ones, whereas interval and ratio
scales are classied as quantitative ones. The nominal scale only allows
for a differentiation between the measured objects or states of the
same object (something is equal or not). To compare different objects
or states, at least the ordinal scale has to be employed. However, it
only allows for ranking, and a direct measurement of the distance
between the objects or states of the same object is rather impossible.
The distance may be additionally measured and expressed in the same
unit as a given variable characterising an object in the case of the two
other scales: interval and ratio. However, the percentage differences
may only be used in the case of the latter one. Referring to the change
measure perceived as a distance between the initial and the nal stage
of a change process, a nominal scale (e.g. there is a change or not,
there is an improvement or not) enables only to answer the question
whether a change appears or not. However, if two organisations are
under a change process, the comparison between them in terms of this
change is impossible on this scale. In the case of an ordinal scale, the
changes in two different organisations may be compared in terms of
their magnitude (Which organisation has changed more and which
less? Which one has become more resistant to the crisis and which
one quite the opposite?). In the case of an interval scale, one can
additionally measure the difference in the change expressed in the
same units as the variables characterising the change. For instance,
one can measure a nancial result in two organisations for two dif-
ferent periods and express the change in a direct manner. However,
such a change cannot be expressed in percentages since this is only
allowed for a ratio scale for which an absolute zero is characteristic
(a variable does not take negative values). For instance, if a change
is expressed by such variables as assets, liabilities, or employment,
it can be compared across different organisations not only by the
units of given variables, but also by percentages. Different distance
measures (e.g. Euclidean, Manhattan or Chebychev metrics, Walesiak’s
proposal of the metric for ordinal scale) are reviewed e.g. by Walesiak
144 Małgorzata Gumola, Filip Chybalski
(1999), Perlibakas (2004), and Cha (2008). If the measurement of the
distance is possible for a given change process (effectiveness) and the
input to this process is known, the evaluation of change management
performance (efciency) is also possible.
Another problem concerning both the measurement of a change as
well as the measurement of change management performance refers
to the absoluteness or relativeness of the evaluation. The change
measure may be positive (C > 0) or negative (C < 0). There may be
either no change (C = 0). Input is always not lower than zero (I ≥ 0).
The efciency of the process, similarly to the change measure, may
be positive (CMP > 0), negative (CMP < 0), or may be equal to zero
(CMP = 0). However, the questions on what is the desired level/
degree of the change or what is the required level of the efciency
of the change management process remain. How to cope with this
problem? The problem is easier to solve if we have a benchmark. The
benchmark may be external or internal. In the former case, a very
important assumption has to be met – selected organisations (at least
two, but a greater number is desired) have to be comparable. Then,
we can evaluate a change as well as change management performance
in a relative manner. A given organisation is compared to other ones
and if the measure of a change is greater for a given organisation
than for others, one can say that the change result is better in this
organisation. The same refers to the performance (efciency) of the
change management process. An internal benchmark may be applied
if an organisation under a given change management process is
able to compare this change (or process) to the change (or process) it
underwent in the past. Obviously, an assumption that both of these
changes (processes) are comparable is required. Regardless of the
benchmark (external or internal one), the evaluation is of a relative
nature. This relativeness means that a given organisation is “only”
better (worse) than other organisations included in the set compared,
or a given change is implemented more (less) effectively or more (less)
efciently than another change implemented in this organisation
before. Simultaneously, this organisation may be weaker (better)
than many other organisations outside the set. Therefore, the greater
the set of organisations compared in terms of change management,
the less relative the character of the evaluation.
The evaluation of a change management process in absolute terms
is usually more challenging since, in many cases, it is very difcult to
A Praxeological Approach to Change Management: A Problem of Measurability 145
set the objective measures of the effectiveness or efciency of change
management. However, if we suppose that a given organisation denes
the goals of change management in a precise way, e.g. through the
determination of the minimum performance indicators, which have
to be obtained and have to express the borderline between ineffective
(inefcient) and effective (efcient) change management process, an
absolute evaluation is partly possible. Nevertheless, in such a case,
the absolute evaluation is limited only to a given organisation. This
means that, in another organisation (maybe very similar to that one),
the requirements of the change management process can be quite
different.
The last, but not least issue addressing the problem of change
performance measurement is the multidimensionality of a change.
It is usually difcult to express the change performance (both effec-
tiveness and efciency) only by one simple indicator. If we need two
or more indicators to evaluate the change management process and
we aim at comparing it in a few organisations, a multidimensional
statistical analysis may be employed. Then, different organisations
may be compared in terms of the same change performance indicators.
In such an approach, for a given organisation, other entities may be
perceived as some reference points from which some benchmarks may
be identied. Such methods of multivariate statistical analysis as
linear ordering, hierarchical clustering, or k-means clustering (see e.g.
Johnson & Wichern, 2008; Jajuga, 1993; Panek, 2009) may be useful,
although they are usually employed in economics or nance, and less
in management science. Such an approach would be a combination of
benchmarking and multivariate statistical analysis in the evaluation
of change management performance.
CONCLUSIONS
As it has been already mentioned, the organisation, which strives to
maintain its position on the market and gain a competitive advantage,
has to be constantly changing in order to adapt to the new environment.
Unfortunately, according to the research results, about 70% of all
change initiatives fail (Beer & Nohria, 2000, p. 134). This means that
it is not enough to introduce a change because it is also necessary to
manage it properly. If the organisation wants to manage the change
146 Małgorzata Gumola, Filip Chybalski
process efciently, it must put great effort to monitor it and to measure
its results, including both changes and inputs to changes. Therefore,
the distinction between change measurement and the measurement
of change management performance is substantive in the approach
presented in our paper.
The measurements enable the organisation to keep on track,
celebrate early wins, which build team morale, and to constantly
improve the process. Therefore, it is important to take measurements
throughout the process, which means before, during, and after change
implementation. The results obtained before the transformation
can act as a baseline, which should be set for all metrics. It allows
for the comparison between the past and the present. Another type
of a reference point can be the results of some other comparable
organisations operating in the market. This type of benchmarking
helps the organisation not only to evaluate its own results, but also
to assess its market position. Nevertheless, many important technical
aspects concerning the choice of performance indicators or methods
of measurement have to be taken into account since they determine
the reliability of evaluation and control. These include the scale of
measurement, one- and multidimensionality of the change as well
as the metrics of a distance if applicable in a given situation. These
problems refer to both the soft and the hard aspects of changes.
Our paper is of a theoretical and methodological nature. Although
we tried to present a novel approach to the measurability of the change
management process based on praxeology, we only emphasised the
problem of the difference between a change and the process of change
management, and indicated some general directions of how to cope
with it. This issue is very interesting and requires more exploration,
also by the inclusion of appropriate statistical methods, such as e.g.
multivariate statistical analysis. However, this requires further em-
pirical studies, which would allow the verication of our praxeological
approach. We have also found an important limitation of treating
a change as a multidimensional category, especially if the methods
of multivariate statistical analysis are employed in the evaluation
process. This is due to many benchmarks (comparable organisations
characterised by the same set of variables), which are required in
these methods.
A Praxeological Approach to Change Management: A Problem of Measurability 147
REFERENCES
Beer, M. & Nohria, N. (2000). Cracking the code of change. Harvard Business
Review, 78(3).
Brdulak, J. & Banasik, P. (2015). Organisational culture and change management
in courts, based on the examples of the Gdańsk area courts. International
Journal of Contemporary Management, 14(2).
Burns, J. & Vaivio, J. (2001). Management accounting change. Management
Accounting Research, 12(4).
Cha, S.-H. (2008). Taxonomy of nominal type histogram distance measures. In:
C. Long, S. Sohrab, G. Bognar & L. Perlovsky (eds.), MATH’08 Proceedings of
the American Conference on Applied Mathematics. Stevens Point, Wisconsin:
World Scientic and Engineering Academy and Society.
Chemengich, M. (2013). Managing strategic change in public sector. Standard
Research Journal of Business Management, 1.
Chenhall, R. & Euske, K. (2007). The role of management control systems in planned
organizational change: An analysis of two organizations. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 32.
Clarke, L. (1997). Zarządzanie zmianą. Warszawa: Gebethner i Ska.
Coburn, P. (2006). The Change Function: Why Some Technologies Take off and
Others Crash and Burn. New York: Penguin Group.
Cope, M. (2010). The Seven Cs of Consulting. The Denitive Guide to the Consulting
Process. Harlow: Pearson.
Drucker, P. (1993). The Effective Executive – The Denitive Guide to Getting the
Right Things Done. New York: Harper Business.
Drucker, P. (1995). Zarządzanie w czasach burzliwych. Kraków: Akademia Eko-
nomiczna.
Ford, M. & Greer, B. (2005). The relationship between management control system
usage and planned change achievement: An exploratory study. Journal of
Change Management, 5(1).
Gregorczyk, S., Mierzejewska, W., Sopińska, A., Wachowiak, P. & Tomaszewski, A.
(2016). Paradoksy zachowań przedsiębiorstw w czasie kryzysu gospodarczego.
Prace naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu, 422.
Hiatt, J. & Creasey, T. (2012). Change Management. The People Side of Change.
Loveland, Colorado: Prosci.
Jajuga, K. (1993). Statystyczna analiza wielowymiarowa. Warszawa: PWN.
Janigacz, M. & Rubin, J. (2016). Raport: Ogólnopolskie Badanie Zarządzania Zmianą.
Wrocław: Szkoła Zarządzania Zmianą.
148 Małgorzata Gumola, Filip Chybalski
Jasińska, J. (2015). Zmiany w organizacjach. Sprawne zarządzanie, sytuacje kryzysowe
i warunki osiągania sukcesu. Warszawa: FREL.
Johnson, R. & Wichern, D. (2008). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. New
Yersey: Pearson.
Kotarbiński, T. (1961). Elementy teorii poznania, logiki formalnej i metodologii nauk.
Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich.
Kotarbiński, T. (1982). Traktat o dobrej robocie. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im.
Ossolińskich.
Kuipers, B., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J. & Van der Voet, J.
(2014). The management of change in public organisations: A literature
review. Public Administration, 92.
Lapide, L. (1999). What about measuring supply chain performance? In: D.L.
Anderson (ed.), Achieving supply chain excellence through technology. San
Francisco: Montgomery Research.
Lewandowski, R. (2012). Kontrola w zarządzaniu zmianą. In: Ł. Sułkowski &
R. Seliga (eds.), Kulturowe determinanty zarządzania szpitalami w Polsce.
Warszawa: Din.
Masłyk-Musiał, E. (2003). Organizacje w ruchu. Strategie zarządzania zmianami.
Kraków: Ocyna Ekonomiczna.
Masłyk-Musiał, E. (1995). Zarządzanie zmianami w rmie. Warszawa: Centrum
Informacji Menedżera.
Mikołajczyk, Z. (2012). Techniki organizatorskie w rozwiązywaniu problemów
zarządzania. Warszawa: PWN.
Nadziakiewicz, M. (2015). Wybrane aspekty zarządzania zmianą organizacyjną
w jednostkach służby zdrowia. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej, 79.
Panek, T. (2009). Statystyczne metody wielowymiarowej analizy porównawczej.
Warszawa: SGH.
Penc, J. (2005). Role i umiejętności menedżerskie. Sekrety sukcesu i kariery.
Warszawa: Din.
Penc, J. (2008). Decyzje i zmiany w organizacji. W poszukiwaniu skutecznych sposobów
działania. Warszawa: Din.
Perlibakas, V. (2004). Distance measures for PCA-based face recognition. Pattern
Recognition Letters, 25.
Pettigrew, A. & Whipp, R. (1991). Managing change for competitive success. Oxford:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Romanowska, M. (2014). Strategic responses to the crisis. Journal of Management
and Financial Sciences, 7(18).
Rydzewska-Włodarczyk, M. & Sobieraj, M. (2015). Pomiar efektywności procesów za
pomocą kluczowych wskaźników efektywności. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu
Szczecińskiego, 864.
A Praxeological Approach to Change Management: A Problem of Measurability 149
Samuelson, P.A. & Nordhaus, W.D. (2003). Ekonomia, vol. 1. Warszawa: Wydawnic-
two Naukowe PWN.
Sirkin, H., Keenan, P. & Jackson, A. (2009). Twarde aspekty zarządzania zmianą.
Harvard Business Review Polska, 79.
Snowdon, B., Vane, H. & Wynarczyk, P. (1998). Współczesne nurty teorii makro-
ekonomii. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Sull, D. (1999). Why good companies go bad. Harvard Business Review, 77(4).
Trochim, W. (2006). The research methods knowledge base, 2nd Edition. http://www.
socialresearchmethods.net/kb/ (version current as of October 20, 2006).
Walesiak, M. (1999). Distance measure for ordinal data. Argumenta Oeconomica, 2(8).
Żbikowski, J. (2004). Teoria organizacji i zarządzania (zarys wykładów). Bydgoszcz:
Wydawnictwo Akademii Bydgoskiej im. Kazimierza Wielkiego.
150 Małgorzata Gumola, Filip Chybalski
prakSeoLogiczne podejście do zarzĄdzania
zMianĄ: proBLeM poMiarU
Abstrakt
Tło badań. Zarządzanie zmianą jest wymagającą i złożoną koncepcją, która
w ostatnim czasie zyskała dużą popularność. Menedżerowie zdają sobie sprawę
z tego, że zmiany są nieuniknioną częścią biznesu. Niemniej jednak, nawet jeśli
są oni w stanie zarządzać prawidłowo procesem zmian, to często stają w obliczu
problemu związanego z pomiarem jego rezultatów.
Cel badań. Głównym celem niniejszego artykułu jest zaproponowanie prakse-
ologicznego podejścia do pomiaru efektów procesu zarządzania zmianą. Podjęta
została także próba omówienia kwestii statystycznych dotyczących mierzalności
efektów zarządzania zmianami, kiedy zmianę postrzega się jako dystans w ujęciu
metrycznym.
Metodologia. Praca ma charakter teoretyczny i metodologiczny. Badanie oparte
zostało głównie na przeglądzie literatury z zakresu zarządzania zmianą, prakseologii
i statystyki.
Kluczowe wnioski. Odróżnienie pomiaru zmiany od pomiaru rezultatów zarządzania
zmianą jest istotne w ewaluacji procesu zarządzania zmianą. Pierwszy bowiem
odnosi się do skuteczności, a drugi do efektywności rozumianych na gruncie teorii
prakseologii. W celu oceny procesu zarządzania zmianą postrzeganie zmiany jako
odległości w ujęciu metrycznym oraz uwzględnienie danych wejściowych w analizie
jest również uzasadnione. Wynika to z faktu, że planowana i świadoma zmiana
wymaga wkładu i dlatego musi być odpowiednio zarządzana.
Słowa kluczowe: zarządzanie zmianą, proces zmiany, pomiar sprawności, prak-
seologia.
