Posted: August 2nd, 2022
Discussion: 1-2 Paragraphs W/ references
In organizational change, there is a debate in the literature about the benefits of proactive versus reactive change efforts. Your instructor will assign you one side of the debate, either proactive change or reactive change. While both positions in each argument are important, your task is to state why you believe your side is more important than the other position and support the argument with at least three references from peer-reviewed literature using APA formatting. Your argument should contain a conclusion and the reasons to accept the conclusion.
A theoretical framework of
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam,
Arjen van Witteloostuijn
University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium, Tilburg University, Tilburg,
The Netherlands, and Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, and
Fachhochschule der Polizei Brandenburg, Brandenburg, Germany
Purpose – Organizational change is a risky endeavour. Most change initiatives fall short on their
goals and produce high opportunity and process costs, which at times outweigh the content benefits of
organizational change. This paper seeks to develop a framework, offering a theoretical toolbox to
analyze context-dependent barriers and enablers of organizational change. Starting from an
organizational identity perspective, it aims to link contingency-based approaches, such as
environmental scan, SWOT and stakeholder analysis, with insights from organizational behaviour
research, such as knowledge sharing and leadership.
Design/methodology/approach – The framework is informed by long-lasting field research into
organizational change in an international policing environment. The theories in the framework are
selected from the perspective of field validity in two ways; they were chosen because the topics
covered by these theories emerged as relevant during the field research and therefore it can be
expected they have applicability to the field. The authors’ insights and suggestions are summarised in
13 propositions throughout the text.
Findings – The analysis provides a clear warning that organizational change is more risky and
multifaceted than change initiators typically assume. It is stressed that the external environment and
the internal dynamics of organizations co-determine the meaning of managerial practices. This implies
that cure-all recipes to organizational change are bound to fail.
Originality/value – This paper makes an ambitious attempt to cross disciplinary boundaries in the
field of organizational change research to contribute to a more comprehensive and holistic
understanding of change processes by integrating perspectives that focus on the internal context and
the external environment of organizations.
Keywords Organizational change, Contingency analysis, Culture, Leadership, Environmental scan,
Police, Public security, Public management, International environment, Costs of change, Policing
Paper type Research paper
Organizational change as a risky strategy
Organizational change is omnipresent, being the raison d’être of the consultancy
industry (Sorge and van Witteloostuijn, 2004). Modern organization sciences have
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
The authors would like to thank the project partners for their contribution to this work. This
research is partially funded by the European Commission in the context of the COMPOSITE
project (FP7 contract no. 241918).
Received 3 September 2012
Revised 21 December 2012
Accepted 11 May 2013
Journal of Organizational Change
Vol. 26 No. 5, 2013
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
produced a large amount of insights into a wide variety of issues related to
organizational change. And of course, consultancies successfully launch new
organizational change “products” all the time. However, organizational change is
still often associated with failure. A case in point is the persistently high number of
merger and acquisition deals that fail in the post-integration stage (totalling
approximately 70 per cent) or the (circa) 30 per cent that fail before consummation (see,
e.g. Dikova et al., 2010; Muehlfeld et al., 2012; Brakman et al., 2013). Most
organizational change projects, of course, deal with less impactful issues than mergers
and acquisitions, where negative effects may be expected to be less threatening to
organizational survival than M&A deals gone awry. Yet, change projects with a
smaller scope are also prone to poor planning, disappointing results and unintended
consequences that divert resources from operational tasks, disrupt well-established
routines, and shatter the trust of employees and business partners alike.
Organizational change theories need to negotiate two hurdles: scholarly quality and
practical relevance (Pettigrew et al., 2001). Key questions in research on organizational
change are: Why do so many organizational change initiatives fail to deliver? And how
can organizational change processes be implemented in a way that assures success?
Organizational change is a notoriously complex phenomenon; it is only natural that
research on organizational change addressed this complexity from numerous more or less
complementary or contradictory, but equally legitimate perspectives. These perspectives
stretch across disciplinary boundaries, across methodological camps, and often across
contradictory visions of organizations. The result is a debilitating fragmentation of
theories of organizational change, with widely different perspectives – sometimes
complementary, but sometimes contradictory – blossom side by side in the large
organizational change literature. One angle to illustrate this state of fragmentation is that
of the level of aggregation: micro (individuals) and, meso (groups and organizations) and
macro (organizational environment and populations of organizations).
The fragmented nature of the field of organizational change research
Some research focuses on a micro perspective, analyses the psychological aspects of
organizational change, focusing on what organizational change does to human beings
– typically to change recipients. Examples involve attitudes to change in general
(Vakola and Nikolaou, 2005), perceptions of change (Weber and Weber, 2001),
strategies coping with uncertainty (DiFonzo and Bordia, 1998), and organizational
change induced stress.
Another research tradition takes the meso perspective. This perspective addresses
issues relating to the organizational context of organizational change, as well as how
organizational change affects and is affected by organizational identification and
institutionalisation processes. Examples are research on group processes and social
identities (van Leeuwen et al., 2003), and Selznick’s seminal book Leadership in
Administration. In this line of research, organization-level taken-for-granted values
and default expectations play critical explanatory roles.
A third line of research looks at organizational change from a macro perspective,
adopting the lens of sociology’s organizational ecology to study structural
reproducibility and organizational inertia, the effects of (early) imprinting and
organizational change on the organization’s fitness and competitiveness, and
ultimately on the mortality hazard of organizations. The primary focus is on how
A framework of
these issues work out in populations of similar organizations. Hannan and Freeman
(1984), Hannan et al. (2004) or Hannan and Baron (2002) illustrate this research
Another angle that reveals the state of fragmentation of the
literature is that of disciplines, as already hinted at previously. The academic
disciplines that are typically called on include (but are not at all restricted to) social
psychology, sociology and economics. From a more applied perspective, the rich
literature on organizational change is typically scattered across organizational
behaviour (Oreg et al., 2011) and strategic perspectives on organizational change
(Schwarz and Huber, 2008). These different disciplines adopt a rather narrow focus,
concentrating on the workplace and individual aspects of organizations, on the one
hand (Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002; Jacobs et al., 2008), and the performance-survival
aspects of organizations, on the other hand (Barney, 1991; Donaldson, 2001; North,
1990). Since these disciplines themselves are subdivided into many different schools of
thought, it is understandable that the “theories” of organizational change offered in
these disciplines are fragmented to the extreme.
Even though the field developed clear and useful distinctions, such as the separation
of content and process effects of organizational change (Barnett and Carroll, 1995), this
welcome clarity resulted in further fragmentation of theories, since the strategy
literature primarily focuses on the (allegedly) beneficial, and highly organization and
environment-specific content effects, and emphasises the need for flexibility and
adaptability, while others are interested in the predominantly negative, and not
organization-specific, process effects, assuming that the content effect of the change
are, at best, randomly positive or negative.
There is little consensus on how to evaluate organizational change processes: Is it
appropriate to focus mainly on perceptions of change recipients, like psychological
research does (Oreg et al., 2011)? Should one, like Hannan and Freeman (1984), pay
attention to the overall wellbeing, fitness or more precisely mortality hazard of the
organization and see how change in general influences these? Or should one primarily
be concerned with the effects of change on the talent pool of the organization, such as in
Baron et al. (2001)? Would it be more appropriate to look at the speed of the
implementation of the change, since the speed drives the opportunity costs of the
organizational change, or will a focus on the relationship between change in the
employment blueprints and the economic outcomes, such as growth or the time
between founding and the initial public offering as in Hannan and Baron (2002),
generate more valuable insights?
Many of these studies yielded valuable insights, and the value of these insights is
responsible for the temptation researchers are exposed to: Borrow from these theory
fragments in order to generate novel explanations and derive valuable predictions. But
it is not difficult to see that borrowing from separate theory fragments carries certain
risks: The theory fragments briefly described previously are not always consistent
with one another, and the complex explanations built on the insights they generate
might lack coherence. The current paper attempts to carve out the set of insights that
can be fruitfully combined with each other in a consistent manner so that they offer a
logical basis for the propositions offered. In so doing, we illustrate how we can enter
new ground by integrating arguments from different theory fragments in a way not
done before, crossing disciplinary boundaries and developing a multi-level logic.
Specifically, in this paper, we advocate an integration of organizational behaviour and
strategic approaches to develop a single organizational change theory.
Towards an integrated organizational change theory
We aim at enlarging our understanding of organizational change, by looking
simultaneously through the individual-focused micro lens and the
organization-oriented macro lens. Our framework explicitly relates to both the inside
and the outside world of organizations, which makes the case for an interdisciplinary
and multi-level approach to the study (and practice) of organizational change. In so
doing, we link insights from micro-level theories of individual change acceptance to
macro-level perspectives on the environment, with input from meso-level theories on
leadership and organizational identity, implying that we bridge organizational change
theories from psychological, sociological and economic perspectives. We are aware
that we can in no way fully live up to our ambitious attempt, and that we need to select
some limited theoretical insights from these different disciplines.
Our selection is, next to theoretical considerations, guided by an emergent
understanding during our field research, where we identified theories addressing
issues raised by practitioners in the field of organizational change. Our unified theory
of organizational change is informed by three main observations of the nature of
organizational change. First, organizational change is a risky strategy, as it is often
related to the violation of an organization’s core cultural values and, potentially, the
organization’s identity (Hannan et al., 2007). Therefore, we explicitly focus on the vital
role of organizational identity to explain the successes and failures of organizational
change. Second, the analysis of organizational change needs an approach that can
account for the specifics of the organization in question. Yet, the organizational change
industry is dominated by consultancies that offer universal solutions to
organization-specific problems (Sorge and van Witteloostuijn, 2004). Scholars have
noted that this tendency to rely on universal remedies is counterproductive (Ostrom,
2007). Therefore we incorporate a contingency perspective in our framework of
organizational change, suggesting that it is important to identify the external and
internal conditions needed to ensure the success of specific organizational change
programmes in specific organizations and contexts.
Third, there is still a widespread habit within organizational change research to
ignore the major influence of cross-country cultural and institutional differences. This is
closely related to our second observation, and it has also been substantiated in
organization theory and practice (Sorge, 2005). It boils down to the fact that what works
in one organization, culture, or country, may well produce failure in another organization,
culture, or country. Or, more subtly, practices that look similar across organizations,
cultures, or countries on the surface often turn out to be very different if analysed more
carefully. As Pettigrew et al. (2001) note, in a culturally diverse world, scholars of
organizational change cannot continue to assume with a quiet heart, that the change
patterns in their corner of the world reflect those experienced on a wider, global stage.
This does not imply that the overall logic of the theory we propose here is
idiosyncratic, being tailored to each and every specific case – it is not. Rather, we
believe that our framework is general, although the details of how things work out in
practice are specific to the context. Even though two organizations might appear to be
alike to analysts, they might have different audiences and, as a consequence, their
A framework of
identities might be very different. Such differences have important implications for the
types of organizational change processes that are adopted, as well as the acceptance or
resistance of specific change projects in different organizational contexts and among
different parties. To bring to life our theoretical arguments, we decided to add
propositions and examples. First, we formulate a series of 13 propositions that provide
examples of core theoretical insights or insights that we believe are interesting to
explore further in future work. This list of 13 propositions is by no means exhaustive,
but we hope that it clarifies the kind of follow-up work we envision. Second, to put
some real-world flesh to our theoretical argumentation, we illustrate our arguments
with examples from police organization in a series of quotes. We do so because our
theoretical framework is currently applied in the context of a large EU project on
organizational change in police forces in ten European countries. In this paper’s
discussion, we will introduce this project in a little more detail and illustrate how we
put our theoretical framework into research practice.
Our macro-lens brings a fundamental observation to the theoretical discussion that is
often ignored by micro-level researchers: Organizational change does not emerge and
evolve in splendid isolation. Stakeholders inside and outside of the organization tend to
be heavily involved before, during and after the change process (Frooman, 1999). Our
micro-lens, in turn, draws attention to the role of organizational members in
organizational change, an aspect that is often overlooked by macro-level scholars of
strategic management. We embed our analysis of internal organizational change
processes in a larger cultural and institutional framework, focusing on differences
across societies. To organize the arguments, we frame this process in a simple
input-throughput-output model, as introduced in Figure 1.
Input relates to the antecedents of change (the period before the change), throughput
to the process of change (during), and output to the consequences of change (after). The
glue that binds all of these elements of our theoretical framework together is
organizational identity and how this may be affected by organizational change.
Therefore, before introducing our unified input-throughput-output framework, we first
discuss this essential nexus between organizational identity and organizational change.
The effects of organizational change on organizational identity
Following Albert and Whetten (1985), the organizational structure and the
organizational culture, or architectural and cultural codes (Hannan et al., 2007),
provide the answer to the basic question of (internal) organizational identity: “who are
we as an organization?” These central, enduring and distinctive elements of an
organization constitute the requirements for a shared belief structure, a set of more or
less consensual expectations about “how an organization such as ours should behave
in a situation like this” that makes consistent and coherent organizational action
possible ( Jacobs et al., 2008; Van Rekom and Whetten, 2007).
Shared expectations can successfully influence, sometimes even orient, organizational
action, because the formal procedures are typically incomplete and partial, and they
cannot deal with all possible contingencies. So, answers to the question “What should we
do in a situation like this?” are often derived from the common understanding of who we
are as an organization, and default rules on “how an organization like ours should
behave in a situation like this.” Taken-for-granted behavioural patterns, reflecting the
distinction between expected and unexpected acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour,
are key components of organizational identities (Ravasi and Schultz, 2006).
Some organizational changes are well aligned with the organizational identity, and
do not go beyond a formalisation and refinement of already existing but not yet
formalized practice. Others, however, are partially in conflict with organizational
identities, while still others, are or can be experienced as fundamental challenges to
valued organizational identities (Gioia et al., 2000; Van Knippenberg et al., 2002;
To the extent that individuals identify with their employing organization, the
organizational identity reflects on how people see themselves – organizational
membership and organizational identity are merged with the employees’ sense of self
(Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Glynn, 2000; Van Knippenberg, 2000). Changes to the
organization’s identity are therefore often experienced as threats to members’
individual identities (Dutton et al., 1994; Fiol, 2002; Jacobs et al., 2008).
When internal audiences such as groups of employees observe that the
taken-for-granted expectations concerning an organization are not complied with,
they often reduce their identification and loyalty to the organization. Hannan et al. refer
to this as assigning lower grades of membership to the organization. Consequently,
this internal audience will find offers of the organization intrinsically less appealing,
contributing to HRM problems like sick leave and the potential inability of the
organization to mobilize additional human resources. People value a sense of
A unified framework of
A framework of
continuity of identity (Ravasi and Schultz, 2006) – a sense that across past, present and
projected future they essentially are the same person or collective (i.e. organization) –
and therefore often strongly resist organizational changes affecting this sense of
continuity. Thus, a key challenge for change process leaders is to act, not only as
change agents, but also as agents of continuity – a challenging balancing act indeed
(Van Knippenberg et al., 2008).
Organizational identity not only matters for internal audiences such as employees,
but also for external audiences. If stakeholders perceive code violations and if they
recognise that their expectations are not met, the organization may lose legitimacy in
the eyes of key external audiences. This can have serious consequences as some
stakeholders may control vital resources. In the case of police forces, politicians may
reduce their political support if the police fail to perform according to the expectations
of the public, or the media may undermine public trust in the police by focussing on
perceived failures or violations in standards.
A quite significant change process in many European police forces was connected to the
implementation of management methods from the private sector into police organizations. In
times of severe budget restrictions and in times of frequent criticism of supposedly slow and
inefficient bureaucratic procedures, pressure grew in some European countries to increase
efficiency in police forces by introducing performance measurement and cost accounting
systems, management by objectives, benchmarking and other instruments derived from the
private sector. Many police officers, however, felt alienated by the attitude of some politicians
and consultants that apparently did not seem to distinguish between a police force and a private
company. Their identity as police officers implied serving the common good and fighting for
security and justice. Being subjected to questions of efficiency was considered by many as an
unjustified and inappropriate equalization of the police with a private sector that was, in their
eyes, primarily interested in selling goods and making profits (Christe-Zeyse, 2007a).
The need for a cross-national comparison of organizational change
We aim at developing a general theory, applicable to all kinds of organizations in all
types of environments. The precise nature of the role of organizational identity can
only be seen if we can control for the impacts of other cultural differences, such as
those deriving from nationality, geography, ethnicity or religion (Pettigrew et al., 2001).
More specifically, these local cultures, in combination with the history of these types of
organizations in different countries or regions, establish interpretative frames that are
used to disambiguate and complete the otherwise partial procedures and regulations of
organizations – that is, so to speak, to fill the inevitable gaps in the organizational
structure by imposing informal cultural codes.
Cultural difference can refer to something as “soft” as the tone in which an order is given. In
some police forces, an order is understood to be something that does not allow for any kind of
debate, interpretation, or disambiguity, whereas in other police forces an order can also be
understood as a consensual decision after a cooperative and reciprocal process of deliberation
It is important to recognize that although the same organizational categories, forms or
types (with respect to police appraisal and promotion systems, ranks, arms, uniforms,
the right to search and arrest, etc.) may be available in all countries, which should
provide a good basis for common organizational identities, daily organizational life
comes with different interpretative schemata to make sense of codes, practices,
procedures and values (Sorge, 2005; Magala, 2009). Thus, a seemingly universal template
tends to be moulded into local practices, producing idiosyncrasies in the process.
A case in point is the way police officers approach citizens. It makes quite a difference
whether a police officer acts in the role of a service provider or as the armed representative of
the executive power. The setting may seem similar: A police officer stops a car and asks the
driver for his or her driver’s licence and registration. But depending on traditions, cultural
norms, self-perceptions, legal requirements etc. the situation may in fact be very different,
ranging from a friendly chat to a rather aggressive looking demonstration of dominance and
submission (Martin, 1999).
What holds true when comparing organizations from different cultural settings with
each other also holds true when looking at the relationship between an organization
and other actors from the same cultural setting. Each audience within the organization
(i.e. different departments or specialized units), but also outside the organization (i.e. the
public, the ministry, the prosecutor) has a different cultural interpretation of
expectations or relationships. Ambiguous procedures and regulations are interpreted
in numerous different ways and different parties develop different responses in relation
to procedural ambiguities. In this sense, idiosyncrasies develop in each specific work
relationship and (organizational, national) culture provides a general setting by
providing a lens for sensemaking (Magala, 2009; Weick, 1995).
All European police forces have explicit anti-corruption rules, but when it comes to very
specific situations in which officers interact with citizens, these rules are sometimes not as
unambiguous as they might seem. Being helpful and friendly, exchanging information and
returning favours might be part of a cultural tradition in one context and a case of corruption
in another. What is acceptable and what is not, may not be entirely determined by formal
rules or cultural traditions, but very often needs to be disambiguated with respect to
individual audiences and specific situations (Punch, 2000.)
Next to (organizational and national) culture, we explicitly integrate into our framework
the more tangible aspects of the environment, which are often ignored in the literature on
organizational change (see also Bayerl et al., in this issue), but are nevertheless of high
importance. The direct environment of actors influences their sensemaking (i.e. ecological
sensemaking; Whiteman and Cooper, 2012) and frames the meaning they give to
practices, technologies and forms. Hard facts such as budget cuts, legal constraints, or
political instability co-determine organizational identities and are therefore included in
our framework of organizational change. This implies that we have to integrate insights
from “hard” contingency and strategy theories into our “soft” identity-based theory of
organizational change. This is precisely what we do in our unified
input-throughput-output framework of organizational change, to which we turn now.
A unified framework of organizational change
Figure 1 summarises our theoretical logic in the context of a simple
input-throughput-output framework. The framework’s theoretical lens cements these
theory fragments together in an overarching framework, illustrating that
organizational change may only be understood by systematically analyzing all
constitutive elements and the way they interact. In what follows, we will explain these
elements of our unified framework of organizational change.
A framework of
Triggers of change: the input component. We start with the input component of our
framework. As is known from a large contingency literature in the organization
sciences (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Parker and van Witteloostuijn, 2010), fit is a key
driver of organizational performance. Fit is defined as the alignment of an
organization’s internal features with that of its external environment, to enhance
performance (Miles and Snow, 1994). Hannan (1998) suggested that, at their founding,
organizations are typically aligned with their environment, but as they age, the
alignment weakens, requiring serious effort to keep pace with a changing environment.
If an organization experiences a misfit, which comes with inferior performance,
organizational change is needed to restore fit.
However, to be able to do so, the organization has to develop deep insights into both
the environment of the future to which it needs to adapt, as well as into the current
internal weaknesses that have to be changed into future internal strengths. This
implies that the external antecedents of organizational change are related to the
external opportunities and threats in the broader environment. Similarly, internal
strengths and weaknesses of the organization can also trigger organizational change.
So, the starting point of our unified theory of organizational change is an evaluation of
external opportunities (O) and threats (T) in combination with internal strengths (S)
and weaknesses (W), which is known as a SWOT analysis in the classic strategic
When the predominantly stable environment of Western European police in the 1950s and
1960s changed from stable to dynamic (student rebellion, value changes, anti-war protests,
terrorism, etc.), police were increasingly under pressure to change the bureaucratic,
centralized and mechanistic structures that used to fit so well with the stable environment of
the past, into a more flexible and technology-driven structure that seemed to promise a better
alignment with the challenges of the 1970s and 1980s. Around the turn of the century, new
challenges arose. The end of the cold war, globalization, open borders, and new technologies
(internet, social media, et cetera) made existing structures and arrangements seem too slow
and bureaucratic to effectively deal with several diverging challenges at the same time. In
particular, the police faced a growing need to comply with citizens’ concerns on a local basis,
while at the same time dealing with the threats of terrorism, internet crime, organized and
international crime on a national, supranational or even global level. Cross border cooperation
between police forces, the implementation of new technologies as part of investigative work,
international police missions in areas such as Kosovo or Afghanistan, and new surveillance
technologies at airports, train stations and public locations may serve as an illustration of the
attempts made to restore fit in response to such external changes and threats.
The relevance of the macro-environment for organizational change. The strategic
management literature recommends the so-called PESTL approach as an organizing
framework to monitor external opportunities and threats ( Johnson and Scholes, 2000;
Johnson et al., 2005). This framework combines the analysis of political (P), economic
(E), societal (S), technological (T) and legislative (L) issues. Each and every element of
the PESTL framework is associated with subsets of tailor-made theories that may
guide the environmental scan (van Witteloostuijn, 1996). However, a SWOT analysis is
only complete when accompanied by an analysis of the internal strengths and
weaknesses. Central concepts in this internal analysis include organizational assets,
capabilities, competencies and resources. Existing frameworks offer a series of four
criteria to evaluate the strengths (or weaknesses, for that matter) of the key resources
that make organizations tick (Barney, 1991). Essentially, this implies an
assets-capabilities-competencies-resources evaluation (ACCRE) of the efficiency and
effectiveness of an organization’s resources, in light of the organization’s primary aims
Next, the outcomes from the external PESTL and internal ACCRE analyses are
brought together to assess the extent of perceived misfit. In so doing, the weaknesses
and strengths of an organization are pitted against the opportunities and threats
associated with its external environment. This exercise is at the heart of a modern
contingency analysis (Parker and van Witteloostuijn, 2010):
P1. A fit between the external environment and an organization implies that
organizations are good at performing the tasks expected from them, that they
effectively and efficiently react to the challenges of the outside world, and that
they use their resources to the maximum effect. There is no need for
P2. A misfit between the external environment and the organization means that
organizations cannot appropriately react to the outside challenges and fail to
fulfil the expectations of internal as well as external stakeholders – in short,
that they are inefficient and ineffective. Organizational change is needed.
The result of such a fit analysis is a taxonomy of practices that succeed vis-à-vis those
that fail, conditional on the nature of the environment and the type of organization. The
aspect of conditionality is crucial: After all, it is rather unlikely that practices that
promote efficiency and effectiveness in, say, a police station in Paris are equally
valuable for the Romanian border police. Also we would like to note that the
assessment of strengths and weaknesses is not straightforward or unambiguous. We
need to consider from who the assessment of strength and weakness comes, and we
should also evaluate whether this assessment matters for all audiences and under all
(future) circumstances. A case in point is security procedures at airports. It might be
only a minor goal of these procedures to make flights more secure, and their higher
goal might be the perceived security by the public and the public perception that
politicians take security issues seriously. In this sense, security procedures can be
weak in terms of their technical effectiveness, but strong in the sense of their public
effect, and vice versa.
Knowledge sharing and technology as triggers of organizational change. Organizational
life is increasingly an information-rich and knowledge-intensive practice. Key to
organizational learning – and hence to the design of a successful organizational
change programme – is knowledge of which practices work well and which do not.
Therefore, knowledge sharing between organizations is argued to be essential for
organizational success, as is emphasised in the so-called knowledge-based view of the
firm (Grant, 1996).
Conceptually, knowledge sharing is the exchange between two or more parties of
potentially valuable information (e.g. Davenport, 1997; Ipe, 2003), and involves both
seeking and providing knowledge (Ingram, 2002). Knowledge sharing generates
competitive capabilities and contributes to sustained performance (Slater and Narver,
1995). Organizational knowledge sharing is not a singular and isolated process, but an
on-going interplay within and between organizations via people and technology (Berg
et al., 2008). Specific knowledge-sharing practices are shaped by barriers and enablers
A framework of
at the individual, organizational and technological level, and are part of and contribute
to the external and internal environment of organizations. Individual employees and
organizations learn from best practices within their own organization, but also within
their sector or even across sectors or on a global scale. Implementing such best
practices leads in many cases to organizational change:
P3. Knowledge sharing within and between organizations triggers organizational
Scholars in the field of public management stress the relevance of knowledge sharing
in the sense of cross-sector collaborations (Bryson et al., 2006). Applied to the police
this means that police organizations need to exchange knowledge and practices with
relevant stakeholders (i.e. municipalities, health services, government, but also
organizations in the private sector) in order to adapt to increasingly complex demands.
To ensure that such rich knowledge exchange is successful, skilful leaders are needed
to integrate “people, processes, structures and resources” (Ansell and Gash, 2008).
However, the importance of knowledge sharing as a critical factor in change
processes goes beyond exchanging information on best practice or mistakes to be
avoided. Successful inter-organizational knowledge sharing depends on the
comparability of the organizations. Just transferring best practices from one
organization to another could lead to a serious misfit of practices. Best practices
need to be translated into the context of the respective (recipient) organization:
P4. Knowledge sharing is most likely to be successful when organizations share
similar characteristics and operate within similar environments.
In addition to knowledge sharing, our model pays special attention to the role of
technology in organizational change processes. Since the introduction of assembly
lines, it has been widely acknowledged that technology functions as an agent of change
in many respects, and must be handled as a key contingency factor. Technology can
facilitate knowledge sharing, trigger new practices of work and influence methods of
internal and external organizational communication, to name just a few functions.
Most of the technology-related organizational change literature either focuses on the
role of technology as such (Gosain, 2004) or on the role of social dynamics within
organizations (Latour, 1996).
More recent debates on the role of technology in organizational change stress the
importance of having technology embedded in organizations (Labatut et al., 2012;
Volkoff et al., 2007) and of integrating material and social perspectives on technology.
Especially in an international setting, it seems increasingly vital to understand how the
environment and organizational features mediate the social meaning that is given to
technology, and how this can trigger and shape organizational change processes:
P5. Technology implementation is a highly context contingent process that
triggers organizational change differently depending on the organizational
In the late nineties, some police forces in Germany introduced a system to record work hours in
a cost accounting system in order to get data on how to use tight resources more efficiently and
shift resources from inefficient procedures to core activities of policing. After an initial phase of
getting used to typing in the required data into the correct fields and after the usual complaints
(“another useless statistical procedure”), police officers were expected to adopt the new software
as one of the many unavoidable chores that shape a police officer’s life and ultimately become
part of their daily routines. But despite sufficient information on why this change was
necessary, a large number of police officers refused to get used to it, and resentment instead
grew over the years. It soon became obvious that the new software was not just any kind of
culturally “neutral” tool, but was considered part of a new management philosophy largely
shaped by a model of private business that was resented on principal grounds. Data input was
mostly inaccurate, supervisors didn’t use the data, because they couldn’t trust them, and after
several years, some police forces quietly abandoned the plan to introduce cost accounting
systems as the basis of a new management data base altogether (Christe-Zeyse, 2007b).
The internal dynamics of organizations: The throughput component. Throughput
processes take place within the organization. The wish to engage in organizational
change may well be triggered by a perceived misfit, as defined previously. This may be
externally driven, given new pressures from the environment, or internally triggered
by organizational leaders who believe that internal weaknesses have to be repaired (or
a combination of the two, for that matter). At this point of the argument, two remarks
are worth making.
First, in practice, it is the subjective perception of (mis)fit that counts as an
organizational change trigger, not the “objective” outcomes of a SWOT analysis. In the
noisy circumstances of organizational life, mistakes are inevitable. Second, of course,
perceived misfit in the sense of a misalignment in SWOT analysis is not the only
motivation for organizational change. For instance, managerial power and
control-restoring aims are cited as alternative organizational change drivers (Wittek
and van Witteloostuijn, 2013). Knowledge sharing and best practices observed in other
organizations might lead to the start of change processes, just as the implementation of
new technologies can lead to organizational change.
The literature on organizational change offers insights into the internal processes
launched by such organizational change initiatives. Here, we would like to summarise
these effects by focusing on the potential content benefits and the potential process
losses of organizational change (Barnett and Carroll, 1995). In principle, to boost
organizational performance, the content of change should be such that weaknesses will
be ameliorated or bypassed, and strengths will be reinforced or exploited. But some of
these changes also produce losses that are unexpected and difficult to observe (Hannan
et al., 2003a, b; Ford et al., 2008).
A new training programme aimed at improving the social skills of community police officers
is supposed to improve a police station’s fit with the societal demand for citizen oriented
police work. However, such a change intervention may also come with unexpected process
losses. For example, the social skills training programme may trigger resistance from officers
strongly believing in the action-oriented crime fighter profile of police, vis-à-vis the more
preventive and citizen oriented practices associated with the training programme. This, in
turn, may trigger discussions about the perceived “softness” of the new course the police force
has embarked on in general – discussions that may lead to perceptions of cognitive
dissonance between the officers’ perceptions of good policing and the perceived objectives of
leaders ( Jacobs et al., 2007).
Frequently, perceptions such as the one described in the quote which follows, extend to
areas that are not even related to the original trigger. In our case, police officers may
find proof of the new “softness” in other areas as well, be it in the way a new leader
A framework of
communicates or the tone of a recent press release or a change in the web site design of
their police force. It lies in the nature of such sensemaking processes that they cannot
be determined by “above”.
Hannan and Freeman (1984) argue that process losses are particularly large if the
core of the organization, such as its work floor culture or set of objectives, is affected by
the initial intervention – as this core defines the organization’s identity. Under such
circumstances it is expected that process losses will be larger than content benefits.
Hannan et al. argued that high-centrality changes (that is changes that touch on the
core features of the organization) lead to longer cascades of change and by doing so
increase the opportunity costs associated with the initial change. Organizational
changes explicitly targeting core organizational features belong the most dangerous
and demanding change endeavours:
P6. If organizational change only relates to peripheral features, which are less
relevant for the organizational identity, the content benefits might well be
larger than process losses and vice versa.
P7. Change that touches on the core of the organizational identity often weakens
or even eliminates the potentially beneficial effects of this change.
A key moderator, or contingency, of the effect of organizational change processes is
leadership (Romme and van Witteloostuijn, 1999). It is extremely hard, if not outright
impossible, for organizational change to be successful without the willing and
proactive engagement of the organization’s employees. This commitment cannot be
taken for granted, however – employee resistance to change has often been cited as a
primary cause of change failure (Argyris, 1990; Fiol, 2002). Yet, scholars increasingly
challenge traditional perceptions of change resistance, which cast employees as
stubborn saboteurs of smart change endeavours. Resistance to change should rather be
seen as a warning for ensuing counterproductive change effects or threats to the
organizational identity (Ford et al., 2008):
P8. Resistance to change can function as a warning signal of organizational
identity threat, with important implications for change outcomes.
Leadership plays a key role in building the legitimacy of and commitment to the
change process (Bass, 1985; Conger and Kanungo, 1987; Shamir et al., 1993):
Change acceptance cannot be enforced by decree, but senior police officers accustomed to
leading police staff under “normal” circumstances might not necessarily be well equipped to
explain the need for change and the consequences that may accompany such actions. In order
to facilitate acceptance of attempts to restructure police organizations, ministries of the
interior in several European countries started to spend significant time and effort in
designing communication strategies, setting up information and participation campaigns,
offering training courses, and/or installing web-based information channels. A sizeable
number of police forces, however, still rely on the assumption that a clearly worded order
usually suffices to explain the need for change and thus overcome any potential resistance
(Santos and Santos, 2012).
Effective leadership anticipates the negative effect of an organizational change
programme, whereas ineffective leadership fails to do so. Effective leadership will
dampen the process losses, while ineffective leadership will make matters worse
(Conger and Kanungo, 1987). Leadership is, hence, directly connected to the issues of
organizational change and identity. Organizational identity threats elicited by
organizational change lie at the core of concerns regarding the legitimacy of change,
also driving employee resistance, lack of involvement and weaker commitment to
change processes (e.g. Van Knippenberg et al., 2008):
Neighbourhood policing in England was restructured quite dramatically around 2008 by
extending some police powers to Special Constables and Police Community Support Officers
in order to increase perceived security, let warranted police focus on higher levels of crime
and improve the relationship between the police and the public. In addition to that, a “Policing
Pledge” was issued, which was a ten-point commitment to the public and was signed up to by
all 43 police forces in England and Wales in December 2008. It contained rather ambitious
targets regarding the performance of police forces all over the country. The change was
perceived by many police officers as a “seismic shift” affecting the role of police officers, their
relationship with the community, their cooperation with external stakeholders and their day
to day tasks. Many police officers who had for many years focused on fighting crime, dealing
with suspects and victims, hadn’t “walked the beat” for decades and needed to readapt
themselves to talk to “ordinary” citizens in order to improve their community presence.
Leadership turned out to be a critical factor regarding the acceptance of this change, and an
assessment by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary found that four out of every five
police forces were falling short of the Policing Pledge promise. In July 2010, the new UK
Government decided to abandon the Policing Pledge targets altogether in an attempt to give
more local control to authorities (Bullock, 2010).
Threats to the continuity of organizational identity triggers resistance that stands in
the way of successfully implementing the required changes. Sometimes the resistance
is unable to stop the implementation but slows down the change process. Hannan et al.
(2003a, b) argued that such change processes appear as if the moves were carried out in
a high viscosity medium – every single step taking immense efforts and being slower
and more costly than expected:
P9. Leadership can facilitate change processes by understanding reasons for local
resistance and to translate the resistance into more adequate change
implementation or adjustments to the change plan.
P10. Slowing down of organizational change processes due to resistance escalates
opportunity costs. More managerial attention is needed to understand and
address the resistance and little attention is left “to fly the plane”.
What would be required to prevent or overcome such perceptions and associated
resistance is a clear message that the changes are internally driven (i.e. originate within
the unit), and follow from, and are consistent with, the local unit’s mission and identity
– or, in our unified theoretical framework’s terminology: are meant to restore fit. That
is, when circumstances change, the way in which identity is enacted may change
without the identity itself necessarily changing (Van Knippenberg et al., 2008). Or in
other terms: sometimes organizations need to change to stay themselves:
P11. Organizational change aiming at adjusting the organization to environmental
changes may be consistent with the organization’s identity, rather than being
in conflict with it. Changes that are consistent with the organizational identity
will be easier and bear less opportunity costs than changes that are in conflict
with the organization’s identity.
A framework of
A social identity analysis of leadership (Van Knippenberg and Hogg, 2003) has
identified a number of aspects of leadership that are particularly important in
understanding how leaders can provide a sense of continuity of organizational identity.
First, leaders have to be perceived to embody the organizational identity – to be
representative of “who we are”, and to be “one of us”. Second, leaders need to espouse
visions of change that are also visions of continuity of identity. Without a clear
message that “we will still be us, despite all changes” visions of change are likely to
elicit resistance more than enthusiasm. Third, leaders need to act as role-models in the
enactment of these changes – taking the lead in the change process not only verbally,
but also behaviourally:
P12. Effective organizational change leaders embody the organizational identity,
espouse visions of change that are also visions of continuity and role-model
the enactment of the change.
What is seen as representative of the police identity, will likely differ from country to
country and from force to force and from special unit to special unit – there is no “one
size fits all” here. Yet, at the same time, the key mechanisms driving the underlying
process remain the same, and these underlying process mechanisms need to be
captured in combination with country-specific expressions of the collective identity –
again, quite a balancing act indeed.
Performance and organizational legitimacy: the outcomes component. The ultimate
question is how organizational change affects organizational performance. The effects
of organizational change can be negative, neutral or positive. This relates to the output
dimension of our unified theory of organizational change. In this context, our theory
emphasises the critical role of two important mediating effects: the impact of
organizational change on external legitimacy and internal identity. The argument is
that if not executed carefully, organizational change is very likely to lead to external
legitimacy erosion and internal identity conflict. These, in turn, will impact
organizational performance negatively:
P13. A key external threat to the success of organizational change is legitimacy
erosion, and a key internal threat is identity conflict, both generating a
negative effect on organizational performance.
This closes the circle of our unified theory of organizational change, as these key
mediation feedback effects will distort the organization’s fit with the environment.
On the one hand, the external consequences are reflected in the organization’s
legitimacy in the broader environment. If the organizational change negatively affects
the organization’s accountability, reliability and performance in the eyes of external
audiences, the organization’s legitimacy may be severely harmed (Hannan and
Freeman, 1984). For instance, if the introduction of community policing comes with a
‘soft’ image of police officers, street crime might increase rather than decrease and
media reports about police activities might become critical with the tendency to
undermine the police authority even further. Still, when a “soft” policing image,
translated as being trusted by the community and serving the public is aligned with
the greater societal expectation, such an approach might effectively decrease street
crime, since the police can rely on public and media support and co-operation. Such
disruptive or constructive performance and legitimacy effects feed back into the
external opportunities and threats.
Organizational change triggering internal organizational identity conflicts can lead
to low work satisfaction and a lowered organizational identification. When police
officers are led into directions that go against their identity, this might lead to a threat
of their identity. When a traditionally community oriented police force is expected to
produce a specific number of tickets for minor offences (i.e. speeding, biking without a
light, walking over red traffic lights), this can undermine both, a core aspect of their
identity, but also their legitimacy in the wider public.
Organizational change is a major challenge; the literature is full of contributions
outlining the multi-complexity of organizational change endeavours. It is widely
acknowledged that planned organizational change is not fully possible, since
“[o]rganisations are continually changing, routinely, easily and responsively, but
change within them cannot be controlled arbitrarily. Organizations rarely do exactly
what they are told to do” (March, 1981, p. 563). We are aware that our model implies an
ambitious programme for organizational change studies. Interdisciplinary discourse
and cross-cultural research frameworks are challenging in themselves (Sauquet and
Jacobs, 1998; Turati et al., 1998). We feel that it is worth the effort and that existing
theories in organizational change need to be systematically tested and modified in an
At the heart of our model lie the three observations with which we started. First,
organizational change can violate the organizational identity, which might have
detrimental effects on the organization’s legitimacy and performance. Second, to
predict such effects, a contingency perspective enables us to analyse the specific
external and internal conditions of organizations that facilitate both change success
and change failure. Third, the general patterns and mechanics apply to all change
processes. Nevertheless it is the very spirit of our contingency perspective that in an
international context the meanings of patterns and mechanics that lie behind the input,
throughput and output processes of organizational change can widely differ and
therefore deserve not a cure-all approach, but a careful and respectful analysis of the
The two next contributions to this special issue introduce the first results from a
large EU-financed international project into organizational change in police
organizations. This project involves teams from ten different countries: Belgium,
Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Republic of Macedonia, The Netherlands,
Romania, Spain and the UK. The research project “Comparative Police Studies in the
EU (COMPOSITE; see www.composite-project.eu/) runs in the period from 2010 to
2014 collecting rich multi-level data to explore Figure 1’s unified, multidisciplinary and
multi-level framework of organizational change in police forces in the ten participating
countries. In this special issue, next to this paper’s introduction of the framework,
initial findings from two work packages will be presented. The next paper in this
special issue summarises the results from the joint efforts of the complete
COMPOSITE team to systematically carry out an environmental scan analysis in all
ten European countries, focusing on evaluating the O and T pillars of a SWOT
A framework of
framework from the perspective of specific police forces. The paper after that discusses
issues that relate to the key role of technology.
Albert, S. and Whetten, D. (1985), “Organizational identity”, in Cummings, L.L. and Staw, B.M.
(Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 7, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT.
Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2008), “Collaborative governance in theory and practice”, Journal of
Public Administrative Research and Theory, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 543-571.
Argyris, C. (1990), Overcoming Organizational Defenses, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Ashforth, B.E. and Mael, F. (1989), “Social identity theory and the organization”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14, pp. 20-39.
Barnett, W. and Carroll, G.R. (1995), “Modelling internal organizational change”, Annual Review
of Sociology, Vol. 21, pp. 217-236.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Baron, J.N., Hannan, M.T. and Burton, M.D. (2001), ““Labor pains: change in organizational
models and employee turnover in young, high-tech firms”, American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 106 No. 4, pp. 960-1012.
Bass, B.M. (1985), Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Berg, E.M., Dean, G., Gottschalk, P. and Karlsen, T.J. (2008), “Police management roles as
determinants of knowledge sharing attitudes in criminal investigations”, International
Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 21, pp. 271-284.
Brakman, S., Garretsen, H., Van Marrewijk, C. and Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2013), “Cross-border
merger and acquisition activity and revealed comparative advantage in manufacturing
industries”, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 28-57.
Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B.C. and Stone, M.M. (2006), “The design and implementation of
cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature”, Public Administration
Review, Vol. 66, pp. 44-55.
Bullock, K. (2010), “Improving accessibility and accountability – neighbourhood policing and the
policing pledge”, Safer Communities, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 10-19.
Christe-Zeyse, J. (2007a), “Riskante Modernisierung starker Professionskulturen – Plädoyer für
ein kultur-kompatibles Veränderungsmanagement in der Polizei”, Verwaltung und
Management, Vol. 29, pp. 60-67.
Christe-Zeyse, J. (2007b), “Modernisierung der Polizei: Wenn Selbstverständlichkeiten nicht mehr
gelten”, SIAK-Journal – Zeitschrift für Polizeiwissenschaft und polizeiliche Praxis, Vol. 3,
Conger, J.A. and Kanungo, R.N. (1987), “Towards a behavioral theory of charismatic leadership
in organizational settings”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 637-647.
Davenport, T.H. (1997), Information Ecology, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
DiFonzo, N. and Bordia, P. (1998), “A tale of two corporations: managing uncertainty during
organizational change”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 37 Nos 3-4, pp. 295-303.
Dikova, D., Rao Sahib, P. and van Witteloostuijn, A. (2010), “The effect of acquisition experience,
cultural distance and institutional differences on cross-border merger abandonment and
completion: evidence from the international service industry in 1981-2001”, Journal of
International Business Studies, Vol. 41, pp. 223-245.
Donaldson, L. (2001), The Contingency Theory of Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Dutton, J.E., Dukerich, J.M. and Harquail, C.V. (1994), “Organizational images and member
identification”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 39, pp. 239-263.
Fiol, C.M. (2002), “Capitalizing on paradox: the role of language in transforming organizational
identities”, Organization Science, Vol. 13, pp. 653-666.
Ford, J., Ford, L. and D’Amelio, A. (2008), “Resistance to change: the rest of the story”, Academy
of Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 362-377.
Frooman, J. (1999), “Stakeholder influence strategies”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 24,
Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M. and Corley, K.G. (2000), “Organizational identity, image, and adaptive
instability”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 63-81.
Glynn, M.A. (2000), “When cymbals become symbols: conflict over organizational identity within
a symphony orchestra”, Organization Science, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 285-298.
Gosain, S. (2004), “Enterprise information systems as objects and carriers of institutional forces:
the new iron cage?”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 5 No. 4,
Grant, R.M. (1996), “Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 17, pp. 109-122.
Hannan, M.T. (1998), “Rethinking age dependence in organizational mortality: Logical
formalizations”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 104, pp. 85-123.
Hannan, M.T. and Baron, J.N. (2002), “Organizational blueprints for success in high-tech
start-ups lessons from the Stanford Project on emerging companies”, California
Management Review, Vol. 44, pp. 8-36.
Hannan, M.T. and Freeman, J. (1984), “Structural inertia and organizational change”, American
Sociological Review, Vol. 49, pp. 149-164.
Hannan, M., Pólos, L. and Carroll, G. (2003a), “Cascading organizational change”, Organization
Science, Vol. 14, pp. 463-482.
Hannan, M.T., Pólos, L. and Carroll, G.R. (2003b), “The fog of change opacity and asperity in
organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48, pp. 399-443.
Hannan, M.T., Pólos, L. and Carroll, G.R. (2004), “The evolution of inertia”, Industrial and
Corporate Change, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 213-242.
Hannan, M., Pólos, L. and Carroll, G. (2007), Logics of Organization Theory: Audiences, Codes and
Ecologies, Princeton UP, Princeton, NJ.
Herscovitch, L. and Meyer, J.P. (2002), “Commitment to organizational change: extension of a
three-component model”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 474-487.
Ingram, P. (2002), “Inter-organizational learning”, in Baum, J. (Ed.), The Blackwell Companion to
Organizations, Blackwell Business, Oxford, pp. 642-663.
Ipe, M. (2003), “Knowledge sharing in organizations: a conceptual framework”, Human Resource
Development Review, Vol. 2, pp. 337-359.
Jacobs, G., Christe-Zeyse, J. and Keegan, A. (2007), “”Der Masterplan und sein Weg durch die
Organization, Wie Verwaltungsreformen auf dem Polizeirevier ankommen”,
Gruppendynamik und Organizationsberatung, No. 3, pp. 282-294.
Jacobs, G., Christe-Zeyse, J., Keegan, A. and Pólos, L. (2008), “Reactions to organizational identity
threats in times of change: illustrations from the German police”, Corporate Reputation
Review, Vol. 11, pp. 245-261.
Johnson, G. and Scholes, K. (2000), Exploring Public Sector Strategy, Prentice Hall, Englewood
A framework of
Johnson, G., Scholes, K. and Whittington, R. (2005), Exploring Corporate Strategy, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Labatut, J., Aggeri, F. and Girard, N. (2012), “Discipline and change: how technologies and
organizational routines interact in new practice creation”, Organization Science, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 39-69.
Latour, B. (1996), “Social theory and the study of computerized work sites”, in Orlikowski, W.J.,
Walsham, G., Jones, M.R. and DeGross, J.I. (Eds), Information Technology and Changes in
Organizational Work, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 295-307.
Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967), Differentiation and Integration in Complex
Organizations, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Magala, S. (2009), The Management of Meaning in Organizations, Palgrave, London.
March, J. (1981), “Footnotes to organizational change”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 26
No. 4, pp. 563-577.
Martin, S.E. (1999), “Police force or police service? Gender and emotional labor”, The ANNALS of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 561 No. 1, pp. 111-126.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1994), Fit, Failure and the Hall of Fame, Macmillan, New York, NY.
Muehlfeld, K., Rao Sahib, P. and Van Witteloostuijn, A. (2012), “A contextual theory of
organizational learning from failures and successes: a study of acquisition completion in
the global newspaper industry, 1981-2008”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 8,
North, D.C. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge
University Press, New York, NY.
Oreg, S., Vakola, S. and Armenakis, A. (2011), “Change recipients’ reactions to organizational
change: a 60-year review of quantitative studies”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 461-524.
Ostrom, E. (2007), “A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas”, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 104 No. 39, pp. 15181-15187.
Parker, S.C. and van Witteloostuijn, A. (2010), “A general framework for estimating
multidimensional contingency fit”, Organization Science, Vol. 21, pp. 540-553.
Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W. and Cameron, K.S. (2001), “Studying organizational change
and development: challenges for future research”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 697-713.
Punch, M. (2000), “Police corruption and its prevention”, European Journal on Criminal Policy
and Research, Vol. 8 No. 3, September, pp. 301-324.
Ravasi, D. and Schultz, M. (2006), “Responding to organizational identity threats: exploring the
role of organizational culture”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 433-458.
Romme, A.G.L. and van Witteloostuijn, A. (1999), “Circular organizing and triple-loop learning”,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12, pp. 439-453.
Rousseau, D.M. (1998), “Why workers still identify with organizations”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, pp. 217-233.
Santos, R.B. and Santos, R.G. (2012), “The role of leadership in implementing a police
organizational model for crime reduction and accountability”, Policing, Vol. 6 No. 4,
Sauquet, A. and Jacobs, G. (1998), “Can we learn from Herodotus?”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 13 Nos 3-4, pp. 61-83.
Schwarz, G.M. and Huber, G.P. (2008), “Challenging organizational change research”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 19, pp. S1-S6.
Shamir, B., House, R. and Arthur, M.B. (1993), “The motivational effects of charismatic
leadership: A self-concept based theory”, Organization Science, Vol. 4, pp. 577-594.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and the learning organization”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59, pp. 63-74.
Sorge, A.M. (2005), The Global and the Local: Understanding the Dialectics of Business Systems,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sorge, A.M. and van Witteloostuijn, A. (2004), “The (non)sense of organizational change: an essay
about universal management hypes, sick consultancy metaphors and healthy organization
theories”, Organization Studies, Vol. 25, pp. 1205-1231.
Turati, C., Usai, A. and Ravagnani, R. (1998), “Antecedents of co-ordination in academic
international project research”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 13 Nos 3/4,
Vakola, M. and Nikolaou, I. (2005), “Attitudes towards organizational change: what is the role of
employees’ stress and commitment?”, Employee relations, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 160-174.
Van Knippenberg, D. (2000), “Work motivation and performance: a social identity perspective”,
Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 49, pp. 357-371.
Van Knippenberg, D. and Hogg, M.A. (2003), “A social identity model of leadership in
organizations”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 243-295.
Van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B. and Bobbio, A. (2008), “Leaders as agents of
continuity: self continuity and resistance to collective change”, in Sani, F. (Ed.),
Self-continuity: Individual and Collective Perspectives, Psychology Press, New York, NY,
Van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., Monden, L. and de Lima, F. (2002), “Organizational
identification after a merger: a social identity perspective”, British Journal of Social
Psychology, Vol. 41, pp. 233-252.
van Leeuwen, E., van Knippenberg, D. and Ellemers, N. (2003), “Continuing and changing group
identities: the effects of merging on social identification and ingroup bias”, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 29, pp. 679-690.
Van Rekom, J. and Whetten, D. (2007), “How organizational beliefs cohere: about essence,
distinctiveness and continuity”, paper presented at the Academy of Management,
Philadelphia, PA, August, pp. 3-8.
van Witteloostuijn, A. (1996), “Contexts and environments”, in Warner, M. (Ed.), International
Encyclopaedia of Business and Management, Routledge, London, pp. 752-761.
Volkoff, O., Strong, D.M. and Elmes, M.B. (2007), “Technological embeddedness and
organizational change”, Organization Science, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 832-848.
Weber, P.S. and Weber, J.E. (2001), “Changes in employee perceptions during organizational
change”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 291-300.
Weick, K. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA, and London.
Whiteman, G. and Cooper, W.H. (2012), “Ecological sensemaking”, The Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 889-911.
Wittek, R.F.M. and van Witteloostuijn, A. (2013), “Organizational change”, in Wittek, R.,
Snijders, T.A.B. and Nee, V. (Eds), Handbook of Rational Choice Social Research, Stanford
University Press, Palo Alto, CA.
A framework of
Bamberger, S.G., Vinding, A.L., Larsen, A., Nielsen, P., Fonager, K., Nielsen, R.N., Ryom, P. and
Omland, Ø. (2012), “Impact of organizational change on mental health: a systematic
review”, Occupational Environmental Medicine, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 592-598.
Jacobs, G., Keegan, A., Christe-Zeyse, J., Seeberg, I. and Runde, B. (2006), “The fatal smirk”,
Insider accounts of organizational change processes in a police organization, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 173-191.
Mouhanna, C. (2008), “Police: de la proximité au maintien de l’ordre généralisé?”, in Mucchielli, L.
(Ed.), La frénésie sécuritaire. Retour à l’ordre et nouveau contrôle social, pp. 77-87.
Peli, G.L., Pólos, L. and Hannan, M.T. (2000), “Back to inertia: theoretical implications of
alternative styles of logical formalization”, Sociological Theory, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 195-215.
Stone, M.M., Crosby, B.C. and Bryson, J.M. (2010), “Governing public-nonprofit collaborations:
understanding their complexity and the implications for research”, Voluntary Sector
Review, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 309-334.
Gabriele Jacobs can be contacted at: email@example.com
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
Place an order in 3 easy steps. Takes less than 5 mins.