In this post, I want to discuss two different notions of organizational change–episodic and continuous. The following discussion is based on an important publication by Karl Weick and Robert Quinn* in which they assess many recent ideas and theories of organizational change.

—

Episodic change is discontinuous and intermittent, something to be carefully planned. It is a sporadic occurrence that hopefully brings the organization to a new and improved equilibrium, where it might remain, unchanging, for some period of time until the next perceived need for change launches another change episode.

Continuous change, by contrast, is emergent, cumulative and pretty much constant. Change is a way of life, not a burden. The organization is viewed, not as a static entity occasionally punctuated by periodic change, but as an inherently dynamic entity, ever-changing, ever-evolving and ever-unfolding.

Here are some further points marking the difference between these two:

(Adapted from Weick & Quinn 1999, p. 366)

Episodic Change	Continuous Change
Organizations are viewed as stable and inertial, in which change is something that is infrequent and, when it is to occur, it is brought about with a great deal of planning and deliberation.	Organizations are viewed as emergent and self-organizing, in which change is a constant and normal characteristic of organizational life.
Change is seen as an occasional interruption from normalcy and equilibrium and tends to be dramatic and driven externally (i.e. by skip-level management and above or by management consultants). Change is most often triggered by some external event after some period of inertia. (Inertia itself often arises from the conservative tendencies of an organizational culture, particularly in the light of some definitive success.)	Change is a pattern of endless modifications in work processes and social practice. It is driven by organizational instability and alert reactions to daily contingencies. Numerous small accommodations accumulate and amplify
Metaphor of organization: an organizational entity that is characterized by dense and tightly coupled interdependencies among its parts. For such an organization, efficiency is the by-word and ‘imitation’ is a premier motivation for change (e.g. Company X is doing Agile, maybe we should be doing that too).	Metaphor of organization: the foundation of an organization is the recurrent interactions by which its activities are conducted, rather than the fixed edifices on which its built. Systems are self-organizing rather than static and response repertoires to events and breakdowns are developed continuously. Responses are mindfully constructed in the moment, rather than predicated upon the mindless application of routinized historical responses.
Image of organization: One image that episodic change evokes is of ‘punctuated equilibrium‘–the notion that systems remain in relative stasis and then suddenly burst out in revolutionary change. During that period of stasis, the parts and their interdependencies converge and tighten further and further, resulting in decreasing capacity for adaptation, and a general decrease in organizational effectiveness. When change does happen, its often big and it is usually revolutionary.	Image of organization: One image that continuous change evokes is improvisation . Change “is often realized through the ongoing variations which emerge frequently, even imperceptibly, in the slippages and improvisations of everyday life” (p. 376). Improvisation happens when the time gap between planning and implementation shrinks so that ‘composition’ and ‘execution’ converge. The more improvisational an act (or set of acts), the shorter this time gap between composition and execution, between planning and implementation.
Change intervention theory: Change is created through intention. Change is ‘Lewinian’ (referring to Kurt Lewin, founding father of the field of organizational development): inertial, linear, progressive, goal-seeking, motivated by disequilibrium, requiring outsider (e.g. consultant) intervention.	Change intervention theory: Change is a redirection of what is already under way; it is ‘Confucian’: cyclical, processional, without an end state, equilibrium seeking (rather than goal-seeking), eternal.
Perspective on change: macro, distant, global.	Perspective on change: micro, close, local.
Key concepts: inertia, deep structure or interrelated parts, triggering, replacement and substitution, discontinuity, revolution.	Key concepts: recurrent interactions, shifting task authority, response repertoires, emergent patterns, improvisation, translation, learning.
Emphasis: short-run adaptation.	Emphasis: long-run adaptability.

A Final Comment

We will continue to explore these distinctions in future posts. However, I want to make one final comment before closing this post.

It can’t escape our attention in relation to continuous change that one of the things we often say about Agility is that it constitutes the capacity of groups and organizations to embrace change. Hence, continuous change may seem a perfect change intervention paradigm for Agile change and adoption. However, we want to be careful about what this implies, particularly in larger, more established, more complex organizations. In future posts, I will attempt to bring together a variety of research in order to orient our thinking and design approach to the adoption of agility in organizations.

—

*Weick, K. E. & Quinn, R. E. , “Organizational change and development”, Annual Review of Psychology, 50, pp. 361-86. — You can get a pdf copy (694Kb) of the article here.

Posted in: Organization, Change & Development by admin on Sunday, July 20th, 2008

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.