Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235306459

Lookingforwards:DiscursivedirectionsinorganizationalchangeARTICLEinJOURNALOFORGANIZATIONALCHANGEMANAGEMENTJULY2005ImpactFactor:0.74DOI:10.1108/09534810510607074

CITATIONS41

READS195

4AUTHORS,INCLUDING:

DavidGrantUniversityofNewSouthWales59PUBLICATIONS1,318CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

NickWailesUniversityofNewSouthWales45PUBLICATIONS387CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Allin-textreferencesunderlinedinbluearelinkedtopublicationsonResearchGate,lettingyouaccessandreadthemimmediately.

Availablefrom:GrantMichelsonRetrievedon:10November2015

Journal of Organizational Change ManagementLooking forwards: discursive directions in organizational changeCliff Oswick David Grant Grant Michelson Nick Wailes

Article information:To cite this document:Cliff Oswick David Grant Grant Michelson Nick Wailes, (2005),"Looking forwards: discursive directions inorganizational change", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 Iss 4 pp. 383 - 390Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810510607074

Downloaded on: 14 October 2014, At: 00:43 (PT)References: this document contains references to 56 other documents.To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.comThe fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3274 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:David Grant, Grant Michelson, Cliff Oswick, Nick Wailes, (2005),"Guest editorial: discourse andorganizational change", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 Iss 1 pp. 6-15nullPaul Humphreys, Ronan McIvor, Judy Bullock, (2006),"The SAGE Handbook of OrganizationalDiscourse20061David Grant, Cynthia Hardy, Cliff Oswick, Linda Putnam, . The SAGE Handbook ofOrganizational Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications 2004. 429 pp., ISBN: 0#7619#7225#085.00 Hardback", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 Iss 6 pp. 524-525

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 310177 []

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

DIT

H C

OW

AN

UN

IVER

SITY

At 0

0:43

14

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Looking forwards: discursivedirections in organizational

changeCliff Oswick

The Management Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK, and

David Grant, Grant Michelson and Nick WailesUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to review the discursive formation of organizational change and toconsider the possible directions that change management initiatives may take in the future.

Design/methodology/approach This closing piece identifies a traditional change discourse andan emerging change discourse. This is achieved through a review of the extant literature and thecontributions to the special issue.

Findings The paper highlights a shift of emphases in organizational change due to environmentalimperatives. In particular, it reveals a move from problem-centred, discrete interventions to a focus oncontinuous improvements. It also draws attention to the emerging significance of discourse-basedapproaches concerned with image, identity, organizational learning and knowledge management.

Originality/value Provides a framework for classifying different forms of organizational changeactivity and posits directions for future development.

Keywords Organizational change, Rhetoric, Business improvement

Paper type Conceptual paper

In recent years it has become increasingly difficult to find mainstream managementtextbooks that do not make an obligatory reference in their introductory preamble tothe fact that we live in a turbulent and rapidly changing world. This tendency isespecially true of books on organizational change. For example, in the preface to thesixth edition of their popular textbook on organizational change, French and Bellassert: Organizations face multiple challenges and threats today threats toeffectiveness, efficiency, and profitability; challenges from turbulent environments,increased competition, and changing customer demands (1999, p. xiii). We find similarsentiments expressed in the preface of the latest version of Harvey and Browns (2001)influential volume:

The first edition of this text appeared over two decades ago, and what changes have takenplace! We live in a world that has been turned upside down (2001, p. xviii).

Harvey and Brown (2001) go on to suggest:

The sixth edition has undergone major changes, much like the world we live in. In the past,managers aimed for success in a relatively stable and predictable world. However, in thehyper turbulent environment of the 21st century, managers are confronting an acceleratingrate of change. They face constant innovation in computing and information technology anda chaotic world of changing markets and consumer lifestyles. Todays learning organizationmust be able to transform and renew to meet these changing forces (2001, p. xviii).

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

Organizationalchange

383

Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement

Vol. 18 No. 4, 2005pp. 383-390

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0953-4814

DOI 10.1108/09534810510607074

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

DIT

H C

OW

AN

UN

IVER

SITY

At 0

0:43

14

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

There are two significant claims contained in Harvey and Browns observationsregarding organizational change. First, they identify a discernible shift from arelatively predictable and stable world to a hyperturbulent one. Second, they positthat the challenges of operating in a chaotic world require organizations to learn andadapt, and by implication, embrace new approaches to organizational change basedupon transformation and renewal. These assertions are echoed in many otherorganizational change texts (Burke, 2002; Cummings and Huse, 2001; Dawson, 2002;Olson and Eoyang, 2001; Senior, 1997).

An interesting aspect of the discursive construction of the need for change inthe organizational change literature is the way in which it is framed as anessential and unavoidable response to a rapidly changing world. In effect, itproduces what has been referred to elsewhere as a grammar of imperatives(Collins, 2000, p. 380). The message to organizations and managers is simple: youlive in a rapidly changing world and you have to change rapidly to survive. Thereis an implicit threat embedded within this message (i.e. failure to embrace changewill result in organizational failure).

A central component of the anxiety inducing potential of the organizational changediscourse, which underpins the formation of a grammar of imperatives, is the use of aparticular rhetorical strategy highlighted by Cheney et al. (2004). The rhetoricalapproach in question is identification which involves linking one issue with another.Cheney et al. (2004, p. 96) illustrate how this rhetorical strategy works through theexample of how often sex and violence on television is expressed as an indivisibleunit. Just as sex and violence are different phenomena that become inextricablylinked on television, it would seem that organizational change is rhetorically identifiedwith the wider turbulent and hypercompetitive socio-economic world in whichorganizations are located. The need for micro-change (i.e. organizational change) isdepicted as indivisible from macro-change (i.e. wider socio-economic change).

The discursive coupling of rapid social change with the need for a concomitantorganization response is, however, problematic insofar as this process of identificationshuts off other possible courses of action. For example, if we accept that rapid societalchange is taking place then the most appropriate response for some organizationsmight be to consolidate their activities and actively avoid indulging in major change(i.e. a different imperative which copes with macro-turbulence by embracingmicro-stabilization). That said, the pervasiveness of the dominant discourse, whererapid social change precipitates rapid organizational change, renders such alternativeperspectives as somewhat implausible.

As Harvey and Browns earlier comments indicate, we do indeed live in a changingworld. The grammar of imperatives this has triggered in the workplace has arguablyled to a shift in the dominant way of thinking about organizational change. Inparticular, the traditional discourse surrounding change that was prevalent in the1950s, 1960s and 1970s has gradually been superseded by a very differentconceptualisation of the processes of organizational change. The characteristics of thetraditional discourse and an emerging discourse are juxtaposed below in Table I.

In the subsequent sections of this paper we briefly elaborate upon the differentcomponents of the old and the new discourses of organizational change andcomment on the processes of transition. And in keeping with the theme of this two-partspecial issue (i.e. the current volume and vol. 18, no. 1), we then conclude with a

JOCM18,4

384

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

DIT

H C

OW

AN

UN

IVER

SITY

At 0

0:43

14

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

discussion of the trajectory of the emerging discourse, both in terms of the nature offuture directions and the implications for organizations.

From organization development to change managementThe concept of organization development (OD) was originally formulated more thanhalf century ago by Lewin (1951). His pioneering work laid the foundations for anumber of research texts in the late 1960s (Beckhard, 1969; Bennis, 1969; Lawrence andLorsch, 1969; Schein, 1969) and student texts in the 1970s (Cummings and Huse, 1975;French and Bell, 1973; Harvey and Brown, 1978). Although there have been revisededitions of the popular OD textbooks that originally appeared in the 1970s, there havebeen very few new OD texts appearing since then (the OD text by Oswick and Grant(1996) being a notable exception). Over the past two decades OD texts have beenreplaced with texts on change management. Indeed, if one looks at the recent booksales on organizational change recorded by amazon.co.uk (the web-based book store)we find only one OD text listed (i.e. the sixth edition of French and Bells text)compared to a proliferation of change management texts, including:

. Change Management: A Guide to Effective Implementation (McCalman andPaton, 2000).

. Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics (Burnes,2000).

. Managing Change in Organizations (Carnall, 2002).

. Theory and Practice of Change Management (Hayes, 2002).

. Making Sense of Change Management (Cameron and Green, 2004).

. Managing Change/Changing Managers (Randall, 2004).

. Dynamic Change Management (Lientz and Rea, 2005).

The movement from OD to change management represents more than simply arenaming of change processes. There is a substantive difference. OD, as Lewins (1951)

Traditional discourse of organizationalchange

Emerging discourse of organizationalchange

Approach tochange

Macro-centralized (i.e. OD) Micro-dispersed (i.e. changemanagement)

Environmentalimperatives

Relatively stable and predictable world Hyperturbulent and rapidly changingworld

Key stakeholders Consultants and client systemrepresentatives

Local managers and employees

Nature of thechange process

Discrete change orientation Continuous change orientation

Focus of change Emphasis on problems Emphasis on improvementTargets of change Tangible objects and artefacts (e.g.

rules, the design of work, aspects oforganizational structure)

Intangible phenomena (e.g. image,identity, knowledge management,organizational learning, vision)

Primary concern Hard change demonstrating theactuality of change

Soft change managing the rhetoricof change

Change strategy Reactive and incremental Proactive and emergent

Table I.Two contrasting

discourses oforganizational change

Organizationalchange

385

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

DIT

H C

OW

AN

UN

IVER

SITY

At 0

0:43

14

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

unfreezing-moving-refreezing model exemplifies, is a temporally bounded processinsofar as it can be characterised as having a discernible beginning and a discernibleendpoint. By contrast, change management can be seen as more of an ongoing process.In this regard, we can think of OD as a form of destination-oriented journey whilechange management can be construed as a continuous journey of discovery (Inns,1996). The adoption of the notion of continuous organization change is largely aresponse to the demands of a hostile and ever changing environment in whichorganizations need to be adaptable and responsive (Marshak, 1993). In short, it hasemerged as an organizational response to environmental imperatives.

One of the consequences of the ongoing dynamics associated with changemanagement is that the role of the expert change agent (i.e. the OD consultant) and theclient system representative have become somewhat redundant. This has occurredbecause the management of change has become more localized and, hence, theresponsibility of in situ managers through direct engagement with employees as partof an unfolding and emergent everyday process of instigating new actions andformulating responses to issues, concerns and opportunities that arise.

From negative to positive framingThe replacement of an OD-based discourse with a change management one has alsoprompted a shift of focus within the process of change. Traditionally, organizationalchange initiatives have predominantly been problem-centred (i.e. data are gathered ona problem and solutions are offered). The emphasis in this mode of inquiry is onidentifying and then fixing what it not working. More recently, the emphasis hasbegun to switch from addressing the organization negatives (i.e. problems) toaccentuating and foregrounding the positives. In particular, interest in an approachreferred to as appreciative inquiry (AI) (Cooperrider et al., 2000; Bushe, 1998;Hammond, 1996; Watkins and Cooperrider, 2000; Watkins and Mohr, 2001) has gainedmomentum and grown exponentially over the past decade.

Unlike problem-centred approaches, the rationale for AI is to determine what isworking well within the organization and to seek to amplify it and replicate it.According to Cooperrider and Whitney (2000, p. 6-7), there are four basic componentsthat form an AI cycle:

(1) Discovery identifying the best of what is (appreciating).

(2) Dream highlighting what might be? (envisioning results).

(3) Design creating what should be the ideal? (co-constructing).

(4) Destiny addressing how to empower, learn and adjust/improvise?(sustaining).

Given the cyclical and recursive nature of AI, it is clearly congruent with thecontinuous change philosophy that underpins the change management discourse.Moreover, the processes of appreciating, envisioning, co-constructing and sustainingalso have strong discursive overtones: showing appreciation is primarily done throughtalk; envisioning involves painting a projective picture through the use of language;co-construction involves collaboration and dialogue; and, sustaining requires ongoinginteraction.

JOCM18,4

386

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

DIT

H C

OW

AN

UN

IVER

SITY

At 0

0:43

14

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Conclusions on directionsThe discursive orientation of AI sets it apart from many of the more traditional ODapproaches which are typically concerned with tangible artefacts and forms ofintervention within organizations, such as job redesign (Hackman and Oldham, 1980),technological change (Card et al., 1983) and organizational restructuring (Mintzberg,1983). The general trend in terms of the theory and practice of organizational changemanagement is towards an accumulating interest in intangible phenomena and, defacto, discourse. Increasingly, we are seeing contemporary approaches toorganizational change encompassing a variety of initiatives with discursiveconnotations, such as organizational learning (Oswick et al., 2000), knowledgemanagement (Newell et al., 2002), narrative methods (Boje, 2001), and issues of identityand image (Schultz et al., 2000).

The contents of this two-part special issue on Discourse and organizationalchange (i.e. the current volume and vol. 18, no. 1) reflect a growing interest in theintangible dimensions of organizational change. The contributions also signal therejection of organizational change as a discrete process in favour of more dynamic andfluid interpretations. This is particularly apparent in the papers on identity (Beechand Johnson, 2005; Brown et al., 2005; Iedema et al., 2005), strategic coping (Tietze,2005), reflective dialogue (Jacobs and Heracleous, 2005), organizational renewal(Seger et al., 2005), organizational knowledge (Treleaven and Sykes, 2005), andcorporate transformation (Collins and Rainwater, 2005).

Given the emergence of a new change discourse and an increasing interest indiscourse as a focal point of inquiry, we might anticipate that the discursive analysis oforganizational change is likely to flourish and multiply. In terms of practice, it wouldseem that the actuality of change (i.e. demonstrating tangible changes have takenplace) has become less important than the rhetoric of change (i.e. managingexpectations and perceptions of change).

For large corporations, image and reputation created through public relations,advertising and spin are now the factors that are critical to success and survival.Most notably, this has promoted forms of reinvention based upon corporatere-branding (Aaker, 1996; Haig, 2003), personal branding (Montoya and Vanderhey,2003; Spillane, 2002; Sampson, 2002) and impression management (Goffman, 1959) asviable change responses to environmental stimulus. Arguably, such approaches signala subtle shift of emphasis from the substantive to the discursive. In conclusion, thefuture preoccupation of organizational change activity is likely to be the managementof meaning (Gowler and Legge, 1983) as opposed to the management of change.

References

Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, Free Press, New York, NY.

Beckhard, R. (1969), Organization Development, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Beech, N. and Johnson, P. (2005), Discourses of disrupted identities in the practice of strategicchange: the mayor, the street-fighter and the insider-out, Journal of OrganizationalChange Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 31-47.

Bennis, W. (1969), Organization Development: Its Nature, Origins, and Prospects,Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Boje, D.M. (2001), Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research, Sage,London.

Organizationalchange

387

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

DIT

H C

OW

AN

UN

IVER

SITY

At 0

0:43

14

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Brown, A.D., Humphreys, M. and Gurney, P.M. (2005), Narrative identity and change: a casestudy of Laskarina Holidays, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18No. 4, pp. 312-26.

Burke, W.W. (2002), Organization Change: Theory and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Burnes, B. (2000), Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics, Pearson,Harlow.

Bushe, G. (1998), Appreciative inquiry in teams, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 16No. 3, pp. 41-50.

Cameron, E. and Green, M. (2004), Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide tothe Models, Tools and Techniques of Organizational Change Management, Kogan Page,New York, NY.

Card, S., Moran, T. and Newell, A. (1983), The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Carnall, C. (2002), Managing Change in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, London.

Cheney, G., Christensen, L., Conrad, C. and Lair, D. (2004), Corporate rhetoric as organizationaldiscourse, in Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C. and Putnam, L. (Eds), The Handbook ofOrganizational Discourse, Sage, London, pp. 79-103.

Collins, D. (2000), Management Fads and Buzzwords, Routledge, London.

Collins, D. and Rainwater, K. (2005), Managing change at Sears: a sideways look at a tale ofcorporate transformation, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 No. 1,pp. 16-30.

Cooperrider, D.L. and Whitney, D. (2000), A positive revolution in change: appreciative inquiry,in Cooperrider, D.L., Sorensen, P.F., Whitney, D. and Yaeger, T.F. (Eds), AppreciativeInquiry: Rethinking Human Organization toward a Positive Theory of Change, StipesPublishing, Champaign, IL, pp. 3-28.

Cooperrider, D.L., Sorensen, P.F., Whitney, D. and Yaeger, T.F. (Eds) (2000), Appreciative Inquiry:Rethinking Human Organization toward a Positive Theory of Change, Stipes Publishing,Champaign, IL.

Cummings, T.G. and Huse, E.F. (1975), Organization Development and Change, West Publishing,St Paul, MN.

Cummings, T.G. and Huse, E.F. (2001), Organization Development and Change, 7th ed., WestPublishing, St Paul, MN.

Dawson, P. (2002), Understanding Organizational Change: The Contemporary Experience ofPeople at Work, Sage, London.

French, W.L. and Bell, C.H. (1973), Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventionsfor Organizational Improvement, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Anchor Books, New York, NY.

Gowler, D. and Legge, K. (1983), The meaning of management and the management of meaning:a view from social anthropology, in Earl, M.J. (Ed.), Perspectives on Management, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Haig, M. (2003), Brand Failures: The Truth about the 100 Biggest Branding Mistakes of All Time,Kogan Page, London.

Hammond, S.A. (1996), The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry, Thin Book Publishing, Plano, TX.

Harvey, D. and Brown, D.R. (1978), An Experiential Approach to Organization Development,Prentice-Hall, Englewood cliffs, NJ.

JOCM18,4

388

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

DIT

H C

OW

AN

UN

IVER

SITY

At 0

0:43

14

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Harvey, D. and Brown, D.R. (2001), An Experiential Approach to Organization Development,6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood cliffs, NJ.

Hayes, J. (2002), Theory and Practice of Change Management, Palgrave, Basingstoke.

Iedema, R., Rhodes, C. and Scheeres, H. (2005), Presencing: identity organizational change andimmaterial labor, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 No. 4,pp. 327-37.

Inns, D. (1996), Organization development as a journey, in Oswick, C. and Grant, D. (Eds),Organization Development, Pitman, London, pp. 20-34.

Jacobs, C.D. and Heracleous, L.Th. (2005), Answers for questions to come: reflective dialogue asan enabler of strategic innovation, Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement, Vol. 18No. 4, pp. 338-52.

Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1969), Developing Organizations: Diagnosis and Action,Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Lientz, B.P. and Rea, K.P. (2005), Dynamic Change Management: How to Get Enduring Results inthe Real World, Butterworth-Heinemann, New York, NY.

McCalman, J. and Paton, R.A. (2000), Change Management: A Guide to Effective Implementation,Sage, London.

Marshak, R. (1993), Lewin meets Confucius: a re-view of the OD model of change, Journal ofApplied Behavioral Science, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 393-415.

Mintzberg, H. (1983), Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Montoya, P. and Vanderhey, T. (2003), The Brand Called You, Personal Branding Press, Coronadel Mar, CA.

Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. (2002), Managing Knowledge Work,Palgrave, London.

Olson, E.E. and Eoyang, G.H. (2001), Facilitating Organization Change: Lessons from ComplexityScience, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Oswick, C. and Grant, D. (Eds) (1996), Organization Development: Metaphorical Explorations,Pitman, London.

Oswick, C., Anthony, P., Keenoy, T., Mangham, I. and Grant, D. (2000), A dialogic analysis oforganizational learning, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 887-901.

Randall, J. (2004), Managing Change/Changing Managers, Routledge, London.

Sampson, E. (2002), Build Your Personal Brand, Kogan Page, London.

Schein, E. (1969), Process Consultation: Its Role in Organization Development, Addison-Wesley,Reading, MA.

Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Larsen, M.H. (2000), The Expressive Organization: Linking Identity,Reputation, and the Corporate Brand, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Seger, M.W., Ulmer, R.R., Novak, J.M. and Sellnow, T. (2005), Post-crisis discourse andorganizational change, failure and renewal, Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 78-95.

Senior, B. (1997), Organizational Change, Pitman Publishing, London.

Spillane, M. (2002), Branding Yourself: How to Look, Sound and Behave Your Way to Success,Pan Books, London.

Organizationalchange

389

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

DIT

H C

OW

AN

UN

IVER

SITY

At 0

0:43

14

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

Tietze, S. (2005), Discourses as strategic coping resource: managing the interface between homeand work, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 48-62.

Treleaven, L. and Sykes, C. (2005), Loss of organizational knowledge: from supporting clients toserving head office, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 No. 4,pp. 353-68.

Watkins, J.M. and Cooperrider, D.L. (2000), Appreciative inquiry: a transformative paradigm,OD Practitioner, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 6-12.

Watkins, J.M. and Mohr, B.J. (2001), Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of Imagination,Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Further reading

Cummings, T.G. and Huse, E.F. (1989), Organization Development and Change, 7th ed., WestPublishing, St Paul, MN.

French, W.L. and Bell, C.H. (1999), Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventionsfor Organizational Improvement, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood cliffs, NJ.

JOCM18,4

390

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

DIT

H C

OW

AN

UN

IVER

SITY

At 0

0:43

14

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

This article has been cited by:

1. Mark Hughes. 2014. Who killed change management?. Culture and Organization 1-18. [CrossRef]2. Gervase R. Bushe, Robert J. MarshakThe Dialogic Mindset in Organization Development 55-97.

[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]3. Gervase R. Bushe, Robert J. MarshakThe Dialogic Mindset in Organization Development 55-97.

[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]4. Rune Todnem By, Cliff Oswick, Bernard Burnes. 2014. Looking Back and Looking Forward: Some

Reflections on Journal Developments and Trends in Organizational Change Discourse. Journal of ChangeManagement 14:1, 1-7. [CrossRef]

5. Gervase R. BusheGenerative Process, Generative Outcome: The Transformational Potential ofAppreciative Inquiry 89-113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]

6. Cliff Oswick. 2013. Reflections: OD or Not OD that is the Question! A Constructivist's Thoughts onthe Changing Nature of Change. Journal of Change Management 13:4, 371-381. [CrossRef]

7. Monica Elisabeth Nystrm, Elisabet Hg, Rickard Garvare, Lars Weinehall, Anneli Ivarsson. 2013.Change and learning strategies in large scale change programs. Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement 26:6, 1020-1044. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

8. Richard Dunford, Suresh Cuganesan, David Grant, Ian Palmer, Rosie Beaumont, Cara Steele. 2013.Flexibility as the rationale for organizational change: a discourse perspective. Journal of OrganizationalChange Management 26:1, 83-97. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

9. Nelson Phillips, Cliff Oswick. 2012. Organizational Discourse: Domains, Debates, and Directions. TheAcademy of Management Annals 6:1, 435-481. [CrossRef]

10. Anneli Hujala, Sari Rissanen. 2012. Discursive construction of polyphony in healthcare management.Journal of Health Organization and Management 26:1, 118-136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

11. Nic Beech, Ingrid Kajzer-Mitchell, Cliff Oswick, Mike Saren. 2011. Barriers to Change and Identity WorkIn the Swampy Lowland. Journal of Change Management 11:3, 289-304. [CrossRef]

12. Jason A. Wolf. 2011. Constructing rapid transformation: sustaining high performance and a new view oforganization change. International Journal of Training and Development 15:1, 20-38. [CrossRef]

13. Patricia Wolf, Ralf Hansmann, Peter Troxler. 2011. Unconferencing as method to initiate organisationalchange. Journal of Organizational Change Management 24:1, 112-142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

14. Alannah E. Rafferty, Nerina L. Jimmieson. 2010. Team change climate: A group-level analysis ofthe relationships among change information and change participation, role stressors, and well-being.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 19:5, 551-586. [CrossRef]

15. Tricia Kelly. 2010. A Positive Approach to Change: The Role of Appreciative Inquiry in Library andInformation Organisations. Australian Academic & Research Libraries 41:3, 163-177. [CrossRef]

16. Christopher J. Rees, John Hassard, Deanna Kemp, Julia Keenan, Jane Gronow. 2010. Strategic resource orideal source? Discourse, organizational change and CSR. Journal of Organizational Change Management23:5, 578-594. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

17. Jeong-Ran Roh. 2010. Success Factors in Effecting Cultural Change in Organizations: A Case Study.Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science 44:2, 427-445. [CrossRef]

18. Kathy Cowan-Sahadath. 2010. Business transformation: Leadership, integration and innovation A casestudy. International Journal of Project Management 28:4, 395-404. [CrossRef]

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

DIT

H C

OW

AN

UN

IVER

SITY

At 0

0:43

14

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)

19. Marja Flory, Oriol Iglesias, Tomas Nilsson. 2010. The reluctant rhetorician: senior managers asrhetoricians in a strategic change context. Journal of Organizational Change Management 23:2, 137-144.[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

20. Amy Thurlow, Jean Helms Mills. 2009. Change, talk and sensemaking. Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement 22:5, 459-479. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

21. Hanne Kragh, Poul Houman Andersen. 2009. Picture this: Managed change and resistance in businessnetwork settings. Industrial Marketing Management 38:6, 641-653. [CrossRef]

22. Carlos Molina, Jamie L. Callahan. 2009. Fostering organizational performance. Journal of EuropeanIndustrial Training 33:5, 388-400. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

23. Slawomir Magala, Ren ten Bos, Stefan Heusinkveld. 2007. The guru's gusto: management fashion,performance and taste. Journal of Organizational Change Management 20:3, 304-325. [Abstract] [FullText] [PDF]

24. Renata Fox. 2006. Corporations' ideologies: a new subfield of study of corporate communication. CorporateCommunications: An International Journal 11:4, 353-370. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

25. Roy Langer, Signe Thorup. 2006. Building trust in times of crisis. Corporate Communications: AnInternational Journal 11:4, 371-390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Dow

nloa

ded

by E

DIT

H C

OW

AN

UN

IVER

SITY

At 0

0:43

14

Oct

ober

201

4 (P

T)