1. Introduction
Organisational change remains a central concern in management research due to rapidly shifting technological landscapes, competitive pressures, and globalisation. Hussain et al. (2018) argue that organisational change is not merely an event but a continuous, dynamic, and complex process shaped by internal and external forces. Their review situates change within multiple theoretical traditions—planned change, emergent change, institutional theory, and organisational learning—providing a holistic perspective on how organisations initiate, implement, and sustain transformation.
2. Theoretical Foundations of Organisational Change
2.1 Planned Change Tradition
Hussain et al. (2018) revisit the classic “planned change” theories rooted in Kurt Lewin’s (1951) three-stage model (unfreezing–changing–refreezing). They argue that planned change models remain foundational because they emphasise deliberate action, systematic diagnosis, and structured implementation.
Planned change frameworks discussed include:
-
Lewin’s Model
-
Kotter’s Eight-Step Model (1996)
-
Beckhard and Harris’ Change Formula (1977)
The authors critique planned change for being too linear and static, especially in environments requiring rapid adaptation.
2.2 Emergent Change Perspective
In contrast, the emergent approach views change as non-linear, adaptive, and continuous. Hussain et al. align with scholars like Weick (2000) and Burnes (2004) who argue that in volatile contexts, organisations must cultivate flexibility, experimentation, and collective sense-making rather than rely on top-down plans.
Key characteristics of emergent change:
-
decentralised decision-making
-
iterative learning
-
responsiveness to real-time challenges
-
leadership as sense-making rather than directive control
Hussain et al. (2018) position emergent change as essential in modern enterprises facing unpredictable complexity.
2.3 Institutional and Contextual Influences
The review highlights institutional theory as another major influence. Organisations are shaped by:
-
regulatory forces
-
societal expectations
-
norms and professional standards
-
pressures to maintain legitimacy
DiMaggio and Powell’s (1983) concept of institutional isomorphism is referenced to explain why organisations often adopt similar structures or reforms, not always because they are effective but to maintain legitimacy.
2.4 Organisational Learning and Change
Hussain et al. also examine organisational learning theories, such as:
-
Argyris & Schön’s (1978) single- and double-loop learning
-
Senge’s (1990) learning organisation
They argue that sustained change requires capacity for reflective learning, experimentation, and knowledge creation.
3. Drivers of Organisational Change
Hussain et al. (2018) synthesise a wide range of internal and external drivers, including:
External Drivers
-
technological innovation
-
market competition
-
globalisation
-
economic pressures
-
regulatory changes
Internal Drivers
-
leadership transitions
-
organisational restructuring
-
cultural misalignment
-
declining performance
-
employee dissatisfaction
This dual focus demonstrates that change is both reactive (responding to external pressure) and proactive (initiated internally to improve adaptability).
4. Barriers to Organisational Change
A significant contribution of the article is its analysis of change resistance. Hussain et al. emphasise that resistance is not inherently negative but often a response to mismanaged processes.
Key barriers include:
-
fear of the unknown
-
loss of control
-
poor communication
-
mistrust in leadership
-
inadequate resources
-
organisational inertia
The authors argue that effective change requires understanding resistance as informational feedback, not simply opposition.
5. Organisational Change Models Reviewed
Hussain et al. provide a structured overview of major change models, including:
-
Lewin’s Three-Step Model (1951)
-
Kotter’s Eight Steps (1996)
-
Nadler & Tushman’s Congruence Model (1980s)
-
ADKAR Model by Prosci (Hiatt, 2006)
-
McKinsey 7-S Framework (1980)
Their comparative approach demonstrates how models differ in terms of emphasis on structure, culture, human behaviour, or organisational alignment.
6. Methodological Observations and Research Gaps
The article also evaluates methodological trends in organisational change research:
6.1 Over-reliance on conceptual papers
Most studies remain theoretical, with insufficient empirical testing of models.
6.2 Lack of multi-level research
Few studies examine interactions between individual change responses, team dynamics, and organisational systems.
6.3 Limited cross-cultural perspectives
Many change theories are Western-centric and may not generalise globally.
6.4 Under-exploration of emotion and identity
The authors call for more research on emotional labour, identity shifts, and psychological factors in change.
7. Implications for Leaders
Hussain et al. provide several leadership insights, including:
-
Change leadership must be collaborative, not hierarchical.
-
Communication should be continuous, transparent, and multi-directional.
-
Organisations should invest in building adaptive and learning cultures.
-
Monitoring and feedback mechanisms should guide iterative improvement.
-
Leaders must balance planned and emergent strategies—a concept also emphasised by scholars like Fullan (2014) and Kotter (2014).
8. Conclusion
Hussain et al. (2018) make a significant contribution by integrating classical and contemporary change theories into a comprehensive review. Their work highlights the need for flexible, context-sensitive, and learning-oriented approaches to organisational change. The authors successfully argue that change is a multidimensional phenomenon influenced by strategy, culture, leadership, and external environments. Their call for more empirical, cross-cultural, and psychologically informed research offers valuable direction for the future of change management scholarship.
References
-
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley.
-
Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. T. (1977). Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change. Addison-Wesley.
-
Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977–1002.
-
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
-
Hiatt, J. (2006). ADKAR: A Model for Change in Business, Government and Our Community. Prosci Research.
-
Hussain, S. T., Lei, S., Akram, T., Haider, M. J., Hussain, S. H., & Ali, M. (2018). Organizational change: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 7, 1–20.
-
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading Change. Harvard Business School Press.
-
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. (2002). The Heart of Change. Harvard Business Review Press.
-
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science. Harper.
-
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1980). A congruence model for diagnosing organizational behavior. In D. A. Nadler et al. (Eds.), Organizational Dynamics.
-
Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday.
-
Weick, K. (2000). Emergent change as a universal in organizations. In M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the Code of Change. Harvard Business School Press.
