Journal of Change Management Vol. 6, No. 3, 235 –256, September 2006
Challenging the Code of Change: Part 2. Crossing the Rubicon: Extending the Integration of Change
NIGEL LEPPITT
Haldane Associates, Middlesex
ABSTRACT It has been argued that the two most common approaches to change management adopted by organizations, Theory E and Theory O, represent an inefficient dichotomy and integrating elements of both into any change initiative has been proposed. The dichotomy in a Theory E approach, incorporating practices driven by an economic imperative and a Theory O approach, incorporating practices for improving organizational capability are questioned by this research. By comparing the integrated model identified by Beer and Nohria (2000) with 18 other change management approaches, the limitations of their model are exposed. Considerable similarities are observed between change management models and this leads to the conclusion that a more comprehensive integrated model should be developed and tested. This includes the importance of identifying the context for change as a prerequisite to change design. Initial research validated the use of an extended list of critical success factors, the utility of a new model for initiating change and reinforced the importance of a contingency paradigm. KEY WORDS : Change, change management, integrated change, business transformation
Introduction
In the first part of this research ‘Challenging the Code of Change: Part 1. Praxis does not make Perfect’, a comparative review of Beer and Nohria’s (2000) Theory E and Theory O integration thesis led to the conclusion that their model required further development with the following rationale. 1. The limitations identified in the integrated Theory E/Theory O model.
