Van de Ven, A. H. & Poole, M. S., (1995). Explaining Development
and Change In Organizations. _Academy of Management Review_, 20,
3, pp. 510-540
The remaining two types, Cataclysmic and Revolutionary are my own
additions, as are the nature/nurture framework and the annotations for
each type. Most of the annotations are drawn from the disciplines of
rhetoric and communication studies.
This my effort at beginning to make distinctions in the way we can present
change to audiences. I believe the distinctions will lessen the
audiences resistance to change and increase its understanding of the
processes associated with each type of change.
I. NATURE
A. Evolution
1. The time horizon for change to take place approaches the
infinite.
2. The perception of change is on-going but negligible without a
chronological context. In an organization, five- to ten-year
units should provide the necessary perspective.
3. Our degree of control over the evolutionary process is so
close to zero that it is negligible at the individual level.
4. This type of change can be characterized by continual but
selective competition.
B. Life-cycle
1. The time horizon for change to take place is finite.
2. The perception of change is marked by events that punctuate
stages through genesis, birth, adolescence, maturity, decline,
death and decay.
3. Our degree of control within the life-cycle is considerable.
Over the life-cycle, we can expend resources either
proactively or reactively to extend the finite time horizon, but
not indefinitely.
4. This type of change can be characterized by continual need to
replenish and deplete resources for survival.
C. Cataclysmic
1. The time horizon for change is extremely narrow to the point
of seconds and minutes.
2. The perception of change is immediate, initially disruptive,
and often dramatic.
3. Our degree of control over cataclysmic change is zero. We
are in a reactive causal-effect mode.
4. This type of change can be characterized by a massive shift
in priorities and a consensus of action over planning.
II. NURTURE
A. Dialectic
1. The time horizon for change is rhetorically-directed to the
past and present. However, the duration of the dialogue is
indeterminable.
2. The perception of change is contained by positioned and
opposition forces using deductive reasoning.
3. Our degree of control in the dialectic is indeterminable and
unpredictable.
4. This type of change can be characterized by problem-solving
and compromise.
B. Teleological
1. The time horizon for change is indefinite and rhetorically
conceived to describe a desired future end-state.
2. The perception of change is developed as the result of
intuitive reasoning and consensus.
3. Our degree of control in teleological change approaches yet
does not reach 100% due the other types of change that
could interfere with this process.
4. This type of change can be characterized by the collaborative
effort in the social construction of rhetorical symbols.
C. Revolution
1. The time horizon is narrow and finite.
2. The perception of change is unsettling and immediate as new
cognitive frameworks and social contracts must be formed.
3. Our degree of control over revolutionary change is negligible.
4. This type of change can be characterized by confrontation
and the downfall of the majority in favor of the minority.
Great Optimism,
Dutch Driver
Abilene, TX
Hm. Telephone: 915.698.7217
mailto:ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu
--Dutch Driver <ddriver@cs1.mcm.edu>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>