Change paradigms an overview

Change Paradigms:An Overview

Léon de Caluwé and HansVermaak

Léon de Caluwé

Contact InformationLéon de Caluwé and Hans VermaakTwnstra Management ConsultantsPO Box 9073800 AX AmerfsfoortThe NetherlandsTelephone +31 33 4677761Email: [email protected] and/or [email protected]

Abstract

9

The authors present five fundamentally differentways of thinking about change, each representingdifferent beliefs systems and convictions about howchange works, the kind of interventions that areeffective, how to change people, etc. They are la-beled by color: yellow, blue, red, green, and whiteprint thinking. Each is based upon a family of theo-ries about change. These five models function ascommunication and diagnostic tools and provide amap of possible change strategies.

IntroductionA search for the underlying values of the wordchange results in a whole range of meanings anddifferent rationalities. There is often a world ofdifference between them. As a result, the practicalapplications of change strategies or approachesvary widely. Conceptual clarity is desired to betterexpress the various meanings of the word changefor several reasons:

1. It facilitates clearer communication betweenthe people involved, for example,communication between and among managers,consultants, and academics.Misunderstandings and conflicts can and doarise, for instance, when change strategies arediscussed in a management team betweenpeople who believe change is essentially apower game versus people who believe it is arational endeavor. A new shorthand languagefor this complex subject matter creates thepossibility for shared interpretations andmeanings.

2. It can be used to characterize dominantparadigms in groups or organizations, servingas a diagnostic tool for characterizingdifferent actors involved in a change effort.Moreover, the paradigms themselves representdifferent views of the organization and its

Léon de Caluwé, PhD, is social psy-chologist. He is a part-time professor atthe Free University in Amsterdam wherehe leads the Center for Research inConsultancy. He is also a partner with theTwynstra Group of consultants. He has 25years of experience in consultancy andspecialized in change, consultancy andinterventions. He published more than 80articles and more than 10 books. Severalof them are in English, one in Russian.His dissertation was named “Best Bookof the Year” by the Dutch Association ofConsultants.

FFFFFeaeaeaeaeaturturturturture e e e e ArArArArArticticticticticleslesleslesles

Volume 22 • Number 4 • Winter 2004

Organization Development Journal10

Hans Vermaak

Hans Vermaak, MMC, PhD, is a partner withthe Twynstra Group. He has worked as aconsultant and coach for about 15 years. Hisprincipal area of consulting concernsorganizational development withinprofessional firms and institutions. He headsthe knowledge center Change Management ofthe Twynstra Group and trains change agentsin academic and client settings. He frequentlylectures and publishes on the subjects ofprofessionalism, change, learning andcoaching in Dutch and in English and hasreceived several publication awards.

problems. Such different viewpoints helppaint a more complete and complexpicture of organizational life.

3. It provides a map of possible strategies todeal with organizational issues. The ideais that not that “anything goes.” It isrelevant to know what kind of approachesare available as well as to have somesense of indicators that facilitate a choiceof what approach is more fitting givenone certain situation rather than others.

4. It offers change agents a tool for reflectivequestioning: “What are your ownassumptions? What is your (key)competence for bringing about change,and what are your limitations?” It canassist change agents in delineating theirarea of expertise and their professionaldevelopment.

In this article we touch on a meta-theoreticalconcept—the colors—that has been devel-oped in the last five years and has been exten-sively applied in both in management educa-tion and change practice in the Netherlands.More recently it is being applied in English-speaking arenas. It has proven to be bothrobust and versatile. The choice for “colors”as labels is based on the need for some type ofshorthand that would not stress any specificorder.

Yellow-Print ThinkingYellow-print thinking is based on socio-political concepts about organizations inwhich interests, conflicts, and power playimportant roles (e.g., Greiner & Schein, 1988;Hanson, 1996; Pfeffer, 1981). Yellow-printthinking assumes that people change theirstandpoints only if their own interests aretaken into account, or if compelled to acceptcertain ideas. Combining ideas or points ofview and forming coalitions or power blocksare favored methods in this type of change


11

process. Change is seen as a negotiationexercise aimed at feasible solutions.Yellow-print thinkers believe that gettingeveryone on the same wavelength is achange in itself. In this view, enablingchange requires getting the powers-that-bebehind it, whether power based on formalposition or informal influence. It isthought that resistance is built in if keyplayers are not brought on board. Facilitat-ing communication, lobbying, negotiating,and third-party conflict resolution aremuch-used interventions. Stakeholderanalysis is crucial. Sticking to and realiz-ing the outcome of these processes—goals,policies, or programs—is a huge taskbecause the socio-political context is andstays dynamic. Consequently, the result ofchange is difficult to predict because itdepends on the distribution and shifts instandpoints and influence of the mostimportant players. Moreover, for a changeagent, the process is difficult to plan andpredict.

The change agent is a facilitator who hasan independent position. Such facilitatorsguard their power base carefully. It isbased on their experience, reputation andconnections but can be augmented byspecific mandates. They have a good sensefor power structures and balances. Self-control, diplomacy, stability and flexibilityare important attributes of such a changeagent. The foremost consideration of theyellow-print change agent is to alwaysbear in mind the conglomeration of inter-ests, parties, and players and strive foragreements and policies. We call this wayof thinking “yellow-print thinking”: Yel-low is the color of power (e.g., symbolslike the sun, fire) and the type of process(brooding and coalition formation around afire).

TTTTThe fhe fhe fhe fhe forororororemost consideremost consideremost consideremost consideremost consideraaaaation oftion oftion oftion oftion ofthe ythe ythe ythe ythe yellow-print cellow-print cellow-print cellow-print cellow-print changhanghanghanghange ae ae ae ae agggggentententententis to alis to alis to alis to alis to alwwwwwaaaaayyyyys bear in mind thes bear in mind thes bear in mind thes bear in mind thes bear in mind thecongcongcongcongconglomerlomerlomerlomerlomeraaaaation oftion oftion oftion oftion of inter inter inter inter interestsestsestsestsests,,,,,

parparparparpartiestiestiestiesties, and pla, and pla, and pla, and pla, and playyyyyererererers and strivs and strivs and strivs and strivs and striveeeeefffffor aor aor aor aor agggggrrrrreements and policieseements and policieseements and policieseements and policieseements and policies.....

Blue-Print ThinkingBlue-print thinking is based on the ratio-nal design and implementation of change(e.g., Hammer & Champy, 1993). Scien-tific management (Taylor, 1913) is aclassic example. Project management oneits strongest tools (e.g., Wijnen & Kor,2000). In blue-print thinking, it is as-sumed that people or things will change ifa clearly specified result is laid downbeforehand. Controlling the change bymanaging, planning, and monitoring theprogress is considered feasible. Theprocess and the result are deemed, more orless, independent of people. Managementis able to compel and effect the change.Both outcome and process are planneddown to the last detail. Change is consid-ered to be a rational process aimed at thebest possible solution. There is continuousmonitoring based on pre-determinedindicators to check whether the activitiesare leading to the desired result asplanned. If not, adjustments are made toachieve that which has been agreed uponwithin the frameworks of time, money,quality, information, and organization.Other interventions are analytical endeav-ors such as SWOT analyses,benchmarking, business process redesign,total quality management, restructuringand so on. There is a wide array of well-defined methods. The subject of thechange (the project leader) and its object(the target group) are often different




people or entities. The approach is rational(planning) and empirical (indicators).Think first (define and design) and then do(implement) is the maxim. Naturally thisapproach lends itself best to hard aspectsof organizations: structures, systems, andstrategies. Change agents are experts onthe content of the change effort. They takefull responsibility for implementation andmonitoring when mandated to do so.Result orientation, decisiveness, accuracy,and dedication are necessary attributes forsuch a change agent. The foremost consid-erations of the blue-print changer arethese: Plan and organize first; use allpossible expertise and do not let people’sindividual ideas and preferences interfere;and never lose sight of the intended result.We call this way of thinking “blue-printthinking”: A blueprint is the (architectural)design or plan that is drawn up beforehandand guarantees the actual outcome.

The foremost considerationsof the blue-print changer are

these: Plan and organize first;use all possible expertise anddo not let people’s individualideas and preferences inter-fere; and never lose sight of

the intended result.

Red-Print ThinkingRed-print thinking has its roots in theclassic Hawthorne experiments (Mayo,1933; Roethlisberger, 1941). McGregor(1960) developed the tradition further. Inmore recent times, Human ResourcesManagement (HRM) has been an expres-sion of this approach (e.g., Schoemaker,1994). Change in this way of thinkingequates with people changing their behav-ior. This approach to change is accom-

plished by stimulating people, by makingit appealing to adjust behavior. Thus a keyconcept is barter: the organization handsout rewards and facilities in exchange forpersonnel taking on responsibilities andtrying their best. On top of this, however,management’s care and attention are alsoimportant. Red-print thinking strives todevelop competencies and making themost of people’s talents. The aim is a good“fit” between what individuals want andwhat the organization needs. Red-printthinking makes abundant use of HRMtools. People are rewarded (salary, promo-tion, bonus, a good evaluation) for desiredbehavior or penalized (demotion, poorevaluation) for undesired behavior. Careerpaths, assessments, recruitments, out-placements, work design (task enrichmentand enlargement) and employee wellnessprograms are all relevant interventions.Management gets up on a soapbox, givesspeeches, and induces people into embark-ing on a change. Social activities and teambuilding are used to create a positiveatmosphere and social cohesion. Theoutcome of the change (the result) can,according to red-print thinking, be thoughtout beforehand, but it cannot be fullyguaranteed because it depends on employ-ees’ response; the desired outcome mightchange somewhat as a result. Monitoringtakes place, but for both ethical and politi-cal reasons, there is a limit to how force-fully the process can be adjusted along theway. Change agents are good at motivatingpeople and at devising systems and proce-dures that facilitate this adjustment. Theyare “people managers” who manage bywalking. They can also be HRM expertswho supply people managers with HRMtools. Carefulness, steadfastness, andloyalty are relevant attributes of thechange agent. The foremost considerationof the red-print change agent is that the


13

human factor plays a vital role. Peoplemake changes happen if guided in theright direction. The color chosen hererefers to the color of human blood. Thehuman being must be influenced, at-tracted, compelled, and stimulated.

The foremost consideration ofthe red-print change agent isthat the human factor plays a

vital role.

Green-Print ThinkingGreen-print thinking has its roots inaction-learning theories (e.g., Kolb,Rubbin, & Osland, 1991; Argyris &Schön, 1978). It has been expanded enor-mously in the more recent thinking onlearning organizations (e.g., Senge, 1990).Changing and learning are conceptuallyclosely linked: the terms change andlearning have very similar meanings.People are motivated to discover the limitsof their competencies and to involvethemselves in learning situations. They areprovided with means for learning moreeffective ways of acting. The aim is tostrengthen the learning abilities of theindividual and the learning within theorganization. If people learn collectively,the organization learns and as a result,different organizational behavior resultsand change is a fact. The process is char-acterized by setting up learning situa-tions—preferably collective ones as theseallows people to give and receive feedbackas well as to experiment with more effec-tive ways of acting. Monitoring is notmeant to adjust the change in the directionof some predetermined outcome, but justfor planning a follow-up that is in linewith what the people involved regard as

the most relevant learning goals. Green-print thinking is concerned with allowingand supporting people to take ownershipof their learning. Typical interventions arecoaching, simulations, survey feedback,open-systems planning, action learning,feedback, and leadership training. Thechange process takes time: Learning is notforced. It is a fluctuating process of learn-ing and unlearning, trial and error. Thechange agents play a facilitating role, not acontrolling one. They design learningsituations, give feedback, support experi-menting with new behavior, structurecommunication and are learning them-selves in the process. Thinking and doingare tightly coupled, not sequential (as it isin blue-print thinking): All involved arefrequently reflecting on their actions.Empathy, creativity, and openness areimportant attributes of the change agent.The foremost consideration of the changeagent is to motivate and support people tolearn with each other and from each otherin order to establish continuous learning incollective settings. The color green ischosen because the objective is to getpeople’s ideas to work (with their motiva-tion and learning capacity), giving themthe “green light.” But it also refers to“growth,” as in nature.

The foremost consideration ofthe change agent is to moti-vate and support people to

learn with each other and fromeach other in order to estab-

lish continuous learning incollective settings.

White-Print ThinkingWhite-print thinking arose as a reaction tothe deterministic, mechanistic, and linear




worldview derived from Newton andDescartes. It is nourished by chaos think-ing, network theory, and complexitytheory, all of which are based on livingand complex systems with limited pre-dictability (e.g., Capra, 1996; Prigonine &Stengers, 1986; Bateson, 1972). Self-organization is a core concept. Stacey(1996) defines it as a process in whichpeople interact according to their ownnorms without a map of what to do orhow to get there. The self-organizationprocess encompasses the emergence ofnew structures and behavioral patternsthrough developmental, learning, andevolutionary processes. The system findsits own optimal dynamic balance. Inwhite-print thinking, the dominant imageis that everything is changing autono-mously, of its own accord. Where there isenergy, things change. When this is thecase, the time is ripe. Complexity isregarded as the enriching nature of things,not as disruptive chaos. Influencing theunderlying dynamics is a favorite ap-proach. White print thinkers try to under-stand where opportunities lie and searchfor the seeds of renewal and creativity.Sense-making plays an important role inthis, as does the removing of obstaclesand explicitly relying on the strength andsoul of people. In a way white-printchange agents catalyze the emergence ofmore white-print change agents. They callon people’s strengths, self-confidence,inspiration, and energy. Whereas interven-tions that take away obstacles can seem tobe of a very different color (e.g.,delayering the organization), interventionsthat tap people’s energy are more easilyidentified: e.g., open space meetings,appreciative enquiry, dialogue, searchconferences, self-steering teams. Theinner desires and strengths of people, bothindividually and as groups, are the deci-

sive factors. Outside influence, whetherfrom a change agent or a manager, can beof only limited effect and then only if thisinfluence is welcomed by the ones who arechanging. The above does NOT equaldoing nothing or laissez faire. On thecontrary, it demands in-depth observation,analysis of underlying drivers, and oftenconfronting interventions. Change agentsmust be capable of making sense out ofcomplexity, often looking at historicalpatterns and psychological mechanisms.Honesty, authenticity and self-confidenceare relevant attributes of such changeagents. The foremost consideration of thewhite-print change agent is to observewhat is making things happen and change,supply meanings and perspectives, removeobstacles, get initiatives and explorationsgoing, and empower people while givingthem sufficient free rein. The belief that“crisis provides opportunity” applies here.The color white reflects all colors. Butmore important, white denotes openness; itallows room for self-organization andevolution. The outcome remains somewhatof a surprise.

The foremost consideration ofthe white-print change agent is

to observe what is makingthings happen and change,

supply meanings and perspec-tives, remove obstacles, getinitiatives and explorationsgoing, and empower peoplewhile giving them sufficient

free rein.


15

Expansion of the Model andSearch for a Meta-paradigmIs this a complete overview? The colors doseem to cover most of the steady stream ofexperience, research, and publications ofwhich we are aware. Nevertheless, theoverview is probably never fully complete.Since we put forward the concept of colorsof change, we have found that peopleeasily attribute many other characteristics

to the colors in addition to the ones men-tioned here and summarized in Table 1.These are characteristics like outputcriteria, diagnostic models, glossaries andtypical sayings, bodies of literature, stylesof communications, norms and values ofchange agents, ways to deal with contract-ing or with resistance, typical pitfalls, andideals. We are addressing these in separatepublications (e.g., de Caluwé andVermaak, 2003).



Table 1. The Five Colors at Glance Yellow-print Blue-print Red-print Green-print White-print Something changes when you…

in a/an.... and create....

bring common interests together power game a feasible solution, a win- win situation

think first and then act according to a plan rational process the best solution, a brave new world

stimulate people in the right way exchange exercise a motivating solution, the best 'fit'

create settings for collective learning learning process a solution that people develop themselves

create space for spontaneous evolution dynamic process a solution that releases energy

Interventions such as... By... Who have... And focus on...

forming coalitions, changing top structures, policy making facilitators who use their own power base a good sense for power balances and mediation positions and context

project management, strategic analysis, auditing experts in the field analytical and planning skills knowledge and results

assessment & reward, social gatherings, situational leadership procedure experts who elicits involvement HRM knowledge and motivational skills procedures and working climate

training and coaching, open systems planning, gaming facilitators who create settings for learning OD knowledge and feedback skills the setting and communication

open space meetings, self-steering teams, appreciative inquiry

personalities who use their being as instrument an ability to discern and create new meanings patterns and persons

Result is... Safeguarded by... The pitfalls lie in...

partly unknown and shifting decision documents and power balances dreaming and lose-lose

described and guaranteed benchmarking and ISO systems ignoring external and irrational aspects

outlined but not guaranteed HRM systems ignoring power and smothering brilliance

envisioned but not guaranteed a learning organization excluding no-one and lack of action

unpredictable on a practical level self-management superficial understanding and laissez faire

16

There is also a meta-paradigm behind thefive-color classification described here.The description of five ways of thinkingemerges from a meta-paradigm that positsa need for distinctions in diversity and asearch for professional insights and valuesbased on these (de Caluwé and Vermaak,2003b):

In order to survive in the longrun, organizations seem toneed qualities of each and

any one of the colors.

1. We start to suspect that any strongcolor dominance in organizations isunwanted. In order to survive in thelong run, organizations seem to needqualities of each and any one of thecolors. Organizations need to dealproperly with power and differentinterests (yellow), must effectivelyand dependably get results andmaintain organizational hygiene(blue), must take the irrational humanbeing into account and insert care andperspective in organizational life(red), have to create spaces to learnand cooperate (green) and need toalign themselves with the times theylive in and the people they live withand innovate accordingly (white). Thedifferent colors have conflictingprinciples, meaning that a balanced orsound organization has to cope withthe paradoxes that result from theseconflicting principles. This realizationreinforces the need to diagnoseorganizations from the differentcolored viewpoints in order to beaware of imbalances.

2. A foundational (color) focus on thechange strategy is needed, especiallywhen problems are deeply rooted asdifferent colored approaches, caninterfere considerably with oneanother. For instance, trying to createa learning environment (green) whilenot keeping power games at bay(yellow) or downplaying thepredictability of outcomes (blue)means that the learning is bound to besuperficial. Each color has its strongand weak points. The kind oforganization, the issue at hand, thekind of resistance, the style of thechange agents, the time pressure andother circumstances, all are factorsthat influence what change strategy, orcolor print, can best make adifference. This is not to say that achange strategy has to be restricted toone color, but does imply that oneshould take interferences betweencolored actions into account whenintervening in organizations. Arelatively easy way of dealing withinterferences is to space differentcolor interventions in time or havedifferent people involved. Morechallenging is to maintain oneconstant underlying color tenet whileallowing for more superficial, other-colored contributions.

3. The color of the change agent shouldmatch the change effort: incongruencefrustrates change. It makes little senseto embark on a yellow endeavor withan analytical expert who strives forthe best solutions (blue) rather thanwhat is feasible given the balance ofpower. While change agents might beable to at least intellectually grasp thatall colors are equal, when it comesdown to it, most change agents have


Organization Development Journal

more narrowly defined beliefs/intentionsand these should match their role inorder for them to be believable. This isnot to say that change agents can bebranded in single colors and remain asthey are over the years. Change agentsmay be able to handle differentapproaches to change but not to theirfull potential. They may change colorsbut take many years to do so as eachcolor brings with it a whole body ofknowledge with many interventions,competencies, and diagnosticviewpoints.

4. Lastly, we posit that dialogues inorganizations based on a multi-paradigmperspective (such as the colors) enhanceorganizational vitality. “The difficultyfor change is not in the development ofnew ideas, but in escaping the old ideas,that determine our thinking” (Wierdsma,2001, p. 3). Seeing too many thingsthrough green glasses and applyinggreen interventions will give a lot ofreflection but a lack of action, results,and consensus. Moreover, organizationalchange is a collective effort and, moreoften than not, involves people withmultiple perspectives on organizationallife and multiple definitions of reality.Instead of narrowing participation toreach easy consensus on issues, theinclusion of multiple perspectives notonly can create the kind of richness thatdoes justice to the complexities of thesocial systems but also the kind ofownership that is instrumental inaddressing such complexities. Whenproblems are simple, single-mindedviewpoints might suffice (e.g., buildinga house with a blue paradigm only). Butfor ambiguous problems involvingpeople with many different backgrounds,understanding and intervening in

organizations is best based oncollectively taking multiple realities andcorresponding paradoxes into account.

Moreover, organizationalchange is a collective effort

and, more often than not,involves people with multiple

perspectives onorganizational life and

multiple definitions of reality.

ReferencesArgyris, C. & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organi-

zational learning: A theory of actionperspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology ofmind. New York: Ballantine.

Caluwé, L. de & Vermaak, H. (2003).Learning to change. A guide fororganizational change agents.Thousand Oaks, Ca: SagePublications, Inc.

Caluwé, L. de & Vermaak, H. (forthcoming2004). Transformationalconversations about change. Anarticle accepted for publication in theAcademy of Management.

Capra, F. (1996). Het levensweb. Kosmos-Z&K, Urecht.

Greiner, L. & Schein, V. (1988). Power andorganization development: Mobiliz-ing power to implement change.Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hammer, M. & Champy, J. (1993).Reengineering the corporation: Amanifesto for business revolution.London: Nicholas Brealey.

Hanson, E. M. (1996). Educational adminis-tration and organizational behaviour.


Volume 22 • Number 4 • Winter 2004 17

Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Kolb, D., Rubbin, I. M. & Osland, J. S.

(1991). Organization behaviour, anexperiential approach. EnglewoodCliffs: Prentice Hall.

Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of anindustrial civilization. New York:Mac Millan.

McGregor, D. (1960). The human side ofenterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Pfeffer, J. (1981). Power in organizations.London: Pitman.

Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1986). Orderout of chaos: Man’s new dialoguewith nature. London: Fontana.

Roethlisberger, F. J. (1941). Managementand morale. Cambridge MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Schoemaker, M. J. R. (1994). Managen vanmensen en prestaties.Personeelsmanagement in moderneorganisaties. Deventer: KluwerBedrijfswetenschappen.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: Theart & practice of the learningorganization. New York: Doubleday/Currencey.

Stacey, R. D. (1996). Complexity and cre-ativity in organizations. San Fran-cisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Taylor, F. W. (1913). The principles ofscientific management. New York:Harper and Row.

Wijnen, G. & Kor, R. (2000) Managingunique assignments: A team ap-proach to projects and programmes.Gower, UK: Aldershot/Brookfield.



Change paradigms an overview

Business

Transcript of Change paradigms an overview