Can an organization constrain change before the change process even begins?
Hello,
Much of the change literature examines how organizations design, lead, implement, and sustain change. I have been thinking about what may happen earlier.
Do recurring governance conditions shape which forms of change can become legitimate candidates for serious consideration before a formal change initiative is designed?
My working assumption is that governance influences whose diagnosis is believed, which problems can be named, who has standing to propose change, which incumbent commitments may be challenged, what degree of disruption is considered acceptable, and which risks or time horizons can be defended.
If that is right, some change failures may begin before implementation or resistance ever becomes visible. The organization may already have excluded the most consequential forms of change from the agenda.
I am trying to understand whether this is already adequately explained by change readiness, resistance, power and participation, organizational silence, institutional constraint, or another established literature. Or is there value in distinguishing the formation of the change agenda from the processes used to implement and sustain change afterward?
I would welcome candid criticism, relevant references, and conversations with ODC colleagues who will be at AOM in Philadelphia.
Best regards
Tim
architectureofcommitment.com