Organizational and Management Theory

DEBATE

Organizational change theory: implications for health promotion practice

DIMITRI BATRAS1*, CAMERON DUFF2 and BEN J. SMITH1

1School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Level 3 Burnet Tower (Alfred Hospital), 89 Commercial Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia and 2School of Psychological Sciences, Monash University, Building 17, Clayton Campus, Wellington Road, VIC, 3800 Australia *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

SUMMARY

Sophisticated understandings of organizational dynamics and processes of organizational change are crucial for the development and success of health promotion initiatives. Theory has a valuable contribution to make in under- standing organizational change, for identifying influential factors that should be the focus of change efforts and for selecting the strategies that can be applied to promote change. This article reviews select organizational change models to identify the most pertinent insights for health promotion practitioners. Theoretically derived considera- tions for practitioners who seek to foster organizational change include the extent to which the initiative is modifi- able to fit with the internal context; the amount of time that

is allocated to truly institutionalize change; the ability of the agents of change to build short-term success deliberately into their implementation plan; whether or not the shared group experience of action for change is positive or negative and the degree to which agencies that are the intended recipi- ents of change are resourced to focus on internal factors. In reviewing theories of organizational change, the article also addresses strategies for facilitating the adoption of key theoretical insights into the design and implementation of health promotion initiatives in diverse organizational settings. If nothing else, aligning health promotion with organizational change theory promises insights into what it is that health pro- moters do and the time that it can take to do it effectively.

Key words: organizational change; innovation; capacity building; organizational development

INTRODUCTION

There is broad international consensus that build- ing the capacity of communities, organizations and systems is a critical area of action for tackling the public health challenges of the 21st century. At the 7th Global Conference on Health Promo- tion in Nairobi, Kenya, a renewed call was made to build sustainable capacity and infrastructure to achieve the effective implementation of health and development strategies (World Health Organization, 2009). Ziglio and Apfel (Ziglio and Apfel, 2009), commenting on the actions required to address the priorities outlined by the WHO

Commission on the Social Determinants of Health, emphasized the need to assess and build the capacity of health systems and other sectors. Capacities for policy advocacy, development, im- plementation and evaluation were highlighted as important. Most recently, in the Helsinki State- ment on Health in all Policies issued at the 8th Global Conference on Health Promotion in Helsinki, Finland, there was recognition that buil- ding institutional capacity and skills will play a central role in achieving the implementation of Health in All Policies (World Health Organisation and Ministry of Social Affairs and Health – Finland, 2013). The Helsinki statement emphasized

Health Promotion International, Vol. 31 No. 1

doi:10.1093/heapro/dau098

# The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

For Permissions, please email: [email protected]

Advance Access published 14 November, 2014

231

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /heapro/article-abstract/31/1/231/2355918 by guest on 17 M

arch 2019

capacity building in relation to the structures, pro- cesses and resources required for policy implemen- tation across sectors.

Capacity building is understood to involve actions to improve knowledge and skills, support and infrastructure within organizations, and part- nerships for action (New South Wales Health Department, 2001; Smith et al., 2006). The purpose of these actions is to create new approaches, values and structures for addressing health issues (Crisp et al., 2000) and ultimately sustainable systems for the ongoing execution of programmes (Potter and Brough, 2004). This situates organizations, their objectives and the way they conduct their day-to- day business, as a foremost concern in health promotion.

The settings’ approach, which has a central place in contemporary health promotion, has been described as essentially about developing a commitment to health within the cultures, pro- cesses and routine life of organizations (Dooris, 2006). In support of this, DeJoy and Wilson (DeJoy and Wilson, 2003) argue that the creation and maintenance of healthy workplaces is deter- mined by organizational culture and leadership, reflected in practices, policies and values, and ul- timately workplace climate, job design and job security. Whitelaw et al. (Whitelaw et al., 2012) have discussed the critical role of organizational capacity building in the development of Health Promoting Health Services (HPHS) in the UK, which involved creating a supportive policy context and alignment of HPHS with the under- lying governance and appraisal mechanisms of health services. Efforts to develop healthy sport- ing settings have also given priority to organiza- tional change (Crisp and Swerissen, 2003), so that policies and structures are put in place to enable the routinization of health promotion strategies.

The scaling up of health promotion strategies, and the engagement of partners within and outside the health sector in programme delivery, is another area of practice where organizational capacity building is of prime importance (Hanusaik et al., 2010; Hearld et al., 2012). Joffres et al. (Joffres et al., 2004), investigating the involvement of orga- nizations in heart health promotion in Nova Scotia, Canada, found that leadership, management prac- tices and sustained funding were determinants of the nature and extent of strategies that were implemented. In an evaluation of physical activity strategies by local councils in Melbourne, Victoria, Thomas et al. (Thomas et al., 2009) reached similar conclusions about the influence of senior

leadership and internal management processes. The employment of a project officer with skills to engage senior managers and to facilitate collabora- tive planning within the councils was found to be a feature of those councils that were successful in achieving the programme’s objectives.

The creation of healthy settings and the devel- opment of partnerships to tackle the determi- nants of health are areas of practice where organizational development is a strategic prior- ity. This places health promotion practitioners in the role of policy entrepreneurs and change agents, operating in organizational contexts that are often structurally, culturally and politically diverse. Devine et al. (Devine et al., 2008) report that the use of ‘independent’ people in worksite health promotion initiatives is fundamental for achieving mutually beneficial health and well- being outcomes through a change initiative. Health promotion practitioners may need to work with staff, managers and researchers, and consider the dynamics of the setting, the position of the change initiative within it, and then influ- ence context, structure and culture. This raises the question about whether practitioners are equipped with an understanding of organization- al dynamics and processes of change, to enable their work to be effective. Theory has a valuable contribution to make in this regard, for identify- ing influential factors that should be the focus of change efforts and for selecting the strategies that can be applied to modify these (Green, 2000; Lee et al., 2014). Theory also has an im- portant role to play in guiding the evaluation of organizational change strategies and building the evidence base for this work (Birckmayer and Weiss, 2000). Little is known about knowledge and use of organizational change theory by health promotion practitioners, but one survey undertaken in Australia found that this was ex- tremely low (Jones and Donovan, 2004).

As de Leeuw (de Leeuw, 2011) has argued, there is great scope for health practice innovation and improvement through interdisciplinary theor- etical engagement. The purpose of this article is to review a selection of theories from management, education and social psychology disciplines that identify determinants of organizational practice and describe methods that can be used to instigate change. Models reviewed in this article include Diffusion of Innovations, Organizational Learning, Organizational Culture and Leadership, Action Research, the Three-step model and Field Theory and Receptive Contexts for Change. Following a

232 D. Batras et al.

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /heapro/article-abstract/31/1/231/2355918 by guest on 17 M

arch 2019

description of each, the theories are compared and contrasted, and their applications to current chal- lenges in health promotion practice are considered.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE THEORIES

A targeted literature search was conducted to iden- tify influential organizational change models in the field of organizational development. Given the extent of this literature, the authors agreed on the following three inclusion criteria. Preference was given to theorists whose work appeared to have a foundational influence on the field. Additionally, theories that were explanatory in nature and there- fore could provide interpretive value for health promotion were included. And lastly, theory devel- oped from empirical research in settings to guide organizational change for health was included. The table below summarizes the key bodies of work that met these criteria, Table 1.

The review that follows will concentrate on common aspects across these organizational change models. For example, each perspective involves analysis of the setting, views change as a process and recognizes that each environment is unique. Additionally, each organizational per- spective in the review that follows offers generic considerations applicable to any setting, and sug- gests that some conditions impinging on a setting can be manipulated to bring about a planned outcome.

Lewin’s theories of change

The work of Kurt Lewin has profoundly influenced the field of organizational development. He is most famously known for the development of field theory, group dynamics, action research and the three-step model of change. Burnes (Burnes, 2004) argues that the unification of these themes in Lewin’s work is necessary to understand and create change, and thus should be viewed by change practitioners in their totality rather than as separate theories. Field theory is a way of learning about group behaviour in a particular setting; it involves mapping the field in its entirety and con- sidering its complexity and influence on the observed behaviours (Lewin, 1997a; Burnes, 2004). Lewin’s analysis proceeds from the conviction that individual behaviour is a function of the group en- vironment or ‘field’. Field theory is ‘a method of analyzing causal relations and of building scientific constructs’; a focal point for analysis is the ‘nature

of the conditions of change’ [(Lewin, 1997b), p. 201]. The field is the culmination of a number of interrelated factors in the environment; it is time dependent and maintained by varying ‘forces’ (Lewin, 1997b, c). These forces may include intern- al characteristics of the organization’s structure, strategy, management and personnel, or external characteristics, for example, the market and/or policy context. Lewin (Lewin, 1997c) argued that the analysis of these forces would enable practi- tioners to understand why groups act as they do and what forces would need to be diminished or strengthened to bring about planned change. Lewin (Lewin, 1997c) also wrote about group dy- namics, noting that individuals are influenced by group norms and pressures to conform such that group behaviour should be the target for change. This is because group decision-making is powerful with respect to bringing about lasting behavioural change among group members.

The lessons from field theory and Lewin’s work in group dynamics have been incorporated into the development of practical approaches that could be applied by health practitioners to facilitate the process of change. These approaches include Lewin’s formulation of action research and the three-step model. An action research approach involves analyzing the current situation of an or- ganization, identifying the range of possible change solutions and choosing the one that is most appro- priate (Burnes, 2004). Concurrently, there needs to be a ‘felt-need’ for change, a realization by the group that change is necessary. Furthermore, success through action research involves a partici- patory process at a group level rather than indivi- dual level, which is consistent with the view about group behaviour being the target for change. Devine et al. (Devine et al., 2008) have described the use of an action research approach to address workplace health and safety issues at a mine in Queensland, Australia, whereby university re- searchers, management and staff worked together as agents of change to identify and address promin- ent health and safety concerns. The use of this ap- proach led to staff agency and ownership over health and well-being and improvements in work- site conditions.

Lewin acknowledged that change can often be short lived in the face of setbacks, leading to the design of a three-step model to guide practi- tioners in this process:

(1) Unfreezing—involves creating dissatisfaction with the status quo, benchmarking against

Organizational change theory 233

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /heapro/article-abstract/31/1/231/2355918 by guest on 17 M

arch 2019

other organizations, internal performance barrier diagnosis and ‘survival anxiety’ that exceeds ‘learning anxiety’ (a realization that the potential benefits of change outweigh the potential negatives associated with the process) (Schein, 2010).

(2) Moving—is the implementation and trialling aspect of change, involving research, action and learning. Actions may include redesign- ing roles, responsibilities and relationships, training and up-skilling, promoting supporters/ removing resisters.

(3) Refreezing—organizational norms, culture, practices and policies becoming realigned to

support the continuation of the change. For example, aligning pay and reward systems, re- engineer measurement systems, create new organizational structures (Lewin, 1997c).

Heward et al. (Heward et al., 2007) described how the work of Lewin has been applied in the Victorian public service (Australia) to analyze the forces resisting change to health promotion capacity building. Lewin’s organizational change theory was used in two of the case studies of re- search undertaken in health promotion: in one case study, it was used to assist with conceptual analysis of capacity building implementation

Table 1: Summary of key perspectives on organizational change

Change theorist/s Explanatory factors Change strategy

Kurt Lewin The status quo is the product of a number of forces in the social environment that govern individuals’ behaviour at a given point in time. As such causal relations can be analyzed. Change initiatives need to destabilize the status quo, implement the alternative and restabilize the environment. The implementation process involves research and performs a learning function.

Create the appropriate conditions for sustained change to occur through a group process of trial and error until an appropriate fit is found.

Everett Rogers Messages about new ideas are communicated within an organization and this brings about uncertainty. An organization’s propensity for innovation relates to structural factors within the organization, characteristics of individuals and external factors in the environment.

Innovations follow a sequential course within organizations, and attention to each stage is required for an innovation can fail before it has begun to diffuse.

Chris Argyris and Donald Schön

The learning type of the organization and its members influences the acceptance of change. Organizational environments with a propensity towards defending existing norms have different capacity for learning and growth compared with organizational environments that are open and reflective.

To promote a culture of learning, attention needs to be given to enabling room for higher learning to occur by effort to bring about congruence between what is said and what is done—‘the talk’ and ‘the walk’.

Edgar Schein Culture can be observed and studied through the behaviour of groups and their beliefs, values and assumptions. The culture of the organization determines its actions. Culture is formed over time through shared experiences within groups.

To embed a change it needs to become cultural. Repeated experiences of success or failure for a group undertaking an action will lead to them forming an assumption about the value of that action. Values, beliefs and behaviours in support of that action indicate that it has become part of the culture of the group.

Andrew Pettigrew, Ewan Ferlie and Lorna Mckee

The degree to which a public sector institution is amenable to change depends on a combination of variables that are associated with the process and setting for change. These include quality and coherence of policy, availability of key people leading change, long-term environmental pressure, supportive organizational culture, effective managerial-clinical relations, cooperative inter-organizational networks, simplicity and clarity of goals and priorities, and fit between the district’s change agenda and its locale.

Use the variables identified as part of a criteria for selecting settings that are likely to be receptive to change, and within those settings identify and manipulate the variables that are not static.

234 D. Batras et al.

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /heapro/article-abstract/31/1/231/2355918 by guest on 17 M

arch 2019

strategies. The second case study was about the implementation of health promotion technology in which Lewin’s work was used as the basis for a selective coding framework for content analysis of qualitative data that were gathered (Heward et al., 2007). Analysis of each case study indicated that efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability can be maximized by incorporating organization- al change as a central component of health pro- motion practice and research.

Diffusion theory

Diffusion theory describes the communication of messages about an innovation within a social system. Rogers (Rogers, 2003) identifies three key characteristics that relate to an organization’s propensity for innovation: individual (leader) characteristics, internal characteristics of organ- izational structure and external characteristics of the organization. Within these broad categories, there are sub-variables such as organization size and leadership for change, which positively or negatively impact an organization’s capacity for innovation.

The variables identified by Rogers (Rogers, 2003) as characteristics of organizational struc- tures are described in Table 2.

Organizations go through five stages as part of the diffusion of innovation process. The initi- ation and implementation phases are separated by the ‘decision’ to adopt or not to adopt. An adopted innovation proceeds through the three stages in the implementation phase. According to Rogers (Rogers, 2003), the rate of adoption of

an innovation is to a large degree determined by how compatible it is with the values, beliefs and past experiences of individuals in the organiza- tion or social system, Figure 1.

Later stages in the innovation process cannot be undertaken until earlier stages have been com- pleted, either explicitly or implicitly. A change focused initiative/innovation also requires a ‘cham- pion’ to advocate for the change. Champions should have influence within the organization in which change is taking place, to energize the initia- tive, and should possess negotiation skills (Steckler and Goodman, 1989; Rogers, 2003). Champions are key for sustainability of health promotion initiatives (O’Loughlin et al., 1998), particularly in instances in which they share personal and social characteristics with the ‘recipients’ of innovation. Gates et al. (Gates et al., 2006) utilized diffusion of innovations theory to inform planning for a work- place programme to increase healthy eating and physical activity among manufacturing company employees. Focus group discussions were held with managers and staff to explore perceptions concerning the relative advantage, compatibility and complexity of actions to address these beha- viours. These revealed individual and workplace factors that needed to be addressed to reduce bar- riers to adoption.

Organizational learning—theories of action

Argyris and Schön’s ‘organizational learning’ provides a valuable foundation for understanding the behaviour of individuals and groups in

Table 2: Rogers’ (2003) characteristics of organizational structure

Variable Description

Size Size of the organization is related to propensity for innovation, generally the larger the organization the more innovative.

Centralization Centralization in an organization involves the concentration of power to a few individuals; this has a negative effect on how innovative an organization is. However, centralization can encourage the implementation of an innovation once a decision has been made to adopt.

Complexity Complexity is the degree to which an organization’s team members have a range of specialties and high level of knowledge and expertise. This is positive for the valuing of innovations, but consensus about implementation can become a challenge with complexity.

Formalization Formalization through rules and procedures makes an organization bureaucratic; this acts as an inhibitor for organizations to consider innovations but encourages the implementation.

Interconnectedness Interconnectedness involves groups and individuals within an organization being interpersonally linked; new ideas can flow more easily in organizations that have higher degrees of network interconnectedness.

Organizational slack Organizational slack is a factor that relates back to organizational size in that ‘slack’ is the degree of resources that an organization has available that have not been committed elsewhere. This may be something that larger organizations have more freely available; therefore, there is more opportunity to be able to focus on innovation.

Organizational change theory 235

D ow

nloaded from https://academ

ic.oup.com /heapro/article-abstract/31/1/231/2355918 by guest on 17 M

arch 2019

organizations as well as organizational behaviour modification through change initiatives. Argyris and Schön’s (Argyris and Schön, 1996) ‘theories of action’ describe how the thinking of indivi- duals and subgroups in organizations translates into behaviours that either encourage or inhibit organizational learning. Theories-in-use are motives, values and beliefs that are translated into action and are implicit in what people do as man- agers and employees. Theories-in-use govern indi- viduals’ behaviour, because they are implicit assumptions that tell group members how to per- ceive, think and feel (Argyris, 1976; Argyris and Schön, 1996). On the other hand, espoused theory of action refers to the concept to which managers and employees give allegiance if they are asked to communicate their actions to others. However, the theory that actually governs individuals’ actions is their theory-in-use. For example, a man- ager’s espoused theory may be that health promo- tion strategies should be based on a review of the current evidence of what is best practice. But her theory-in-use is ‘our team is abreast of what “good practice” is’, and thus, a small group of practi- tioners discuss plausible strategies, begin imple- mentation and in later reports link their actions to the evidence in the literature that supports their choice of strategies.

Effectiveness in organizational learning results from developing congruence between theory- in-use and espoused theory. Argyris and Schön (Argyris and Schön, 1996) describe two separate models (Model 1 and Model 2) of theories-in-use that lead to two different types of organizational learning. For both Model 1 and Model 2 theor- ies-in-use, three elements influence the type of learning that an organization will experience.

Those elements are governing variables, action strategies and consequences:

† Governing variables are beliefs, philosophies of the organization and workers within the or- ganization. Model 1 has defensive governing variables such as ‘maximize winning and min- imize losing’, whereas model 2 theory-in-use has more open governing variables such as ‘free and informed choice’.

† Action strategies are actions that will be exe- cuted depending on the governing variables.

† Consequences of action are broken down into two categories: consequences for the behav- ioural world and consequences for learning.

The ultimate aim for an organization interested in change is to move from Model 1 to Model 2 theories-in-use with their ‘double-loop learning’. Single-loop learning involves the detection and correction of error. Where something goes wrong, an initial port of call for many people is to look for an action that will address and work within the existing governing variables (beliefs and philoso- phies of the organization). Double-loop learning is learning that occurs when an organization’s gov- erning variables are subjected to cri