Sample Answer
Can All Organisational Change Be Planned and Managed
Introduction
Organisational change is an inevitable aspect of modern business life. Global competition, digital transformation, and evolving employee expectations have made change not just desirable but essential for survival. Yet the question remains: can all organisational change truly be planned and managed? Drawing on my experience from the group case study and relevant theories from this module, this essay critically examines whether change can be fully controlled or if some elements will always remain unpredictable. The discussion considers planned and emergent change models, explores real-world examples, and reflects on lessons for managers seeking to lead transformation effectively.
The Nature of Organisational Change
Change is often described as a movement from a current state to a desired future state. According to Lewin’s (1951) three-step model of unfreezing, changing, and refreezing, change can be structured in a logical sequence. This model suggests that by identifying current behaviours, creating motivation for change, and reinforcing new practices, managers can systematically control the process. However, such planned approaches often assume stable environments and predictable employee reactions, which are rarely found in modern organisations.
During our group case study, we initially attempted to apply Lewin’s model to a fictional company undergoing digital transformation. Although the planning stage seemed effective, unexpected resistance and shifting priorities disrupted the process. This reflected what Burnes (2017) argues: that change is rarely linear, and the neatness of models often fails in practice when faced with real human behaviour, politics, and uncertainty.
Planned Change: Strengths and Limitations
Planned change theories, such as Kotter’s (1996) eight-step model, offer managers clear guidance on sequencing actions. The model encourages creating urgency, building coalitions, and embedding change into culture. In theory, it gives structure and reduces ambiguity. In our group work, applying Kotter’s model initially improved communication and reduced confusion among team members. It helped clarify responsibilities and provided measurable milestones.
However, planned models often fail to capture the emotional and informal dimensions of change. According to Pettigrew (1985), organisations are not machines that can be reprogrammed; they are social systems full of politics, values, and competing interests. When we applied a planned model too rigidly, some group members felt excluded from key decisions, creating resistance and lowering morale. This mirrors real-world findings where overly structured approaches can stifle creativity and adaptation (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Thus, while planning provides clarity, it can also limit flexibility.
Emergent Change: A More Realistic Perspective
Emergent change theory, proposed by scholars like Mintzberg and Quinn (1991), views change as an ongoing, adaptive process rather than a one-off project. In this view, change evolves through learning, experimentation, and the day-to-day interactions of employees. Stacey (2016) supports this by highlighting that organisations operate within complex systems where outcomes cannot always be predicted or controlled.
In our group project, emergent change became visible when unexpected challenges forced us to adapt our strategy. Rather than following our initial plan strictly, we learned to respond dynamically to issues such as shifting roles and differing interpretations of goals. This adaptability improved collaboration and performance. The experience confirmed that effective change often emerges from collective sense-making rather than strict adherence to plans.
Nevertheless, emergent approaches also have risks. Without direction, they can lead to confusion or lack of accountability. Managers may struggle to measure progress or maintain alignment with strategic objectives (Burnes, 2020). Therefore, while emergent change encourages flexibility, it must still be guided by overarching principles or goals.
Balancing Planned and Emergent Change
A balanced view recognises that successful change usually combines elements of both planned and emergent approaches. Bamford and Forrester (2003) describe this as “planned emergence,” where leaders set direction and boundaries while allowing room for flexibility and innovation. In our project, this balance worked best when we defined a shared vision but remained open to feedback and adaptation. For instance, while we had a schedule, we allowed iterative discussions to refine our approach, which ultimately made the change process smoother.
Managers, therefore, need to act as facilitators rather than controllers of change. They must provide vision and resources while creating space for employees to co-create solutions. Communication, trust, and psychological safety are key factors in this hybrid approach. As Armenakis and Harris (2009) suggest, people are more likely to embrace change when they feel involved and supported, not dictated to.
Critique of Theoretical Models
Many change theories present simplified views that fail to capture real organisational complexity. Lewin’s model, while foundational, assumes that stability can be restored after change, which is unrealistic in today’s continuous transformation environment. Kotter’s model, though practical, can become too prescriptive, ignoring the emotional turbulence that accompanies change (Hughes, 2018). Conversely, emergent models sometimes lack structure, making it difficult for managers to maintain momentum or evaluate success.
A critical reflection from our group experience was that no single model adequately explains all aspects of change. The usefulness of theory lies in providing frameworks for thinking rather than formulas for action. As Weick (2000) argues, change leadership is more about “sense-making” than “plan-making.” Managers should therefore treat theories as guiding principles rather than rigid roadmaps.
Practical Lessons for Managers
Based on theory and experience, several insights emerge for managers. First, communication must be continuous and transparent to reduce uncertainty. During our group work, progress accelerated only when everyone understood the rationale behind decisions. Second, involving employees early fosters ownership and reduces resistance. Third, flexibility must be built into plans; change processes should allow room for experimentation and learning. Lastly, emotional intelligence is as important as analytical skill. Managing change means managing people—their fears, hopes, and identities.
