Sustaining Change

The subtopic in the change management literature that is the most poorly developed and confusing is sustaining change. Definitions of sustainability vary widely across the literature, and there is disagreement as to whether sustaining change is good or bad for an organization.

There is relatively little research concerning sustaining change in organizations. David Buchanan and his colleagues (2005) offer reasons for the lack of research. First, “researching change is more interesting than studying stability and, for most managers, the next initiative promises more career value than continuing with established routines,” and second, “sustainability requires longitudinal study and resources to which many researchers do not have access.” (p.190)

Buchanan et al. point out something important about the nature of sustaining organizational change. While planning and the initial implementation of change can occur relatively quickly, sustaining change involves a long period of time. Maintaining a sense of urgency, or even a significant level of interest, is difficult over a long period.

Definitions of sustainability vary based upon the type of change initiative the authors have in mind. Miller (1982) speaks in terms of evolutionary, revolutionary, or quantum changes. Stace and Dunphy (1994) contrast incremental adjustments with company-wide transformations. Pettigrew’s (1985) work focuses on the issues particular to large-scale, risky reorganizations. Clearly, the scale and complexity of the change determines how sustainability is defined.

Another related issue when discussing sustainability of various change initiatives is the concept of an “improvement trajectory.” Sustaining a change at a particular level is not the goal of many organizational changes. To apply Lewin’s (1951) concept of “refreezing” to a new quality improvement initiative could be a serious mistake. In a quality improvement change effort what must be sustained (or “frozen”) is the philosophy of quality improvement, not a particular level of quality. “What is to be sustained?” is a critical question when an improvement trajectory is more important than a particular level of performance.

Is sustaining change good or bad for an organization? Many authors assume that it is good, but many do not. As Buchanan et al. (2005) state, “Sustainability has been widely regarded…not as a condition to be achieved, but as a problem to be solved” (p.190). Sustaining change is a problem when it blocks the need for new or additional change. There are times when a change initiative should be allowed to decay.

To read more about sustaining organizational change purchase a copy of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change,” on my website www.mikebeitler.com at a 25% discount off of the Amazon.com price. Please feel free to send me your questions, comments, and suggestions for future articles anytime.