Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

EPM Group 1

REVIEW OF THE PAPER


Comparison of Change Theories
Kritsonis, A. (2005). Comparison of Change Theories. International Journal, 8(1), 1-7. Revisited by Group 1

Fa-2011/M.Sc.EM/018

Muhammad Aatif Saif Khan

Instructor Dr.Nadeem Ehsan

Running Head: Change Management

EPM Group 1

REVIEW
Purpose
1. This review shall help in formulating thoughts for undertaking the research study in the field of Change Management challenges in Public Sector Organisations. 2. The review is as under:Section Abstract Background/Motivatio n of research What contribution Review The writer has encapsulated various change management theories and also established the need for continued encouragement for making change a success. It gives a synoptic glimpse of the change management theories with their comparative merits versus demerits. It would help the beginner researchers who are seeking an Research Data/Method introduction to the change management. The data was collected through study of the authoritative written material available.

this research makes

Internet resources were also judiciously used. Introduction Change is defined as the real force acting continuously. The author has raised the question of How does successful change happen and would

be seeking the answer through theories on the change management. Main Body Lewins Three Step Kurt Lewin (1951) purported his theory Theory of Change comprising three steps namely; a. Unfreezing the existing situation of status quo b. Movement to move the target system to a new level of equilibrium c. Refreezing after the change has been implemented The driving and restraining forces to the process of change can be tilted in favour of change once there are more driving forces Lippits Phases of than restraining (opposing) forces. Lippit Watson and Westley (1958) created a Page 1

Running Head: Change Management

EPM Group 1 Change Theory Seven Step Theory that was extended from Lewins Three Step Change Theory. They suggested that changes could only be stable provided they influenced the neighbouring systems or to subparts of the Prochaska and DiClementes Change Theory system immediately affected. The stages of this theory contemplation contemplation action and maintenance. The Spiral Model described by them allows reverting to the previous stage. It suggests that individuals learn from their re-lapses Social Theory Cognitive instead of circling around the issue. It suggests that behaviour change is affected by environmental influences, personal factors, and attributes of the behaviour itself (Robbins 46-47). Self-efficacy has been defined as the hallmark of for making change happen. The success likelihood could be increased by four processes motor namely; attentional and retentional, Theory of Action and Behaviour Reasoned Planned reproduction are pre-

preparation,

reinforcement. It asserts that individual performance of a given behaviour is primarily determined by a persons intention to perform that behaviour. The individual attention is dependent upon individuals attitude and social environment. The concept of perceived behavioural control over the opportunities, resources and skills is

comparable to the concept of self-efficacy. Conclusions The author declares Lewins model rational but also ushers the importance of human feelings and experiences. Social Cognitive theory is considered useful since it takes into account internal and external environment factors. Lippitts Phases of Change may be taken as an extension of Lewins Page 2

Running Head: Change Management

EPM Group 1 theory. It gives emphasis on change agent rather than change itself. Whereas, Lewins model considers both driving and restraining forces. Proschaska and DiClementes model is dissimilar from other models as it is Spiral and not Linear. Self-efficacy is the pivot in the theory of Planned Behaviour and Social Cognitive theory. The success or failure in both theories is dependent upon the ability to take action and persist in the action. Summary It is suggested that there is no right or wrong theory to change management as she does not consider it an exact science. However, she believes that through the ongoing research and studies by the industrys leading experts, better and effective means to impact change may come out. Continual review of the effects of changes in society and cultures would require fresh insight on the appropriate change process.

Running Head: Change Management

Page 3