See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/235306459

Looking forwards: Discursive directions

in organizational change
ARTICLE in JOURNAL OF ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE MANAGEMENT JULY 2005
Impact Factor: 0.74 DOI: 10.1108/09534810510607074

CITATIONS

READS

41

195

4 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
David Grant
University of New South Wales
59 PUBLICATIONS 1,318 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Nick Wailes
University of New South Wales
45 PUBLICATIONS 387 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate,

letting you access and read them immediately.

Available from: Grant Michelson

Retrieved on: 10 November 2015

Journal of Organizational Change Management

Looking forwards: discursive directions in organizational change
Cliff Oswick David Grant Grant Michelson Nick Wailes

Article information:

Downloaded by EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY At 00:43 14 October 2014 (PT)

To cite this document:

Cliff Oswick David Grant Grant Michelson Nick Wailes, (2005),"Looking forwards: discursive directions in
organizational change", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 Iss 4 pp. 383 - 390
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09534810510607074
Downloaded on: 14 October 2014, At: 00:43 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 56 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3274 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

David Grant, Grant Michelson, Cliff Oswick, Nick Wailes, (2005),"Guest editorial: discourse and
organizational change", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 Iss 1 pp. 6-15
null
Paul Humphreys, Ronan McIvor, Judy Bullock, (2006),"The SAGE Handbook of Organizational
Discourse20061David Grant, Cynthia Hardy, Cliff Oswick, Linda Putnam, . The SAGE Handbook of
Organizational Discourse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications 2004. 429 pp., ISBN: 0#7619#7225#0
85.00 Hardback", Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 Iss 6 pp. 524-525

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 310177 []

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0953-4814.htm

Looking forwards: discursive

directions in organizational
change
Cliff Oswick

Organizational
change

383

The Management Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK, and

David Grant, Grant Michelson and Nick Wailes

Downloaded by EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY At 00:43 14 October 2014 (PT)

University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to review the discursive formation of organizational change and to
consider the possible directions that change management initiatives may take in the future.
Design/methodology/approach This closing piece identifies a traditional change discourse and
an emerging change discourse. This is achieved through a review of the extant literature and the
contributions to the special issue.
Findings The paper highlights a shift of emphases in organizational change due to environmental
imperatives. In particular, it reveals a move from problem-centred, discrete interventions to a focus on
continuous improvements. It also draws attention to the emerging significance of discourse-based
approaches concerned with image, identity, organizational learning and knowledge management.
Originality/value Provides a framework for classifying different forms of organizational change
activity and posits directions for future development.
Keywords Organizational change, Rhetoric, Business improvement
Paper type Conceptual paper

In recent years it has become increasingly difficult to find mainstream management

textbooks that do not make an obligatory reference in their introductory preamble to
the fact that we live in a turbulent and rapidly changing world. This tendency is
especially true of books on organizational change. For example, in the preface to the
sixth edition of their popular textbook on organizational change, French and Bell
assert: Organizations face multiple challenges and threats today threats to
effectiveness, efficiency, and profitability; challenges from turbulent environments,
increased competition, and changing customer demands (1999, p. xiii). We find similar
sentiments expressed in the preface of the latest version of Harvey and Browns (2001)
influential volume:
The first edition of this text appeared over two decades ago, and what changes have taken
place! We live in a world that has been turned upside down (2001, p. xviii).

Harvey and Brown (2001) go on to suggest:

The sixth edition has undergone major changes, much like the world we live in. In the past,
managers aimed for success in a relatively stable and predictable world. However, in the
hyper turbulent environment of the 21st century, managers are confronting an accelerating
rate of change. They face constant innovation in computing and information technology and
a chaotic world of changing markets and consumer lifestyles. Todays learning organization
must be able to transform and renew to meet these changing forces (2001, p. xviii).

Journal of Organizational Change

Management
Vol. 18 No. 4, 2005
pp. 383-390
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0953-4814
DOI 10.1108/09534810510607074

JOCM
18,4

Downloaded by EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY At 00:43 14 October 2014 (PT)

384

There are two significant claims contained in Harvey and Browns observations
regarding organizational change. First, they identify a discernible shift from a
relatively predictable and stable world to a hyperturbulent one. Second, they posit
that the challenges of operating in a chaotic world require organizations to learn and
adapt, and by implication, embrace new approaches to organizational change based
upon transformation and renewal. These assertions are echoed in many other
organizational change texts (Burke, 2002; Cummings and Huse, 2001; Dawson, 2002;
Olson and Eoyang, 2001; Senior, 1997).
An interesting aspect of the discursive construction of the need for change in
the organizational change literature is the way in which it is framed as an
essential and unavoidable response to a rapidly changing world. In effect, it
produces what has been referred to elsewhere as a grammar of imperatives
(Collins, 2000, p. 380). The message to organizations and managers is simple: you
live in a rapidly changing world and you have to change rapidly to survive. There
is an implicit threat embedded within this message (i.e. failure to embrace change
will result in organizational failure).
A central component of the anxiety inducing potential of the organizational change
discourse, which underpins the formation of a grammar of imperatives, is the use of a
particular rhetorical strategy highlighted by Cheney et al. (2004). The rhetorical
approach in question is identification which involves linking one issue with another.
Cheney et al. (2004, p. 96) illustrate how this rhetorical strategy works through the
example of how often sex and violence on television is expressed as an indivisible
unit. Just as sex and violence are different phenomena that become inextricably
linked on television, it would seem that organizational change is rhetorically identified
with the wider turbulent and hypercompetitive socio-economic world in which
organizations are located. The need for micro-change (i.e. organizational change) is
depicted as indivisible from macro-change (i.e. wider socio-economic change).
The discursive coupling of rapid social change with the need for a concomitant
organization response is, however, problematic insofar as this process of identification
shuts off other possible courses of action. For example, if we accept that rapid societal
change is taking place then the most appropriate response for some organizations
might be to consolidate their activities and actively avoid indulging in major change
(i.e. a different imperative which copes with macro-turbulence by embracing
micro-stabilization). That said, the pervasiveness of the dominant discourse, where
rapid social change precipitates rapid organizational change, renders such alternative
perspectives as somewhat implausible.
As Harvey and Browns earlier comments indicate, we do indeed live in a changing
world. The grammar of imperatives this has triggered in the workplace has arguably
led to a shift in the dominant way of thinking about organizational change. In
particular, the traditional discourse surrounding change that was prevalent in the
1950s, 1960s and 1970s has gradually been superseded by a very different
conceptualisation of the processes of organizational change. The characteristics of the
traditional discourse and an emerging discourse are juxtaposed below in Table I.
In the subsequent sections of this paper we briefly elaborate upon the different
components of the old and the new discourses of organizational change and
comment on the processes of transition. And in keeping with the theme of this two-part
special issue (i.e. the current volume and vol. 18, no. 1), we then conclude with a

Traditional discourse of organizational Emerging discourse of organizational

change
change

Downloaded by EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY At 00:43 14 October 2014 (PT)

Approach to
change
Environmental
imperatives
Key stakeholders
Nature of the
change process
Focus of change
Targets of change
Primary concern
Change strategy

Micro-dispersed (i.e. change

management)
Relatively stable and predictable world Hyperturbulent and rapidly changing
world
Consultants and client system
Local managers and employees
representatives
Discrete change orientation
Continuous change orientation

Organizational
change

Macro-centralized (i.e. OD)

Emphasis on problems
Tangible objects and artefacts (e.g.
rules, the design of work, aspects of
organizational structure)
Hard change demonstrating the
actuality of change
Reactive and incremental

Emphasis on improvement
Intangible phenomena (e.g. image,
identity, knowledge management,
organizational learning, vision)
Soft change managing the rhetoric
of change
Proactive and emergent

discussion of the trajectory of the emerging discourse, both in terms of the nature of
future directions and the implications for organizations.
From organization development to change management
The concept of organization development (OD) was originally formulated more than
half century ago by Lewin (1951). His pioneering work laid the foundations for a
number of research texts in the late 1960s (Beckhard, 1969; Bennis, 1969; Lawrence and
Lorsch, 1969; Schein, 1969) and student texts in the 1970s (Cummings and Huse, 1975;
French and Bell, 1973; Harvey and Brown, 1978). Although there have been revised
editions of the popular OD textbooks that originally appeared in the 1970s, there have
been very few new OD texts appearing since then (the OD text by Oswick and Grant
(1996) being a notable exception). Over the past two decades OD texts have been
replaced with texts on change management. Indeed, if one looks at the recent book
sales on organizational change recorded by amazon.co.uk (the web-based book store)
we find only one OD text listed (i.e. the sixth edition of French and Bells text)
compared to a proliferation of change management texts, including:
.
Change Management: A Guide to Effective Implementation (McCalman and
Paton, 2000).
.
Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics (Burnes,
2000).
.
Managing Change in Organizations (Carnall, 2002).
.
Theory and Practice of Change Management (Hayes, 2002).
.
Making Sense of Change Management (Cameron and Green, 2004).
.
Managing Change/Changing Managers (Randall, 2004).
.
Dynamic Change Management (Lientz and Rea, 2005).
The movement from OD to change management represents more than simply a
renaming of change processes. There is a substantive difference. OD, as Lewins (1951)

385

Table I.
Two contrasting
discourses of
organizational change

JOCM
18,4

Downloaded by EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY At 00:43 14 October 2014 (PT)

386

unfreezing-moving-refreezing model exemplifies, is a temporally bounded process

insofar as it can be characterised as having a discernible beginning and a discernible
endpoint. By contrast, change management can be seen as more of an ongoing process.
In this regard, we can think of OD as a form of destination-oriented journey while
change management can be construed as a continuous journey of discovery (Inns,
1996). The adoption of the notion of continuous organization change is largely a
response to the demands of a hostile and ever changing environment in which
organizations need to be adaptable and responsive (Marshak, 1993). In short, it has
emerged as an organizational response to environmental imperatives.
One of the consequences of the ongoing dynamics associated with change
management is that the role of the expert change agent (i.e. the OD consultant) and the
client system representative have become somewhat redundant. This has occurred
because the management of change has become more localized and, hence, the
responsibility of in situ managers through direct engagement with employees as part
of an unfolding and emergent everyday process of instigating new actions and
formulating responses to issues, concerns and opportunities that arise.

From negative to positive framing

The replacement of an OD-based discourse with a change management one has also
prompted a shift of focus within the process of change. Traditionally, organizational
change initiatives have predominantly been problem-centred (i.e. data are gathered on
a problem and solutions are offered). The emphasis in this mode of inquiry is on
identifying and then fixing what it not working. More recently, the emphasis has
begun to switch from addressing the organization negatives (i.e. problems) to
accentuating and foregrounding the positives. In particular, interest in an approach
referred to as appreciative inquiry (AI) (Cooperrider et al., 2000; Bushe, 1998;
Hammond, 1996; Watkins and Cooperrider, 2000; Watkins and Mohr, 2001) has gained
momentum and grown exponentially over the past decade.
Unlike problem-centred approaches, the rationale for AI is to determine what is
working well within the organization and to seek to amplify it and replicate it.
According to Cooperrider and Whitney (2000, p. 6-7), there are four basic components
that form an AI cycle:
(1) Discovery identifying the best of what is (appreciating).
(2) Dream highlighting what might be? (envisioning results).
(3) Design creating what should be the ideal? (co-constructing).
(4) Destiny addressing how to empower, learn and adjust/improvise?
(sustaining).
Given the cyclical and recursive nature of AI, it is clearly congruent with the
continuous change philosophy that underpins the change management discourse.
Moreover, the processes of appreciating, envisioning, co-constructing and sustaining
also have strong discursive overtones: showing appreciation is primarily done through
talk; envisioning involves painting a projective picture through the use of language;
co-construction involves collaboration and dialogue; and, sustaining requires ongoing
interaction.

Downloaded by EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY At 00:43 14 October 2014 (PT)

Conclusions on directions
The discursive orientation of AI sets it apart from many of the more traditional OD
approaches which are typically concerned with tangible artefacts and forms of
intervention within organizations, such as job redesign (Hackman and Oldham, 1980),
technological change (Card et al., 1983) and organizational restructuring (Mintzberg,
1983). The general trend in terms of the theory and practice of organizational change
management is towards an accumulating interest in intangible phenomena and, de
facto, discourse. Increasingly, we are seeing contemporary approaches to
organizational change encompassing a variety of initiatives with discursive
connotations, such as organizational learning (Oswick et al., 2000), knowledge
management (Newell et al., 2002), narrative methods (Boje, 2001), and issues of identity
and image (Schultz et al., 2000).
The contents of this two-part special issue on Discourse and organizational
change (i.e. the current volume and vol. 18, no. 1) reflect a growing interest in the
intangible dimensions of organizational change. The contributions also signal the
rejection of organizational change as a discrete process in favour of more dynamic and
fluid interpretations. This is particularly apparent in the papers on identity (Beech
and Johnson, 2005; Brown et al., 2005; Iedema et al., 2005), strategic coping (Tietze,
2005), reflective dialogue (Jacobs and Heracleous, 2005), organizational renewal
(Seger et al., 2005), organizational knowledge (Treleaven and Sykes, 2005), and
corporate transformation (Collins and Rainwater, 2005).
Given the emergence of a new change discourse and an increasing interest in
discourse as a focal point of inquiry, we might anticipate that the discursive analysis of
organizational change is likely to flourish and multiply. In terms of practice, it would
seem that the actuality of change (i.e. demonstrating tangible changes have taken
place) has become less important than the rhetoric of change (i.e. managing
expectations and perceptions of change).
For large corporations, image and reputation created through public relations,
advertising and spin are now the factors that are critical to success and survival.
Most notably, this has promoted forms of reinvention based upon corporate
re-branding (Aaker, 1996; Haig, 2003), personal branding (Montoya and Vanderhey,
2003; Spillane, 2002; Sampson, 2002) and impression management (Goffman, 1959) as
viable change responses to environmental stimulus. Arguably, such approaches signal
a subtle shift of emphasis from the substantive to the discursive. In conclusion, the
future preoccupation of organizational change activity is likely to be the management
of meaning (Gowler and Legge, 1983) as opposed to the management of change.
References
Aaker, D.A. (1996), Building Strong Brands, Free Press, New York, NY.
Beckhard, R. (1969), Organization Development, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Beech, N. and Johnson, P. (2005), Discourses of disrupted identities in the practice of strategic
change: the mayor, the street-fighter and the insider-out, Journal of Organizational
Change Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 31-47.
Bennis, W. (1969), Organization Development: Its Nature, Origins, and Prospects,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Boje, D.M. (2001), Narrative Methods for Organizational and Communication Research, Sage,
London.

Organizational
change

387

JOCM
18,4

Downloaded by EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY At 00:43 14 October 2014 (PT)

388

Brown, A.D., Humphreys, M. and Gurney, P.M. (2005), Narrative identity and change: a case
study of Laskarina Holidays, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 312-26.
Burke, W.W. (2002), Organization Change: Theory and Practice, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Burnes, B. (2000), Managing Change: A Strategic Approach to Organizational Dynamics, Pearson,
Harlow.
Bushe, G. (1998), Appreciative inquiry in teams, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 16
No. 3, pp. 41-50.
Cameron, E. and Green, M. (2004), Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide to
the Models, Tools and Techniques of Organizational Change Management, Kogan Page,
New York, NY.
Card, S., Moran, T. and Newell, A. (1983), The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Carnall, C. (2002), Managing Change in Organizations, Prentice-Hall, London.
Cheney, G., Christensen, L., Conrad, C. and Lair, D. (2004), Corporate rhetoric as organizational
discourse, in Grant, D., Hardy, C., Oswick, C. and Putnam, L. (Eds), The Handbook of
Organizational Discourse, Sage, London, pp. 79-103.
Collins, D. (2000), Management Fads and Buzzwords, Routledge, London.
Collins, D. and Rainwater, K. (2005), Managing change at Sears: a sideways look at a tale of
corporate transformation, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 16-30.
Cooperrider, D.L. and Whitney, D. (2000), A positive revolution in change: appreciative inquiry,
in Cooperrider, D.L., Sorensen, P.F., Whitney, D. and Yaeger, T.F. (Eds), Appreciative
Inquiry: Rethinking Human Organization toward a Positive Theory of Change, Stipes
Publishing, Champaign, IL, pp. 3-28.
Cooperrider, D.L., Sorensen, P.F., Whitney, D. and Yaeger, T.F. (Eds) (2000), Appreciative Inquiry:
Rethinking Human Organization toward a Positive Theory of Change, Stipes Publishing,
Champaign, IL.
Cummings, T.G. and Huse, E.F. (1975), Organization Development and Change, West Publishing,
St Paul, MN.
Cummings, T.G. and Huse, E.F. (2001), Organization Development and Change, 7th ed., West
Publishing, St Paul, MN.
Dawson, P. (2002), Understanding Organizational Change: The Contemporary Experience of
People at Work, Sage, London.
French, W.L. and Bell, C.H. (1973), Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions
for Organizational Improvement, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Goffman, E. (1959), The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Anchor Books, New York, NY.
Gowler, D. and Legge, K. (1983), The meaning of management and the management of meaning:
a view from social anthropology, in Earl, M.J. (Ed.), Perspectives on Management, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1980), Work Redesign, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Haig, M. (2003), Brand Failures: The Truth about the 100 Biggest Branding Mistakes of All Time,
Kogan Page, London.
Hammond, S.A. (1996), The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry, Thin Book Publishing, Plano, TX.
Harvey, D. and Brown, D.R. (1978), An Experiential Approach to Organization Development,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood cliffs, NJ.

Harvey, D. and Brown, D.R. (2001), An Experiential Approach to Organization Development,

6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood cliffs, NJ.
Hayes, J. (2002), Theory and Practice of Change Management, Palgrave, Basingstoke.
Iedema, R., Rhodes, C. and Scheeres, H. (2005), Presencing: identity organizational change and
immaterial labor, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 327-37.
Inns, D. (1996), Organization development as a journey, in Oswick, C. and Grant, D. (Eds),
Organization Development, Pitman, London, pp. 20-34.

Downloaded by EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY At 00:43 14 October 2014 (PT)

Jacobs, C.D. and Heracleous, L.Th. (2005), Answers for questions to come: reflective dialogue as
an enabler of strategic innovation, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 338-52.
Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1969), Developing Organizations: Diagnosis and Action,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Lewin, K. (1951), Field Theory in Social Science, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Lientz, B.P. and Rea, K.P. (2005), Dynamic Change Management: How to Get Enduring Results in
the Real World, Butterworth-Heinemann, New York, NY.
McCalman, J. and Paton, R.A. (2000), Change Management: A Guide to Effective Implementation,
Sage, London.
Marshak, R. (1993), Lewin meets Confucius: a re-view of the OD model of change, Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 393-415.
Mintzberg, H. (1983), Structure in Fives: Designing Effective Organizations, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Montoya, P. and Vanderhey, T. (2003), The Brand Called You, Personal Branding Press, Corona
del Mar, CA.
Newell, S., Robertson, M., Scarbrough, H. and Swan, J. (2002), Managing Knowledge Work,
Palgrave, London.
Olson, E.E. and Eoyang, G.H. (2001), Facilitating Organization Change: Lessons from Complexity
Science, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Oswick, C. and Grant, D. (Eds) (1996), Organization Development: Metaphorical Explorations,
Pitman, London.
Oswick, C., Anthony, P., Keenoy, T., Mangham, I. and Grant, D. (2000), A dialogic analysis of
organizational learning, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 37 No. 6, pp. 887-901.
Randall, J. (2004), Managing Change/Changing Managers, Routledge, London.
Sampson, E. (2002), Build Your Personal Brand, Kogan Page, London.
Schein, E. (1969), Process Consultation: Its Role in Organization Development, Addison-Wesley,
Reading, MA.
Schultz, M., Hatch, M.J. and Larsen, M.H. (2000), The Expressive Organization: Linking Identity,
Reputation, and the Corporate Brand, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Seger, M.W., Ulmer, R.R., Novak, J.M. and Sellnow, T. (2005), Post-crisis discourse and
organizational change, failure and renewal, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 78-95.
Senior, B. (1997), Organizational Change, Pitman Publishing, London.
Spillane, M. (2002), Branding Yourself: How to Look, Sound and Behave Your Way to Success,
Pan Books, London.

Organizational
change

389

JOCM
18,4

Downloaded by EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY At 00:43 14 October 2014 (PT)

390

Tietze, S. (2005), Discourses as strategic coping resource: managing the interface between home
and work, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 48-62.
Treleaven, L. and Sykes, C. (2005), Loss of organizational knowledge: from supporting clients to
serving head office, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 353-68.
Watkins, J.M. and Cooperrider, D.L. (2000), Appreciative inquiry: a transformative paradigm,
OD Practitioner, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 6-12.
Watkins, J.M. and Mohr, B.J. (2001), Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of Imagination,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Further reading
Cummings, T.G. and Huse, E.F. (1989), Organization Development and Change, 7th ed., West
Publishing, St Paul, MN.
French, W.L. and Bell, C.H. (1999), Organization Development: Behavioral Science Interventions
for Organizational Improvement, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood cliffs, NJ.

Downloaded by EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY At 00:43 14 October 2014 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

1. Mark Hughes. 2014. Who killed change management?. Culture and Organization 1-18. [CrossRef]
2. Gervase R. Bushe, Robert J. MarshakThe Dialogic Mindset in Organization Development 55-97.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
3. Gervase R. Bushe, Robert J. MarshakThe Dialogic Mindset in Organization Development 55-97.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
4. Rune Todnem By, Cliff Oswick, Bernard Burnes. 2014. Looking Back and Looking Forward: Some
Reflections on Journal Developments and Trends in Organizational Change Discourse. Journal of Change
Management 14:1, 1-7. [CrossRef]
5. Gervase R. BusheGenerative Process, Generative Outcome: The Transformational Potential of
Appreciative Inquiry 89-113. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
6. Cliff Oswick. 2013. Reflections: OD or Not OD that is the Question! A Constructivist's Thoughts on
the Changing Nature of Change. Journal of Change Management 13:4, 371-381. [CrossRef]
7. Monica Elisabeth Nystrm, Elisabet Hg, Rickard Garvare, Lars Weinehall, Anneli Ivarsson. 2013.
Change and learning strategies in large scale change programs. Journal of Organizational Change
Management 26:6, 1020-1044. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Richard Dunford, Suresh Cuganesan, David Grant, Ian Palmer, Rosie Beaumont, Cara Steele. 2013.
Flexibility as the rationale for organizational change: a discourse perspective. Journal of Organizational
Change Management 26:1, 83-97. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
9. Nelson Phillips, Cliff Oswick. 2012. Organizational Discourse: Domains, Debates, and Directions. The
Academy of Management Annals 6:1, 435-481. [CrossRef]
10. Anneli Hujala, Sari Rissanen. 2012. Discursive construction of polyphony in healthcare management.
Journal of Health Organization and Management 26:1, 118-136. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Nic Beech, Ingrid Kajzer-Mitchell, Cliff Oswick, Mike Saren. 2011. Barriers to Change and Identity Work
In the Swampy Lowland. Journal of Change Management 11:3, 289-304. [CrossRef]
12. Jason A. Wolf. 2011. Constructing rapid transformation: sustaining high performance and a new view of
organization change. International Journal of Training and Development 15:1, 20-38. [CrossRef]
13. Patricia Wolf, Ralf Hansmann, Peter Troxler. 2011. Unconferencing as method to initiate organisational
change. Journal of Organizational Change Management 24:1, 112-142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
14. Alannah E. Rafferty, Nerina L. Jimmieson. 2010. Team change climate: A group-level analysis of
the relationships among change information and change participation, role stressors, and well-being.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 19:5, 551-586. [CrossRef]
15. Tricia Kelly. 2010. A Positive Approach to Change: The Role of Appreciative Inquiry in Library and
Information Organisations. Australian Academic & Research Libraries 41:3, 163-177. [CrossRef]
16. Christopher J. Rees, John Hassard, Deanna Kemp, Julia Keenan, Jane Gronow. 2010. Strategic resource or
ideal source? Discourse, organizational change and CSR. Journal of Organizational Change Management
23:5, 578-594. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
17. Jeong-Ran Roh. 2010. Success Factors in Effecting Cultural Change in Organizations: A Case Study.
Journal of the Korean Society for Library and Information Science 44:2, 427-445. [CrossRef]
18. Kathy Cowan-Sahadath. 2010. Business transformation: Leadership, integration and innovation A case
study. International Journal of Project Management 28:4, 395-404. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by EDITH COWAN UNIVERSITY At 00:43 14 October 2014 (PT)

19. Marja Flory, Oriol Iglesias, Tomas Nilsson. 2010. The reluctant rhetorician: senior managers as
rhetoricians in a strategic change context. Journal of Organizational Change Management 23:2, 137-144.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Amy Thurlow, Jean Helms Mills. 2009. Change, talk and sensemaking. Journal of Organizational Change
Management 22:5, 459-479. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
21. Hanne Kragh, Poul Houman Andersen. 2009. Picture this: Managed change and resistance in business
network settings. Industrial Marketing Management 38:6, 641-653. [CrossRef]
22. Carlos Molina, Jamie L. Callahan. 2009. Fostering organizational performance. Journal of European
Industrial Training 33:5, 388-400. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
23. Slawomir Magala, Ren ten Bos, Stefan Heusinkveld. 2007. The guru's gusto: management fashion,
performance and taste. Journal of Organizational Change Management 20:3, 304-325. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
24. Renata Fox. 2006. Corporations' ideologies: a new subfield of study of corporate communication. Corporate
Communications: An International Journal 11:4, 353-370. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Roy Langer, Signe Thorup. 2006. Building trust in times of crisis. Corporate Communications: An
International Journal 11:4, 371-390. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]