leading and manage
Review of the Dunphy-Stace’s contingency model of change implementation
This Assignment Is Published With Permission From The Author For Online Review Only All Rights Reserved @ ChinaAbout.Net
Dexter Dunphy and Doug State (1993) based on a research of 20 Australian organizations had proposed a contingency model of change implementation, in the model they claimed that managers and change agents should differentiate their change strategies based on the different external environments. Obviously, like many other contingency theories, there are no perfect, one option for all situations, adaption makes the best choices. The two authors of this model, as illustrated in the figure above, suggested that the strategy for managing change should based on the degree of change that is required to introduce an organization back into fit with the external conditions and on the leadership required to achieve this depth of change (Murray, Poole & Jones 2006 p.380). Figure 1 The Dunphy-Stace’s contingency model of change implementation
Source: Dunphy, D. & Stace, D. A. 1993, The strategic management of corporate change. Human Relations, vol. 46, no.8, p.908
In term of the different scale of changes, the model identifies four major kinds: fine tuning, incremental adjustment, modular transformation and corporate transformation.
Fine tuning refers to the process of making small modifications to improve or optimize the outcome; incremental change as when individual parts of an organization deal increasingly and separately with one problem and one objective at a time (Burnes 2004); modular transformation refers to major organizational changes to the components of an organization rather than the whole firm and corporate transformation refers to strategic whole-of-organization change. Such change may include major changes in organizational structure, systems, and processes and reformed organizational mission (Ft.lk 2011). And in term of the style of change which include of
This Assignment Is Published With Permission From The Author For Online Review Only All Rights Reserved @ ChinaAbout.Net
Dexter Dunphy and Doug State (1993) based on a research of 20 Australian organizations had proposed a contingency model of change implementation, in the model they claimed that managers and change agents should differentiate their change strategies based on the different external environments. Obviously, like many other contingency theories, there are no perfect, one option for all situations, adaption makes the best choices. The two authors of this model, as illustrated in the figure above, suggested that the strategy for managing change should based on the degree of change that is required to introduce an organization back into fit with the external conditions and on the leadership required to achieve this depth of change (Murray, Poole & Jones 2006 p.380). Figure 1 The Dunphy-Stace’s contingency model of change implementation
Source: Dunphy, D. & Stace, D. A. 1993, The strategic management of corporate change. Human Relations, vol. 46, no.8, p.908
In term of the different scale of changes, the model identifies four major kinds: fine tuning, incremental adjustment, modular transformation and corporate transformation.
Fine tuning refers to the process of making small modifications to improve or optimize the outcome; incremental change as when individual parts of an organization deal increasingly and separately with one problem and one objective at a time (Burnes 2004); modular transformation refers to major organizational changes to the components of an organization rather than the whole firm and corporate transformation refers to strategic whole-of-organization change. Such change may include major changes in organizational structure, systems, and processes and reformed organizational mission (Ft.lk 2011). And in term of the style of change which include of