CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND HRM-Critiques of Planned Change & Modern Perspectives in HRM
CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND HRM
Blog 4
Critiques of Planned Change & Modern Perspectives in HRM
Introduction
Planned change models such as Lewin’s Unfreeze Change Refreeze and other
classical frameworks have shaped organizational development for decades. They
offer structure, predictability, and clear sequencing features that are often
appealing to managers and HR professionals who want a sense of control during
turbulent times. But in today’s environment of digital disruption, geopolitical
instability, and rapid competitive shifts, these traditional models face
increasing criticism. Modern organizations operate in conditions where change
is not tidy, sequential, or easily managed through linear stages. Instead,
change is messy, political, and often emergent.
This article explores the key critiques of planned change and presents modern
alternatives including Quinn’s logical incrementalism, Kotter’s coalition
building, and emergent, iterative change perspectives. Real world examples help
illustrate how HRM can respond to the limitations of older models and better
support organizations in dynamic environments.
1. Critiques of Planned Change Models
1.1 Assumption of Stability (The “Refreezing” Problem)
One of the most common criticisms of planned change is the assumption that
organizations move from one stable state to another. Lewin’s (1951) model
suggests that, after change occurs, the organization “refreezes” into a new
steady state. In reality, the modern business environment rarely allows such
stability. Markets, technologies, and customer expectations shift so rapidly
that organizations can barely stabilize before the next wave of change hits.
From an HR perspective, attempting to “refreeze” can even be counterproductive.
Employees need adaptability, agility, and continuous learning not rigid
routines. Companies like Amazon and Tesla operate in a “permanent beta” state,
where processes evolve constantly and stability is the exception, not the norm.
1.2 Overemphasis on Predictability and Linear Stages
Planned change models imply that the path to change can be mapped out in
advance with clear steps and timelines. But major organizational changes digital
transformation, mergers, or cultural shifts rarely unfold as expected. External
forces such as market shocks, regulatory changes, competitor moves, or
technological disruptions can derail even the best designed plans.
This unpredictability challenges the traditional view that HR can design
structured change roadmaps. Instead, HR must often pivot rapidly, revise
strategies, and accommodate unexpected resistance or emerging opportunities.
1.3 Ignoring Informal Power, Politics, and Conflict
Classical models tend to assume rational behavior and cooperative
stakeholders. However, organizations are social and political systems.
Individuals protect their interests, departments compete for resources, and
informal networks shape decision making. Critics argue that planned change
frameworks underestimate
• Internal politics
• Conflicting interests
• Hidden power structures
• Emotional reactions
• Informal leaders who can either support or sabotage change
HR professionals frequently encounter these dynamics especially during
restructures or cultural shifts yet classical models provide limited guidance
on managing such political complexities.
1.4 Limited Employee Voice and Participation
Earlier models tend to treat employees as recipients of change rather than
co-creators. This can lead to resistance, disengagement, or cynicism,
especially when employees feel excluded from decision making. Modern HR
practices place far more emphasis on participation, dialogue, and sense-making.
2. Modern Responses to the Limitations of Planned Change
2.1 Logical Incrementalism (Quinn)
James Quinn (1980) developed logical incrementalism as an alternative to
large scale, grand design change. Instead of attempting sweeping transformation
at once, organizations make small, strategic, and purposeful adjustments that
accumulate into major change over time.
Key features include,
• Continuous environmental scanning
• Small, reversible steps rather than big, risky moves
• Gradual commitment building
• Learning by doing
• Integrating political and behavioral realities
For HR, this approach is appealing because it reduces employee resistance.
Small changes allow employees to adapt gradually, experiment with new
behaviors, and provide feedback. Logical incrementalism aligns well with agile
HR, continuous improvement, and iterative workforce planning.
Google’s Product Development Culture
Google rarely launches massive, rigidly planned initiatives; instead, it uses
pilot testing, A/B experimentation, and staged rollouts. Products like Gmail
and Google Maps evolved from small beta trials into global platforms (Vise,
2005). This incremental approach allows for learning, adaptation, and political
buy-in—illustrating Quinn’s principles in action.
2.2 Coalition Building (Kotter)
John Kotter (1996) emphasizes the importance of building a guiding coalition a
cross-functional group of influential individuals who support and drive change.
This responds directly to the critique that planned change ignores
organizational politics.
Kotter argues that successful change requires
• Political sponsorship
• Cross-level leadership support
• Informal influencers alongside formal managers
• Alignment across departments
HR plays a critical role in identifying key stakeholders, mapping informal
power networks, and supporting coalition members through communication and
capability building.
Microsoft's Cultural Transformation
When Satya Nadella took over as CEO, he formed a strong coalition of senior
leaders committed to shifting Microsoft from internal competition to
collaboration. HR helped reinforce this coalition through new leadership
frameworks, performance metrics, and storytelling around growth mindset
(Nadella, 2017). The coalition became the backbone of Microsoft’s cultural
renewal.
2.3 Emergent, Dynamic, Iterative Change Approaches
Emergent change theory argues that change unfolds through ongoing interactions,
feedback loops, and local adaptations not top-down planning.
Features include
• Continuous learning
• Iterative adjustments
• Employee participation and experimentation
• Sense-making rather than strict instructions
• Leadership as facilitators rather than controllers
This perspective is particularly relevant in digital transformation, where
organizations often cannot predict outcomes in advance. HR’s modern role
becomes enabling flexibility, building adaptive cultures, and supporting
leadership agility.
3. What These
Modern Approaches mean for HRM
HRM must evolve beyond rigid change management plans and embrace
• Adaptive workforce strategies
• Psychological safety for experimentation
• Leadership development focused on agility
• Strong stakeholder analysis
• Transparent communication to handle uncertainty
• Organizational learning systems
HR becomes a strategic facilitator rather than an administrator of change
checklists. Modern change requires HR professionals to understand politics,
build relationships, support iterative processes, and help employees navigate
ambiguity.
Conclusion
Planned change models were foundational in shaping early organizational
development thinking, but their limitations are increasingly evident in today’s
unpredictable business landscape. The assumptions of stability, linear change,
and rational actors often do not reflect the messy reality HR professionals
experience. Modern approaches such as logical incrementalism, coalition
building, and emergent change theory offer more flexible, realistic frameworks
for managing change in dynamic environments.
For HRM, the key message is clear: effective change is no longer about
following fixed steps but about enabling continuous learning, political
awareness, adaptability, and involvement across the organization. By embracing
these modern perspectives, HR can help organizations navigate complexity while
maintaining employee engagement and organizational resilience.
References
Lewin, K. (1951) *Field Theory in Social Science*. New York: Harper & Row. Available at: https://books.google.com
Quinn, J.B. (1980) *Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism*. Homewood, IL: Irwin. Available at: https://books.google.com/books
Chiranthi, from this blog offers a well-articulated analysis of classical, linear planned change models, arguing that their stability driven assumptions are inadequate for contemporary organizations, especially concerning the "refreezing problem," political dynamics, and limited employee voice. By integrating alternative frameworks like Quinn’s logical incrementalism, Kotter’s coalition building, and emergent change perspectives, the analysis provides a compelling, academically grounded alternative that better reflects today’s iterative, fast paced environments. The use of real-world examples effectively strengthens the argument, demonstrating that adaptive, participatory approaches lead to more sustainable and successful change outcomes, making it a thoughtful contribution to modern HRM change discourse.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your thoughtful and detailed feedback! I’m glad the discussion on the limitations of classical, linear change models resonated with you, and that the integration of Quinn’s logical incrementalism, Kotter’s coalition building, and emergent change perspectives came across clearly. It’s encouraging to hear that the real-world examples helped demonstrate how adaptive and participatory approaches lead to more sustainable outcomes. Your reflections perfectly capture the modern, HR-focused perspective I aimed to convey in the blog.
DeleteThis essay challenges traditional change models, such as Lewin's, demonstrating their shortcomings in the fast-paced, uncertain world of today. Quinn's incrementalism, Kotter's coalition building, and emergent change are examples of modern techniques that provide flexibility, employee participation, and ongoing learning. Examples from Microsoft and Google show how HR can effectively support people-centered, adaptable transformation.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful reflections! I’m glad the critique of traditional change models and the focus on modern, flexible approaches resonated with you. It’s great to hear that the examples from Microsoft and Google helped illustrate how HR can support people-centered, adaptable transformation. Your comments really highlight the importance of combining strategy with ongoing learning and employee participation to achieve sustainable change.
DeleteStrong analysis of planned change limitations. The point about ignoring informal power structures is critical. In my experience, formal org charts rarely reflect actual influence networks. Change initiatives succeed or fail based on informal leaders' buy-in. HR's stakeholder mapping should identify these hidden influencers early, not just engage official management channels.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your insightful feedback! You’ve captured an important point informal power structures often have a bigger impact on change success than formal org charts suggest. I completely agree that identifying and engaging these hidden influencers early is critical, and HR’s role in stakeholder mapping is central to navigating these dynamics effectively. Your reflections add an important practical dimension to the discussion on planned change limitations.
DeleteThis is a strong and thoughtful critique of change management models you’ve shown how many frameworks promise much but fall short in practice. It is quite clear how you challenged the assumption that one size fits all, especially in dynamic, complex organisations where culture, power relations, and unique contexts matter more than any generic model.
ReplyDeleteFrom point of view while the article convincingly highlights the limitations of classical models, I would have liked to see more on how hybrid or emerging models might address those gaps for instance, adaptive change frameworks or systems-thinking approaches. Also, the role of stakeholder power and informal networks could have been emphasised a bit more, in my opinion, since they often derail change efforts despite sound models.
In your view, what is the single most promising alternative to the traditional change models you examined one that actually overcomes their weaknesses in real world use?
Well done on a deep piece of work.
Thank you for such a detailed and thoughtful reflection! I really appreciate your recognition of the critique on traditional change models and your points about the need to consider hybrid or emerging frameworks. I completely agree that adaptive change approaches and attention to stakeholder power and informal networks are crucial for real-world success. Regarding your question, in my view, adaptive, iterative frameworks that combine structured planning with emergent, people-centered practices show the most promise they allow flexibility, continuous learning, and responsiveness to unique organizational contexts. Your reflections add great depth to the discussion and highlight exactly where theory and practice intersect.
DeleteIn today’s fast-changing business environment where planned, linear models often fall short, what practical steps can HR take to help organizations shift toward more adaptive, iterative change approaches while still maintaining clarity, engagement, and alignment across teams? How can HR balance flexibility with the need for direction?
ReplyDeleteThank you for raising such an important and practical question! In my view, HR can support adaptive, iterative change by establishing continuous feedback loops, facilitating regular check-ins, and enabling cross-functional collaboration so teams remain aligned while adjusting to new information. Clear communication of goals and priorities provides direction; while coaching and behavioral reinforcement encourage flexibility and experimentation. HR’s role is really about balancing structure with adaptability creating a framework that guides action but allows teams to respond dynamically to changing circumstances. Your question really highlights the critical balance between flexibility and clarity in modern change management.
DeleteIt is very interesting to refer this blog which provides an insightful and necessary critique of traditional planned change models (like Lewin's) highlighting their failure to account for modern organizational instability and complexity. This analysis is exceptional for arguing that in today's "permanent beta" environment. The "Refreezing" stage is impossible. It correctly identifies that classical models ignore organizational politics and non-linear shifts. By presenting robust modern alternatives Quinn's Logical Incrementalism (Google), Kotter’s Coalition Building (Microsoft) and Emergent Change Theory the blog provides a vital roadmap. It proves that HR's future role is not to administer checklists but to be a strategic facilitator of continuous learning and adaptive workforce strategies.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your thoughtful and detailed feedback! I’m glad the critique of traditional planned change models and the focus on modern, adaptive alternatives resonated with you. You’ve perfectly highlighted the shift from HR as a process administrator to HR as a strategic facilitator of continuous learning and adaptability. It’s encouraging to hear that the examples of Google and Microsoft helped illustrate how iterative, people-centered approaches can guide organizations in today’s complex, fast-paced environment. Your reflections truly capture the essence of the blog.
DeleteThe limitations of traditional planned change models are clearly and methodically examined in this blog, which highlights problems including the erroneous assumption of stability, an excessive focus on linear stages, and a disregard for organizational politics and employee involvement. These illustrations show how HR can go beyond inflexible plans to support inclusive, flexible, and politically conscious change. To make the conversation even more practical for practitioners, one recommendation would be to quickly address how HR may gauge the success of these contemporary strategies using measures like employee engagement, adoption speed, or innovation outcomes.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your insightful and practical feedback! I’m glad the examination of traditional planned change models and their limitations resonated with you. You’ve captured an important point. HR’s role goes beyond rigid plans to enabling inclusive, flexible, and politically aware change. I also appreciate your suggestion on measuring the success of contemporary strategies through engagement, adoption speed, and innovation outcomes these metrics really help translate theory into actionable practice. Your reflections add valuable depth to the discussion.
DeleteThis blog provides a well-developed and critical analysis of the limitations of classical planned change models, highlighting their assumptions of stability, rationality, and linearity. The discussion effectively connects these critiques to contemporary organizational realities, where change is continuous, politically complex, and often emergent. By introducing modern perspectives such as logical incrementalism, coalition building, and iterative change approaches, the article offers relevant alternatives that better align with dynamic environments. The examples from Google and Microsoft further strengthen the practical relevance. Overall, the blog presents a thoughtful and theoretically grounded evaluation of how HRM can adopt more adaptive, participatory, and context-sensitive approaches to managing change.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your thoughtful and detailed reflections! I’m glad the critique of classical planned change models and the connection to today’s complex, continuous change environments resonated with you. You’ve captured perfectly how modern approaches like logical incrementalism, coalition building, and iterative change provide more adaptive and participatory alternatives. It’s also great to hear that the examples from Google and Microsoft helped illustrate the practical relevance of these frameworks. Your feedback reinforces the importance of context-sensitive HR strategies in driving successful organizational change.
DeleteHi Chiranthi, what really resonated with me in this blog is the reminder that modern HRM is no longer just about managing change but actively shaping the conditions that allow change to breathe, evolve, and self-correct. The way you contrast rigid, step-driven models with adaptive frameworks like incrementalism and emergent change shows how crucial it is for HR to foster cultures that learn in motion rather than pause to "refreeze." I found it particularly interesting how you position HR as a connector of power, voice, and experimentation, something organizations often underestimate but deeply need in volatile environments. A very insightful perspective on the future of change leadership.
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your thoughtful reflections! I’m glad the idea of HR shaping the conditions for change, rather than just managing it, resonated with you. Your recognition of adaptive frameworks like incrementalism and emergent change really captures the shift toward learning-in-motion cultures. I also appreciate your note on HR as a connector of power, voice, and experimentation this is exactly the kind of people-centered perspective that makes change both sustainable and effective. Your feedback truly reinforces the vision I aimed to convey for the future of change leadership.
DeleteGreat post! I really like how you highlight the gap between traditional planned change models and the fast-moving reality organizations operate in today. The point about “refreezing” being unrealistic is spot on — most companies barely have time to stabilize before the next change hits. Your examples of logical incrementalism and coalition building make the modern approaches feel practical and relatable. For HR, the takeaway is clear: change isn’t about rigid plans anymore, it’s about flexibility, learning, and supporting people through uncertainty. Really insightful read!
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughtful feedback! I’m glad the discussion on the gap between traditional models and today’s fast-paced reality resonated with you. Your point about “refreezing” really captures the challenge organizations face, and I’m happy the examples of logical incrementalism and coalition building helped make modern approaches practical and relatable. I completely agree HR’s role today is about fostering flexibility, continuous learning, and supporting people through uncertainty. Your reflections really reinforce the key message of the blog.
DeleteExcellent article! this article elucidated the limitations of traditional change models, such as Lewin's, in the context of today's fast-paced and uncertain environment. It highlighted modern approaches like Quinn's incrementalism, Kotter's coalition building, and emergent change, which offer flexibility, encourage employee participation, and promote continuous learning.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciate your thoughtful feedback! I’m glad the discussion on the limitations of traditional models like Lewin’s resonated with you. It’s great to hear that the modern approaches Quinn’s incrementalism, Kotter’s coalition building, and emergent change came across as practical, flexible, and people centered. Your reflections reinforce the importance of fostering participation and continuous learning in today’s fast-paced organizational environments.
DeleteChiranthi, this essay offers a timely critique of traditional models like Lewin, showing why they fall short in today’s fast-moving and uncertain environment. Your use of Quinn’s incrementalism, Kotter’s coalition building, and emergent change highlights how modern approaches enable flexibility, participation, and continuous learning. The examples from Microsoft and Google clearly illustrate how HR can champion people-centred, adaptive transformation. A clear and relevant analysis for contemporary change management.
ReplyDelete