This talk explores whether theories in Organisational Change are based on facts or fiction & how we can build a more evidence-based approach The aim of these monthly talks is to crowd-source a body of knowledge from people who have experience in Organisational Change. To build this body of knowledge I aim to cover the following topics over the coming months: History of Organisational Change - this seems like a logical place to start to assess the current body of knowledge and tease out areas that need to be worked on Adopting a Scientific Mindset - we need a systematic way of building knowledge and challenging our beliefs Myths of Organisational Change - this will be an exploration into current Organisational Change beliefs and whether they fit with the way we want to build our knowledge base Definition and Structure - maybe the most difficult part. How do we agree axioms on which to build our practice? Change capabilities - this is the body of evidence - a set of capabilities that organisations need to develop to be able to change. The fun bit would be working together to constantly test the effectiveness of these capabilities constantly enhancing our body of knowledge

1. Adopting a Scientific Mindset in
Organisational Change
Join the conversation 7-9pm 6th April 2022
Presented by Alex Boulting
The aim of these monthly talks is to
crowd-source a body of knowledge from
people who have experience in
Organisational Change.

2. Enemas
1960’s Doctor
Using methods from the
1800’s ?
1800’s

3. A scientific approach to entrepreneurial decision making
Camuffo, A., Cordova, A., Gambardella, A., & Spina, C. (2020). A scientific approach to entrepreneurial decision making: Evidence from a randomized control trial. Management
Science, 66(2), 564-586.
“Scientific” problem framing = to frame, identify, and validate
the problem; to formulate falsifiable hypotheses; and to test
them in a rigorous fashion, including defining valid and reliable
metrics and establishing clear thresholds for concluding whether
a hypothesis is corroborated or not

4. Blowing Smoke Up our Arses

5. Peak of “Mount Stupid”
Confidence
Competence
High
Low
Know-nothing Guru
Valley of Despair
Slope of
Enlightenment
Plateu of
Sustainability
Knowledge - Experience
Dunning-Kruger Effect

6. Today’s Session

8. What do we mean by Science?

9. What is Science?
pursuit and application of knowledge and
understanding of the natural and social world
following a systematic methodology based on
evidence.

10. SCIENCE
Logic
Evidence-Based
Objective
Continuity
Numbers Bias
Slow
Effortful
Serial
Rule Governed
Flexible-learning
Theory Tester
Reductionism
Aristotle
System 2
Intuition
Experience-Based
Subjective
Novelty
Authority Bias
Fast
Effortless
Parallel
Associative
Slow-learning
Theory Builder
Holism
Plato
System 1
ART
Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality: A perspective on intuitive judgment and choice. Nobel prize lecture, 8, 351-401.

11. 04 Methods
Tools we use to collate
knowledge e.g., survey,
interviews
03 Methodology
The lens/procedure we
use to test our
knowledge e.g., survey,
case study, action
research
02 Epistemology
How we organise & collate our
knowledge e.g., positivism or
interpretivism
01 Ontology
Ways in which we judge
whether something is
knowledge e.g., objective or
subjective
Whatever you believe, we need evidence
Body Of Knowledge

12. Adopting a Scientific Mindset – nothing new
“though science is slow and fumbling, it represents the best road we know to truth, even in
so delicately intricate an area as that of human relationships.”
Carl Rogers – 1942 - Counseling and Psychotherapy
“Psychologists who think in field theoretical terms and those who think in stimulus response terms
agree that psychological explanations have to use "constructs" and that psychological theory has
to be mathematical in nature ”
Kurt Lewin – 1943 – Definition of Field Theory
“The art develops through empirical experience but in time ceases to grow because of the
disorganised state of its knowledge” “But as long as there is no orderly underlying scientific base the
experiences remain as special cases. The lesson’s are poorly transferable either in time
or space”
.
Jay Forrester – 1961 – Industrial Dynamics
01
02
03

13. How do we know?

14. Is this a Valid Construct…?
COHERENCE
Definition + Scope + Relationship = Coherence and CONSTRUCT VALIDITY. How can we claim to
have a body of knowledge if we don’t have valid constructs?
RELATIONSHIP
No construct is an island so where is the body of knowledge that underpins Kotter & ADKAR when they
have no (or few) references in their books.
SCOPE
Space = Kubler Ross extrapolation from grief counselling to Organisational Change, Time = Kotter’s
19thC model applied to 20thC problems and Values Judgements = “brains hate change” extrapolation
from Neuroscience
DEFINITION
Precise distinctions from other concepts. Change Management = “people side of change” – a circular
tautology or clear definition?
Suddaby, R. 2010. Construct clarity in theories of management and organization. Academy of Management Review, 35: 346-357.
Construct = an abstract categorisation of observations - exist in our brain only ;)

15. 1
2
3
4
5
Context & Complexity
Change & Performance
Time & History
Pacing & Receptivity
Scholars & Practitioners
Pacing & Readiness
Scholars & Practitioners
What patterns from past changes can we use to help
understand current change?
How can we get better at linking change to
organisational performance? How do we know what
worked in which context?
How do the internal & external conditions, content of
the change and timescales affect change success?
Does the order affect the outcome? Where does
change start & what is the organisation’s readiness?
Is sustaining different from starting? Is change
episodic or continuous?
How should they work together to form a body of
knowledge? How do we critically examine our
practice?
What we still need to get better at…?
Pettigrew, A. M., Woodman, R. W., & Cameron, K. S. (2001). Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of management journal, 44(4), 697-713.
Improved
Understanding
of
Organisational
Change

16. Reasons not to adopt
Evidence Based Practices?
“organisational
change is just
theories”
"All models are
wrong, but some
are useful.”
“don’t throw the
baby out with the
bath water.”
“change
management is an
art, not a science”
“complex systems
are not causal or
predictable”.
“it is ‘soft’ not a
‘hard’ science “

17. What is the problem?

18. What is the problem?
we don’t have a
solution

19. What behaviours do we
observe?
Patterns - Methods
What are the inter-
relationships ?
Structures - Methodology
What assumptions need to be
challenged?
Mental Models – Epistemology
What is type of organisation do
you want to be?
Values – Ontology
01
02
03
04
What just happened?
Events
00
Anticipate behavioural change
from underlying structures
Design the system to give the
desired behaviours
Transformation changes what is
possible
Vision & Strategic Direction steers
the narrative behind the
transformation
React – Do today’s solutions become
tomorrows problems ?
LEARNING
&
LEVERAGE
CHANGE
Systems Thinking = Scientific Thinking
A discipline for seeing wholes
19
Goodman, M. (1997). Systems thinking:
What, why, when, where, and how. The
systems thinker, 8(2), 6-7.

20. Would we miss this Myths?
20

21. Is this how we want to be?
Negative, excessive
truth claims based on
cognitive bias &
authority not high-
quality evidence
Claims
Unchallengeable beliefs
based on over
simplified, biased view
of how people &
organisations change
Beliefs
Pretence of knowledge
based on delusion of
rigours research &
anecdotal evidence
Knowledge
Poor quality theories
influence practice &
managers adopt the
theorists’ world view
Assumptions
Negative false
assumptions become
real through their
practice.
A self-fulfilling
prophecy
Behaviour
HALO EFFECTS
SILVER BULLETS
SOLUTIONEERING
LACK OF EVIDENCE
DISPROVEN THEORIES
OVER SIMPLICATIONS
UNFALSIFIABLE CLAIMS
BLUEPRINTS OF SUCCESS
DELUSION OF RIGOROUS
RESEARCH
EXTRAORDINARY
EXTRAPOLATIONS
Failed or difficult organisational change programmes confirm our beliefs
Body of Knowledge built on disproven theories & poor quality evidence
Experiences are fitted to disproven or poor quality ‘theories’ making us blind to underlying structures
and patterns within organisations creating a stagnant body of knowledge
Adapted from Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management learning & education, 4(1), 75-91.

22. Reasoned truth claims
based on body of high-
quality evidence
Claims
Challengeable beliefs
based on logical,
consistent & verifiable
view of how people &
organisations change
Beliefs
Built on constant
testing & challenging
our assumptions and
intuition
Knowledge
Theories that are
constantly revised to
reflect our observations
of ‘reality’
Assumptions
Constant
experimentation
contributing to robust
body of knowledge
Behaviour
BELIEFS BOUNDED BY PHYSICS
CLEAR DEFINITIONS
VALIDATED MEASURES
TESTABLE CLAIMS
ORDINARY INTERPOLATIONS
RIGOUROUS RESEARCH
PREDICTIVE VALIDITY
OPERABILITY
ETHICAL USE
Understanding success & failure that drive our confidence in our practice
Body of Knowledge built on robust theories & high quality evidence
Experiences are used to challenge or confirm theories allowing us to see underlying structures and
patterns within complex situations helping us build robust body of knowledge
A better alternative?

23. Why do we believe what we believe?

24. Logic
Intuition
Evidence
Systems
Internal External

25. Getting the complete picture
Sensory Input
(‘New’ Evidence)
Current ‘Beliefs’ Future Beliefs
Organisational
Academic
Stakeholder
Our Knowledge
Our Experience
Our Current
model of the
world
New mental
model of the
world
Organisation’s most
likely situation

27. SENSING (Being)
We optimise our beliefs
(prior expectations) given
information from our
environment
Sight Sound Smell
Touch
Inferred
Estimate
Future Mental
Model
Prior
expectation
Inferred
Estimate
Prior
expectation
Increasing
conceptual
energy used
through
perception to
create
information &
certainty
Increasing
physical
energy
(glucose)
used to
create order
Our bias determines what we sample
Current
Mental Model
Active Inference
You can change your mind or change your data
ACTING (Doing)
We ‘play back’ our beliefs
(inference) to check our
understanding of the
environment
SURPRISE
Difference between prior
belief and actual
observation
NOVELTY
Not having prior beliefs
about a situation

28. How do mythbeliefs come about?

29. 04
05
06
Cutting edge consultants
extrapolate findings to wide
applications
Managers become the evangelists
resulting in self-fulfilling prophecies
Review of original findings sows
scepticism. Concept now makes
consultants look outdated. Everyone
smartly moves on.
Academic
Discovery 01
02
03
A modest cautious complicated contextual
discovery showing a causal link between
two factors.
High powered simplified presentation
embellishing the ‘discovery’ creates a
‘buzz’ & repetition makes it stronger
One idea becomes a book
released by a ‘guru’ with a catchy
title
Doubt
&
Defection
Cult-like Following
Consultancy Hype
Popularisation
Study Description
Pop psychology
The Fad & Fashion Funnel
“Thinking scientifically is a
skill. Scepticism is healthy;
cynicism is not. In order to be
a discriminating “purchaser” of
management ideas we need
to evaluate the evidence for
them.“
Fads and Fashions in Management - July 20,
2015 - Adrian Furnham Professor of
Psychology University College London –
European Business Review

30. 10 Problems with N-step Change Models
Mental Models
Time
to
Change?
Practice
Lack Of
Evidence
Out Of Date
Extraordinary
Extrapolations
Gloomy Vision
Self Fulfilling
Top Down
Project Based
Closed
Episodic
Linear

31. 31
Mind The Gap (in our Knowledge)!

32. Individual Level
- Individual Change Readiness
- Motivating Change
- Organisational Fairness Perceptions
- Organisational Identification
Group Level
- High Quality Connections
- Emergent Local Changes
- Supervisory Support
- Shared Goals & Beliefs
Organisation Level
- Leadership Competency
- Trust In Leaders
- Nature of the Change
- Organisational Change Readiness
BEST AVAILABLE
EVIDENCE
1. Understand Get The Facts On The Nature of the
Problem
2. Understand Assess & Address Readiness for Change
3. Develop & Communicate a Compelling Vision
4. Develop Effective Change Leadership
5. Implement : Evidence-Based Change Interventions
6. Support : Work with Social Networks and Tap Their
Influence
7. Support : Use Enabling Practices to Support
Implementation
8. Realise : Promote Micro-Processes and
Experimentation
9. Realise : Change Progress and Outcomes over Time
10. Institutionalize the Change to Sustain Its
Effectiveness
INTEGRATED EVIDENCE BASED
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE
PRINCIPLES
Stouten, J., Rousseau, D. M., & De Cremer, D. (2018). Successful organizational change: Integrating the management
practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 12(2), 752-788.
ten Have, S., ten Have, W., Huijsmans, A. B., & Otto, M. (2016). Reconsidering change management: Applying
evidence-based insights in change management practice. Routledge.
Integrated Organisational Change Model
32
2 Kanter, Stein, and Jick’s Ten Commandments
POPULAR
ORGANISATIONAL
CHANGE MODELS 1
1 Except for Kotter’s 8 Steps none of these models have been empirically tested
3 Appreciative Inquiry

33. Challenging
Status Quo
Creating Pain
Urgency Continuum
Not Accepting BAU
“Strong and widespread
felt need for change
although the direction of
change is not clear yet
Phillips” (1983)
Sense of
Concern
“To break open the shell of
complacency and
self‐righteousness it is
sometimes necessary to
bring about an emotional
stir up”. Lewin (1943)
Organisations are
“canyons of complacency”
Kotter (2012)
Emotional
Stir-up
“support for attitudes have
to be undermined and
destroyed if change is to
take place.” Schein (1962)
Destroy
Attitudes
“Orchestrating pain
messages throughout an
institution is the first step in
developing organisational
commitment to change”
Conner
‘create a crisis’ Kotter
(2012)
Create a Crisis
Do we know what we are talking about?
“Hiatt (2006) warns against overselling change by putting too much stress on the urgency of every change—reducing
credibility. Similarly, Kanter et al. (1992: 383) caution that messages of urgency might appear to “cry wolf” and fail to induce a
felt need for change.“
Stouten, J., Rousseau, D. M., & De Cremer, D. (2018). Successful organizational change: Integrating the management practice and scholarly literatures. Academy of
Management Annals, 12(2), 752-788.
“it is difficult to make much
progress…of a major
change effort unless most
managers honestly believe
that the status quo is
unacceptable” (p51) (2012)

34. Spotting a dodgy concept
01
02
03
04
05
LOGICALLY POSSIBLE
UNIQUELY & CLEARLY
DEFINED
MEANINGFUL MEASURES
PREDICABLE
ETHICAL
We cannot defy the laws of physics so there are no
miracles. Equally there is no ‘truth’ so there must be a
possibility of it being wrong.
Vague definitions are hard to disprove. New ideas might
be ‘old wine in new bottles’ which creates confusion and
narrows our understanding.
Clear terminology so that results can be reproduced by
others. Need to measure what we claim to observe. Does it
feel overly complicated?
Operationalising a construct means that it can consistently
predict outcomes and is testable. Is it correlation or causality?
Do we feel comfortable doing this even if it works? What impact will it
have on other factors?

35. What can we do?

36. What is it?

39. Humility
Discovery
Curiosity
Doubt
To the Rethinking Cycle
Adopting a Scientific Mindset
Pride
Confirmation &
Desirability Bias
Conviction
Validation
From the Over Confidence Cycle
Hating being wrong Loving being less wrong

40. Quasi Experiments = Action Research
More confident in causal
claims
Understanding effects over
time
Minimize ethical issues
Academic & practitioner
collaboration
Use context to explain
findings
01
02
03
04
05
Creating
Change
Grant, A. M., & Wall, T. D. (2009). The neglected science and art of quasi-experimentation: Why-to, when-to, and
how-to advice for organizational researchers. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 653-686.

41. Critical Questions to increase Confidence in Causal Claims
What is the causal hypothesis of interest?
Where can I find a change in the independent variable that is occurring naturally or being induced in an
organization?
Where and how can I measure the dependent variable before and after this change?
If my hypothesis is supported, what alternative explanations may account for it?
How can I use multiple comparison groups and multiple measurement occasions to rule out (or support) these
alternative explanations?
How can I be sufficiently familiar with relevant contexts to understand and capitalize on opportunities that arise?

42. Continual Monitoring with meaningful
metrics
• Congruent - they need to align to your Strategic Directive. This helps
create a ‘line of sight’ between daily work and long-term goals making
work more than a job – the right metrics help give purpose and meaning.
• Connected to real improvements. Managers will engage with metrics
that guide their decisions & measure impact.
• Contextualised to the terrain. Different functions in different regions
will face different challenges. Targets need to take these nuances into
account.
Metrics become meaningful when they create conversations &
accountability. They become the language to facilitate learning.

43. 6 Benefits of A Scientific Mindset
Clarity & robustness of decision-making
allows organisations to quickly respond to
external challenges
.
AGILITY 01
as it creates a process to
understand & interrogate
decision-making
CONFIDENCE 06
because decision-making
processes have integrity &
gravitas
TRUST 02
Creates transparency &
objectivity around decision-
making
FAIRNESS 05
clear decision-making
structures creates efficacy,
agency & autonomy
EMPOWERMENT 03
to organisational values such as respect &
fairness
CONGRUENCE 04