The Enterprise Change Office

Main Menu

A Definition Of Organisational Change

No single, universally accepted definition of organisational change exists. Definitions differ, focusing on changes to structures, processes, technology, people, culture, strategy, or performance. This variation raises a key question: what must change for an organisation’s change to count as organisational change?

Contents
Introduction

Clear definitions are important because they clarify what is changing, why it is changing, and how to distinguish different types of change.

What Is Organisational Change?

Within this website, organisational change is defined as:

“The adaptation of an organisation’s Enterprise System and, where necessary, its Governing Logic to enable the realisation of its strategy and objectives.”

This definition positions organisational change within the broader context of strategy, organisational capability, and Operational Continuity. The following sections explain this relationship.

Alternative Definitions of Organisational Change

Review alternative perspectives on organisational change and consider how they relate to the definition used here.

Make The Comparison

What Is Organisational Change Management?

If organisational change defines what is being adapted and why, organisational change management addresses how to achieve that adaptation.

Within this website’s framework, Organisational Change Management is:

“The coordinated leadership, governance, design, delivery and change engagement through which organisational change is conceived, directed, implemented, adopted and sustained.”

Organisational change management is an enterprise activity that integrates leadership, decision-making, specialist practices, and delivery capabilities to achieve change. It is not limited to a single role, function, or practitioner.

Various practice areas contribute expertise to this activity. In this framework, these include Initiative Management, Change Architecture, and Change Engagement, all integrated and supported by the Enterprise Change Office.

Different Meanings of Change Management

The term Change Management has varying scopes. Consider how these differences affect what is included in the practice areas.

Explore The Distinction

Strategy Is Executed And Realised Through Operational Continuity

This website maintains that strategy is predominantly executed and realised through the organisation’s ongoing activities. Goods are produced, services delivered, customers and citizens served, assets managed and decisions made. It is through these activities that organisational capabilities are put to work to achieve strategic objectives and create value.

This continuing use of organisational capability is referred to on this website as Operational Continuity. The term is preferred over Business As Usual (BAU), with the rationale explained here. Operational Continuity includes the continuing adjustments and improvements through which organisations respond to changing circumstances.

When Organisational Change Becomes Necessary

As strategy evolves, the organisation may need capabilities it does not currently possess, or it may need to adapt existing capabilities. Where these requirements cannot adequately be met through Operational Continuity, organisational change may become necessary.

Organisational change therefore enables strategy execution by developing or adapting the capabilities through which the organisation operates. Its purpose is not simply to deliver initiatives, but to enable the organisation to operate in ways that better support its strategy and objectives. The resulting value is realised mainly when those capabilities are put to work through Operational Continuity.

The Enterprise System And Governing Logic

The capabilities used through Operational Continuity are provided by what this website terms the organisation’s Enterprise System, comprising its Culture, Business Model, Value Chain and Operating Model. Where new or modified capabilities are required, organisational change may involve adapting one or more of these interconnected elements.

The Enterprise System is itself shaped by what this website terms the organisation’s Governing Logic: the underlying principles and assumptions that influence how the organisation creates value, exercises authority, allocates resources, manages accountability and makes strategic choices. Although Governing Logic and the Enterprise System influence one another, they represent two distinct levels of organisational capability. Occasionally, the existing Governing Logic may itself need to be reconsidered because it constrains the organisation’s ability to pursue its evolving strategy.

The relationship between these two constructs, and their roots in established organisational thinking, is explored here.

The Two Orders Of Organisational Change

The distinction between the Enterprise System and Governing Logic underpins this website’s two orders of organisational change.

Where the existing Governing Logic remains appropriate, but capabilities within the Enterprise System need to be developed, adapted or replaced, this website describes the response as First-Order Change. Where the suitability of the Governing Logic itself is called into question, Second-Order Change may be required.

The distinction matters because the two orders require fundamentally different mindsets and approaches. First-Order Change can generally proceed by understanding the capability gap, defining the problem and developing an appropriate response. Second-Order Change may require exploration and learning before the organisation can establish whether its Governing Logic needs to change and what future capabilities might be appropriate.

The distinction is therefore not primarily one of scale, cost or disruption, but of the organisational level at which change may be required. The implications for how each order should be approached are explored here.

Explore More

When Did Transformation Become Just Another Meaningless Buzzword

Transformation now describes almost every kind of change. This article examines how the term lost precision and proposes a more useful way of distinguishing between system change and genuinely transformational change.

Organisational Change Practice Areas

Organisational change is defined in many different ways. Explore the definition adopted by this website and the reasoning behind it.

From Strategy To Organisational Change

How strategic intent is translated into Business Needs, organisational-change priorities and the capabilities required to realise the organisation's objectives.
error: Content is protected !!

Different Meanings Of Change Management

Change management can broadly refer to managing organisational change, or more specifically to specialist practices focused on people and behavioural aspects. The following definitions offer two perspectives for comparison with this website’s definition.

Harvard Business School Online (HBSO) is Harvard Business School’s digital learning platform, offering interactive, case-based courses that make the school’s business education accessible to learners worldwide.

Definition

HBSO defines organisational change management as:

“The process of guiding organizational change to a successful resolution, and it typically includes three major phases: preparation, implementation, and follow-through.”

Source: What Is Organisational Change? (Retrieved 31 July 2026)

Commentary

The HBS Online definition presents organisational change management as a process that extends from preparation through implementation to follow-through. It provides a clear, accessible description of the key phases of change management.

The current webpage’s definition builds on that perspective by identifying the coordinated leadership, governance, design, delivery, and change engagement required throughout the change lifecycle. It also emphasises adoption and sustainability, recognising that successful organisational change depends not simply on implementation, but on embedding new ways of operating and realising the intended benefits.

The Change Management Institute is an international professional association dedicated to advancing change management. It promotes professional standards, practitioner accreditation, continuing professional development and knowledge sharing.

Definition

The Change Management Institute defines change management as:

“Change management represents a domain of principles and practices that enable stakeholders of change to adopt the mindsets, behaviours and capabilities required for that change to deliver full business value. It focuses on people.”

Source: What is Change Management? (Retrieved 31 July 2026)

Commentary

The Change Management Institute places people at the centre of change management. Its definition emphasises enabling stakeholders to adopt the mindsets, behaviours, and capabilities needed for change to deliver value.

Within the current webpage’s framework, this is an important specialist practice in organisational change management, but not the whole picture. Organisational change also requires leadership, governance, design, and coordinated delivery of changes to the Enterprise System and, if needed, its Governing Logic.

End Of Expandable Content

From These Alternative Definitions to This Framework's Definition

The current webpage defines Organisational Change Management as:

“The coordinated leadership, governance, design, delivery, and change engagement through which organisations conceive, direct, implement, adopt, and sustain change.”

Within Organisational Change Management, Change Engagement refers to the specialist practice focused on the human and behavioural aspects of organisational change. Change Engagement uses evidence-based analysis to understand adoption conditions and guide the design, recommendation, and evaluation of interventions that support lasting behavioural change.

The distinction is about scope, not importance. Change Engagement is a key part of Organisational Change Management, alongside leadership, governance, Change Architecture, and Initiative Management, but it is not the whole practice.

This is best viewed on a tablet or above – close popup

Alternative Definitions Of Organisational Change

No single definition of organisational change is universally accepted. Different definitions highlight various aspects of what changes within an organisation and how it happens. The following definitions offer two perspectives for comparison with this website’s definition.

Harvard Business School Online (HBSO) is Harvard Business School’s digital learning platform, offering interactive, case-based courses that make the school’s business education accessible to learners worldwide.

Definition

HBSO defines organisational change as:

“The actions in which a company or business alters a major component of its organization, such as company culture, the underlying technologies or infrastructure it uses to operate, or its internal processes.”

Source: What Is Organisational Change? (Retrieved 31 July 2026)

Commentary

The HBS Online definition usefully identifies the organisational components that may change, but its reference to a “major component” is ambiguous. HBS Online also recognises small, incremental adaptive changes but does not explain when an alteration becomes sufficiently significant to qualify as organisational change.

In the framework of this website, daschange.info, scale alone does not determine whether an adaptation constitutes organisational change. Even limited changes to the Enterprise System may qualify. Instead, organisations categorise and manage change based on scale, complexity, uncertainty, and strategic significance.

More importantly, HBS Online distinguishes adaptive from transformational change primarily by scale and scope, without addressing the level at which change occurs. Two questions therefore remain: what qualifies as organisational change, and at what organisational level does it occur?

In the framework of this website, daschange.info, even substantial change remains First-Order if the organisation’s Governing Logic remains appropriate. Transformation involves questioning or altering that underlying logic.

The Chartered Management Institute is a UK professional body for management and leadership. Its Royal Charter recognises its role in advancing management and leadership standards.

Definition

In the material considered here, Chartered Management Institute does not provide a separate formal definition of organisational change. Instead, in explaining change management, it describes managing change as:

“Accomplishing a transition from position A to position B and handling any problems which come up during the process. The process of change within organisations usually results from interactions between four major elements: equipment (technology); processes (working procedures); organisation structure; and people. Change to any one of these will inevitably lead to changes to the others, as organisations are complex inter-related systems.”

Source: Change Management (Retrieved 31 July 2026)

Commentary

Chartered Management Institute describes organisational change as a transition between states, recognising the interdependence of technology, processes, structure and people. This valuable systems perspective is particularly applicable when the desired future state and change objectives are reasonably clear.

However, the A-to-B approach suits situations less well when underlying assumptions must be questioned, and future arrangements emerge through exploration and learning. CMI does not explicitly distinguish adaptation of the Enterprise System from changes to its Governing Logic. Consequently, it offers less analytical support for Second-Order Change, where both the destination and underlying logic may be uncertain.

End Of Expandable Content

From These Alternative Definitions to This Framework's Definition

HBS Online emphasises what may change, while the Chartered Management Institute highlights how organisational elements depend on one another and transition between states. Both offer useful perspectives, but this framework distinguishes between adapting an organisation within its existing principles and assumptions and changing those underlying principles and assumptions. Scale, cost, complexity and disruption do not determine this distinction: even substantial organisational change may not be transformational if the underlying Governing Logic remains unchanged.

For this reason, the definition adopted by this website distinguishes explicitly between the Enterprise System and the Governing Logic:

“Organisational change is the adaptation of an organisation’s Enterprise System and, where necessary, its Governing Logic to enable the realisation of its strategy and objectives.”

The Enterprise System is the primary focus of organisational adaptation, while Governing Logic provides an additional level of analysis, distinguishing adaptation within existing logic from changes to that logic. This distinction underpins the differentiation between First-Order Change and Second-Order Change explored elsewhere on this website.

This is best viewed on a tablet or above – close popup

The Potential Weaknesses Of An Organisational Change Playbook

Some of the potential weaknesses of an Organisational Change Playbook and possible mitigations are addressed below.

Potential Weakness Mitigation
Bureaucracy and unnecessary work Lean processes, proportionate governance, and only the documentation necessary.
Rigidity and reduced agility Explicit tailoring provisions, alternative approaches and professional judgement within defined governance boundaries.
False confidence in competence Defined competence requirements, appropriate training, specialist support, assurance and escalation arrangements.
Outdated or ineffective guidance Accountable stewardship, regular review, feedback from practice and evidence-based improvement.
Fragmentation and duplication A coherent process architecture linking activities, decisions, responsibilities, methods and information.
Limited use in practice Integrate with normal management activities, provide accessible guidance, set leadership expectations, and offer practical support.
Disproportionate costs Assess organisational need, develop incrementally, and evaluate the value delivered.

Figure best viewed on tablet or above

These mitigations reduce risks but do not guarantee Playbook effectiveness. Its value depends on the quality of underlying practices, user competence, and leadership’s willingness to address deficiencies.

Does First-Order And Second-Order Change Still Apply?

First-Order and Second-Order Change were developed long before current descriptions of organisational environments such as VUCA (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, Ambiguity) and BANI (Brittle, Anxious, Nonlinear, Incomprehensible). Organisations are now seen as continually adapting, rather than moving episodically between stable states. It is therefore reasonable to question whether a distinction from an earlier context remains useful.

The distinction remains relevant because First-Order Change does not necessarily mean simple, predictable, or incremental change. It can be extensive, continuous, complicated, complex, emergent, and highly uncertain. Organisations may repeatedly adapt structures, processes, technologies, and ways of working while their underlying organisational order remains intact.

VUCA and BANI may increase the frequency, interconnectedness, and unpredictability of adaptation. However, neither uncertainty nor complexity determines the order of change. An organisation can experiment, learn, and adapt continuously without fundamentally changing its organisational order.

Second-Order Change identifies a qualitatively different situation: the underlying organisational order itself becomes subject to reconsideration and potential change. Developments in markets, technology, regulation, societal expectations or other conditions may eventually challenge fundamental assumptions about how an organisation creates value, understands its identity, exercises authority, allocates resources or determines accountability. Adaptation within the existing order may then no longer be sufficient.

The boundary is not always clear. Successive First-Order adaptations may gradually challenge the existing organisational order. However, uncertainty, emergent outcomes, or experimentation alone do not make change Second-Order. The distinction lies in the level at which change occurs, not its size, frequency, or predictability.

Although the organisational environment has changed since these concepts were introduced, the distinction remains relevant. In fact, under ongoing uncertainty and adaptation, distinguishing between change within an existing order and change to that order may be even more important.

Linda Ackerman and Three Types of Change

Linda Ackerman developed an influential distinction between Developmental, Transitional and Transformational Change in Ackerman (1986). At the time, she was primarily an Organisation Development practitioner and consultant.

Ackerman defined Developmental Change as improving existing conditions. Transitional Change involves moving from a current state to a clearly defined new state, with the transition managed over a controlled period. In contrast, Transformational Change results in a fundamentally different state that emerges over time and cannot be fully specified in advance.

This distinction means Transformational Change is qualitatively different from improving an existing organisation or implementing a predetermined design. Figure 2 illustrates these three forms.

Developmental Change Improvement of what is; new state is a prescribed enhancement of the old state. 26_11
Transitional Change Design and implementation of a desired new state that solves an old state problem; requires management of the transition process to dismantle the old state while putting in place the new state; managed timetable. 26_12
Transformational Change

Market requirements force fundamental changes in strategy, operations, and worldview.

New state is unknown - it emerges from visioning, trial and error discovery, and learnings.

New state requires fundamental shift in mindset, organising principles, behaviour, and or culture, as well as organisational changes, all designed to support new business directions.

Critical mass of organisation must operate from new mindset and behaviour for transformation to succeed and new business model or direction to be sustained.

 		26_13

Figure best viewed on tablet or above

Adapted from Ackerman (1986) and Ackerman Anderson (2016) 

Figure 2: Ackerman’s Classification Of Change

On this website, daschange.info, Ackerman’s Developmental and Transitional Change are interpreted as forms of First-Order System Change, while her Transformational Change is interpreted as Second-Order Transformational Change. This is an analytical mapping made within this website and is not part of Ackerman’s original model:

  • Developmental and Transitional Change are treated as forms of First-Order Change because both can occur while the underlying organisational order remains substantially intact.
  • Transformational Change is associated with Second-Order Change, where that underlying organisational order itself becomes subject to reconsideration and potential change, and the eventual future state cannot necessarily be specified in advance.

References

Ackerman, L. S. (1986) ‘Development, Transition, or Transformation: The Question of Change in Organizations’, OD Practitioner, 18(4), pp. 1–8.

Ackerman Anderson, L. (2016) ‘Organization Development and Transformation: What It Takes’, in Rothwell, W.J., Stavros, J.M. and Sullivan, R.L. (eds.) Practicing Organization Development: Leading Transformation and Change. 4th edn. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 60–78

Jean Bartunek And Michael Moch And The Orders Of Change

The Organisational Development scholars Jean Bartunek and Michael Moch developed the distinction between different orders of organisational change from a cognitive perspective. In Bartunek and Moch (1987), they examined how schemata could help explain different forms of organisational change.

Schemata are organising frameworks people use to understand and interpret events. Bartunek and Moch described First-Order Change as incremental change occurring within schemata already shared by organisational members. Second-Order Change involves modification of those shared schemata themselves.

They also introduced Third-Order Change, which they described as developing the capacity of an organisation’s members to recognise their existing schemata and change them as circumstances require.

Their work suggests that fundamental organisational change may require changes to the shared frameworks through which organisational reality is understood, rather than only to structures, processes or behaviours.

References

Bartunek, J. M. & Moch, M. K. (1987) ‘First-Order, Second-Order, and Third-Order Change and Organization Development Interventions: A Cognitive Approach’, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23(4), pp. 483–500.

Amir Levy And Second-Order Change

Amir Levy was an organisational theorist whose work in the 1980s helped apply First-Order and Second-Order Change specifically to organisations.

Levy (1986) distinguished between change within an existing organisational framework and Second-Order Change, which involves more fundamental organisational transformation. Together with Uri Merry, he further developed these ideas in Levy and Merry (1986), examining organisational transformation through perspectives including organisational paradigms, culture, myths, purpose, and approaches to managing Second-Order Change.

Their work reinforced an important distinction: organisational transformation concerns a qualitative shift in the organisation and its underlying paradigm, rather than simply the quantity, scale or difficulty of change undertaken.

References

Levy, A. (1986) ‘Second-Order Planned Change: Definition and Conceptualization’, Organizational Dynamics, 15(1), pp. 5–23.

Levy, A. & Merry, U. (1986) Organizational Transformation: Approaches, Strategies, and Theories. New York: Praeger.

Paul Watzlawick And The Two Orders Of Change

Paul Watzlawick was a psychologist, communication theorist and influential figure at the Mental Research Institute in Palo Alto, California. Working with John Weakland and Richard Fisch, he drew on systems theory to examine why attempts to solve problems sometimes leave the underlying conditions that generate them unchanged.

Watzlawick et al. (1974) distinguished between First-Order and Second-Order Change. First-Order Change occurs within an existing system: its components, behaviours or processes may change while the rules governing the system remain substantially intact. Second-Order Change alters the system itself by changing the rules, assumptions or relationships through which it operates.

This distinction provides an important conceptual foundation for the Two Orders of Organisational Change used within this website.

References

Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H. & Fisch, R. (1974) Change: Principles of Problem Formation and Problem Resolution. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Ecosystem

The Office of Government Commerce And P3O®

The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) was a UK government body established in 2000 to promote efficiency and best practices in public sector procurement, project management, and programme management. One of its significant contributions was the development of the P3O® (Portfolio, Programme, and Project Offices) framework, first published in 2008. This framework provides principles and guidance on designing and operating effective support structures for delivering change. P3O® was created in response to the growing need for organisations to align their strategies with execution and to standardise the roles of PMOs across different contexts.

In 2014, the stewardship of the OGC’s best practice portfolio was transferred to AXELOS, a joint venture between the UK Cabinet Office and Capita. AXELOS continues to maintain and publish the official P3O® guidance, with the most recent version being “Portfolio, Programme and Project Offices: P3O® Guidance” (AXELOS, 2013).

The guidance outlines a hierarchy of structures, which is summarised in Exhibit 1. It also notes that “projects” can stand alone and do not need to be part of a “programme”.

Exhibit 1: P30® Hierarchy