The Enterprise Change Office

Main Menu

Key Roles In Organisational Change

There is no single universally accepted definition of organisational change. Whilst the various perspectives offered by different authors provide valuable insights, they often emphasise particular aspects of organisations, including structures, processes, technology, people, culture, strategy or organisational performance.

Contents
Definition

Within this website, organisational change is defined as:

“The adaptation of an organisation’s Enterprise System and, where necessary, its Governance Logic to support the achievement of its strategy and objectives.”

Consequently, organisational change management is defined as:

“The coordinated leadership, governance, delivery, and engagement activities through which organisational change is conceived, governed, delivered, adopted, and sustained.”

The concepts developed throughout these pages form an integrated framework in which each idea builds upon those that precede it. A shared understanding of organisational change provides the foundation needed to distinguish between different forms of change, explain how the framework fits together, and identify the organisational capabilities required to support effective change.

Alternative Definitions Of Organisational Change

Compare how leading organisations define the concept and understand why this website adopts its own definition.

What Is Strategy?

This website defines strategy as what the organisation is seeking to achieve and how it intends to achieve it.

Organisations execute strategy through their Enterprise Ecosystem and the day-to-day operation of that ecosystem, referred to here as Operational Continuity. Organisational change becomes necessary when the current Enterprise System, or the enterprise’s Governance Logic, is no longer considered capable of supporting the achievement of the organisation’s strategy and objectives.

Without a clear understanding of strategy, it becomes difficult to determine whether organisational change is necessary, what form that change should take, or how success should be measured. A more detailed discussion of strategy and its relationship to organisational change is provided here.

The Enterprise System

This website uses the term Enterprise System to describe the interconnected elements through which an organisation creates, delivers, and sustains value. The Enterprise System comprises Culture, Business Model, Value Chain, and Operating Model. Collectively, these elements provide the organisational capabilities required to execute strategy and achieve objectives.

The term a system is used deliberately because these elements are highly interdependent. Changes to one element frequently influence the others, and organisational performance depends not only on the effectiveness of the individual elements but also on how they interact as a coherent whole.

The Enterprise System is explored further here.

Operational Continuity

Whilst the Enterprise System provides the capabilities required to create value, Operational Continuity exploits those capabilities through day-to-day activities. It is through Operational Continuity that customers are served, products and services are delivered, regulatory obligations are met, and value is created and delivered. Consequently, Operational Continuity is the primary mechanism by which strategy translates into tangible outcomes.

The concept of Operational Continuity is considered further here. The webpage also explores why the term Operational Continuity is preferred to the more commonly used phrase Business-As-Usual.

Governance Logic

Whilst the Enterprise Ecosystem describes how an organisation currently creates and delivers value, Governance Logic describes the underlying assumptions, principles, and decision-making mechanisms that shape how the organisation is directed and controlled. Governance Logic influences how resources are allocated, how authority is exercised, how risk is managed, how performance is assessed, and ultimately how organisational success is defined.

The concept of Governance Logic is explored further here.

The Two Orders of Organisational Change

Organisational change literature recognises that not all organisational change occurs at the same level. In some situations, change can be achieved by adapting elements of the Enterprise Ecosystem whilst preserving the existing Governance Logic. In other situations, the Governance Logic itself must change. This distinction gives rise to the concept of the Two Orders of Organisational Change:

Adapts elements of the existing Enterprise System whilst preserving the organisation’s underlying Governance Logic. Although processes, structures, technologies, capabilities, or ways of working may change, the fundamental assumptions about how the organisation creates value and governs itself remain intact. Most organisational change falls into this category because organisations continually refine and improve their capabilities without fundamentally redefining their identity or governing principles.

Occurs when the organisation’s existing Governance Logic is no longer capable of supporting its strategic needs. In these circumstances, the organisation must reconsider more fundamental questions concerning how value is created, delivered, governed, measured, or sustained. Rather than simply adapting elements of the Enterprise System, Second-Order Change challenges the assumptions that underpin the ecosystem itself and may result in a fundamentally different way of operating.

The distinction between the two orders of change is important because approaches that are effective for First-Order Change are not necessarily effective for Second-Order Change. Understanding which order of change is being undertaken, therefore, has significant implications for how change is led, governed, and executed.

The concepts of First-Order Change and Second-Order Change are explored further here.

Summary

Organisational change cannot be understood in isolation from strategy. Strategy establishes what the organisation is seeking to achieve, whilst the Enterprise Ecosystem provides the capabilities required to achieve it. Operational Continuity exploits those capabilities to create and deliver value, and Governance Logic provides the underlying assumptions and principles through which the organisation is directed and controlled.

When the existing Enterprise Ecosystem and Governance Logic are no longer sufficient to support the organisation’s strategic objectives, organisational change becomes necessary. Depending on the nature of the challenge being addressed, this may involve either adapting the existing ecosystem through First-Order Change or fundamentally reconsidering the underlying Governance Logic through Second-Order Change.

Read On

The Construct Of An Enterprise Change Office

Managing individual initiatives well is not the same as being capable of organisational change. Explore how an Enterprise Change Office can build and sustain that capability across the enterprise.

A Definition Of Organisational Change

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

Alternative Definitions Of Organisational Change

There is no universally accepted definition of organisational change. Different definitions highlight various aspects of what changes within an organisation and how change occurs.

The following definitions offer two perspectives for comparison with the definition used on this website.

Definition

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

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 offers a useful description by identifying organisational components that may change. It recognises that organisational change can affect multiple aspects, not just a single function or intervention.

The term “major component” is ambiguous. HBS Online describes adaptive change as small, incremental adjustments, such as refining processes, upgrading technology, or adjusting pricing. This raises the question: when does a change become “major” enough to qualify as organisational change? HBS Online does not specify a clear criterion.

In this framework, scale alone does not determine whether an adaptation is organisational change. Even limited changes to the Enterprise System may qualify. Instead, scale, complexity, uncertainty, and strategic significance help determine how organisational change is categorised and managed.

Another issue is the level at which change occurs. The HBS Online definition does not distinguish between adapting organisational arrangements within existing principles and assumptions and changing those underlying principles themselves.

This distinction is important when considering transformation. HBS Online defines transformational change as larger in scale and scope than adaptive change. However, in this framework, scale and scope alone do not determine if change is transformational. Even large, complex, or disruptive changes may remain First-Order if the organisation’s Governing Logic remains appropriate.

In this framework, two key questions arise: what determines whether an alteration is organisational change, and at what organisational level does the change occur?

Definition

The Chartered Management Institute (CMI) is a professional body in the United Kingdom for management and leadership. Its Royal Charter recognises its role in advancing management and leadership standards.

In the material considered here, CMI 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

CMI describes change as a transition between organisational states and recognises the interdependence of technology, processes, structure, and people. This systems perspective is valuable, as organisational change rarely involves only a single component.

The A-to-B approach suggests the future organisational state can be defined with reasonable confidence. This aligns with CMI’s implementation focus, which assumes the change scope and objectives are already clear.

This assumption suits many organisational changes where future capabilities are well understood. However, it offers less support when the organisation must question its operating assumptions and allow future configurations to emerge through exploration and learning.

CMI identifies interconnected organisational elements but does not explicitly distinguish changes to these elements from changes to the underlying principles and assumptions. In this website’s terms, it does not differentiate adaptation of the Enterprise System from changes to its Governing Logic.

In this framework, CMI offers a valuable systems perspective and a useful model for change when the destination is clear. However, it provides less analytical support for Second-Order Change, where the destination and Governing Logic may be uncertain and require exploration.

End Of Expandable Content

From Alternative Definitions to This Framework

These two perspectives highlight different aspects of organisational change. HBS Online focuses on what may change, while CMI emphasises the interdependence of organisational elements and transitions between states. Both provide valuable insights.

This framework introduces an additional distinction: adapting an organisation within its current principles and assumptions versus changing those principles and assumptions themselves.

This distinction is not determined by scale, cost, complexity, or disruption. In this framework, substantial change is not always transformational. An organisation may replace core technology, restructure, or redesign processes while still operating under the same underlying logic.

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 main focus for organisational adaptation. Governing Logic offers an additional level of analysis, distinguishing adaptation within existing logic from changes to that logic.

This distinction provides the basis for distinguishing First-Order Change from Second-Order Change elsewhere on this website.

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