Social work theory · Volume F: Community, Collective & Social Change

Organisational and institutional change

Organisational and institutional change theories explain how organisations alter their structures, cultures and practices, and why they often resist doing so. Some theories are prescriptive models for leading planned change.

1. What it is

Organisational and institutional change theories explain how organisations alter their structures, cultures and practices, and why they often resist doing so. Some theories are prescriptive models for leading planned change. Others are explanatory accounts of how organisations respond to pressures from governments, funders, professions and public expectations (Burnes, 2004; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). For social work the family matters because practice takes place inside agencies. The quality of services depends heavily on organisational culture, climate and leadership (Glisson & Hemmelgarn, 1998), and social workers are often asked to lead, implement or resist change in their own organisations (Hasenfeld, 2010).

Lewin’s change model. Kurt Lewin’s field theory treated behaviour in groups as the result of a balance of forces. Driving forces push towards change and restraining forces hold the current situation in place (Lewin, 1947, 1951). Lewin described change as unfreezing an existing equilibrium, moving to a new level, and refreezing the new pattern so that it becomes stable. Force-field analysis, which maps driving and restraining forces, is the best-known practical tool from this work. Later scholars have shown that the neat three-step model was largely constructed by others after Lewin’s death, and that his own work was more participative and experimental (Cummings et al., 2016).

Kotter’s eight-stage process. John Kotter (1995, 1996) studied why large corporate transformations failed and proposed eight stages for leading change: establish a sense of urgency, form a guiding coalition, develop a vision and strategy, communicate the vision, empower broad-based action by removing obstacles, generate short-term wins, consolidate gains to produce more change, and anchor new approaches in the culture. The model is widely used in health and human services. Its evidence base rests mainly on case experience and has had limited empirical testing (Appelbaum et al., 2012).

Institutional theory and isomorphism. Institutional theory holds that organisations adopt structures and practices because these are seen as legitimate in their environment, whether or not they improve efficiency (Meyer & Rowan, 1977). DiMaggio and Powell (1983) asked why organisations in the same field come to resemble one another. They identified three mechanisms of isomorphism. Coercive isomorphism results from formal and informal pressure by governments and funders, such as contract and accreditation requirements. Mimetic isomorphism occurs when organisations facing uncertainty copy others that appear successful. Normative isomorphism comes from professionalisation, as shared training and professional standards spread common practices.

Learning organisations (Peter Senge). Senge (1990) described a learning organisation as one in which people continually expand their capacity to create the results they desire. He proposed five disciplines: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking, which integrates the others. This work built on Argyris and Schön’s (1978) distinction between single-loop learning, which corrects errors within existing assumptions, and double-loop learning, which questions the assumptions themselves. Gould and Baldwin (2004) applied the learning organisation idea to social work, linking it to critical reflection and supervision.

Change in human services organisations. Human services organisations work directly with people, pursue ambiguous and contested goals, rely on uncertain technologies and depend on external funding and legitimacy (Hasenfeld, 1983, 2010). These features shape how change happens. Frontline workers exercise considerable discretion, so policy is often remade in practice by street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980). Organisational culture and climate strongly influence outcomes for service users. Glisson and Hemmelgarn (1998) found that positive organisational climate in children’s services predicted better outcomes, while increased interorganisational coordination did not.

2. Historical development

Organisational change theory grew from social psychology, sociology and management studies. Lewin’s experimental work on group dynamics gave rise to planned change and organisation development, while sociologists such as Max Weber had already analysed bureaucracy as a defining institution of modern life (Burnes, 2004). New institutionalism developed as a sociological alternative to rational accounts of organisations, explaining why ineffective practices persist and why organisations conform to their fields (Scott, 2014).

Social work engaged with these ideas through administration, management and supervision. Hasenfeld’s (1983) analysis established human services organisations as a distinct type, and Lipsky (1980) showed that frontline discretion makes workers policy makers in practice. Since the 1990s, new public management, competitive tendering and accountability regimes have made organisational change a constant feature of social work. In Australia, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (2017) highlighted organisational culture and leadership as central to keeping children safe.

3. Practical guidance

Organisational change theories help social workers lead change, implement new programs and understand why reform efforts succeed or stall.

• Map the forces. Use force-field analysis with colleagues to identify what supports and what resists a proposed change, then reduce restraining forces as well as strengthening driving forces (Lewin, 1951).
• Build a guiding coalition. Involve managers, frontline staff, service users and union or professional representatives early. Visible short-term wins sustain momentum (Kotter, 1996).
• Recognise institutional pressure. Ask whether a new procedure responds to client need or to funder and regulatory expectations. Naming coercive and mimetic pressures helps teams decide how to comply without losing practice purpose (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983).
• Attend to culture and climate. Workload, role clarity and staff support affect service quality. Change initiatives should address these conditions directly (Glisson & Hemmelgarn, 1998).
• Create structures for learning. Use reflective supervision, team case reviews and post-incident learning to support double-loop learning about assumptions (Gould & Baldwin, 2004).
• Use frontline discretion ethically. Recognise that daily decisions shape how policy is experienced, and record and raise patterns where procedures harm service users (Lipsky, 1980).
• Build child safe practice into everyday systems. Apply the Royal Commission’s findings by embedding safeguarding in leadership, recruitment, training and complaint processes.

4. Critical evaluation

Strengths. The family gives social workers practical tools for planned change and explanatory tools for understanding resistance and conformity. Institutional theory explains why agencies adopt practices for legitimacy, which helps workers critique managerial reform. Research on climate and culture links organisational conditions to outcomes for service users, giving organisational change a clear ethical justification (Glisson & Hemmelgarn, 1998).

Limitations. Planned change models such as Lewin’s and Kotter’s are often criticised as linear and top-down, assuming that change can be managed through stages (By, 2005). The popular three-step version of Lewin’s work misrepresents his more participative approach (Cummings et al., 2016). Management models developed in corporate settings may fit poorly with human services, where goals are contested and service users have limited voice. Institutional theory explains stability well but has been criticised for giving less attention to agency and conflict.

Overall importance. Social workers practise within organisations, and organisational conditions shape every encounter with service users. Understanding how agencies change, and why they resist, is essential for leadership, implementation and advocacy. The family links directly to diffusion of innovations (F9) and to evidence-informed practice (G7).

5. References

• Appelbaum, S. H., Habashy, S., Malo, J.-L., & Shafiq, H. (2012). Back to the future: Revisiting Kotter’s 1996 change model. Journal of Management Development, 31(8), 764–782. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621711211253231
• Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.
• Burnes, B. (2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977–1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00463.x
• By, R. T. (2005). Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010500359250
• Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., & Brown, K. G. (2016). Unfreezing change as three steps: Rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Human Relations, 69(1), 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715577707
• DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
• Glisson, C., & Hemmelgarn, A. (1998). The effects of organizational climate and interorganizational coordination on the quality and outcomes of children’s service systems. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22(5), 401–421.
• Gould, N., & Baldwin, M. (Eds.). (2004). Social work, critical reflection and the learning organization. Ashgate.
• Hasenfeld, Y. (1983). Human service organizations. Prentice-Hall.
• Hasenfeld, Y. (Ed.). (2010). Human services as complex organizations (2nd ed.). Sage.
• Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.
• Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Harvard Business School Press.
• Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103
• Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (D. Cartwright, Ed.). Harper & Row.
• Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
• Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
• Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017). Final report. Commonwealth of Australia.
• Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Sage.
• Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.