Size, structure and change implementation

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to evaluate competing views of whether organization size creates conditions of rigidity or fluidity with respect to adaptation and change, this study empirically compares processes used to implement planned change and their associated outcomes in small and large organizations.Design/methodology/approachUsing Lewin's three‐phase model of change as an evaluative framework, questionnaire‐based data were obtained from change managers in small and large organizations. Analysis of variance and profile analysis were used to investigate size‐related differences in unfreezing, movement and refreezing phases of change, and in implementation success.FindingsResults indicated that small organizations employed significantly lower levels of refreezing activities and realized lower levels of implementation success relative to large organizations.Research limitations/implicationsWhile cross sectional in nature, the sample's modest size limits the extent to which findings can be generalized. Future research should consider whether size related effects depend on change related factors such as intentionality or continuity.Practical implicationsAlthough managers in many large organizations seek to dismantle hierarchical structure, potential consequences of such a move should be carefully considered. Reducing hierarchy may decrease capacity for managing change. Conversely, small organizations may improve change management capability by adding structure that improves implementation control.Originality/valueThis paper offers an uncommon empirical glimpse into processes of change in the context of organizational size. Empirical evidence suggesting that organizational size may not be a hindrance, and perhaps an advantage, when implementing planned change constitutes the primary contribution of this study.