CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 203Organizational Change and LeadershipOrganizational Management and ChangeManagement and Organizational Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 68 of the 68 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Developing capacity for change

Meyer, Christine B., Stensaker, Inger G.·2006·Journal of Change Management
DOI 10.1080/14697010600693731
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this conceptual paper we examine how organizations can develop capacity for change, which we define as the allocation and development of change and operational capabilities that sustains long term performance. Making change happen without destroying well-functioning aspects in an organization and harming subsequent changes requires both capabilities to change in the short and long term and capabilities to maintain daily operations. The change literature includes a number of process prescriptions on how change can be mobilized such as, framing, participation, pacing, and sequencing, routinizing change, and recruiting. We examine how these process prescriptions contribute in developing an organization's (1) capabilities to change, (2) capabilities to maintain daily operations and (3) capabilities to implement subsequent change processes. While participation, pacing and sequencing are likely to have adverse effects on daily operations, routinizing change and recruiting personnel are likely to have positive effects on subsequent change processes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14697010600693731

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 68 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Abrahamson E., 2000, Harvard Business Review, 78, 75
  2. D'Aveni R. A., 1994, Hyper-competition
  3. Eisenhardt K. M., 1999, Harvard Business Review, 77, 72
  4. 10.2307/259163 · DOI
  5. Huy Q. N., 2001, Harvard Business Review, 79, 73
  6. Kotter J. P., 1996, Leading Change
  7. 10.2307/259203 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Meyerson D. E., 2001, Harvard Business Review, 79, 92
  9. O'Reilly C. A., 2004, Harvard Business Review, 82, 74

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 203

Related

Metadata

Authors
Meyer, C. B., & Stensaker, I. G.
Affiliations
Norwegian School of Economics (NO)
Corresponding author
Meyer, Christine B.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Change Management
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2006-06
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
217-231
ISSN
  • 1469-7017 (ISSN-L)
  • 1479-1811
DOI
10.1080/14697010600693731
OpenAlex
W1970082916
Cited by
202
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 18
FWCI
14.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Change Management (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Change and Leadership
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Management and Change
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
Keywords
organizational change, change capability, operational capabilities, framing, participation, pacing, sequencing, recruitment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review