Cited by 150Organizational Change and LeadershipManagement and Organizational StudiesOrganizational Management and Change

Reconceptualizing Organizational Change Implementation as a Communication Problem: A Review of Literature and Research Agenda

Lewis, Laurie K., Seibold, David R.·1998·Annals of the International Communication Association

Abstract

Organizational scholars have acknowledged the importance of communication processes in explanations for organizational change processes, but have focused primarily on the invention, design, adoption, and responses to planned changes. Communication perspectives have largely ignored the means by which change programs are installed and by which users come to learn of such programs. The goal of this chapter is to demonstrate how a communication perspective can enhance understanding of implementation activities. Factors that influence when and how innovations are utilized in organizations are examined. Six major areas of literature in implementation of planned organizational change are reviewed: (a) general approaches to implementation, (b) strategies and tactics for change implementation, (c) characteristics and factors related to change agents, (d) contingencies that affect implementation, (e) strategic planning and implementation, and (f) themes and recommendations in the practitioner literature. In the final section of the chapter, a research agenda for communication scholars in this area of organizational science is proposed. The agenda focuses on interaction during implementation and communication-related structures regarding implementation. Further, it is argued that these foci should be investigated within both formal and informal implementation activities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/23808985.1998.11678949

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Obtaining buy-in for change is most successful when a clear champion or change initiative leader is present.

    “obtaining buy-in for change is most successful when a clear champion or change initiative leader is present”

    From Organizational Change: Considering Truth and Buy-In (2022) · cites this paper as Lewis and Seibold 1998

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
Corresponding author
Lewis, Laurie K.
Venue
Annals of the International Communication Association
Published
1998-01
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
93-152
ISSN
  • 2380-8977 (ISSN-L)
  • 2380-8985
OpenAlex
W2506936873
Cited by
150
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
7.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annals of the International Communication Association (publishedVersion)
  • Publication Server of Goethe University Frankfurt am Main (Goethe University Frankfurt) (submittedVersion)
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 › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Organizational Management and Change
Keywords
organizational change implementation, planned change, communication perspective, change agents, strategic planning, innovation adoption, research agenda

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