Reconceptualizing Organizational Change Implementation as a Communication Problem: A Review of Literature and Research Agenda
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace <sup>1</sup>
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x · Cited by 6,231 · see citing works
Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983) · Organizational Behavior and Human Performance · doi:10.1016/0030-5073(83)90156-3 · Cited by 1,309 · see citing works
SELF-REGULATION FOR MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS: THE ROLE OF ACTIVE FEEDBACK SEEKING.
Ashford, S. J., & Tsui, A. S. (1991) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/256442 · Cited by 774 · see citing works
The Effects of Communication on Technological Innovation
Ebadi, Y. M., & Utterback, J. M. (1984) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.30.5.572 · Cited by 255 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Communication and Uncertainty Management
Brashers, D. E. (2001) · Journal of Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2001.tb02892.x · Cited by 1,407 · see citing works
Uncertainty During Organizational Change: Types, Consequences, and Management Strategies
Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2004) · Journal of Business and Psychology · doi:10.1023/b:jobu.0000028449.99127.f7 · Cited by 665 · see citing works
An Organizational Stakeholder Model of Change Implementation Communication
Lewis, L. K. (2007) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00291.x · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Self-citationOrganizational Change: Considering Truth and Buy-In
Hubbart, J. A. (2022) · Administrative Sciences · doi:10.3390/admsci13010003 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
“The final strategic point is important because studies have repeatedly shown that obtaining buy-in for change is most successful when a clear champion or change initiative leader is present (Lewis and Seibold 1998; Lewis 2007; Lewis and Seibold 1993).”
Background
- Authors
- Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lewis, Laurie K.
- ORCID
- Lewis, Laurie K.
- Venue
- Annals of the International Communication Association
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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