CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 371Organizational Change and LeadershipOrganizational Management and ChangeAppreciative Inquiry and Organizational Change

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Strategic Management of Corporate Change

Dunphy, Dexter, Stace, Doug·1993·Human Relations
DOI 10.1177/001872679304600801
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To investigate the controversy between universal and contingent approaches to corporate change, a study was undertaken of 13 service sector organizations. The study used the Dunphy/Stace contingency model of organizational change strategies, developing measures to place the organizations within the model. Results indicate that universal models of change management are inadequate to describe the diversity of approaches actually used by these organizations. In particular, the traditional Organizational Development model is unrepresentative of how change in many contemporary organizations is actually made. The traditional OD model prescribes incremental change combined with a participative management style but most organizations in the study made rapid transformative change using a directive leadership style. The OD model is also inadequate as a prescriptive model because very different change strategies, some dramatically different from OD, resulted in successful financial performance. Four case studies are presented to illustrate how each of the major contingencies in the model can operate to create effective organizational performance.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/001872679304600801

Cites

25 of 25 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

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. BARTUNEK, J. M., 1988, Research in Organizational Change and Development, 2, 97
  2. ELDON, M., 1987, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 23, 339
  3. GOLEMBIEWSKI, R. T., 1979, Approaches to planned change Parts I & II
  4. KANTER, R. M., 1983, The change masters: Innovation and entrepreneurship ill the American corporation

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 371

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Dunphy, D., & Stace, D.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Principal, Stace Management Networks Pty Ltd
Venue
Human Relations
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1993-08
Volume
46
Issue
8
Pages
905-920
ISSN
  • 0018-7267 (ISSN-L)
  • 1741-282X
DOI
10.1177/001872679304600801
OpenAlex
W2137295086
Cited by
371
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 15
FWCI
6.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Human Relations (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 › Appreciative Inquiry and Organizational Change
Keywords
organizational change, contingency theory, organizational development model, service sector organizations, transformative change, incremental change, participatory management, directive leadership, change strategies, financial performance

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