




































 

 

 
68 

† Corresponding author 
© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

THE ROLE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING ON THE MANAGEMENT OF 

ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGE 

 

Evangelia Fragouli1† --- Joana Kwaw Yankson2 
1,2University of Dundee, UK 

 

ABSTRACT 

Strategic planning is very crucial in a successful change management. This is because a successful change 

management is a catalyst to the survival of any organisation in the face of continuously competitive business 

environment. However, the introduction of these changes, tends to be problematic and part of a puzzle. The 

present study seeks to illustrate the importance of strategic planning as a fundamental tool in a successful 

management of change in overcoming the complexities that accompany change. It is a literature review 

based study which concludes that the focus on change implementation in change processes alone is not enough 

to provide robust results of change goals. Consequently, organisations which adopt strategic planning as a 

fundamental tool at the early stages of their change processes tend to gain an advantage of achieving change 

goals. 

Keywords: Influence, Strategic planning, Change and change management. 

 

Contribution/ Originality 

The present study reviews issues of types and drivers of organizational change, resistance to 

change and reasons of failure of if, change management models and management of organizational 

change, focusing on the importance of strategic planning in change management processes 

concluding that strategic planning is a fundamental tool of change success. 

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Change is a factor that does not cease to exist in business operating environments especially 

in the 21st century (Burnes, 2004). According to this author, an organisation’s ability to survive in 

its long-term goal may be judged on its ability to manage change in the face of competitively 

changing environments. Luecke (2003) supports this assertion by saying that a successful change 

management is crucial for survival, sustenance and competitive advantage. However, most 

organisations are concerned with budgeting, evaluation of rate of return and current balance 

Financial Risk and Management Reviews 
2015 Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 68-87 
ISSN(e): 2411-6408 
ISSN(p): 2412-3404 
DOI: 10.18488/journal.89/2015.1.2/89.2.68.87 
© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.18488/journal.89/2015.1.2/89.2.68.87


Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
69 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

sheet rather than giving attention to the effectiveness of change in their organisations (Luecke, 

2003). Today’s working environment ‘obligates’ organisations to adopt to changes in order to 

remain in competiveness and can therefore be risky for any organisation that does not respond to 

its internal and external environmental dynamics (Beach, 2006). A number of internal and 

external factors serve as catalysts for change in organisations. According to Buelens et al. (2002) 

and Balogun and Hailey (2004) external factors include globalisation, demographics, 

technological advancement, social, government legislation and political pressures. Internal factors 

such as organisational structure, human resource requirements such as high demand of 

knowledge workers and managerial decisions also account for change in organisations in order to 

gain sustainability in the face of changing conditions (Burnes, 2004; Carnell, 2007; Wood et al., 

2010). 

These factors cause uncertainty about the future since they are constantly changing and 

unpredictable. Technological advancement for instance may result in the installation of more 

efficient facilities which in most cases may replace most human resources resulting in providing  

more efficiency through layoffs (down-sizing) Graetz (2000). High demand of knowledge workers 

for instance has brought managerial changes in organisations today (Senior, 2002). The 

characteristics of these workers such as ‘well-educated’, ‘qualified’,  ‘intellectual thinkers’ and 

complicated problem solvers have brought changes to leading and management approaches 

making traditional leadership methods of ‘command and control’ questionable as they require 

onally, a ‘system of persuasion’ to work effectively (Alvesson, 2004). Additionally, most 

organisations operate in areas where much competition exists and this has resulted in virtual 

organisations with much emphasis on mobility of the international labour market (Martin and 

Osberg (2007) as cited by Jones (2010)).  It is in this bid that Luecke (2003) points that in order to 

gain success for survival in such dynamic environments, organisations must look into change 

factors and adopt strategic measures to respond accordingly. 

The argument therefore is, how do organisations implement and manage change to ensure 

long-term successes in alignment with organisational goals and objectives without evoking 

employee resistance to change? Managers and employees therefore have different view point 

about change (Strebel, 1996).  

Strategic planning (SP) is often seen as an influential tool in managing change (Boddy, 2011; 

Johnson et al., 2011). It is in this bid that Burnes (2004) argues that, due to the fact that an 

organisation’s life is characterised by change at all levels of operations, there is the need for 

organisations to envisage their desired future position and plan how to get there, taking into 

consideration how those changes can be managed. Perhaps, the reason to the successes and 

failures of organisations can be attributed to strategic planning of change (Poter, 1996). 

Therefore, change management and SP go hand in hand (Rieley and Clarkson, 2011). The end of 

SP should not only entail implementation of strategic plans but management of change as well. 

Top managers and stakeholders must be aware of the impacts of SP in the management of the 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
70 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

change. This would help management to gain judgemental evidence whether the allocated 

resources directed towards implementing a change strategy is indeed worthwhile or not (Johnson 

et al., 2011). 

It is worth noting that, the evaluation of the influence and roles of SP should not only focus 

on quantitative outputs such as financial indicators, but attention must be given to the qualitative 

impacts such as behavioural outputs. Due to this reason, the research has stimulated the 

evaluation of qualitative roles that SP plays in change management.  

Today’s trends are constantly changing the shape of organisations because drivers of change 

continue to exist within and outside organisations. Currently, most organisations are facing 

complexities in achieving organisational goals due to the inability of looking deeply into how 

change must be introduced and managed (Buelens et al., 2002; Todnem, 2005). Literature on 

financial outputs on performance of SP continue because of the focus of many researchers in the 

area (Falshaw et al., 2005; Ridwan and Marti, 2012). The evaluation of the qualitative influence of 

SP in change management will therefore help bridge the gap in knowledge. 

SP entails series of managerial decisions for the long-term survival of the organisation. It 

particularly deals with strategic decisions with regards to the strategic position of the 

organisations (Johnson et al., 2011). Consequently, SP in change management monitors and 

evaluates opportunities and threats in business contexts. This is to determine strengths and 

weaknesses surrounding business’ capacity to respond to change. The effect is the capitalisation of 

the strengths and opportunities to overshadow organisational weaknesses to achieve change 

goals. It is a fundamental tool of every organisation even if not explicitly shown and formulated 

to respond proactively to changing environments (Johnson et al., 2011) 

Notwithstanding, pro-activeness must be a mark of every organisation in this changing 

times. The dictatorship of drivers of change propels organisations to strategize measures to 

respond and deal with changing times. It has therefore become a competitive edge for 

organisations to act proactively toward change by using strategic planning as a tool. This is to 

say, size or location of an organisation must not be a stumbling block in the development of 

strategies for change. However, the influence and roles of SP in managing organisational change 

must be taken into consideration.  

The focus of this research is to evaluate the impacts resulting from strategic planning in the 

management of change in organisations.  

The thrust of this study is to contribute to knowledge in the specified study area. It will also 

produce information to top management and stakeholders to assess and value the various 

resources allocated to strategic planning in managing change in their organisations. 

 

 

 

 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
71 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

2. STRATEGIC PLANNING AND THE MANAGEMENT OF 

ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE 

2.1. Brief Background of Strategic Planning (SP) 

The idea of SP has a historic significance of ‘defence values’ from the military when they 

planned stratagems to defeat the enemy (Wall and Wall, 1995; Johnson et al., 2011). The ultimate 

aim of SP was to gain competitive advantage over the enemy. The process of SP crept into 

business organisations as an important management tool to set direction for change. There are 

some factors that triggered SP during that period; high rate of globalisation when Europe and 

Japan had started to gain economic grounds again after Second World War, as well as growth of 

information technology and changes in transportation (Schendel and Hofer, 1979). Consequently, 

in the 1980’s, SP begun to operate in the public sector, a period of increased management 

thinking due to the emergence of liberal market philosophy (Streib and Poister, 2002). From the 

1965, SP has since gained prominence of a standard management tool for change implementation 

and management (Schendel and Hofer, 1979).  

 

2.2. Strategic Planning and Change 

Against the background of growing knowledge workers, high rate of advanced technology 

and a shift of customer demands, change has become a permanent phenomenon that persists in 

organisational life (Burnes, 2004). Nonetheless, while the need for change is regarded by most 

organisations, about 70% of change programmes does not give desired results (Balogun and 

Hailey, 2006). 

The concepts of SP and change are historically connected with its theoretical and its practical 

application. To have a clear understanding of SP, it is essential to look at what planning means. 

Boddy (2011) defines planning as ‘the iterative task of setting goals, specifying how to achieve the 

goal, implementing the plan and evaluating the results’. It may be synthesised from this definition 

that planning is the analysis and anticipation of future environments, the selection of what is to be 

achieved (objectives) and the determination of necessary approaches to achieve a goal. 

Bryson (2010) and Brammer et al. (2010) provide a definition of SP in the context of change 

when they argue that SP involves all formal processes and efforts that guide organisations to 

produce both long-term and short-term objectives that will aid the organisation in identifying its 

change goals and vision. This view is supported by Young (2003) when he says that SP in the 

context of change involves flexible processes to determine the current position of an organisation 

and where it wants to be in future by responding to changing environments. Johnson et al. (2011) 

hold a different view about SP in this context when they argue that SP entails a ‘systemised, step-

by-step procedures to develop an organisation’s strategy’ of change implementation. Dye and 

Sibony (2007), support this assertion when they point out that SP process for the purpose of 

change entails formalized processes that contribute to the success of goal change goal. 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
72 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

However, some scholars disagree with the formalised processes of SP in implementing and 

managing change goals. Peters in his research in 2007 (Peters 2007 and Schmidtlein, 2010 as 

cited by Jones (2010)) came with conclusions that formalised processes of SP in change 

management tend to cause ‘‘death of a thousand initiatives’’, killing innovativeness to change 

strategies. Others are of the view that following formalised processes tend to ignore the culture 

and context of the organisation undergoing a change, which later results in resistance to change 

(Mintzberg, 1994). Consequently, Bryson (2010) is of the view that, SP is worthless unless it 

produces a strategic change. Dye and Sibony (2007) support this view when they emphasize that 

SP is a success factor in the implementation of change goals. However, implementation of change 

strategies must not be the end. To ensure the success of a change strategy, the process must 

involve monitoring set objectives by measuring outputs (Antheil and Spinelli, 2011). 

 

2.3. Strategic Planning Processes for Change 

Literature suggests that SP in both theory and practice involves formalised steps in order to 

implement a change goal. This is explored by the works of Young (2003) and Johnson et al. 

(2011). It therefore involves the following processes; 

i. Vision formulation: This establishes the fundamental purpose for change in an 

organisation. Values and the need for change for the future including its boundaries for 

the change are defined. 

ii. Organisational analysis: Here, emphasis is placed on stakeholder analysis which entails 

analysis of employees and other groups within the organisation whose interest play vital 

roles in the whole change process. It includes employee attitude and readiness to change 

in the organisation as well as other stakeholders. 

iii. Formulation of specific goals and objectives: Here, specific change goals and targets 

to be achieved are developed. It also sets the performance measuring tools to guide 

change progress. This process involves scenario planning or forecasting for both internal 

and external drivers for change. This purpose is to prepare how to respond to change 

and how to evaluate employee attitude towards change. 

iv. Specification of strategic action: This involves the various responsibilities each 

employee and employer must perform in order to accomplish change goals. 

v. Implementation stage: This is where operational plans and strategies for change 

response are put into action guided by change goals. 

vi. Evaluation: A component designed for monitoring the level or progress of change 

strategies are performed at this stage. This gives room for necessary revision of change 

strategies if the need unfolds. 

In contrast to the strategic process views proposed by some scholars, Khakee and Stromberg 

(2011) argue that SP for change should not always take a strict linear approach, but must be 

cyclical. This is because change is a continuous effort on the long-term and not an instant process.  



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
73 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Brammer et al. (2010) however disputes the view of Khakee and Stromberg (2011) by arguing that 

SP as a tool in managing change when used at earlier stages of a change process can yield short –

term results. Dutton and Duncan (1987) are of different views when they comment that the long-

term and short term results of a SP for change are dependent on stakeholder’s attitude towards 

change. 

 

2.4. Strategic Planning Models 

This section of the research focuses on SP models used in examining the micro and macro 

environments of an organisation. This would be achieved by the works of Johnson et al. (2011) 

and Boddy (2011). The tools to be examined are Poters’ Five Forces framework, SWOT analysis, 

PESTEL framework and Scenario Planning. These models provide broader view of what the key 

drivers of change are which enable organisations to build scenarios to find possible success and 

failure factors to change strategies. 

 

2.5. Overview of Organisational Change (OC) 

In a bid to understand and justify the purpose of the study, it is essential to put 

organisational change into retrospection. According to Hughes (2006), OC cycle of today is more 

uncertain and complex as compared to OC of yesterday. What therefore is OC?  

Many top management gurus have defined this term in different ways and its literature 

‘encompasses a vast and diverse body of work that encompasses micro and macro views’ (Frahm, 

2007, as cited by Ridwan and Marti (2012)) mentioned by Hughes, (2012 as cited by (Deloitte, 

2013)). While there is the acknowledgement of ambiguity on OC, change management gurus are 

of the view that much has not been done to illuminate the meaning of OC (Stickland, 1998) 

mentioned in Hughes, (2010 as cited by Deloitte (2013)). Some scholars are therefore of the view 

that this problem does not emerge solely from academics but in practices too (Stickland, 1998). 

 According to Hughes (2010 as cited by Deloitte (2013)), there is no common definition as far 

as OC is concerned. The reason being that ‘the word change is characterised as a container 

concept, and searching for the word’s underlying values results in a whole range of meanings’ De 

and Vermaak (2003) mentioned in Hughes, (2010 as cited by Deloitte (2013)). 

However, there has been a broader definition which embraces a wider range of understanding 

of OC. Jones (2010) mentioned by Hughes (2010,  as cited by Deloitte (2013)) defines OC as the 

‘process by which organisations move from their present state to some desired future state to 

increase their effectiveness’. According to Boddy (2011), OC ‘is a deliberate attempt to prove 

organisational performance by changing one or more aspects of the organisation’ in the area of its 

technology, business processes or structure. Carnell (2007) however argues that the meaning of 

OC should be based on how desired outcomes are achieved through implementation. 

 

 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
74 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

2.6. Types of Organisational Change 

There are different types of changes that occur in organisations. A fair idea of the type of 

change helps in the response approach to change. The types of change would be examined by the 

works of Balogun and Hailey (2007) mentioned by Johnson et al. (2011) who discovered four basic 

types of change illustrated in Figure 1 below; 

 

Extent of change 

 
Figure-1. Types of change 

           Source: Balogun and Hailey (2007) mentioned by Johnson et al. (2011) 

 

2.7. Drivers of Organisational Change  

Today, the nature of competitive business environment has put much pressure on demand for 

change. The point is that the pace of change nowadays has become faster and unpredictable 

(Burnes, 2004; Senior and Fleming, 2006). This ascertains the importance of top management to 

be self-conscious of the factors that drive change in their organisations (Senior and Fleming, 

2006). These drivers of change, apart from compelling top management of organisations to be 

self-conscious, also influence organisational change strategies. The ambition or drive for change 

is said to originate from both internal and external sources (Buelens et al., 2002; Balogun and 

Hailey, 2004; Carnell, 2007). 

According to some authors, external factors that trigger change may include technology 

advancement, legislative pressures and market changes such as internationalisation, mergers, 

acquisitions, and recessions. Shifts in social demographics such as ageing population and gender 

also drive change (Buelens et al., 2002; Dawson, 2003). Internal drivers of change may include 

new discoveries, strategic direction, human resource diversification and managerial decisions 

(Carnell, 1990; Burnes, 2004; Wood et al., 2010). Hughes (2010 as cited by Deloitte (2013)) 

however holds a different opinion and argues that the ambition of some organisation to strive for 

change is usually triggered by the organisation itself after going through pain and decides to 

initiate a change. This supports the idea that change itself may be triggered when organisations 

go through crisis of environmental loss (Luecke, 2003; Nelson, 2003). Contrastively, Boddy 

(2011) attributes the main cause of change to external environments and argues that it is these 

external factors that ‘prompt internal change to one or more elements in the organisation’ thus, 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
75 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

‘change depends on the interaction between the external and internal environments of the 

organisation’  Boddy (2011). From the view of these authors, change is required when the current 

performance or position of an organisation is not in consonance with current competitive business 

environments (Lanning et al., 2000). This rapid rate of change is an indication that change 

competence (capability to choose and adopt change strategies that is parallel to the organisation) 

must also change to handle change implications (Nonas, 2005).  

Senior and Fleming (2006) hold a different view. They argue that for a change process to be 

performed, a personality in the organisation is expected to have the power of influence to impact 

the change (leader). Power in this context denotes the person who impacts the influence of 

changing behaviour in the organisation. According to these authors, this power can be formal, 

that is position centred or personal which is based on the person’s abilities of interpersonal 

relationships, skills. However, Burke (2008) is of the view that the beginning of a change occurs 

when leaders respond to change itself in the external environment. 

 

2.7.1. Diagnosis of Change Failure/ Resistant to Change 

Literature suggests it is essential to identify the factors that blocks change in order to put 

management in a better position to reduce those forces (Deloitte, 2013). There are various models 

used in identifying blockage to change, however the research adopts Lewin’s Forcefield Analysis 

to achieve this purpose. The model describes the type of equilibrium that exists between drivers 

of change and the restraining forces that de- facilitate a change. It also evaluates forces that 

influence process of change.  

Under this model, forces are divided into two; namely, driving forces (pushing forces); forces 

that facilitate change and restraining forces; thus forces that make change processes difficult to be 

achieved, counteract with the drivers of change which eventually lead to resistance to change. 

According to Deloitte (2013), restraining factors differ in organisations. The model helps in 

identifying the current situational factors that may cause a barrier and how it can be removed. It 

also helps in identifying the current situation that might help in facilitating change in a preferred 

direction and their reinforcement, including the factors that need to be introduced to facilitate 

change. Force Field Analysis Model is shown in Figure 2 below; 

 

 
Figure-2. Force Field Analysis 

  Source: Johnson et al. (2011) 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
76 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Scholars have researched the causes of change failure and the works of Deloitte (2013) and 

Johnson et al. (2011) are acknowledged. 

According to Deloitte (2013), the increasing challenges surrounding today’s competitive 

business environments puts more demands on approaches to change. Thus, approaches to the 

management of change are changing. However, some organisations face the problem of change 

failure due to the reason that approach to change is not adapt well to survive challenging times. 

Consequently, failure in change programmes results in wastage of time, money and other 

resources (Deloitte, 2013). Their research identifies three major causes of change failure. 

Firstly, they argue that even though change programmes involve the application of specific 

tools, the core business issue that is the drivers of change are commonly ignored by most 

organisations. Consequently, such organisations tend to receive failure on their change 

programmes since the target behind the need for change is ignored. Failure to understand and 

identify drivers of change results in the dead end of change in the generation of business values 

(Deloitte, 2013). 

Secondly, Deloitte (2013) identifies that a cause of change failures persist as a result of more 

attention given to the end users of change as opposed to people who are capable of driving the 

change. They identified these key people as change leaders and recognised that they tend to be 

proactive in change programmes when they are involved in decision-making processes. They 

argue that ‘a change accelerates or stalls largely because of those who lead it-or, more critically, 

fail to lead it’ Deloitte (2013). 

Thirdly, Deloitte (2013), again argues that a cause of change failure in most organisations is 

as a result of the unsustainability of change process as most organisations fail to execute 

continuous appraisals and feedbacks of change programmes. Therefore, most organisations 

terminate their change programmes and its associated investments at a point where sustainability 

could have occurred. Johnson et al. (2011) present different views on the causes of change failures. 

A cause of change failure these authors attributes to, is lack of strategic planning. They referred 

to this cause as ‘Death by planning’ to reemphasise the gravity of the danger associated with 

implementing change without strategic planning (Johnson et al., 2011). They argue that instead of 

adopting strategic planning on how to deliver the change programme, most organisations tend to 

focus on planning the programme itself. Change is not usually a ‘one go’ process; but a continuous 

process, sometimes over several years depending on the type of change. However, most 

organisations lose the focus as change processes are perceived as rituals rather than the central 

aim of establishing new ways of behaviour (Johnson et al., 2011). 

Furthermore, these management gurus identified reinterpretation as a cause to change 

programme failure. This happens when change intentions are reinterpreted in connection to old 

ways of doing things. This denotes lack of effective communications in change programmes. 

Another contributory factor according to Johnson et al. (2011), is when change programmes 

are introduced to employees outside or disconnectedly of their realities. A typical example is when 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
77 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

employees are reshuffled to perform different roles in the organisations. Hence, without effective 

management of this change, this may be perceived as out of line by employees and may resist this 

change. Mere compliance to changes in organisations instead of buying into the new change may 

cause failure of change programmes as employees may superficially just be complying with 

company’s regulations (Johnson et al., 2011). 

Finally, one of the commonest causes of change failures, hence resistance to change in many 

organisations is the violation of employee psychological contract (Boddy, 2011). Psychological 

contract is defined as ‘the expectations and beliefs that employees hold about the mutual 

obligations between themselves and their organisation’ (Martin, 2006 as cited by Jones (2010)). 

Therefore, if top management fail to lay on the table honest presentations of the need, 

expectations and direction for change, employee psychological contract may be broken resulting 

in loss of trust, demotivation and resistance to change. 

 

2.8. Management of Organisational Change; an Overview 

Organisational change management is said to be an important and powerful tool in bringing 

positive transformations into an organisation. It also assists employees in coping with change to 

ensure that positive results come out from a change process (Bridges and Mitchell, 2000).  

In the works of Anon in 2006, it is observed that the popularity of concept is rooted in the 

science of psychology where the concept was applied to assist people who are going through 

emotional problems occurring as a result death of loved ones. The concept crept into business 

environments in the 1990’s when business process engineering pushed in much effort to 

accomplish set goals (Gattermeyer and Al-Ani, 2001).  

However, according to Anon (1948), the process failed to address the issue of resistant to 

change.  Change management therefore identified employee resistance as a key problem which 

involves the coding of information that occurs on the emotional level and not the intellectual 

level. Therefore, it is essential not to fight resistance but rather tackle it as a process. Doppler and 

Lauterburg (2000) ascertains that resistant to change can be paused to achieve a change aim only 

that it might delay the process. They further points out that the inability to solve resistance 

problems is risky and may resurface sometime in the process which may result in even more 

organisational problems. 

It is in this bid that Hughes (2010 as cited by Deloitte (2013) supportes the view of Frahm 

(2007 as cited by Ridwan and Marti (2012)) of revisiting ‘traditional themes’ in order to 

appreciate modern thinking about organisational change. According to Hughes (2010 as cited by 

Deloitte (2013)), managing change from the old to the new is certainly full of uncertainties. He 

suggests that in order to manage change effectively, some level of attention must be given to the 

old or the known patterns. He highlights that ‘the legacy of the past is too often unacknowledged 

or misinterpreted’ and must be given considerable reference). (Hughes, 2010 as cited by Deloitte 

(2013)). Other scholars support this assertion and suggest that effective management of change is 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
78 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

achieved when the past is given a considerable level of reference (Pettigrew et al., 2002; Witzel, 

2003). 

 

2.9. Change Management Models 

Haven discussed what management of change process is, it is pertinent to discuss the tools 

necessary for the management of change. These models are usually used alone; however, Johnson 

et al. (2011) suggest that a combination of models may be used for complex changes. 

 

2.9.1. Lewin’s Model of Change Management 

One of the renowned models for managing change is the Kurt Lewin’s change management 

model.  It is used to identify how change is implemented and managed in organisations. The 

model comprises of three processes in managing change which includes; unfreezing, moving and 

refreezing.  According to the author, these three levels occur before change becomes a stake in 

any organization. Lewin’s change Management Model is shown in Appendix A. 

 

2.9.2. Kotter’s 8 Step Model 

Kotter’s research on more than hundred organisations proposed factors that contribute to 

failures of change programmes. Consequently, he devised the 8 Step Model to aid in avoiding 

mistakes in the change management process. He therefore justifies that the steps entail 

motivation for subduing resistance to change (Kotter, 1996). The 8 Step Model include, 

‘‘Establishing a sense of urgency’’, ‘‘creating the guiding coalition’’, ‘‘developing a vision and 

strategy’’, ‘‘communicating the change vision’’, ‘’empowering employees for broad-based action’’, 

‘’generating short term wins’’, ‘’consolidating gains’’ and ‘producing more change and  anchoring 

new approaches in the culture ‘’(Kotter, 1996) The model is shown in Appendix B. 

 

2.9.3. Carnall’s Organisational Change Model 

Literature on change management has since focused on the identification of resistant to 

change and approaches that can be used in solving it Carnell (2007). He further concludes on 

change management by pointing out that adequate data of an organisation and organisational 

learning is the most essential aspect of change implementation and management. He further 

argues that, management of change which does not involve organisational learning is bound to 

face crises. Therefore, learning in the process of change is central in Carnall’s approach and 

suggests is a catalyst for effective change management. Therefore, leaders of change must support 

the change system by providing supportive systems which will help in the development of 

employee capabilities. Carnall’s organisational change management model is illustrated in 

Appendix C. 

Johnson et al. (2011) provides a modern framework for managing change which dwells on 

Lewin’s Force field model. They argue that management of change is about coping with 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
79 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

complexities that come along with change. Four elements are worth considering when it comes to 

the management of change, which are, ‘diagnosis’, levers for change’, leading and managing 

change’ and managing change programmes (Johnson et al., 2011). These authors emphasise that 

change diagnosis entails the analysis of the type of change required and its context as well as the 

application of Lewin’s model. Furthermore, in order to unfreeze (Lewin’s model), there is the need 

to change routines to challenge the status quo. Leading and managing change according to the 

authors entail the role of the strategic leader and other management techniques. Finally, 

management of change programmes must dwell on turnaround strategies based on the types of 

change required. A summary of this model is shown in Appendix D. 

 

2.10. Strategic Planning and Change Management 

Having gained insight of what SP and change management are and the various models and 

processes used, the crux of this section is to enable the reader to get a better understanding of 

existing studies related to the relationship between SP and change management, focusing on the 

influences that SP imparts on change management when used effectively at the early stages of the 

change process. It is therefore necessary to explain what influence means. Boddy (2011) defines 

influence as ‘the process by which one party attempts to modify the behaviour of others by 

mobilizing power resources’. This is to say, influence has abilities to transform, adjust, inspire, 

stimulate and change. The focal point is the power SP has on change management processes in 

transforming, adjusting, modifying and changing belabours to achieve change goals. As to what 

scholars have done in the study area in the past, it is important to note that before the 1970s, 

organisational strategies to change were just extrapolations based on past performances. 

However, the emergence of globalisation, high technological advancement and other drivers of 

change made this previous approach meaningless in terms of long term change goals (Rosenberg 

and Schewe, 1985; Kieche III, 1989). According to these scholars, organisations begun to adopt a 

systematic approach to respond to change proactively in dealing with threats, opportunities, 

strengths and weaknesses of the organisation. 

One of the scholars in the study areas are Wilson and Eilertsen (2010) who conducted a 

research survey on various organisations’ staff professionals and line managers on the role SP 

played during the financial crises. As part of their findings were conclusions that organisations 

who adopted SP at the early stages of change management won the support of their employees in 

their response to change. This is because the employees had perceptions of fairness (psychological 

contract) when they were involved in the decision-making process of the change. They also found 

that, organisations that adopted SP during that turbulent period of change had greater 

opportunity of developing change strategies considering the threats, opportunities, strengths and 

weaknesses of change strategies and their impact on change itself. Rieley and Clarkson (2011) and 

Burnes (2004) suggest in their research that because of the complexities of change management 

and its associated outcomes, both negative and positive, change management cannot be separated 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
80 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

from SP as every process in change management must involve SP. They suggest that SP must be 

a fundamental tool in change processes to ensure effective change strategies. 

SP for the purpose of change management sets the platform for better understanding and 

communication for the need for change (Moran and Brightman, 2011). According to these 

authors, when SP is applied at the early stages of change processes, employees get an in-depth 

knowledge of the key drivers of change and the necessity to respond to them. This is because SP 

evaluates the best channels of communication considering strengths and weaknesses of 

communications channels or approaches to change (Boddy, 2011).  The influence is that old 

behaviour is motivated to be replaced by new patterns of behaviour (the level of Moving in 

Lewin’s Model of change, where there is the abandoning of old behaviour and the replacement of 

new patterns of behaviour). It is in this bid that the proposer of Lewin’s Model argues that when 

change is not strategically planned and introduced, may result in misinformation and mistrust. 

Martin (2007, as cited by Jones (2010)) supports this assertion when he points out that 

understanding and having clear communication of the need for change improves the 

psychological contracts of both the employee and employer as they become aware of what is 

expected of them as well as other opportunities that come with it.Furthermore, SP for the 

management of change plays an instrumental function of providing performance programme 

through forecasting of uncertainties that come with change (Johnson et al., 2011). This means that 

decision-makers are able to embrace change because SP illuminates all factors critical for the 

survival of the organisation in the environment of change.  The influence is that, SP points out 

strategic issues such as developments and trends an organisation is to adopt that have the 

potential of achieving change goals. Dutton and Duncan (1987) support this assertion when they 

argue that the identification of these critical factors through strategic planning produces strategic 

issues in alignment with the visions of the organisation and how to achieve them. Another 

contribution is made by Dutton and Duncan (1987) who studied on the impact of SP on change 

are of the view that for a successful change to be achieved, a SP system must be the fundamental 

and first point of call when designing a change programme. They therefore suggest that when SP 

is used at the earlier stages of change, it aids in formulating strategic issues which in turn leads to 

the effective implementation of change strategies. A summary of Dutton and Duncan’s strategic 

planning and change management is illustrated in Figure 3 below; 

 

 
Figure-3. Dutton and Duncan’s strategic planning and change model 

Source: Dutton and Duncan (1987) 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
81 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Apart from the identification of key drivers of change, literature suggests that strategic 

planning which is well designed helps decision-makers to understand the culture of their 

organisation and to identify key forces that cause change programmes to fail (Brammer et al., 

2010; Boddy, 2011). It is in this bid that Hughes (2010 as cited by Deloitte (2013)) argues that 

change management that ignores past organisational culture tends to be ineffective. This is to say 

that the impact of strategic planning on the management of organisational change processes 

allow management to reduce factors that cause change failures.  

 

3. STRATEGIC PLANNING: A FUNDAMENTAL TOOL 

3.1. Issues of Importance 

.Strategic Planning as a rational for change analysis: Mintzberg (2006) and Bryson 

(2003a) argue that SP for change as the fundamental tool in change management  identifies ‘what 

is’ and ‘what is to be done’ that intends develops into how to accomplish the target. The impact of 

this rationality according to Mintzberg (2006) is the development of organisational strategies to 

the attainment of change. It is the researcher’s view that various strategies adopted by the 

organisations are as a result of strategic planning processes carried out (Wood et al., 2010) 

Influences team building through strategic communication: When change is effectively 

communicated to employees, taking change motivation into consideration, it triggers individuals 

to form teams and direct their efforts into accomplishing the change goals. It is in this bid that 

Johnson et al. (2011) asserts that in order to ‘unfreeze’ change at all levels of change management, 

there is a need for effective communication. Lewin in his work in 1957 with Force Field model of 

change management buttresses that in order to achieve a clear communication of the need for 

change; communication itself must be strategically done in order to capture the enthusiasm of 

employees. In the works of  Ford and Ford (2011) who studies the impact of strategic planning on 

change, proposed four strategic change communication processes; initiative communication that 

focuses on employees’ attention on what needs to change, communication of understanding where 

employees tend to realise the need for change and how change should be responded to. 

Performance communication; where intended result of change is addressed and finally, closure 

communication where change process is said to be complete were proposed. Some scholars of SP 

for change have however contradicted the change approach whereby communication was done at 

a single stage.  

Strategic thinking:  The importance of SP in change management has been highlighted by 

scholars to have influence on strategic planners’ thought of striking common thoughts into 

strategic thoughts of thinking. Long-term rather than the short term achievements by enabling 

managers to focus attention on organisation’s stakeholders’ expectations and attitudes towards 

change were known to be an outcome of the influence. According to Graetz (2002), strategic 

thinking by virtue of SP for change are characterised by divergent, innovativeness and 

intuitiveness of ideas. The author defines strategic thinking as synthesis of data in pursuit to 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
82 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

determine and produce an organisational profile of what it wants to achieve in future. Ghorbani 

and Kiani (2012) who studied the influence of SP on strategic thinking indicate that strategic 

thinking triggers valuable strategies as an art rather than a more procedural system; thus it 

develops a specific mental model as the basis of strategies. According to Bruce and Laglan (2005), 

the impact of strategic thinking on change management is that it allows the focus on valuable 

activities towards change. However, Heracleous (1998)  and Mintzberg (1994) mentioned by 

Ghorbani and Kiani (2012)  are of the view that SP is a separate phenomenon to strategic 

thinking but draw the conclusion that ability to plan strategically would trigger strategic 

thoughts for the design and implementation of change goals. 

The contribution of the study by Dye and Sibony (2007), suggests that SP process for the 

purpose of strategic change that involves formalized processes contributes to the success of the 

change process. There have been some criticisms levelled against SP for change management. 

Some scholars in the study area have argued that even though SP influences managerial thoughts 

to produce strategic thinking on how to implement and manage a change, strategic thinking 

becomes too formalised and rigid which usually results in the ignoring of organisational culture 

and context; effecting in lack of innovativeness on change strategies. Peters in his earlier works in 

1994 in his book entitled ‘‘death by a thousand initiatives’’ outlined the some negative outcomes in 

big organisations as a result of formalised strategic planning operations. His argument was that 

these so called formalised procedures appeared to be just paper work but tends to be different in 

practice as innovativeness but level of response tends out negative. Birnbaum (2000) in his works 

on the impact of SP on change management in higher level educational institutions supports the 

view of Peters. Furthermore, the works of Dooris (2002-2003) in his study of the impact of SP on 

organisational change management came with the view that service companies such as Wal-Mart, 

Dell, South Airlines and IBM encountered notable level of success when SP for change was 

approached in a less structured, less rigid yet rational manner.  

Nevertheless, views about SP in effecting and managing change have been warranted. Even 

though some scholars have critiqued the effectiveness of SP in change management, for most part, 

have concluded SP desirable and necessary in implementing and managing change. In fact, 

Mintzberg and Peters even though were sceptical in their views, concluded on the importance of 

SP in responding and managing change but emphasised its effective and wise  use, thus, to allow 

contributions from employees and  to aid managers to assess opportunities and threats of ideas in 

the mist of change. 

Strategic Direction: In the process of change management, SP is said to play a vital role in 

serving as a ‘road map’ to which the direction and destination of change plans carries  

Strategic Decisions: From the analysis of the two cases, an influence that SP imparted in 

their change management was the benefit of acquiring strategic directions in order to respond to 

change. In the works of  Wilson and Eilertsen (2010) of the Association for Strategic Planning 

(ASP), who did a survey on staff professionals and 190 line managers on ‘the role strategic 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
83 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

planning played during a financial crisis’ found out that better strategic and critical decisions 

were made by organisations which used SP as a fundamental tool in their change processes. 

According to the researchers, this yielded the capitalization of identified opportunities which 

yielded growth opportunities. 

Psychological contract (PC): The researcher is of the view that when management of 

change is done with SP being the fundamental tool, it stands to improve the understanding and 

conscientize employees’ and employer’s beliefs of their obligations and expectations towards the 

change initiative (Rousseau, 2004). However, according to Martin (2006 as cited by Jones (2010)), 

without reciprocation of obligations of both parties, there is a breach of contract and classifies this 

phenomenon as one of the major causes of change failures. There are therefore critics of this 

theory affecting change management. Guest (2004) argues that the conceptual distinction 

between obligations and expatiations are sometimes elusive as some organisations hold even and 

complex expectations and obligations for both parties, usually in favour of the organisation, 

causing the failure of many change programmes. The importance of psychological contract in 

change management is therefore suggested to be achieved through effective strategic planning of 

change efforts as it is essential to the success of change in organisations. Wilson and Eilertsen 

(2010) in their study in examining the impact SP on change management came with a finding that 

organisations who employed SP during change periods yielded trust and confidence in employees 

which aided in the adaptation to change. 

Employee participation in decision-making (DM): Williamson (2008) supports this view 

and argues that key employees involved in decision-making process in change management 

provide opportunity for vital and private opinions to be used for dealing with barriers of change. 

Contrastively, Wood and de Menezes (2011) is of a different opinion that employee involvement 

in change DM when not considerably measured may result in flexibility of employee. This 

assertion is also supported by Hofstede (2013) when he confirms this usually occurs in less power 

distant organisations. 

In a nutshell, even though there are some critics against SP by some scholars, other 

researchers regard SP as an important fundamental tool in organisations undergoing a change. 

The reason being that it has critical influences on the strategic direction and strategies that are 

beneficial to such organisations. It is essential to note that a particular type of change may 

demand different approaches to managing it. Strategic planning serves as a tool to structure and 

organise the various response strategies needed. Organisations undergoing changes can influence 

employee response to change by encouraging and motivating change response through SP to 

reduce anxiety and fear during the change period. These may be achieved by involving employees 

in change decision-making processes, training through scenario presentations and the 

improvement of employee psychological contract by change organisations ‘walking the talk’ of 

change promises.  

 



Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
84 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

4.1. Conclusions 

The formulation of a strategic plan in change management processes leaves much to be 

desired. The influence of SP in this process had centred on the behavioural and quality approach 

to change response. The study begun with in-depth analysis of strategic planning concept and the 

models often used in SP in change management processes. Even though there are some critiques 

against SP in general, this present research suggests that there are much importance of SP 

especially in the management of change processes; (Mintzberg, 2006; Dye and Sibony, 2007; Ford 

and Ford, 2011). 

Due to the turbulent nature of competitively changing environments, any organisation which 

want to survive in such environments must respond to change by taking SP as a fundamental 

tool. Literature therefore suggests that one of the major causes of change failures is centred on 

lack of strategic planning especially when it is not regarded as a pivotal area of change 

management programmes. 

 

REFERENCES 

Alvesson, M., 2004. Knowledge work and knowledge intensive firms. New York: Oxford University Press. 

Anon, 1948. Current trends in psychology. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. 1947 (Book review), 

Journal of  Clinical Psychology Psychology 4(1): 105. Doi: 10.1002/1097-

4679(194801)4:1<105::AID-JCLP2270040120>3.0.CO;2-2. 

Antheil, J. and S. Spinelli, 2011. Action research to support the sustainability of strategic planning. Public 

Health and Ethics, 39(4): 23-31. 

Balogun, J. and H. Hailey, 2006. Managing change across boundaries: Boundary-shaking practices. British 

Journal of Management, 16(4): 261-278. 

Balogun, J. and H.V. Hailey, 2004. Exploring strategic change. 2nd Edn., London: Prentice Hall. 

Balogun, J. and H.V. Hailey, 2007. Exploring strategic change. 3rd Edn., London: Prentice Hall. 

Beach, L.R., 2006. Leadership and the art of change: A practical guide to organizational transformation. 

USA: Sage Publications, Inc. 

Birnbaum, R., 2000. Management fads in higher education: Where they came from, what they do, why they 

fail. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Boddy, D., 2011. Management: An introduction. 5th Edn., Harlow, England: FT Prentice Hall. 

Brammer, S., J.D. Harris and R.A. Phillips, 2010. New directions in strategic. Management and Business 

Ethics, 20(3): BEQ 401-425. 

Brammer, S., J.D. Harris and R.A. Phillips, 2010. New directions in strategic management and business 

ethics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(3): 401-425. Available from 

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=122&sid=f9585de0-b667-4479-9561-

20b082c05371%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=buh&AN=

52533907 [Accessed 4th August, 2013]. 

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=122&sid=f9585de0-b667-4479-9561-20b082c05371%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=buh&AN=52533907
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=122&sid=f9585de0-b667-4479-9561-20b082c05371%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=buh&AN=52533907
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=122&sid=f9585de0-b667-4479-9561-20b082c05371%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=buh&AN=52533907


Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
85 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Bridges, W. and S. Mitchell, 2000. Leading transition: A new model for change. Leader to Leader, 16(3): 30-

36. 

Bruce, A. and K. Laglan, 2005. Strategic thinking. 2nd Edn., Tehran: Nazgol Publications. 

Bryson, J., 2010. The future of public and nonprofit strategic planning in the United States. Public 

Administration Review. Special Issue on the Future of Public Administration in 2020, 70: S255-

S267. Available from 

http://proquest.umi.com.necbproxy.egloballibrary.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=2274832661&Srch

Mode=1&sid=2&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=132942

1738&clientId=78278 [Accessed 4th August, 2013]. 

Bryson, J.M., 2003a. Strategic planning and management. Handbook of public administration. London: Sage. 

Buelens, M., R. Kreitner and A. Kinicki, 2002. Organizational behavior. Instructor’s Edn., London: McGraw 

Hill. 

Burke, W.W., 2008. Organisation change: Theory and practise. 2nd Edn., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications Ltd. 

Burnes, B., 2004. Managing change: A strategic approach to organisational dynamics. 4th Edn., Harlow: 

Prentice Hall. 

Carnell, C., 1990. Managing change in organisations. London: Prentice Hall. 

Carnell, C., 2007. Managing change in organisations. 5th Edn., London: Prentice Hall. 

Dawson, P., 2003. Understanding organisational change. Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications. Inc. 

De, C. and D. Vermaak, 2003. Learning to change. A guide for organizational change agents. Thousand 

Oaks, Ca: Sage Publications. Inc. 

Deloitte, 2013. Organization acceleration: The new science of moving organizations forward. Available from 

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-

Global/Local%20Assets/Documents/Human%20Capital/DTTL_1446_May_OrgAccelR_080113.

pdf [Accessed 4th August, 2013]. 

Dooris, M.J., 2002-2003. Two decades of strategic planning. Planning for Higher Education, 31(2): 26–32. 

Doppler, K. and C. Lauterburg, 2000. Managing corporate change. Berlin: Springer. 

Dutton, J. and R. Duncan, 1987. The creation of momentum for change through the process of strategic 

issue diagnosis. Strategic Management Journal, 8(1987): 279–296. 

Dye, R. and O. Sibony, 2007. How to improve strategic planning. Mckinsey Quarterly, (3): 40-49. Available 

from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=122&sid=f9585de0-b667-4479-9561-

20b082c05371%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=buh&AN=

26295836 [Accessed 11th July, 2013]. 

Falshaw, J.R., K.W. Glaister and E. Tatoglu, 2005. Evidence on formal strategic planning and company 

performance. Management Decision, 44(1): 9 - 30. 

Ford, J. and L. Ford, 2011. The role of conversations in producing intentional change in organizations. 

Academy of Management Review, 20(3): 541-570. 

http://proquest.umi.com.necbproxy.egloballibrary.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=2274832661&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1329421738&clientId=78278
http://proquest.umi.com.necbproxy.egloballibrary.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=2274832661&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1329421738&clientId=78278
http://proquest.umi.com.necbproxy.egloballibrary.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=2274832661&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1329421738&clientId=78278
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Global/Local%20Assets/Documents/Human%20Capital/DTTL_1446_May_OrgAccelR_080113.pdf
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Global/Local%20Assets/Documents/Human%20Capital/DTTL_1446_May_OrgAccelR_080113.pdf
http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-Global/Local%20Assets/Documents/Human%20Capital/DTTL_1446_May_OrgAccelR_080113.pdf
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=122&sid=f9585de0-b667-4479-9561-20b082c05371%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=buh&AN=26295836
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=122&sid=f9585de0-b667-4479-9561-20b082c05371%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=buh&AN=26295836
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=122&sid=f9585de0-b667-4479-9561-20b082c05371%40sessionmgr112&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=buh&AN=26295836


Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
86 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Gattermeyer, W. and A. Al-Ani, 2001. Change management und unternehmenserfolg. Wiesbaden: Springer-

Verlag. 

Ghorbani, M. and B. Kiani, 2012. The relationship between strategic thinking and readiness for strategic 

transformation. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 11(8): 992-1002. 

Graetz, F., 2000. Strategic change leadership. Management Development, 38(8): 550–562. 

Graetz, F., 2002. Strategic thinking versus strategic planning: Towards understanding the 

complementarities. Management Decision, 40(5): 456-462. 

Guest, D., 2004. The psychology of the employment relationship: An analysis based on the psychological 

contract. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(4): 541-555. 

Heracleous, L., 1998. Strategic thinking or strategic planning? Long Range Planning, 31(3): 481-487. 

Hofstede, G., 2013. The values survey module manual (VSM). Hofstede & Minkov: 1-15. Available from 

www.geerthofstede.eu. 

Hughes, M., 2006. Managing change. 2nd Edn., London: Charted Institute of Personal Development. 

Johnson, G., R. Whittington, K. Scholes and S. Pyle, 2011. Exploring strategy. Text & cases. Edinburgh: 

Financial Times Prentice Hall. 

Jones, G.R., 2010. Organizational theory, design, and change. 6th Edn., Upper Saddle River, Nj: Prentice 

Hall. 

Khakee, A. and K. Stromberg, 2011. Applying futures studies and the strategic choice approach in urban 

planning. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44(3): 213-224. 

Kieche III, W., 1989. Office hours: A guide to the managerial life. Boston, MA: Little, Brown. 

Kotter, J.P., 1996. Leading change. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 

Lanning, H., M. Roiha and A. Salminen, 2000. Guide book to change – how to develop organisations in an 

effective and controlled manner (In Finnish). Helsinki: Kauppakaari Oyj. 

Luecke, R., 2003. Managing change and transition. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 

Martin, R.L. and S. Osberg, 2007. Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social 

Innovation Review: 29–39. 

Mintzberg, H., 1994. The rise and fall of strategic planning. New York: Free Press. 

Mintzberg, H., 2006. The design school: Reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management. 

Strategic Management Journal, 11(3): 171–195. 

Moran, J.W. and B.K. Brightman, 2011. Leading organizational change. Career Development International, 

6(2): 111–118. 

Nelson, L., 2003. A case study in organisational change: Implications for theory. The Learning Organization, 

10(1): 18 – 30. 

Nonas, K., 2005. Vision versus reality in organizational change. Stockholm: Elanders Gotab. 

Pettigrew, A., H. Thomas and R. Whittington, 2002. Strategic management: The strengths and limitations 

of a field. Strategy and management. London: Sage Publications. pp: 3-30. 

Poter, M., 1996. What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, November-December, 74(6): 61-78. 

http://www.geerthofstede.eu/


Financial Risk and Management Reviews, 2015, 1(2): 68-87 
 

 
87 

© 2015 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Ridwan, S.M. and J. Marti, 2012. study on strategic planning and organizational performance in the regional government 

owned banks in Indonesia. International Journal of Humanities and Applied Sciences (IJHAS), 1(3): 98-102. 

Rieley, J.B. and I. Clarkson, 2011. The impact of change on performance. Journal of Change Management, 2(2): 160–172. 

Rosenberg, L. and C. Schewe, 1985. Strategic planning: Fulfilling the promise. Business Horizons, 28(4): 54-62. 

Rousseau, D., 2004. Psychological contracts in the workplace: Understanding the ties that motivate. The Academy of 

Management Executive, 18(1): 120-127. 

Schendel, D.E. and C.W. Hofer, 1979. Strategic management: A new view of business policy and planning. Boston: Little, 

Brown. 

Senior, B., 2002. Organisational change. 2nd Edn., London: Prentice Hall. 

Senior, B. and J. Fleming, 2006. Organisational change. 3rd Edn., Essex: Prentice Hall. 

Stickland, F., 1998. The dynamics of change. London: Roulege. 

Strebel, P., 1996. Why do employees resist change? Harvard Business Review, May-June, 74(3): 76. 

Streib, G.D. and T.H. Poister, 2002. The use of strategic planning in municipal governments. Washington, DC: 

International City/County Management Association. 

Todnem, R., 2005. Organisational change management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4): 369-380. 

Wall, S.J. and S.R. Wall, 1995. The evolution (Not the Death) of strategy. Organizational Dynamics, 24(2): 6. 

Williamson, M.G., 2008. The effects of expanding employee decision making on contributions to firm value in an informal 

reward environment. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(4): 1184-1209. 

Wilson, J.W. and S. Eilertsen, 2010. ASP survey: How did strategic planning help during the economic crisis? Journal of 

Strategic Leadership March/April Issue, 38(2): 5-14. 

Witzel, M., 2003. Fifty key figures in management. Routledge key guide. London: Routledge. 

Wood, J., R. Zeffane, M. Fromholtz, R. Wiesner, A. Creed, J. Schermerhorn, J. Hunt and R. Osborn, 2010. Organisational 

behaviour, core concepts & applications. 2nd Edn., Milton Qld: John Wiley & Sons, Australia, Ltd. 

Wood, S. and L.M. de Menezes, 2011. High involvement management, high-performance work systems and well-being. 

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(7): 1586-1610. 

Young, R., 2003. Perspectives on strategic planning in the public sector. Institute for Public Service and Policy Research, 

University of South Carolina. Available from 

http://www.ipspr.sc.edu/publication/Perspectives%20on%20Strategic%20Planning.pdf [Accessed 12th 

August, 2013]. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Financial Risk and Management Reviews 
shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 

http://www.ipspr.sc.edu/publication/Perspectives%20on%20Strategic%20Planning.pdf

