8Chawane.qxd


South Africa (SA) faces the challenge of becoming a global

economic player. It is a challenge because of the unimpressive

South African rankings reported in the World Competitiveness

Yearbook (WCY) surveys (WCY, 2001; 2002). Several authors

have stressed the country’s obligation to become economically

competitive among the world economies (Manning, 1997; Mbigi

& Mandela, 1998; Tonkin & Alfred, 1994). Competitiveness and

productivity are intertwined yardsticks of a nation’s standard of

living and are a result of the capacit y of a country’s

organisations to achieve sustained economic productivity (WCY,

2001; Yadavalli, 1998). In cognisance of this need, the country

has set herself the primary challenge to increase wealth creation

(WCY, 2001).

The productivit y of a country’s workforce is a crucial

component of the competitiveness factors forming the criteria

in terms of which countries are evaluated (WCY, 2001).

Accordingly, organisational transformation programs are

pursued inter alia with the aim of improving the productivity

levels of organisations, which is a logical precedent of national

competitiveness. Veldsman (1998) and Yadavalli (1998) report

that SA’s competitiveness rankings have been consistently poor.

The offered explanations generally attribute SA’s organisational

underperformance to a lack of insight and commitment to

change programs; organisations which are not capable of

learning and inflexible management thinking; neglect of the

development of an organisation’s people; and a lack of trust in

workplace relationships that do not reflect the principles of

fairness and organisational integrity, resulting in incongruent

personal and organisational goals (Birkin, 1997; Erwin, 1998;

Hall & Maritz, 1997; Mbigi, 1997; Veldsman, 1996). 

Cooper and Markus (1995), Bartlett and Ghoshal (1995), Ghoshal

and Bartlett (1996), and Veldsman (2002) have noted the

growing insight that the engine of organisational transformation

lies in the people who do the work, through their attitudes,

assumptions and behaviours as they fulfil their work-roles. The

premise of this study is that organisational change approaches

that have a primary emphasis on the dimension of personal

change could result in individual excellence that in turn would

lead to organisational productivity, wealth creation and national

competitiveness. 

Daft and Lengel (1998) and Veldsman (2002) explain personal

change as a blending together of the inner world of the

individual, consisting of the individual’s thoughts and attitudes,

feelings and spirit, with the outer world of the organisation,

consisting of the trends, crises and competition. Nadler and

Tushman’s (1980) contention that organisational change

programs are strategic efforts toward the creation of compatible

organisational systems that would enhance effective

organisational functioning displays a similar line of thought.

Thus, the competitiveness levels referred to earlier and the cited

factors for SA’s economic underperformance compel a need for

personal change in SA organisational members. This could

influence the required organisational transformation and help

South Africa to meet its challenges, while also improving

national competitiveness levels. 

Obholzer (1994) endorses that the need for change is self-

evident and generally acknowledged, and argues that

meaningful change is difficult to achieve. Erfat (1998), Human

(1996), Manning (1996) and Werth (1994) also report that SA

organisational change efforts have yielded minimal success. The

authors ascribe this to the regrettable disregard of the

significant dimension of personal change in organisational

transformation approaches employed.

The ineffectiveness of change interventions 

Czander (1993) and Diamond (1986) cite several conceptual

foundations which affirm that individual employees have a

basic, ongoing need to maximise their potential. Hersey and

THABILE CHAWANE

LJ VAN VUUREN

G ROODT
Programme in Industrial Psychology

Department of Human Resource Management

RAU University

ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study was to investigate the critical role of personal change, and its inherent elements, in

determining the outcomes of organisational transformation interventions. The purposeful sampling method was

used to involve expert organisational transformation consultants as participants (N=10). A qualitative content

analysis technique was applied to infer meaningful explanations to the research problem. It was found that although

personal change formed an integral part of transformation interventions, it was not adequately explored and utilised

as a crucial and consequential dimension in influencing the results of organisational transformation interventions.

The implications of the findings are discussed.

OPSOMMING
Die doel met hierdie studie was om die kernrol wat persoonlike verandering, en die elemente inherent daaraan, ten

opsigte van die uitkomste van intervensies gerig op organisasietransformasie vertolk, te ondersoek.

Doelmatigheidsteek-proefneming is aangewend om kundige organisasie-transformasie konsultante (N=10), wat

moontlik die rol van persoonlike verandering tydens transformasie-intervensies verreken, as navorsingsdeelnemers

te betrek. ’n Kwalitatiewe inhouds-ontledingstegniek is benut om betekenisvolle verklarings vir die

navorsingsprobleem daar te stel. Daar is bevind dat hoewel persoonlike verandering ’n integrale komponent is van

intervensies gerig op transformasie, dit nie genoegsaam as ’n deurslaggewende en vooruitspruitende dimensie van

transformasie verreken en benut word nie. Die implikasies van die bevindinge word bespreek.

PERSONAL CHANGE AS A KEY DETERMINANT 

OF THE OUTCOMES OF ORGANISATIONAL 

TRANSFORMATION INTERVENTIONS 

Requests for copies should be addressed to: T Chawane, Department of Human

Resource Management, RAU University, PO Box 524, Auckland Park, 2006

62

SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 2003, 1 (3), 62-76

SA Tydskrif vir Menslikehulpbronbestuur, 2003, 1 (3), 62-76



PERSONAL CHANGE AS A KEY DETERMINANT 63

Blanchard (1993) refer to Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,

of which self-actualisation as a particular need explains man’s

ultimate life goal. This need pertains to individuals’ desire to

fulfil themselves as creative people according to their

potentialities within the prevailing limitations of their reality.

Self-actualisation implies personal mastery (Senge, 1990) and

self-empowerment (Manning, 1997). The emphasis is on an

individual’s compelling urge to achieve through continuous

psychological growth. An acknowledgement of this need with

regard to personal change processes is critical if the

interdependence of individuals’ and organisational needs is

accepted (Daft & Lengel, 1998). 

Organisational environments are expected to serve as the source

of the required energies to fulfil individuals’ needs. Halton

(1994), however, asserts that organisations respond to challenges

much like individuals. They develop defensive routines against

difficult emotions which are too threatening or painful to

acknowledge, while also inhibiting learning in the process

(Argyris, 1985; 1990). The organisational strategies employed to

diffuse the defensive routines result in structures which

frustrate rather than satisf y individuals’ needs (Coulson-

Thomas, 1992; Czander, 1993; Mbigi & Maree, 1995). Since

individuals’ needs are dominant, they often compel employees

to undermine the organisation’s tasks to obtain self-

gratification. Management frequently responds by increasing

control, making threats and/or introducing reward schemes

which are designed to force and/or entice employees to keep on

working (Czander, 1993). 

Czander’s (1993) contention, and that of this study, is that

organisational transformation programs are intended to restore

a balance between the organisational needs of competitiveness

and the individual’s needs of personal goal satisfaction. As a

result of that, and because of the dominant nat ure of

individuals’ needs over those of organisations, SA

organisational change interventions should endeavour to

realign organisational and individuals’ needs (Coulson-Thomas,

1992; Czander, 1993; Diamond, 1986). The objective of this

study is, therefore, to explore the phenomenon of personal

change, its elements and their psycho-dynamic nature, as well

as their hypothesised critical role in influencing effective

organisational transformation programs. This objective seems

justifiable in view of Stokes’ (1994) reference to Reed and

Palmer’s (1972) assertion, that individuals’ goal satisfaction

comes not necessarily from changing the organisation. It also

stems from individuals finding, making and taking a role in

relation to the task and the organisational structures available

to support those goals.

A review of five general organisational change models

According to Nadler and Tushman (1980), organisational

transformation models are aimed at depicting the

interdependent factors that continuously interact to reflect

organisational behavioural patterns. Burke and Litwin (1992)

emphasise that models are not intended to prescribe, but rather

to serve as frameworks for organisational diagnosis, planning

and managing change. 

The five general models were selected on the consideration that

between them, they cover a) a diagnostic approach (Nadler &

Tushman, 1980); b) organisational performance and change

(Burke & Litwin, 1992); c) the dynamics of planned change

(Robertson, Roberts & Porras, 1993); d) an approach that focuses

on individuals’ tasks, roles, relationships and responsibilities; as

well as on the significant role of organisational leadership (Beer,

Eisenstat & Spector, 1990) and; e) the imperative of the fairness

perspective in enhancing individuals’ adaptation to

organisational change (Novelli, Kirkman & Shapiro, 1995). These

approaches represent a comprehensive overview of the different

aspects of organisational change rather than a focus on the sub-

processes contained in change approaches. 

Reviewing the models will serve five distinct purposes for this

study. Firstly, the process will make known the generic

components of theoretical change models. Secondly, it will

allow an assessment of the extent to which personal change

elements are considered and/or emphasised in the identified

components. Thirdly, it will facilitate the development of an

objective framework by which the components of the researched

SA change intervention models can be categorised. Fourthly, it

will enable a process by which the various components can be

synthesised into four broad dimensions. Lastly, it will provide

the means by which the data to be gathered can be analysed,

classified and tabulated.

A congruence model of organisational behaviour

The congruence model of organisational behaviour (Nadler &

Tushman, 1980) describes organisations as dynamic and

complex total systems that can achieve effectiveness providing

the subparts approach a state of congruence. It emphasises input

factors, amongst which are the human resource. According to

this framework, organisational transformation initiatives should

acknowledge employees’ needs, preferences and expectations,

since these factors influence behaviour, especially with regard to

task performance. The imperative is for organisational

components to produce effectiveness through their alignment

with the larger organisational environment and yield a state of

congruence (Nadler & Tushman, 1980).

Figure 1: A congruence model of organisational behaviour
(Nadler & Tushman, 1980, p. 24)



CHAWANE, VAN VUUREN, ROODT64

The Nadler and Tushman (1980) organisational framework

neither applies particular emphasis on personal change

elements, nor does it explain them as crucial components of

organisational change initiatives. Instead, the authors explain

that their model is general, diagnostic and descriptive of

those factors that should be regarded as forming part of

organisational systems. They recommend the development of

specific sub-models that could be explored to deal with

incongruit y within particular organisational subsystems.

Also, the authors cite the expectancy theory of motivation as

a sub-model that could explain the fit bet ween the

component of ‘individuals’ and the other components of

their model. 

A model of organisational performance and change

The model of organisat ional performance and change 

(Burke & Lit win, 1992) is founded on a functional cause 

and effect framework. It explains linkages that hypothesise

how performance is affected as well as how deliberate 

and effective change can be influenced. The authors contend

that the external environment affects transformat ional

factors, which are ident ified as the organisat ional 

mission and strateg y, leadership, and culture. These, in 

t urn, affect transactional factors which are identified as 

the organisat ional struct ure, systems, management 

practices and climate. Both t ypes of factors reciprocate 

and event ually impact on individuals’ and organisational

performance. 

The model purports to integrate both organisational

development and organisational change process theories to serve

as a guide for diagnosis and planned, managed change. This

integration is reported to clearly show cause and effect

relationships between the organisation’s internal and external

environments in order to explain their link to organisational

effectiveness (Burke & Litwin, 1992). The authors mention that

the identified transformational factors are the ones more

weighty in bringing about fundamental organisational change,

whereas the climate or transactional factors consisting of the

employees’ impressions, expectations and feelings, impact on

organisational relationships. The reciprocity of the model

components considered, the present study’s assumptions

question the ‘more weight y’ and ‘more fundamental’

explanation attributed to the transformational factors over the

transactional factors.

A theoretical model of the dynamics of planned

organisational change

According to Robertson, et al. (1993) the theoretical foundation

of their model is that organisations are contexts within which

individuals behave. The model explains how a climate of

organisational alignment can be created to produce optimal

productivity and performance. The model premises that an

individual’s behaviour is a primary determinant of both

organisational performance and the level of an individual’s

development. Based on social cognitive models of behaviour,

behaviour change is explained as the supposedly primary

variable of focus (though not ultimate) for organisational

change intervention. The model centres around four

interdependent subsystems of work settings. These subsystems

are regarded as variables that can be altered to induce change

in an individual’s behaviour with an intention to trigger

organisational change.

Figure 2: A causal model of organisational performance and change
Source: Burke & Litwin, 1992, p. 7)



PERSONAL CHANGE AS A KEY DETERMINANT 65

Figure 3: A theoretical model of the dynamics of planned

organisational change

(Robertson, Roberts & Porras, 1993, p. 621)

The explanation of the model focuses on demonstrating the

significance of planned change in as far as it can facilitate

systematic monitoring of a guided and effective organisational

change process (Robertson, et al. 1993). Importantly, the model

acknowledges personal change elements by recognising that

individuals’ work behaviours are also driven by factors outside

an organisation. These factors are said to be crucial because they

mediate the relationship between changes in the work setting,

as well as organisational performance and individual

development. The authors recommend a more explicit focus on

a common set of behaviours which would provide a common

denominator for a finer-grained analysis of the relationship

among changes in work setting, individual behaviour and

organisational outcome variables. 

A six-steps-to-effective-change framework

The Beer, et al. (1990) framework is based on the rationale that

organisational change, referred to as revitalisation, is a process

that should be led by general managers within their respective

organisational work units or divisions. The informal

organisational arrangements, encompassing employee roles,

responsibilities and relationships need to be aligned to the

organisation’s competitive task. 

Task alignment is attained through a sequential process of six

basic managerial interventions, and referred to as the critical

path. The critical path is based on the belief that a change

Figure 4: A six-steps-to-effective-change framework
Adapted from Beer, Eisenstat & Spector (1990, p. 219)



CHAWANE, VAN VUUREN, ROODT66

process that focuses on task alignment, which begins at the

organisation’s periphery, and progresses steadily toward the

corporate centre, is the most effective way to achieve lasting

organisational change (Beer, Eisenstat & Spector, 1990). 

According to Beer, et al. (1990) the success of the six steps to

effective change program hinges on three interrelated factors.

They are co-ordination, commitment and competencies.

Although the discussed change program approaches change

from the perspective of informal organising arrangements

within organisational units, the authors maintain that top

management has a responsibility to support such initiatives.

Highlighted as part of the required support is the creation of a

market for change, the promotion of revitalised units as models

for the whole organisation, and the importance of developing

career paths that encourage leadership development at the unit

level and across the organisation.

The success of the six-steps-to-effective-change framework is

substantiated by the results of the field research conducted by

Beer, et al. (1990). However, their approach contrasts with the

assumptions of this study. The authors view change intervention

programs as effective if implemented at the work units/divisions

level, thereby influencing individuals’ desired attitudes and

behaviours. Contrarily, this study’s rationale regards change as

effectual if approached in terms of the individual’s internal

cognitive and affective domains. These are regarded as areas

within which internal learning processes take place, have an

influence on decision making, and therefore shape behaviour.   

A six-step-framework of organisational justice for

organisational change

Novelli, et al. (1995) incorporated a justice perspective into Beer,

et al. (1990) six-step-model in order to develop a six-step-

framework-of-organisational-justice-for-organisational-change.

Their approach emphasises the importance of organisational

justice in enhancing the understanding and design of effective

organisational change processes. 

Novelli, et al. (1995) support the Beer, et al. approach because of

the perceived difficulty that goes with implementing successful

and effective organisational change. The redesigned approach

is still based on six steps but incorporates the justice

perspective on the change requirements made to employees.

Both planning and correct sequencing of the steps are

emphasised as crucial. Novelli, et al. (1995) indicate two

primary implications of their model: a) the need to change

organisations so that they are fundamentally more just; and b)

the need for managers to change themselves so that they are

more sensitive to justice issues. 

The distributive, procedural and interactional justice issues are

dealt with and resolved singly and jointly throughout the six

steps to ensure effective implementation (Novelli, et al. 1995).

Overall, the authors highlight the need for organisational

leadership to achieve appropriate levels of self-awareness. This

may assist in narrowing the gap bet ween possible

inconsistencies in organisational transformation endeavours.

They strongly emphasise a deep level of personal

transformation to create shifts in large behavioural patterns.

The model descriptors solidif y the argument for change

approaches that recognise the depth required to explore the

dimension of personal change.

Personal change elements detectable in the reviewed

theoretical models

Common across the preceding organisational transformation

frameworks is the use of purposeful, systematic yet dynamic,

detectable and interdependent organisational components

(Beer, et al., 1990; Burke & Lit win, 1992; Nadler & Tushman,

1980; Novelli, et al. 1995; Robertson, et al. 1993). Each model

focuses on a preferred approach rather than to compare the

varying degree of importance of each component. Personal

change elements are acknowledged as forming part of the

model components because other organisational factors

impact directly or indirectly on organisational members.

However, none of the models give particular focus or

TABLE 1

A SIX-STEP-FRAMEWORK OF ORGANISATIONAL CHANGE

Type of justice 

Change-model step Distributive Procedural Interactional 

Jointly diagnose the business problem Will employees perceive that the Will employees perceive that they have Will employees perceive that

diagnosis is fair, or that it is biased? input into the diagnostic process? management listens to their expressed

views?

Develop shared vision of how to Will employees perceive that the newly Will employees perceive that they have Will employees perceive that

organize for competitiveness developed shared vision provide them input into how the company will managers listen to and respect employee

with fair outcomes? organize for competitiveness? questions and concerns regarding

the shared vision?

Create consensus, competence, and Will employees perceive that the support Will employees perceive the criteria Will employees perceive that

the cohesion needed for change mechanisms (i.e. training, outplacement by which some of them are retained managers act with empathy and

assistance) generate fair outcomes? and others are terminated as fair? sensitivity regarding those who

remain and those who do not remain

in the organization?

Don’t push the changes from the top Will employees perceive that new roles, Will employees perceive that they Will employees perceive that sincere

responsibilities, and authority are fair have a voice in determining changes and adequate explanations are provided

outcomes? in departmental roles and about their changing roles and

responsibilities that must accompany responsibilities as a result of the change?

the overall change process?

Institutionalize the change Will employees perceive that their Will employees perceive that they Will employees perceive that sincere

outcomes resulting from the have a voice in determining what and adequate explanations are

institutionalized policies, systems, changes are made permanent and provided regarding which changes are

and structures are fair? what changes are not? institutionalized and which are not?

Monitor and adjust the change process Will employees perceive that the Will employees perceive that the Will employees perceive that

outcomes generated by the monitoring monitoring and adjusting of the managers listen to and respect the

and adjustment phases are fair? change process is fair and that they results of the employees’ monitoring 

get to express voice in these matters? and adjusting activities?

(Taken from Novelli, Kirkman & Shapiro, 1995, p. 29)



PERSONAL CHANGE AS A KEY DETERMINANT 67

emphasise the critical role of the dimension of personal

change in inf luencing effective organisat ional change.

Consequently the phenomenon and its elements still remain

unexplored as key source of the required energ y to 

propel individual task performance toward excellent

organisational productivit y. 

THE CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE

CONCEPT “PERSONAL CHANGE”

According to Cutcliffe (2000), the literature review methid is a

legitimate initial process in a qualitative study in that it

enhances conceptual clarity. It also increases the conceptual

density and the richness of concept development. According to

Backman and Kyngas (1999) literature analysis also facilitates the

narrowing down of the research problem. Personal change is a

concept that belongs to the spheres of the subconscious and

intuitive (Senge, 1990). Its impact is however, acknowledged by

several authors, including Covey (1991), Daft and Lengel (1998),

Manning (1997), Quinn (1996) and Veldsman (1998). 

Personal change factors are described as key elements in

individuals’ relationship formation with their co-workers and

their workrole identification. They are divided into the

cognitive and affective domains. Czander (1993), Diamond

(1986) and Herzberg (1971) describe these factors as the psycho-

dynamic elements of an individual’s behaviour. The authors

explain them as powerful unconscious motives which have an

influence on work performance. Block (1996) contends that

personal change factors cannot be dealt with at a concrete level

to deliberately yield the desired organisational transformation.

However, the author’s contention, in line with that of Senge

(1990), is that a focus limited to the concrete is a traditional

organisational practice which would never result in

competitive and adaptable organisations. A large part of

organisational concerns can only be satisfied through a

conscious seeing and a re-evaluation of the people’s intangible

needs, wants, longings and expectations. All subtle phenomena

which, according to Diamond (1986), will obstruct learning

and change if ignored. 

Czander (1993) insists, however, that it is important to

understand personal change factors. The author furthermore

contends that psychoanalytic theories should be considered to

enrich organisational theorising in order to understand the key

elements that contribute in making work a meaningful

experience that can increase individual excellence and

organisational productivity. This opinion is strongly supported

by Mosse (1994), who suggests that the organisational theories

and psychoanalytic perspectives on change must be used

together if real change is to be effected. 

Czander (1993) and Mosse (1994) conclude that if one of the

perspectives is to be used without the other, the change effort

will fail. Personal change elements should therefore be

incorporated into and drawn from, to develop comprehensive

organisational transformation models. Table 2 provides a broad

framework to identif y the personal change dimension,

components and elements as well as the domains they occupy

(Covey, 1991; Daft & Lengel, 1998; Forsha, 1992a; Hey & Moore,

1998; Veldsman, 2002). The included questions provide

guidelines that an individual may use to evaluate one’s personal

change requirements.

The approaches to change

Marshak (1993) distinguishes bet ween developmental,

transitional and transformational change. In the same vein,

Swart and Van Vuuren (1998) refer to Spicer’s (1989) change

strategies, which explain the difference between incremental

and quantum change. The former is explained as referring to

organisational efforts to change present mechanisms by doing

more of the same, whereas the latter refers to a paradigm shift,

incorporating new values and behaviours. Since the intangible

personal change elements are centred at the cognitive and

affective levels of an individual’s psycho-dynamic system

(Czander, 1993; Long & Newton, 1997), they are, therefore,

suggestive of transformational and/or quantum change. 

Ivancevich and Matteson (1993) have a similar contention.

They identif y ten levels of change targets which vary

according to the depth of intended change required from the

individual and organisation. Level one represents the

shallowest change and level ten represents the deepest depth

of required change. Personal change as the subject of the

present study falls within level nine (individual behaviour)

and level ten (individual/group behaviour). These levels target

the deepest level of individual’s behavioural change. Novelli,

et al. (1995) state that personal change is not only about

changing a few behaviours but rather that it is about a deep

level of personal work that creates shifts in large behavioural

patterns. The emphasis is on appropriate attempts to

adequately address individuals’ deeply embedded behavioural

patterns without dismissing them as resistance to change

(Argyris, 1985; 1991; Czander, 1993; Halton, 1994; Long &

Newton, 1997; Mosse, 1994).

TABLE 2                     

THE DIMENSION OF PERSONAL CHANGE

Component Element Domain Types of questions to prompt individuals to change 

Mindfulness Independent thinking, creativity Mind How competent am I in my task performance? How open am I to learning?

assumptions, open-mindedness How creative am I in my task performance? Am I satisfied with my performance?

Vision Striving for higher purpose in task Mind How do I foresee myself bringing about a change in my work? How can I do

performance  my work to the best of my abilities        

Heart Caring and compassionate attitudes, Emotion How passionate am I about my work? Am I enthusiastic about my work? Do

nurturing relationships with I care about how my work affects team members, the customers and the  

colleagues  organisation? Does my work fulfill me?        

Communication Expresses the vision, values, beliefs, Emotion Am I meeting quality expectations which support the vision and mission? Is  

emotions and commitment my performance supportive and shows a commitment to the vision and mission?

Courage Risk taking, non-conformity, Spirit Can I risk bringing about innovation and improvement to my work? Do I have  

a willingness to take initiative the scope to explore and implement what I think my task requires? What will 

leading to learning and growth it take for me to act on my desire to improve? Do I want to do that? What is in 

it for me as a person?       

Integrity Honesty, trustworthiness, being of Spirit Am I sincere in my task performance? Am I doing it to the best of my abilities?

service to others, the team and the Am I proud and satisfied with the contribution I am making in meeting my 

organisation, acknowledging stated needs and those of the organisation? Can I be relied upon to deliver the best 

and unstated norms work through my work roles/tasks?  



CHAWANE, VAN VUUREN, ROODT68

According to Czander (1993) personal change requires a method

of engagement that can bring about any learning or creativity

toward personal renewal. This point of view is supported by

Obholzer (1994) who identifies three layers of anxieties. These are

primitive anxieties, anxieties arising out of the nature of the

work, and personal anxieties. The author stresses the need for

organisations to understand and contain these layers of anxieties

within individuals before change can be managed. Such an

approach would curtail the futility of attempting to solve

irrational organisational problems, which stem from individuals’

irrational dynamics and motives, with rational methods. The

latter approaches only result in dysfunctional organisational

systems which perpetuate a simplistic notion of the requirements

of organisational transformation challenges (Czander, 1993).

The process of personal change

In tracing personal change processes, Bretherton, (1993), Bridges

(1996), Forsha (1992b) and Hey and Moore (1998), agree that the

individual’s awareness of the need to commence self-change is

the first most important occurrence because it influences

further all required change phases and activities. It requires a

disciplined commitment to self-reflection and contemplation

about the values and purposes of one’s life, which will result in

the desire and willingness to change oneself (Edwards & Sen,

2000). Both Czander (1993) and Long and Newton (1997)

strongly suggest that the psycho-dynamic approach should be

explored as a possible means by which the individual’s creative

energies can be unlocked. Through such efforts an individual’s

internal thought processes can be brought to a conscious state of

awareness. It could provide a base from which a general

understanding about the relationship between an individual and

his environment can be formulated. A different paradigm of

thinking would also result in constructive interpretations of

which change path to pursue (Forsha, 1992a).

The continuous personal renewal path further creates a loss of

control and leads to fearfulness, anxiety, denial, numbness,

confusion, anger, depression and finally, acceptance of the

implications and goals of the change requirements (Bretherton,

1993; Buckham, 1996; Forsha, 1992a; Hey & Moore, 1998;

Quinn, 1996). 

These responses are associated with Czander’s (1993) and

Diamond’s (1986) explanations of affective and cognitive

processes of change which are based on psycho-dynamic

interventions to personal change. George (2000) relates these

processes to Forgas’ Affective Infusion Model which states that

feelings and emotions have an influence on thinking processes,

judgement and on decision-making. These complex affective

responses are internal learning experiences through which

extensive reflection, accurate judgement, constructive learning

and evaluation occur which shape required behaviours (Long &

Newton,1997).

The contextual requirements for personal change

Long and Newton (1997) assert that organisations are required to

be reliable, safe learning environments which would provide

psychological conditions for self-management of one’s tasks,

decisions and accountability. Such environments make provision

for the inherent individual differences which are continuously at

play in work-places. The effects and counter-effects between

peers, subordinates and super-ordinates, and the restrictive

organisational contexts within which they take place, are

determinants of an individual’s readiness to accept the

imperative of personal change processes (Long & Newton, 1997). 

Covey (1993), Daft and Lengel (1998), as well as Manning (1996),

infer that only when both the organisational and individual

dimensions are acknowledged and aligned, can individuals

succeed in developing ways of understanding their

organisational systems, and be able to determine their own roles

in steering the organisation toward a state of productivity and

competitiveness. Both organisational leadership and

organisational culture should succeed in triggering the desire,

and influence a need for personal change. Accordingly,

productivity cannot be pursued as an end in itself. It should,

instead, be a by-product of an individual’s identification with

organisational goals which result from the achievement of the

individual’s goal of self-worth through self-discovery processes

(Long & Newton, 1997). When the environment is conducive,

organisational members would individually and collectively

experience less anxiety about their work and their relationships

(Daft & Lengel, 1998). 

They would take collective responsibility towards problem-

solving in a manner that would optimise the organisation’s

efficiency and effectiveness. They would also gain improved

senses of self by acquiring a clearer understanding of the

boundaries between themselves and the environment. This

would enhance self reliance and engender mental freedom to

take risks (Argyris, 1991). 

The research question in the present study seeks to investigate

the extent to which personal change and its elements are

emphasised in SA organisational transformation intervention

programs. The goal is to explain personal change as a catalytic

organisational dimension requiring prominent and significant

prevalence in organisational transformation intervention

programs. The findings of the study may, therefore, provide

explanations regarding its role as a critical determinant on the

success-failure continuum of organisational transformation

interventions. 

METHOD

According to Kerlinger and Lee (2000), the main criterion of a

research design is that it should adequately answer the research

question. Annels (1996) supports this assertion by stating that

the research question(s) serve to sensitise the research problem

to the field of investigation from which hypotheses are

developed to be tested against the data to be collected. The

research question to be investigated therefore suggests that the

incorporation of personal change is expected to vary within and

bet ween the intervention programs to be evaluated.

Furthermore, the word ‘extent’ in the research question implies

that the depth of meaning attributed to the concept, as would be

derived from the responses, will also vary.

The first assumption, therefore, is that a research method that

can allow a varying degree of explanation of the researched

concept and depth of inferred meaning from the collected data

has to be employed. The second assumption is that the study

qualifies as qualitative in that the meaning to be attached or

inferred to the concept will be derived from an analysis of

words, phrases and themes as they emerge from the responses.

The qualification of the study as qualitative is supported by

Silverman (2000) who asserts that such studies are commonly

believed to provide a deeper understanding of the phenomenon

being investigated.

Silverman’s (2000) assertion is pertinent in that personal

change as a hypothesised catalytic dimension necessitates

clarity of meaning before its influence in organisational

transformation interventions can be ascertained. The third

assumption is that, because the resulting communication

between the researcher and the respondents is to be in a text

format, content analysis (Babbie & Mouton, 2001) seems a

suitable method. This method allows for the tapping of the

latent and underlying meaning as may be deduced from the

collected data. Content analysis is also found suitable because it

can assist in identif ying the distinctive elements of a text from

which an inference can be made (Hicks, Rush & Strong, 1977).

Thereby, unearthing the essence of expressions as a whole,

while also reconstructing the substantive meaning by

interpreting it (Roller, Mathes & Eckert, 1995). 



PERSONAL CHANGE AS A KEY DETERMINANT 69

Babbie and Mouton (2001), Berg (2001) and Roller, et al. (1995)

highlight that content analysis can also be successfully applied

to quantitative studies. The differentiating factor is that in a

quantitative application, the procedure of analysis is of

concern, whereas in a qualitative application the concern is the

character of the available data (Berg, 2001). In quantitative

approaches, a complexity of whole messages are reduced to

single elements whose frequency can be counted, whereas

qualitative approaches seek to identif y the meaning of a

message as a whole from which interpretations can be made

(Roller, et al., 1995). This means that quantitative content

analysis can be applied to large quantities of messages whereas

the qualitative approach is confined to smaller quantities. The

fourth and last proposition is that because qualitative content

analysis is suited to smaller quantities of messages, it becomes

an ideal approach for the present study, given that the data

sources were deliberately narrowed.     

Although content analysis has a subjective leaning, Hicks, et al.

(1977) maintain that the meanings to be determined have to be

an accurate inference of the intention of the message sources.

This view is upheld by Berg (2001) who identifies a sequential

set of analytic activities which can be employed to ensure a

rounded application of content analysis techniques.

Accordingly the author points out that an objective coding

system has to be applied to the data so that categorical labels or

themes can be formulated to exhaustively account for each

variation of the content of messages. The theoretical model

components will hence form the basis of the coding method to

be used in developing categories for classification and data

analysis for this study. 

It should be noted that focus group interviews or interview

schedules (Berg, 2001) with the identified participants would

have been equally suited for the present study. However,

limitations pertaining to the nature of the work performed by

consultants within consulting firms (accessibility, irregular

hours and costs of consulting fees) meant that time constraints

and financial resources (of the researcher) necessitated a method

that impacted minimally on these resources. Content analysis,

therefore, became a preferred method that provided a feasible

approach within the constraints of the study.

Participants

A purposive sample (Huysamen, 1994) comprising 15 reputable

organisational development and transformation management

consultants, within their consulting firms, were approached for

the present study. Their selection was based on the level of their

knowledge and expertise in organisational change and

transformation management. One respondent, however, described

the scope of their firm’s operation as in competitive strategy

development rather than in organisational transformation

management. The sample size represented a significant proportion

of SA consulting firms ranging in size from small (about 10

members) to very large international consulting firms of about

14000 professionals, some of whom serve more than a third of the

companies in the Global Fortune 500. 

Ten consultants representing their respective firms responded.

Five consultants did not respond by the time of results’ analysis.

Eight of the respondents presented their organisational

transformation intervention programs as comprehensive tools

within their firms’ approaches rather than individuals’

approaches to change interventions. The other two described

their programs as their own individualised approaches to change

intervention and management. Nevertheless, all the

contributions are regarded as sufficient because they are

representative of very large and well-established management

consulting firms. 

Measuring instrument

The following t wo open-ended questions were carefully

formulated and put to the respondents:

� “Please identif y and briefly explain the key components of

the generic model(s) and/or approach(es) that you prefer to

use as a consultant in organisational transformation

interventions in South Africa. Please feel free to attach or fax

any relevant material (e.g. model or process) which may

enhance our understanding of your approach.”

� “Please explain the extent to which your firm’s organisational

transformation interventions make provision for personal

change of individuals in the client organisations. Also

indicate whether personal change is a critical determinant of

the interventions’ success or failure.” 

� The first question was asked to establish whether SA

organisational transformation intervention processes

incorporated and focused on personal change as a

component in their models. The second question was asked

to determine the impact personal change had on the outcome

of organisational transformation interventions. 

Procedure

The consultants identified were contacted at the consulting

firms they worked for and could be reached with minimal effort.

Initial contact was conducted telephonically to establish their

availability and willingness to participate in the research study.

They confirmed these by making available (upon request) their

electronic-mail addresses. The latter medium of contact was used

to send the research questions. A covering letter was attached,

the purpose of which was to assure the participants of their

anonymit y and to convey the respect with which their

confidentiality and their contributions will be treated. A

solicited document in the form of an essay was received from the

respondents via e-mail. 

Data analysis

Table 3 was formulated by integrating and using the reviewed

theoretical models’ components as sources/derivation for the

various categories. The first column categorises the various

components according to how the theoretical models

commonly refer to them. The second column categorises the

broadly formulated phases/dimensions according to the

seeming linkages among all the theoretical models’

components. These broad dimensions will provide means by

which the researched models’ components can be analysed

and tabulated. The last column identifies the theoretical

models’ components as they are given in the table/figure they

derive from.

Tables 4 to 7 were designed to illustrate and structure the

analysis of the data received in response to the first research

question. The targeted unit of analysis for the study were the

consulting firms although individual consultants responded

on behalf of their firms. The first column of each Table is

coded ‘Respondent’ and each row is arbitrarily but

consistently labelled with a number from 1 to 10 to represent

each responding firm. Other columns are each prominently

coded with a theoretical component. The statements and

phrases given as responses and which seemed to describe a

process associated with each theoretical component, were

classified accordingly. Table 8 illustrates and structures the

analysis of the data received in response to the second

research question. 

The foregoing procedure used to formulate the tables is

explained to ensure the reliabilit y of the data analysis

process. Importantly, the statements and phrases recorded in

the tables are quoted verbatim from the responses to meet the

internal validit y requirements for the present study. The

coding, categorising and classification of the data from the

responses were strictly done according to the procedure

described above in order to facilitate any future replication of

the study. From the descriptions given in the responses,

meaningful inferences were established and discussed as

findings of the present study. 



CHAWANE, VAN VUUREN, ROODT70

RESULTS

Eight of the responses were in plain text format and t wo

incorporated both plain text and some graphic illustrations.

The entire data source(s) were utilised and exhausted to

maximise total coverage of the pertinent aspects of the

research problem. In response to the request to identif y 

their firms’ generic model(s) and/or approaches, t wo

respondents identified their firms’ intervention programs 

as ‘approaches’. 

Three consultants identified their firms’ intervention programs

as ‘models’ with one of these named ‘Organisational

Transformation Model’. One identified their firm’s

intervention program as a ‘Competitive Organisational

Strategy’; one identified their firm’s intervention program as a

‘Change Navigation Strategy’; one identified their firm’s

approach as an ‘intervention’; one identified their firm’s

intervention approach as ‘principles’; and the last one

identified their firm’s intervention program as ‘main steps’. Six

of the ten respondents stated that their firms’

models/approaches were based on practical experience which

was customised to meet the client organisations’ needs. Three

stated that their firms’ approaches were based on theoretical

change models. The response to the first question of one of the

ten respondents could not be evaluated, as the consultant’s

model was not received for analysis. All the models/approaches

were explained as based on world-wide leading expertise 

and proven best practices in the field of organisational

transformation management.

Since the formulation of categories was derived from the

reviewed general models’ key components, the resulting

columns enabled the classification of the consulting firms’

key components. Recorded thereunder are verbatim

statements given in response to a request for brief

explanation(s) of each model/approaches’ key components.

They are classified according to the degree of similarity in

meaning bet ween the theoretical and respondents’ key

models’ components. One of the responses was not

accompanied by the model’s content, and, therefore could not

form part of the analysis of results to the first question. The

resulting data was, therefore, formatted and presented as

Tables 4 to 7. 

Accordingly, Table 4 shows the scanning and diagnosis phase of

the theoretical models. The first column reflects the range of

statements used to explain the readiness assessment process at

the onset of the change intervent ion process. Seven

respondents alluded to that this process formed a key

component of their intervention programs, whereas four of

the theoretical models explicitly stated that ‘diagnosis’

formed a component of their frameworks. The second

column reflects that four respondents had ‘vision’ as a key

component of their change programs, whereas t wo

theoret ical frameworks had it as a dist inguishable

component. The third column reflects that six respondents

stated that ‘mission and/or strateg y’ formed a key component

of their change programs, whereas three of the theoretical

frameworks visibly identified the component. 

It should be noted that within this phase, the ‘external

environment’ component formed part of three theoretical

frameworks, whereas, none of the respondents explicitly

identified it as a component in their model.

Table 5 capt ures the organisational infrastructure dimension of

the theoretical models. The first column indicates that six

respondents explicitly stated that the ‘formal organising

arrangements and the physical setting’ was a key component

of their change programs, whereas all five of the theoretical

frameworks explicitly identified the component. The second

column reflects that three respondents had ‘organisational

culture, informal organisation, work unit climate and other

social factors’ as a key component of their change

intervention programs, whereas all five of the theoretical

frameworks identified it as a visible component. The third

column indicates that six of the respondents stated that

‘leadership philosophy, role and st yle’ formed a key

component of their change intervention programs, while 

all five of the theoretical frameworks identified it as 

a component.

TABLE 3

FORMULATION OF CATEGORIES, PHASES/DIMENSIONS FOR DATA ANALYSIS

Derived category Derived phase/dimension Theoretical components

Diagnosis Scanning and diagnosis phase Jointly diagnose business process, environment,  resources,

history, mobilising energy 

Vision Scanning and diagnosis phase Develop shared vision of how to organise for  

competitiveness 

Mission and strategy Scanning and diagnosis phase Strategy and mission 

Task requirements, training and competencies, Performance and rewads requirements dimension Create consensus, competence and cohesion needed for 

skills and abilities change. Don’t push change from the top, individual 

abilities

Systems, policies, management practices Performance and rewads requirements dimension Management practices, systems, policies and procedures, 

consolidating systems 

Structure, formal organising arrangements, Organisational infrastructure dimension Institutionalise the change, structure, physical setting, 

physical setting, technology  technology, formal organisation 

Oganisational culture, informal organisation, Organisational infrastructure dimension Informal organisation, organisational culture, work unit 

work unit climate, social factors climate 

Leadership philosophy, role and style, Organisational infrastructure dimension Leadership 

resources for revitalisation  

Individual motivation, behaviour, needs and Desired targeted output phase Individual/group, organisation, motivation, individual 

values needs, values and behaviour, human resources attributes

Individual and organisational performance Desired targeted output phase Monitor and adjust the change process, desired business 

outcomes outcomes 



PERSONAL CHANGE AS A KEY DETERMINANT 71

Table 6 shows the performance and rewards requirements

dimension of the theoretical models. The first column indicates

that eight of the respondents stated that ‘task requirements,

training and competencies, skills development and abilities’

formed key components of their change intervention

programs, whereas four of the theoretical frameworks

identified it as a component. The second column indicates that

five of the respondents stated that ‘systems, policies and

management practices’ formed a key component of their

change intervention programs, whereas, all five of the

theoretical models identified it as a component. The third

column indicates that eight of the respondents stated that

‘implementation’ formed a key component in their change

intervention programs, while only one of the theoretical

frameworks identified it as a component.

Table 7 depicts the desired targeted outputs phase of the

theoretical models. The first column indicates that nine of the

respondents stated that ‘individuals, their motivation,

behaviour, needs and values’ formed a key component of their

change intervention programs, while all five of the theoretical

frameworks identified it as a component. The second column

TABLE 4

SCANNING AND DIAGNOSIS PHASE

Respondents diagnosis Vision Mission & strategy

1 “Problem identification, need for change,  “Project plan” 

business case in terms of costs and benefits”           –  

2 “Ring-fencing areas of uncertainty, “Common goal creates realistic vision”             – 

measurement of uncertainty”   

3 – – – 

4 “Change readiness risk management”; “change  “Clear picture of future state, vision clarity”; “Building realistic expectations through change 

is a journey between the current state and the “interventions fail because of poor direction” navigation strategy”; “strategic positioning”; 

future, resulting in a powerful business case “comprehensive management strategy”

for change”; “business costs for not changing”

5 “Measurement, diagnosis, identif y inconsistencies  – “Organisational strategy in enabling 

between espoused and actual theories of action, competitive strategy” 

identif ying individual and group defences which

create organisation’s problems”   

6 “Business case for change, uses Accelerating – “Strategic management processes” 

Change Approach to assess individual readiness”

7 “Thorough change readiness assessment  “Leadership to imbed the vision for the future” –  

upfront in all projects” 

8 – – “Define strategy” 

9 “ Assessment of implementation risks”; “depth “Value proposition – purpose” “Collective action”; “a differentiated approach 

of required commitment graded”  grounded by practical thinking, employing leading 

edge tools”;  “clear leadership strategy”

10 – – –

TABLE 5

ORGANISATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE DIMENSION

Respondent Structure, formal organising arrangements, Organisational culture, informal organisation, Leadership philosophy, role and style

technology   work unit climate, social factors

1 – – –

2 “Speed of change” – –

3 – – –

4 “Organisational alignment”; “supportive “Organisational culture review” “Leadership and sponsorship, accountability, 

work settings, job redesign, develop required credible and visible, legitimises the process”

infrastructure”  

5 “Align strategy and organisation, and  – “Decision rights allocation” 

employees and the organisation”

6 “Structure design”; “technical aspects of “Appropriate interventions are designed to “Change leadership provides insights, attitudes 

business procedures” take account of prevailing soft aspects such and behaviours” 

as culture”  

7 “ Organisational infrastructure”; “technology “Culture change and its assimilation by “Management and leadership style” 

application” individuals through behaviour”  

8   – – “Leadership systems should ensure skills 

development” 

9 “Aligning HR infrastructure” – “Mobilising and align leaders” 

10 – – –



CHAWANE, VAN VUUREN, ROODT72

TABLE 6

PERFORMANCE AND REWARDS REQUIREMENTS DIMENSION

Respondent Task requirements, training and Systems, policies and management practices Implementation

competencies, skills and abilities   

1 “Project teams”; “delivery vehicles”;  – “Project implementation”; “perfecting 

“learning is action based” process implementation” 

2 “Creating competence”; “personal ability  – “Worst first” 

to deal with change”

3 “Work differs at different levels in – – 

organisations in terms of complexity 

and time”   

4 “Develop skills and knowledge, change “Systems replacement/renewal”; “integration “Visible, sustainable, successful implementation”;

capability of people” of people, process, technology and  “choices and tradeoffs navigated and steered as  

measurement aspects”; “aligning processes the change unfolds”; “guided by change

and systems to reinforce required behaviours” navigation principles”

5 “Acquiring required skills” “Determining additional mechanisms and “Implementation”; “choices and tradeoffs are 

systems”; “performance management system”; clearly articulated, implemented and managed”

“rewards and punishment systems”

6  – “Systems and processes addressed”; “information “Accelerating Change transferred to clients for 

systems”; “remuneration and rewards etc” them to take ownership for implementing change, 

process is monitored”

7 “Skills development”; “training individuals”; “Aligning people’s processes with implemented “Implementation teams (clients and consultants)”

“formal capability transfer”; “different work solutions, focusing on organisational systems”; 

processes and technology application” “working under new performance and rewards

requirements”  

8 “Leadership development…impart skills etc.” “Reset incentives to align with share-owner  “Set detailed metrics”; “make it happen very 

value creation” quickly”

9 “Equiping workforce, training, task and  – “Implementation - deliverables organised” 

competency requirements”; “support

programs”; “deployment plans”   

10 – – –

TABLE 7

DESIRED TARGETED OUTPUTS PHASE

Respondent Individual motivation, inspiration, behaviour, needs and values Individual and organisational performance outcomes

1 “Continuous improvement”; “review and confirmation”; “buy-in”; “Intended versus actual outcomes”; “corrective action ensures that people 

“a high level of involvement”; “participation of people” learn from the process and that needs and objectives of people are met”

2 “Group therapy to share and cope with change”; “communication, “Creating the perception that a career is bigger than the organisation and 

trust, transparency, ability to deal with change”; “program current change in the organisation”; “limit expectations and deliver”

‘ownership’ by individuals” 

3 “People differ in their abilities to deal with work at different levels”; “Successful results come from the interventions in the work or people 

“abilities change over time” area, or from a match between these” 

4 “Communication plan”; “identif y commited stakeholders”; “Enhanced capacity to deal with ongoing future change”; “people side 

“supportive and accountable individuals”; “resistance is minimised of the change is successfully addressed”; “building more realistic 

throughout the process”; “people take ownership” expectations”; “individuals able and willing to perform”

5 “Acquire the skills of productive reasoning and feedback”; “people “Maximise shareholder value”; “change - both personal and 

to design and implement their actions”; “individuals unconsciously organisational is key”; “execute competitive strategy”; “develop a more 

design and implement actions they do not intend” flexible and responsive organisation” 

6 “Desired behaviours and attitudes using Accelerating Change “Human aspects of transformation are explicitly desired outputs”; 

Approach, dynamics are managed” “change management… a key internal competence” 

7 “Project teams and individuals – communication and motivation”; “Focusing at ensuring a sound solution”; “individuals become change 

“skills development”; “transitioning people to new roles and agents in their new roles”; “aligning organisation with the required 

behaviours”; “understanding of business case”; “becoming change transformed environment, aligning these with individuals”; “ability to 

agents” function in new roles” 

8 “Create the change team”; “celebrate wins” “Build organisational capability” 

9 “Engaging, alignment and mobilisation of key stakeholders”; “team “Business mobilisation”; “merger integration”; “supply chain 

training”; “commitment events” transformation”; “shared services implementation”; “customer 

management transformation”; “integrate program management office”; 

“ERP implementation” 

10 – –



PERSONAL CHANGE AS A KEY DETERMINANT 73

indicates that nine of the respondents stated that ‘individual and

organisational performance and/or outcome’ formed a key

component in their change intervention programs, while all five

of the theoretical frameworks identified it as a component.

Table 8 gives the key measures of implementation success

dimension of the theoretical models. The first column shows

that the dimension of personal change was not regarded as a

key focal area of the intervention programs by t wo

respondents, three respondents implied it as a negligible area,

and four respondents regarded it as a key focal area of their

intervention programs. The second column of Table 8 explains

whether the respondents regarded personal change as a critical

measure of their change intervention programs. Two

respondents neglected the impact of personal change, two

other respondents positively stated that personal change was

not a critical measure of their intervention program, and five

respondents stated that personal change was a critical

determinant of their interventions’ outcomes. 

DISCUSSION

According to Beer (1980), a model provides a taxonomy of key

organisational dimensions that guide data collection and

diagnosis. It can also be useful in providing some understanding

of the complex nature of organisational components and would

reflect the circularity of causes and effects. The author further

states that organisational models are arbitrary, convenient short-

hand methods of explaining organisational challenges which

can facilitate the process of planning how such challenges can be

efficiently dealt with. 

Accordingly, the respondents’ various ‘models’, ‘approaches’,

‘frameworks’, ‘principles’ and ‘main steps’ demonstrate that

regardless of how they are referred to, some form of expression

is used to explain a method by which organisational phenomena

may be understood and, therefore, managed. This explanation

concurs with Burke and Litwin’s (1992) explanation that change

models are not meant to be prescriptive but rather provide a

means to diagnose, plan and manage change.

In the context of the present study, the foregoing explanation

suggests a systems thinking approach (Beer, 1980) about

organisations, in that the change programs are described 

as complex, interactive, dynamic and interdependent in 

their application. This explanation suggests that none of 

the theoretical or respondents’ models can be reported as

more efficient than the other in dealing with organisational

transformation challenges. The tabled results also show 

that the evaluated intervention programs do not all account

for all the components of the dimensions. The results are 

also consistent with Shirom and Harrison’s (1995) emphasis

that no single model can fit all diagnostic situations for 

all client organisations. Caution should therefore be taken

not to interpret this to mean that some components are

unimportant for some intervention programs. It could,

however, be surmised that a particular model is designed 

for intervention in specific targeted areas, both in theory 

and in practice. 

The results in Tables 4 to 6 reflect that personal change is a

subtle component, which emerges in reaction to intervention in

other organisational areas. This observation is reinforced by

Beer’s (1980) assertion that organisations are formed to achieve

purposes which individuals alone cannot achieve, and

individuals join organisations to achieve personal goals they

cannot achieve by themselves. An intervention into any other

organisational area will eventually have a direct or indirect

impact on organisational members. Argyris’ (1985, p.3) attests

that organisational members “are the carriers of defensive

routines, and organisations are the hosts”. It can be inferred

therefore that personal change is not a distinct dimension which

organisational transformation programs can deliberately focus

on as an intervention area. This inference supports both the

premised and the theoretical reasons for ineffectual change

intervention programs (Erfat, 1998; Human, 1996; Manning,

1996; Werth (1994). 

The first column of Table 7 reports on the ‘individual

motivation, behaviour, needs and values’ component. The

results show that personal change elements are implied as

integral to all five of the theoretical models, and in nine of the

TABLE 8

KEY MEASURES OF IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS DIMENSION

Respondent Personal change as a key focal area of an organisational change Personal change as as critical determinant of the success or failure

intervention of an organisational change intervention

1 Personal change is not stated as a focal area “Sustained personal change is a requirement for success in change

management” 

2 Identified principles “impact on change at the individual level” Personal change is not explained as impacting or not impacting on the

intervention 

3 “Personal change is accomodated if the people component is  “Personal change is not a requirement for the success of the intervention”

addressed”; “if intervention is on the work component, no personal 

change is likely to occur”; it “may occur even where interventions fail” 

4 Personal change is “an integral part of the intervention” Personal change is explained as “a critical determinant of the

intervention’s success” 

5 Personal change is not stated as a focal area of the intervention “Personal change is a critical determinant that impacts the effectiveness 

but “change – both personal and organisational is key” of both competitive and organisational strategy” 

6 “ Personal change is a very critical component of our transformation “Human aspects of transformation are explicitly defined as key measures 

approach” to define implementation success” 

7 The “personal change component is most relevant in the individual “Personal change has an impact on the outcome of the intervention” 

alignment” 

8 “ Relying on individual change is a dangerous thing to do in a major “Personal change is not a key driver” 

change program”  

9 Personal change “is considered at task requirements level, but it is not Personal change is not explained as impacting or not impacting on the   

a focal area due to size of the intervention” intervention 

10 Consultant does “not consult at a personal level” Consultant does “not consult at a personal level”



CHAWANE, VAN VUUREN, ROODT74

respondents’ intervention programs. Again, the second column

of Table 7 shows that all five of the frameworks and nine of the

respondents’ regard ‘individual and organisational

performance’ as a desirable outcome of an organisational

intervention program. This observation emphasises and

strongly supports this study’s rationale that personal change

elements, though not forming the primary focus of

intervention programs, are integral to those programs. They

deserve to be explored and developed or emphasised as

distinguishable focus areas in organisational change

interventions. The observation also concurs with the ‘high

performance model’ (Pickering & Matson, 1992) which asserts

that individuals have an inherent need to make a meaningful

contribution to organisational performance, because, the

‘individual’ represents the ‘people’ component of

organisational key dimensions. This is especially relevant if

individuals’ performance weighs as an equal measure of

organisational performance outcomes. This explanation

further strengthens the theoretical importance of the personal

change dimension as consisting of catalytic organisational

success factors (Daft & Lengel, 1998; Manning, 1997; Quinn,

1996; Veldsman, 1998). 

The first column of Table 8 shows that three of the respondents

indicated that personal change is not a key focal area of an

intervention, but gets indirectly impacted on by the change

intervention processes taking place in any of the organisational

areas. Two of the respondents indicate that personal change is

not a key focal area of their intervention programs. This

implies that, overall, five respondents regard personal change

as a negligible area of their intervention programs as against

four respondents who positively indicated that personal

change is an ‘integral’ part, though not a ‘key focal area’ of

their organisational change processes. One respondent

indicated that he does ‘not consult on a personal level’. This

response suggests that the question may have been

misinterpreted. This finding also supports the theoretical

explanations of why change interventions are ineffective, as

argued by Erfat, (1998), Human, (1996), Manning, (1996) and

Werth, (1994). 

The second column of Table 8 shows that t wo of the

respondents indicated that the impact of personal change on

the performance outcome of their intervention programs is

negligible. Two respondents positively stated that personal

change is not a critical measure of their intervention

programs. The overall implication is that personal change is

not used to measure the performance outcome of four change

intervention programs, as opposed to five who do. The one

respondent who does not consult on a personal level, 

may have, once again, misinterpreted the research question.

The inference therefore is that only half of the intervention

programs emphasise personal change as a crit ical

performance measure of their interventions’ implement-

ation outcome. 

In summary, it is noteworthy that only one of the researched

model’s components corresponded with all of the theoretical

models’ components used in the formulation of the categories

and dimensions. Even more striking is that this model is one

of the five intervention programs that regarded personal

change as a key performance measure of an intervention’s

success. A generalised interpretation is that a comprehensive

intervention program is likely to impact strongly on personal

change elements. 

The 2002 world competitiveness rankings show a slight

improvement in South Africa’s economic performance

compared to that of 2001 (47 in 2001 and 46 in 2002) (WCY,

2002). The persistent imperative for sustainable organisational

productivity and national competitiveness reinforces the need

for congruent personal and organisational goals to effect a

significant improvement in the country’s economic

performance. It is thus recommended that organisational change

intervention programs must incorporate a deliberate emphasis

on personal change and its elements in order to explore the

organisational members’ latent potentialities in leading

organisations to economic excellence. 

Argyris (1985; 1990; 1991) emphasises that organisational and

individuals’ goal incongruence requires a move away from

defensive ways of reasoning. This could be achieved by teaching

people how to recognise the reasoning they use when they

design and implement their actions, from which they can

identif y inconsistencies between their intended and actual

theories of action, which eventually contribute to organisations’

problems. Productive reasoning strategies must be employed to

reshape individuals’ ‘master programs’ at their cognitive levels

to achieve continuous improvement which would result in

personal change (Forsha, 1992a, 1992b).  

It is also imperative for academic tertiary institutions to design

and structure their change management curricula such that

they focus on theories and extensive practices which emphasise

the significance of personal change in organisational change

efforts. This would result in a heightened awareness of the

importance of personal change among scholars, should they

endeavour to focus their careers on organisational

development and transformation management. Practising

professionals should also increase their emphasis on personal

change, and integrate it as a critical measure of their change

intervention programs’ outcomes. It could serve as catalytic in

breaking down resistance to change which seems prevalent in

South African organisations (Birkin, 1997; Erwin, 1998; Hall &

Maritz, 1997; Mbigi, 1997; Veldsman, 1996). Neglecting it could

imply a continuous undermining of the efforts expended in

organisational change interventions. 

The findings of this study further confirm that personal

change elements are intangible (Block, 1996; Czander, 1993;

Diamond, 1986; Novelli, et al.1995; Senge, 1990), and cannot

be manipulated and measured in visible conventional

organisational methods. This verification emerges as a

deficiency of the study in that, even though these elements

have been argued as critical organisational concerns, the lack

of their concrete presence may discourage initiatives towards

developing them into determinant organisational factors. The

difficult y that accompanied isolating them from the

identified general and reported organisational frameworks

could further undermine their importance in impacting on

organisational success factors. 

Further research could therefore focus on exploring Czander’s

(1993) recommendation to apply psychoanalytic theories to

organisational theories. The use of focus group interviews as a

different research design could provide a platform for debate,

and perhaps yield increased clarity on the phenomenon. The

aim would be to investigate means by which personal change

elements can be explored to assist the development of the

idealised change intervention programs. Other qualitative

methods, like in-dept face-to-face interviews, life histories

(autobiographies, biographies and particularly diaries) and

participant observation would be also very helpful in future

research of the phenomenon. Additionally, quantitative

methods, e.g. surveys and questionnaire based on qualitative

findings and insights produced by the present study could also

be utilised. Finally, George (2000) cautions that a growing

body of literature suggests that feelings are intricately bound

up in the ways in which people think and subsequently behave.

There is therefore a need for SA organisations to refocus and

concede that the individuals’ cognitive and affective domains

have a significant inf luence in organisational members’

decision-making processes to support or not to support,

organisational goals. 



PERSONAL CHANGE AS A KEY DETERMINANT 75

REFERENCES

Annels, M. (1996). Grounded theory method, part1: Within 

the five moments of qualitative research. Nursing Inquiry, 4,

120-129.

Argyris, C. (1985). Strategy, change and defensive routines.

London: Harvard University.

Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organisational defences: Facilitating

organisational learning. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Har vard

Business Review, May-June, 99-109.

Babbie, E & Mouton, J. (Eds) (2001). The practice of social

research. Cape Town: Oxford.

Backman, K. & Kyngas, H.A. (1999). Challenges of the grounded

theory approach to a novice researcher. Nursing and Health

Sciences, 1, 147-153. 

Bartlett, C.A. & Ghoshal, S. (1995). Rebuilding behavioural

context: Turn process reengineering into people

rejuvenation. Sloan Management Review, Fall, 11-23.

Beer, M. (1980). A social systems model for organisation

development. In T.G. Cummings. Systems theor y for

organisation development. New York: Wiley

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R.A. & Spector, B. (1990). The critical path to

corporate renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School. 

Berg, B.L. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social

sciences (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 

Birkin, M. (1997). How to build the unlimited company in South

Africa. Management Today, 13 (6), 20-26.

Block, P. (1996). Stewardship: Choosing ser vice over self interest.

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Bretherton, D. (1993). Personal change. Emergency Librarian,

20(3), 30-34.

Bridges, W. (1996). Transitions: Making sense of life’s changes.

London: Nicholas Brealey.

Buckman, J.M. (1996). Resistance to change. Fire Engineering, 149

(5), 10-12.

Burke, W.W. & Lit win, G.H. (1992). A causal model of

organisational performance and change. Journal of

Management, 8 (3), 523-546. 

Cooper, R. & Markus, M.L. (1995). Human reengineering. Sloan

Management Review, Summer, 39-50.

Coulson-Thomas, C. (1992). Corporate transformation: The

people requirement. Journal of European Industrial Training,

16 (5). 11-15.

Covey S.R. (1991). Principle-centred leadership. New York: Simon

& Schuster.

Covey, S.R. (1993). Transforming a swamp. Training &

Development, May, 43-46.

Cutcliffe, J.R. (2000). Methodological issues in grounded theory.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31 (6). 1476-1484.

Czander, W.M. (1993). The psycho-dynamics of work and

organisations: Theory and application. New York: Guilford.

Daft, R.L. & Lengel, R.H. (1998). Fusion leadership: Unlocking the

subtle forces that change people and organisations. San

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Diamond, M.A. (1986). Resistance to change: A psychoanalytic

critique of Arg yris and Schon’s contributions to

organisational theory and intervention. Journal of

Management Studies, 23 (5), 543-562.

Edwards, M. & Sen, G. (2000). NGO’S, social change and the

transformation of human relationships: A 21st century civic

agenda. Third World Quarterly, 21 (4), 605-616.

Efrat, Z. (1998). Personal productivity: Beat office politics.

Productivity SA, July/August, 11-13.

Erwin, A. (1998). Competitiveness and wealth creation: A

government perspective. Management Today, August, 14-18.

Forsha, H.I. (1992a). The pursuit of quality through personal

change. Part1. Quality Progress, January, 57-61.

Forsha, H.I. (1992b). The pursuit of quality through personal

change. Part 2. Quality Progress, February, 61-64.

George, M.J. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of

emotional intelligence. Human Relations, 53 (8), 1027-1055.

Ghoshal, S. & Bartlett, C.A. (1996). Rebuilding behavioural

context: A blueprint for corporate renewal. Sloan

Management Review, Winter, 23-36.

Hall, J. & Maritz, F. (1997). Leadership: Turning potential into

productivity. Management Today, 13 (6), 27-31.

Halton, W. (1994). Some unconscious aspects of organizational

life: Contributions from psychoanalysis. In A. Obholzer &

V.Z. Roberts (Eds), The unconscious at work: Individual and

organisational stress in the human ser vices by the Members of

the Tavistock Clinic Consulting to Institutions Workshop

(pp.11-18). London: Routledge. 

Hey, K.R. & Moore, P.D. (1998). The caterpillar doesn’t know: How

personal change is creating organisational change. New York:

Free Press.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1993). Management of

organizational behaviour: Utilizing human resources (6th ed.)

New York: Prentice Hall. 

Herzberg, F. (1971). Work and the nature of man. London: Staples.

Hicks, C.E., Rush, J.E. & Strong, S.M. (1977). Content analysis. In

E. D. Dym (Ed.) Subject and information analysis. New York:

Marcel Dekker.

Human, L. (1996). Diversity during transformation. HRM, 12 (2),

4-12.

Huysamen, G.K. (1994). Methodology for the social and

behavioural sciences. Halfwayhouse: Southern.

Ivancevich, J.M. & Matteson, M.T. (1993). Organizational

behavior and management: Instructor’s edition (3rd ed.).

Boston: Irwin.

Kerlinger, F.N. & Lee, H.B. (2000). Foundations of behavioural

research (4th ed.). New York: Harcourt College. 

Long, S. & Newton, J. (1997). Educating the gut: Socio-emotional

aspects of the learning organisation. Journal of Management

Development, 16 (4), 284-301.

Manning, T. (1996). Three steps to the future. HRM, 12 (8), 8-9.

Manning, T. (1997). Radical strategy: How South African

companies can win against global competition. Sandton: Zebra.

Marshak, R.J. (1993). Managing the metaphors of change.

Organizational Dynamics, 22 (1), 44-46. 

Mbigi, L. (1997). Ubuntu: The African dream in management.

Randburg: Knowledge Resources.

Mbigi, L. & Mandela, M. (1998). Collective learning: Skill

democratisation. People Dynamics, November/December, 

38-44.

Mbigi, L. & Maree, J. (1995). Ubuntu: The spirit of African

transformation management. Randburg: Knowledge Resources.

Mosse, J. (1994). Introduction: The institutional roots to

institutions. In A. Obholzer & V.Z. Roberts (Eds), The

unconscious at work: Individual and organizational stress in the

human services by the Members of the Tavistock Clinic Consulting

to Institutions Workshop (pp.1-8). London: Routledge.

Nadler, D.A. & Tushman, M.L. (1980). A model for diagnosing

organisational behaviour. Organisational Dynamics, 9,

Autumn, 11-28.

Novelli, L., Kirkman, B.L. & Shapiro, D.L. (1995). Effective

implementation of organisational change: An organisational

justice perspective. In C.L. Cooper & D.M. Rousseau (Eds),

Trends in organisational behaviour, Volume 2, (pp.15-36). New

York: Wiley. 

Obholzer, A. (1994). Afterword. In A. Obholzer & V.Z. Roberts

(Eds), The unconscious at work: Individual and organizational

stress in the human ser vices by the Members of the Tavistock

Clinic Consulting to Institutions Workshop (pp.206-210).

London: Routledge.

Pickering, J.W. & Matson, J.E. (1992). Why executive

development programs (alone) don’t work. Training &

Development, 46 (5), 91-95.

Quinn, R.E. (1996). Deep change: Discovering the leader within.

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Robertson, P.J., Roberts, D.R. & Porras, J.I. (1993). Dynamics of

planned organisational change: Assessing empirical support

for a theoretical model. Academy of Management Journal, 36

(3), 619-634. 



CHAWANE, VAN VUUREN, ROODT76

Roller, E., Mathes, R. & Eckert, T. (1995). Hermeneutic-

classificatory content analysis: A technique combining

principles of quantitative and qualitative research. In U.

Kelle, G. Prein & K. Bird (Eds), Computer-aided qualitative

data analysis: Theory, methods and practice (pp.167-176).

London: Sage.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of

learning organisations. New York: Doubleday.

Shirom, A. & Harrison, M.I. (1995). Diagnostic models 

for organisations: Toward an integrative perspective. 

In C.L. Cooper & D.M. Rousseau (Eds), Trends in

organisational behaviour, Volume 2 (pp.85-107). New 

York: Wiley. 

Silverman, D. (2000). Doing qualitative research: A practical

handbook. London: Sage.

Stokes, J. (1994). Institutional chaos and personal stress. In A.

Obholzer & V.Z. 

Roberts (Eds), The unconscious at work: Individual and

organizational stress in the human ser vices by the Members of

the Tavistock Clinic Consulting to Institutions Workshop

(pp.121-128). London: Routledge.

Swart, J. & Van Vuuren, L.J. (1998). Cognitive style and the

interpretation of organisational change. Journal of Industrial

Psychology, 24 (3), 22-31.

The World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY). (2000). Lausanne:

IMD International.

The World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY). (2001). Lausanne:

IMD International.

The World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY). (2002). Lausanne:

IMD International. 

Tonkin, A. & Alfred, M. (1994). Competitiveness in perspective.

People Dynamics, 12 (12), 25-35.

Veldsman, T.H. (1996). Managing large scale change

management successfully: Why does large scale

organisational change fail so frequently? HRM, 12 (3), 23.

Veldsman, T.H. (1998). The making of a people miracle.

Management Today, 14 (2), 35.

Veldsman, T.H.(2002). Into the people effectiveness arena: Navigating

between chaos and order. Johannesburg: Knowledge Resources.

Werth, R. (1994). Is there life after change? HRM, May, 12-13.

Yadavalli, L. (1998). International competitiveness: Where we

stand. Productivity SA, January/February, 13-15.