Competitive paradigms on strategic change: mapping the field and further research development

Most scholars and practitioners describe strategic change in quite positive terms. Ironically, failures, mistakes and breakdowns are much easier to find than successful strategic change. This article outlines some alternative ways of thinking about the topic: (1) the classical approach, (2) the contingency approach, (3) the behavioural approach and (4) the political approach. One of the key innovations in appreciating change is to see the pluralistic nature of the change literature, represented by a range of views, each with their strengths and limitations. The theoretical debate on strategic change remains inconclusive. However, a new managerial logic is beginning to manifest, where greater attention is paid to the dynamic and continuous processes involved in changing. It is argued that this shift in thinking addresses the challenge to progress beyond strategic change as well as strategy formulation, to a more holistic approach.