"

Chapter 14: Organizational Structure and Change

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

  1. Define key concepts related to organizational structure.
  2. Identify and categorize the basic elements that comprise organizational structure.
  3. Compare mechanistic and organic structures, and analyze the factors that influence structural design.
  4. Describe and differentiate among matrix, boundaryless, and learning organizations.
  5. Evaluate how organizational structure influences ethical decision-making and behavior.
  6. Analyze the impact of cross-cultural factors on organizational structure and change initiatives.

    As much as individual and team level factors influence work attitudes and behaviors, the organization’s structure can be an even more powerful influence over employee actions. Organizational structure refers to how the work of individuals and teams within an organization is coordinated. In order to achieve organizational goals and objectives, individual work needs to be coordinated and managed. Structure is a valuable tool in achieving coordination, as it specifies reporting relationships (who reports to whom), delineates formal communication channels, and describes how separate actions of individuals are linked together.

    Section 14.1: Spotlighht

    Organizational Structure and Communication at Kaldi’s Coffee

    Figure 14.1
    a pair of white coffee mugs containing coffee with frothy milk in dim lighting
    MShipp (C)

    Matthew– Flickr– Fall=Pumpkin! – CC BY A 2.0.

    Kaldi’s Coffee Roasting Company, a specialty coffee enterprise headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, has built a reputation not only for its quality products but also for its distinctive organizational structure. Though privately held and relatively small in scale, Kaldi’s exemplifies characteristics of a modern, adaptable business that prioritizes employee engagement, sustainability, and community responsiveness (Kaldi’s Coffee, 2024). Its decentralized, flat hierarchy empowers store-level teams to collaborate and make localized decisions, creating a structure that supports autonomy and creativity across the organization.

    At its core, Kaldi’s maintains a structure that is largely organic. The hallmarks of an organic structure—flexibility in roles, informal communication channels, and decentralized decision-making—are reflected in Kaldi’s operational model. Employees cross-train across barista, kitchen, and service roles, often making collaborative decisions during shifts to meet customer demand. Locations are encouraged to tailor their ambiance and service model to the surrounding community, illustrating trust in local leadership and responsiveness to customer needs (Kaldi’s Coffee, 2023).

    While Kaldi’s structure is not strictly matrix-based, it does display attributes of both boundaryless and learning organizations. Its operational culture blurs hierarchical and functional boundaries; for example, employees may contribute ideas across departments, and information flows freely between retail staff, roasters, and support teams. Additionally, Kaldi’s consistently reinvests in employee development through training, storytelling, and brand education, reflecting a commitment to continuous learning and feedback integration (CoffeeGeek, 2023).

    This structural design reinforces Kaldi’s ethical commitments. The open communication channels and participative management style support transparency and accountability—two pillars of organizational ethics. By enabling front-line employees to engage in decision-making and service improvements, Kaldi’s creates a culture of ethical ownership. Their emphasis on direct trade and sustainable sourcing further illustrates how structure and values converge to shape business practices that prioritize fairness and responsibility (Kaldi’s Coffee, 2024).

    Cross-cultural influences are evident in Kaldi’s global sourcing model. As a coffee roaster committed to long-term partnerships with producers around the world, Kaldi’s must navigate a wide range of cultural practices, business norms, and environmental conditions. The organization’s structure supports this by allowing sourcing teams and retail operations to adapt and align ethically with regional partners. Ethical trade practices—such as fair pricing and relationship-driven purchasing—are not only part of procurement policy but supported by a structural framework that encourages cultural sensitivity and collaborative problem solving (Kaldi’s Coffee, 2024).

    In summary, Kaldi’s Coffee exhibits an organizational structure that supports flexibility, learning, and ethics while promoting positive cross-cultural engagement. Its organic and boundaryless design empowers employees, enhances transparency, and aligns with both local communities and global partners. As a result, Kaldi’s stands as a model for how thoughtful structural choices can translate into ethical and adaptive organizational behavior.

     

    References

    CoffeeGeek. (2023, October 12). People-first models in coffee retail: Kaldi’s and community-oriented service. https://www.coffeegeek.com/people-first-kaldis-model-2023/

    Kaldi’s Coffee. (2023). Cafe culture and neighborhood roots. https://kaldiscoffee.com/pages/locations

    Kaldi’s Coffee. (2024). Sustainability and sourcing. https://kaldiscoffee.com/pages/responsible-sourcing

    Kaldi’s Coffee. (2024). Our story. https://kaldiscoffee.com/pages/our-story

    Discussion Questions

    1. How does Kaldi’s organic structure contribute to its ability to adapt to local community needs? Can you think of any potential challenges this structure might create?
    2. In what ways does Kaldi’s boundaryless approach to collaboration enhance its ethical practices and sustainability efforts? How might this approach differ in a more traditional, hierarchical organization?
    3. Kaldi’s emphasizes cross-cultural engagement through its global sourcing model. What are some potential risks and benefits of maintaining long-term partnerships with international producers?
    4. How does Kaldi’s focus on employee development and feedback integration reflect its identity as a learning organization? What lessons can other companies learn from this approach?
    5. If Kaldi’s were to expand significantly beyond its current size, what changes might it need to make to its organizational structure? How could these changes impact its culture and values?

    Section 14.2: Organizational Structure: Foundations and Frontiers

    Learning Objectives

    After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

    1. Evaluate how formalization, centralization, organizational hierarchy, and departmentalization influence employee engagement, behavior, and performance—especially in hybrid and digitally enabled workplaces.
    2. Analyze the interplay of structural elements in shaping mechanistic vs. organic organizations. Explore how organizations align structure with strategy and adaptability in dynamic environments.
    3. Identify the strategic advantages and limitations of mechanistic and organic structures. Consider their implications for innovation, efficiency, and change management.
    4. Define matrix organizations and examine the communication, coordination, and accountability challenges employees face when reporting to multiple managers or stakeholders.
    5. Describe how boundaryless organizations leverage digital networks, strategic partnerships, and flexible teams to foster innovation and responsiveness across internal and external boundaries.
    6. Define learning organizations and recommend practices—including knowledge management systems, continuous feedback loops, and collaboration platforms—that help institutionalize learning and retain critical organizational knowledge.

    Organizational structure is more than a chart of titles and departments—it’s the living architecture that determines how work gets done, how decisions flow, and how people connect across complex ecosystems. In a business environment defined by relentless change, traditional hierarchies are giving way to fluid and adaptive structures that support innovation, resilience, and speed.

    From functional and divisional models to matrix and team-based configurations, each structural form reflects choices about coordination, specialization, and control. And now, digital platforms, artificial intelligence, and global connectivity are reshaping these foundations, introducing boundaryless designs and decentralized operations. Leaders must think beyond organization charts to build structures that empower autonomy, foster collaboration, and respond to continuous transformation.

    This section explores the evolving logic of organizational design—examining both enduring theories and emerging tech-enabled patterns—and invites readers to reflect on how structure not only supports strategy, but actively influences culture, communication, and change success.

    Building Blocks of Organizational Structure

    Organizational structure defines how tasks are divided, coordinated, and supervised to achieve strategic goals. While traditional models emphasized hierarchy and control, contemporary organizational communication research highlights adaptability, collaboration, and digital integration as essential design principles (Joseph & Sengul, 2025). Below are foundational building blocks of structure, along with emerging models that reflect today’s dynamic work environments.

    Centralization

    Centralization refers to the extent to which decision-making authority is concentrated at the upper levels of an organization’s hierarchy. In centralized structures, strategic and operational decisions are typically made by senior executives, while lower-level employees focus on implementation. This model can offer consistency and control, particularly in stable environments, but may also hinder responsiveness and innovation (Joseph & Sengul, 2025).

    Recent research suggests that while centralization can streamline operations and reduce redundancy, it may also create bottlenecks and reduce employee engagement. For example, centralized organizations often place heavy cognitive and operational demands on top executives, which can slow decision-making and reduce organizational agility (Shishkin et al., 2025). Conversely, decentralized models empower frontline employees, leading to faster decisions and increased perceptions of fairness and autonomy (King, 2025).

    Modern organizations are increasingly reevaluating the balance between centralization and decentralization. In the property management sector, centralization has become an operator-led movement, driven by the need to reduce costs and improve efficiency. EliseAI (2025) highlights how centralizing administrative tasks—supported by automation—can reallocate talent and create specialized roles, improving both employee satisfaction and operational resilience.

    However, excessive centralization can backfire. For instance, Caterpillar Inc. in the 1980s centralized pricing decisions at its headquarters in Peoria, Illinois. This led to delays and poor market responsiveness, particularly in international markets, prompting a major organizational restructuring (Nelson & Pasternack, 2005). On the other hand, extreme decentralization can also pose challenges. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has faced criticism for its fragmented structure, which may hinder strategic coordination in intelligence gathering (Brazil, 2007).

    Striking the right balance is key. Home Depot’s centralization of purchasing under CEO Robert Nardelli led to significant cost savings but also eroded the entrepreneurial culture of its stores, raising concerns about customer service and employee morale (Charan, 2006; Marquez, 2007). Today, organizations are adopting hybrid models that combine centralized strategy with decentralized execution, supported by digital tools and cross-functional collaboration.

    Formalization

    Formalization refers to the extent to which organizational policies, procedures, and job roles are explicitly documented and standardized. In highly formalized structures, employee behavior is guided by written rules and protocols, which promote consistency and reduce ambiguity in decision-making (AIHR, 2025). This predictability can be especially valuable in regulated industries or large-scale operations where uniformity is critical.

    However, contemporary organizational research highlights that excessive formalization may hinder innovation, reduce employee autonomy, and slow responsiveness to dynamic challenges (Shahzad et al., 2025). In rigid environments, employees may feel constrained by procedural boundaries, leading to lower motivation and job satisfaction. For instance, in customer-facing roles within the service industry, strict adherence to scripted responses can prevent frontline employees from resolving unique or emotionally charged issues effectively. While Southwest Airlines is often praised for empowering its staff to make judgment calls, many competitors still rely on rigid rulebooks that limit employee discretion and frustrate customers (Nath, 2025).

    Digital transformation has further complicated the role of formalization. As organizations adopt agile methodologies and remote work models, traditional formalization practices are being reimagined. Companies like GitLab and Automattic maintain extensive documentation to support asynchronous collaboration, but they also encourage flexibility and continuous updates to procedures, blending formalization with adaptability (Nakisa, 2025). This hybrid approach allows organizations to retain clarity while fostering innovation and responsiveness.

    Ultimately, the challenge lies in finding the right balance. Formalization should provide structure without stifling creativity. Organizations that integrate digital tools, empower teams, and revise policies in real time are better positioned to thrive in today’s fast-paced environment.

    Hierarchical Levels

    Hierarchical levels refer to the number of layers within an organization’s structure, determining how authority and communication flow from top leadership to frontline employees. Tall structures feature multiple layers of management, offering close supervision and clear chains of command. In contrast, flat structures minimize managerial layers, promoting autonomy and faster decision-making (Cloudwards, 2025). A related concept is span of control—the number of employees reporting to a single manager. Tall structures typically have narrower spans of control, while flat structures involve broader spans, requiring employees to operate with greater independence.

    Contemporary organizational research emphasizes that flatter hierarchies often enhance employee engagement, innovation, and psychological empowerment. Employees in flat structures report higher levels of self-actualization and job involvement, as they are trusted to make decisions and contribute meaningfully to organizational goals (Vagale, 2025). IKEA, for example, continues to leverage a flat structure to foster ownership and collaborative culture among its global workforce, aligning with its values of simplicity and autonomy.

    However, flat structures are not without challenges. When managers oversee large teams, employees may experience role ambiguity and lack sufficient guidance, which can hinder performance and development (Markselliott, 2025). Additionally, limited managerial layers can restrict upward mobility, potentially affecting long-term career satisfaction. Conversely, tall structures—common in industries like finance and healthcare—offer stability, clearer career paths, and defined responsibilities, which may appeal to employees seeking security and predictability (Multirecruit, 2025).

    Modern organizations are increasingly adopting hybrid models that blend the clarity of hierarchical structures with the agility of flat designs. These models often incorporate cross-functional teams, digital collaboration platforms, and flexible reporting lines to balance control with empowerment. The key lies in aligning structure with strategic goals, workforce expectations, and the pace of industry change.

    Departmentalization

    Departmentalization refers to the method by which organizations group tasks, roles, and responsibilities into specialized units to enhance coordination, accountability, and strategic alignment. Traditional models include functional and divisional structures, each offering distinct advantages depending on organizational goals and environmental complexity (Varun, 2025).

    In functional departmentalization, employees are grouped by specialized roles such as marketing, finance, human resources, and IT. This structure promotes deep expertise and operational efficiency, especially in stable environments with limited product diversity. For example, Apple Inc. employs a functional structure where teams like software engineering and hardware design operate in silos but collaborate toward unified product goals. However, functional silos can hinder cross-functional communication and slow responsiveness to market shifts.

    Divisional departmentalization, on the other hand, organizes teams around products, services, customer segments, or geographic regions. Each division operates semi-autonomously, replicating core functions within its unit. This structure fosters agility and innovation, particularly in dynamic markets. Amazon’s retail operations exemplify this model, with distinct teams managing categories like electronics, apparel, and groceries, each empowered to make rapid decisions tailored to their domain (Indeed, 2025).

    Modern organizations increasingly adopt hybrid structures, blending functional and divisional elements to balance specialization with responsiveness. For instance, a company may centralize HR and IT functions while decentralizing product development and customer service across divisions. Geographic departmentalization is also common among global firms, allowing them to tailor strategies to regional markets while maintaining centralized oversight.

    Emerging research emphasizes that departmentalization must align with organizational strategy, culture, and digital capabilities. Companies like Salesforce and Spotify use product-centric and team-based models, enabling cross-functional squads to own end-to-end delivery of features or services. These models enhance collaboration and reduce time-to-market, especially when supported by digital platforms and agile methodologies (CHRMP, 2025).

    Ultimately, the effectiveness of departmentalization depends on the organization’s ability to adapt its structure to evolving demands. In turbulent environments, product-based structures offer greater flexibility, while functional models may excel in operational consistency. Employee success within each structure also varies—generalists thrive in divisional settings, while specialists perform best in functional roles (Hollenbeck et al., 2002).

    Figure 14.4 An Example of a Pharmaceutical Company With Functional Departments

    An Example of a Pharmaceutical Company With Functional Departments: Marketing, Production, Human Resources, Information Technology, and Customer Service

    Figure 14.5 An Example of a Pharmaceutical Company With Product Departments

    An Example of a Pharmaceutical Company With Product Departments: Medical Devices, Consumer Products, Baby Care, Diabetic Drugs, and Nutritional Supplements

    Structural Archetypes and Hybrids

    Organizational structures are shaped by the interplay of formalization, centralization, hierarchy, and departmentalization. These elements rarely exist in isolation; instead, they combine to form distinct structural archetypes—most notably mechanistic and organic models. Contemporary research emphasizes that while these archetypes offer foundational guidance, modern organizations increasingly adopt hybrid configurations to balance efficiency with adaptability (AIHR, 2025).

    Mechanistic structures are characterized by high formalization, centralized authority, and rigid hierarchies. Communication flows vertically, and roles are narrowly defined, promoting consistency and control. These structures are well-suited for stable environments where efficiency and predictability are paramount. For example, McDonald’s continues to leverage a mechanistic model to deliver standardized products globally at minimal cost, supported by tightly scripted roles and procedures (Indeed, 2025). Mechanistic designs also benefit startups seeking clarity and control during early growth phases, reducing ambiguity and enhancing performance (Sine et al., 2006).

    However, mechanistic structures can stifle innovation and employee autonomy. Research shows that such rigidity may suppress entrepreneurial behavior and reduce intrinsic motivation, particularly in dynamic industries (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Covin & Slevin, 1988). Employees often feel constrained by formal channels and limited discretion, which can hinder responsiveness and creativity.

    In contrast, organic structures embrace decentralization, low formalization, and fluid communication. Roles are flexible, and decision-making is distributed across teams, fostering collaboration and innovation. These structures thrive in fast-changing environments where agility and employee empowerment are critical. Companies like Spotify and Google exemplify organic models, using autonomous squads and cross-functional teams to accelerate product development and adapt to market shifts (Taggd, 2025; AIHR, 2025).

    Organic structures also correlate with higher job satisfaction and psychological ownership. At 3M, decentralization is embedded in its culture, with nearly 100 profit centers operating like independent startups. This autonomy enables rapid experimentation and spin-offs, preserving agility and entrepreneurial spirit (Adair, 2007).

    Modern organizations increasingly adopt hybrid structures, blending mechanistic and organic elements to meet diverse strategic needs. For instance, a company may centralize compliance and finance functions while decentralizing product innovation and customer engagement. These hybrids allow firms to maintain operational discipline while fostering adaptability—a necessity in today’s volatile business landscape.

    Contemporary Forms of Organizational Structures

    Matrix Organizations

    Matrix organizations represent a hybrid structural form that overlays a traditional functional hierarchy with product or project-based teams. In this configuration, employees report to both a functional manager—who oversees their professional development and departmental responsibilities—and a project or product manager—who directs their work on specific initiatives. This dual-reporting system is designed to enhance responsiveness and collaboration in dynamic environments where cross-functional coordination is essential (Asana, 2025; Teamflect, 2025).

    Modern organizational research highlights that matrix structures foster innovation and agility by breaking down silos and encouraging frequent communication across departments. The presence of project managers ensures that product development remains focused and adaptive, while functional managers maintain technical standards and resource alignment. For example, Nike Inc. successfully employs a matrix structure to coordinate global product launches, allowing regional managers to tailor strategies to local markets while product managers oversee brand consistency and innovation (Anand & Daft, 2007).

    However, matrix organizations also introduce complexity. The violation of the unity of command principle—where employees report to multiple leaders—can lead to role ambiguity, interpersonal conflict, and power struggles among managers (Ford & Randolph, 1992). Employees may experience stress from competing priorities and unclear expectations, especially when project and functional goals diverge. Effective communication frameworks, such as RACI charts and agile planning tools, are increasingly used to mitigate these challenges and clarify responsibilities (Ingentis, 2025).

    Despite these drawbacks, the matrix model remains popular in industries like technology, healthcare, and construction, where rapid innovation and cross-functional expertise are critical. Companies such as Google and IBM use matrixed teams to manage complex software development projects, enabling specialists from IT, marketing, and finance to collaborate without permanent realignment (Teamflect, 2025). As remote work and digital collaboration become more prevalent, matrix structures offer the flexibility needed to navigate global operations and shifting market demands.

    Figure 14.6

    An example of a matrix structure at a software development company. Business analysts, developers, and testers each report to a functional department manager and to a project manager simultaneously.

    An example of a matrix structure at a software development company. Business analysts, developers, and testers each report to a functional department manager and to a project manager simultaneously.

    Workplace Strategy Pack

    Thriving in Matrix Structures and Multi-Boss Environments

    Objective

    To equip employees with communication strategies, role-clarity tools, and empowerment techniques for navigating matrix structures and dual-reporting relationships effectively.

    Why It Matters

    Matrix structures—where employees report to multiple managers across functions or projects—are increasingly common in global and project-driven organizations. While they promote collaboration and flexibility, they also introduce role ambiguity, conflicting priorities, and communication overload. Research shows that lack of clarity in matrixed environments can reduce engagement and performance, while clear communication and defined expectations improve outcomes (Bazigos & Harter, 2016; Vantrappen & Wirtz, 2016).

    Understanding how to manage competing demands and build influence across reporting lines is essential for success in these complex structures.

    Strategy Toolkit

    Strategy Application
    Clarify Roles and Expectations Proactively ask each manager to define your responsibilities, deliverables, and decision-making authority.
    Use Structured Communication Schedule regular check-ins with each boss and use shared tools (e.g., dashboards, status reports) to align.
    Manage Up Strategically Communicate priorities and constraints transparently to help managers coordinate demands.
    Build Lateral Influence Cultivate relationships across teams to gain informal support and reduce dependency on vertical authority.
    Document Agreements Keep written records of decisions and expectations to avoid confusion and protect against conflicting directives.

    Empowerment Tip

    In a matrix, clarity is your currency. When reporting to multiple bosses, don’t wait for alignment—create it. Ask:

    “What does success look like from each perspective, and how can I communicate that clearly across reporting lines?”

    You’re not just managing tasks—you’re managing relationships and expectations.

     

    References
    Bazigos, M., & Harter, J. (2016). Revisiting the matrix organization. McKinsey & Company. Download PDF https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business%20Functions/Organization/Our%20Insights/Revisiting%20the%20matrix%20organization/Revisiting_the_matrix_organization.pdf

    Vantrappen, H., & Wirtz, F. (2016). Making matrix organizations actually work. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/03/making-matrix-organizations-actually-work

    Jyothi, B. (2023). Analyzing the influence of organizational structure on communication and decision-making. International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, 10(2), 1854–1863. https://ijrar.org/papers/IJRAR23C1854.pdf

    Boundaryless Organizations

    Boundaryless organizations eliminate traditional barriers between departments, hierarchies, and external partners to foster agility, innovation, and collaboration. Originally coined by Jack Welch at General Electric, the concept has evolved to encompass modular, networked, and platform-based ecosystems that transcend geographic and functional constraints (AIHR, 2025).

    In modular organizations, non-core functions are outsourced, allowing firms to focus on strategic capabilities. Toyota exemplifies this model by coordinating a vast supplier network to maintain quality and efficiency. Strategic alliances also reflect boundaryless design, as seen in Starbucks’ partnership with PepsiCo to distribute bottled Frappuccino drinks—leveraging PepsiCo’s distribution expertise while retaining brand control (MasterClass, 2025).

    Digital transformation has accelerated the rise of boundaryless structures. Intelligent automation and AI-driven platforms redefine workflows, flatten hierarchies, and shift decision-making toward decentralized, data-informed teams. Companies like W.L. Gore & Associates and Valve Corporation operate with lattice-like structures, where employees self-organize around projects, promoting autonomy and cross-functional collaboration (SalaryCube, 2025).

    However, AI adoption introduces new power dynamics and resource dependencies. While automation fosters organic structures by reducing formal oversight, it also concentrates influence among those who design, manage, or interpret AI systems. Organizations must navigate these shifts by embedding ethical governance, ensuring transparency, and balancing empowerment with accountability (Niehaus, 2025).

    Adaptive Organizations and Resilient Cultures

    Adaptive organizations are designed to thrive in environments of continuous change, uncertainty, and disruption. They prioritize flexibility, decentralized decision-making, and iterative learning, enabling teams to respond quickly to emerging challenges and opportunities. Rooted in systems thinking, these organizations foster a culture where experimentation, feedback, and cross-functional collaboration are embedded into daily operations (Slalom, 2024).

    In 2025, digital transformation and AI adoption have become central to organizational adaptability. AI-powered platforms now personalize employee development, automate workflows, and generate predictive insights that guide strategic decisions. For example, IBM’s Emerging Business Opportunities (EBOs) initiative empowers experienced leaders to incubate new ventures, encouraging long-term innovation over short-term gains (Deutschman, 2005). Similarly, 3M continues to support creativity by allowing engineers to dedicate time to personal projects, reinforcing a culture of experimentation and autonomy.

    AI and intelligent automation are redefining roles, hierarchies, and workflows. Organizations are shifting from rigid structures to fluid ecosystems where platform-based teams operate with shared services and decentralized authority. This fosters organic structures that promote agility and innovation. However, the rise of AI also introduces new power dynamics—those who design and manage AI systems often hold disproportionate influence, creating dependencies that must be ethically managed (Niehaus, 2025).

    Resilient cultures complement adaptive structures by embedding psychological safety, transparency, and resourcefulness into the organizational fabric. Companies like Microsoft and Sweetwater have embraced hybrid work models and decentralized decision-making, allowing teams to adjust strategies based on real-time data and employee feedback (Hutcheson, 2025). These cultures encourage risk-taking, normalize failure as a learning tool, and build emotional resilience across teams.

    To remain competitive, adaptive organizations benchmark against industry leaders, conduct retrospectives, and continuously refine their operating models. They balance innovation with risk management, ensuring that transformation efforts are sustainable and inclusive. As AI continues to evolve, the most resilient organizations will be those that empower people—not just technology—to lead change.

    Insider Edge

    Navigating Conflicting Messages from Multiple Bosses in Matrix Organizations

    Objective

    To help employees manage inconsistent directives and competing expectations from multiple supervisors in matrix or dual-reporting structures through strategic communication and boundary-setting.

    Why It Matters

    Matrix structures are designed to promote agility, collaboration, and cross-functional integration. However, they often result in employees reporting to more than one boss—each with different priorities, communication styles, and expectations. This can lead to role conflict, decision paralysis, and burnout. Research shows that conflicting messages from multiple leaders can undermine performance and psychological well-being unless employees actively manage boundaries and clarify expectations (Sahlmueller et al., 2022; Feemster & Matingly, 2016).

    Navigating this complexity requires proactive communication, emotional intelligence, and strategic alignment.

    Strategy Toolkit

    Strategy Application
    Clarify Priorities Early Ask each boss to define what success looks like and how priorities should be balanced when conflicts arise.
    Facilitate Cross-Boss Dialogue Encourage your managers to communicate directly when their expectations conflict—be the bridge, not the battleground.
    Use a Shared Planning Tool Create a unified task tracker or dashboard visible to all supervisors to align timelines and deliverables.
    Document Agreements Keep written records of decisions and expectations to avoid confusion and protect against shifting demands.
    Practice Assertive Communication Use respectful language to express when demands are conflicting or unrealistic, and propose solutions.

    Empowerment Tip

    You’re not just managing tasks—you’re managing expectations. When bosses don’t talk to each other, you become the translator. Ask:

    “How can I create clarity and alignment without taking sides?”

    Your voice is your tool for navigating ambiguity. Use it to build trust and protect your bandwidth.

    References
    Feemster, A. A., & Matingly, T. J. II. (2016). Multiple bosses: Challenges and suggestions to improve organizational environments in academic settings. Innovations in Pharmacy, 7(2), Article 7. https://pubs.lib.umn.edu/index.php/innovations/article/download/430/425/599

    Sahlmueller, B., Van Knippenberg, D., Van Quaquebeke, N., & Giessner, S. R. (2022). Two in the lead: The importance of relationships when there are two bosses. California Management Review. https://cmr.berkeley.edu/2022/09/two-in-the-lead-the-importance-of-relationships-when-there-are-two-bosses/

    Bidwell, M., & Lash, R. (2016). The multiple boss dilemma: Is it possible to please more than one? Knowledge@Wharton. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/multiple-boss-dilemma-possible-please-one/

    Discussion Questions

    1. What are the potential benefits and risks of decentralizing decision-making in today’s digital and remote work environments? How might decentralization influence agility, accountability, and employee empowerment?
    2. If given the choice, would you prefer working in a flat or hierarchical (tall) organizational structure? Consider factors such as role clarity, feedback accessibility, career development, and cultural fit when forming your response.
    3. How does departmentalizing by product or customer segment improve organizational responsiveness and innovation? What challenges might arise when replicating core functions across multiple product teams?
    4. Reflect on any experience where you’ve reported to more than one manager—whether in a matrix, project-based, or cross-functional team. What types of coordination or communication conflicts emerged, and how were they managed?
    5. What are the cultural and operational advantages of working in a boundaryless organization? How do partnerships, digital platforms, and fluid teams enhance or complicate collaboration and clarity?
    6. What systems, rituals, and technologies can organizations implement to promote continuous learning and knowledge sharing? How can AI tools, retrospectives, or social learning platforms help preserve insights and foster innovation?

    Section 14.3: Organizational Change: Navigating Transformation in the Modern Workplace

    Learning Objectives

    After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

    1. Analyze the External Forces Driving Organizational Change. Identify and evaluate key external factors—such as technological innovation, geopolitical shifts, economic volatility, and evolving social expectations—that compel organizations to adapt and transform in 2025’s dynamic global landscape.
    2. Assess Organizational Strategies for Responding to Environmental Change. Understand how organizations build resilience and agility by leveraging external perspectives, aligning internal systems, and adopting proactive change management strategies to navigate uncertainty and disruption.
    3. Explain the Psychological and Cultural Roots of Resistance to Change. Explore the emotional, cognitive, and social factors that contribute to resistance, including fear of failure, disruption of habits, and lack of trust in leadership. Examine how inclusive communication, empathy, and recognition can mitigate resistance and foster engagement.

    Change is no longer an occasional disruption—it is the constant undercurrent of today’s organizational life. Driven by evolving workplace demographics, technological innovation, globalization, shifting market conditions, and internal performance pressures, organizations must adapt not just to survive, but to thrive. Change impacts everything: structures, processes, leadership models, culture, and even the way people communicate.

    While the need for transformation is widely recognized, successful implementation remains elusive. Employees often react to change with skepticism, uncertainty, or resistance—ranging from active opposition to passive compliance. Understanding the psychological, cultural, and communicative factors that influence these responses is key to managing change effectively.

    This section explores the forces behind organizational change, the challenges of resistance, and the strategies leaders use to plan, communicate, and embed change into the organizational DNA. From traditional models like Lewin’s unfreezing-refreezing framework to contemporary practices centered on agility, inclusivity, and adaptive leadership, organizational change is both a strategic imperative and a human process.

    Why Do Organizations Change?

    Organizations change to remain competitive, resilient, and responsive in an increasingly complex and digitalized environment. In 2025, change is often driven by technological innovation, shifting workforce expectations, and global disruptions that demand agility and adaptability (Marr, 2024). Organizational change may involve restructuring, adopting new technologies such as artificial intelligence or immersive virtual platforms, or redefining cultural norms to support hybrid work models and employee well-being (Khandelwal & Upadhyay, 2025). These changes can be proactive—strategically planned to seize new opportunities—or reactive, prompted by external pressures such as economic shifts or industry disruptions.

    Modern organizational communication research emphasizes the importance of transparent, authentic, and emotionally intelligent communication during change initiatives. Leaders are increasingly using storytelling, digital platforms, and personalized messaging to foster trust and engagement (Krivkovich et al., 2025). For example, companies implementing AI-driven tools for internal communication have found that intelligent voice assistants can enhance perceived supervisor support and employee well-being (Yin & Wu, 2025). Similarly, organizations adopting agile change management practices prioritize continuous feedback and cross-functional collaboration to navigate transformation effectively (Malik, 2024).

    Ultimately, organizational change is not just a structural or procedural shift—it is a human-centered process. Success depends on how well leaders communicate the rationale for change, support employees through transitions, and align change efforts with shared values and purpose. As research shows, when employees feel connected to the organization’s mission and are supported through change, they are more likely to embrace new ways of working and contribute to long-term success (Krivkovich et al., 2025).

    1. Workforce Demographics

    Shifting workplace demographics—such as generational diversity, increased representation of women and minorities, and evolving employee expectations—are compelling organizations to rethink communication strategies and organizational structures. In 2025, organizations are navigating a workforce composed of Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z, each with distinct communication preferences and values (Pumble, 2025). Effective communication across these groups requires inclusive messaging, digital fluency, and emotional intelligence. For example, organizations are adopting AI-powered tools to personalize internal communication and foster engagement across age groups (Sci-Tech Today, 2025). These demographic shifts also influence organizational culture, prompting leaders to prioritize equity, belonging, and psychological safety.

    2. Technology

    Technological innovation is a primary driver of organizational change, reshaping how work is performed and how people communicate. The integration of artificial intelligence, immersive reality, and intelligent voice assistants (IVAs) has transformed internal communication, enabling real-time feedback, virtual collaboration, and personalized support (Khandelwal & Upadhyay, 2025). For instance, IVAs are now used to enhance supervisor support and employee well-being by facilitating efficient communication workflows (Yin & Wu, 2025). However, these technologies also raise concerns about authenticity and trust, requiring organizations to balance automation with human-centered communication strategies (McKinsey & Company, 2025).

    3. Globalization

    Globalization continues to influence organizational change by expanding markets, diversifying workforces, and increasing the need for cross-cultural communication. In 2025, multilingual digital communication and voice technologies are essential for global business success, with nearly half of internet content generated in non-English languages (PGLS, 2025). Organizations are investing in AI-powered translation tools and cultural intelligence training to navigate complex international environments. The rise of remote and hybrid work has further emphasized the need for inclusive communication strategies that bridge geographic and cultural divides (USC Annenberg, 2025).

    4. Market Conditions

    Economic volatility, competitive pressures, and shifting consumer behaviors compel organizations to adapt rapidly. In 2025, market conditions are shaped by AI disruption, political polarization, and evolving media landscapes, all of which impact organizational communication (Ragan Communications, 2025). Leaders are using storytelling and transparent messaging to build trust and resilience amid uncertainty. For example, organizations facing supply chain disruptions or inflationary pressures are leveraging internal communication platforms to align teams and maintain morale (Axios HQ, 2025). Strategic communication is no longer optional—it is essential for navigating turbulent market conditions.

    5. Organizational Growth

    As organizations scale, they must evolve their communication infrastructure to support complexity and maintain alignment. Growth often involves restructuring, entering new markets, or launching new products—all of which require clear, consistent messaging across departments (McKinsey & Company, 2025). High-growth organizations are 80% more likely to communicate their successes frequently, using digital platforms and cross-functional collaboration to foster engagement (Krivkovich et al., 2025). Leaders are also investing in culture-building initiatives and purpose-driven narratives to ensure that growth is sustainable and inclusive (Forbes, 2025).

    6. Poor Performance

    Organizational change is often triggered by poor performance, whether in financial outcomes, employee engagement, or customer satisfaction. Ineffective communication is a leading cause of workplace failures, with 86% of employees and executives citing it as a root issue (Pumble, 2025). Poor communication leads to confusion, missed deadlines, and low morale, prompting organizations to reevaluate their internal messaging and leadership practices (Speakap, 2025). By implementing feedback loops, training programs, and digital communication tools, organizations can address performance gaps and foster a culture of continuous improvement (Musheke & Phiri, 2021).

    Resistance to Change

    Resistance to change remains one of the most significant barriers to successful transformation. In 2025, research highlights that resistance is not inherently negative—it can signal the need for better communication, leadership alignment, and employee engagement (Suyuthi et al., 2025). Informal social networks within organizations play a critical role in shaping attitudes toward change, with opinion leaders influencing collective responses (Vanha-Perttula, 2025). Organizations are adopting participatory communication strategies, transparent messaging, and empathy-driven leadership to reduce resistance and build commitment to change (Koilakonda & Franklin, 2025).

    In today’s dynamic organizational landscape, responses to change are increasingly understood through the lenses of change fatigue, emotional complexity, and sensemaking rather than simplistic notions of resistance. Change fatigue—a state of psychological exhaustion caused by continuous transformation—has emerged as a critical barrier to successful change initiatives. In 2025, 44% of internal communicators identified change fatigue as one of the top challenges to organizational success, second only to limited team capacity (Gallagher, 2025). Employees experiencing change fatigue may disengage, withdraw from collaborative efforts, or exhibit apathy—not out of defiance, but due to cognitive overload and emotional depletion.

    Emotional complexity further complicates how individuals respond to change. Rather than categorizing reactions as supportive or resistant, modern research emphasizes the nuanced emotional landscape employees navigate during transformation. Emotions such as anxiety, hope, frustration, and curiosity often coexist, influencing how individuals interpret and act upon change messages (Ivcevic et al., 2025). Leaders who demonstrate emotional intelligence—through empathy, transparency, and active listening—are better equipped to support employees through these transitions and foster resilience (Lubega, 2025).

    Sensemaking, the process by which individuals interpret and give meaning to change, is now recognized as a vital component of organizational communication. Rather than expecting employees to passively absorb directives, effective change leaders engage in dialogue-based meaning-making, encouraging reflection and co-creation of understanding (Hudson, 2025). For example, when employees ask, “What does AI transformation mean for our jobs?” they are not merely seeking information—they are expressing uncertainty and inviting collaborative interpretation. Leaders who embrace sensemaking create psychological safety and build trust, enabling teams to navigate ambiguity with confidence.

    Failure to address these nuanced responses can result in significant organizational costs. Employees overwhelmed by change fatigue or emotional dissonance are more likely to experience burnout, increased absenteeism, and voluntary turnover (Gallagher, 2025). Moreover, when sensemaking is neglected, organizations risk misalignment, confusion, and stalled implementation efforts.

    A compelling illustration of how entrenched norms can obstruct innovation is the persistence of the QWERTY keyboard. Originally designed to slow typists and prevent mechanical jams, QWERTY remains the dominant layout despite the existence of more efficient alternatives like the Dvorak keyboard. The failure to adopt Dvorak was not due to its inefficacy, but to the emotional and cognitive costs of change—teachers feared losing expertise, typists resisted relearning, and manufacturers balked at the expense of transition (Diamond, 2005). This example underscores that even the most rational improvements can falter without attention to the human dimensions of change.

    Figure 14.11

    Dvorak keyboard

    The Dvorak keyboard is a more efficient design compared to the QWERTY keyboard. Due to resistance from typists, manufacturers, and teachers, it never gained widespread adoption.

     

    Why Do People Resist Change?

    In 2025, resistance to organizational change is increasingly understood as a complex interplay of psychological, relational, and contextual factors. Rather than viewing resistance as obstruction, contemporary research frames it as a signal—an invitation to explore deeper concerns around identity, trust, and meaning-making.

    1. Disrupted Habits

    Habits provide cognitive efficiency and emotional stability. When change disrupts these routines—such as switching from familiar software to AI-integrated platforms—employees may experience discomfort and reduced performance. This disruption is especially pronounced in hybrid and remote environments, where digital tool fatigue and inconsistent communication norms compound the challenge (Wong et al., 2025). Leaders must recognize that even minor changes can trigger significant resistance if they interfere with deeply ingrained workflows.

    2. Personality

    Individual differences play a critical role in how people respond to change. Employees with high openness and emotional stability are more likely to embrace transformation, while those with high neuroticism or low risk tolerance may perceive change as threatening (Mittal et al., 2025). The Big Five personality traits have been shown to influence organizational commitment and workplace happiness, especially when mediated by effective communication (Ali et al., 2025). Tailoring communication strategies to personality profiles can enhance engagement and reduce resistance.

    3. Feelings of Uncertainty

    Uncertainty—not change itself—is often the root of resistance. Employees facing mergers, restructures, or AI-driven role shifts may feel a loss of control and psychological safety. The 2025 APA Work in America report found that workers who feel respected and informed during change are significantly more likely to adapt positively (Cox, 2025). Transparent communication, participatory decision-making, and early messaging are essential to mitigate uncertainty-related stress (Bordia et al., 2025).

    4. Fear of Failure

    Fear of failure can undermine innovation and commitment. Employees may worry that new systems will expose skill gaps or diminish their value. This fear is exacerbated in high-performance cultures where perfection is prized over experimentation (Ahmed et al., 2025). Organizations that foster psychological safety and model failure as a learning opportunity—rather than a liability—are more likely to sustain change momentum (Hubbart, 2025).

    5. Personal Impact of Change

    Employees are more receptive to change when they perceive personal benefit. Changes that enhance autonomy, recognition, or work-life balance are welcomed, while those that threaten identity or status provoke resistance. The 2025 APA survey revealed that alignment between personal preferences and work arrangements (e.g., remote vs. in-person) significantly improves job satisfaction and mental health (APA, 2025). Leaders must communicate not just the organizational rationale but the individual relevance of change.

    6. Prevalence of Change

    Change fatigue is real. In organizations with frequent, poorly executed transformations, employees become skeptical and disengaged. The Capability for Change Survey (2024) found that inconsistent leadership, lack of follow-through, and resource constraints contribute to cumulative resistance (Koilakonda & Franklin, 2025). Strategic portfolio management and clear success metrics are essential to rebuild trust and credibility.

    7. Perceived Loss of Power

    Change often redistributes influence, which can threaten those in traditional authority roles. For example, shifting from hierarchical to team-based structures may reduce managerial control, prompting subtle or overt resistance. Research shows that leaders motivated by personalized power are more likely to resist collaborative models, while those driven by socialized power support team cohesion and growth (French, 2025). Addressing power dynamics openly and fostering inclusive leadership can ease transitions.

    Is All Resistance Bad?

    In contemporary organizational communication research, resistance to change is increasingly viewed not as a barrier, but as a form of meaningful feedback and a potential catalyst for improvement. Rather than dismissing resistance as obstructionist, leaders are encouraged to interpret it as a signal—an opportunity to engage employees in dialogue, uncover blind spots, and refine change strategies (Suyuthi et al., 2025). Employees who resist change often do so out of deep commitment to the organization’s mission and values. Their concerns may reflect legitimate fears about operational risks, cultural misalignment, or unintended consequences of transformation efforts.

    For example, in a 2025 study of organizational change in hybrid work environments, researchers found that vocal opposition often came from high-performing employees who felt that new digital workflows undermined team cohesion and trust (Lawrence, 2025). These individuals were not resisting change out of apathy, but out of loyalty and concern for long-term organizational health. In contrast, passive compliance may signal disengagement or indifference—employees who go along with change simply because they lack emotional investment in the organization’s future (Hamilton, 2025).

    Modern change management frameworks emphasize the importance of listening to dissenting voices and incorporating their insights into the design and implementation of change. When employees are invited to co-create solutions and express concerns without fear of reprisal, resistance can evolve into commitment and innovation (Khandelwal & Upadhyay, 2025). This approach aligns with the growing emphasis on psychological safety, inclusive leadership, and participatory communication in successful transformation efforts.

    Ultimately, resistance is not inherently negative—it is a form of organizational intelligence. By reframing resistance as a resource rather than a threat, leaders can build trust, improve decision-making, and increase the likelihood of sustainable change.

    Workplace Strategy Pack

    Navigating Change and Downsizing in the Remote Work Era

    Objective

    To empower employees with communication strategies, resilience tools, and ethical insights for navigating organizational change—especially downsizing—within the context of remote and hybrid work environments.

    Why It Matters

    Organizational change is inevitable, but the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated transformations in structure, staffing, and communication. Downsizing became a common cost-cutting strategy, often accompanied by remote work shifts and cultural disruption. Research shows that successful adaptation depends on transparent communication, psychological safety, and employee engagement (Zhu, 2025; Perlow & Whillans, 2021).

    Employees who understand the dynamics of change and proactively manage their role within it are more likely to maintain performance, morale, and career momentum—even in uncertain environments.

    Strategy Toolkit

    Strategy Application
    Seek Clarity Early Ask managers for transparent updates on organizational changes, timelines, and expectations.
    Strengthen Digital Communication Use synchronous (e.g., video calls) and asynchronous (e.g., shared docs) tools to stay visible and connected.
    Build Psychological Safety Foster trust by encouraging open dialogue, validating emotions, and supporting peers.
    Reframe Your Role Identify how your skills align with new priorities—be flexible and proactive in offering solutions.
    Expand Your Network Use remote platforms to connect with mentors, cross-functional teams, and external contacts.

    Empowerment Tip

    Change doesn’t just happen to you—you can shape your response. Ask yourself:

    “What can I control, influence, or reimagine in this moment of transition?”

    Resilience is built through communication, connection, and clarity.

     

    References
    Zhu, Y. (2025). Navigating communication in hybrid work environments: Strategies for building cohesion and engagement. Proceedings of the International Conference on Humanities, Psychology and Social Sciences, 2(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.33422/hpsconf.v2i1.811

    Perlow, L. A., & Whillans, A. V. (2021). How teams work: Lessons from the pandemic. Harvard Business School Working Knowledge. https://www.library.hbs.edu/working-knowledge/how-teams-work-lessons-from-the-pandemic

    Holtz, D., Yang, L., Jaffe, S., Suri, S., et al. (2021). How remote work affects our communication and collaboration. Nature Human Behaviour. https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_remote_work_affects_our_communication_and_collaboration

    Planning and Executing Change Effectively

    In today’s dynamic workplace, executing change effectively requires more than strategic planning—it demands emotional resonance, narrative coherence, and ongoing adaptation. Traditional models like Lewin’s three-stage framework (unfreeze–change–refreeze) remain foundational, but they are increasingly reframed through the lens of Continuous Change, which emphasizes iterative learning, real-time feedback, and sustained engagement (Koilakonda & Franklin, 2025). Rather than discrete phases, organizations now operate in a state of perpetual transformation, where change is embedded into culture and communication.

    Figure 14.13

    Lewin's three-stage process of change emphasizes the importance of preparation or unfreezing before change, and reinforcement of change afterward or refreezing.

    Lewin’s three-stage process of change emphasizes the importance of preparation or unfreezing before change, and reinforcement of change afterward or refreezing.

    Narrative building is central to this shift. Leaders are expected to craft strategic narratives that connect the organization’s current state to its future aspirations, helping employees see how their work contributes to a larger mission (Ratanjee, 2025). These narratives are not static slogans but evolving stories that show up in meetings, internal updates, and everyday decisions. For example, companies undergoing AI integration are using future-focused storytelling to frame transformation as an opportunity for growth and innovation, rather than disruption (Krivkovich et al., 2025).

    Authentic storytelling further strengthens change efforts by fostering trust and emotional connection. In 2025, organizations are prioritizing real-life stories over polished messaging, using employee experiences to illustrate values, challenges, and successes (Amendola, 2025). This approach humanizes change, making it relatable and credible. Leaders who share personal setbacks, lessons learned, and hopes for the future are more likely to inspire belief and commitment than those who rely solely on top-down directives (Shanley, 2025).

    Equally important is employee purpose alignment. Research shows that when employees feel their personal values align with organizational goals, they are five times more likely to feel fulfilled at work (Krivkovich et al., 2025). Effective change communication must therefore help employees connect their roles to the broader narrative. This includes listening to frontline perspectives, integrating feedback into strategy, and reinforcing shared purpose across all levels of the organization (Di Luise, 2025).

    Modern leadership communication is defined by vulnerability and clarity. Gone are the days of scripted town halls and hierarchical messaging. Today’s leaders are expected to communicate transparently, acknowledge uncertainty, and invite dialogue (Myers, 2025). Vulnerability—expressed through openness about challenges and a willingness to admit mistakes—builds psychological safety and strengthens team cohesion (Sidharth & Lakra, 2025). Clarity, meanwhile, ensures that employees understand not just what is changing, but why it matters and how they fit into the journey.

    Ultimately, planning and executing change effectively in 2025 means embracing a continuous, human-centered approach. It requires leaders to be storytellers, listeners, and architects of meaning—guiding their organizations through complexity with empathy, purpose, and strategic intent.

    Stage 1: Unfreezing Prior to Change

    In today’s climate of continuous transformation, the “unfreezing” stage—originally conceptualized by Kurt Lewin—is no longer a one-time event but an ongoing process of preparing employees to embrace change with clarity, trust, and emotional readiness. Unfreezing involves disrupting the status quo, creating urgency, and fostering psychological safety so that employees are open to new ways of thinking and working (Lewin, 1947; Koilakonda & Franklin, 2025).

    Modern organizational communication research emphasizes that successful unfreezing begins with strategic messaging that builds awareness of the need for change. Leaders must communicate not only what is changing, but why it matters and how it aligns with organizational purpose and employee values (Krivkovich et al., 2025). For example, when Microsoft transitioned to hybrid work, leaders used transparent messaging and employee listening sessions to surface concerns and co-create solutions—an approach that increased trust and reduced resistance (Lawrence, 2025).

    Emotional preparation is equally critical. Employees must feel supported, respected, and involved in the change process. Research shows that when leaders acknowledge uncertainty and communicate with vulnerability, employees are more likely to engage with change rather than resist it (Sidharth & Lakra, 2025). This includes sharing personal stories, modeling adaptability, and inviting feedback throughout the transition.

    Organizations also benefit from sensemaking practices—structured opportunities for employees to interpret and discuss the implications of change. These may include team huddles, digital town halls, or peer-led workshops that encourage reflection and dialogue (Hudson, 2025). Such practices help employees move from passive awareness to active understanding, laying the groundwork for meaningful engagement.

    Finally, change readiness assessments and communication audits can help identify gaps in understanding, emotional barriers, and cultural dynamics that may hinder progress. By addressing these factors early, organizations can tailor their communication strategies and build momentum for successful transformation.

    Create a Vision for Change

    In successful change efforts, leaders must articulate a compelling and emotionally resonant vision that connects organizational transformation to a meaningful future. While traditional models emphasized top-down messaging, contemporary research highlights the importance of narrative building, authentic storytelling, and employee purpose alignment as essential tools for fostering commitment and trust (Krivkovich et al., 2025). A well-crafted vision not only outlines strategic goals but also inspires employees by showing how their work contributes to a broader mission.

    Modern organizations like Toyota continue to exemplify this approach through their dual philosophies of kaizen (continuous improvement) and kakushin (revolutionary change). Their vision—“to build the dream car of the future”—serves as a unifying narrative that justifies innovation while honoring tradition (Stewart & Raman, 2007). Similarly, leaders at Microsoft and Salesforce have used storytelling across digital platforms to communicate transformation goals with clarity and vulnerability, helping employees navigate uncertainty with confidence (Lawrence, 2025).

    Importantly, leaders today are expected to communicate with empathy, transparency, and vulnerability, rather than relying solely on scripted announcements. This shift builds psychological safety, allowing employees to express concerns, ask questions, and engage in sensemaking during periods of change (Sidharth & Lakra, 2025). When leaders share personal reflections and acknowledge emotional complexity, they foster deeper trust and connection.

    Supporting Employee Experience and Well-Being

    Creating a vision for change must be accompanied by support systems that prioritize employee well-being. In 2025, change fatigue and emotional strain have emerged as major barriers to successful transformation, with 44% of HR leaders identifying them as top challenges (Gallagher, 2025). Employees experiencing repeated or poorly communicated changes often report burnout, disengagement, and reduced commitment to organizational goals.

    To counteract these effects, organizations must invest in trust-building practices and inclusive communication strategies. This includes providing mental health resources, flexible work arrangements, and opportunities for employees to co-create aspects of the change process. Research shows that when employees feel their well-being is valued, they are more likely to adapt positively and contribute to long-term success (APA, 2025).

    Moreover, aligning the change vision with employee purpose enhances resilience and motivation. Employees who see a clear connection between their personal values and the organization’s mission are five times more likely to feel fulfilled at work (Krivkovich et al., 2025). Leaders can reinforce this alignment by integrating purpose-driven messaging into onboarding, performance reviews, and team rituals.

    In essence, the most effective change efforts are those that combine strategic clarity with emotional intelligence—where vision is not just communicated, but lived and felt across the organization.

    Communication Ecosystems and Providing Support

    In 2025, effective change communication requires more than announcements—it demands a robust, multi-channel communication ecosystem that fosters clarity, personalization, and sustained engagement. Employees who understand what is changing, why it matters, and how it affects them are significantly more likely to support transformation efforts. Research continues to affirm that access to complete and transparent information increases employee commitment to change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000).

    Modern communication ecosystems integrate asynchronous platforms, intelligent voice assistants (IVAs), and AR/VR environments to bridge time zones, reduce meeting fatigue, and personalize messaging. Asynchronous tools like Slack Clips, Loom, and Notion allow employees to absorb updates on their own schedules, promoting inclusivity and deep-focus work across distributed teams (FLYDESK, 2025). These platforms also support structured documentation and real-time collaboration, ensuring that communication is both accessible and context-rich.

    Intelligent voice assistants are increasingly used to deliver personalized updates, facilitate feedback loops, and support emotional well-being. IVAs embedded in smart devices help employees navigate change by offering reminders, answering FAQs, and even providing psychological support through conversational interfaces (Yin & Wu, 2025). Their presence enhances perceived supervisor support and fosters psychological safety—critical factors in change adaptation.

    AR/VR technologies are also transforming internal communication by creating immersive environments for onboarding, training, and leadership messaging. Virtual reality simulations allow employees to experience change scenarios firsthand, while augmented reality overlays provide real-time guidance during transitions. These tools are especially valuable for global teams, enabling interactive communication that transcends physical boundaries (Khandelwal & Upadhyay, 2025).

    Leadership visibility remains essential. When top executives actively participate in communication—through live forums, video messages, or immersive town halls—they signal strategic commitment and build trust. For example, Kimberly-Clark’s CEO reinforced the importance of a new performance appraisal system by referencing it in every employee meeting, demonstrating alignment between leadership and operational change (Armenakis et al., 1993).

    Ultimately, providing support during change means creating a communication ecosystem that is transparent, empathetic, and technologically agile. By leveraging modern tools and human-centered messaging, organizations can reduce uncertainty, build trust, and empower employees to thrive through transformation.

    Develop a Sense of Urgency

    Creating a sense of urgency is the foundational step in driving successful organizational change. In today’s volatile business environment, where digital disruption, global competition, and shifting consumer expectations are constant, leaders must communicate the necessity of change with clarity and conviction. Employees are more likely to embrace transformation when they perceive that remaining in the status quo poses a tangible risk to the organization’s survival or relevance (Kotter, 2021).

    Modern research emphasizes that urgency must be authentic and data-driven, not manufactured. Leaders should use transparent communication to highlight external threats—such as declining market share, technological obsolescence, or reputational risks—and internal challenges like inefficiencies or cultural stagnation (Tanner, 2025). For example, Netflix’s pivot from DVD rentals to streaming was fueled by clear communication of declining subscription trends and rising digital competition, which galvanized employee support for innovation (Baker, 2025).

    Lou Gerstner’s turnaround of IBM remains a classic case study. Facing imminent collapse in the early 1990s, Gerstner chose to keep the crisis visible, using it as a catalyst for change. “Rather than go with the usual impulse to put on a happy face, I decided to keep the crisis front and center. I didn’t want to lose the sense of urgency” (Gerstner, 2002, p. 89). His strategy aligns with Kotter’s model, which asserts that urgency must be sustained through storytelling, stakeholder engagement, and consistent messaging across platforms (Kotter, 2021).

    In 2025, organizations increasingly use multimedia storytelling, interactive dashboards, and immersive simulations to communicate urgency. These tools personalize the message, allowing employees to visualize the consequences of inaction and the benefits of transformation. Leaders also enlist coalitions of influencers across departments to reinforce urgency through peer-to-peer communication, making the case for change more relatable and credible (McKinsey & Company, 2025).

    Ultimately, urgency is not about fear—it’s about mobilizing energy and focus. When employees understand the stakes and see leadership’s commitment, they are more likely to act decisively and collaboratively toward a shared vision.

    Building a Coalition

    Successful organizational change hinges on the ability to mobilize influential voices within the company. Rather than attempting to persuade every employee simultaneously, change leaders are more effective when they identify and engage opinion leaders—individuals who hold informal authority and influence over their peers (Kotter, 2021). These key stakeholders serve as catalysts, amplifying the change message and modeling desired behaviors across teams.

    Modern research emphasizes the importance of forming a guiding coalition composed of diverse, cross-functional leaders who are both respected and strategically positioned within the organization (Carreno, 2024). This coalition should include not only senior executives but also mid-level managers and frontline influencers who can bridge communication gaps and foster trust. For example, Kotter’s updated framework encourages organizations to build coalitions that reflect the cultural and operational diversity of the workforce, ensuring that change efforts resonate across departments and geographies (Kotter Inc., 2025).

    A contemporary illustration of coalition-building can be seen in Gap Inc.’s transformation strategy. During Paul Pressler’s tenure as CEO, the company segmented its workforce and began with intensive leadership summits for 2,000 senior managers. These managers were then responsible for cascading the cultural change across 150,000 employees, creating a ripple effect of engagement and alignment (Nash, 2005). This approach mirrors today’s best practices, where change champions are trained to lead peer-to-peer conversations, facilitate workshops, and reinforce strategic messaging through digital platforms and asynchronous communication tools (McKinsey & Company, 2025).

    Technology also plays a pivotal role in coalition-building. Platforms like Microsoft Teams, Slack, and immersive VR environments enable real-time collaboration and storytelling across time zones, helping coalitions maintain momentum and visibility. These tools allow leaders to personalize outreach, track sentiment, and adapt messaging based on feedback—ensuring that the coalition remains agile and responsive throughout the change journey.

    Ultimately, building a coalition is not just about assembling a team—it’s about cultivating a network of trust and influence that can sustain change from the inside out.

    Allow Employees to Participate

    In today’s dynamic work environments, employee participation in change initiatives is not just beneficial—it’s essential. Research consistently shows that when employees are involved in diagnosing problems and shaping solutions, they develop a stronger sense of ownership and are more likely to support the change effort (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Participation fosters transparency, builds trust, and enhances understanding of the rationale behind decisions, ultimately reducing resistance and increasing commitment.

    Modern organizations are leveraging digital collaboration platforms, AI-powered feedback tools, and immersive technologies to facilitate meaningful employee involvement. For example, companies like Siemens and Bosch use internal crowdsourcing platforms to gather employee insights during early stages of transformation, allowing frontline workers to contribute ideas and flag operational issues before formal plans are developed (McKinsey & Company, 2025). This approach not only democratizes decision-making but also surfaces valuable perspectives that might otherwise be overlooked.

    Emerging technologies such as intelligent voice assistants (IVAs) and augmented reality (AR) are also reshaping participation. IVAs enable employees to submit feedback, ask questions, and receive updates in real time, while AR tools allow workers to visualize proposed changes in their physical workspace, making abstract concepts more tangible (Khandelwal & Upadhyay, 2025). These innovations enhance accessibility and engagement, especially in hybrid and remote settings.

    Participation is most impactful when it begins early—during problem identification and solution design. For instance, if a manufacturing firm suspects quality issues, involving employees in customer service interactions or product testing can create firsthand awareness of the problem. Experiencing the issue directly often leads to greater motivation to resolve it and a deeper understanding of the need for change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000).

    Ultimately, empowering employees to participate in change efforts transforms them from passive recipients into active co-creators. This shift not only improves outcomes but also strengthens organizational culture and resilience.

    Stage 2: Executing Change

    The second stage of Lewin’s three-step change model—executing change—marks the transition from planning to action. At this point, organizations begin implementing changes across technology, structure, culture, or procedures. Success hinges on strategic communication, leadership alignment, and employee engagement. In 2025, executing change is no longer a linear rollout; it’s a dynamic, iterative process that requires agility, empathy, and digital fluency (Lewin, 1951; McKinsey & Company, 2025).

    Modern organizations are embracing workforce orchestration, using real-time data and feedback loops to monitor progress and adjust strategies. Platforms like Microsoft Viva and Firstup centralize communication, enabling leaders to deliver consistent messaging while tailoring content to different employee segments (Firstup, 2025). This personalization fosters clarity and relevance, reducing confusion and resistance.

    Technology integration is a key driver of execution. AI-powered tools streamline workflows, automate routine tasks, and provide predictive insights that guide decision-making. For example, companies implementing new enterprise software often use change analytics to track adoption rates and identify friction points, allowing for timely interventions (Panorama Consulting, 2025).

    Cultural transformation is equally critical. Organizations must align values, behaviors, and incentives with the desired change outcomes. Leaders play a pivotal role by modeling new norms and reinforcing them through storytelling, recognition, and transparent communication. In 2025, successful change leaders prioritize authenticity and vulnerability, creating psychological safety and trust (Project One, 2025).

    Execution also involves emotional transitions. Employees must be supported through uncertainty with empathy and clear direction. Models like ADKAR and Bridges emphasize the human side of change, helping teams navigate loss, confusion, and renewal. Recognizing quick wins and celebrating milestones builds momentum and reinforces commitment (Firstup, 2025).

    Ultimately, executing change is about mobilizing people and systems in harmony. When communication is strategic, technology is leveraged effectively, and culture is nurtured intentionally, organizations can transform not just operations—but mindsets.

    Continue to Provide Support

    As organizational change unfolds, employees often face heightened stress, uncertainty, and role ambiguity. In 2025, the pace and complexity of transformation—driven by AI integration, hybrid work models, and evolving job expectations—have made ongoing support a strategic imperative. Research shows that employees who feel supported during transitions are significantly more resilient, engaged, and productive (meQuilibrium, 2025).

    Modern organizations are adopting multi-layered support systems that blend emotional, informational, and technological resources. Managers play a pivotal role by demonstrating empathy, maintaining open communication, and offering consistent feedback. According to Gartner’s 2025 HR Priorities Survey, employees who feel supported by their managers are 44% more likely to view change positively and 40% less likely to experience burnout (Gartner, 2025). This underscores the importance of equipping managers with tools and training to foster psychological safety and trust.

    Digital platforms now enable personalized support at scale. Intelligent voice assistants (IVAs) and AI-powered wellness apps provide real-time guidance, stress management resources, and access to mental health services. These tools help employees navigate new responsibilities and reduce the cognitive load associated with change (Yin & Wu, 2025). For example, companies like Salesforce and Accenture use IVAs to deliver tailored updates and check-ins, ensuring employees feel seen and heard throughout the transition.

    Hybrid communication strategies—including virtual town halls, peer support forums, and asynchronous feedback channels—allow employees to express concerns and receive timely responses. This approach is especially effective in remote and global teams, where time zone differences and cultural nuances require flexible engagement methods (Khandelwal & Upadhyay, 2025).

    Support must also extend beyond the implementation phase. Sustained engagement through coaching, recognition programs, and continuous learning opportunities reinforces the change and helps employees adapt long-term. Organizations that prioritize well-being and transparent communication during and after change report higher retention, stronger morale, and improved performance (ChangeSync, 2025).

    Ultimately, providing support is not a one-time effort—it’s a continuous commitment to employee experience, resilience, and growth.

    Create Small Wins

    n the context of organizational change, generating small wins is a powerful strategy for building momentum, reinforcing commitment, and sustaining engagement. Kotter’s change model continues to emphasize the importance of short-term victories as a way to validate the change effort and energize employees (Kotter Inc., 2025). When change initiatives are large in scope or long in duration, employees may struggle to perceive progress, leading to disengagement or skepticism. Small wins serve as tangible proof that transformation is underway and that their efforts are making a difference.

    Recent research highlights that small wins are not just motivational—they are strategic. Reay, Golden-Biddle, and Germann (2006) describe how microprocesses of change, marked by incremental successes, help legitimize new roles and practices within established systems. These wins consolidate gains and create a foundation for continued adaptation. For example, LEGO’s turnaround strategy in the mid-2000s involved simplifying product lines and celebrating early operational improvements, which helped rebuild employee confidence and organizational resilience (Hudson, 2025).

    In 2025, organizations are using digital dashboards, AI-driven performance trackers, and employee recognition platforms to spotlight small wins in real time. These tools allow leaders to communicate progress visually and frequently, reinforcing the narrative that change is working. Companies like Adobe and Unilever use internal storytelling campaigns to highlight team-level achievements, fostering a culture of appreciation and forward momentum (McKinsey & Company, 2025).

    Breaking change into phased milestones also enables clearer goal-setting and accountability. Each phase becomes an opportunity to celebrate success, recalibrate strategies, and reinforce alignment. This approach not only boosts morale but also enhances the credibility of change leaders, especially when early wins are communicated effectively across the organization (Xmind, 2025).

    Ultimately, small wins are the building blocks of large-scale transformation. They validate the vision, energize the workforce, and create a rhythm of progress that sustains change over time.

    Eliminate Obstacles

    As organizations execute change, they inevitably encounter obstacles—both anticipated and unforeseen. These barriers may stem from entrenched cultural norms, outdated structures, or resistant individuals who appear supportive but quietly undermine progress. In 2025, eliminating obstacles requires a proactive, data-informed approach that blends strategic communication, leadership accountability, and technological agility (Kotter Inc., 2025).

    Modern research emphasizes that resistance often arises from psychological biases, fear of loss, or misalignment with personal values (Shell & Moussa, 2025). Leaders must identify these root causes through transparent dialogue and behavioral analytics. For example, organizations now use sentiment analysis tools embedded in platforms like Microsoft Viva to detect passive resistance and flag communication breakdowns early (McKinsey & Company, 2025).

    Structural and cultural obstacles are equally critical. Legacy hierarchies, siloed departments, and rigid workflows can stifle innovation and slow change adoption. In response, companies are redesigning organizational charts to promote cross-functional collaboration and flatten decision-making layers. A 2025 Forbes study found that companies with adaptive cultures—those that actively align values with strategic goals—are four times more likely to succeed in transformation efforts (Lawrence, 2025).

    Technology also plays a pivotal role in removing barriers. Intelligent voice assistants (IVAs) and AR/VR tools help clarify new processes, provide real-time guidance, and reduce ambiguity. For instance, AR overlays can walk employees through updated workflows, while IVAs offer personalized support and feedback, minimizing confusion and boosting confidence (Khandelwal & Upadhyay, 2025).

    Kotter’s updated framework reinforces the importance of confronting resistance directly. Leaders must engage holdouts early, clarify expectations, and—if necessary—reassign roles to protect the integrity of the change effort (Kotter Inc., 2025). This assertive yet empathetic approach ensures that obstacles are not only identified but decisively addressed.

    Ultimately, eliminating obstacles is about creating an environment where change can thrive—free from friction, empowered by clarity, and sustained by trust.

    Kotter’s 8 Accelerators for Change

    1. Create a Sense of Urgency. Inspire people to act with passion and purpose around a bold opportunity—not just react to threats.
    2. Build a Guiding Coalition. Form a volunteer network of influential individuals across levels and departments to champion the change.
    3. Form a Strategic Vision and Initiatives. Clarify how the future will differ from the past and outline initiatives that will bring the vision to life.
    4. Enlist a Volunteer Army. Engage a large group of people who are excited and willing to drive change—not just assigned to it.
    5. Enable Action by Removing Barriers. Identify and eliminate obstacles that slow progress, including outdated processes and silos.
    6. Generate Short-Term Wins. Create visible, meaningful victories early and often to build momentum and credibility.
    7. Sustain Acceleration. Use the energy from early wins to tackle bigger challenges and keep the change moving forward.
    8. Institute Change. Embed new behaviors and practices into the culture to ensure the transformation sticks.

    Source: Kotter, J. P., & Rathgeber, H. (2021). CHANGE: How organizations achieve hard-to-imagine results in uncertain and volatile times. Wiley.

    Stage 3: Refreezing

    The final stage of Lewin’s change model—refreezing—is critical for embedding new behaviors, processes, and mindsets into the fabric of an organization. In 2025, refreezing is less about returning to a static state and more about establishing a new equilibrium that supports continuous adaptation. The success of a change effort depends on whether the transformation becomes routine, culturally accepted, and reinforced through systems, leadership, and communication (Lewin, 1951; Ellis, 2023).

    Modern organizations are using behavioral reinforcement strategies, digital nudges, and culture-aligned communication to institutionalize change. For example, companies like IKEA and Salesforce integrate new values and practices into onboarding, performance reviews, and leadership development, ensuring that change is not a one-time event but a sustained evolution (Lawrence, 2025). These efforts are supported by AI-powered platforms that track behavioral adoption and provide personalized feedback, helping employees internalize new expectations (Khandelwal & Upadhyay, 2025).

    Refreezing also involves storytelling and symbolic actions. Leaders who consistently communicate the rationale behind the change and celebrate its impact help employees connect emotionally to the new direction. McKinsey research shows that organizations that align culture with strategy are twice as likely to achieve successful transformation outcomes (McKinsey & Company, 2025). This alignment requires reinforcing new norms through rituals, recognition programs, and visible leadership behaviors.

    Importantly, refreezing must account for the fluid nature of modern work. Hybrid teams, asynchronous communication, and evolving technologies mean that stability is dynamic. Managers must remain vigilant for signs of regression and continue to support employees through coaching, feedback, and inclusive dialogue. As Ellis (2023) notes, embedding change requires patience, clarity, and a willingness to adapt reinforcement strategies to team needs.

    Ultimately, refreezing is about making change stick—not by freezing progress, but by anchoring it in culture, systems, and shared purpose.

    Publicize Success

    To embed change into organizational culture, leaders must actively communicate the results of transformation efforts. In 2025, publicizing success is not just a celebratory gesture—it’s a strategic communication practice that reinforces credibility, builds trust, and sustains momentum. When employees see tangible outcomes such as cost savings, improved safety metrics, or enhanced brand reputation, they are more likely to view the change as worthwhile and align their behaviors accordingly (Kotter Inc., 2025).

    Modern organizations are leveraging data visualization tools, internal storytelling campaigns, and multichannel communication strategies to share success stories. For example, companies like Schneider Electric and Microsoft use interactive dashboards and short-form video updates to highlight key performance indicators post-change, making results accessible and engaging for employees across roles and regions (McKinsey & Company, 2025). These efforts help employees connect their contributions to broader organizational wins, fostering a sense of pride and ownership.

    Research also shows that frequent and transparent communication of success boosts employee engagement and reduces change fatigue. According to Ragan’s 2025 Communications Benchmark Report, organizations that consistently share progress and celebrate milestones are significantly more likely to maintain high levels of employee confidence and morale during transitions (Ragan Communications, 2025). This is especially critical in hybrid and remote environments, where visibility into organizational impact can be limited.

    Additionally, success communication should be personalized and purpose-driven. Leaders who link outcomes to employee purpose—such as improved customer satisfaction or sustainability goals—create emotional resonance and deepen commitment. As McKinsey notes, growth outperformers are 80% more likely to communicate their wins frequently and authentically, turning success into a shared narrative that inspires continued innovation (McKinsey & Company, 2025).

    Ultimately, publicizing success is about closing the loop—showing employees that their efforts matter, that change is working, and that the organization is moving forward together.

    Build on Prior Change

    Once early successes emerge, organizations must capitalize on the momentum to drive sustained transformation. In 2025, the philosophy of continuous improvement is more than a best practice—it’s a strategic imperative. Rather than declaring victory prematurely, leaders are encouraged to reinforce progress by embedding iterative enhancements into daily operations and communication routines (SixSigma.us, 2025).

    Modern research emphasizes that momentum is fragile and must be nurtured through visible progress, employee engagement, and strategic storytelling. According to Forbes, maintaining change momentum helps leaders identify resistance, reinforce confidence, and course-correct in real time (Dhar, 2024). This is especially critical in hybrid and global teams, where asynchronous communication and digital platforms can dilute urgency if not managed intentionally.

    Organizations like Toyota and Amazon exemplify this approach through Kaizen-inspired micro-innovations, where small, frequent improvements are celebrated and scaled. These companies use AI-powered dashboards and internal communication campaigns to highlight incremental wins, reinforcing the belief that change is ongoing and achievable (Whale, 2025).

    Communication plays a pivotal role in sustaining momentum. Leaders must consistently share updates, recognize contributions, and link new initiatives to prior successes. McKinsey research shows that growth outperformers are 80% more likely to communicate their wins frequently and authentically, creating a virtuous cycle of engagement and innovation (McKinsey & Company, 2025).

    Ultimately, building on prior change means transforming early wins into a launchpad for continuous evolution. By fostering a culture of learning, transparency, and shared purpose, organizations can move further and faster—together.

    Reward Change Adoption

    To ensure that organizational change becomes embedded and sustained, it is essential to recognize and reward employees who actively support and adopt new behaviors. In 2025, reward systems have evolved beyond traditional financial incentives to include personalized, real-time, and values-aligned recognition strategies that reinforce desired cultural shifts (HiFives, 2025). Recognition is no longer a “nice-to-have”—it is a strategic lever for engagement, retention, and change reinforcement.

    Modern organizations are embracing peer-to-peer recognition, instant feedback, and team-based rewards to foster inclusive and authentic appreciation. For example, companies like Salesforce and Unilever use digital platforms that allow employees to recognize colleagues for demonstrating change-aligned behaviors, such as adopting new technologies or improving customer experience. These platforms integrate with daily workflows (e.g., Slack, Microsoft Teams), making recognition seamless and habitual (Achievers, 2025).

    Research shows that aligning rewards with organizational values significantly increases the likelihood that employees will internalize and repeat new behaviors. In 2025, organizations are embedding change-related actions—such as using a new CRM system or participating in sustainability initiatives—into performance metrics and recognition programs (Albi Marketing, 2025). This approach ensures that change is not only acknowledged but also celebrated in ways that resonate with employees’ personal motivations.

    Additionally, non-monetary rewards such as public praise, digital badges, and experiential incentives (e.g., professional development opportunities or wellness stipends) are gaining traction. These forms of recognition are especially effective in hybrid and remote environments, where visibility and connection are critical to sustaining morale and momentum (Vantage Circle, 2025).

    Ultimately, rewarding change adoption is about reinforcing the behaviors that drive transformation. When recognition is timely, meaningful, and aligned with purpose, it becomes a powerful tool for embedding change into the organizational DNA.

    Make Change a Part of Organizational Culture

    In 2025, successful organizational change is no longer measured solely by updated procedures or new technologies—it is defined by a shift in collective mindset and deeply embedded cultural values. When change becomes part of an organization’s culture, it transcends surface-level adjustments and reshapes how employees think, behave, and interact. This cultural integration is essential for sustaining transformation and avoiding regression to old habits (Lawrence, 2025).

    Modern organizations recognize that cultural transformation requires intentional alignment between strategic goals and everyday behaviors. For example, when a company launches a wellness initiative, success is not just about offering gym memberships or distributing health brochures. True cultural change occurs when employee well-being becomes a core value—reflected in leadership decisions, team norms, and performance metrics. Companies like Salesforce and LifeSpeak Inc. have embedded wellness into their organizational DNA by offering flexible schedules, mental health resources, and regular wellness days, such as “Take a Breath” Wednesdays, to support holistic employee health (Held, 2023; Wellbeing Magazine, 2025).

    Research emphasizes that cultural change must be co-created rather than imposed. Inclusive communication strategies, leadership modeling, and employee empowerment are key to embedding new values. Organizations that foster psychological safety, encourage open dialogue, and support microcultures across departments are more likely to sustain change (Workhuman, 2025). Moreover, aligning wellness programs with broader business strategies—such as integrating well-being into leadership training and governance—has been shown to increase productivity, retention, and resilience (Global Wellness Institute, 2025).

    Ultimately, making change a part of organizational culture means shifting from reactive initiatives to proactive, purpose-driven transformation. It requires leaders to champion new values, employees to internalize them, and systems to reinforce them consistently. When this alignment is achieved, change becomes not just an event—but a way of being.

    Workplace Strategy Pack

    Overcoming Resistance to Change Proposals

    Objective

    To equip employees with communication strategies and influence techniques to effectively navigate and overcome resistance from managers and colleagues when introducing new ideas or change initiatives.

    Why It Matters

    Resistance to change is a natural response rooted in uncertainty, fear of loss, and disruption of routines. Whether it’s a new workflow, technology, or team structure, proposals for change often meet skepticism—even when well-intentioned. Research shows that resistance can be constructive if addressed through transparent communication, empathy, and strategic engagement (Jain et al., 2018; IMD, 2023).

    Employees who understand the dynamics of resistance and use targeted communication strategies are more likely to gain buy-in, foster collaboration, and drive innovation.

    Strategy Toolkit

    Strategy Application
    Frame the “Why” Clearly Connect your idea to organizational goals, pain points, or shared values to build relevance and urgency.
    Anticipate Concerns Identify potential objections and prepare responses that show empathy and offer solutions.
    Use Data and Stories Combine evidence (metrics, case studies) with narratives to make your proposal both credible and relatable.
    Engage Informally First Test your idea in casual conversations to gather feedback and build early support before formal pitches.
    Build Coalitions Find allies across departments or levels who can advocate for your idea and help influence decision-makers.

    Empowerment Tip

    Resistance isn’t rejection—it’s an invitation to refine your approach. Ask yourself:

    “How can I make this idea feel less risky and more rewarding for others?”

    Influence grows when you listen deeply, adapt thoughtfully, and persist respectfully.

     

    References
    Jain, P., Asrani, C., & Jain, T. (2018). Resistance to change in an organization. IOSR Journal of Business and Management, 20(5), 37–43. https://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jbm/papers/Vol20-issue5/Version-7/E2005073743.pdf

    IMD. (2023). Understanding and overcoming resistance to change. IMD Business School. https://www.imd.org/research-knowledge/organizational-behavior/case-studies/understanding-and-overcoming-resistance-to-change/

    AMS Consulting. (n.d.). Overcoming resistance to change. AMS Research Article. https://amsconsulting.com/articles/overcoming-resistance-to-change/

    Insider Edge

    Responding to Poorly Implemented Workplace Change

    Objective

    To help employees adjust to organizational changes that were executed without their input, and to equip them with strategies for regaining influence, fostering dialogue, and improving outcomes.

    Why It Matters

    When change is imposed without employee participation, it often leads to confusion, resistance, and disengagement. Research shows that lack of symmetrical communication—two-way, open, and responsive dialogue—can erode trust and reduce commitment to change (Men et al., 2021; Schulz-Knappe et al., 2019). However, employees can still play a vital role in reshaping the narrative and influencing future decisions.

    Strategy Toolkit

    Strategy Application
    Clarify the Change Seek out formal and informal sources to understand the rationale, goals, and expected outcomes.
    Initiate Constructive Dialogue Use respectful inquiry to ask managers about the change and share your perspective on its impact.
    Document and Share Feedback Collect examples of challenges or successes and present them in a solution-oriented format.
    Build Peer Alliances Connect with colleagues to validate concerns and co-create suggestions for improvement.
    Request Inclusion in Future Planning Propose mechanisms (e.g., feedback loops, task forces) to ensure employee voices are heard moving forward.

    Empowerment Tip

    You may not have shaped the change—but you can shape its success. Ask yourself:

    “What influence can I exercise today to make this change work better for my team and myself?”

    Even in top-down decisions, bottom-up insight is essential.

    References
    Men, L. R., Neill, M., & Yue, C. A. (2021). How to communicate during organizational change. Keller Center for Research, Baylor University. https://kellercenter.hankamer.baylor.edu/news/story/2021/how-communicate-during-organizational-change

    Schulz-Knappe, C., Koch, T., & Beckert, J. (2019). The importance of communicating change: Identifying predictors for support and resistance toward organizational change processes. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 24(4), 670–685. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-04-2019-0039

    Ahmad, A. S., Mohamad Hilmi, F. S. H., Ismail, Z., & Ismail, Z. (2018). Effective communication stimulates outstanding organizational change. International Journal of Business and Management Invention, 7(12), 24–34. https://ijbmi.org/papers/Vol(7)12/Version-4/E0712042434.pdf

     

    Discussion Questions

    1. Describe a time when you experienced a significant organizational or personal change. What types of resistance did you or others encounter? Were these due to habit disruption, fear of failure, or cultural misalignment?
    2. How would you approach employees who resist change because it threatens their established routines and habits? How would your strategy differ if their resistance stemmed from a fear of failing in the new system? Consider communication styles, psychological safety, and recognition strategies in your response.
    3. Based on modern approaches to change management, what are the benefits of involving employees in the change process—from planning to implementation? How does inclusive participation contribute to lasting cultural transformation?
    4. Imagine you’re implementing a new digital ID system for university students to access campus resources. How would you use Lewin’s three-step model (Unfreeze–Change–Refreeze) to guide your strategy? What communication tactics and cultural reinforcements would help the change stick?
    5. Why might highly successful companies resist change despite evolving market needs? What steps should organizations take to integrate change into their culture—especially in terms of leadership modeling, communication, and employee engagement?

    Section 14.4: Ethical and Cultural Influences

    Learning Objectives

    After reading this chapter, you should be able to do the following:

    1. Define and apply ethical principles in the context of organizational change, including respectful layoff practices and stakeholder inclusion.
    2. Evaluate the impact of transparency and communication on employee trust, psychological safety, and engagement during planned organizational changes.
    3. Analyze the influence of national culture (e.g. Hofstede’s dimensions, GLOBE leadership prototypes) on change implementation across diverse global settings.
    4. Identify strategies for promoting psychological safety in change initiatives to support employee resilience and adaptability.
    5. Compare global leadership approaches and assess how ethical climate perceptions vary across cultures during periods of transition.
    6. Critically discuss the intersection of ethics and culture in shaping organizational decisions, with a focus on global responsibility and inclusive leadership.

    In 2025, the relationship between organizational structure and ethical behavior is increasingly shaped by cultural dimensions, psychological safety, and leadership prototypes. Research shows that rigid, hierarchical structures often inhibit ethical development by limiting employee autonomy and exposure to moral dilemmas (Qasim & Laghari, 2025). Ethical climates flourish when organizations foster transparency, inclusion, and trust—especially during change initiatives. Psychological safety, defined as the belief that one can speak up without fear of retribution, is a critical factor in enabling ethical decision-making and creativity (Hutcheson, 2025). When employees feel safe and valued, they are more likely to engage in open dialogue, challenge unethical practices, and support change efforts.

    Organizational change, particularly during sensitive transitions like downsizing, demands ethical leadership. Ethical leaders who communicate transparently, offer alternatives such as job sharing or retraining, and treat employees with dignity during layoffs are more likely to preserve trust and morale (APA, 2025). Inclusion and empathy during change not only mitigate resistance but also reinforce the organization’s ethical identity.

    Globally, leadership prototypes vary significantly, as demonstrated by the GLOBE study’s cultural dimensions. For example, charismatic/value-based leadership is highly valued in Anglo and Latin American cultures, while team-oriented leadership is more prominent in Nordic and Confucian Asia cultures (GLOBE Project, 2025). These prototypes influence how change is communicated and received. In participative cultures, leaders involve employees in decision-making, fostering ownership and readiness. In contrast, in cultures that favor hierarchical leadership, change may be more top-down, requiring endorsement from high-status individuals to gain traction.

    Power distance—the extent to which less powerful members accept unequal power distribution—plays a pivotal role in change readiness. In high power distance cultures (e.g., Malaysia, Mexico), employees may defer to authority and avoid questioning decisions, which can slow innovation and feedback loops (Osman, 2025). Conversely, low power distance cultures (e.g., Sweden, USA) encourage egalitarianism and open communication, making them more agile in adapting to change. Global teams must navigate these differences by tailoring communication strategies and leadership approaches to cultural expectations.

    Ultimately, ethical behavior and change readiness are not just structural outcomes—they are cultural expressions. Organizations that cultivate ethical climates, embrace psychological safety, and adapt leadership styles to cultural contexts are better positioned to lead change effectively across borders.

    Insider Edge

    Responding to Ethical, Safety, and Cultural Leadership Gaps

    Objective

    To empower employees to navigate and respond to organizational environments that lack ethical leadership, psychological safety, and culturally adaptive management practices—while maintaining integrity, influence, and well-being.

    Why It Matters

    When organizations neglect ethical climates, psychological safety, or cultural sensitivity, employees may experience mistrust, fear of retaliation, and disengagement. These gaps can stifle creativity, silence dissent, and perpetuate inequity. Research shows that ethical leadership and psychological safety are critical for fostering belonging, innovation, and accountability (Qasim & Laghari, 2025; Ferrère et al., 2022). Employees can still act as catalysts for change—even in resistant environments.

    Strategy Toolkit

    Strategy Application
    Model Ethical Behavior Uphold transparency, fairness, and respect in your own actions—even when leadership falls short.
    Create Microclimates of Safety Foster trust within your team or peer group by encouraging open dialogue and validating diverse perspectives.
    Use Values-Based Framing Anchor your feedback and proposals in shared organizational values to reduce defensiveness and build rapport.
    Document and Escalate Thoughtfully If ethical breaches or safety concerns persist, document incidents and escalate through appropriate channels.
    Build Cultural Intelligence Learn and apply culturally adaptive communication styles to bridge gaps with leaders and colleagues.

    Empowerment Tip

    You don’t need a title to lead—just a voice and a compass. Ask yourself:

    “How can I create space for integrity and inclusion, even when the system resists it?”

    Change often begins with quiet courage and consistent action.

     

    References
    Qasim, M., & Laghari, A. A. (2025). Belonging through values: Ethical leadership, creativity, and psychological safety with ethical climate as a moderator. Frontiers in Psychology, 16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1559427

    Ferrère, A., Rider, C., Renerte, B., & Edmondson, A. C. (2022). Fostering ethical conduct through psychological safety. MIT Sloan Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/fostering-ethical-conduct-through-psychological-safety/

    Hanges, P., Lucas, J., & Dobbs, J. (n.d.). Culture, climate, leadership and ethical behavior. Journal of Character and Leadership Development. https://jcldusafa.org/index.php/jcld/article/download/108/105

     

    Discussion Questions

    1. In what ways can organizations approach layoffs during change initiatives in an ethically responsible manner? Consider practices related to transparency, employee dignity, psychological safety, and alternative strategies like retraining or phased transitions.
    2. To what extent should organizations be ethically obligated to share detailed information about planned changes with employees? How do transparency and inclusion influence trust, commitment, and cultural perceptions of ethical leadership across different global contexts?
    3. How do cultural dimensions—such as power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and leadership prototypes from the GLOBE study—shape the way organizational change is introduced and received across countries? How can global teams tailor their communication and influence strategies to navigate cross-cultural differences in change readiness?

    Section 14.5: Spotlight

    Structural Transformation and Inclusive Strategy at Greater St. Louis, Inc.

    Figure 14.14

    View looking over trees toward arch as the sun sets
    downtown St. Louis, MO

    ricky shore from Albany, New York, USA – Downtown St. Louis, MO- CC BY-GA 2.0.

    In January 2021, Greater St. Louis, Inc. (GSL) was formed through the merger of five legacy organizations: the St. Louis Regional Chamber, AllianceSTL, Civic Progress, Downtown STL, Inc., and Arch to Park. This consolidation marked a significant structural shift in regional economic development, aiming to unify fragmented efforts and create a single, strategic entity focused on inclusive growth (Illinois Business Journal, 2020). The merger addressed long-standing inefficiencies and turf conflicts among civic groups, replacing them with a boundary-spanning structure designed to streamline decision-making and amplify regional impact.

    The new organization adopted a boundaryless and learning-oriented structure, characterized by cross-functional affiliates and decentralized leadership. GSL operates through four strategic arms—AllianceSTL (business attraction), ChamberSTL (policy and advocacy), CentralCitySTL (urban core development), and the Greater St. Louis Foundation (philanthropic support)—each led by a president reporting to the CEO (Illinois Business Journal, 2020). This design enables flexibility, collaboration, and responsiveness, hallmarks of an organic structure that contrasts sharply with the mechanistic models of its predecessors.

    Leadership played a pivotal role in guiding this transformation. CEO Jason Hall and Chief Inclusion Officer Valerie Patton emphasized transparency, equity, and stakeholder engagement throughout the restructuring process. Their leadership style reflects transformational and participative models, with a focus on co-creation and long-term vision. The STL 2030 Jobs Plan, developed under their guidance, serves as a strategic roadmap for inclusive economic growth, prioritizing job creation, racial equity, and innovation (Greater St. Louis, Inc., 2021).

    The structural change also embedded ethical decision-making into the organization’s DNA. By integrating diversity, equity, and inclusion into every strategic function, GSL addressed systemic disparities in employment and wealth generation. Programs like the Diverse Business Accelerator and Supply STL demonstrate how structural design can reinforce ethical commitments and expand opportunity for historically marginalized communities (Greater St. Louis, Inc., 2021).

    Cross-cultural influence is evident in GSL’s regional approach. The organization serves a 15-county bi-state metro area, requiring sensitivity to diverse political, racial, and socioeconomic contexts. Its inclusive definition of growth—centered on reducing racial disparities and expanding entrepreneurship among Black and Brown residents—reflects a culturally attuned strategy that aligns structure with mission (Greater St. Louis, Inc., 2021).

    In summary, the formation of Greater St. Louis, Inc. represents a valuable and necessary structural transformation. By consolidating fragmented entities into a unified, boundaryless organization, GSL enhanced strategic clarity, ethical alignment, and regional competitiveness. Its organic structure and inclusive leadership offer a model for other metros seeking to drive equitable economic development through intentional organizational design.

     

    References

    Greater St. Louis, Inc. (2021). STL 2030 Jobs Plan: Driving a decade of inclusive growth. https://greaterstlinc.com/our-work/stl-2030-jobs-plan

    Illinois Business Journal. (2020, October 29). Five organizations to merge into Greater St. Louis, Inc. https://www.ibjonline.com/2020/10/29/five-organizations-to-merge-into-greater-st-louis-inc/

    Discussion Questions

    1. How did the merger of five legacy organizations into Greater St. Louis, Inc. improve communication and coordination across the region? What challenges might arise from consolidating multiple entities into one?
    2. In what ways does the boundaryless structure of Greater St. Louis, Inc. facilitate effective communication between its strategic arms? How might this structure impact decision-making processes?
    3. How does leadership at Greater St. Louis, Inc., particularly the emphasis on transparency and stakeholder engagement, influence organizational communication and trust?
    4. The STL 2030 Jobs Plan prioritizes racial equity and inclusive growth. How can communication strategies within the organization ensure that these goals are effectively conveyed and implemented across diverse communities?

    Section 14.6: Conclusion

    Organizations can function within a number of different structures, each possessing distinct advantages and disadvantages. Although any structure that is not properly managed will be plagued with issues, some organizational models are better equipped for particular environments and tasks. A change in the environment often requires change within the organization operating within that environment.

    Change in almost any aspect of a company’s operations can be met with resistance, and different cultures can have different reactions to both the change and the means to promote the change. In order to better facilitate necessary changes, several steps can be taken that have been proven to lower the anxiety of employees and ease the transformation process. Often, the simple act of including employees in the change process can drastically reduce opposition to new methods. In some organizations this level of inclusion is not possible, and instead organizations can recruit a small number of opinion leaders to promote the benefits of coming changes.

    Some types of change, such as mergers, often come with job losses. In these situations, it is important to remain fair and ethical while laying off employees. Once change has occurred, it is vital to take any steps necessary to reinforce the new system. Employees can often require continued support well after an organizational change.

    Section 14.7: Case Study and Exercises

    Ethical Dilemma Case Study

    Confidentiality vs. Care in a Merger Scenario

    Jordan is a mid-level manager at a technology firm currently engaged in confidential negotiations for a merger with another company. While the merger is not finalized, internal projections suggest that some positions may be eliminated if it goes through. Jordan oversees five employees, each with unique personal and professional circumstances:

    • Connor is in the process of purchasing a home and taking on significant debt.
    • Malik has received a lucrative job offer and seeks Jordan’s advice as a mentor.
    • The remaining team members are unaware of the potential merger and continue to operate under the assumption of job stability.

    Jordan feels ethically torn. Sharing information about the merger could help Conner and Malik make informed life decisions. However, the merger is not yet public, and disclosing it could violate confidentiality, trigger rumors, and potentially derail negotiations. If word spreads, Jordan risks losing top talent prematurely—and the merger may not even happen.

    Ethical Issues

    • Confidentiality vs. Transparency: Jordan must balance organizational confidentiality with a duty of care to employees making life-altering decisions.
    • Power and Trust: As a manager and mentor, Jordan holds informational power and influence. Misusing or withholding that power can damage trust.
    • Organizational Silence: Fear of repercussions may prevent Jordan from voicing concerns to senior leadership, perpetuating a culture of silence (Morrison & Milliken, 2000).
    • Moral Distress: Jordan experiences psychological discomfort from knowing what’s right but feeling constrained by organizational norms.

    Strategy Toolkit

    Strategy Application
    Seek Ethical Guidance Consult HR or an ethics officer confidentially to clarify boundaries and explore options for disclosure.
    Frame Advice Neutrally When mentoring Malik, focus on general career risk management without referencing the merger.
    Encourage Financial Prudence Suggest Ava consider contingency planning without revealing confidential details.
    Document Concerns Keep a record of ethical tensions and decisions made to protect against future scrutiny.
    Advocate for Transparency Raise the issue with senior leadership: employees are making high-stakes decisions without full context.

    Empowerment Insight

    Ethical leadership means navigating ambiguity with integrity. Ask yourself:

    “How can I honor my responsibilities to both the organization and my team—without compromising either?”

    Sometimes, the most ethical action is asking the right questions in the right places.

    Individual Exercise

    Planning for a Change in Organizational Structure

    Imagine that your company is switching to a matrix structure. Before, you were working in a functional structure. Now, every employee is going to report to a team leader as well as a department manager.

    • Draw a hypothetical organizational chart for the previous and new structures.
    • Create a list of things that need to be done before the change occurs.
    • Create a list of things that need to be done after the change occurs.
    • What are the sources of resistance you foresee for a change such as this? What is your plan of action to overcome this potential resistance?

    References

    Achievers. (2025, January 7). 7 major employee recognition trends in 2025. https://www.achievers.com/blog/employee-recognition-trends

    Adair, J. (2007). Leadership for innovation: How to organize team creativity and harvest ideas. Kogan Page.

    Ahmed, I., Asim, Z., Kamran, H., Mahmood, M., & Usman, A. (2025). AI the double-edged sword: Navigating career adaptability through fear of failure and career insecurity. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 14(1), 126–138.

    AIHR. (2025). Organic organizational structure retrieved from https://www.aihr.com/hr-glossary/organic-organizational-structure/

    AIHR. (2025). What is a boundaryless organization? Retrieved at https://www.aihr.com/hr-glossary/boundaryless-organization/

    AIHR. (2025). What is formalization? Retrieved at https://www.aihr.com/hr-glossary/formalization/

    Albi Marketing. (2025, July 29). More than money: The 3 biggest trends in rewards for 2025. https://albimarketing.com/blog/more-than-money-the-3-biggest-trends-in-rewards-for-2025

    Ali, R., Mittal, A., Dhillon, M., & Chaturvedi, S. (2025). Mediating role of organizational communication between Big Five personality traits and workplace happiness. Journal of Content, Community & Communication, 22, 28–40.

    Amendola, J. (2025, January 22). Why storytelling is more valuable than ever to your company in 2025. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com

    American Psychological Association. (2025). The experience of working in America during times of change. https://www.apa.org/pubs/reports/work-in-america/2025/full-report-working-times-change

    Anand, N., & Daft, R. L. (2007). What is the right organization design? Organizational dynamics and the matrix structure. Harvard Business Review Press.

    APA. (2025). The experience of working in America during times of change. https://www.apa.org/pubs/reports/work-in-america/2025/full-report-working-times-change

    Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600601

    Asana. (2025). What is a matrix organization and how does it work? Retrieved from https://asana.com/resources/matrix-organization

    Baker, Z. (2025, January 16). Kotter’s 8-step change model explained. Edstellar. https://www.edstellar.com/blog/kotters-8-step-change-model

    Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2025). Uncertainty during organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Monash University Research Repository. https://research.monash.edu

    Brazil, D. (2007). The FBI and the challenge of decentralization. Government Accountability Office.

    Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock Publications.

    Carreno, A. M. (2024). An analytical review of John Kotter’s change leadership framework: A modern approach to sustainable organizational transformation. Institute for Change Leadership and Business Transformation. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384065104

    ChangeSync. (2025, January 16). Top 10 change management trends for 2025: Quick tips for big impact. https://changesync.com/blog/top-10-change-management-trends-for-2025-quick-tips-for-big-impact

    Charan, R. (2006). Know-how: The 8 skills that separate people who perform from those who don’t. Crown Business.

    CHRMP. (2025). Departmentalization in organizational structure for 2025 success retrieved at https://www.chrmp.com/departmentalization-in-organizational/

    Cloudwards. (2025). 4 types of organizational structure explained for 2025 retrieved at https://www.cloudwards.net/4-types-of-organizational-structure/

    Covin, J. G., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). The influence of organizational structure on the utility of an entrepreneurial top management style. Journal of Management Studies, 25(3), 217–234.

    Cox, G. (2025, July 20). Inside the 2025 American workplace: Change, uncertainty, gaps, AI. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com

    Deutschman, A. (2005). Change or die. HarperBusiness.

    Dhar, J. (2024, September 4). How to build and sustain momentum for your change plans. Forbes. Forbes article on change momentum. https://www.forbes.com/sites/juliadhar/2024/09/04/how-to-build-and-sustain-momentum-for-your-change-plans/

    Di Luise, F. (2025, July 15). Measuring alignment between company and employee purpose. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com

    Diamond, J. (2005). Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. W. W. Norton & Company.

    EliseAI. (2025). The 2025 tipping point: Why centralization is becoming an operator-led movement retrieved at https://www.eliseai.com/blog/the-2025-tipping-point-why-centralization-is-becoming-an-operator-led-movement

    Ellis, P. (2023). Managing change – the Lewin model 3: Refreeze. Wounds UK, 19(4). https://wounds-uk.com/journal-articles/managing-change-the-lewin-model-3-refreeze/

    Firstup. (2025, July 22). Rethinking change management through the lens of communication. https://firstup.io/blog/rethinking-change-management/

    FLYDESK. (2025, July 2). Hybrid teams in 2025: Key asynchronous work strategies for global collaboration. https://flydesk.com/insights/hybrid-teams-in-2025-key-asynchronous-work-strategies-for-global-collaboration/

    Ford, R. C., & Randolph, W. A. (1992). Cross-functional structures: A review and integration of matrix organization and project management. Journal of Management, 18(2), 267–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800204

    French, C. (2025, February 27). The impact of power on organizational culture. Applied Social Psychology Blog. https://sites.psu.edu

    Gallagher. (2025). 2025 Employee Communications Report. https://investor.ajg.com/news/news-details/2025/Change-Fatigue-Ranks-in-Top-Five-Barriers-to-Communications-and-HR-Success-for-the-First-Time-in-2025-Reveals-New-Gallagher-Report/default.aspx

    Gallagher. (2025, February 25). Change fatigue ranks in top five barriers to communications and HR success. https://investor.ajg.com/news/news-details/2025/Change-Fatigue-Ranks-in-Top-Five-Barriers-to-Communications-and-HR-Success-for-the-First-Time-in-2025-Reveals-New-Gallagher-Report/default.aspx

    Gartner. (2025). Building resilience in change management: Insights for CHROs. https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/building-change-management-resilience-for-you-and-your-team

    Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 78–91.

    Gerstner, L. V. (2002). Who says elephants can’t dance? Leading a great enterprise through dramatic change. HarperBusiness.

    Global Wellness Institute. (2025, March 28). Workplace wellbeing initiative trends for 2025. https://globalwellnessinstitute.org/global-wellness-institute-blog/2025/03/28/workplace-wellbeing-initiative-trends-for-2025

    GLOBE Project. (2025). GLOBE 2025: Buffering the suffering & driving the thriving in the new world of work. https://globeproject.com/results.html

    Hamilton, D. (2025, February 5). What makes employees stay? Leadership and culture that drive loyalty. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com

    Held, M. (2023, August 29). Building a culture of wellness to empower employees in times of change. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbeshumanresourcescouncil/2023/08/29/building-a-culture-of-wellness-to-empower-employees-in-times-of-change

    HiFives. (2025). Top employee rewards and recognition trends in 2025. https://www.hifives.in/top-employee-rewards-and-recognition-trends-in-2025

    Hollenbeck, J. R., Ilgen, D. R., Sego, D. J., Hedlund, J., Major, D. A., & Phillips, J. (2002). Multilevel theory of team decision making: Decision performance in teams incorporating distributed expertise. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.3

    Hubbart, J. A. (2024). Understanding and mitigating leadership fear-based behaviors. Administrative Sciences, 14(9), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14090225

    Hudson, M. (2025, July 24). Sensemaking: A leadership superpower that creates hope in uncertainty. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com

    Hudson, M. (2025, March 31). Building resilience through everyday development: How small wins drive organizational growth. Forbes. Forbes article on small wins

    Hutcheson, S. (2025, January 10). 5 ways leaders can build a high-performance organizational climate. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotthutcheson/2025/01/10/5-ways-leaders-can-build-a-high-performance-organizational-climate

    Hutcheson, S. (2025, March 19). How adaptive leaders build resilient organizations. Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/scotthutcheson/2025/03/19/how-adaptive-leaders-build-resilient-organizations/

    Indeed. (2025). Mechanistic structure: Benefits, challenges, and tips retrieved from https://ca.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/mechanistic-structure

    Indeed. (2025). What is departmentalization? Definition and types retrieved at https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/departmentalization

    Ingentis. (2025). Matrix organization: Definition, benefits & challenges retrieved from https://www.ingentis.com/en/knowledge/matrixorganization/

    Ivcevic, Z., Levitats, Z., & Brackett, M. A. (2025). Building opportunities for emotionally intelligent behavior in organizations. Consulting Psychology Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000297

    Joseph, J., & Sengul, M. (2025). Organization design: Current insights and future research directions. Journal of Management, 51(1), 12–35.

    Khandelwal, K., & Upadhyay, A. K. (2025). Emerging technologies and organizational communication: Envisioning the future of work. Frontiers in Communication, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1602251

    King, R. (2025). Rethinking organizational structure: The case for decentralization in small to medium businesses. American International Journal of Business Management, 8(5), 122–127.

    Koilakonda, R. R., & Franklin, M. (2025). Global trends in change management: Insights and key takeaways for 2025. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 9(2), 140–146.

    Kotter Inc. (2025). The 8-step process for leading change. https://www.kotterinc.com/methodology/8-steps/

    Kotter, J. P. (2021). Leading change: An action plan from the world’s foremost expert on business leadership (Updated ed.). Harvard Business Review Press.

    Krivkovich, A., Horah, D., Bowcott, H., Kelleher, J., & Harrison, L. (2025, March 6). Insights driving impact: Five themes we’re hearing in 2025. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com

    Lawrence, T. (2025, January 26). Company culture matters more than ever in 2025. Forbes. Forbes article on culture. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tracylawrence/2025/01/26/company-culture-why-it-matters-more-than-ever-in-2025/

    Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41.

    Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. Harper & Row.

    Lubega, M. (2025). Emotional intelligence in the workplace: Enhancing team dynamics. Research Invention Journal of Current Issues in Arts and Management, 4(1), 17–22. https://rijournals.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/RIJCIAM-41-2025-P5.pdf

    Malik, P. (2024, December 18). 10 key change management trends to watch in 2025. Whatfix. https://whatfix.com/blog/change-management-trends

    Markselliott. (2025). Hierarchical vs flat organizational structures: Communication, decision-making, and agility retrieved at https://www.markselliott.com/2025/04/hierarchical-vs-flat-organizational.html

    Marquez, J. (2007). The Home Depot story: How one company revolutionized an industry. Wiley.

    Marr, B. (2024, October 7). 8 workplace trends that will define 2025. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com

    MasterClass. (2025). Boundaryless organization definition and examples retrieved at https://www.masterclass.com/articles/boundaryless-organization

    McKinsey & Company. (2025, July). Technology Trends Outlook 2025. https://www.mckinsey.com

    McKinsey & Company. (2025, March 6). Insights driving impact: Five themes we’re hearing in 2025. https://www.mckinsey.com/locations/mckinsey-client-capabilities-network/our-work/strategic-and-change-communications/the-communications-exchange/insights-driving-impact-five-themes-were-hearing-in-2025

    meQuilibrium. (2025). State of the workforce report: Workforce change readiness and psychosocial risk. https://go.mequilibrium.com/rs/553-GRV-433/images/meQ-State-of-the-Workforce-Report-Winter-2025.pdf

    Mittal, A., Dhillon, M., Ali, R., & Chaturvedi, S. (2025). Big Five personality traits and workplace happiness: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Content, Community & Communication, 22, 28–40.

    Multirecruit. (2025). Hierarchy culture: The complete guide for HR in 2025 retrieved at https://www.multirecruit.com/hierarchy-culture-the-complete-guide-for-hr/

    Musheke, M. M., & Phiri, J. (2021). The effects of effective communication on organizational performance based on the systems theory. Open Journal of Business and Management, 9(2), 659–671. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2021.92034

    Myers, A. (2025, April 4). How leaders can fix the workplace communication crisis in 2025. HR Daily Advisor. https://www.inspiring-workplaces.com

    Nakisa. (2025). 2025 trends in organizational design for global enterprises retrieved at https://nakisa.com/blog/organizational-design-trends-in-large-enterprises/

    Nash, J. (2005). A comprehensive campaign helps Gap employees embrace cultural change. Communication World, 22(6), 22–25.

    Nath, I. (2025). Mastering organizational structure: A guide to building a successful business framework. CHRMP. Mastering Organizational Structure retrieved at https://www.chrmp.com/mastering-organizational-structure-guide/

    Nelson, B., & Pasternack, B. A. (2005). Results: Keep what’s working, fix what’s broken, and unlock great performance. Crown Business.

    Niehaus, T. (2025, July 18). Why organizational agility is key for digital transformation success. Forbes Tech Council. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2025/07/18/why-organizational-agility-is-key-for-digital-transformation-success/

    Osman, H. (2025, January 26). How to lead across cultures (The Power Distance Index). Leadership 80/20. https://www.leadership8020.com/p/how-to-lead-across-cultures-the-power-distance-index

    Panorama Consulting. (2025). Top organizational change management trends for 2025. https://www.panorama-consulting.com/top-change-management-trends-for-2025/

    PGLS. (2025). Emerging trends in global communication for 2025. https://pgls.com

    Project One. (2025). Culture as a catalyst for transformation: A key change management trend for 2025. https://projectone.com/insights/culture-as-a-catalyst-for-transformation-a-key-change-management-trend-for-2025/

    Pumble. (2025). Workplace communication statistics. https://pumble.com

    Qasim, M., & Laghari, A. A. (2025). Belonging through values: Ethical leadership, creativity, and psychological safety with ethical climate as a moderator. Frontiers in Psychology, 16. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1559427/full

    Ragan Communications. (2025). Ragan’s 2025 Communications Benchmark Report. https://www.ragan.com/white-papers/ragans-2025-communications-benchmark-report/

    Ratanjee, V. (2025, July 25). How to build a strategic narrative that inspires and aligns. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com

    Reay, T., Golden-Biddle, K., & Germann, K. (2006). Legitimizing a new role: Small wins and microprocesses of change. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 977–998. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22798178

    SalaryCube. (2025). Embracing change: How a boundaryless organization thrives retrieved at https://whatfix.com/blog/learning-organization/

    Sci-Tech Today. (2025). Communication in the workplace statistics and facts. https://www.sci-tech-today.com

    Shahzad, K., Imran, F., & Butt, A. (2025). Digital transformation and changes in organizational structure: Empirical evidence from industrial organizations. Research-Technology Management, 68(2), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2025.2465706

    Shanley, K. (2025, May 6). The new currency of leadership: Transparency, clarity, vulnerability and feedback. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com

    Shell, R., & Moussa, M. (2025, February 26). How leaders overcome communication barriers for greater impact. Forbes. Forbes article on psychological barriers. https://www.forbes.com/sites/paolacecchi-dimeglio/2025/02/26/how-leaders-overcome-communication-barriers-for-greater-impact/

    Shishkin, S., Sheiman, I., Potapchik, E., Vlassov, V., & Sazhina, S. (2025). The impact of centralization on structural changes in healthcare: When it works. Frontiers in Health Services, 5, Article 1484225. https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2025.1484225

    Sidharth, G., & Lakra, A. J. (2025). Leadership vulnerability: A grounded theory approach to conceptualize, instrumentation, and its content validity assessment. Current Psychology, 44, 9763–9782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07784-1

    Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. A. (2006). Revisiting Burns and Stalker: Formal structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 121–132.

    SixSigma.us. . (2025, August 13). A guide to sustainable continuous improvement. https://www.6sigma.us/six-sigma-in-focus/sustainable-continuous-improvement/

    Slalom. (2024). Building an adaptive organization. Retrieved from https://www.slalom.com/us/en/insights/building-adaptive-organizations-with-ai

    Speakap. (2025, June 19). The cost of bad communication: It’s more than just annoying emails. https://www.speakap.com

    Stewart, T. A., & Raman, A. P. (2007). Lessons from Toyota’s long drive. Harvard Business Review, 85(7/8), 74–83.

    Suyuthi, N. F., Amaliah, & Linggi, T. T. (2025). A comprehensive literature review on the factors influencing resistance to organizational change and strategies for effective management. Journal Development Manecos, 3(1), 1–9. https://www.researchgate.net

    Taggd. (2025). Why organic organizational structures outperform traditional models retrieved from https://taggd.in/hr-glossary/organic-organizational-structure/

    Tanner, R. (2025, January 17). Leading change (Step 1): Creating a sense of urgency. Management is a Journey. https://managementisajourney.com/leading-change-step-1-creating-a-sense-of-urgency/

    Teamflect. (2025). Matrix organization: Structure, benefits, and challenges retrieved from https://teamflect.com/blog/hr-basics/what-is-matrix-organization-structure

    USC Annenberg. (2025). Global Communication Report: Mind the Gap. https://annenberg.usc.edu

    Vagale, S. (2025). Navigating hierarchy culture in modern organizations. Journal of Organizational Communication, 42(2), 88–102.

    Vanha-Perttula, R. (2025). Understanding resistance to change within informal intra-organizational social networks [Master’s thesis, University of Vaasa]. https://osuva.uwasa.fi

    Vantage Circle. (2025, July 31). Why recognition programs need to evolve with changing employee expectations in 2025. https://www.vantagecircle.com/en/blog/why-recognition-programs-need-to-evolve-with-changing-employee-expectations-in-2025

    Varun, A. (2025). Unlocking the power of departmentalization in organizational success. Organizational Development Review, 33(2), 45–59.

    Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of openness to changes in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.132

    Wellbeing Magazine. (2025). Why employee wellness matters more than ever in 2025. https://wellbeingmagazine.com/why-employee-wellness-matters-more-than-ever-in-2025

    Whale. (2025). Top 7 continuous improvement examples for 2025. https://usewhale.io/blog/continuous-improvement-examples/

    Whatfix. (2025). What is a learning organization? Benefits and principles. Retrieved from https://whatfix.com/blog/learning-organization/

    Wong, S., Zhang, L., Černe, M., & Moe, N. B. (2025). The silent killer of teams: Unmasking communication gaps. Journal of Management Information Systems. https://www.bi.no

    Workhuman. (2025, April 11). How to change organizational culture in 2025. https://www.workhuman.com/blog/how-to-change-organizational-culture

    Xmind. (2025). Kotter’s 8-step change model: Explained with templates. https://xmind.com/blog/kotters-change-model

    Yin, Y., & Wu, L. (2025). Intelligent voice assistants and employee well-being: A study of ICT-enabled communication. Journal of Organizational Communication Research, 32(1), 45–62.

     

    Media Attributions

    License

    Icon for the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

    THRIVE 2025: Teamwork, Harmony, Resilience, Innovation, Vision, & Empathy: Organizational Communication Open Text Copyright © 2025 / 2023 / 2017 / 2010 by [Author removed at request of original publisher] is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted.

    Share This Book