The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

JMD
38,4 Managing change, growth
and transformation
Case studies of organizations in
298 an emerging economy
Received 12 January 2018
Paul C. Hong
Revised 11 May 2018 Department of Information Operations and Technology Management,
22 July 2018
3 October 2018 The University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA
12 November 2018
7 December 2018
Tomy K. Kallarakal
Accepted 29 January 2019 Deanery of Commerce, Christ University, Bangalore, India
Mariam Moina
Christ University, Bangalore, India, and
Margaret Hopkins
Department of Management, The University of Toledo,
Toledo, Ohio, USA

Abstract
Purpose – In view of dynamic and widespread economic transformation in emerging economies, managing
organizational change and growth in this context deserves more research attention. The purpose of this paper
is to examine how three organizations in different industries manage change, growth and transformation in
their organizational ecosystem.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted in-depth interviews with the leadership of three
organizations in different economic sectors in India, a country representing an emerging economy. The
authors also reviewed historical data from these organizations. Three case studies illustrating the evolution of
these organizations were developed from the data collected.
Findings – Lessons and implications from the three case studies suggest the following key elements of
effective organizational change mechanisms in an emerging economy: visionary entrepreneurial leadership;
program quality excellence; scale growth and scope expansion; network capabilities; and sustainable
stakeholders’ engagement. At the same time, this study also shows how these organizations manage change,
growth and transformation in the context of a society with strong traditions and cultural norms.
Research limitations/implications – Results and conclusions may be limited by the fact that the study is
based on three case studies. Additional studies from a variety of industries with large numbers of participants
will be helpful in more fully understanding the ways in which change, growth and transformation can best be
developed and deployed in different organizational settings.
Practical implications – The proposed model of organizational change in an emerging economy may
assist organizational leadership in designing and sustaining their change efforts.
Social implications – This study highlights the role of visionary entrepreneurial leadership and the impact of
organizational growth mechanisms on organizational value delivery capabilities and organizational reputation.
Originality/value – Lessons and implications of five growth steps of outstanding organizations in an
emerging economy context provide valuable insight for organizational change, growth and transformation in
other emerging contexts.
Keywords Emerging economies, Organizational reputation, Model of organizational change,
Value delivery capabilities, Managing change
Paper type Case study

Journal of Management
Development
Vol. 38 No. 4, 2019
pp. 298-311 It is a paradoxical but profoundly true and important principle of life that the most likely way to
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0262-1711
reach a goal is to be aiming not at that goal itself but at some more ambitious goal beyond it.
DOI 10.1108/JMD-01-2018-0011 (Arnold J. Toynbee)
1. Introduction Managing
Nations converge for shared purpose, stay interdependent for common challenges and diverge change,
into their chosen paths (Derviş, 2012; Drabble et al., 2015; Jamali and Neville, 2011; Zhao and growth and
Liu, 2010). The changing roles of emerging economies in the global marketplace are worthy of
careful examination. Emerging economies generally go through rapid transitions with fast transformation
economic growth. Two crucial growth factors – demographic and economic – make a huge
impact on the speed of change in the lives of individuals, organizations and government 299
sectors. One of the predominant emerging economies is India. Despite increasing research
attention to India’s dynamic economic growth, what has not been clearly explored are the
processes of growth and transformation of various organizations in this emerging economy
(Magala, 2016; Nairm and Vohra, 2011; Stephan et al., 2016). At the same time that India is
experiencing rapid economic growth, the country also represents a culture with strong
traditions and norms. The juxtaposition of these two factors – fast economic growth and robust
cultural conventions – presents an intriguing opportunity to examine organizational change.
In view of the research need in this regard, the purpose of our study is to identify the
change context, processes and outcomes within two organizations in the emerging
economy of India. Our paper aims to examine how these two organizations in different
contexts – a university and a social-services organization – respond to change needs and
achieve growth requirements. We first provide a general model of organizational change
processes in terms of context, structure and performance, and conduct an overview of the
organizational change literature. Next, we present our case study methods, the findings of
two case studies in terms of five aspects of organizational change. We then discuss the
implications on value delivery capabilities and organizational reputation. Suggestions for
future research are included.

2. Literature review: organizational change

Organizational change is defined as the “difference in form, quality, or state over time in an
organizational entity” (Van de Ven et al., 1995, p. 512). The entity may be the overall
organization, a subgroup within the organization or an individual job function. Research in
the field of organizational change can be traced to the work of Kurt Lewin in the middle of
the twentieth century. His work launched a generation of studies on the role of human
behavior in organizational change, exploring how and why people respond to change, as
well as the processes, methods and practices for effective change leadership.
Extant research exploring organizational change is generally concentrated in four areas:
contextual factors for the change, the content of the change, the change process and the
outcomes of the change (Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999). Similarly, Al-Haddad and Kotnour
(2015) characterize the literature on change dimensions as change type, change enablers,
change methods and change outcomes. These authors propose that achieving change
outcomes is based on aligning the change types with the relevant change methods.
One example of an overarching framework of organizational change is the structure,
conduct and performance model represented in Figure 1 (e.g. Ralston et al., 2015).

Structure Conduct: Performance:

Internal/External Leadership Actions Short-and Long-Term
Motivational Organizational Impact
Internal and External
Force Actions Figure 1.
Stakeholders Organizational change
Institutional Theory: Contingency Theory: processes: structure,
External contexts provide purpose Change efforts result in value creation and delivery conduct and
for institutional actions for organizational outcomes and societal impact performance
JMD Contextual studies of organizational change emphasize an organization’s effectiveness in
38,4 response to environmental changes. Researchers note that organizational change requires
contexts that provide a motivating force and corresponding structure (Armenakis and
Bedeian, 1999; Clark and Soulsby, 2007; Roh et al., 2008; Stuart, 1995). Changes by nature are
disruptive and inconvenient to the members of the organization. What enable the
organizational constituents to move forward with desirable changes are change drivers
300 such as competitive pressure, external threats and opportunities for growth (Oreg et al.,
2011; van Knippenberg et al., 2006). In turn, the organization responds to the change triggers
through positive leadership behaviors, constructive collaborative practices, negative
resistant actions and practices in between (Oreg et al., 2011; Pietersem et al., 2012).
A primary illustration of a change model which focuses on the content factors of change is
the Burke-Litwin (1992) model of change which includes content elements such as mission,
strategy and structure that impact an organization’s long-term success.
Just as individuals go through transitional processes from birth, growth and maturity, so
do organizations experience change processes. Lewin’s (1947) process model of change
involves unfreezing the current state, moving to a new state through participation and
involvement, and refreezing to stabilize the new state through new standards and policies.
Another significant process framework is Kotter’s (2012) eight-step model of change:
establish a sense of urgency, form a powerful guiding coalition, create a vision,
communicate the vision, empower others to act on the vision, plan for and create short-term
wins, consolidate improvements and produce more change, and institutionalize new
approaches. Furthermore, a focus on the four core processes of chartering, learning,
mobilizing and realigning from the beginning of a change effort has been identified as
foundational processes for sustainable change (Roberto and Levesque, 2005).
Van de Ven et al. (1995) provided a comprehensive typology of four process models of
organizational change. The first typology is the teleology model of change, which represents
planned and purposeful change efforts (e.g. Burke et al., 2009). The second process model of
change, the dialectic, describes change and stability in terms of the relative balance of power
between these two oppositional forces with conflict as the source of dialectical change (e.g.,
Jehn and Bendersky, 2003). The evolutionary theory represents change as a process of
variation, selection and retention (e.g. Campbell, 1969). The final process model of change,
the life cycle model, portrays the change process as one progressing through a prescribed
sequence of stages and activities over time (e.g. Feldman and Pentland, 2003). It has been
proposed that organizations share similar sequential life cycle stages (Cameron and
Whetten, 1983): the entrepreneurial, collectivity, formalization and control, and structure
elaboration and adaptation stages. These authors maintain that effectiveness criteria in one
stage are not necessarily applicable to other stages in the life cycle.
Organizational change outcomes, the fourth focal area of organizational change
literature, are diverse. Performance indicators of the outcomes of change interventions have
largely been classified into two categories: the outputs, for example, overall effectiveness in
meeting objectives, quality and quantity; and employee behavior, examined by turnover or
absenteeism as well as job satisfaction or employee engagement (Guzzo et al., 1985; Neuman
et al., 1989). Organizational change outcomes are also expressed as both internal and
external: internal communication, collaboration and confidence for continuity; and external
stakeholder perception, reputation and competitive positioning for changes (Nasim and
Sushil, 2011; Wiener, 1988). Two crucial outcomes are value delivery outcomes in the form of
increased learning capabilities and productivity enhancements (Sako, 2004; Shaw, 2017).
Value delivery outcomes are expressed in terms of enhanced operational process outcomes
(e.g. customer satisfaction) and financial results (e.g. cost reduction, revenue increase). Such
value delivery outcomes influence the organizational image and reputation as the value
delivery impacts become visible and publicized through credible media venues. Related to
the outcomes of organizational change programs is the persistent challenge of their Managing
sustainability. One suggested model to evaluate sustainability incorporates the analysis of change,
the stakeholders’ interest balance as well as the design of the implementation (Brannmark growth and
and Benn, 2012).
A further framework to examine organizational change is whether the change is transformation
incremental or revolutionary. Incremental change corresponds to the existing organizational
structure and fine-tunes existing policies and procedures, while frame-breaking 301
revolutionary change involves discontinuous changes in the business strategy,
structures, people and processes (Tushman et al., 1986). An example of the latter change
is the anticipation of major environmental changes such as sharp shifts in an industry.
Weick and Quinn (1999) conceptualized two different categories of change as episodic and
continuous. “Episodic change tends to be infrequent, slower because of its wide scope, less
complete because it is seldom fully implemented, more strategic in its content […]” (Weick
and Quinn, 1999, p. 368). On the other hand, continuous change is ongoing and evolving.
“Episodic change is driven by inertia and the inability of organizations to keep up, while
continuous change is driven by alertness and the inability of organizations to remain stable”
(Weick and Quinn, 1999, p. 379). These authors suggest that the ideal organization is
continually adapting through both episodic and continuous changes. Similarly, Van de Ven
and Sun (2011) propose that organizational change may consist of long periods of
evolutionary, incremental change interspersed with brief revolutionary periods of change.
Organizational change has also been classified as first-order, second-order or third-order
levels of change (Bartunek, 1993). First-order change involves incremental modifications,
done within existing frameworks, and results in variations on the same themes. Second-
order change is an emergent process, encompassing a break with prior assumptions and
resulting in changes to the existing frameworks. Third-order change assists the members of
an organization with developing the capacity to identify and fundamentally change their
frames as they see fit (Bartunek and Moch, 1987). For third-order change attempts to
succeed, alternative perspectives must be introduced and structures established to assist
individuals in using these different perspectives.
There are few research studies exploring the processes of growth and transformation in
various organizations in emerging economies. One such examination of Korean-based firms
proposes a two-stage model of market-oriented institutional change: an early period of
institutional frictions and a later period of institutional convergence, influencing business-
group affiliated firms and independent firms in different ways depending on the stage of
change (Kim et al., 2010). This study reports that emerging economy firms face an
“international diversification discount,” a negative relationship between international
diversification and firm performance.
The purpose of our study is to identify the change context, processes and outcomes
within two different organizations in the emerging economy of India. In the following
section, we capture these different aspects of organizational change through case studies
representing the evolution of these two organizations. Furthermore, we propose a novel
model of organizational change based on these case studies.

3. Case study methods

The literature on the subject of organizational changes in India is still in the early stage of
development (Bhatnagar et al., 2010; Nairm and Vohra, 2011; Nandan and Verma, 2013; Rees
and Hassard, 2010). For sound theory development in this area, it is essential to observe,
examine and report the actual findings. For this purpose, a field study was conducted. India
in particular provides rich soil to examine organizational change practices. First and
foremost India is experiencing rapid change at both the macro-level (i.e. national and
regional economies) and the micro-level (i.e. individuals and firms). With increasing business
JMD demands of globalization and economic growth imperative for a large population, India’s
38,4 annual economic growth rates and shifting demographic factors (e.g. rural regions to urban
centers) signify huge societal changes. Yet, India is also a very traditional country where
age-long customs may not likely change soon. In this context, it is worthy to note how
organizations manage change processes while respecting timeless traditional norms and
developing constructive citizenship behaviors in terms of individual work ethics and
302 vibrant organizational culture (Bhatnagar et al., 2010; Miroshnik, 2012; Rees and Hassard,
2010; Wiener, 1988).
For the purposes of this study, we selected two organizations, one each from the
education CHRIST (Deemed to be University) and non-governmental sectors (Vindhya).
These organizations represent different growth stages and transitions. The final selection
was based on four distinct criteria: adequate years (30+) of transitions from early periods,
growth and evidence of maturity; high quality of value delivery; excellent reputation; and
availability for extended interviews and field visits. The research team contacted the
president/founder/senior executives/directors of these organizations to learn about the
history of the organizations through actual interviews. We also used public information
available through their websites, newspapers and other secondary sources.

3.1 Case study process

Figure 2 is a summary of the case study processes which involved the research team (left
column) and case study participants (right column) and decision contents (middle column).
We conducted field interviews and benchmark analyses based on our assessment
framework. The details of interviews were carefully recorded, coded and the subsequent
analysis examined the interview contents and field visit observations. We used structured
interview questions to assess the history of the organizations in terms of early motivation
and leadership, initial success experiences, challenges for growth in scale and scope,

Defining Selection Case Positive Responses for

Criteria Selection Contacts

Field Document Field Interview Questions

Examination Interviews Distribution

Coding By Coding and Follow-up

Research Team Analysis Contacts

Figure 2.
Case study processes:
research team and Quality Case Participants
participating Assessment Write-up Feedback
organizations
stakeholders’ relationships, key program developments, personnel issues, development of Managing
strategic alliances, internal and external engagements and future vision. change,
Through follow-up contacts the research findings were reported and confirmed the growth and
accuracy of information details. Case write-ups were then completed after quality
assessment and participants’ feedback. The senior leadership of the organizations was transformation
invited to explain the contexts of growth. To validate the interview and field visit results, we
further used internal sources, internet information and newspaper articles. In case of 303
proprietary nature, we asked permission to disclose the identity of the organizations. In all
cases, we used both internal interviews and public information available through internet,
books and articles.
Research team participating organizations. Our organizational change case studies are
as follows. We provide an evolutionary picture of these two organizations. In addition,
we present macro-trends – demographic patterns, economic growth and global middle
class makeup – for contextual information. We examine the conduct of organizations that
seek positional transitions in the regional, domestic and global markets. We further
discuss the performance of the organizations in terms of revenue growth and their
competitive position. The main premise is that change management practices are the
conduct of organizations in response to contextual demands resulting in corresponding
performance outcomes.
Table I is a summary of the structured interview questions.
For adequate representation, we chose these sectors – education and non-governmental.
We did not choose business organizations because of available research of organizational
change on business organizations (Armenakis and Bedeian, 1999; Al-Haddad and Kotnour,
2015; Brown and May, 2012; Hong et al., 2018; Singh and Hong, 2017). The selection criteria
were based on needs for organizational change research in public sector and non-profit
service sector (Nandan and Verma, 2013); meeting the case study requirements for
substantial history of growth and change evidences; key informants collaboration intent
for interview requests and support of research endeavors; and field visits and secondary
data availability.
Table II is a summary of each organizational context and their distinctions. It provides
details of the case study participants. To be consistent, we used structured questions
(Table I) to examine various aspects of organizational changes in terms of firm
context, leadership roles, organizational processes, challenging issues/problems,
stakeholders’ engagements patterns and scope, change milestones, public relations,
and prospects for future.

4. Research model and case study findings

In this section, we summarize the case study findings and present our model of
organizational change in an emerging economy. The organizations indicate different

1 Big picture questions: a brief description of the history of the organization and work positions,
responsibilities experiences, individual and organizational perspective
2 Organizational change processes: growth stages description, time period, drivers—external and internal
3 Organizational change agents: leadership – individual and teams, roles, contribution
4 Organizational change challenges: specific issues/problems, coping/resolving methods
5 Organizational change milestones: shared vision, goal settings, successes/setbacks, achievements,
moments of celebrations
6 Stakeholders participation: engagement patterns, scope and focus Table I.
7 Public relations: methods/venues of communication of organizational work, efforts, results Structured interview
8 Looking ahead: prospect, reasons for hope questions
JMD Name of Contact/Interviews
38,4 organization/Year Nature of Size (employees)
of establishment organization Products and services Other prominent details

Vindhya-E- BPO with more than Contact center solutions, data Founder/Managing director
Infomedia Pvt 60% of its employees processing, onsite deployment Bringing business and
Ltd/2006 being persons with philanthropy together by
304 disabilities employing over 1,600
employees with many of its
staff comprising physically
challenged, hearing impaired,
socially disadvantaged women
and border cases of Autistic
CHRIST Educational Institution that offers Vice chancellor/deans and
(Deemed to be institution that offers Bachelor’s to Doctoral director of centers
University)/1969 comprehensive programs in humanities, social Employs 685 permanent
Table II. degrees programs sciences, science, commerce, teaching staff and 612
Summary of case management, engineering, non-teaching staff
study participants education and law

growth and change patterns. Growth and changes are not necessarily in linear fashion.
Like individuals, organizations also go through ups-downs in each stage. However,
change processes also suggest certain patterns of growth – from birth to competition for
survival, growth, distinction and prominence. Both organizations have not experienced all
these steps. Realistically, Vindhya is going through the third stage of growth, whereas
CHRIST (Deemed to be University) is passing through the fourth stage, respectively, for
excellence and distinction. CHRIST (Deemed to be University) has demonstrated
instructional excellence at national accreditation by National Assessment and
Accreditation Council with the highest grade of A and is in the course of developing
excellent research capabilities. These organizations are common in that their
organizations successfully implemented change management with proper steps of
transition and transformation.
Table III summarizes our model of the five essential characteristics of growth steps in
organizations: visionary entrepreneurial leadership; program quality excellence; scale growth
and scope expansion; network capabilities; and sustainable stakeholder engagement.
Each stage displays its own change driver such as visionary entrepreneurial
leadership for start-up stage, program quality excellence for competition stage, scale
growth and scope expansion for growth stage, network alliance capabilities for
distinction stage, and sustainable value leader reputation for prominence stage.
Interestingly enough, the two organizations demonstrate the visionary leadership of
founders (Vindhya) or their top administrator (CHRIST (Deemed to be University)).
The characteristic of their leadership is transformational in that a small beginning with
core members turns into sustained organizational actions (Brown and May, 2012;
Dvir et al., 2002; Kuhnert and Lewis, 1987). This type of leadership has a strong
transactional aspect through giving and taking practical intangible benefits of having
sense of shared vision, purpose and meaning through enduring early periods of
uncertainties and hardships and experiencing the joy of growth together. The sheer sense
of excitement of working together with entrepreneurial (e.g. big dreams for providing
hope for the persons with disabilities) and dynamic (e.g. tremendous sacrificial energy for
establishing a viable institution with very little resources support) founder(s) leadership
brings transformation effects through the changed lives of employees, students and
exciting outcomes.
 Implications for
Managing
Stage Change driver Essential dimensions Key indicators organizational change change,
1. Start-up Visionary Solid value-based Translation of individual
Exciting stories of trials
growth and
entrepreneurial mission, daring and subsequent aspiration into value transformation
leadership organizational goals, and successes, having propositions for
superb inspirations in customers while securing
organizational goals for
words and actions
embodied by the visional
wealth creation and value
delivery for target
key individuals for
essential functions, and
305
leaders and the leadership customers passing the test of
team organizational birth and
survival conditions
2. Competition Program Design and deliver Competitive performance Focus on key product/
quality specific programs that in industry segments service offerings, while
Excellence satisfy multiple through quality implementing industry
competitive capabilities standards and quality standards and
through applying performance outcomes cross-functional
organization-wide process that exceed industry organizational
excellence performance expectations collaboration of complex
problem solving
3. Growth Scale growth Superb fulfillment of Diverse program Continuation of multiple
and scope diverse requirements in offerings to growing product/service
expansion different growing markets with increasing development offerings
segments through revenues growth and while attaining economies
internal core capabilities facilities expansion in of scales and diversity of
regional market scope
4. Distinction Network Secure establishments of Steady revenue increase, Attainment of competitive
alliance large growing loyal solid reputation among capabilities through
capabilities customer base beyond diverse stakeholders in network relationships
regional and domestic domestic market while reporting steady
boundaries streams of financial flows
and increasing strategic
partnerships results
5. Prominence Sustainable Responsiveness to Consistent definition of Demonstration of brand
value leader emerging trends through growth potential and reputation as sustainable
reputation systemic sensing efforts emphasis on steady value leader of the
by internal, external and innovation for existing industry while generating Table III.
open sources programs and disruptive productive outcomes for Essential
innovation for new the existing programs characteristics of
program creation and and innovative impacts five organizational
delivery for new programs growth steps

As shown in Table III, to translate individual leadership into institutional efforts, program
quality excellence is another distinct mark of organizational growth in the
next stage. Vindhya’s case creating business value through employing persons with
disabilities (e.g. hearing and speech impaired, visually impaired and locomotive disability)
required service excellence in key customer service program in their TV services network.
CHRIST (Deemed to be University) chose one to two key programs in each college (e.g.
business, art and science, and law) to demonstrate their national level of excellence. Scale
growth occurred as more customers appreciated the value delivery of these organizations
through continuous engagements and adoption of their service offerings. In line with these
program excellences in focused areas, the next level of growth was to expand partnerships
with enhancing network capabilities.
Implications for organizational change are to recognize specific organizational needs
for each stage. For start-up, translation of founder’s vision into value propositions for
specific customers while securing key collaborators for key functional responsibilities is
critical. More than half of start-ups do not pass the test of organizational survival
JMD conditions beyond birth. The competition stage requires organizations to focus on key
38,4 product/service offerings. At this stage, since the organization becomes visible with large
numbers of customers, they must strive to implement industry quality standards to
remain comparable with other rivals. To meet diverse requirements, cross-functional
teams strive to address the needs of complex problem solving. Organizational growth
necessitates continuous product and service development to increase the volume of
306 transactions and to provide adequate choices for customers through product/service
scope. The stage of distinction requires a growing organization to move beyond its own
capabilities and seek additional capabilities through strategic alliance endeavors.
Organization-specific competences alone are not sufficient to meet the expectations of
stakeholders. The last stage of organizational change is prominence. This stage
demonstrates how an excellent organization assumes the position of sustainable value
leader in the industry. The brand reputation of the organization is supported by
productive outcomes for the well-known programs along with innovative emergence of
new programs.
Figure 3 is a summary of the findings of the participating organizations in regard to
engagements with their stakeholders. We consider two parameters. One is a qualitative
measure in terms of organizational reputation (vertical axis) and the other one is a
quantitative measure in terms of value delivery capabilities (horizontal axis). These
organizations are common in that they start with relatively moderate value delivery
capabilities and modest organizational reputations. In their early years, they focus on value
delivery capabilities as a first priority. With the increasing value delivery capabilities,
the organizational reputation grows steadily and then rapidly. It is interesting to note that
these organizations sustain their value capabilities and their organizational reputation. Once
the organizational reputation is firmly established, the focus of the organization is to
support, sustain and enhance their value delivery capabilities beyond expectations of their
stakeholders. These two organizations (Vindhya, CHRIST (Deemed to be University)) paid
attention to the changing requirements of the world around them and directed
organizational efforts to move ahead of the trends with higher purpose. In other words,
in the early stage of development and growth, organizations are more likely to focus on
value delivery capabilities (i.e. internal competence, quality and excellence) and sustain their
organizational reputation (public perception). In that sense, the relationships between value
capabilities and organizational reputation are positively related and then taking the shape of
increasing acceleration.
High
Organizational Reputation

Figure 3.
Value delivery
Low

capabilities and
organizational Low High
reputation
Value Delivery Capabilities
5. Discussion Managing
The extant organizational change literature predominantly focuses on content, context, change,
process and criterion issues in the context of advanced economies. We have examined growth and
how organizations in an emerging economy, India, have managed change requirements
for rapid quantitative growth goals while maintaining incremental qualitative cultural transformation
norms. Organizations within this emerging economy present an interesting case study
given their unique challenges of managing growth along with respecting long-time 307
cultural traditions.
Organizations often reflect the speed of societal changes. With the rising middle class
and vibrant wealth-creating opportunities, Indian organizations respond to the need for
external growth performance requirements in terms of organizational size and revenue
enhancement. Thus, successful organizations demonstrate their rapid growth in terms of
size and financial performance measures. At the same time, organizations that thrive in the
Indian context respectfully adjust to the cultural norms in a slow and steady pace. In this
sense, the organizations in our study demonstrate their organizational change patterns as
hybrid in that they show both rapid growth measures and steady sustenance of cultural
practices. These hybrid aspects of organizational change are also distinct compared to
organizational change patterns in advanced economies such as the USA and many
European countries. Although certain aspects of change are assumed to be universal, our
study illustrates the particularity of contextual factors ( Jansson, 2013).
Our paper proposes a novel model of organizational change in emerging economies. We
discuss how organizations in this context achieve positive organizational change and long-term
performance results through five distinct stages of growth: visionary entrepreneurial
leadership; program quality excellence; scale growth and scope expansion; network
capabilities; and sustainable network stakeholder engagement. These hybrid change
patterns reflect an effective balance of revolutionary growth with incremental change
(Van de Ven and Sun, 2011). We suggest that the effective management of these transitions
between the five stages of organizational change will result in successful performance outcomes.
These growth patterns may not be exclusively noted in India, but are more broadly observable
in other cultures with emerging economies thus extending the generalizability of our results.
This study provides a valuable research model for extension and development. This
five-stage model (i.e. start-up, competition, growth, expansion and prominence) defines
essential characteristics, key indicators and implications for organizational change.
Practical implications for organizations that aspire positive long-term changes may
recognize key requirements for moving forward to the next stage of organizational
transitions. This does not suggest that all organizations will go through such growth and
change patterns. Many organizations may remain at best in the first or second stage.
However, regardless of their current position, this stage model provides a possible road map
for any aspiring organization to the next stage of transition and growth.
Organizational change practices and outcomes might be further tested in large-scale
empirical studies. In addition, studying the similarities and differences between multinational
and domestic organizations within the framework of our model would be an interesting
avenue to pursue. Subsequent papers may aim to develop benchmark instruments that
examine the organizational change mechanisms discussed in this paper with empirical data.

References
Al-Haddad, S. and Kotnour, T. (2015), “Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for
successful change”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 234-262.
Armenakis, A.A. and Bedeian, A.G. (1999), “Organizational change: a review of theory and research in
the 1990s”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 293-315.
JMD Bartunek, J.M. (1993), “The multiple cognitions and conflicts associated with second order
38,4 organizational change”, in Murnigham, J. K. (Ed.), Social Psychology in Organizations: Advances
in Theory and Research, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 322-349.
Bartunek, J.M. and Moch, M.K. (1987), “First-order, second-order, and third-order change and
organization development interventions: a cognitive approach”, Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 483-500.
308 Bhatnagar, J., Budhwar, P., Srivastava, P. and Saini, D. (2010), “Organizational change & development
in India: a case of strategic organizational change and transformation”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 485-499.
Brannmark, M. and Benn, S. (2012), “A proposed model for evaluating the sustainability of continuous
change programmes”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 231-245.
Brown, W. and May, D. (2012), “Organizational change and development: the efficacy of
transformational leadership training”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 31 No. 6,
pp. 520-536.
Burke, W.W., Lake, D.G. and Paine, J.W. (Eds) (2009), Organization Change: A Comprehensive Reader,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Burke, W.W. and Litwin, G.H. (1992), “A causal model of organizational performance and change”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 523-545.
Cameron, K.S. and Whetten, D.A. (1983), “Models of the organizational life cycle: applications to higher
education”, The Review of Higher Education, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 269-299.
Campbell, D.T. (1969), “Variation and selective retention in socio-cultural evolution”,
in von Bertalanffy, L., Rapoport, A. and Meier, R.L. (Eds), General Systems: Yearbook for
the Society of General Systems Research XIV, Society for General Systems Research, Vienna,
pp. 69-85.
Clark, E. and Soulsby, A. (2007), “Understanding top management and organizational change through
demographic and processual analysis”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 932-954.
Derviş, K. (2012), “Convergence, interdependence, divergence”, Finance & Development, Vol. 49 No. 3,
pp. 11-14.
Drabble, S., Ratzmann, N., Hoorens, S., Khodyakov, D. and Yaqub, O. (2015), “The rise of a global
middle class: global societal trends to 2030”, Thematic Report No. 6, Rand Corporation, Santa
Monica, CA, pp. 1-63.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J. and Shamir, B. (2002), “Impact of transformational leadership on follower
development and performance: afield experiment”, The Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 45 No. 4, pp. 735-744.
Feldman, M.S. and Pentland, B.T. (2003), “Re-conceptualizing routines as a source of flexibility and
change”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 94-118.
Guzzo, R.A., Jette, R.D. and Katzell, R.A. (1985), “The effects of psychologically based intervention
programs on worker productivity: a meta-analysis”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 275-291.
Hong, P., Joseph, C.C. and Kureethara, J.V. (2018), “Organization culture and work values of global
firms: merging eastern and western perspectives”, IBA Journal of Management and Leadership,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 82-92.
Jamali, D. and Neville, B. (2011), “Convergence versus divergence of CSR in developing countries:
an embedded multi-layered institutional lens”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 102 No. 4,
pp. 599-621.
Jansson, N. (2013), “Organizational change as practice: a critical analysis”, Journal of Organizational
Change Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1003-1019.
Jehn, K. and Bendersky, C. (2003), “Intragroup conflict in organizations: a contingency perspective on
the conflict-outcome relationship”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 187-242.
Kim, H., Kim, H. and Hoskisson, R.E. (2010), “Does market-oriented institutional change in Managing
an emerging economy make business-group-affiliated multinationals perform better? change,
An institution-based view”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 41 No. 7,
pp. 1141-1160. growth and
Kotter, J.P. (2012), Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. transformation
Kuhnert, K.W. and Lewis, P. (1987), “Transactional and transformational leadership: a constructive/
developmental analysis”, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 648-657. 309
Lewin, K. (1947), “Frontiers in groups dynamics”, Human Relations, Vol. 1, pp. 5-41.
Magala, S.J. (2016), “Editorial”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 658-660.
Miroshnik, V. (2012), “Company citizenship creation in the developing countries in the era of
globalization: evidence from the Toyota Motor Company in India”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 672-690.
Nairm, N. and Vohra, N. (2011), “The case of OD in an NGO in India”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 148-159.
Nandan, S. and Verma, A. (2013), “Organizational change effectiveness in an Indian public sector
organizations: perceptions of employees at different levels”, South Asian Journal of
Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 97-113.
Nasim, S. and Sushil (2011), “Revisiting organizational change; exploring the paradox of managing
continuity and change”, Journal of Change Management, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 185-206.
Neuman, G.A., Edwards, J.E. and Raju, N.S. (1989), “Organizational development interventions: a meta‐
analysis of their effects on satisfaction and other attitudes”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 461-489.
Oreg, E., Vakola, M. and Armenakis, A. (2011), “Change recipients’ reactions to organizational change:
a 60-year review of quantitative studies”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 47
No. 4, pp. 461-524.
Pietersem, J., Caniels, M. and Homan, T. (2012), “Professional discourses and resistance to change”,
Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 798-818.
Ralston, P.M., Blackhurst, J., Cantor, D.E. and Crum, M.R. (2015), “A structure–conduct–performance
perspective of how strategic supply chain integration affects firm performance”, Journal of
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 47-64.
Rees, C.J. and Hassard, J. (2010), “Perspectives on organizational change in Asia”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 480-484.
Roberto, M.A. and Levesque, L.C. (2005), “The art of making change initiatives stick”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 53-60.
Roh, J., Hong, P. and Park, Y. (2008), “Organizational culture and supply chain strategy: a framework
for effective information flows”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 21 No. 4,
pp. 361-376.
Sako, M. (2004), “Supplier development at Honda, Nissan and Toyota: comparative case studies
of organizational capability enhancement”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 281-308.
Shaw, D. (2017), “Managing people and learning in organisational change projects”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 923-935.
Singh, N. and Hong, P. (2017), “From local to global: developing a business model for Indian MNCs
to achieve global competitive advantage”, Journal of Asia-Pacific Business, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 192-219.
Stephan, U., Patterson, M., Kelly, C. and Mair, J. (2016), “Organizations driving positive social change: a
review and an integrative framework of change processes”, Journal of Management, Vol. 42
No. 5, pp. 1250-1281.
JMD Stuart, R. (1995), “Experiencing organizational change: triggers, processes and outcomes of change
38,4 journeys”, Personnel Review, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 3-88.
Tushman, M.L., Newman, W.H. and Romanelli, E. (1986), “Convergence and upheaval: managing
the unsteady pace of organizational evolution”, California Management Review, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 29-44.
Van de Ven, A.H. and Sun, K. (2011), “Breakdowns in implementing models of organization change”,
310 Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 58-74.
Van de Ven, A.H., Poole, M.S. and Scott, M. (1995), “Explaining development and change in
organizations”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 510-540.
VanKnippenberg, B., Martin, L. and Tyler, T. (2006), “Process-orientation versus outcome-orientation
during organizational change: the role of organizational identification”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 685-704.
Weick, K.E. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), “Organizational change and development”, Annual Review of
Psychology, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 361-386.
Wiener, Y. (1988), “Forms of value systems: focus on organizational effectiveness and cultural change
and maintenance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 534-545.
Zhao, Q. and Liu, G. (2010), “Managing the challenges of complex interdependence: China and the
United States in the era of globalization”, Asian Politics & Policy, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-23.

Further reading
National Assessment and Accreditation Council, Bengaluru (2018), “Universities accredited by NAAC”,
available at: www.naac.gov.in/images/docs/ACCREDITATION_STATUS/Institutions-
accredited-valid-as-on-November-2018.xls (accessed February 12, 2019).
Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W. and Cameron, K.S. (2001), “Studying organizational change and
development: challenges for future research”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4,
pp. 697-713.

About the authors

Paul C. Hong is Distinguished University Professor of Operations Management at the University of
Toledo, USA. He earned a PhD Degree in Manufacturing Management and Engineering from the
University of Toledo. He also holds an MBA Degree and an MA Degree in Economics from Bowling
Green State University, USA and a BA Degree from Yonsei University in Seoul, Korea. He has
numerous awards including 16th Korea SCM Industry-Individual Award (2017), Fulbright-Nehru
Teaching and Research Excellence Award (2016), University Outstanding Research and Scholarship
Award (2015), Best Finalist Paper Award from Journal of Supply Chain Management (2015) and Journal
of Operations Management (2006). He has published extensively in journals including Journal of
Operations Management, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Corporate Governance: An
International Review, Journal of Business Research and Journal of Service Management. His research
interest is in the areas of global supply chain management, entrepreneurial innovation and interfaces
of top of pyramid (ToP) and bottom of pyramid (BoP). Paul C. Hong is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: [email protected]
Tomy K. Kallarakal is Professor and Associate Dean of Deanery of Commerce, CHRIST (Deemed to
be University), Bengaluru, India. He earned a PhD Degree in Commerce from CHRIST (Deemed to be
University), Bengaluru. He also holds an MPhil Degree from Madurai Kamaraj University, Tamil Nadu
and a Postgraduate Diploma in Personal Management and Industrial Relations, from St Joseph’s
College of Business Administration, Bengaluru. He has published extensively in journals including
Global Business & Economics Anthology, International Journal of Business and Policy and World Journal
of Social Sciences. His research paper titled “Organizational Culture in Tourism Industry in India”
received the best paper award at the 14th International Business Research Conference organized by
World Business Institute, Australia at Dubai. His research interest is in the area of organizational
culture and learning organizations.
 Mariam Moina is Postgraduate Research Scholar pursuing Master’s in Commerce, CHRIST Managing
(Deemed to be University), Bengaluru India. She has been curious learner and has worked on academic change,
research paper focusing in the field of General Management and Corporate Social Responsibility.
Margaret Hopkins is Professor of Management in the College of Business and Innovation at the growth and
University of Toledo. Her areas of research interest include leadership, leadership development, gender transformation
and leadership, and emotional intelligence. She has published articles in journals such as Journal of
Business Ethics, Human Resource Management, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Journal of
Managerial Psychology and Journal of Management Development. She has been honored with numerous 311
best paper and research awards. She received PhD Degree in Organizational Behavior from Case
Western Reserve University.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]
Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.