The term “organisational change” has been the subject of considerable confusion and ambiguities in the past. In order to understand this type of “change”, we need to take a look at it in the light of certain related dimensions.

Unlike changes on a relatively small-scale, the addition of a new service or product or a complete reorganization by a company constitutes “organizational change” and its management is often referred to as change management. In fact the term ‘change management’ has become very important in modern day business management.

“Change” is often confused with “development” – a term that has an entirely different meaning. There are many such related terms in this field, and one needs to understand the difference between them in order to grasp the concept of “Change”.

“Change” can be divided into three mutually exclusive, useful categories. To get a clear idea, let us define these categories with reference to us (individuals). These are:

• Type I – That which is done to us.
• Type II – That which we do to ourselves.
• Type III – That which we do to others.

Type I “Change”: This form of change is generally not liked by individuals. We hate being told what to do since it often interferes with our definition of "self", it violates our sense of independence, freedom and control of our own destiny. This is the type of change we're most likely to resist within when compared to the other “Change” types.

Type II “Change”: This “change” is liked by individuals but is pretty tough to put in place. Here, we decide for ourselves that doing something different is necessary. Because it's our decision, we don't "resist" our decision to Change. This does not mean Type II Change is easy. However, in spite of its rather difficult nature, we are not averse to try it out, since it involves taking our own decisions.

Type III “Change”: This “change” is basically similar to Type I Change as perceived by those on whom the “change” takes place. Here, individuals take decisions for “change" that affect, not themselves, but others.

Categorization of “change” definitely helps to understand the concept. Particularly to retain scope and perspective during the various complexities and frequent frustrations that may crop up during the actual “change”. It is of prime importance for all parties in a “change” to know which types of change they are undertaking.

“Change” and its related management can be divided into the following types:

Organization-wide Versus Subsystem Change:

Examples of organization-wide change might be a major restructuring, collaboration or “rightsizing.”

Usually, organizations must go for complete organization-wide changes to arrive at a different position in its life cycle, for example, going from the reactive, entrepreneurial company to one that has a more planned and stable development. Experts assert that successful organizational change requires a change in culture – cultural change is another example of organization-wide change.

Examples of a change in a subsystem might include addition or removal of a product or service, reorganization of a certain department, or implementation of a new process to deliver products or services.

Transformational Versus Incremental Change

An example of transformational (or radical, fundamental) change might be changing an organization’s structure and culture from the traditional top-down, hierarchical structure to a large amount of self-directing teams. Transformational change is sometimes referred to as quantum change.

Examples of incremental change might include continuous improvement as a quality management process or implementation of new computer system to increase efficiencies. Many times, organizations experience incremental change and its leaders do not recognize the change as such.

Remedial Versus Developmental Change

Change can be intended to remedy current situations. Remedial projects often seem more focused and urgent because they are addressing a current, major problem. It is often easier to determine the success of these projects because the problem is solved or not.

Change can also be developmental – to make a successful situation even more successful, for example, expand the amount of customers served, or duplicate successful products or services. Developmental projects can seem more general and vague than remedial, depending on how specific goals are and how important it is for members of the organization to achieve those goals. If developmental changes are not made soon, there will be need for remedial changes. Also, organizations may recognize current remedial issues and then establish “changes” current issues.

Unplanned Versus Planned Change

Unplanned change normally takes place due to a sudden and major surprise to the organization, which makes the members respond in a disorganized and reactive way. No prior plans are put in place for this type of “change”.

Planned change occurs when managers in the company recognize the need for a change and organizes a plan that can accomplish this change. The strategy and the reorganization plan need to be first developed and then it has to be properly implemented. But this planned change often does not happen in that organized a way. In fact, those who participate in the change often feel that change is best often in a chaotic fashion and does not always go by the plan.