Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This longitudinal case study addresses a critical gap in understanding how Organization Development (OD) consulting facilitates sustainable transformation in complex organizations, particularly concerning the precise mechanisms that enable enduring change while rigorously maintaining operational stability. Employing a six-year constructivist grounded theory methodology, we investigated this challenge within a large Israeli public sector organization, drawing on 67 interviews, extensive field observations, and organizational documentation collected in two distinct phases (2018 and 2024). Our analysis empirically refines three interconnected mechanisms through which effective OD consulting operates: (1) creating adaptive spaces, (2) systematically developing emergent capabilities, and (3) enabling systemic integration. The findings reveal that these mechanisms collectively foster a unique state of “bounded transformation”—a phenomenon where organizations achieve meaningful change without compromising essential operational effectiveness. This research contributes theoretically by offering a grounded framework that extends complexity theory and dialogic OD, introducing “bounded transformation” as a novel concept, and detailing how these mechanisms facilitate multi-level learning and dynamic integration. Practically, it provides actionable insights for OD practitioners on cultivating trust-based relationships, fostering iterative learning cycles, and embedding sustainable change processes within complex organizational systems.

Keywords

organizational development consulting organizational transformation complex systems constructivist grounded theory organizational change sustainable transformation bounded transformation

Introduction

Organizational transformation presents a critical and persistent challenge in today's complex business environment, demanding that organizations simultaneously evolve and maintain operational effectiveness (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). While organizational development (OD) consulting has emerged as a potential catalyst for such transformation (e.g., Hu et al., 2022; Shimoni, 2017; Werkman, 2010), significant questions persist regarding its effectiveness in driving meaningful and sustainable change. Traditional linear change models (Burnes, 2004; Hayes, 2022) often fall short in addressing the intricate, interconnected dynamics of complex organizational systems, where change in one area affects multiple elements (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Consequently, the precise mechanisms through which OD interventions foster long-term, sustainable transformation, particularly in complex contexts, remain inadequately understood (Buchanan et al., 2005; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). This gap highlights a critical need for adaptive, context-sensitive approaches that can systematically build organizational capacity for ongoing adaptation and manage the inherent tensions between stability and innovation.

This study addresses these theoretical and empirical gaps by investigating the mechanisms through which OD consulting facilitates sustainable transformation capacity in complex systems, while balancing stability and innovation. Our central research question is: What mechanisms enable organizational development consulting to facilitate sustainable transformation in complex systems while balancing stability and innovation? To explore this, we employ a constructivist grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2014) through a longitudinal case analysis (2018–2024). Our research draws on complexity theory (Stacey, 1995; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007) and open systems theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Scott & Davis, 2015) as sensitizing concepts, which guided our initial inquiry while remaining open to emergent patterns.

The study utilizes an insider action research approach (Coghlan, 2019) within a large Israeli public sector organization characterized by hierarchical structures and complex operational requirements. The lead researcher's position as head of the OD division, alongside a research team of consulting practitioners, provided unique access to rich, nuanced data. This insider perspective, while offering deep contextual understanding, also necessitated careful attention to methodological rigor and potential biases (Drake & Heath, 2010; Herr & Anderson, 2014).

Our findings reveal complex dynamics in transformation emergence, extending the dialogic OD theory (Bushe & Marshak, 2015) by demonstrating how consulting relationships enable transformation while maintaining organizational stability. Specifically, we identify and empirically refine three interconnected sensitizing concepts that serve as key mechanisms: (1) creating adaptive spaces, (2) systematically developing emergent capabilities, and (3) enabling systemic integration. Together, these mechanisms create what we term “bounded transformation”—a state where organizations achieve meaningful change without compromising essential operational effectiveness.

This study contributes significantly by providing a grounded theoretical framework that explains how OD consulting shapes organizational transformation through these three mechanisms. It reveals specific processes for developing sustainable change capabilities and offers actionable insights for practitioners navigating complex organizational environments. The paper proceeds by presenting an integrative theoretical framework, detailing our methodological approach and findings, and discussing theoretical and practical implications with recommendations for future research.

Theoretical Foundations

This section presents the conceptual lenses guiding this research, focusing on how various theories inform our understanding of the mechanisms through which OD consulting fosters sustainable transformation capacity. Each subsection explicitly links theoretical domains to the study's core sensitizing concepts: adaptive spaces, emergent capabilities, and systemic integration, which serve as initial guiding concepts to be refined through empirical analysis.

Leadership Development in Complex Organizations

The increasing complexity of modern organizations presents unique challenges for leadership development and organizational transformation (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Traditional trait-focused leadership approaches are often insufficient for navigating the dynamic nature of contemporary organizational systems (Stacey, 1995). Recent theoretical developments, such as adaptive leadership (Heifetz et al., 2009), complexity leadership (Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001), and attentive leadership (Decuypere & Pircher, 2022), offer more sophisticated, context-sensitive approaches. These theories frame leadership as an emergent phenomenon shaped by dynamic interactions (Lagowska et al., 2022), where organizations are viewed as evolving systems characterized by self-organization and emergent behaviors (Morel & Ramanujam, 1999).

This perspective is crucial for understanding how leaders create conditions for adaptive spaces and foster the development of emergent capabilities. Specifically, attentive leadership practices (Edmondson, 2018) and virtue-based approaches (Newstead et al., 2021) contribute to the psychological safety and trust-based relationships essential for the formation of adaptive spaces, which enable safe exploration and learning within organizational constraints (Arena, 2018). Furthermore, leadership development, when designed through a complexity lens, can cultivate “adaptive development pathways” (Putri & Adnan, 2022) and the emergent capabilities necessary for sustained transformation. While leadership's importance in driving change is established (Fernandez & Rainey, 2017), critical gaps remain in understanding how leadership capabilities evolve through dynamic organizational processes (Alvesson, 2022; Day & Dragoni, 2015) and how they specifically contribute to the mechanisms of transformation. This study addresses this by examining how OD consulting helps leaders cultivate these capabilities as part of a broader systemic change.

Innovation in Complex Organizational Systems

Innovation is a complex social process embedded within organizational systems (Narcizo et al., 2017), requiring an understanding beyond traditional linear models. Its role in this study is twofold: it represents both a critical contextual challenge and a key outcome of sustainable organizational transformation. First, innovation is a persistent challenge in complex systems, where organizations must continuously balance operational stability with the imperative for new ideas and approaches (Chen & Chang, 2012). This tension between stability and innovation is a central paradox that OD consulting helps organizations navigate (Bushe & Marshak, 2009).

Second, the capacity for adaptive innovation serves as a crucial indicator and outcome of successful, sustainable transformation capacity (Singh & Jha, 2023). Organizations that can innovate effectively within complexity demonstrate robust emergent capabilities and effective adaptive spaces. Concepts like “innovation spaces” (Atkinson & Singer, 2020) conceptually align with our adaptive spaces as environments for safe exploration and experimentation. Similarly, “ambidextrous capabilities” (Palm & Lilja, 2017) and “adaptive innovation capacity” (Zehir & Karaca, 2023) are specific examples of the emergent capabilities that OD consulting helps cultivate as part of the transformation process. By framing innovation as both a challenge and a key outcome, this research positions the ability to innovate as a central expression of an organization's overall adaptive and transformative capabilities. Despite its importance, significant gaps remain in understanding how organizations systematically cultivate sustainable innovation within complex systems, particularly in balancing innovation with operational stability and developing complexity-aware approaches (Alvesson, 2022).

Understanding OD Consulting as a Transformative Mechanism

Organizational development (OD) consulting has evolved from early diagnostic roots to a sophisticated approach for facilitating systemic transformation in complex organizations (Cummings & Worley, 2023). This evolution reflects a deeper understanding of organizations as dynamic systems where change emerges through complex interactions rather than linear interventions (Bushe & Marshak, 2015). A fundamental shift in OD practice has been the movement from diagnostic to dialogic approaches, emphasizing the co-creation of meaning through collaborative inquiry and intervention (Bushe & Marshak, 2015). Process consultation (Schein, 1988) provides a theoretical foundation for how OD consultants build client capacity through collaborative relationships, enhancing organizational learning and problem-solving capabilities (Nikolova et al., 2015). The role of trust and psychological safety (Edmondson & Lei, 2014) is crucial, as they create conditions for organizational members to engage in the vulnerable work of examining and changing established patterns. Systems thinking (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Stacey, 1995) has also become central, helping practitioners understand organizations as dynamic networks where interventions must address multiple systemic levels simultaneously (Lawrie et al., 2016).

While existing literature identifies important elements of effective OD practice, significant theoretical and empirical gaps remain in understanding how OD enables transformation in complex organizational systems (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016; Tsoukas & Chia, 2002). Specifically, less is known about the empirically grounded mechanisms through which OD consultants create these enabling conditions (e.g., trust, psychological safety, and generative dialogue) and catalyze sustainable transformation in real-world systems. This study aims to bridge this gap by moving beyond what OD does to how it achieves lasting change.

Building on these theoretical foundations and addressing the identified gaps, this research proposes and empirically examines three interconnected sensitizing concepts—adaptive spaces, emergent capabilities, and systemic integration—as crucial mechanisms for understanding how OD consulting enables sustainable transformation capacity. These sensitizing concepts served as an initial lens to guide our inquiry, with the understanding that our constructivist grounded theory methodology would allow for their empirical refinement and elaboration through data analysis. These mechanisms directly relate to our central research question: What mechanisms enable organizational development consulting to facilitate sustainable transformation in complex systems while balancing stability and innovation?

Integrating Personal Growth and Organizational Change

Personal growth and individual leadership development are essential components of building emergent capabilities and facilitating systemic integration within complex organizational systems (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). Individual development interweaves with organizational change through dynamic relationships (Day & Dragoni, 2015), forming the micro-level foundation for macro-level transformation. Sustainable organizational transformation is deeply rooted in, and enabled by, both individual and collective growth.

Modern approaches emphasize cultivating self-awareness and adaptive capabilities (Caldwell & Hayes, 2016) through action research frameworks that enable systematic reflection cycles (Bridges & Meyer, 2007) and enhanced awareness of systemic influence (Evans & Kivell, 2015). Individual development practices, such as fostering self-awareness, adaptive capacities, engaging in reflective practices (Argyris & Schön, 1996), experiential learning (Kolb, 2014), and mentorship (Kram, 1988), directly contribute to the effectiveness of action–reflection cycles within the development of emergent capabilities. Furthermore, personal growth supports the “multi-level alignment” crucial for systemic integration, as individuals become more attuned to systemic influences and their role in broader organizational change (Crossan et al., 1999). While research demonstrates the importance of connecting individual and organizational development (Seidle et al., 2016), gaps remain in understanding the specific integration mechanisms in complex systems (Quinn & Cameron, 1988). This study clarifies how these human elements are central to the effectiveness of our proposed framework.

Theoretical Framework: OD Consulting as a Catalyst for Change

This framework presents the sensitizing concepts that guided our initial inquiry into how OD consulting enables organizational transformation. While these concepts—adaptive spaces, emergent capabilities, and systemic integration—served as an initial lens, our constructivist grounded theory methodology allowed for their empirical refinement, detailed articulation, and grounding in the data. This section outlines how these interconnected mechanisms, drawing on complexity theory (Stacey, 1995; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007) and process consultation frameworks (Schein, 1988), facilitate emergent organizational transformation.

Adaptive Spaces: These are dynamic environments where organizational stakeholders can safely explore new possibilities and engage in generative inquiry while maintaining operational stability. This concept aligns with Weick's (1995) sensemaking theory, demonstrating how organizations construct structures that enable members to collectively interpret complex challenges and co-create new solutions without disrupting essential functions. Adaptive spaces are fundamentally built upon trust-based relationships that foster psychological safety (Edmondson & Lei, 2014), allowing for vulnerability and open dialogue.

Emergent Capability Development: This mechanism involves the systematic cultivation of organizational capacities through iterative action–reflection cycles. It connects to Nonaka's (1994) theory of organizational knowledge creation, particularly his concept of “ba”—shared spaces where knowledge emerges through social interaction. Our framework extends this by illustrating how OD consulting facilitates “structured emergence”—providing flexible frameworks that support capability development while remaining responsive to evolving organizational needs. This allows organizations to systematically develop capabilities while effectively managing the inherent tensions between fostering innovation and ensuring stability, integrating individual growth with broader organizational learning (Day & Dragoni, 2015).

Systemic Integration: This mechanism ensures that newly developed practices and capabilities become dynamically embedded within the broader organizational system. It advances existing perspectives on organizational change by revealing how practices are not merely implemented but become deeply integrated into the organizational fabric (Nonaka, 1994; O'Reilly & Tushman, 2008). Our framework conceptualizes integration as an ongoing process of “dynamic embedding” (Argyris & Schön, 1996; Stacey, 1995), emphasizing the continuous interplay between emerging capabilities and existing structures (Cameron & Quinn, 2019; Weick, 1995). This includes developing “multi-level alignment” (Lawrie et al., 2016) across individual, team, and organizational levels.

These three mechanisms operate through continuous, non-linear interaction rather than a simple linear progression, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Empirically Grounded Mechanisms of Sustainable Organizational Transformation.

The framework posits that adaptive spaces enable the psychological safety and trust-based relationships necessary for exploration and learning. Concurrently, emergent capabilities develop through systematic action–reflection cycles and adaptive leadership practices. Systemic integration then ensures that these new capabilities and insights are aligned across all organizational levels, maintaining responsiveness to changing conditions. These mechanisms may reinforce each other, creating “transformative cycles” that enable sustained organizational change.

Our empirical investigation, guided by these sensitizing concepts, addresses the following critical questions about how these mechanisms function in practice: (1) How do stakeholders co-construct new possibilities through OD consulting relationships? (2) What processes enable the development of sustainable change capabilities in complex systems? (3) How can organizations maintain both stability and adaptability through periods of transformation?

These questions guide our empirical investigation into how OD consulting enables organizational transformation through the interaction of these mechanisms. Our research aims to capture both the dynamic, emergent nature of change and provide practical insights for consultants and organizations working in complex environments.

Methodological Approach: A Constructivist Grounded Theory Study

Research Design and Rationale

This study employs constructivist grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2014) to examine the co-construction of organizational transformation by stakeholders through OD consulting. This methodology is particularly suited to our aims as it acknowledges organizations as complex social systems, enables systematic analysis of participant experiences during transformation, and allows researchers to trace emerging organizational patterns through iterative data collection and analysis (Charmaz, 2014). While traditional grounded theory emphasizes entering research without preconceptions (Glaser & Strauss, 2017), our approach adopts contemporary constructivist principles that recognize the role of sensitizing concepts in initial inquiry (Charmaz, 2014). Our design incorporates complexity theory (Stacey, 1995; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007) to understand organizations as dynamic systems with non-linear change, and open systems theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978; Scott & Davis, 2015) to examine boundary management while maintaining coherence. These theories served as sensitizing concepts, guiding our initial exploration while allowing for the empirical refinement and grounding of our core mechanisms. The research design specifically focuses on three key processes: (1) the development of adaptive spaces through consulting relationships, (2) the emergence of organizational capabilities through structured interventions, and (3) the integration of individual and systemic change processes. Our longitudinal approach (2018–2024) is crucial for examining process evolution and tracing how initial changes contribute to systemic transformation over time.

Research Context

This study was conducted within a large Israeli public sector organization, employing approximately 6,000 professionals and staff across multiple national and regional locations, encompassing both regulatory oversight and service delivery functions. This context offers distinctive characteristics ideal for examining OD consulting in complex systems and for exploring the tension between stability and innovation, which is central to our research question. The organization's operational structure spans multiple hierarchical levels and specialized units, requiring intricate coordination across geographical and functional boundaries. Its professional environment balances high autonomy with public sector accountability, while the regulatory environment combines standard public sector and specialized professional standards. Furthermore, an ongoing tension exists between professional independence and administrative accountability. These characteristics create an ideal setting for examining how OD consulting enables “bounded transformation”—a state where organizations achieve meaningful change while managing multiple stakeholder interests and competing organizational demands, thereby fostering a sustainable, generative space. The study period (2018–2024) encompasses the initial establishment of the OD division (2018), the development of systematic consulting processes (2019–2020), the navigation of unprecedented operational challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2021), and the integration of emerging practices into organizational systems (2022–2024).

Ethical Considerations and Researcher Positionality

The unique context of this study, with the lead researcher serving as head of the OD division, aligns with Coghlan's (2019) “insider action research” framework. The research was conducted under the CEO's formal authority, with the OD division's establishment and evaluation being part of its organizational mandate. Data collection was conducted by the OD division head and actively involved freelance consultants, presenting both advantages and challenges. While their deep organizational understanding enhanced inquiry depth, their direct involvement required additional attention to potential biases (Bergen & Labonté, 2018; Ravitch & Carl, 2019). As Drake and Heath (2010) emphasize, such insider positioning demands explicit acknowledgment and systematic reflection. Following the practitioner research recommendations given by Herr and Anderson (2014), we implemented specific measures including internal organizational approval and alignment with professional standards. Participants were informed of the study's dual purpose (organizational development and academic research) and voluntary nature, adhering to the ethical insider research guidelines given by Trowler (2016).

Data Collection

Our data collection strategy followed constructivist grounded theory principles (Charmaz, 2014), employing multiple methods to capture the complexity of organizational transformation processes. Data were collected in two distinct phases (2018 and 2024), enabling both immediate and longitudinal perspectives on organizational change.

Phase 1 (2018): Initial Study

Primary data collection occurred through intensive, semi-structured interviews with 31 senior executives, representing 69% of the organization's senior leadership. Theoretical sampling guided participant selection, with initial sampling focusing on executives directly involved in transformation initiatives and later expanding to include broader organizational perspectives. The participant group comprised 17 female and 14 male executives, with an average tenure of 6 years (SD = 11.8) and a mean age of 49 years (SD = 12.3). All participants held advanced degrees in their respective fields. Interviews were conducted by seven OD team members (six external consultants with extensive organizational development experience, five holding PhD degrees). The interview approach evolved through theoretical sampling, with initial questions focusing on participants’ experiences and interpretations of organizational transformation. Supporting data collection included field notes from development workshops, organizational documentation, digital communications such as internal messages and email correspondence, and observational notes from team meetings and strategic planning sessions.

Phase 2 (2024): Follow-up Study

The second phase expanded our theoretical sample to include 25 executives from the initial study, 11 newly appointed executives, and 2 former CEOs. This sampling decision was driven by emerging theoretical questions about how organizational capabilities evolve over time and how new organizational members integrate into existing transformation processes. Data collection methods in Phase 2 included intensive, semi-structured interviews, participant observation during learning processes, documentation analysis of strategic plans and performance metrics, field notes from peer group facilitation sessions, and observational data from steering committee meetings. To maintain theoretical sensitivity while managing potential biases, we implemented several strategies: we established a rotation system where executives were interviewed by consultants different from their personal OD advisors; the research team held regular meetings to discuss emerging patterns; and analytical decisions were systematically documented through theoretical memos. Multiple data source triangulation further enhanced research validity.

Interview Protocol Description

Appendices A and B provide the full interview guides for Phases 1 and 2, respectively. The interview protocol was semi-structured, evolving iteratively through theoretical sampling to adapt to emerging analytical insights while maintaining focus on our core research questions. Interviews began with broad, open-ended questions about participants’ experiences with OD consulting and organizational transformation, and then progressed to more specific probes.

In Phase 1, questions focused on understanding the initial organizational landscape and dynamics to inform the OD division's development and intervention strategies. These included consulting relationship development, exploring the characteristics and evolution of trust-based relationships crucial for establishing psychological safety and adaptive spaces (Bushe & Marshak, 2015; Weick, 1995). We also investigated transformation processes, examining observed organizational changes and the perceived relationship between consulting interventions and outcomes, thereby directly addressing the mechanisms of change that would guide future efforts. Questions on learning and development aimed to understand how learning can occur through consulting and how new insights should be integrated into practice, linking to the development of emergent capabilities (Nonaka, 1994) that the OD division would seek to foster. Furthermore, we probed integration and sustainability, inquiring how new practices can be integrated and sustained over time, connecting to prospects of systemic integration (Argyris & Schön, 1996; Cameron & Quinn, 2019; Nonaka, 1994; O'Reilly & Tushman, 2008; Stacey, 1995; Weick, 1995), and to understand the existing mechanisms and challenges. Finally, the Context and Conditions section sought to understand the organizational conditions supporting or hindering transformation and the influence of complexity, providing foundational insights for intervention design.

For Phase 2, questions broadened to a longitudinal, post-intervention perspective, focusing on assessing the evolution of transformation processes and the effectiveness of OD efforts. This included exploring longitudinal evolution, specifically how the organization and its capabilities had evolved since our initial conversations in 2018, and participants’ developing understanding of transformation processes. We delved into capability development, asking about specific emergent organizational capabilities and how the organization approached change differently now, further exploring emergent capabilities that had been cultivated. Pattern recognition questions focused on observed patterns in how change unfolded, how the organization worked with complexity, and how systemic dynamics were understood, directly probing the effectiveness of systemic integration. The Integration Processes section aimed to understand how new practices were embedded and multi-level integration was achieved, and how stability and transformation were balanced, deepening the inquiry into systemic integration as an outcome of OD interventions. Lastly, future development questions addressed anticipated challenges and capabilities needing further development, reflecting on the sustained impact and ongoing needs.

Throughout both phases, follow-up probes were used to elicit concrete examples, understand process unfolding, identify factors enabling or constraining outcomes, and explore diverse responses, ensuring rich data collection aligned with our theoretical framework and research question about the mechanisms enabling sustainable transformation.

Data Analysis

Following constructivist grounded theory methods (Charmaz, 2014), our analysis employed systematic coding procedures conducted in parallel with data collection, which enabled theoretical sampling based on emerging insights. Three OD team members conducted independent line-by-line coding using gerunds to identify processes, focusing on participants’ interactions with organizational transformation. Initial codes captured granular processes such as trust-building, tension navigation, adaptive responses, and cross-level feedback integration.

Focused coding involved constant comparison to develop conceptual categories, with regular team meetings facilitating systematic comparison across data sources. Theoretical coding then examined relationships between these focused codes to explain organizational transformation through OD consulting, mapping category relationships, and testing emerging insights.

Analytical rigor was maintained through constant comparative analysis, theoretical memoing (documenting analytical decisions and emerging insights), and visual mapping of conceptual relationships, which helped us to graphically represent the evolving connections between our codes and categories and the emergence of our theoretical framework (see Figure 1). Analysis continued until theoretical saturation was achieved, evidenced by the absence of new properties, well-developed relationships between categories, robust process explanations, and theoretical integration.

Ensuring Research Quality

Our constructivist grounded theory approach prioritized methodological rigor while acknowledging the interpretive nature of our research. We implemented comprehensive strategies to ensure trustworthiness and to capture the complexity of organizational transformation. A six-year extended engagement allowed for deep contextual understanding. Triangulation was achieved by utilizing multiple data sources (interviews, observations, and documents) and incorporating the theoretical perspectives of seven team members. Member checking involved regular feedback sessions and validation of theoretical models with organizational members. A comprehensive audit trail documented all research decisions and analytical processes, ensuring transparency and rigor throughout the study. This systematic documentation created a transparent evidence trail, enabling robust theoretical insights while maintaining sensitivity to transformation complexity (see Appendix C for a detailed overview of the audit trail components). Team reviews included regular analysis sessions, coding cross-checks, and collective theoretical interpretation reviews. Authenticity was maintained through the inclusion of multiple hierarchical voices and alternative viewpoints, while reflexive practices systematically documented potential biases.

Findings

Our analysis reveals how organizational transformation emerges through the intricate interplay of three key mechanisms enabled by OD consulting processes. These mechanisms—adaptive spaces, emergent capabilities, and systemic integration—work together to facilitate organizational change while maintaining operational stability. The findings, refined and grounded through theoretical coding, confirm the central role of these mechanisms in driving sustainable transformation. Table 1 illustrates how these mechanisms, initially introduced as sensitizing concepts, were empirically developed from our data analysis:

Table 1.

Data Structure: Progression from First-Order Codes to Theoretical Mechanisms.

First-Order Codes	Second-Order Themes	Aggregate Dimensions
Building trust through consistent engagement	Trust-based relationships	Adaptive Spaces
Creating safe spaces for exploration	Psychological safety
Enabling vulnerable conversations	Psychological safety
Fostering open dialogue	Dialogue facilitation
Experimenting with new approaches	Action–reflection cycles	Emergent Capabilities
Learning from action cycles	Learning integration
Developing collective problem-solving	Learning integration
Building adaptive responses across organizational levels	Adaptive practices
Connecting individual and system	Multi-level alignment
Aligning change	Pattern recognition	Systemic Integration
Embedding new practices in routines	System embedding
Sustaining innovation over time	System embedding

The mechanisms we identified operate not as discrete entities but as interconnected processes that enable organizational transformation. As one senior executive explained: “It's not just about implementing new practices. There's this delicate balance between creating spaces where people feel safe to experiment and building our collective ability to actually make change stick. And somehow, it all has to work together with our existing systems.” This observation captures the essential dynamics we observed: transformation requires safe spaces for exploration (adaptive spaces), systematic development of new capabilities (emergent capabilities), and integration of these elements across organizational systems (systemic integration). Each mechanism serves distinct yet complementary functions in enabling transformation.

In the following sections, we detail how each mechanism operates and interacts with others to enable organizational transformation. Our findings draw on extensive data collected over six years, including 67 interviews, field observations, and organizational documentation, providing rich evidence of how these mechanisms function in practice.

Developing Adaptive Spaces

Our analysis reveals how OD consulting creates “adaptive spaces”—environments that enable exploration and learning while maintaining connection to organizational realities. These spaces emerge through a causal sequence of processes: facilitating transformative dialogue, which fosters trust-based relationships, leading to psychological safety, which then enables action–reflection cycles, ultimately culminating in the formation of a system-wide adaptive space.

Facilitating Transformative Dialogue

The creation of adaptive spaces begins with a sophisticated approach to dialogue that extends beyond traditional consulting methods. At its core, this process involves facilitating conversations that challenge existing organizational paradigms and open new avenues of understanding (Bushe & Marshak, 2015). Consultants employ a nuanced strategy of structured questioning that gently but persistently challenges deeply held assumptions, creating opportunities for profound organizational reflection. The art of facilitating transformative dialogue centers on integrating multiple viewpoints while maintaining a delicate balance between supportive guidance and constructive challenge. Consultants skillfully connect individual insights to broader organizational patterns, helping leaders and teams see beyond their immediate perspectives (Argyris & Schön, 1996). This approach transforms dialogue from a mere exchange of information into a powerful tool for organizational learning and growth. One executive eloquently described this transformative process: “The consultant helps us think differently about our challenges. It's not about providing answers, but about creating conversations that help us see new possibilities and connections.” This demonstrates how effective consultants become catalysts for organizational insight.

Trust-Based Relationships

The development of trust-based relationships emerged as a fundamental outcome of this facilitated dialogue and a prerequisite for creating adaptive spaces. These relationships develop through consistent engagement and demonstrated reliability. As one executive explained: “The consultant has become a trusted partner in our growth. It's not just about expertise—it's about building a relationship where you can be completely honest about challenges and vulnerabilities. That trust creates space for real change.” Trust in these professional relationships is cultivated through a multifaceted approach, including regular, structured interactions and the consultant's commitment to follow through on promises, which builds credibility. Another participant highlighted the deeper potential of such trust-based interactions: “Very purposeful meetings, the consultant is attentive, knows my mindset. Everything is in discretion… This creates space where we can really examine what's working and what isn't, without fear of judgment.” The discretion and careful attentiveness underscore the importance of creating a safe, non-judgmental environment where open and honest dialogue can flourish.

Psychological Safety

Building on trust, the data reveal a nuanced approach for establishing psychological safety through carefully cultivated consulting practices. Consultants systematically create environments where uncertainty becomes a pathway to growth rather than a source of anxiety. They accomplish this by normalizing the inherent uncertainties in organizational change, transforming experimental approaches from sources of potential failure into valuable learning experiences. Central to this approach is the consultant's ability to reframe challenges as meaningful opportunities for development (e.g., Kotera, 2017). By modeling vulnerability and openness, these professionals demonstrate that acknowledging limitations is not a weakness but a strength. They create structured spaces for reflection, allowing leaders and teams to explore complex dynamics with genuine curiosity and without fear of judgment. One leader powerfully articulated the transformative impact: “Your ability to promote and enable emotional dialogue, to create emotional connections between critical people is crucial in the ability to advance processes. The OD guidance was really my crutches; I wouldn't have survived the role without this guidance.” This testimony highlights the profound psychological support that positions the consultant as a critical emotional and strategic partner. The intentional creation of psychological safety becomes a strategic intervention itself (Edmondson & Lei, 2014).

Enabling Action–Reflection Cycles

The interplay of transformative dialogue, trust, and psychological safety creates a unique organizational laboratory where action–reflection cycles can thrive. As one participant vividly explained: “It's like having a laboratory within the organization—a space where we can examine our practices, experiment with new approaches, and learn from the results. But it's not disconnected from reality—these spaces help us translate insights into practical changes.” This metaphor captures the essence of adaptive spaces: they are not abstract theoretical constructs, but practical engines of organizational transformation. These dialogic practices enable organizations to move beyond reactive problem-solving to proactive, innovative thinking, fostering the adaptive capacity necessary to thrive in dynamic environments.

Building Emergent Capabilities

Our analysis reveals a profound approach to organizational development through systematic cycles of action and reflection enabled by OD consulting. This process of building capabilities goes beyond traditional skill development, creating a dynamic environment where organizations can continuously evolve and adapt to complex challenges. In this context, “capability” refers to the organization's dynamic capacity to continuously evolve, adapt, and innovate in response to complex challenges, rather than a static skill set. These emergent capabilities are a direct product of the conditions fostered by OD consultants and serve as a crucial pathway toward broader, sustainable organizational transformation. They represent the organization's enhanced ability to learn, solve problems collectively, and respond adaptively.

Action–Reflection Cycles

The core of this capability-building approach lies in carefully facilitated cycles of experimentation and reflection. Consultants create structured opportunities for organizations to systematically explore new approaches, carefully observe outcomes, and integrate learnings into their ongoing practices. This is not a linear process, but a nuanced, iterative journey of organizational growth and understanding. One executive powerfully articulated the essence of this approach: “It's not just about trying new things—it's about having a systematic way to learn from what we try. The consultant helps us pause, reflect, and really understand what's working and why. Then we can build on that understanding.” This perspective highlights the intentional nature of organizational learning, where each experiment becomes an opportunity for deeper insight (Senge, 1990). The transformative potential of these action–reflection cycles becomes even more apparent through the experiences of participants. As one leader shared: “I learned a lot, I realized during the process that leadership skills are in the head, and I didn't come with this initially. Each cycle of trying something new, reflecting on it, and adjusting our approach builds our collective ability to handle complex challenges.” This testimony illustrates how organizations develop adaptive capabilities through continuous, mindful exploration. These cycles are characterized by systematic experimentation, where teams intentionally test new approaches while maintaining a rigorous reflective practice (Schön, 1983). This approach transforms organizational learning from a passive, sporadic activity into a deliberate, structured pathway for capability development.

Learning Integration

Our analysis uncovered a sophisticated approach to organizational learning that transcends traditional knowledge management practices. This process of learning integration represents a holistic method of capturing, sharing, and transforming insights across various organizational contexts and levels. The essence of this approach lies in creating robust mechanisms for knowledge transfer and collective understanding. Organizations develop intricate systems that enable insights to flow beyond individual experiences, transforming personal learnings into collective organizational capabilities. This goes far beyond simple information sharing, creating a dynamic ecosystem of continuous learning and mutual understanding.

Building on existing concepts of organizational learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978) and triple-loop learning (Tosey et al., 2011), our findings reveal a model of “nested learning loops,” demonstrating how learning occurs simultaneously and interdependently across individual, team, and organizational levels. This model is evidenced by how organizations developed intricate systems enabling insights to flow beyond individual experiences into collective organizational capabilities. For instance, cross-context sharing emerged as a critical strategy, allowing learnings from one team or department to become valuable resources for others, ensuring knowledge was not siloed but translated into broader team practices. As one senior leader articulated, “This system is a ‘monster’, but what's different now is how we learn from experience. Today there is cooperation and mutual trust, and even seeing each unit as part of the system. We're building our collective ability to understand and respond to challenges.” This powerfully illustrates how individual, team, and systemic learning are interconnected, leading to the development of shared mental models (Mathieu et al., 2000) and a more nuanced, comprehensive organizational understanding.

In this organization, OD interventions significantly contributed to the establishment of a managed internal communication process. This manifested through the systematic development of both formal and informal channels, such as dedicated digital platforms for knowledge sharing and regular, structured forums for cross-departmental dialogue. These efforts fostered a culture where leaders actively disseminated information and proactively sought feedback across all levels. This enhanced transparency and improved the flow of critical insights, enabling the organization to respond with greater agility and coherence to complex challenges, such as those encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately, this managed communication process transformed learning from an individual activity into a collective endeavor, where the organization's capacity for insight and adaptation became greater than the sum of its individual parts. For this organization, learning integration thus represented a profound shift in how it approached knowledge and growth, fostering a culture of continuous learning, mutual understanding, and collective intelligence, enabling it to navigate complexity with greater agility and insight.

Developing Adaptive Practices

The journey of organizational development culminates in the creation of adaptive practices that enable continuous transformation and responsiveness. This approach goes beyond traditional management strategies, focusing on building fundamental organizational capabilities that allow for agile and intelligent navigation of complex challenges. These adaptive practices are the operationalized result and a key indicator of successful emergent capabilities and systemic integration. They represent the tangible manifestation of the organization's enhanced capacity for change.

At the heart of these adaptive practices are flexible response routines that enable organizations to move beyond rigid, predetermined approaches. These routines create a dynamic framework for addressing challenges, allowing teams to respond with creativity and precision. Rapid feedback mechanisms become crucial, ensuring that insights are captured and integrated in real-time, creating a responsive organizational ecosystem. Dynamic resource allocation emerges as a key strategy, moving away from static budgeting and planning toward a more fluid approach that can quickly reallocate energy, attention, and resources as opportunities and challenges emerge (Sull & Eisenhardt, 2015). Continuous improvement processes are deeply embedded in the organizational culture, creating an environment where learning and adaptation are ongoing, natural activities rather than occasional interventions.

One participant captured the profound impact of this approach: “The OD division has established very beautiful traditions. They have embedded innovative management thinking that I see in the system all the time. It's not just about specific solutions—it's about building our ability to adapt and respond effectively to whatever comes up.” This insight highlights the transformative nature of adaptive practices. The COVID-19 pandemic served as a powerful demonstration of these capabilities. As a former CEO reflected: “When the crisis hit, we could see how our previous work paid off. The organization didn't just react—we had developed the capability to adapt quickly while maintaining effectiveness. The consulting helped us build that muscle.” This testament illustrates how intentional organizational development creates resilience that extends far beyond individual strategies or solutions. These adaptive practices represent more than just a set of techniques; they constitute a fundamental reimagining of organizational potential.

Enabling Systemic Integration

Our analysis reveals a sophisticated approach to organizational development that represents a holistic methodology for organizational evolution, recognizing the complex, interconnected nature of organizational life. This section consolidates “multi-level alignment,” “pattern recognition,” and “system embedding” as interrelated dimensions of a broader, well-defined theme of “systemic integration.” Systemic integration ensures that newly developed practices and capabilities become dynamically embedded within the broader organizational system, fostering coherence and sustained transformation.

Multi-Level Alignment

The process of multi-level alignment emerges as a critical dimension of systemic integration, creating meaningful organizational transformation by connecting development across individual, team, and organizational layers. Consultants work carefully to connect individual development directly to broader organizational goals, creating a seamless integration that transforms how organizations understand and leverage human potential. This approach goes beyond traditional alignment strategies, developing a nuanced approach that maintains flexibility while creating meaningful coherence. One executive captured the essence of this approach: “What's unique is how personal development connects to organizational change. The consultant helps us see how individual growth supports team effectiveness, and how that fits into larger organizational patterns. It's much less fragmented now.” This perspective highlights the transformative potential of a truly integrated approach. Another leader further illuminated the practical impact: “We've moved from isolated improvements to systematic change. When we develop new approaches in one area, we now have ways to scale what works while adapting to different contexts. The whole system is learning.” This testimony demonstrates how multi-level alignment creates a more responsive, adaptive organizational ecosystem.

Pattern Recognition

Pattern recognition emerges as a sophisticated cognitive and perceptual dimension of systemic integration, allowing organizations to develop a deeper understanding of their systemic dynamics. This process involves developing an almost intuitive ability to identify recurring organizational patterns, understand complex interconnections, and recognize critical leverage points for meaningful change. A participant described this development with remarkable insight: “The OD division elevates the discourse in our units, helping us think creatively, think outside the box. But it's not just creative thinking—it's understanding how things connect and influence each other across the organization.” This approach transforms organizational understanding from a fragmented perspective to a more holistic, interconnected view, enabling “dynamic pattern engagement” (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

System Embedding

The final dimension of systemic integration involves deeply embedding new practices into the organizational fabric. This goes far beyond surface-level changes, creating fundamental shifts in how the organization thinks, operates, and responds to challenges. The process involves carefully integrating new approaches into formal processes, developing supporting structures, and creating mechanisms that reinforce transformative practices. The mechanism of systemic integration reveals how transformation emerges through the intricate interaction of structural, cultural, and process contexts (Nonaka, 1994; Weick, 1995). Our findings show that transformation is not simply implemented, but emerges through a complex interplay of contextual dimensions. Structural contexts (hierarchical relationships, professional boundaries, and accountability systems), cultural contexts (professional autonomy norms, risk tolerance, and learning orientation), and process contexts (consulting dynamics, development timeframes, and integration mechanisms) provide generative structures that enable productive transformation. By viewing integration as a continuous, interactive process, we illuminate the mechanisms through which organizations simultaneously maintain stability and cultivate innovation (Cameron & Quinn, 2019; O'Reilly & Tushman, 2008). The development of the organization's strategic workplan by 2024 highlighted this profound transformation: “This wasn't just another planning exercise. It represented the culmination of years of development, showing how new ways of thinking and working had become part of our organizational DNA. The plan emerged from our collective learning and showed how we'd developed as a system.” The true power of this approach became particularly evident during challenging periods, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. As one leader reflected: “During COVID, we saw how deeply these new capabilities had become embedded. Our response wasn't just reactive—it drew on systematic ways of working that we'd developed through years of intentional development. The consulting helped us build these practices into our organizational fabric.”

Discussion

Our constructivist grounded theory analysis reveals how OD consulting enables transformation in complex organizations through the intricate interplay of three key mechanisms: adaptive spaces, emergent capabilities, and systemic integration. Through systematic analysis of consulting relationships and organizational transformations over a six-year period (2018–2024), we developed theoretical insights into how OD consulting facilitates meaningful change while maintaining organizational stability.

Theoretical Contributions

Our findings significantly advance the theoretical understanding of organizational transformation in complex systems through several key contributions. The framework extends the complexity theory by demonstrating specific, empirically grounded mechanisms through which organizations can work productively with emergence while maintaining necessary structure. While previous applications of the complexity theory (Stacey, 1995; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007) emphasized the unpredictable nature of organizational change, our findings reveal how organizations create structured conditions enabling productive emergence through the interplay of adaptive spaces, emergent capabilities, and systemic integration. This provides a more nuanced understanding of managing complexity than previously articulated.

The concept of “bounded transformation” is a novel contribution that advances complexity theory by showing how organizations maintain sufficient structure to ensure stability while simultaneously creating conditions for emergence and innovation. This addresses a critical theoretical gap regarding how organizations can practically work with complexity without sacrificing operational effectiveness. Rather than viewing structure and emergence as opposing forces, our research demonstrates that organizations can develop sophisticated approaches to harness complexity productively through “Chaordic” principles (Hock, 1999; Marion & Uhl-Bien, 2001). This approach transforms traditional organizational design by recognizing complexity as a generative force, where structured flexibility becomes a strategic advantage (Snowden & Boone, 2007). As one senior executive noted, “The key is finding ways to innovate without destroying what makes us who we are.”

Our findings also extend existing theories related to each of our core mechanisms:

Adaptive Spaces: This concept builds on Edmondson and Lei's (2014) work on psychological safety, revealing more complex dynamics in how these spaces emerge and function within multi-level organizational systems. While prior research often focused on team-level psychological safety (e.g., Edmondson & Lei, 2014), our data show how OD consulting creates multi-level adaptive spaces that enable exploration while maintaining connection to organizational realities. Trust-based consulting relationships emerge as fundamental enabling conditions, supporting and extending perspectives on process consultation (Schein, 1988). These relationships serve as active mechanisms for co-constructing new organizational possibilities, advancing the dialogic OD theory (Bushe & Marshak, 2015) by demonstrating specific processes through which consultants help organizations reframe constraints as opportunities for innovation. Consultants systematically build psychological safety through practices that normalize uncertainty, reframe challenges as learning opportunities, and create structured spaces for reflection.

Emergent Capabilities: Our analysis reveals capability development as an emergent, non-linear process, supporting complexity theory's emphasis on adaptive emergence (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). Consultants facilitate “structured emergence”—providing flexible frameworks that support capability development while remaining responsive to evolving organizational needs. Recent scholarship (Rashkova et al., 2023) extends this understanding through mindfulness capabilities in organizational adaptation, demonstrating how organizations integrate individual insights with broader organizational practices. Action–reflection cycles in building organizational capabilities extend beyond traditional experiential learning models (Kolb, 2014). Building on Argyris and Schön's work (1978) and triple-loop learning concepts (Tosey et al., 2011), our “nested learning loops” model demonstrates how learning occurs simultaneously across organizational levels. This clarifies how organizations develop a collective ability to handle future challenges, not just the current problems.

Systemic Integration: The framework's third component, systemic integration, extends the open systems theory (Katz & Kahn, 1978) by demonstrating specific mechanisms through which organizations integrate personal, team, and organizational development. Our findings reveal “integrative patterns”—recurring processes that enable organizations to connect different levels of development while maintaining system coherence. Pattern recognition emerges as a critical capability, extending beyond simple systems thinking to “dynamic pattern engagement”—the ability to recognize, understand, and work with emerging organizational patterns (Snowden & Boone, 2007). This provides a more sophisticated understanding of how different parts of the organization influence each other.

Empirical Contributions

This study offers unique empirical contributions through its longitudinal, insider action research approach within a complex public sector organization. The six-year duration (2018–2024) allowed us to observe transformation processes as they unfolded over time, capturing the dynamic and emergent nature of change that cross-sectional studies cannot. Our insider position as a lead researcher and a team of practitioner-consultants provided unparalleled access to rich, nuanced data, enabling a deep contextual understanding of how OD consulting facilitates meaningful change while maintaining organizational stability. This design allowed us to trace the evolution of capabilities and the embedding of new practices, offering a granular view of transformation.

The longitudinal study extends the work by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), demonstrating how organizations can assess transformation across multiple levels while maintaining sensitivity to systemic interactions. This approach supports the findings by Lawrie et al. (2016) on multi-level alignment while extending understanding of how organizations track complex developmental processes over time. The contextual factors revealed through our research—structural, cultural, and process contexts—demonstrate how these mechanisms operate within real-world complex organizational environments, providing essential structure that enables productive change.

Practical Implications

Our findings offer substantial, actionable guidance for OD practitioners and organizational leaders navigating complex transformations.

Foster Adaptive Spaces Deliberately: Consultants should prioritize building trust-based relationships and psychological safety. This involves consistent engagement, demonstrated reliability, normalizing uncertainty, reframing challenges as learning opportunities, and creating structured spaces for reflection and vulnerable dialogue. These actions create the “laboratory” where experimentation and learning can safely occur.

Cultivate Emergent Capabilities Systematically: Focus on facilitating iterative action–reflection cycles. This means guiding organizations to systematically experiment, observe outcomes, and integrate learnings into ongoing practices. Encourage cross-context sharing of insights and support the development of flexible response routines and dynamic resource allocation. The goal is to build the organization's collective ability to adapt and innovate, not just solve immediate problems.

Enable Systemic Integration Continuously: Emphasize multi-level alignment, connecting individual development to broader organizational goals. Help organizations develop “pattern recognition” to understand complex interconnections and identify leverage points for change. Crucially, support the deep embedding of new practices into formal processes and cultural routines, ensuring changes become part of the organization's “DNA” rather than isolated initiatives.

Balance Stability and Innovation: Recognize that effective transformation is often “bounded transformation.” Consultants should help organizations find ways to innovate without compromising essential operational effectiveness, leveraging complexity as a generative force rather than a disruptive one.

Methodological Reflections

Our insider action research approach (Coghlan, 2019), with the lead researcher as head of the OD division, provided unique advantages in accessing rich, longitudinal data and gaining deep contextual understanding. This positioning allowed us to observe transformation processes from within, capturing nuances often missed by external researchers. To manage potential biases inherent in this approach (Drake & Heath, 2010; Herr & Anderson, 2014), we implemented specific rigor measures, as detailed in Appendix C.

Beyond bias management, a critical aspect of our methodology was the peer learning and collaborative practice among the OD consultants involved in the research. Unlike typical freelance engagements where consultants operate independently based on defined output targets, our model fostered a continuous, systemic, and long-term consulting relationship with the organization. This enabled the consulting team to engage in ongoing peer learning, which was crucial for understanding the organization's inherent complexity and for developing a comprehensive systemic picture. This collaborative environment facilitated mutual fertilization of ideas and the collective “cracking” of intricate problems into effective interventions. The process involved continuous observation, collective reflection, mapping action directions, implementing interventions, and ongoing monitoring. This sustained, collaborative consulting model proved to be a significant key to the success of the transformation efforts, allowing for deeper insights and more impactful, embedded change than would be possible through fragmented, short-term engagements.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

While this longitudinal case study provides deep insights into OD consulting in a complex organizational context, its focus on a single Israeli public sector organization limits generalizability. Future research should employ comparative case studies and mixed-method designs to explore transformation processes across multiple organizations, testing specific relationships and capturing nuanced process and outcome measures.

Theoretical development opportunities emerge in several key areas. Researchers should explore the intricate relationships between adaptive spaces and capability development, investigating how different organizational conditions enable or constrain capability emergence. The dynamics of systemic integration, pattern recognition development, and organizational adaptation warrant deeper examination. Emerging research domains include digital transformation's impact on OD consulting, the nature of virtual consulting relationships, and organizational capabilities during complex change contexts. Particular attention is needed to understand how organizations balance multiple transformation initiatives while maintaining coherence and effectively adapting to rapid environmental changes. Capability measurement represents a critical area for future investigation. Scholars should develop comprehensive approaches for assessing organizational transformation, identifying both quantitative and qualitative indicators that capture the complex nature of organizational change. Understanding how organizations can evaluate change readiness and track development across multiple levels would provide valuable theoretical and practical insights.

Conclusion

This study significantly advances the understanding of how Organization Development (OD) consulting facilitates organizational transformation while rigorously maintaining operational stability, a phenomenon termed “bounded transformation.” Derived from a six-year constructivist grounded theory analysis, this research addresses the critical challenge organizations face in balancing continuous evolution with the imperative for operational effectiveness. Our empirically grounded framework demonstrates how three interrelated mechanisms—adaptive spaces, emergent capabilities, and systemic integration—collectively enable this delicate balance.

Adaptive spaces provide dynamic environments where experimentation, learning, and psychological safety are prioritized. Within these spaces, emergent capabilities—new skills, processes, and organizational capacities—develop iteratively through systematic cycles of action and reflection, building lasting transformation capacity. Systemic integration ensures that these changes are embedded deeply and coherently across various organizational levels, structures, and processes. A core contribution, the concept of “multi-modal integration,” elucidates how organizations simultaneously develop and align supporting structures, processes, and cultural elements to ensure sustainable change and coherence. Foundational to this process are trust-based consulting relationships, which establish the psychological safety necessary for exploration while anchoring efforts in organizational realities.

For practitioners, these findings offer actionable insights for designing effective OD interventions. The study underscores the importance of cultivating trust-based relationships, implementing systematic development processes, and fostering conditions that support ongoing organizational learning. Ultimately, this research provides a comprehensive model for how OD consulting enables organizations to navigate the inherent paradox of balancing evolution with operational effectiveness in meeting contemporary challenges.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to express gratitude to the organization and its leadership for providing the conditions that made this study possible. Special thanks are extended to the team of organizational development consultants for their wisdom,sensitivity,and professionalism throughout the transformantion process discribed in this study. The author is also grateful to Dr. Ora Setter as well as to the editor-in-chief and the reviewers of JABS for their insightful guidance and constructive feedback.

ORCID iD

Yinnon Dryzin-Amit

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process

During the preparation of this work,the author used Gemini.ai to assist with editing the wording,formatting tables,and refining the language of this manuscript. After using this tool,the author reviewed and edited all content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the publication.

References

Alvesson

(2022). The triumph of emptiness: Consumption, higher education, and work organization. Oxford University Press.

Arena

M. J.

(2018). Adaptive space: How GM and other companies are positively disrupting themselves and transforming into agile organizations. McGraw Hill LLC.

Argyris

Schön

D. A.

(1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.

Argyris

Schön

D. A.

(1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Addison-Wesley.

Atkinson

Singer

(2020). Managing organizational constraints in innovation teams: A qualitative study across four health systems. Medical Care Research and Review, 78(5), 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558720925993

Avolio

B. J.

Gardner

W. L.

(2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001

Bergen

Labonté

(2018). Everything is perfect, and we have no problems: Detecting and limiting social desirability bias in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 28(12), 2029–2041. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732319889354

Bowen

G. A.

(2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qualitative Research, 8(1), 137–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794107085301

Bridges

Meyer

(2007). Exploring the effectiveness of action research as a tool for organizational change in health care. Journal of Research in Nursing, 12(4), 389–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987107078635

10.

Buchanan

Fitzgerald

Ketley

Gollop

Jones

Lamont

Whitby

(2005). No going back: A review of the literature on sustaining organizational change. International Journal of Management Reviews, 7(3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2005.00111.x

11.

Burnes

(2004). Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of Management Studies, 41(6), 977–1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00463.x

12.

Bushe

G. R.

Marshak

R. J.

(2009). Revisioning organization development: Diagnostic and dialogic premises and patterns of practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(3), 348–368. https://doi.org/10/1177/0021886309335070

13.

Bushe

G. R.

Marshak

R. J.

(2015). Dialogic organization development: The theory and practice of transformational change. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

14.

Caldwell

Hayes

L. A.

(2016). Self-efficacy and self-awareness: Moral insights to increased leader effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 35(9), 1163–1173. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-01-2016-0011

15.

Cameron

K. S.

Quinn

R. E.

(2019). Positive organizational scholarship and agents of change. In Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 27, pp. 31–57). Emerald Publishing Limited.

16.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

17.

Chen

Chang

(2012). The effects of absorptive capacity and decision speed on organizational innovation: A study of organizational structure as an antecedent variable. Contemporary Management Research, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.7903/cmr.7996

18.

Coghlan

(2019). Doing action research in your own organization (5th ed.). Sage.

19.

Crossan

M. M.

Lane

H. W.

White

R. E.

(1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202135

20.

Cummings

T. G.

Worley

C. G.

(2023). Organization development and change (12th ed.). Cengage Learning.

21.

Day

D. V.

Dragoni

(2015). Leadership development: An outcome-oriented review based on time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111328

22.

Decuypere

Pircher Verdorfer

(2022). Leader attentive communication: A new communication concept, validation and scale development. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 29(4), 424–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518221100922

23.

Drake

Heath

(2010). Practitioner research at doctoral level: Developing coherent research methodologies. Routledge.

24.

Edmondson

A. C.

(2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons.

25.

Edmondson

A. C.

Lei

(2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305

26.

Evans

Kivell

(2015). The transformation team: An enabling structure for organizational learning in action. Journal of Community Psychology, 43(6), 760–777. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.21756

27.

Fernandez

Rainey

H. G.

(2017). Managing successful organizational change in the public sector. In Debating public administration (pp. 7–26). Routledge.

28.

Glaser

Strauss

(2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Routledge.

29.

Hayes

(2022). The theory and practice of change management. Bloomsbury Publishing.

30.

Heifetz

Grashow

Linsky

(2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.

31.

Herr

Anderson

G. L.

(2014). The action research dissertation: A guide for students and faculty (2nd ed.). Sage.

32.

Hock

(1999). Birth of the chaordic age. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

33.

Liu

Skitmore

(2022). External consultant involvement for organizational capability building in complex construction projects: A perspective from interorganizational learning process. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 148(1). https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0002216

34.

Katz

Kahn

R. L.

(1978). Classics of Organization Theory (2nd ed). Wiley.

35.

Kirkpatrick

J. D.

Kirkpatrick

W. K.

(2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation. ATD Press.

36.

Kolb

D. A.

(2014). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (2nd ed.). FT Press.

37.

Kotera

(2017). A qualitative investigation into the experience of neuro-linguistic programming certification training among Japanese career consultants. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 46(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2017.1320781

38.

Kram

K. E.

(1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life. University Press of America.

39.

Lagowska

Sobral

Tavares

(2022). Joint effects of shared and transformational leadership on performance in street-level bureaucracies: Evidence from the educational sector. Public Administration Review, 82(6), 1042–1057. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13526

40.

Lawrie

Abdullah

N. A.

Bragg

Varlet

(2016). Multi-level strategic alignment within a complex organisation. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(4), 889–910. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-11-2014-0085

41.

Marion

Uhl-Bien

(2001). Leadership in complex organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 12(4), 389–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(01)00092-3

42.

Mathieu

J. E.

Heffner

T. S.

Goodwin

G. F.

Salas

Cannon-Bowers

J. A.

(2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273

43.

Morel

Ramanujam

(1999). Through the looking glass of complexity: The dynamics of organizations as adaptive and evolving systems. Organization Science, 10(3), 278–293. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.10.3.278

44.

Narcizo

R. B.

Canen

A. G.

Tammela

(2017). A conceptual framework to represent the theoretical domain of ‘innovation capability’ in organizations. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 13(1), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.7341/20171316

45.

Newstead

Dawkins

Macklin

Martin

(2021). We don't need more leaders—We need more good leaders. Advancing a virtues-based approach to leader (ship) development. The Leadership Quarterly, 32(5), 101312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j/leaqua.2019.101312

46.

Nikolova

Möllering

Reihlen

(2015). Trusting as a ‘leap of faith’: Trust-building practices in client-consultant relationships. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 31(2), 232–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2014.09.007

47.

Nonaka

(1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14

48.

O'Reilly

C. A.

Tushman

M. L.

(2008). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002

49.

Palm

Lilja

(2017). Key enabling factors for organizational ambidexterity in the public sector. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 9(1), 2–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-04-2016-0038

50.

Putri

Adnan

(2022). The adaptive science communication model in the middle of VUCA era in Indonesia: Study of startup Kok Bisa. Informasi, 52(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.21831/informasi.v52i1.42399

51.

Quinn

R. E.

Cameron

K. S.

(1988). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Ballinger Publishing Co/Harper & Row Publishers.

52.

Rashkova

Moi

Cabiddu

(2023). Addressing the societal challenges in organizations: The conceptualization of mindfulness capability for social justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 189(2), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05357-5

53.

Ravitch

S. M.

Carl

N. M.

(2019). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological. Sage.

54.

Schein

E. H.

(1988). Process consultation: Its role in organization development (Vol. 1). Addison-Wesley.

55.

Schön

(1983). The reflective practitioner. Temple Smith.

56.

Scott

W. R.

Davis

G. F.

(2015). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural and open systems perspectives. Routledge.

57.

Seidle

Fernandez

Perry

J. L.

(2016). Do leadership training and development make a difference in the public sector? A panel study. Public Administration Review, 76(4), 603–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12531

58.

Senge

P. M.

(1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.

59.

Shimoni

(2017). Bringing agency and social structure back into organization development: Toward a practice of habitus consulting. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(2), 208–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317748935

60.

Singh

Jha

(2023). Team innovation: The role of team capabilities and team decision-making. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 43(4), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.22243

61.

Snowden

D. J.

Boone

M. E.

(2007). A leader's framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68–76, 149. https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framwork-for-decision-making

62.

Stacey

R. D.

(1995). The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes. Strategic Management Journal, 16(6), 477–495. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160606

63.

Sull

D. N.

Eisenhardt

K. M.

(2015). Simple rules: How to thrive in a complex world. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

64.

Tosey

Visser

Saunders

(2011). The origins and conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’ learning: A critical review. Management Learning, 43(3), 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507611426239

65.

Trowler

(2016). Doing insider research in universities. Createspace Independent Publishing Platform.

66.

Tsoukas

Chia

(2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, 13(5), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.5.567.7810

67.

Uhl-Bien

Marion

McKelvey

(2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002

68.

Weick

K. E.

(1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications.

69.

Werkman

(2010). Reinventing organization development: How a sensemaking perspective can enrich OD theories and interventions. Journal of Change Management, 10(4), 421–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2010.516489

70.

Zehir

Karaca

(2023). A research competing model of organizational culture, organizational learning, management innovation and NPD: Evidence from technology firms. Business and Management Studies: An International Journal, 11(2), 696–714. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v11i2.2221