Just finished reading about organizational development (OD) as a method of managing changes in business. The culture-relevant concerns caught my attention. Apparently different cultures view the existence and management of change with different assumptions. In practice, I seem to manage people and my external environment using Western methodologies (Lewinian/OD, below), while internally I confront personal change using Eastern techniques (Confucian/Taoist). I found it interesting that I’ve been doing both without previously being familiar with the distinction. Maybe there is value in mixing things up a little?

Lewinian/OD Assumptions: Change is…

• Linear (movement from past to present to future)
• Progressive (new state more desirable)
• Goal oriented (specific end state in mind)
• Based on creating disequilibrium (by altering current field of forces)
• Planned and managed by people separate from the change itself (application of techniques to achieve desired ends)
• Unusual (assumption of static of semi-static state outside of a change process)

Confucian/Taoist Assumptions: Change is…

• Cyclical (constant ebb and flow)
• Processional (harmonious movement from one state to another)
• Journey oriented (cyclical change, therefore, no end state)
• Based on maintaining equilibrium (achieve natural harmony)
• Observed and followed by involved people (who constantly seek harmony with their universe)
• Usual (assumption of constant change as, in the  yin-yang philosophy, each new order contains its own negation)