The four quadrant model of organization change Boddy and Buchanan

The four quadrant model of organization change Boddy and Buchanan
Background

The four-quadrant model of organizational Change was developed by David Buchanan an Emeritus Professor of Organizational Behavior at Cranfield University School of Management, and David Boddy a Research Fellow at the Adam Smith Business School University of Glasgow. 

The review of the model is based on the book “The Expertise of the Change Agent” Public Performance and Backstage Activity” published in 1992. 

The model can help you understand the organization’s response to the change you implement. 

In the model, you must see yourself as a change agent. This is a tool that all change agents, often also called project managers, can use in projects.

About the model

The model consists of four quadrants that classify the nature of change itself seen from the view of the affected individuals. Now lets us review the construction of the model.

The model consists or two dimensions. One placed vertically and the other placed horizontally.

The vertical dimension differentiates between change perceived as radical in the top of the model and change perceived as incremental in the bottom of the model.

The horizontal dimension differentiates between change perceived as peripheral to the primary task of the organization on the right side of the model and change perceived as affecting the core tasks of the organization on the left side of the model.

The two dimensions form a matrix consisting of four quadrants; numbered from one to four. 

Two factors are recurring in all four quadrants. 

The hassle factor is about the volume of frustration, conflict, and time-consuming technical and organizational issues the change agent will meet from the people involved in the change.

The “vulnerability” factor is about the potential damage to the change agent’s reputation and career opportunities, if the changes fail. Each of the four quadrants is reviewed in the following sections.

In Quadrant one in the upper right corner, change is perceived as radical, but the change is also perceived as peripheral to the primary task of the organization. The” hassle factor” is likely to be moderate. You will have moderate resistance from the organization and only from those who become directly involved. The change is perceived as having limited impact on the overall business of the organization. The changes are also likely to be reversible, or capable of deflection. The personal “vulnerability” for the change agent is, therefore, likely to be low, in terms of the potential damage to the reputation and career prospects should things go wrong.

In Quadrant two in the lower right corner, change is perceived as incremental, but the change is also perceived as peripheral to the primary task of the organization. The” hassle factor” is probably low. The changes are likely to be reversible or at least capable of adaptation to meet specific complaints and interests. The personal “vulnerability” for the change agent is, therefore, likely to be very low.

In Quadrant three in the lower-left corner, change is perceived as an incremental departure from existing arrangements. Still, the change is also perceived as affecting the core of the organization’s activity. To the extent that the content of the changes reflects incremental departures from current arrangements, the hassle factor is probably low. However, time-scales and budgets are likely to come under more scrutiny by management. The changes are likely to be less easily reversed, and the penalties for error are likely to be higher than in the first two quadrants. The personal vulnerability for the change agent is, therefore, moderate. 

In Quadrant four in the upper-left corner, change is perceived as a radical departure from existing arrangements and is perceived to affect the organization’s core activity. The change is most likely to present the change agent with multiple implementation problems, both organizational and technical. The hassle factor is properly high. Timescales and budgets are likely to be critical. The changes are likely to involve irreversible long-term commitments. The penalties for error will, therefore, be high. The personal vulnerability for the change agent is thus likely to be correspondingly high. 

Criticism of the model

There is no fixed definition of when it comes to peripheral and core or incremental and radical

The model provides no instructions on how to attack the situation in the various quadrants

The model does not consider that there may be different perceptions in the same organization whether it is a good or bad change

The model does not give a clear indication of when or how often you need to re-evaluate the location of your project

The advantage of the model is that you get a clear sense of how the participants involved are seeing the change