B9. What has changed, how it is sustained and whether it is responsible

Normative working definition in this essay: Radical Change denotes a fundamental reorientation of business leadership, actually lived in practice, towards responsible entrepreneurship that takes the well-being of those affected seriously and takes responsibility for economic viability. The definition states the essay's personal position, not an already empirically confirmed relationship between good intentions and good outcomes.

Neutral analytical concept: Fundamental reorientation denotes a change in assumptions guiding action that is adopted by relevant participants, institutionally embedded in changed practice and sustained over a specified period. This analytical perspective does not declare every such change morally good.

The two statements answer different questions. The first identifies the desired direction. The second describes what is investigated as fundamental change. A change initiated in the name of everyone's well-being may have unexpected or harmful consequences. Such consequences are not made invisible by retrospectively changing the label. Declared intention, lived orientation and observed effect remain separate.

The expression is used by the author in a limited sense, rather than as a universally applicable redefinition of change research. Theories of learning, culture and motivation already address many of its components. The additional ethical direction is a position of the author requiring justification, not a moral truth proved by P1 to P4.

Four observations can be distinguished in the fictional delegation example from Part A: the managing director explains responsibility differently; she personally supports the new orientation; employees receive and use appropriate authority; and this practice continues subsequently. Only afterwards is a separate examination made of whether decisions, customer benefit and workload have actually improved. The distinctions below make this simple line of thought more precise.

Four characteristics and three areas of impact

Endurance over time is assessed only after a specified observation period. It is then a characteristic of the change described, not proof of its subsequent effects. A later failure must not be used to remove the previously observed change retrospectively from the investigation.

First, a fundamental difference from the starting situation is required. We must be able to identify which earlier assumption has lost its guiding role. «We now call it agile» is no more sufficient than a changed logo or an unchanged business model expressed in new language. The changed assumption may become visible in a new logic of responsibility, altered success criteria or the treatment of customers' statements.

Second, there must be indications of actual adoption by the relevant participants. Which roles are relevant to the process under investigation is justified before analysis. The selection must not subsequently be restricted to those who agree. The issue is not a prescribed private attitude. Different personal motives can support the same shared practice. What matters is whether people can explain and uphold the new orientation in relevant situations without every individual matter having to be dictated by authority.

Third, the reorientation must demonstrate changed practice and institutional embedding: decision-making rights that are used, rules that are implemented, incentive systems and lived relationships. A formally issued document that is not used is insufficient evidence.

Fourth, this practice must persist over an observation period specified in advance. «Lasting» does not mean immutable for all eternity. An assessment after six or twelve months specified before the start is more informative than retrospectively selecting precisely those points in time that show the hoped-for finding.

Three possible consequences must be investigated separately from these four characteristics: a) improved or diminished capacity for action and correction, b) business goals actually achieved or missed, and c) economic, human and ecological effects. A profound reorientation can exist while simultaneously being ineffective or harmful. Goals can also be achieved without fundamental reorientation.

Ability, time and information are prerequisites. Examining an earlier assumption is a process. Authority that is distributed differently and actually used is a finding. Improved or diminished performance is a possible consequence. The following model records these distinctions; it does not require every conversation to work through all the fields in sequence.

The model: conditions, processes, findings, consequences

The analytical model distinguishes four fields. These do not form a compulsory chronological staircase. Setbacks, parallel actions and interactions are possible.

Within this picture, SRC denotes a possible context of strain in which the capacity to steer may be at risk. It is not the second stage preceding a fundamental reorientation. Equally, a fundamental reorientation can begin in good times. Its connection with external pressure for change is a question of effects, not a prerequisite for using the concept.

A supplementary two-dimensional conceptual framework can set current steering capacity against openness to examining one's own assumptions. Neither dimension has been quantitatively validated in this manuscript, so they should not be presented as a traffic-light score. An organisation can perform well while being minimally reflective; another may understand its problems well but lack the means to implement change. This conceptual framework formulates comparative questions. It is not a validated classification scale for companies.

In everyday language: P1 asks whether personally supporting the change helps implementation. P2 asks whether a changed underlying assumption resolves a particular blockage. P3 asks about the interplay between commitment to goals and actual capacity for criticism. P4 asks whether the practice persists without intensive support. These are research questions, not four compulsory steps or four proven rules of success.

Scientific specification

The following statements are our own theory-informed hypotheses. The sources named provide individual conceptual connections, rather than confirmation of each statement as a whole. Before field testing, comparative cases, data quality, analytical methods and relevant differences must be established. Words such as «more likely» express probabilistic expectations: a single failure does not automatically refute them.

P1: Early adoption and organisational support

Hypothesis: Under comparable demands and conditions of support, adoption of the new orientation recorded early is associated with later application. In addition, it is examined whether appropriate authority, resources and incentives alter this relationship.

Separate observation: At the starting point, task-related explanations are collected without already including subsequent application in the assessment of adoption. Organisational support is documented separately. Actual episodes of application are examined later.

Serious counterfinding: With adequate measurement and suitable comparisons, early adoption explains no additional difference beyond resources, authority and initial practice. A null finding may also be due to unsuitable measurement or limited variation between cases; it must be treated neither automatically as confirmation nor as definitive refutation. Theoretical connections: Gagné and Deci (2005); Weiner (2009).

P2: A specific assumption loses its guiding role

Hypothesis: Under comparable conditions, revising an assumption guiding action that was identified in advance as potentially obstructive is accompanied by a reduction in the corresponding decision-making blockage.

Separate observation: The assumption is reconstructed, for example, through earlier explanations. The blockage is recorded independently through decisions that have actually gone unaddressed. Only then is it examined whether the assumption and the blockage change. The suspected cause is not described as established from the outset.

Serious counterfinding: In suitable comparative cases, the assumption loses its guiding role while the blockage persists under otherwise comparable conditions; or additional capacity removes the blockage while the assumption remains unchanged. Individual deviations must be assessed in relation to measurement quality, case conditions and further explanations. Such findings limit the specific explanatory contribution without excluding every possible effect of underlying assumptions. Theoretical connections: Argyris (1977) and Bartunek and Moch (1987), each within the documented scope of review. The Nystrom-Starbuck reference is not counted as additional verified evidence.

P3: Commitment to goals under conditions permitting correction

Hypothesis: Where capabilities are available and access to countervailing information can actually be used, stronger commitment to goals is associated with better handling of critical decision-making episodes. «Better» is assessed using criteria established in advance, such as reasoned revision and subsequent performance capacity, rather than speed alone.

Separate observation: Commitment to goals, uptake of information that challenges the prevailing view and actual resources are recorded before the outcome. Dissent that is merely officially permitted does not constitute evidence that it is used.

Serious counterfinding: In appropriate comparative cases, stronger commitment to goals provides no advantage despite the supporting conditions being met, or systematically less favourable outcomes appear. By contrast, strong commitment combined with suppressed dissent does not directly refute the conditional hypothesis: it first shows that one of its conditions is absent. It does, however, contradict the unconditional claim that more commitment is always better. Theoretical connections: Weiner (2009); Bartunek and Moch (1987); Rafferty (n.d.).

P4: Distributed ownership and subsequent persistence

Hypothesis: Ownership documented early across several relevant roles, together with appropriate institutional rules, contributes to the later use of a new practice beyond the period of intensive support.

Separate observation: The initial assessment describes roles, reasoned support and authority being used, rather than already describing subsequent persistence. After support is withdrawn, actual practice is examined again. Changes in personnel, technology and resources are recorded separately.

Serious counterfinding: Comparable subsequent persistence is fully explained by technology, control or personnel selection; ownership measured early makes no additional contribution. A single technologically supported case that also remains stable is not sufficient to establish this. Conversely, subsequent persistence does not retrospectively prove inner adoption. Limited theoretical connections: the factor model of Burke and Litwin (1992, abstract) and Weiner's (2009) theory of shared readiness for change, which was read directly. The additional relationship with persistence after the withdrawal of support remains our hypothesis.

A statement by management does not automatically represent the whole organisation. For their concept of organisational readiness, Shea et al. (2014, section «Conceptual framework») require group-referenced questions, multiple respondents from the same unit and an examination of agreement before aggregation. This methodological warning is relevant to our proposal, but does not make it ORIC.

Our application in the proposed investigation: The organisational unit, the initiative and the roles required to carry it out are specified in advance. Different functions, levels of responsibility and dissenting assessments are included. Where findings conflict, an average is not used to invent a shared attitude. Instead, differences, their consequences for cooperation and the limits of the evidence base are described. Shared practice does not require identical private motives.

A company can change its rules through staff turnover without the same people changing their orientation. A person can rethink their position without being able to change their organisation. Individual and organisational change are therefore recorded separately. Moreover, «not evidenced» is not the same as «not present»: missing or contradictory data receive an open status, rather than an automatically negative score.

The following procedure is our own proposal for later investigation, not an already tested instrument. It allows the theoretical question to be addressed within a bounded episode of change without testing people's religious or moral attitudes.

Baseline record: Before the start, the goal, previous assumption guiding action, existing practice, affected unit, relevant roles and possible alternative explanations are recorded in writing. Statements are dated and attributed to sources. An inconvenient baseline finding must not later be deleted because it disrupts the desired story.

Time points: One possible schedule comprises T0 before the intervention, T1 at introduction, T2 after six months and T3 after twelve months. These intervals are planning assumptions, not scientifically confirmed thresholds. Changes to the observation plan are justified, rather than aligned with the desired outcome. Relapses and discontinuation are part of the trajectory.

Material: For each period, comparable decision-making episodes, several role-specific conversations, rules actually used and resource allocations are recorded. Episodes are selected according to substantive criteria formulated in advance, rather than exclusively on the basis of success. A self-report evidences the explanation expressed; minutes evidence a documented decision; the action carried out requires its own evidence.

Analysis: First, the four characteristics of the working concept are assessed as a descriptive profile. This is followed by a separate examination of implementation, goal attainment, correction and side effects. Every classification includes supporting observations, counterfindings and unresolved points. An independent second perspective can review the interpretation; this version does not claim that such a review has already taken place. No aggregate score is introduced.

Comparison: An additional explanatory contribution requires cases or episodes in which the hypothesised early conditions vary in strength. Resources, personnel movements, technological changes, demand and institutional constraints are retained as competing explanations. A before-and-after difference alone does not identify a cause. Qualitative process analysis can provide indications of the mechanism, provided it also examines counterevidence and rival explanations.

Protection and responsibility: Only work-related information needed for the agreed question is recorded. Private religious convictions and intimate motives are not the subject of the proposal. Access, retention, consent or another permissible basis, and purpose of use would have to be clarified separately before actual data collection. This manuscript neither conducts interviews nor grants research approval.

The proposal can structure the examination of a change and make unsupported equivalences visible. At present, it cannot specify a general threshold, probability of success or effect of a particular consultancy intervention. A conceptual contribution is nevertheless possible: its quality lies in intelligible concepts, appropriate sources, limited conclusions and questions that can actually be investigated. Only a subsequent investigation could assess its additional empirical value.

P1 to P4 examine possible relationships between orientation and practice. They do not measure whether a company is honourable. The normative orientation is therefore supplemented with separate questions: who is affected? Which burdens remain invisible? Whose interests have been heard? Which protective boundaries must not be relinquished even for a good purpose? Who can challenge the assessment?

This is our own qualitative aid to reflection, not a validated ethics scale. Those indirectly affected and the natural foundations of life can also form part of the deliberation. The well-being of owners belongs alongside that of employees, customers and partners. Not all interests can be satisfied simultaneously. Acting responsibly requires a transparent weighing of considerations and examination of subsequent consequences, rather than a claim of complete harmony.

A process that performs well economically may serve a problematic purpose. A morally understandable intention may be poorly implemented organisationally. And an established responsible practice can be maintained without fundamental change. These three countercases prevent process maturity, ethical quality and depth of change from collapsing into a single ranking.