 The work of Kurt Lewin dominated the theory and practice of change management for over 40 years. However, in the past 20 years, Lewin's approach to change, particularly the 3-Step model, has attracted major criticisms. The key ones are that his work: assumed organizations operate in a stable state; was only suitable for small-scale change projects; ignored organizational power and politics; and was top-down and management-driven. This article seeks to re-appraise Lewin's work and challenge the validity of these views. It begins by describing Lewin's background and beliefs, especially his commitment to resolving social conflict. The article then moves on to examine the main elements of his Planned approach to change: Field Theory; Group Dynamics; Action Research; and the 3-Step model. This is followed by a brief summary of the major developments in the field of organizational change since Lewin's death which, in turn, leads to an examination of the main criticisms levelled at Lewin's work. The article concludes by arguing that rather than being outdated or redundant, Lewin's approach is still relevant to the modern world.

Complexity theory or, more appropriately, theories, serves as an umbrella term for a number of theories, ideas and research programmes that are derived from scientific disciplines such as meteorology, biology, physics, chemistry and mathematics. Complexity theories are increasingly being seen by academics and practitioners as a way of understanding and changing organizations. The aim of this paper is to review the nature of complexity theories and their importance and implications for organizations and organizational change. It begins by showing how perspectives on organizational change have altered over the last 20 years. This is followed by an examination of complexity theories and their implications for organizational change. The paper concludes by arguing that, even in the natural sciences, the complexity approach is not fully developed or unchallenged, and that, as yet, organization theorists do not appear to have moved beyond the stage of using it as metaphor rather than as a mathematical way of analysing and managing organizations

Purpose - The aim of this paper is to develop a research agenda for risk and supply chain management. This is achieved by reviewing the literature on supply chain risk and locating it within the general literature on risk. Design/methodology/approach - A review of the general literature on risk and the specific literature on supply chain risk was undertaken. Findings - The paper shows that there are a number of key debates in the general literature on risk, especially in terms of qualitative versus quantitative approaches, which need to be recognised by those seeking to apply risk theory and risk management approaches to supply chains. In addition, the paper shows that the application of risk theory to supply chain management is still in its early stages and that the models of supply chain risk which have been proposed need to be tested empirically. Research limitations/implications - This is a literature review and, therefore, is based on secondary rather than primary sources. Practical implications - The paper proposes a research agenda aimed at developing models of supply chain risk management based on combining the wider theory and practice of risk management with the needs and practices of supply chain management. Originality/value - This paper brings together the literatures on general risk and supply chain risk; and identifies key issues and research questions which need to be addressed in applying risk management to supply chains

States that the ability to manage change is now recognized as a core organizational competence, and this is reflected in the large number of books and articles devoted to prescribing how success in this area can be achieved. Notes that although these prescriptions may vary significantly, they all tend to argue that their way is the "one best way" for all organizations. Challenges the idea that there can be a "one best way" and instead seeks to replace prescription with choice. Begins by reviewing the two main models of change -the planned and emergent approachesbefore moving on to discuss the merits of adopting a contingency model of change. However, argues that such an approach does not offer real choice: instead it merely seeks to replace one set of prescriptions with another. Concludes by calling for a recognition that organizations do have real choices in what they change and how they change it.

No abstract