Unfortunately, it is not only a matter that stabilization (and statics) is viewed as boring and frankly ultra-conservative; it is also the matter that stabilization is frequently viewed in the negative — as the absence of change or as inaction. Effective stabilization must instead be conceived, like effective change, as a proactive, planned process. Ironically, some form of Level Two change is often required if leaders of an organization are to be reflective about the stabilization option. A specific stabilization strategy is explicitly selected as an appropriate means of achieving a specific goal in an organization. It is not to be equated with resistance to change. The latter is rarely either systematic enough or explicitly or practically linked to central goals of the organization. The former requires reflection and systematic planning.
Any planned change effort (at least at Level One) involves some attempt to modify the speed with which any transitions or transformations in the organization are currently taking place. Conversely, stabilization (and Level Two change) often involves reflection on the impact of these transitions and transformations and involves attempts to minimize variability in this speed. It is not an attempt to prevent the ongoing transition or transformation. A corporation, for instance, has instituted a major performance management program. This initiative requires all managers, directors and vice presidents to identify and provide quarterly reports on specific performance goals. The corporate leaders may wish to adopt a stabilization strategy that prevents other pressures acting on the corporation from provoking other changes that might distract from the performance management initiative. The administrator of a large urban hospital decides to devote most of her attention during the coming month to insuring that a new billing system is being properly installed in a systematic and timely manner. All of these exemplify proactive, planned stabilization in an organization.
When is stabilization appropriate? After an organization has been exposed to repeated change that is either unplanned or has had a significant impact, a process of stabilization is usually appropriate. For instance, a company that has hired (and fired) four business managers over the past three years may want to clarify the role to be played by this person before selecting yet another new manager, Similarly, a complex curricular reform process at a small liberal arts college usually should be followed by a period of stabilization during which monitoring and strengthening of the curricular reform occurs.
