The Difference Between Change and Transformation: Importance of Etymology in Understanding Organizational Action

In a world in which words are purged of their meaning, we can only see the difficulty we have in qualifying, in apprehending complexity.

Regarding change and transformation, let’s go back to the etymologies!

To change comes from the Latin “cambiare” (“to exchange”). Le Littré tells us that it is a question in particular of “giving up one thing for another, taking in exchange”. To transform comes from the Latin “transformare” which means “to metamorphose”, that is to say to modify the form.

This return to etymologies allows us to highlight a fundamental difference between the two words:
• “Change” seems to describe a process whose outcome can be known in advance,
• “Transforming” seems to describe a process that is little or not visible but whose result can only be seen a posteriori (sanction of success or failure).

So in a company:

• We can therefore say that the structures are changing (tools, processes, procedures, organization charts, operating methods, etc.)
• However, behaviors and modes of operation (which are invisible) are changing.
• From this point of view, to change is to pass from a state A to a state B (state B being often known in advance).
• To transform is to modify the modes of operation, the behaviors, the modes of regulation with regard to reality which, in essence, is constantly renewed. Modes of operation and behaviors resist instrumental tools and therefore prescription.
• To transform, it may be necessary to change (tools, processes…) but the reverse is not necessarily true.

Consequently, in order to transform, in addition to changes in tools, processes, etc., it is necessary to establish the conditions which allow individuals, despite the contingencies of reality, to have the adequate capacities and the practical wisdom necessary to negotiate, to wisely, with reality. Transforming therefore means continually orchestrating the conditions for a fruitful dialogue with reality.

If we want to be rigorous, we can say that it is possible to be an expert in change but certainly not an expert in transformation like the wedding planner is not an expert in love. Love like transformation cannot be prescribed.

Such a distinction sheds new light on collective action in organizations and the methodological shortcomings of so-called “change management” approaches that are essentially instrumental, that is to say underpinned by a mechanistic logic of the organization, men having to respond to technical impulses.