The Yin and Yang of Change: Systemic Efficacy in Change Management

  • Louis Klein
  • Thomas S. L. Wong


Efficacy in change management is an issue. Western change management approaches are well elaborated in the mechanics of change. A broader perspective on efficiency and effectiveness is rare. The “Yin and Yang of Change” brings together systemic approaches and Chinese philosophy to draft a broader perspective on efficacy, sustainability and viability of change processes. The research on systemic efficacy in change management starts with the five Tai phases leading to Tai Chi and the model of Yin and Yang. The systemic counterbalance focuses on distinction theory in reference to George Spencer-Brown’s Laws of Form and Niklas Luhmann’s Theory of Social Systems (TSS). As a first result we can distinguish between:
  • Yin-Change: cold change, continuous improvement, integration

  • Yang-Change: hot change, innovation, transformation

Change management, as a conclusion to this first finding, needs to distinguish and to balance the two sides of change, innovation and continuous improvement, to realise efficacy, viability and sustainability.


Change Process Continuous Improvement Change Management Marked State Systemic Practice 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ashby, W. R. (1965). Introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Bateson, G. (1972). Ökologie des Geistes. Anthropologische, psychologische, biologische und epistemologische Perspektiven. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 6. Aufl. 1996. (Original: Bateson, G. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution and Epistemology, 1972).Google Scholar
  3. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  4. Cheng, Y. (1988). I Ching: The book of change. Boston/London: Shambhala Publications. 2003.Google Scholar
  5. Clausewitz, C. von. (1832–1834, 2008). Vom Kriege . Hamburg: Nikol.Google Scholar
  6. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Foucault, M. (1969). Archäologie des Wissen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 2002.Google Scholar
  8. Harry, M. J. (1988). The nature of six sigma quality. Rolling Meadows, Illinois: Motorola University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Holman, P., Devane, T., & Cady, S. (Eds.). (2007). The change handbook. The definite resource on today’s best methods for engaging whole systems. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers (2nd ed, revised and expanded).Google Scholar
  10. Ishikawa, K. (1981). What is total quality control? The Japanese way. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. 1985.Google Scholar
  11. Jones, A. (2008). The innovation acid test. Axminster: Triarchy Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jullien, F. (1996). Über die Wirksamkeit. Berlin: Merve. 1999. (Original: Traité de léfficacité, 1996).Google Scholar
  13. Klein, L. (2002, 2006). Corporate Consulting. Eine systemische Evaluation interner Beratung. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer-Systeme, 2. überarbeitete und erweiterte Aufl.Google Scholar
  14. Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn, T. (1962, 1970). Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2. revidierte und um das Postskriptum von 1969 ergänzte Aufl., 1996, 13. Aufl.Google Scholar
  16. Lockwood, T. (Ed.). (2010). Design thinking. Integrating innovation, customer experience, and brand value. New York: Allworth Press.Google Scholar
  17. Luhmann, N. (1984). Social systems . Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995. (Original: Soziale Systeme. Grundriß einer allgemeinen Theorie, 1984)Google Scholar
  18. Martin, R. (2009). The design of business. Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  19. Spencer-Brown, G. (1969). Laws of form – Gesetze der Form. Lübeck: Bohmeier, 1997. (Original: Laws of Form, 1969).Google Scholar
  20. Sun Zi [Sunzi/Sun, Wu] ca. 500 BC, (1999). Die Kunst des Krieges. München: Droemersche Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar
  21. Varga von Kibet, M., & Matzka, R. (1993). Motive und Grundgedanken der “Gesetze der Form”. In D. Baecker (Ed.), Kalkül der Form (pp. 58–85). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  22. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophische Untersuchungen. Kritisch-genetische Edition. Herausgegeben von Joachim Schulte, Frankfurt am Main: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2001.Google Scholar
  23. Wong, T., & Pavlika, V. (2007). A methodology for the integration of ancient and modern system theories – the portal for the 2000 year old Taichi Yin-Yang system theory. In Proceedings of the 51st meeting of the International Society for the systems sciences – Integrated systems sciences: systems thinking, modelling and practice. Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, 5–10 Aug 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Systemic Excellence GroupBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Ancient Balance Medicine Education CenterHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations