The implementation phase consists of all the activity on the “technical” side of the innovation after the initial experiment up to the point where the new management innovation is first fully operational. [The] description of this phase involves making sense of the actions of internal and external change agents in implementing an in vivo new practice, as well as understanding the ways existing employees react to it and influence its implementation ( Lewin, 1951 ).

Internal change agents. Figure A4 (Appendix A) indicates two primary activities that internal change agents engage in as they attempt to implement an in vivo new practice. One is trial and error, in which progress is achieved by monitoring and making adjustments against the original concept. The other activity is reflective experimenting, in which internal change agents evaluate progress against their broader body of experience. For example, Stjernberg and Philips made the following observation about how such individuals can be most effective:

As the [innovation] attempt proceeds, he [the internal change agent] needs to be able to learn from the consequences of his own actions and to alter these actions accordingly. He will be more capable of seeing and learning how to manage the change and the learning dilemmas if he has a well-developed capacity for reflection ( Stjernberg and Philips, 1993: p. 1199 ).

Organizational context also plays an important role in facilitating or inhibiting the implementation of new ideas. Zbaracki (1998) observed that the reaction of employees to implementing new management practices is generally negative: they are likely to be intimidated by innovations, particularly if the innovations have a significant technical component and the employees are mostly ignorant of their potential benefits. But the cultural perspective on management innovation suggests employees’ reactions will also vary according to their personal circumstances and the immediate work environment in which they are placed. The implementation process is therefore likely to involve careful maneuvering by internal change agents as they focus their efforts on those parts of the organization that are more amenable to change [Emphasis added]. As the literature on technological innovation describes, such tactics include pursuing corridors of indifference through the organization, building coalitions of senior executives to support their ideas, framing innovation as an opportunity and not a threat, accessing resources beyond the individual’s control, and maintaining a generally tenacious and persistent attitude.

Taken as a whole, the literature suggests that implementation transpires through a dialectical process ( Van de Ven & Poole, 1995 ). Internal change agents try out the proposed new practice, and they evaluate its progress against the original idea (trial and error), its conceptual validity (reflective experimenting), and the reactions of other employees (i.e., the organizational context). Some aspects of the new practice may prove to be unworkable, and the reactions of employees may in some cases be directly opposed to what is being pursued. But after several iterations, an outcome will often emerge that is a synthesis of the opposing forces. In other cases, the internal resistance generated by various aspects of the organizational context may be sufficiently strong that the experimental new practice does not get taken forward at all.

External change agents. The role played by external change agents in the implementation phase is less clear-cut than in other phases. External change agents lack deep contextual knowledge of the focal organization, as well as the accountability for results that most internal change agents face, so they rarely play an active role in actually implementing new ideas in vivo. However, we suggest they potentially play a critical indirect role in making management innovation happen.

The essence of the external change agent’s role is to create a thought experiment (analogous to an in vitro experiment performed by a biologist before a new molecule is tried out in vivo in a live body). External change agents draw from their prior experience (reflective theorizing) and their deep knowledge of a particular conceptual domain (e.g., an academic discipline or a functional competency) to sharpen their new idea (idea refining), and on the basis of the insights gained, they attempt to influence and direct the implementation efforts of the internal change agents (idea testing). There is some evidence of what this set of activities looks like in practice. For example, Stjernberg and Philips (1993) highlight the roles external change agents play as facilitators and sounding boards, and Kaplan (1998) provides a thoughtful account of his own experiences in this area.

These activities can be thought of as a form of action research—where the aim is to “build theories within the practice context itself, and test them there through intervention experiments” ( Argyris & Schön, 1991: p. 86 ). In terms of our framing [see Figure A4, Appendix A], the external change agent therefore plays a dual role, oscillating back and forth between his or her thought experiment about what might make sense in the world of management ideas and the in vivo implementation of what actually works in the world of practice. This dual role potentially offers great insights to both worlds.