We're now going to jump right into the different change process classifications that occur over time. We're going to be looking at the proactive versus reactive change processes. But we're going to use a timeline here that also looks at cumulative change from no change to more change later, so that we can illustrate how the different change processes occur. In the proactive change. We've got the planned or the proactive, in that we have a beginning point and we actually plan a trajectory of where we want to go with the change initiative. However, there's also the reactive change or the reactionary the unplanned.
This is where we postpone the change, pressures build and then we have to later react. Eventually we're going to be getting to the same place In either approach, the key is how much pain you incur before you take the reactive initiation of change, versus planning for it and moving the organization through it in a more orderly manner, proactive versus reactive approach to change. We also have a plan versus an actual to plan was similar as before, but we also realize that the actual change never is as much as we hope. There's always a gap that we never rarely ever reach the full objective that we try to accomplish. So therefore we have a plan versus an actual that oftentimes because of the pain involved in the change process, we settle for something that's close enough, not where we would like to be, but close enough at this point.
In time, there's also an emergent change process. These are the things that oftentimes happen outside of our control. Things are changing all the time. A lot of times we don't realize that change until we see it in hindsight. But nonetheless, any organization that has many people independently making decisions, there is a collective action, a dynamic within that decision, mess that brings upon change, nothing is really steady. There's always minor things happening.
So the emergence of change is something we also have to recognize and that it is happening. How do you recognize it? How can you leverage it that's in another change model. transformative versus in incremental change, too, oftentimes we look at change has been transformative, very similar to the reactive, in which case, we wait until there's a need for a major plant initiative. Or we are reacting to an extreme environmental disruption that we have to do a lot of change in a short period of time. This is truly transforming the organization from what it was into something new.
On the other hand, incremental or a Kaizen continuous change approach has changes being broken up into many small initiatives across the organization that collectively can become transformative, but you don't necessarily plan them as where you want to be as much has to happen in small, incremental steps that may not add up. To a transformative change, but it prepares the organization to have a change competency to be good at change because it is changing all the time. On the other hand, transformative change is difficult because the organization does not have the competencies to change. We have to build those competencies and then they diminish in use and capabilities between change initiatives, transformative versus incremental change models. punctuated equilibrium is another change model, in which case, you go from a level of stability where there are forces for change, that all of a sudden has a release of that force and there's disruption to a new level of stability, the pressure to change builds and Zin released.
This is a another way of looking at change from how it occurs, oftentimes or emergent, sometimes very erratic, punctuated equilibrium change model. We also can talk about the order of magnitude of change. The first order is transitional or a prescribed change. This is within our control, we can prescribe it. second order is constructed. This is, again, the transformative model, in which case, you can't necessarily prescribe it.
In fact, you cannot in any way, prescribe it, but you could influence it as you build it. So then you're changing into transitional within an existing framework. The transformative though is you're working on changing basic assumptions that break with the past The transitional uses the same decision making group there is some continuity and control over the group making the decisions to transformative change is a whole system's perspective. There are new participants across the entire organization that are involved, oftentimes outside of your control, sometimes outside of your influence. The transitional is incremental and is really based upon the previous state, becoming something different. transformative breaks the paradigm.
This is the future that is not fully predicted. You are moving towards something you don't fully know. transitional is relatively low uncertainty because you're dealing with small changes that are under your control. You can manage this type of change. transformative change has high risk, high investment in time, and sometimes even in process, investment and capital and expense itself, high risk, very unknown, many problems and, again, not manageable as a forced change manageable as a project, though led or influenced by the change vision. So let's talk then about the graphics of how developmental, transitional and transformative change can be illustrated.
The developmental or incremental change occurs within a change state that is known and controllable. We're able to move from the current state to something that is incrementally better, but again, is within her balance of control, developmental or incremental change The transitional change reforms, the change process a bit, and that we're going our way from the current state in some significance to a new target state. But again, the target state is relatively known and can be adequately described to make that transition. The transformative change, though, goes to a totally new state that really is to be discovered. We have an idea of what that may look like, but we won't truly understand it, at least at a gut level, understand it until we are living at that level. This is truly transformative, and is somewhat ambitious and ambiguous.
But again, these are the big changes that sometimes organizations have to go through to meet drastic change in Business organizational environment or if they put off smaller changes for too long and they then are faced into a dire situation, that forces transformation to be required. Developmental transition, transformative, what change path is best for you. This really depends upon your situation, and what is needed and how it can best be illustrated so that the rest of the organization understands the change challenge.