Legitimating change and changing legitimacy: An analysis of the intersection

Both change and legitimation are central phenomena in organizational theory. There is, however, no systemic study analyzing the interaction of legitimacy and change and how different interpretations of change and legitimacy fit together, if at all. Thus, we ask: in what ways is the interaction of change and legitimacy addressed in organizational theory? To answer this question, we investigated articles that dealt with both phenomena published in top organizational journals and analyzed them in terms of the definitions of legitimacy and change they employ and the interaction mechanisms they present. We found that the literature on change and legitimacy uses the entire spectrum of legitimacy conceptualizations but only the Parmenidean (i.e., stasis-oriented) versions of change conceptualizations. In a temporal frame, the following interactions were observed: (1) Change precedes legitimacy, with the following mechanisms: change is legitimated, the idea of change legitimates, and the state of change legitimates; (2) Legitimation triggers change, with the following mechanisms: legitimation leads to change, delegitimating triggers change, the legitimation struggle could lead to change; (3) Change and legitimation loop, with the following mechanisms: change-legitimation-change, or legitimation-change-legitimation; (4) Legitimacy and legitimation are themselves changing. After presenting a literature-based systemic study analyzing the interactions between change and legitimation, it looks at the interactions from both Heraclitan (flux-oriented) and Parmenidean (stasis-oriented) perspectives. The paper concludes by proposing a reconceptualization of legitimation, as well as change, closer to the Heraclitan approach, which could breathe new life into legitimation studies. It also claims that innovation for the future is linked with the move from the Parmenidean to the Heraclitan perspectives.