IntroductionChange is the only constant in life. And so it should be understood as part of a continuous ongoing work that requires a much broader framework that seeks out competing voices and works with the resulting ambiguities, contradictions, and tensions of a messy reality (Graetz, F. & Smith, A., 2010). In this contribution I try to demonstrate that organizational change is mainly based on the environment that surrounds it, much more than on the desire of the members or change agents working in that organization. This view differs from that of Lippitt (1958) who suggests that the successful implementation of planned organizational changes depends on premeditated interventions intended to change the functioning of an organization. It also departs from traditional approaches to organizational change which generally follow a linear, rational model in which the focus is on controllability under the guidance of a strong leader or a “steering coalition” (Collis, 1998). In this discussion therefore, by making a comparison between the different philosophies of change, I try to show that the success of the implementation of change depends largely on the organization's evaluation of what is happening around it rather than what it has planned as a strategic direction. Environmental factor for change Organizations operate in a turbulent environment that forces them to change even against their will. Every organization has a correct prediction of its future, which is why they all invest time and resources to implement strategic plans. More often they are challenged not to follow these plans because they fail to appreciate that change is a natural phenomenon that is intimately intertwined with continuity and that the change-continuity continuum is what defines the organ... at the center of the card. ... ..American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160. Graetz, F., & Smith, A.C.T. (June 2010). Managing organizational change: a philosophy of approach to change. Journal of Change Management 10(2), 135–154.Gray, J. (2009) Destination for Rio. AFR Magazine, 28 November, 27-31 Kanter, RM, Stein, BA and Jick, TD (1992) The challenge of organizational change (New York: The FreePress). Meyer, H.-D. and Rowan, B. (2006) The New Institutionalism in Education (Albury: SUNY Press). Newman, J. (2012). An organizational change management framework for sustainability. Greener Management International, 57, 65–75.Van de Ven, A. and Drazin, R (1985) The concept of fit in contingency theory, in: L. Cummings and B. Staw (eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior , 7, 333–365 (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press). Williams, R. (2008) The Great South African, Good Weekend, July 26, 18–24.