Practices on change readiness for middle managers : the use of cognition and emotion related practices to prepare people for change : an exploratory study

(1)

Practices on Change Readiness for

Middle Managers

The use of cognition and emotion related practices to

prepare people for change: an exploratory study

Student: Andreas Koks Student ID: 10475451

Supervisor: mw. dr. A.E. (Anne) Keegan

Master Thesis

MSc – MBA Executive Programme in Management Studies Track Leadership and Management

(2)

2

Abstract

This qualitative exploratory case study is on the practices middle managers use to prepare those they are managing for major organizational change. The change context is the initiation of closer collaboration between departments of the University of Applied Science of Amsterdam and the University of Amsterdam in the context of an on-going programme of change and rationalization. The study is an in depth analysis of middle management practices for change readiness. Notwithstanding the growing realization of the critical role middle managers play in change processes, the extant literature on change readiness is extremely limited in identifying actual

implementation practices for middle managers’ charged with creating change readiness. This study aims to contribute to the literature by exploring, analysing and categorising the actual practices for change readiness being executed by middle managers according to the leading concerns in the field at this time including the balance between cognition-emotion and individual–group level in middle

management practices for managing change readiness. The results indicate the

majority of the middle management’s practices on change readiness are group related and appear equally divided between aiming for emotion or cognition. The actual practices of middle management for change readiness are discussed.

Keywords: Change Readiness, Middle management, Practices on Change Readiness, Affect, Emotion, Cognition, Communication.

(3)

3 Statement of Originality

This document is written by Andreas Koks who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(4)

4

Part I

Introduction

This study aims to contribute to the literature by exploring, analysing and categorising the actual practices for change readiness executed by middle managers according to the leading current concerns in the field including the balance between cognition- emotion and individual– group level practices in middle management practices for managing change readiness. Middle managers are increasingly involved in organizational change as the current business environment continues to become more complex and turbulent, intensifying the need for organizations to be, and to remain, agile (Sul, 2009).

Being agile means being flexible as a company and therefore employees need to be flexible too. Inherently this inclines businesses to change their organization over time and adapt to the context in order to sustain or create a competitive advantage. We cannot separate strategy from organizational change according to Burnes (2008). In reality the success rate of implementing change is still to be improved a great deal by practitioners. According to Amis et al. (2004) only 30 percent of large change initiatives are successful. The ability to implement change reflects on the company’s culture and climate as being capable and in control of their own future and success. As change is becoming more important, so are the management skills that are required for those leading and managing change on a daily basis (Senior, 2002).

An important part of change management focuses on the employees and their thoughts and feelings about change. There have been different approaches to studying employees’ reactions to change with, on the one side, a focus on resistance (Ford & Ford, 2005) and on the other hand, actively increasing employees’ change readiness. The current literature focuses on change readiness instead of the more traditional and increasingly questioned (Ford & Ford, 2010) focus passivity and defensiveness- of change resistance. As a concept, change readiness assumes that a positive and proactive approach to enabling employees for change and has been argued to be more effective way to implement change (Rafferty et al, 2013).

The theoretical construct of change readiness has thus begun to be developed in recent years. Over time change readiness has been approached as a message, as stages, willingness, commitment, etc. The core underlying elements of most change

(7)

7 readiness models emphasise the cognitive and emotional aspects of change and how these influence employees’ orientations towards change. The theoretical framework of Rafferty et al. (2013) for example on change readiness addresses these dimensions and focuses on them at different levels of analysis to theorise change readiness.

However current models, even the most advanced models, do not incorporate insights on actual managerial practices and this has been identified as a major limitation in the current field (Rafferty et al., 2013). The question of who needs act in order to promote change readiness can be found in the burgeoning literature on middle management and change (Huy, 2011). Based on current theory, implementing change is a primary task of middle managers as change agents (Huy, 2011; Balogun, 2003) while leaders need create a vision, give direction and inspire the employees (Caldwell, 2003). This study therefore aims to contribute to the literature on change readiness by exploring practices being executed by middle managers and addressing this in terms of a focus on cognition-emotion and individual–group level practices. The case study explores in depth how middle managers implement change readiness and examines how they differ in their approach. On that basis this study can offer insights for practices concerning change readiness specifically from the perspective of middle management. The aim is to create a better understanding and insight on practices both at the level of cognition and emotion. This will provide a basis for new insights in what middle managers do and how middle managers implement change readiness in their daily practice. The aim is also to improve the link between the theoretical construct of change readiness and the actual practices being implemented by managers. In addition, I will also explore middle managers’ perspective on the relative importance of practices and the way they reflect to their efforts. These latter insights can also help senior managers and change agents create a better fit in terms of the support they offer during change processes.

The research design chosen is an exploratory case study based on in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews. The case study was carried out in the context of an archetypal organizational change process taking place at the University of Applied Sciences Amsterdam (HvA) and the University of Amsterdam (UvA). Within these organizations different restructuring processes have taken, and are currently taking, place, in order to improve collaboration and optimize operations. This specific research study is a case study focussing on merging departments between UvA the HvA as part of an overarching process of strategic alignment. The main and sub

(8)

8 research questions, drawn from the current literature and the limitations in knowledge currently identified by leading researchers on change readiness (Rafferty et al., 2013; Huy, 2011) are now presented:

Main Research Question:

What practices do middle managers use to prepare those they are managing for organizational change?

Sub-Question A:

What practices do middle managers describe for preparing and motivating employees for change?

Sub-Question B:

Are these practices described directed at emotion or cognition? Are they directed at a group or individual level?

Sub question C:

How do middle managers rate the importance of the different types of practices they describe?

(9)

9

Thesis Structure:

The structure of this thesis can be outlined as follows. Part I covers the introduction, the structure of the thesis and presents the research question. Part II covers the theory review addressing the theoretical foundation of the research. Theory review contains the following chapters:

First I will be looking at Change, Change Management and types of change as theoretical constructs in chapter 1. The review will describe Change as well as a broad historical recap of the theoretical approaches on the change process and change management. In chapter 2 Change Readiness will be examined as a theoretical construct including different theoretical approaches. Next, the actual practices identified for creating and maintaining Change Readiness are discussed in chapter 3 and the role of the middle manager within the change process is presented in chapter 4.

In Part III the research is presented including Methodology, the Description of the case study and the Analytical strategy including the coding. Part IV shows the results followed by discussion and conclusion of the study. Finally, appendices are presented in part V.

1.Change & Types of Change 2. Change Readiness 3. Practices on Change Readiness 4. Middle management practices on Change Readiness

(10)

10

Part II - Literature review

“Change is an ever-present feature of organizational life, both on an operational and strategic level. Therefore, there should be no doubt regarding the importance of an organization to be able to identify where it needs to be in the future, and how to manage the change required to get there.” (Todnem, 2005: p.369)

1. Change and Change management

Mack et al. (1993) define the process of organizational change as the process of migration from a current situation to a desired future state. This includes organizational strategic direction, structure, procedures and evidently its people and culture. The process of organizational change is a necessity in order to survive as an organization (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). In order to change as an organization, a change process is needed alongside a form of change management. Change Management is a complex process and the success rate for implementing Change is moderate. There are no magic formulas or solutions for success.

Walker et al. (2007) consider the content, context and process the three main factors to influence change efforts (Walker et al., 2007). When content is considered a main distinction is made in terms of whether the change is incremental or fundamental, continuous or episodic. The change process involves specific issues of the change itself from introduction to implementing the change (Walker et al., 2007).

1.1 Change Process and Management

One of the earliest theories on approaching change and change management was introduced by Lewin (1947), whose theoretical model contains the distinctive phases Unfreezing, Moving (change) and Re-freezing. This model developed over the years as researchers built more elaborate models for distinguishing different stages for implementing change. For example Kotter (1995) introduced the eight-step model with more comprehensive change implementation stages focusing on preconditions for a successful implementation. Kotter’s eight-step model includes: creating a sense of urgency; forming coalitions; generating vision and strategy; communications on the strategy; empower personnel; generate short-term wins (sharing successes); consolidate gains and anchor new approaches in the culture. These steps place more

(11)

11 emphasis on the change recipients’ on the cognitive and emotional level in order to become positive and cooperative towards change. This makes the change process more likely to obtain its goals on. The similarities found with the model of Lewin (1947) are especially the start and ending of the conceptual Change process. The focus of successful Change in both models is on psychology and therefore people-oriented. Kotter’s model (1995) consists of more elements of the psychological process that occur during change. The psychological process of the change recipient has been elaborated further in Bridges’ transitions model (2009). This model shows the stages of change as a gradual process in the psychology of the change recipient. The first stage of this model is about the acceptance or “letting go” (in line with the Unfreezing stage of Lewin, 1947). The second stage is a Neutral zone where change recipients require direction. Finally the phase of New Beginning starts where the actual change can be implemented and becomes the new norm. Management subsequently needs to: prepare employees for a sense of loss; give support and guidance during Neutral Zone and in the last stage offer support for implementing change as well as “freeze” the new situation. A visualization of this process is presented.

Figure 1 Bridges’ transitions model (2009)

These theories have received various critiques mainly focused on the fact that these models assume a stable state whereas organizations are never fully “stable” (Kanter et al., 1992) or that the models simplify change processes to a “one size fits all”. However, on an abstract level the models do show the general development of a change process, the importance of different stages and insight into the process of the change recipient’s perspective.

(12)

12 As the understanding of psychological journey of the change recipient (or group) grew, the concept of change readiness also evolved. Separating cognition and affect and looking at the practitioner (middle manager) and what specific practices they use.

1.2 Types of Change

The speed in which change is implemented is increasing as businesses are forced to change in order to keep up with external developments like increasing tempo of technical developments and globalization. For management there is a balance between business as usual and change processes to take into consideration. Huy (1999) describes this balance as the necessity of change on the one side, and employees’ need for stability, identity and understanding on the other. Within this balance the middle manager plays an important and central part. Moreover, this balance creates tension and may lead to change fatigue, lower commitment, emotional exhaustion and cynicism (Berneth et al., 2011). Therefore it is important to frame change in such a way that change recipients are likely to accept it, even when it occurs more frequently. Two distinct approaches to organizational change that have been identified in the literature are episodic and continuous change. These approaches are both ways of framing change. Weick and Quinn (1999) summarized episodic change as a sequence of unfreeze- transition- refreeze and continuous change as a sequence of freeze rebalance – unfreeze. They also underlie the importance of the choice to view change as either episodic or continuous.

1.2.1 Episodic change

Episodic change, also referred to as dramatic or revolutionary change (Gersick, 1991; Mintzberg & Huy, 2003), can be considered as organisational change that is infrequent, discontinuous and intentional (Weick & Quinn, 1999). This is often associated with a strategic re-alignment to meet external demands or internal events (such as change in key personnel). Episodic change presumes moving away from a certain organizational equilibrium as a strategic choice. Often this consists of breaking with old routines. This type of change is often initiated at higher levels in the organization’s hierarchy (Mintzberg & Westley 1992).

(13)

13 The change intervention of episodic change process has four stages (Prochaska et al., 1992): pre- contemplation (unware); contemplation (aware), action (altering behaviour) and maintenance (re-freezing). Schein (1996) suggests that unfreezing is associated with anxiety of losing self- esteem and identity. The change process can be seen as not strictly cognitive and processes on affect also play a role. It consists of altering interpretations, new standards of judgement and evaluation. The underlying processes here are more psychological in nature and contain emotions reflecting to attitude and behaviour.

1.2.2 Continuous change

Continuous change is considered ongoing, evolving and cumulative (Weick & Quinn, 1999: 375). Here change is seen as initially grounded in continuing updates of work processes (Bron & Duguid, 1991) and social practices (Tsoukas, 1996). Characteristics of this type of change are: emergent, (partially) unplanned, opportunistic, incremental and improvisational (Orlikowski & Hofman, 1997). Continuous change is often framed as constant and sequential micro changes under the assumption that “everything changes over time” (Ford & Ford, 1994). Interestingly the acceptance of this type of change is also considered constant. If that is indeed the case, this implies the Change Readiness and practices for Change Readiness are incorporated as continuous managerial processes that evidently lead to readiness.

This type of change is associated with learning, translation of ideas and improvisation. Continuous change can be seen as structural and intertwined with the certain types of organizational cultures. This culture is associated with flexibility and agility.

1.2.3 Integrative perspective of Episodic change and Continuous Change

In addition to Episodic and Continuous change, Huy and Mintzberg (2003) propose an alternative way of addressing types of change and the antecedents with the “Change Triangle”. They distinguish three ways to address change. The first is dramatic change (revolution) which is internal and top down driven. The second way is systematic change (reform) consisting of is lateral or imported change driven by specialists. The last one is organic change (rejuvenation) which consist of bottom up initiated internal changes. They claim these types of change all coexist in a certain rhythm and need to

(14)

14 find a balance. For middle managers it is important to know how to deal with this flow of changes and create a combination of the changes looking at the right sequence and pace. Huy and Mintzberg (2003) state that the danger is that dramatic change turns into drama, systematic change can be paralyzing and organic change can become chaos. But when these are well combined they can become positive for the organization as dramatic change can provide impetus, systematic change can create order and organic change can generate enthusiasm.

Restructuring as episodic change

Restructuring is a specific and common form of change and is considered episodic. There can be various reasons for restructuring: to increase productivity, enhance competitive advantage, lower overheads, accelerate decision making, and smooth communications (Burke & Nelson, 1997). Restructuring can have positive effects on organizations including re-energizing fatigued workers and lifting their spirits, shifting the organization’s focus to future possibilities, increasing incentives, increasing investment in training and development, encouraging innovation, and creating a clearer mission (Burke & Nelson, 1997). However, the negative effects can be that this type of change can be experienced as difficult and depressing because personal relationships are disrupted and possibly jobs disappear. Managing the moods of the members of the organization becomes an essential leadership skill. Garvin and Roberto (2005) conclude that management needs to focus on a receptive climate for change through caring for employees’ emotions, changing feelings and mood during restructuring. In addition, major changes like downsizing and restructuring can be disruptive for how people think about the organization and impact on current schemata of change recipients (Jones et al., 2008; Mack et al., 1998).

For this case study I focus on a restructuring process of the UvA and HvA as an exemplar of a large scale change process that is disruptive and considered episodic. The case study’s focus is on lowering overheads costs and optimizing decision-making. This merger involves the merger of work units between the (Bordia et al., 2004).

This chapter has reflected on change as a process and the types of change to consider when we evaluate the challenges of Change Readiness and the role of the middle

(15)

15 manager. In the following chapter a review of Change Readiness literature is presented.

(16)

16

2. Change Readiness Theory

This chapter explores the theoretical construct of Change Readiness. First an overview of the existing approaches to conceptualizations of Change Readiness is presented along with theoretical frameworks of Change Readiness and finally individual- and group level readiness are described followed by a description of cognition and emotion.

2.1 Introducing Change Readiness

Change recipients will always react to change. Some negatively refer to it as change resistance. Reactions of change recipients may be based on individual perspectives including “what does this mean to me?” (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991), or based on group or organizational perspectives concerning their core collective values and organizational identity (Jacobs et al., 2008). For middle managers it is crucial to respond to these reactions of the change recipients and maybe more importantly to proactively influence their “readiness”. Armenakis (1993) describes the distinction as follows: “Framing a change in terms of readiness seems more congruent with the image of proactive managers who play the roles of coach and champion of change rather than those whose role is to reactively monitor the workplace for signs of resistance.” (Armenakis et al., 1993, p. 682). In addition, Change Readiness is not only a pre-change concern, but a concern throughout the entire change process (Armenakis et al., 1993). Change Readiness has been conceptualized as facilitating the proactive process of managing change. In their definition they include the beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes and the organization’s capacity to successfully undertake those changes (Armenakis 1993). More recently Holt and Vardaman defined change readiness as: “the degree to which those involved are individually and collectively primed, motivated and technically capable to execute the change” (Holt & Vardaman, 2010: p. 9).

2.2 Theoretical concept of Change Readiness 2.2.1 Approaches on Change Readiness .

Different approaches have been utilized to conceptualize and manage Change Readiness. The first approach is: Change readiness as a message, focussing on

(17)

17 participation of change recipients (Armenakis et al., 1993; Armenakis et al., 1999; Armenakis & Harris, 2009). This approach places an emphasis on creating readiness proactively as opposed to reactively reducing resistance. The change message itself should influence beliefs, attitudes, intentions and ultimately the behavior of the change recipient. This approach identifies a process in line with Lewin’s stages of the change process (1947). Change Readiness is divided by Armenakis (1993) into discrepancy, efficacy, appropriateness, principle support and personal valence.

The second approach is process related and focuses on the stages of change (Harris & Cole, 2007; Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983; Prochaska et al., 2001). The stages of change are pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action and maintenance. It suggests change readiness has different stages along with the change process. However for example looking at Bridges’ transitions model (2009) in the first chapter, one might question if these stages align synchronously with the process of change.

The third approach is focused on Change Readiness attitudes. Herscovitch and Meyer (2002) introduce commitment to change as a fundamental aspect of Change Readiness. Commitment to change is defined as “a force (mind-set) that binds an individuals to a course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of a change initiative” (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002, p. 46). Commitment can be further elaborated in affective commitment (change carries benefits), continuance commitment (not changing is costly) and normative commitment (norms/obligation). The fourth approach also tends to emphasize attitudes and introduces the concept of openness (or willingness) to change (Devos, Buelens & Bouckenooghe, 2007). This approach is based on the attitude and receptivity of the change recipient considering content, context and process. This includes (a) threatening character of organizational change; (b) trust in executive management; (c) trust in the supervisor; (d) history of change and (e) participation in the change effort.

Finally Change Readiness as a Capacity looks at organizational attributes such as culture and climate (cf. Weiner et al., 2008). This conceptualization considers three levels. The first is level is organizational level consisting of having sufficient financial - and human resources, structure, procedures, etc. The second level consists of assessing readiness- features on a more practical level such as knowledge management, policies and procedures regarding teamwork etc. The third level then

(18)

18 consists of the alignment with the individual on Skill Knowledge Attitude as well as traits.

2.2.2 Change readiness as multi-dimensional concept

In an attempt to capture the conceptualizations and approaches from the previous discussed, Change Readiness is presented as a multi-dimensional concept. As Change Readiness evolves, there are both varying and consistent elements. There is general agreement in the literature that Change Readiness consists of both emotional and cognitive elements. In addition the dimension of individual- and group readiness is a recurring theme. The dimension of time, considering stages of the change process, is also included often, however the dimension type of change is not consistently considered. When the type of change is considered, the focus or assumption in the literature is on episodic change. This is probably because change readiness scholars tend to emphasise the individual level of analysis and are somewhat disconnected from the organizational theory discussions on change where continuous change is a more prominent concept.

The multilevel framework of Rafferty et al. (2013) contains most of the aforementioned elements. This model however does not include time or stage as a dimension.

Figure 2 Multilevel Framework of Antecedents and Consequences of Readiness for Change – Rafferty et al 2012

There are two other multi-dimensional models of relevance. Stevens (2013) introduces a process based approach to change readiness that does incorporate time. His model includes the idea that change readiness is recursive and therefore a continuous process. This is more in line with the Rhythm of Change model (Huy &

(19)

19 Mintzberg, 2003) whereas Change Readiness is presented as an ongoing and even structural element within all organizations.

The final model is by Holt and Vardaman (2013) and also focuses on expanding the conceptualization of change readiness. This model adds the dimensions context (type of change) and awareness (mindfulness). In line with Rafferty et al. (2013) the model identifies the dimensions of group and individual readiness as well as cognition and affect. Moreover it attempts to expand the model in order to make it appropriate for multiple changes and therefore is not limited to episodic change alone. This arguably makes the model a better reflection of reality by acknowledging the complexity that change is never a stand-alone process.

2.3 Elements of Change Readiness

In this chapter, elaborating on Rafferty et al.’s theoretical model, the distinction between group- and individual level is made as well as that between affect (emotion) and cognition. The following chapter explores these dimensions because they are also directly related to practices. In the case study practices on change readiness will be identified and organized into group - and individual level as well as cognition and emotion.

2.3.1 Individual - and group level readiness

An individual can be ready for change when the group is not and vice versa. From the perspective of managing change, and in particular change readiness, this has different implications for approaches and practices for managing change readiness. While readiness processes initially operate on an individual level, the goal is to generate readiness beyond the individual level (Armenakis et al., 1993). Weiner et al. (2008) address the psychological states of readiness that occur on both the individual and organizational (or group-) level. However there are also interdependencies to consider between the individual- and the group psychological state. An individual’s belief or feeling contains of a combination of what he or she is capable of and the belief what the group or organization is capable of. Collective belief (e.g. collective efficacy or commitment) is shared psychological state amongst the organizational members and its capacities (Holt & Vardaman, 2013). Rafferty et al. (2013) add that change readiness attitudes emerge from individual cognitions and emotions that become

(20)

20 shared through social interaction processes. This refers to collective interactions which are common in the middle management practices on change readiness. Management needs to be aware of this construct and interaction between group and individuals in order to build Change Readiness and transfer it into practices aiming at an individual or collective level.

2.3.2 Cognition and Emotion

Cognitive - Change Readiness

Cognitive change readiness is related to rational understanding of the necessity for change. It attends to the question what is needed for implementing change as well as urgency and appeals to logic and rationality. Management practices on communication related to cognitive change readiness would include logical arguments, analyses and numbers (Rafferty et al 2013). The key cognitive aspects of Change Readiness found in the literature (Armenakis et al., 2007) include Sense making, Discrepancy (change is needed), Appropriateness (response to the change is appropriate), Principal support (management is aligned with the change) and Valence (the change is valuable).

Emotion - Change Readiness

Before attending to the term emotion concerning the topic we must define the difference between affect and emotion. Affect is used to refer solely to the conscious experience of emotion (Power & Dalgleish, 1997). In other words emotion lays at the basis for affect. A focus of this thesis is specifically at emotion, as this is considered the main literature gap toward understanding and using middle management practices concerning change readiness. Rafferty et al. (2013) suggest that affect and the more specific emotions of change readiness have received insufficient attention and therefore researchers have not considered how to manage emotions on both the individual and group level adequately. Rafferty et al. (2013) emphasizes focussing specifically on emotions (e.g. hope, anticipatory excitement, feelings of optimism or actual happiness). We do know that positive emotions have a positive effect on successfully implementing change (Huy, 2002). We also know that communication forms for addressing emotion in change different to the ones used when influencing

(21)

21 cognition. For example communications on emotions can also consist of pictures, colours, music and atmosphere (Rafferty, 2013: p 20).

Pleasant and happy feelings can be the response to a positive perception of support but also congruence between personal goals and organizational change lead to positive emotion when they align with their personal ambitions (Perrewé, 2005). Positive emotions change recipients have towards organizational change can include happiness, pride, enjoyment, and enthusiasm (Bartunek et al 2011; George & Jones, 2001; Huy, 2002). The level of support from management also appeals to emotion such as trust and fairness (Bartunek et al 2011). However, change can negatively be experienced as aversive, referring to negative emotions such as anxiety, threat, and fear (Bordia et al., 2004; Schuler, 1980). Reasons for this is that people can feel vulnerable and insecure (DiFonzo & Bordia, 2007). Inappropriate management can also lead to negative emotional reactions. Examples are violations of trust or agreements, withholding communication and unfairness. (Balogun, Bartunek, & Do, 2011). Negative emotions such as anger, anxiety, and disappointment are associated with these issues.

Both positive and negative emotions are presented in the model below, showing in addition which emotions lead to high or low activation. When we consider change readiness and emotions in general we can state that the aim is to mobilize change recipient, looking for pleasant (positive) high activation and try to avoid inertia.

(22)

22

Figure 3 Circumplex model of emotions (Larsen and Diner, 1992)

This chapter has reflected on the theories of change readiness, its approaches and constructs. It also elaborated on cognition and emotion and group- and individual readiness. In the next chapter of the literature review the change readiness practices and management will be further explored.

3. Practices on change readiness

The literature identifies different practices to implement or increase Change Readiness on an organization wide scale (e.g. Shmulyian, 2010). However, the literature is not conclusive by offering a clear list of practices on the level of middle management. First Communication as a predominant practice is discussed followed by specific practices found.

3.1 Change Readiness management - Communications

The literature on managing Change Readiness focusses generally on communication practices. Communications on Change Readiness have been investigated, for example by Armenakis & Harris (2001), giving a framework of communication during change. This focusses on crafting a change- message including persuasion, participation and information. (Note: Armenakis & Harris’s (2001) approach change Readiness as a Message, focussing on discrepancy, efficacy, appropriateness, principle support and personal valence). Armenakis describes communicating on change readiness as

(23)

23 influencing strategies. He states: In order to prepare members of an organization for change, the primary mechanism is the message for change that should incorporate two main issues: the need for change, and the implementation of the perceived ability to change among those who will be affected by it (Armenakis et al., 1993). He states that delivering these messages to lower-level employees is highly important. In addition, the content of the change message needs to be considered as well as the level of need for change readiness (Self et al., 2007).

A structured way of assessing communication practices on change readiness is to look at the urgency level of the change combined with the level of readiness of the organization (Armenakis, 1993). Armenakis gives an overview of the various conditions, types of communication programs and salient characteristics of change readiness efforts. In this overview it becomes clear that persuasive communication is the only characteristic found with any combination. One could even argue for it to be the most import form of communication during change processes. According to Armenakis this communication is primarily about discrepancy and efficacy, but it is also about commitment and urgency for change. These element relate both to cognition and feelings towards change.

Figure 3 Hypothetical readiness Programs for various Combinations of system Readiness and Urgency (Armenakis et al., 1993)

Rafferty et al. (2013) summarize the effective use of change management processes on an individual level to include: communication; participation and leadership. Next he specifies that on a group level leadership, organizational structure and culture are the main elements of interest with a specific focus on the vision on the change. These elements are used as start- codes within the case study trying to categorize the observed practices.

(24)

24 Communication practices for Change Readiness

Group level speeches, team meetings, division roundtables, brainstorm sessions, Q&A, open hour meetings with executives, videos have all been discussed in the literature (Armenakis et al., 2001). At the individual level training, (in-) formal individual contact and coaching (Holt et al., 2013; Balogun 2003) creating a positive support climate.

Practices for assessing change readiness

Armenakis et al (2007) practitioners should be able to put change readiness assessments into practice. These assessment can be a practice to gain valuable information on what elements are “in need” of extra attention by management. Assessment can be qualitative, based on e.g. interviews, or quantitative, based on questionnaires (Holt et al., 2007).

Stevens (2013) also argues for the need to assess readiness and be prepared to react based on the assessments. Rafferty et al.(2013) also underline this and considers measuring change readiness on a group, individual and organizational level for large scale change implementation. Holt et al. (2007) published a scale for assessing readiness. The questionnaire contains five categories: Discrepancy, Appropriateness, Personal Valence, Organizational Valence and Change Management support (solely Senior Leadership support).

Selection practices for change readiness

As a practice to influence social dynamics in change processes selection of personnel is considered important: selecting with initial positive attitudes towards change. This can also be considered a “control” practice on emotional contagion (Rafferty et al., 2013). A case study from Armenakis (1997) also includes two selection practices in his guidelines on readiness. The first is focussing on the convictions of the target group and the second is identify the opinion leader. This is used conduct signalling function to identify resistance or embracement (Armenakis, 1997).

Practices focussing on emotions and change readiness

Rafferty et al. (2013), Huy (2002) and Amichai-Hamburger (2001) address managing actual emotions during change. For example emotions may contain, facilitating

(25)

25 mourning about the old ways and being sad, distrust of the integrity of the leader. Social interaction between change recipients is not easily identified. Communication practices mainly focus in the formalized gatherings or meetings. However, some change recipients only communicate with other change recipients in an informal manner and situation. “What is really going on?“ or “how do they really feel about the change”. Positive as well as negative emotions can be contagious as change recipients unconsciously copy emotional expressions of others (Bartunek et al., 2011). Especially in times of uncertainty, which often applies to large scale disruptive change programmes, the risks of contagion are obvious. The emotional process that takes place includes emotional comparison and -contagion (Sanchez- Burks & Huy, 2009).

For the design of practices focussing on emotions, Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) offer four ways to regulate emotions on an organizational level: (1.) Neutralizing emotions through norms, (2.) buffering emotions through procedures that compartmentalize emotional and rational activities (3.) Prescribing which emotions should be experienced through “feeling rules” or norms and (4.) supressing emotions through socializing employees to hide emotions that may disrupt task performance. The practices above describe the most common forms of managing Change Readiness found in the literature. In addition other forms but less extensively like: incentive systems of rewards (Holt et al., 2013; Wallinga, 2008), role modelling (Balogun, 2003).

The next and final chapter focusses on the middle managers and their tasks and position considering managing Change Readiness.

(26)

26

4. Middle management as a change agent

This chapter explores the role and the tasks of the middle managers as a change agent concerning change readiness and the practice. The review gives an understanding of the complexity of these roles and different perspectives.

The key role of a middle manager as a change manager (Balogun, 2003; Caldwell, 2003) is to make sense of the change by interpreting. The middle manager needs to make a new shared mental model on how to perceive all of the projects. He needs to answer the question of what exactly changes, how the new way of working is done and how do we get there. Balogun focusses is on coordinating, planning, budgeting and teambuilding. Workshop and briefings are focussed on sense making and interaction with employees is framed as negotiation. According to Balogun (2003) middle management needs to make the change personal, add meaning, while keeping up with the business as usual during the implementation of “the change”. Balogun emphasizes on the cognitive side of managing change. This has been studied widely however, the role on managing emotions receives less attention while evidence suggest this is likely the play an important part.

Huy (2001) describes three role regarding to middle managers and change readiness. The middle manager can be as an entrepreneur, communicator and a tightrope artist. The roles imply different practices. The entrepreneur is a strategist an opportunist, overseeing the big picture, seeing opportunities, knowing and solving problems and encourage growth. The communicator uses communication and networks. His focus is on translating the change as well as selling it to group and individual. Practices concern selection of key individuals, use them as ambassadors and engage workers. The therapist manages emotions and workers well-being, making sure subordinates do not get alienated. The role emphasises on encouraging positive feelings or reduce negative feelings of pain and fear going one step further than regular support. Finally the tight rope artist is a framed role concerning managing the threat of chaos or inertia during change, as the tension between business as usual and the change arises and possible multiple changes occur. The practices consist of finding a balance, showing flexibility and fairness, dealing with multiple stakeholder, managing anxiety.

(27)

27 In addition Huy states the role of the middle manager is to manage emotion. This is an part referred to as “emotional balancing on a group or individual level” (Huy 1999; 2001). This consists of the managers’ own emotions, emotions of subordinates, keeping the business going during change and champion changes (Huy 2001; 1999). The middle managers’ task during a change process is to balance change and continuity. For example, they have to take care of the employees and make sure they do not become mistrustful, because the employees can become increasingly cynical about the nature and intent of interactions with senior management (Saunders & Thornhill, 2003).

Stevens (2013) as discussed earlier in chapter two presented a process based approach, looking at the continuity of change and change readiness. He states that middle managers must identify individuals’ perception and evaluation of the change continuously. He proposes middle managers should view and approach the change as a multi dimension state, not as a static implementation process. Continuous practices on evaluating change is considered important both focusing on future and acknowledging the past. Middle managers’ response needs to be proactive for both cognitive and affective evaluations of the change. He also claims the practise of selection to be crucial as well as assessments on change readiness.

Rafferty et al. (2013) address a practical implication for middle management that different forms of communication are needed to influence either the affective and cognitive side of Change management. They also emphasize the importance of managing the emotions of both the group and the individual based on Amichai- Hamburger (2001). This idea of managing emotions is strongly supported by Huy (2002) who addresses the importance of attending to the employee’s emotional reaction to change and the role of the middle manager.

Armenakis guidelines on readiness in practice based on a case study on implementing change readiness (1997): Expect uncertainty; Convince target group members that changes are necessary; identify opinion leaders and garner their support and use them to conduct readiness assessments and identify pockets of resistance and embracement; be visible and interact; build momentum; do not under-estimate the value of in-person persuasive communication.

(28)

28 To conclude the emphasizes on an abstract level of the different perspectives of the role of the middle manager as a change agent can be summarizes as follows:

Balogun (2003) Huy (1999-2002) Armenakis (1993-1997) Rafferty et al. (2013) Stevens (2013) Communication v v v v Cognition v v V Emotion v v V Selection v v v V Assessments v v v Momentum v v History v Socialization v v v Recap

Finally, after exploring the literature on Change, Chang Readiness, Practices on change readiness and the Role of the middle manager, I conclude middle managers tasks are diverse and complex and the actual practices vary, best illustrated by the three roles presented by Huy (2001).

Before starting the interviews I was very curious how the theory relates to the practices of middle managers in the case study of UvA HvA.

(29)

29

Part III - Research

5. Methodology

This study aims to contribute to the literature by carrying out an exploratory case study on the actual practices for change readiness executed by middle managers. The reason a case study is appropriate is because the elements have begun to attract conceptual and theoretical attention but in line with Rafferty et al. (2013) whose findings on practical implications (the research gap). There has been little in-depth empirical work identifying, analysing and interpreting the practices middle managers use to manage change readiness and to see what they actually do in terms of preparing workers emotionally and cognitively, and at an individual or group level.

This qualitative study contains a descriptive exploratory approach to events that are happening at this moment: it examines how managers actually approach the challenges of change readiness as a contemporary phenomenon within a real-life context (Yin, 2009). The boundaries between the phenomenon of change readiness and context are therefore not clearly evident (Yin, 2009). Also the types of questions “how” and “why” focuses on contemporary events and the absence of control over behavioural events making a case study method appropriate (Yin, 2009).

The research question itself is based on a How question (Yin, 2009). The research proposed has a single case design and it will contain a “snapshot” on a current event. In an attempt to make the study rigorous it will look at construct-, internal- and external validity as well as reliability and triangulation (Gibbert & Ruigrok, 2010; Yin, 2009). The external validity will be achieved through deriving the coding framework from existing theoretical constructs and identifying through exploratory research interviews how these sensitizing concepts cover the findings and/or refining emergent concepts in light of empirical data. The internal validity of the research is achieved by meeting acknowledged standards in qualitative research regarding the number of interviews (nineteen) and the number of departments included (Guest, Bunce and Johnson, 2006).

The focus of this study is on learning how in reality change readiness as a construct unfolds (Eysenck, 1976) and what practices we can find. As Eisenhardt (1989) states, a descriptive orientation aims to create a roadmap for building theories from case study research, and this study will attempt to provide in-depth insight in the

(30)

30 topic for further research. In addition, the research question cannot be answered in a statistical study given the fact there is no conclusive inquiry of what middle managers do and how they do it. There are also no (historical) applicable data found on this topic.

(31)

31

6. Description of case study

6.1 Background

As noted earlier the case study is executed at the University of Applied Sciences Amsterdam (HvA) and the University of Amsterdam (UvA). This chapter introduces the institutes and elaborates on the change investigated in the case study.

The HvA is the largest provider of higher professional education in the Netherlands, founded in 1993. At this moment there are almost 46.000 students and approximately 4.000 employees. The school is structured in seven faculties, six service centres and six staff departments (based on the model of the UvA). In 2009/2010 it has changed to a decentralized organization, trying to focus on their primary activities viz. education and applied research. The core values of the HvA are ambition, reliability and involvement (http://www.hva.nl).

The University of Amsterdam (UvA) has a different background with an extensive history dating back to 1632. In 2014 the student population is approximately 30.000 students and the university has 5.000 staff members. It is one of the largest comprehensive universities in Europe. Teaching and research at the UvA are conducted at seven faculties. The University of Amsterdam (UvA) has adopted the following core values: Innovation, determination and engagement (http://www.uva.nl).

6.2 The Change

Within these companies different restructuring processes take place in order to collaborate and optimize operations. This research will focus on the change processes of merging departments of UvA the HvA as part of the strategic alignment. This entails restructuring of the back offices in other words the middle management of the supporting staff and of the techno structure (Mintzberg, 1980).

The initial collaboration (1997) had the following focus:

1. More opportunities for students to extend their studies (bachelor - master) and this entail also better orientation for new students

(32)

32 3. Efficiency and economy of scale advantages (cost reduction needs to lead to

an increase in means for education)

This change was initially related to the nationwide introduction of the bachelor- master structure in 2002.

In the evaluation “10 years UvA / HvA” (2013) they conclude these aims are still fully up to date. Brief Historic overview is presented below:

1997- Initial plan for merger

2002- Plan “naar een intensieve en blijvende samenwerking”

2003- Shared executive board for UvA-HvA (“College van Bestuur”) and non- executive board (Raad van Toezicht)

2004-2005 Reorganization of the Service departments –harmonizing and appointing a single director per department and synchronizing operations and processes

2006- Decentralisation based on efficiency principles UVA

2009- Restructuring HvA and decentralization / alignment with UvA faculties 2013- Evaluation of 10 years of institutional collaboration

2014- Decentralizing “Transition” HvA based on “lean” principles. Start of restructuring Staff department and the merger with UvA departments

The content of this change implies a collaboration in operations. Some examples of the implications are: two cultures and two identities are confronted with each other; employees of both institutes are joined together; physically moving of departments; integrating work processes; new shared systems (ICT); new stakeholders and customers (employees, teaching-staff, students and researchers); reduction of less middle managers.

As an example of the cultural differences Dymph van der Boom (Executive Staff, “Rector Magnificus” UvA) stated in an interview relating to the cultural differences between UvA en HvA the following: ‘…then I said something about attending to a dossier. And to my amazement everybody started working on it directly. My experience at the UvA was to be kept waiting and discussing it for months. Is this the right way? or, is this effective? That is a big cultural difference. I hope the HvA can gain a more critical opinion and the UvA a little less. (http://www.foliaweb.nl). This quote indicates one of the cultural differences in approach and attitude the merger is confronted with. On a more general level, there are different types of departments which entail different types of employees like high-end professionals and

(33)

33 data-entry personnel. It is assumed that these groups differ in their needs during the change process.

6.3 The Case Study

For the case study the focus is on the collaborating and merger of the Service departments and the Staff departments. See appendix 2 or organizational structures. These include the following service departments (employees 80 - 200): ICT Services, Facility Services, Building development Services (Bureau Nieuwbouw), Students Services (Dienst Studenten Zaken), Administration Service (Administratief Centrum), and the following staff departments (employees 20-30): Education and Research (Onderwijs en Onderzoek), Communication, personnel and organization (Personeel en Organisatie). The process of integrating these departments has evolved over time. Most of the service departments already are merged for both HvA and UvA. The staff departments are at the beginning of the merger, where two departments have actually started with aligning their structures trying to form one single management per department. (Note: formalization of mergers are decided upon per department).

6.3.1 Historical and current context

Both institutes are assigned for education and research and because of the overlap there is a lot to gain from collaboration. Implementing this has shown to be a gradual process. The UvA is a larger organization and has a more elaborate history. The HvA organization is relatively young (1993) and has emerged out of several mergers of independent institutes. The last merger dates from 2004 when the formal “Hogeschool of economics” joined. The fundaments for the institutional collaboration tends to take to the UvA- organizational model. For example, the HvA restructured to the same faculty model of the UvA and al the back offices are restructured according to the UvA model. At this moment further alignment is being realized by adjusting the governance (Besturingsmodel HvA, 2013) and a programme called “Transition”. The Transition programme relates to a similar programme the UvA had in 2006, where they focus optimization of centralized and decentralized processes. There has been an emphasis on gradual change, stipulation and organic growth toward each other, however the change itself and the impact is considered large scale and disruptive (episodic).

(34)

34 There are technically two main issues to take into consideration in this case study. The two institutes are not allowed to merge the formal entities based on legislation. Also the collective labour agreements (CAO) are different because the university is part of the Vereniging van Samenwerkende Nederlands Universiteiten (VSNU) and the HvA is a member of the Vereniging Hogescholen. For example the first of May is a working day for the HvA and a holiday (labour- day) for the UvA. At first this seems to be a small problem but for middle management this make the task of creating equality difficult.

In addition to the context of this change another long-term collaboration needs to be taken into consideration. The alliance between UvA, VU and HvA is now called the Amsterdam Academic Alliance (AAA) and in the region of Amsterdam this development is also important. All the strategies and strategic planning of these three institutes are being aligned for 2015–2020. And thus further intensifying the collaboration is expected. Finally it is worth mentioning that the ICT of these organizations need to be aligned with their different needs. This is especially relevant for some of the service departments in this case study. A large ICT project has started to integrate the ERP systems (SAP) and is appropriately named SAMEN1 (together1). The implementation of this project starts in 2016.

6.3.2 Selection of interviewees

The first group is the middle management of the service departments. Their roles have changed formally (governance) but they are still confronted with the differences between the two organizations (governance, culture, procedures etc.). The questions will focus on the past and current practices considering change readiness.

The second group consists of middle managers of the staff departments. Some of these departments are on the verge of formalizing the new structure. Other departments do not have a clear perspective yet on the how and when of the change will unfold. Consequently this is a single case study with embedded differences in terms of the stages of the change.

Definitions of middle management differ for example "those managers between the highest and the lower levels who connect the organization 's strategic and operational level (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1997)" or " Middle managers are two levels below the CEO and one level above first-line supervisors (Huy, 2011). For the

(35)

35 selection of middle managers of the staff departments, the “directors” are selected as the middle managers as these fit the theoretical criteria in terms of managing change readiness. (Note: The finance department is excluded because of the researcher’s employment, which makes it too biased).

6.4 Analytical strategy

The case study follows a combination of a deductive and an inductive approach. Prior to the fieldwork theoretical sensitising concepts where identified based on the extant literature and these formed the basis for the semi- structured interviews (see appendix interview protocol). We will be looking at practices for change readiness and focussing on emotions and cognition as this is considered the key research gap.

All the interviews were transcribed and coded into structured data. The codes were mainly been derived from the theory and existing frameworks. In addition, data was collected on how managers rate the relative importance of these practices in order to be able to gather better insight in their perspective.

It is in the nature of this type of research that new codes will emerge based on possible new insights during the research. These new insights have also broadened the theoretical review recursively during the research, making the process iterative. Based on the interviews held the codes have evolved by adding emergent codes. This typifies this research as a combination of inductive and deductive.

For data analysis the key signifiers are frequency and distribution. Giving the amount of interviews a cut-off point is set at 5 mentions. Data condensation based on patterns and clusters (topics or keywords) has been undertaken to manage the coding framework. The data display in chapter 7 is based on the research sub- questions (1.what practices are used; 2. What aim (cognition/emotion and individual/ group) 3. Relative importance of the practices). Additional displays are added in the appendix 1.

6.5 Data Processing and Coding

The data is coded and processed in QSR Nvivo 10 for analysis. The results are based on multiple cycles of coding. The first cycle was primarily on practices aimed at group/individual and emotion/cognition. The second approach is more iterative on all practices on change readiness looking at intervention- and communication forms. The practices on intervention- and communication forms are also divided into themes and

(36)

36 subthemes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Finally, classifications of the interviews were gathered to make cross analysis (name, department, preferences etc). As coding attempts to organize the data systematically frequency tables and matrices are made in line with the research questions (Miles & Huberman, 1994). This creates the possibility to present a matrix indicating concentration practices based on the combination of the theoretical dimensions, looking at possible moderating effects. An overview is presented in appendix 3.

The first cycle contains descriptive coding of change readiness practices is used primarily based on the theoretical framework of Rafferty et al. (2013) elements for change readiness and is divided into a group- and individual level as well as cognition and emotion. Rafferty et al. (2013) emphasize the importance of examining this theoretical framework in order to test explicitly his theoretical arguments and the set of dimensions of change readiness. The practices found are divided based on predominately Emotion and Cognition driven, but also the combination appears in the interviews so I added the code Emotion & Cognition. When emotions were predominant, the type of emotion is coded as well.

For the second cycle process coding is used on Practices on Change Readiness. Practices by middle managers on change readiness were identified and clustered in themes: Culture; Leadership; Participation, Information and Persuasion (Rafferty et al 2013).

In line with Huy (2001) and Rafferty et al. (2012) considerations to look at Change Readiness practices from the perspective of specific emotions, practices on emotions found have been coded separately. Some emotions emerged during the coding process such as feeling insecure, feelings of inequality (procedural justice) feeling safe, etc. Emotion coding is applied based group positive and negative emotions divided into a group- and individual level.

(37)

37 6.5.4 General classifications

For the purpose of analysis Classifications are added on the characteristics of the interview in the dataset. The Scores on relative importance of practices are analysed in MS Excel, however the general outcome of the data is imported in Nvivo as classification. Based on their classifications the following table presents a summary of the interviews held.

Number of interviews 19

Stage of the change Starting 6

Ongoing 12 Finished 1 Gender Male 79% Female 21% Department Services 74% Staff 26% Age range 30-39 5% 40-49 42% 50-59 53% Number of employees 1-25 8 26-50 7 51-100 2 100-more 2

Assignment – change Clear 53%

Unclear 47% Preference-change approach Continuous 58%

non 11%

(38)

38

Part IV-Results

7. Results

7.1 Introduction

In this chapter the results of the research are presented based on the three research sub questions:

Chapter 7.2 Practices on Change Readiness by middle managers Chapter 7.3 Practices on Cognition/ emotion and group/individual Chapter 7.4 Relative importance based on the subject’s ratings

In the appendix 1 additional matrices are presented with all the emergent sub codes and frequencies.

7.2 Practices on change readiness used by middle managers

This chapter reflects on data concerning the following research question: What practices do middle managers describe for preparing employees for change? First the key findings are presented followed by a reflection on explicit emotions in practices and other different practices found.

The key findings

- The most frequently found practice was “plan making” as a group in order to prepare for change. Middle managers were specific as to the fact that this is not only a cognitive practice on sense making and interpreting the change, but also specifically used to engage people and to influence their emotions about change. The practice of making plans together includes giving employees autonomy and responsibility for aspects of the change process which forces employees to be engaged in and to think about the future, not to dwell on the past.

- Practices directed explicitly on emotions were found, but did not occur frequently. However practices found on emotional change readiness related to: Pride; Trust; Safety or (in-) security; feelings of inequality.

- It appeared that middle managers with a continuous change approach can depend on a “professional culture” and as a result apply practices addressing this explicitly.

Practices on change readiness for middle managers : the use of cognition and emotion related practices to prepare people for change : an exploratory study