Realizing change : accomplishing a new way of working at Amersfoort

Realizing change:

Accomplishing a new way of working at

Amersfoort

Msc. in Business Studies - Leadership & Management track Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam

Academic year: 2013-2014 First supervisor: Dr. Marja Flory

Table of contents

Abstract……… 4

Introduction………. 5

Literature review……….. 8

Realizing change: a sensemaking perspective……….. 8

Communication……… 8

Change communication………... 9

Employee communication………... 10

Management………. 11

Structure………... 11

Line management and leadership………... 12

Participation……….. 14 Individual differences………... 14 Competencies………... 15 Personality traits………... 16 Method………. 17 Research context………... 17 Research methods………. 18 Data collection……….. 19 Data analysis………. 21 Results……….. 26

Perceptions of working horizontally………...…... 26

Factors that influence the accomplishment of working horizontally... 28

Communication... 28

Management... 30

Participation... 32

Individual differences... 33

Relations between communication, management, participation and individual differences... 34

Discussion... 38

Sensemaking, perceptions of working horizontally and communication. 38 Management, participation and individual differences... 40

Implications and directions for future research... 44

Conclusion... 47

References... 48

Appendix: interview transcripts... 55

Abstract

This study focuses on the perspective of employees in the accomplishment of a changed way of working initiated by top management at the municipal government of Amersfoort. Content analysis of data collected through interviews, documents and participant observation indicated that employees’ perceptions of the new way of working varied highly and that sensemaking processes affected them in accomplishing change. Through communication, management, participation and individual differences employees were influenced in accomplishing the new way of working referred to as working horizontally. Communication, management, participation and individual differences also affected each other. The study contributes to the literature on organizational change by regarding the implementation process of change from an employee perspective. Furthermore, the study contributes to managerial practice by providing change managers with suggestions for practices that help employees in accomplishing change in their way of working.

Introduction

Organizational change impacts the lives of many people. It affects the nature of their work or even whether they still have a job (Burnes, 2011). In the current dynamic environment organizations need to be able to change (By, 2005; Graetz, 2000; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). As a consequence, large organizational changes occur quite regularly. These organizational changes are not confined to the private sector (Christensen & Lægreid, 2007; Oreg & Berson, 2011). Great changes in the Dutch public sector and Dutch society in general require the municipality of Amersfoort, a growing and historic city in the central area of the Netherlands, to change its organization (Gemeente Amersfoort, 2014; Plasterk, 2013; Rijksoverheid, 2013; Rijksoverheid, 2014; Vermeulen, 2013). In particular, new responsibilities, budget cuts and the development towards a participative society require the municipal government to change its structure, culture and way of working (Peters, 1998; Vermeulen, 2013). Currently the organization is in de midst of a change process that was initiated in 2013 and that mainly focuses on changing employees’ way of working. In particular, policy advisors need to adopt a new way of working, referred to as ‘working horizontally’. Although the change direction has been developed, much is still unclear about how the policy advisors can change their way of working into working horizontally (Vermeulen, 2013).

Research on organizational change suggests that it can be extremely difficult to accomplish change successfully in practice (Jansson, 2013). More than 70 percent of organizational change efforts fail (Burke, 2011). Due to this high fail rate, there has recently been a renewed interest in the practice of managing organizational change (Jansson, 2013; Van de Ven & Sun, 2011). One of the explanations for the difficulty of accomplishing change that scholars increasingly propose concerns micro-level processes, particularly those that affect the implementation of changes at the bottom level of the organization (Stensaker, Falkenberg, & Grønhaug, 2008; Thomas, Clark, & Gioia, 1993). Although many theories on organizational change have been developed over the years, there is still a great need for expertise (Burke, 2011; Jansson, 2013; Weick & Quinn, 1999). Existing theories on organizational change are unable to fully explain how the change process works in practice (Plowman et al., 2007). The theories are contradictory, lack empirical support and contain unchallenged assumptions. Scholars have called for more exploratory research on how organizations change with a particular attention for the human and social aspects in the implementation process (By, 2005; Jansson, 2013).

This study contributes to the current literature on organizational change by adopting an employee perspective on the implementation process of a planned organizational change within the municipal government of Amersfoort. The study aims to answer the following question: How can policy advisors at the municipal government of Amersfoort accomplish the

change to working horizontally? Initially the study was designed to answer the main question

through three sub questions. Due to the nascent nature of the study, the data collection phase indicated that the sub questions needed to be amended. The first two sub questions were initially designed to describe participants’ new way of working and their new job roles respectively. However, participants reported to find it difficult to name their job roles and to make a distinction between job roles and way of working. Fortunately, the emergent design allowed for adaptations in the sub questions in order to fit the emerging findings (Edmondson & McManus, 2007). Therefore, the topic of job roles was forgone and the primary focus was laid on way of working as the outcome variable of the change process. Consequently, the first sub question is: How do the policy advisors perceive working horizontally? Further, the data indicated that there were four factors influencing the realization of the new way of working, namely communication, management, participation and individual differences. This led to the development of the second sub question which is: what influences the policy advisors in accomplishing the change to working horizontally? This sub question was split into four components, namely communication, management, participation and individual factors. The purpose of the study is to provide insight into the way employees perceive and experience changes in their way of working. In addition, the study aims to identify factors that employees themselves indicate will help them accomplish the change. Identifying factors that stimulate employees in realizing organizational change is essential for the successful management of change (Kim, Hornung, & Rousseau, 2011). The study contributes to practice by helping change managers gain understanding of employees’ perceptions of a planned change. Moreover, the study provides change managers with suggestions for practices that help employees in realizing the changes in their work. Therefore, the study could help change managers implement change more effectively. Figure 1 portrays the concepts and relationships that were the focus of this study.

Figure 1. Conceptual model of factors influencing the accomplishment of working horizontally Working horizontally Participation Management Communication Individual differences 7

Literature review Realizing change: a sensemaking perspective

Understanding the process through which organizational change is realized requires an understanding of the micro-mechanisms that underlie macro-level changes (Sutcliffe & Weick, 2003). Adopting a sensemaking perspective provides insight into the way change can occur at the individual and ultimately at the organizational level. Sensemaking refers to the retrospective process through which people try to create order and make sense of what is happening around them (Sutcliffe & Weick, 2003; Weick, 1993). Sensemaking is an ongoing and often suppositional process of organizing that occurs within a social context. It involves the continuous interaction of action and interpretation. Through sensemaking meaning is constructed and behaviour is determined (Sutcliffe & Weick, 2003).

Individuals engage in sensemaking when they perceive a difference between their current and expected circumstances (Sutcliffe & Weick, 2003). Their focus changes from action to trying to understand the circumstances that have become unintelligible to them. They attempt to make sense of what is happening by extracting cues from their social environment that provide reasons for why they should resume their action. If these reasons remain unclear to them individuals engage in further sensemaking in order to either determine what action to take next or to infer new meaning from the changed circumstances. The implementation of planned changes triggers sensemaking processes in all organizational members (Stensaker et al., 2008).The way in which employees interpret and implement the planned change is highly dependent on the cues they extract from the social context (Sutcliffe & Weick, 2003). Over time a collective account of the change is constructed through actions in the organization (Poole, Gioia, & Gray, 1989). Through action employees assess existing beliefs about causal order, which can lead them to engage in new actions and evaluate new causal beliefs (Sutcliffe & Weick, 2003). This cycle of selection, retention and attrition causes beliefs and actions to evolve and change substantially over time. In other words, organizational change is realized through people’s processes of sensemaking. Communication

Communication plays an important role in sensemaking and realizing change (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991a; Wanberg & Banas, 2000; Weick, Sutcliffe, & Obstfeld, 2005). As Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfeld (2003, p. 409) describe it, “[s]ensemaking is, importantly, an issue of language, talk, and communication”. Communication refers to the exchange of information and transfer of meaning (Roberts, O'Reilly, Bretton, & Porter, 1974). This study focuses on

two types of internal organizational communication, namely change communication and employee communication. These aspects of communication are essential for sensemaking and the accomplishment of change (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991b; Weick & Roberts, 1993).

Change communication

When a planned change is initiated management needs to articulate that change is necessary and create understanding and acceptance within the organization (Gioia, Thomas, Clark, & Chittipeddi, 1994). Thus, communication plays an important role in the change process. Change communication involves the way top management articulates and disseminates the change vision throughout the organization (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991b). Communication about the change involves processes of sensemaking and sensegiving (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991b; Gioia et al., 1994; Poole et al., 1989).

In initiating a planned change, management engages in sensemaking to make sense of the new plans and vision. They construct a new system of meaning for the organization where the intended change fits into. In communicating the change message to employees, management influences the way employees interpret, define, legitimate and institutionalize the change. In other words, the organization can influence employees’ sensemaking processes and shape their interpretation of the change and their actions pertaining to it through communication. This process is called sensegiving (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991b). The organization can use various communication means to convey meaning to employees regarding the change, such as written and spoken text, symbols and metaphors (Gioia et al., 1994).

In response, employees engage in sensemaking and go through a process of interpretation, definition, legitimation and institutionalization before realizing the change (Gioia et al., 1994). Reading, writing and talking to one another about the change allows employees to make sense of the change and determine a course of action. The extent to which employees understand and accept a change initiative is influenced by the amount of information they receive about the change plans. When much information about the change is made available to employees, they are more likely to accept the change (Smidts, Pruyn, & Van Riel, 2001; Van Dam, Oreg, & Schyns, 2008; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Receiving too little information about the organization’s goals results in employees being unaware of the objectives and unable to be involved in decision-making processes regarding these goals. However, not only the extent but also the content of the information provided influences employees’ attitude toward the change (Oreg, 2006). When the information that is

communicated causes employees to make sense of the change in such a way that they perceive to lose from the change, they are more likely to engage in resistance. Therefore the organization’s communication about the change plays an important role in employees’ sensemaking process and their subsequent behaviour regarding the change.

Employee communication

Employee communication involves communication transactions between individual employees or between groups within the organization for the purpose of designing, implementing and coordinating everyday work activities (Frank & Brownell, 1989). Employee communication is particularly important for complex organizations that undergo a change process (Gioia et al., 1994; Weick & Roberts, 1993). Complex organizations tend to have multiple layers of authority, focus on high quality performance and function in a complex, changing environment. They often operate in the public rather than private sector (Weick & Roberts, 1993). In these organizations it is not the individual but the social entity that is important. The organization is inherently social and it relies on a collective mindset to function successfully. The complexity of the environment and the focus on high quality performance requires employees to perform highly interrelated activities and to create collective practices. Task interdependence is high and cooperation is imperative. In such a complex and changing environment, a lack of social cohesion within the organization and a focus on individualism can cause the circumstances to become incomprehensible to individual employees. Through sensemaking, a shared system of meaning can be constructed (Weick et al., 2005). The complex organization relies on this shared system of meaning to function (Weick & Roberts, 1993). For complex organizations, employee communication is particularly influential for the process of organizing. These organizations require employee communication to achieve cooperation and coordination in their highly interrelated work activities. Good communication among employees allows them to construct patterns of joint action (Weick & Roberts, 1993). Communication is an essential source of coordination. Without talk, both verbal and nonverbal, coordination is impaired (Weick, 1993). An organization with impaired communication is more vulnerable to disruption. For the employee communication to work effectively within the organization, it is important that employees have well-developed social skills (Weick & Roberts, 1993).

Management

Managing organizational change is a difficult process in which critical mistakes that have devastating effects on the change’s success are easily made (Kotter, 1995). The way change is managed influences employees’ responses to a change, hence affecting the change’s success (Ford, Ford, & D'Amelio, 2008). Implementing change involves taking managerial actions that encourage employees to adopt new behaviours in order to accomplish the desired change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Managing an organizational change process requires a particular attention for the organization’s structuring and the influence of line management (Ranson, Hinings, & Greenwood, 1980; Riccucci, Meyers, Lurie, & Han, 2004; Szabla, 2007).

Structure

Structure refers to the complex means of control in the organization which is both constituted and constitutive (Ranson et al., 1980). Structure consists of a structural framework and interaction. The structural frameworks consists of the roles, rules and authority relations that influence the operations and division of work in the organization. Interaction involves the rather informal yet regular patterns through which employees accomplish their work activities on a day-to-day basis (Ranson et al., 1980). Structure is constructed in interaction, while at the same time it shapes that interaction. Structure embodies normative expectations, prescribing to employees what is expected of them in terms of operations or performance. By supporting particular forms of behavior while constraining others, structure directs behavior. Structure embodies the organization’s meaning system and provides employees with an interpretive framework. Therefore structure influences sensemaking. In fact, a loss of structure can result in the collapse of sensemaking (Weick, 1993).

Organizational structure takes shape and changes over time (Ranson et al., 1980). In response to environmental changes, organizations may want to change their strategy and structure (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). However, managing a change in structure tends to be difficult to accomplish (Hannan & Freeman, 1984; Noumair, Winderman, & Burke, 2010). The inertial nature of structure arises from internal organizational pressures such as its internal politics, normative standards and personnel (Hannan & Freeman, 1984). In other words, the configuration or rules, roles and authority and the interaction patterns of the organization which are mutually reinforcing, make it difficult to manage a change in structure (Hannan & Freeman, 1984; Ranson et al., 1980). It is possible to successfully initiate a structure change. However, caution is warranted as the change may have undesired

consequences. When the structure is undergoing changes as a result of a change initiative and employees are pushed into new roles and tasks that are unfamiliar and unclear to them, disorganization may arise (Weick, 1993). In such circumstances, the relationships that were created and maintained through the normative structure can disappear. As a result, the organization disintegrates and collapses.

Line management and leadership

In implementing change, the change strategy and objectives are typically designed by top management while lower levels of management are responsible for realizing them (Floyd & Wooldridge, 1992). Lower levels of management, particularly line managers, have significant influence over the implementation process of a planned change (Cunningham & Hyman, 1995). In order to reach the objectives developed by top management, there needs to be consistency in the goals that are formulated at the level of top management and the way in which the goals are implemented in everyday work practices (Stensaker et al., 2008). Line managers are able to influence the alignment between the change goals the organization has developed and employees’ priorities in everyday work practices (Riccucci et al., 2004). Through their daily routines and the information they provide, line managers affect sensemaking and sensegiving processes on a daily basis.

The way the implementation process of a planned change is managed influences employees’ perceptions of and responses to the change. In particular, the specific leadership style that is used for accomplishing change influences the effectiveness of realizing change (Szabla, 2007). Broadly defined, leadership refers to the influencing of goals and strategies for work activities, commitment in accomplishing these activities, group cohesion, identification and the influencing of organizational culture (Yukl, 1989). Managers tend to differ in their leadership behaviour. In research on leadership, a distinction is generally made between transactional and transformational leadership (Meindl, 1995). Transactional leadership is characterized by an exchange relationship between a leader and employees that is based on fulfilling their self-interests. For example, the leader stimulates particular behaviour by providing rewards or the leader may intervene when performance standards are not met. A transformational leader recognizes and exploits the existing needs and demands of employees, is capable of transforming employees’ needs as well as their values, preferences and aspirations and can motivate employees to act beyond their personal interests for the well-being of the organization (Bass, 1999; Burns, 1978). Transformational leadership behaviour is characterized by four aspects, namely charisma, inspiration, intellectual stimulation and

individualized consideration (Bass, 1999). Charisma and inspiration entail leadership behaviours such as providing a desirable vision, articulating how to achieve the vision, acting as a role model, setting high performance standards and displaying confidence and determination. By displaying these leadership behaviours, employees are able and willing to identify with the leader. Intellectual stimulation involves motivating employees to be more innovative and creative. Lastly, individualized consideration entails being receptive and supportive of individual employees’ needs and motivating them in their personal development (Bass, 1999).

Transformational leadership is associated with the accomplishment of major changes in employees and generating commitment among them for the organization’s mission, goals and strategy (Burns, 1978; Yukl, 1989). Transformational leaders empower employees to participate in and contribute to the change. The participation process is an essential component of the transformation (Roberts, 1985). The extraordinary transforming effects on employees found in research to arise from transformational leadership suggests that management’s particular leadership behaviour is of significant influence on the organizational change process (Roberts, 1985; Westley & Mintzberg, 1989; Yukl & Van Fleet, 1982). In a study on employees’ perception of leadership in the implementation process of a planned organizational change, leadership behaviour was found to significantly influence employees’ response to the change (Szabla, 2007). Three leadership strategies for accomplishing change were investigated, namely a rational-empirical, power-coercive and normative-reeducative strategy. Power-coercive leadership involves attempts to force employees to change by using authority and power. Rational-empirical leadership includes attempts to persuade employees into supporting the change through rational appeals. For instance, employees are presented with the benefits of the change. Normative-reeducative leadership is characterized by its focus on participation, re-education, facilitation and appeals to an attractive vision. Employees who perceive normative-reeducative leadership behaviour respond more positive to change than employees who perceive a power-coercive or rational-empirital leadership style. They held the most positive beliefs about the change, experienced the most positive emotions and expressed the highest intentions to support the change (Szabla, 2007).

Normative-reeducative leadership behaviour is consistent with transformational leadership. Both emphasize participation, learning and development, providing support and inspiring employees by articulating an attractive vision (Bass, 1999; Szabla, 2007). This indicates that transformational leadership is the most effective type of leadership behaviour for implementing organizational change. A study on teachers’ responses to organizational

change supports this argument (Oreg & Berson, 2011). The study found that when a transformational leadership style was adopted by management, the teachers were less likely to resist the change.

Participation

The way employees understand, accept and accomplish change is affected by the extent to which they participate in the change process. Participation can be defined as employees’ opportunity to have an input in proposed changes (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). When employees participate in a change initiative, sensemaking processes are activated. Participation affects the way employees think, feel and act in response to a change (Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph, & DePalma, 2006; Giangreco & Peccei, 2005; Lines, 2004; Piderit, 2000). While participating in a change process, employees attempt to understand the change plans, assess if the articulation of the change plan is consistent with its implementation and think about its personal impact (Bartunek et al., 2006). As a result, they perceive certain gains and losses from the change. The extent to which employees participate affects the amount of benefits and costs they perceive from the change (Bartunek et al., 2006; Giangreco & Peccei, 2005). These perceived costs and benefits subsequently affect their behaviour regarding the change (Giangreco & Peccei, 2005). When employees participate more, they are more likely to perceive greater benefits than losses from the change. As a result, they are more likely to engage in pro-change rather than resistant behaviour (Bartunek et al., 2006; Giangreco & Peccei, 2005; Lines, 2004; Van Dam et al., 2008). Therefore, participation increases the likelihood that change goals are achieved (Lines, 2004). The more employees actively participate in the change process, the more likely it is that organizational change is accomplished.

Individual differences

Research has shown that employee behaviour significantly affects organizational performance (Cascio, 2006). As such, the issue of individual differences between employees affecting work performance has attracted much attention (Koopmans et al., 2011). Research has found that employee performance is significantly affected by individual differences. For instance, employees differ in personality, cognitive ability, knowledge, skills and work habits which influences their job performance (Motowildo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). Individual differences also affect employee behaviour in an organizational change process (Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011). In particular, employees’ competencies and personality traits influence how they respond to a change, are able to cope with it and are

able to achieve the change objectives (Oreg, 2006; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992; Vakola, Soderquist, & Prastacos, 2007).

Competencies

The concept of competencies was initially developed as an explanation for differences in individuals’ performance and entailed an individual’s experience, wisdom and ability to perform various tasks in an effective way (McClelland, 1973). Nowadays, scholars differ highly in the way they define the concept (Athey & Orth, 1999). Competencies can refer to organizational as well as individual competencies (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). This study uses the conceptualization developed by Athey and Orth (1999) who include an individual, team and organizational component in their description of competencies. Competencies can be defined as the set of individual knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours, and the collective capabilities that are associated with high performance.

Employees’ work performance is affected by the particular knowledge, skills and abilities they have (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). For each job, specific tasks need to be performed that require specific competencies. Organizational change affects job design and therefore also affects the competencies that are required for high performance (Burnes, 2011; Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992). As a result of organizational change, individuals’ competencies can therefore become obsolete for the work to be performed (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001). As the organization transforms, work activities change and new job requirements emerge, the need for employees to acquire new competencies develops (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992; Vakola et al., 2007). Therefore, the organization’s strategic direction needs to be supported by stimulating the development of newly required competencies among employees. Employees can acquire these competencies through training. When the organization is undergoing change it is important that training objectives are developed and that these objectives are aligned with the new direction the organization is heading (Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992).

One particular competency that individuals need to develop when the organization is undergoing a change process is knowledge (Nag, Corley, & Gioia, 2007). Individuals usually need to acquire new job knowledge when the organization needs to change. However, the organizational knowledge also needs to be transformed. Organizational knowledge refers to employees’ use of knowledge in their everyday work practices. Organizational knowledge is embedded in the specific practices and activities of employees (Nag et al., 2007). In contrast to individual knowledge, organizational knowledge does not refer to specific information

individuals possess, but refers to competencies that are entrenched in the social practices of employees and that are manifested in everyday actions. Knowing how to perform the work that is part of the job is a social accomplishment (Orlikowski, 2002).

Employees’ knowledge affects the realization of planned changes. Employees shape the change outcome by using old and new knowledge in their activities. Change is generated when employees implement new knowledge content in their collective practices (Nag et al., 2007). New knowledge can promote the accomplishment of change. However, existing knowledge can make the realization of change difficult. Employees have a tendency to hold on to the collective practices that characterize how they work instead of changing them when it is required for the organizational transformation (Gioia, Patvardhan, Hamilton, & Corley, 2013; Nag et al., 2007). They find it difficult to change the work practices they are used to and as a result can resist the change by putting up ego-defences or engaging in deception (Gioia et al., 2013). In other words, competencies influence the realization of change in everyday work practices.

Personality traits

Personality plays an influential role in predicting and understanding employee behaviour (Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Employees differ in their personality traits, which can be defined as individuals’ relatively consistent styles of acting, thinking and feeling (McCrae & Costa, 1997). Employees’ specific personality traits influence their performance and also affect the way they behave in an organizational change process (Judge & Bono, 2001; Oreg, 2006). Due to personality differences some employees are predisposed to resist change, while others are more inclined to promote change. Personality traits that are associated with more negative attitudes toward change are being: inclined to seek routines, inflexible, short-term focussed and uncomfortable when faced with changes (Oreg, 2003). In contrast, employees with positive affect, high self-esteem, locus of control and self-efficacy are more prone to react positively to change (Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, & Welbourne, 1999; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Having a locus of control means that an employee feels like he or she is able to control the environment. Self-efficacy refers to an employee’s belief that he or she is competent, worthy and successful. Other personality traits that are associated with positive attitudes toward change are having a high tolerance for ambiguity and being open to experience (Judge et al., 1999).

Method Research context

In 2013 the municipal government of Amersfoort launched a change project, which is currently in full progress. The project aims to enhance the municipality’s service quality and decrease its operational expenses by enhancing the effectiveness, flexibility, coherence and agility with which the municipality’s activities are performed. The change is managed by the organization’s board and a specially appointed change team. The change team consists of five managers. They have the responsibility to manage risks associated with the change and to ensure that the transition runs smoothly. The change team advises the organization’s management board on a weekly basis.

When the change project was initiated last year, it focussed first on changing the organization’s culture. The new culture needed to centre on values of openness toward each other, the board and society. These values were discussed in meetings with employees. This year the project focuses on creating a new structure that accommodates for the flexibility, coherence and responsibility that is required. The year 2014 has been labelled by the organization as ‘the year of the change’ (Vermeulen, 2013). The organization wants to change its vertical structure into a structure in which both vertical and horizontal control are present. Thus, a matrix structure arises in which complex tasks that require input from multiple departments are managed horizontally and more simple tasks that only require one field of expertise are managed vertically (Mintzberg, 1995; Vermeulen, 2013). Further, different departments will be clustered in order to increase coherence, flexibility and agility. The exact grouping of the departments needs to be developed still, but several overarching areas are already distinguished, namely a social domain, physical domain and a services domain. The physical domain involves urban planning and the social domain includes care, social security, wellbeing and education. The services domain deals with citizens’ affairs, such as permits, benefits applications and taxes. This domain deals primarily with issues that are relatively easy and that can be solved by one department (Vermeulen, 2013). In contrast, the physical and social domains deal with complex issues that cut across different areas of expertise and that require a coordinated and integrated way of working. Therefore, these domains are likely to be most affected by the organizational change.

At present, the organization has a hierarchical structure in which departments are formed on the basis of expertise (Vermeulen, 2013). When a task requires only one field of expertise, this structure works well. However, when the problem transcends departmental

boundaries or even the organization’s boundaries, the problem is too often cut into pieces and the responsibility is divided among different parties, each handling their own area. Thus, simple issues are handled efficiently by working in this specialized, divisional way, but complex issues are not. The current way of working compromises the quality of the results for complex issues and is inefficient. These issues require a more coordinated and integrated approach in which the ‘customer’s question’ is central.

Through changes in the culture and structure, the organization ultimately wants to change its everyday work practices. The assumption is that complex issues require a holistic approach that cuts across different fields of expertise, while simple issues can be handled within one field or department. In addition, these issues require more focus on implementing the developed solutions, instead of only designing them. As such, a more ‘hands-on’ approach is required. This change toward a more holistic way of working is particularly relevant for the employees who work as policy advisors. These employees are involved in writing and developing policy for a variety of issues. While previously these employees would focus on one area of expertise in their work, the organizational changes require policy advisors to work more and more with many different stakeholders, within and outside of the organization. Hence, the organization needs to manage a change in policy advisors’ way of working. The current diversified and specialized way of working of policy advisors needs to change into a more horizontal, holistic way of working referred to as working horizontally.

Research methods

The study focused on the process of organizational change and regarded the change process as socially constructed. The study was exploratory in nature as the implementation process of a planned organizational change remains a topic that is not yet well understood (By, Burnes, & Oswick, 2011; Jansson, 2013; Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The chosen research approach was inductive, which is appropriate when the research aim is to develop a closer understanding of the specific context and the way individuals interpret various events. The study adopted an interpretative philosophy and focused explicitly on gaining the perspectives of employees that were directly involved in the planned change process (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). As research strategy, the case study approach was chosen. The municipal government of Amersfoort was specifically selected for the study as it was undergoing a planned change. Conducting an exploratory case study in this organization provided the researcher with the rare opportunity to study the process of organizational change in its natural social context. Moreover, the case study research strategy enabled an understanding of the dynamics present in the particular

setting (Eisenhardt, 1989). The case study had a holistic, single-case design, which meant that there was a unitary unit of analysis. This design was appropriate as the case represented a unique situation (Yin, 2009).

Although the organizational change process was planned in the sense that a priori goals were set by management, the implementation process was participative. The change direction was developed by management beforehand, but the way the change was realized in practice was constructed through close cooperation with the organization’s employees (Vermeulen, 2013). Thus, not all changes could be designed or anticipated beforehand. These changes were enacted in practice by employees and developed over time. In other words the change process was emergent (Orlikowski, 1996). Therefore, an emergent design was appropriate for this study. Conducting an emergent study enabled the researcher to learn more about the topic with an open mind and to identify and investigate key concepts as the study progressed (Edmondson & McManus, 2007; Eisenhardt, 1989). The collected data was qualitative as is typical for this type of nascent study (Edmondson & McManus, 2007).

Data collection

Contact with the municipal organization of Amersfoort was initially established through an employee who was known to the researcher. The researcher was able to get in contact with the HR manager, who expressed an interest for the study. This led to a formal meeting between the researcher and the HR manager in which specific research topics were discussed. The HR manager expressed a particular concern about the changing job roles of policy advisors and the researcher suggested that this could be an interesting research topic. The HR manager provided the researcher with several documents and the focus of the study was further discussed via email and the telephone. The researcher developed a research proposal, which the HR manager distributed to some employees to check for its relevance and support. The employees reacted positively and in a follow up meeting the research proposal was approved.

Data was collected through interviews, documents and observations. The combination of these data collection methods made triangulation possible which increased the confirmability of the study (Gibbert, Ruigrok, & Wicki, 2008; Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Ten interviews were conducted with policy advisors working in the Social or Physical Domain, who were directly involved in the change process. They were approached by the HR manager to participate in the research. The HR manager had invited policy advisors from all departments within the organization to participate in the study. He selected 9 policy advisors who were willing to participate in the study. In addition the HR manager scheduled one

interview with a middle manager, because he felt that it was important for the study to also include the perspective of a middle manager. As such, one interview was scheduled with a middle manager who also was a member of the change team. Observations were made during a shadow-day with a policy advisor and during a workshop on working horizontally that was held for policy advisors. Documents that were collected included internal documents on the change plans and its progress, reports from two ‘learning by doing’ meetings in which employees discussed a case study on working horizontally, PowerPoint slides from a presentation held by management during an organization-wide meeting about the change plans and eight sheets drafted up by policy advisors for an assignment they made during the workshop on working horizontally.

The interviews were semi-structured, which was a particularly appropriate design as there was uncertainty about the answers participants were going to provide and the questions were complicated (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). An interview guide was developed which included topics that were addressed with each participant (Patton, 2002). The topics covered two key themes: employees’ perceptions of the change process and employees’ ideas about practices that would help them implement changes in everyday work practices. All interviews lasted between 45 minutes to 1 hour and 15 minutes and were held in the period from April to May 2014. The interviews were conducted in an office at the town hall. At the beginning of the interview, participants were asked for permission to record the interview. Subsequently, rapport was established by asking them about their current work activities (Patton, 2002). Notes were taken during all interviews. At the end of each of the interviews, the researcher communicated to the participants that they would receive their own transcript for review. They were informed that no one else within the organization would be able to see their transcript. All speech was written down as elaborately and accurately as possible in the transcripts including noting laughter or hesitation. This increased the confirmability of the study. Further, enabling participants to review their own transcript increased the credibility of the study (Gibbert et al., 2008). In addition, the researcher wrote down thoughts, issues and impressions after finishing each interview, which increased the dependability of the study. Due to the exploratory nature of the study it was not clear what constructs would be relevant to the study. Therefore the study adopted an emergent design in which the concepts emerged from the data (Eisenhardt, 1989). In order to develop a confirmable study, it was important that the researcher did not have a preordained perspective on specific relationships between concepts (Eisenhardt, 1989; Gibbert et al., 2008). Some literature was collected beforehand in order to help formulate a research problem and specify potentially important

concepts. However, no specific theory was considered beforehand. The literature study was largely conducted after the data had been collected. Concepts that had emerged during the data analysis stage were compared afterwards to concepts, theories and propositions in the existing literature.

Data analysis

The documents and transcripts were analysed through a cycle of data reduction, data display and data analysis (O'Dwyer, 2004). After the transcripts, documents and field notes were carefully studied, codes were developed for different concepts that arose (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The field notes that were developed during participant observation helped the researcher in identifying emerging codes and interpreting the findings. All transcripts and documents were coded manually. A combination of a deductive and inductive approach to coding was used (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). While coding, the researcher used the analytic strategies of asking questions and making comparisons which increased the confirmability of the study (Corbin & Strauss, 2008; Gibbert et al., 2008). The analytic process involved open, axial and selective coding. Wherever possible the researcher used in-vivo codes in order to minimize subjective interpretation by the researcher and increase the study’s confirmability. The researcher drafted a list of several starter codes, namely: way of working, communication, participation, leadership, attitude toward change, organizational structure and individual differences. Additional codes were developed for new themes that arose from the data. The concepts were carefully examined in order to identify their distinct properties and dimensions. Existing codes were merged, separated or developed into structures with categories. Frameworks and diagrams were drawn to help the researcher think about potential relationships between concepts. The codes were categorized into two main themes, namely perceptions of working horizontally, and factors that influence the realization of working horizontally. Table 1 and Table 2 display these codes respectively.

All documents were written in Dutch. In addition, the transcripts were written in Dutch as all interviews were conducted with Dutch native speakers. Therefore it was chosen to develop all initial codes in Dutch. This enabled the researcher to stay as close to the original meaning of the words as possible in the first stages of the data analysis process and to avoid interpreting their words too quickly. After all the data had been coded, the codes were translated to English and quotes that were particularly illustrative of the developed themes were translated in order to incorporate them as quotes in the research report. After the initial data analysis was completed and tentative findings were developed the

researcher developed a report with a description of the main findings. The report was sent to all participants. A week after this report was sent, the researcher held a meeting to present and discuss the findings. All participants and members of the change team were invited. During the meeting, the participants indicated that they recognized and agreed with much of the findings. No alterations were required based on participants’ reactions to the findings. Providing the participants with a report of the findings and allowing them to discuss the findings in a meeting increased the credibility of the study.

Table 1. Perceptions of working horizontally

Perception Description Exemplary Quotations

Integral way of working

That many parts of the municipality are involved in jointly accomplishing the task.

“Well, [working horizontally] is actually just an integral way of working. That I encounter a broad representation of the municipality in all my projects.”

Task-oriented way of working

That the task determines the way in which the work is accomplished and the task is handled in a multidisciplinary way.

“For me [working horizontally] means that you work together on tasks that pertain to various policy areas, that it is managed by

someone who is able to see beyond those policy areas.”

Working from the outside-in

That the city environment determines the way of working.

“A real horizontal way of working means that you let the city

determine your assignments.” Project-based way

of working

That the work is accomplished through projects or programs.

“That is of course what we need to figure out now, what does working in a project-based way entail? Or a horizontal…. What did you call it in your document?”

Table 1 - Continued. Perceptions of working horizontally

Perception Description Exemplary Quotations

Working with horizontal management

That the work is managed in a horizontal way.

“I think that working horizontally or working with horizontal

management means that we focus on a particular project or

neighborhood and that everyone who is involved in accomplishing the work, which can be people from various fields of expertise, work together.”

Table 2. Factors that influence the accomplishment of working horizontally

Factor Description Exemplary Quotations

Communication

Change communication The way top management articulates and

disseminates the change vision throughout the organization (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991b).

“I think that being open and honest [about the organizational changes] is always very important.”

Employee communication

The communication transactions within the organization between individual employees or between groups, for the purpose of designing, implementing and coordinating everyday work activities (Frank & Brownell, 1989).

“You will need to share much more information with [colleagues] and be more transparent about the things you do than before. […] So [The new way of working]

necessitates more alignment with each other.”

Management

Structure The complex means of control in the organization consisting of a structural framework and a

configuration of

interaction (Ranson et al., 1980).

“What I currently miss is that from the top down and from the bottom up the organization in total does not work horizontally, because the entire organization[al structure] is vertical.”

Line management The organizing of

production and monitoring of subordinates’

performance (Lowe, 1992, p. 148-149).

“I think that [line managers] are an important link in accomplishing the new way of working”.

Table 2 – Continued. Factors that influence the accomplishment of working horizontally

Factor Description Exemplary Quotations

Participation Employees’ opportunity to have an input in proposed changes (Wanberg & Banas, 2000).

“I think that there are workgroups that are being set up to develop what [the changes] will be, so it is not all planned out precisely where we will end up. […] I mean and it often the case that when people are told exactly what to do from the top down that many of them tend to resist anyway.”

Individual differences

Competencies The set of individual knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviours, and the collective capabilities that are associated with high performance (Athey & Orth, 1999).

“That is something that you have to look at [with working horizontally] when you are designing

departments or project groups, that you ensure that a team

encompasses all the required skills.”

Personality traits The relatively consistent styles in which individuals act, think and feel

(McCrae & Costa, 1997).

“I have a couple of colleagues that only see things in black and white. So when I go there with a plan and ask if they think it is good or if it is possible they look at it and they say yes or no. […] What I need from colleagues is that they do not think in yes or no, but that they think about what is possible.”

Results

Analysis of the data resulted in two main findings. Firstly, working horizontally was interpreted in various ways and policy advisors’ perceptions of the extent to which their current way of working was similar to the new way of working varied. The policy advisors appeared to be at different stages in the change process. Secondly, four factors were identified from the data as influencing employees’ accomplishment of a horizontal way of working. Perceptions of working horizontally

Employees reported to experience that change in policy advisors’ way of working was necessary due to changes in the organizational environment. They indicated that the development towards a participative society and the decentralization of responsibilities from the national government to the municipality required them to adjust their way of working. One of the participants illustrated this, “And you notice that the way all complex policy is currently developed involves so many different steps, we simply will not be able to succeed then. If we need to meet our deadlines, we cannot do it that way.” Although it was clear to the policy advisors that change was required, it was unclear to them what they needed to change their way of working into. Employees reported that it was unclear to them what the new way of working called working horizontally entailed, as one explained, “Everyone is talking about working horizontally, but I think that the first question we need to answer is what is it?” Employees’ perceptions of what working horizontally entailed differed highly from one another, as was shown in Table 1. They used various names to describe this way of working and their explanations of what it encompassed also varied. In general, the participants reported that there were two aspects to working horizontally. The first component involved the new way of working within the organization. This entailed working closely together with other policy advisors throughout the organization. The second component encompassed the new way in which policy advisors worked with citizens and organizations, in other words their way of working with parties external to the organization.

Employees varied in their perceptions regarding the extent to which working horizontally differed from their current way of working. Some employees indicated that working horizontally was profoundly different from the current way of working and involved a great change, “And well it truly is a different way of working in my opinion.” Another interviewee noted “Developing less policy plans and ensuring that these plans are subservient, that is a huge change.” One of the employees explained that working horizontally was different from the organization’s current way of working, “And it is just not natural to this

organization, at least not to the department that I work for, to handle things that way.” Yet, some employees reported that working horizontally was not that different from their current way of working. “For me there are various examples of things we have already handled in a horizontal manner. We just did not call it that way. For, what is so different about working horizontally than merely handling a problem with a multidisciplinary team? […] That is how we already worked and what we will do more in the future.” Another interviewee indicated not to expect much change in her way of working either, “I do not feel like […] things will be very different in the future.” Someone else agreed, “I expect that there might not even be that many changes for my subjects.”

The data indicated that adopting a horizontal way of working was a change process with a beginning and an end state that had already started several years before. One of the interviewees reported that changing their way of working was a process of development, “We are still very much in the process of development. We are not at the end state yet, we are still practicing.” Another participant indicated about the way of working, “I think that change is already occurring [in the way of working], but I think that this change will become much greater.” The participants distinguished between an old way of working, a current way of working and a new or future way of working. The descriptions employees provided of their current way of working differed, indicating that there were differences in the current ways of working of policy advisors. For some the new way of working appeared to be more similar to their current way of working than for others. This suggested that the policy advisors were at different stages in the process of changing their way of working. One of the interviewees explained that some employees were further along in the change process of realizing a horizontal way of working than others, “Well I think that currently we all are at different stages of what might be the new way of working. Because it also depends on the type of work, what people are doing, what departments they work for.” The participant indicated that the differences in the extent to which policy advisors had already realized a new way of working depended on their type of work activities and the particular department they worked for. He felt like that variation was due to people’s particular work activities and the departments they worked at. Another employee also mentioned that employees were in different stages of the change process. He noted that the policy advisors were undergoing a process of development regarding a new way of working, which currently caused them to differ in the way they accomplished their work, “That is the funny thing when you look at organizational development. You are already part of the organization and you already work in a certain way. Hence, the way it is now and what is desired is often intertwined.”

Many employees felt like they had already developed far towards the end state and as such felt like their current way of working was fairly consistent with the desired new way of working. The employees indicated that the way policy advisors’ work was accomplished had changed over the years and that they themselves as well as their colleagues had already progressed much toward working horizontally. One of the interviewees explained, “I feel like as a department we are already quite far in working from the inside out.” Another participant also reported that in her opinion her department had already progressed much towards the new way of working, “so if we are talking about how far the department is, then I think it already is quite far in the change process.” Some employees indicated feeling like they had already fully accomplished the new way of working, “I think the new way of working is the way I work. […] I feel like how I work corresponds to what the organization desires.”

In summary, there was no unitary perception among employees of working horizontally. They differed in the names they used to describe this way of working and in the extent to which they perceived it to be different from their current way of working. The accomplishment of working horizontally appeared to be a change process and policy advisors seemed to be at different stages. However, most participants felt like they had themselves already adopted the new way of working to a great extent.

Factors that influence the accomplishment of working horizontally

The data indicated four factors that influenced employees’ in the realization of working horizontally, namely communication, management, participation and individual differences. These four factors also affected each other.

Communication

The participants reported that communication influenced the way in which they realized working horizontally. They indicated that two types of communication were particularly important, namely change communication and employee communication.

Change communication involved the information management provided to policy advisors about organizational changes. The participants indicated that it was important to them that communication about change was clear. One of the interviewees reported that communication about change is important for creating a vision and clarity about what needs to happen, “[it is important] that you communicate within the organization what the direction is.” Someone notes that without direction “it depends too much on individuals’ perceptions.” One of the interviewees explained what the organization needs to pay attention to in providing information about the change, “You always need to explain how people need to interpret this.

It does not mean that you will be fired tomorrow, you know. You need to give people that sense of security. That they understand what is happening and what to expect. And when that is still unclear, then just explain that it is unclear.” This indicates that the organization needs to provide information about the change sufficiently and clearly and needs to instill employees with a sense of security regarding the changes. A participant indicated that it is important that the organization does not provide too much information at the same time, “when you use a couple of key terms then it sticks, just [do] not [use] too much. Just a couple of things that you as a an official can think o these are the most important things, I should not forget those.” When too much information is provided at the same time, people do not remember the message, “[Then it just] goes in one ear and out the other”.

Change communication occurred through multiple communication channels, such as departmental meetings, organization-wide meetings, lunch meetings with management, individual conversations with line managers or by providing documents. The participants indicated that not all communication channels were as effective in influencing the accomplishment of change. A participant noted that communication through documents was less effective than communication through a departmental meeting, “I have read documents about that. I have to say, I tend to find them a bit inaccessible. […] When you explain in a departmental meeting where you stand in the change process, what you are currently working on and when you will provide us with more information it is much more effective than when you are sent some documents that you… for which you do not take enough time to read.” When information is provided in organization-wide meetings, the information does not necessarily lead to more clarity about the change. One of the interviewees explains feeling confused after one of the organization-wide meetings about the changes, “And in the last two speeches they tried to concretize what the changes entailed […]. It all seemed very concrete but exactly that concreteness raised a lot of questions for me, because the consequences of those changes were very unclear, at least to me.”

The second type of communication that was found to influence the realization of working horizontally was employee communication. This type of communication refers to the communication between policy advisors. The data indicated that good employee communication stimulated working horizontally, yet when employee communication was lacking this way of working was hindered. The participants reported that the new way of working required them to work much more closely together with other policy advisors, often with policy advisors from other departments. When they were handed an assignment, it often involved other subject matters as well and hence required policy advisors to lay contact with

policy advisors from the other fields involved. Many interviewees indicated that because the organization included over 800 employees, it was impossible to know everyone and it was often difficult to find the person you were looking for. This was especially difficult when that policy advisors worked at a different domain as one explains, “The social domain that is just a whole different sector, there I need to look high and low.” They reported that not being able to find the policy advisors you needed in order to accomplish the assignment hindered a horizontal way of working. One of the policy advisors explained that in order to be able to work together with other policy advisors, “I need to be able to find you, I need to know what you do.” Effective employee communication would help them realize working horizontally. One of the interviewees suggested that the organization could improve the communication by providing IT-facilities, “By providing good facilities you can also help people search for those contacts, help them in shaping their new role.”

Management

The policy advisors reported that the organization’s management influenced them in realizing working horizontally. They distinguished two aspects of management, namely organizational structure and the influence of their line manager.

Participants indicated that the organizational structure could help them realize a horizontal way of working, but it could also make it more difficult for them to accomplish this way of working. The political nature of the organization influenced the way the organization’s structure was designed and the way in which policy advisors accomplished their work, as one explained, “You are given an assignment that is democratically legitimized - that is your goal – so that is what you are going to work with. That is your task.” The work policy advisors accomplished was dependent on politics, as one noted, “You need to consider the influence of politicians who always want to take a certain direction and want to spend a certain budget on something.” Another interviewee explained how the political nature of the organization had resulted into a vertical organizational structure, “You have an alderman for the environment and an alderman for spacial planning and an alderman for finance and an alderman for traffic and an alderman for urban management. That is where the compartmentalization starts, because the way the alderman are organized and their budgets and their subjects are divided trickles down to the organization. […] These are all vertical compartments, it is not horizontally organized.”

The vertical organizational structure made it difficult to accomplish working horizontally, as the quote in Table 2 exemplifies. The organization’s structure influenced

employees’ way of working as one explained, “It is organized in a certain way and people have become used to that way. That is how the organization functions, that people have learnt to work in a certain way.” Thus, employees were used to working within a particular organizational structure and as such were used to accomplishing their work in a particular manner that was aligned with that structure. The policy advisors indicated that they needed a new organizational structure that includes a horizontal way of working, “What I need is that working together becomes a formal way of working. Currently, many colleagues are able to find each other through informal networks and tend to work together informally but we still work within the hierarchical vertical lines not across the organization’s internal boundaries.” Another interviewee explained that because of the organization’s hierarchy working closely together with other policy advisors was be difficult, “Because of the way the current reporting cycle is designed and the way we make decisions there is no […] time incorporated for working together.”

The policy advisors were supervised by line managers. According to the participants, their line managers played a crucial role in helping them realize a horizontal way of working. The policy advisors distinguished three ways in which their managers could steer them toward realizing working horizontally, namely through leading by example, providing leeway to make mistakes and by continuously bringing the new way of working to their attention. When a line manager leads by example, it instills employees with a sense of security to work in the new way. It provides a safe environment for them to accomplish the change. One of the interviewees explains that he needs to feel like it is safe to realize a new way of working, “That it is safe to do things differently, that it is also encouraged, that line managers lead by example.” In addition, it is important that line managers give policy advisors the space to grow into another way of working and to provide leeway for making mistakes in trying out new things, “And what is important is that if someone makes a mistake once in a while, that they are not severely punished for it […] but that they are allowed to make a mistake.” Lastly, line managers need to continuously bring the new way of working and the urgency for change under employees’ attention as one interviewee notes about her line manager, “He is the one who needs to bring that to our attention. And actually I also feel like he should test if me and my colleagues are working according to those principles. And if they are not, then he has to do something about it.” When policy advisors do not feel enough urgency and as a consequence do not pay a enough attention to the new way of working, it is easy for them to revert back to working in the same way they used to. Without a sense of urgency, change in their everyday work practices is unlikely to occur, “Actually, when the urgency does not

come from the external environment that much, then you still need to look for it. Because before you know it you will all be doing the things you are [used to], then you go back to business as usual. […] You need to continuously keep paying attention to it.”

Participation

Participation seemed to be an integral part of the organizational change process at the municipal government of Amersfoort. Within the organization there were numerous examples of participation opportunities. The organization even used a special term to describe the change that occurred through participation within the organization, they called it ‘learning by doing’. The participants in the study felt like they were able to exert influence over decisions about the organizational change, as one noted “I also feel like we have some participatory power.” They experienced that the participation opportunities were designed to allow them to help shape the changes. “That is what all those workshops are designed for, to find out from the people themselves what is important to them.” They reported to find participation important, “I think it is important that an organization makes time for that, allows employees enough time to be able to share and exchange things about the change and to inspire or motivate each other. Well currently that happens abundantly.” The participants indicated that participation could create support for the change and that a lack of participation in the change process could create resistance among employees. One of the interviewees explained that allowing for participation could lower resistance. She indicated that especially highly educated people would tend to resist when told exactly what to change, “And we all like it to be [democratic] right, because when you suddenly tell highly educated professionals to change everything and it needs to be exactly like this, well then of course everyone will resist.”

Within the organization there were several ways in which policy advisors could be involved in the changes. Firstly, there were projects that were specifically set up to start with accomplishing tasks in the new way. For instance, an account management team was established that focused primarily on working with organizations according to the new principles as one of the participants who was active in that team explained, “Recently we started with an account management team that works horizontally, with horizontal management and that reports directly to the board […] I think that that is a very good example of how we should be working.” In addition to these projects the organization offered participation opportunities through workgroups, workshops and meetings. For example, in the ‘learning by doing workgroups’ employees were provided with a case study which contained