Communicating an organizational change: the role of participation and storytelling in the change message on psychological ownership and acceptance of the change.
Paloma Chalier D'Ambrosio 11393955
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication Master’s programme Communication Science
Dr. Pernill van der Rijt 31/01/2018
2
Abstract
Drawing on the organizational change process, this research proposed and tested an internal communication strategy in order to achieve a higher psychological ownership of the change and a higher acceptance of the change. This paper studied the efficacy of the change message content - employees' participation in decision making - and format - storytelling-, in order to help managers to overcome a major challenge in nowadays organizational world: employee's support of an organizational change. An online experiment was designed. The results showed most of the averages reported were in line with the expectations. However, the content and format of the change message did not present a direct impact on acceptance of the change. Nevertheless, the message content showed to be positively and significantly associated to psychological ownership of the change. At the same time, this PO showed to have a positive impact on acceptance of the change. Thus, the content of the message seems to have an indirect positive effect on acceptance of change. Another main finding of this paper is the fact that participants experienced psychological ownership of an organizational change -
something that was not considered yet in previous research. Therefore, in order to experience a greater acceptance of change by the employees, it is very relevant for the managerial team to invest their efforts in ways of increasing employee's psychological ownership of the change. For this aim, if they transmit the change via email, employees' participation in decision making should be considered as part of the message content.
Keywords: organizational change, internal corporate communication, employee's participation in decision-making, corporate storytelling, change acceptance, psychological ownership.
3
Introduction
Like rule of thumb, organizations are constantly reorganizing, re-engineering, and implementing new practices in an attempt to survive and be competitive (Vakola, Tsaousis and Nikolaou, 2004). An organizational change is defined by Pardo-del-Val,
Martínez-Fuentes and Roig-Dobón (2012) as "an empirical observation of difference in form, quality or long-term state of an organisational entity, coming out of the deliberate introduction of new styles of thinking, acting or operating, looking for the adaptation to the environment or for a performance improvement (p. 1845)".
In an organization, it is almost universally accepted that people resist changes that disturb their routines (Ford, 1996). Because changes imply uncertainty, they are perceived as a threat for people's security. They cause fear and raise the information processing cost (Powel, 1991; Topping, 2002). Moreover, people feel more attracted to familiar behaviours they trust (Ford, 1996). Thus, introducing new ways of working is a very difficult managerial challenge (Lüscher and Lewis, 2008). However, these responses demonstrate that change is an emotive process, thus it can elicit both positive or negative responses (Mossholder, Settoon, Armenakis and Harris, 2000). When employee's experience a positive change evaluation, like acceptance of the change, it is more likely that they incorporate the change into their performance (Huy, 2002). Hence, to reach their goal, it is fundamental for change managers to evoke these positive attitudes.
Some researchers have claimed that the essence of change is communication (Bate, 1990; Barrett, Thomas and Hocevar, 1995). It is a tool used to announce, explain the change, and prepare employees to its consequences (Jick, 1993). Reducing uncertainty, it evokes employee's psychological safety (Ford and Ford, 1995).
In order to create the best environment to engage employees with the new procedures, two communication elements are crucial: the content (what information is communicated) and
4
the format (how information is presented). Hildon, Allwood and Black (2012) claimed that these elements impact on people's comprehension, choice and preferences.
As the content of the message, communicating all the details about the change and the possibility to participate in its decision making (EPDM) seem to be highly relevant for employee's change acceptance (Coch and French Jr, 1948). Participation is especially
meaningful for the employees not to feel the change is stipulated and controlled by others but, they are invited to the conversation (Woodward and Hendry, 2004). On the other hand, as communication format, Morrell (2006) found that using narratives to transmit change contributes to reduce the complexity and ambiguity of the world. Boje (1991) named stories as the preferred sense-making currency in organizations ,and McKee (2003) stated that stories are the best way of persuasion within a company as they evoke emotions and energies,
engaging the audience.
This study addresses the issue of which is the most effective way to communicate a change in order to be higher accepted by the employees of an organization. This paper looks at the content (EPDM) and format (storytelling) of the change message. The main research question of this research is: What is the influence of the content and format of the
organizational change communication on change acceptance by employees?
The main purpose of this study is to address a widely concerning issue in today's organizational world: employee's resistance to change. Change that is constantly needed in this high speed competitive environment. This research aims to provide evidence to facilitate the required change. Moreover, research focused on employee's attitudes toward change has traditionally been approached from the resistance to change perspective (Oreg, 2003), which some academics find counterproductive (Dent and Goldberg, 1999). Little empirical work analyzed individual's attitudes in terms of positive traits that strengthen change's
implementation (Di Fabio and Kenny, 2016). Thus, this paper contributes to the study of change acceptance, broadening its theoretical and empirical evidence. In addition, by
5
studying the role of employees' participation in change decision-making (EPDM) and the use of the storytelling communication style, this paper aims to shed light on the impact
communication elements have on employees' change acceptance. In particular, this paper contributes to the EPDM literature by addressing European low-level employees. Empirical studies on EPDM and change's attitudes have not been found for this concrete sample so far. Besides, although storytelling has been considered a successful communication strategy by many, it has not been found empirical research regarding acceptance of change. This research aims to fill this gap and further validate the role of narrations in the work place. Finally, by studying the interplay between EPDM and storytelling, this research offers an strategic change plan proposal, and its evidence. This study aims to reduce the challenge executives experience while designing and implementing an strategic change.
This paper will present the following structure. First, the theoretical framework will be introduced. In this section, the key concepts and hypothesis of this research will be exposed. After, the methodology section will introduce the design of the study, the sample and the experiment itself. Later, the results section will address the outcomes obtained from the statistical analysis conducted. Finally, the results will be integrated with the theory and, further interpreted in the discussion and conclusion section.
Theoretical framework Acceptance of change
This study looks for ways to overcome the adversity managers experience while introducing a change, trying to promote its acceptance. Acceptance of change has been defined by Di Fabio and Gori (2016) as the tendency to embrace a change rather than discard it. It occurs when employees emotionally endorse and approve a new process. They found this concept to be multidimensional, involving: personal predisposition to change, socially
6
support the change, change seeking, positive reaction to change, and cognitive flexibility and adaptability.
Employee's support of the change is the initial condition for the plan to be successful (Gagné, Koestner and Zuckeran, 2000). Individual's subjective experiences in moments of change affect their efforts and their performance, the real implementation of the change (Huy, 2002; Herscovitch and Meyer, 2002). Feeling positive emotions leads employees to grow and learn (Di Fabio and Gori, 2016). Thus, acceptance of the change is essential for the change to happen. Oppositelly, a negative perception of the change such as resistance leads to
"grievances, high turnover, very low efficiency, restriction of output and marked aggression against management (Coch and French Jr, 1948, p. 512)". Thus, it fosters a negative impact on the implementation of the change.
As changes disrupt the organizational lifestyle, reducing employees' trust in the company and evoking defensive behaviours, it is difficult to reach change acceptance
(Kavanagh and Ashkanasy, 2006). However, communication plays a vital role in this practice (Beatty, 2015). It is a tool to transmit the aim of the change, the procedure and its
consequences. Plus, a two-way communication allows people to be part of the conversation, involving them in the change. In fact, for a change to be successful, Woodward and Hendry (2004) highlighted the importance of conducting a fair process: having into account people's input into decisions that directly affect them, explaining why decisions are made the way they are, and making clear what to expect once the change is made (Kim and Mauborgne, 1997). Moreover, to foster employee's positive attitudes, an energizing context is needed (Spender and Grinyer, 1995). Therefore, to achieve acceptance of the change, it is fundamental to apply strategic communication, the content and format of the change message may be crucial
elements.
Based on the mentioned characteristics to greater achieve acceptance of change, this study suggests EPDM and storytelling as the change message content and format,
7
respectively. As previous commented, while EPDM allows individuals to give their opinion and advice regarding their own job, storytelling makes the message more concrete and understandable. Plus, it also awakes individuals' emotions. This change communication plan will be further explained in the following sections.
Employee's participation in decision making
EPDM has been widely studied . For this paper, Glew, O’Leary-Kelly, Griffin and Van Fleet's (1995) definition is considered: "a conscious and intended effort by individuals at a higher level in an organization to provide visible extra-role or role-expanding opportunities for individuals or groups at a lower level in the organization to have a greater voice in one or more areas of organizational performance (p. 402)".
Previous research has shown that EPDM is positively related to organizational effectiveness and satisfaction at work, it influences behavioural and attitudinal outcomes (Jenkins and Lawler, 1981). Among these, EPDM has been associated with organization change since the forties. In order to greatly accomplish a change, Coch and French Jr (1948) recommended group meetings to effectively inform the employees, and stimulate them to participate in the change planning. Lenz and Lyles (1986) stated that EPDM helps individuals to see the value of the change, they named it the most reliable method to overcome change resistance. Some well-known theories sustain this relation: the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and the Social Exchange Theory (SET).
The SDT sees humans as proactive organisms that need autonomy to function, this autonomy may be facilitated or impeded by the social context (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick and Leone, 1994). EPDM seems to be part of the social contexts that eases humans' autonomy. It allows the individuals to fulfil their need for self-efficacy and control, which awakes their interest, engagement, and the perception that they can positively deal with the change (Greenberg, 1975; Bandura 1977). Then, it is more likely that they accept it. Empirical support was provided by Sagie and Koslowsky (1994, 1996). Based on a survey study among
8
employees, they found that tactical EPDM (when, where and how to implement the change) increases employee's change acceptance. Similarly, Wanberg and Banas (2000) longitudinal study showed that participation, self-efficacy and self-control predict change acceptance.
Alternatively, the SET sees people's social behaviour as a resource to be exchanged (Bignoux, 2006), "a person for whom another has done a service is expected to return a service when the occasion arises (Blau, 1964, p .4)". Employees consider EPDM as a democratic right (Wilkinson, Gollan and Marchingtion, 2010). In exchange for that, they develop responsibility, motivation and commitment toward the organization (Graham, 1991; Zeffane, 1996;). Thus, by offering EPDM of a change, it is more likely that employees support the change.
In addition, Lines (2004) empirically tested the role of EPDM in relation to post change organizational commitment, resistance to change and achievement of change goals. Based on a survey study among managers, he concluded that EPDM is an important factor at the moment of facilitating an strategic change.
While SDT suggests that EPDM can fulfil the human need of autonomy and control, making the individual to feel committed and ready for the change, finally accepting it. SET sees employees' acceptance of change as a behaviour in exchange for their rights to
participate. Employees respond to a positive social behaviour (EPDM) with one at the same level (acceptance of change). Including the empirical evidence, the first hypothesis of this paper is:
H1. A change message that includes participation in decision making leads to a higher acceptance of change by employees than a change message that does not include participation in decision making.
9 Psychological Ownership
As it has already been mentioned, experiencing EPDM evokes different outcomes, some of them attitudinal. One of this seems to be psychological ownership (PO) (Han, Chiang and Chang, 2010). This concept is defined by Pierce, Kostova and Dirks (2001) as "a state of the mind in which individuals feel as though the target of ownership (material or immaterial) or a piece of it is "theirs" ("It is MINE!") (p. 299)". Different from legal ownership, which is recognized by society, PO is recognized by the individual who holds the feeling of possession (Pierce, Kostova and Dirks, 2003) or actually experience this possession (Rousseau and Shperling, 2003). It has been proven that the target of ownership can be tangible or intangible (e. g. ideas) (Pierce et al., 2003). In the work-place, this target can be a new procedure, a strategic initiative or a particular project (Avey, Wernsing and Palanski, 2012). Thus, this paper proposes that employee's can feel PO of an organizational change. Papers focused on PO usually address the organization or the job itself. So far, studies focused on PO of change have not been found. Therefore, this research refers this matter, addressing the lack of
investigation of different targets of PO (Dawkins et al., 2017).
PO manifests when individuals feel: efficacy, self-identity, belongingness, and accountability, regarding the PO's target (Pierce et al., 2001; Avey, Avolio, Crossley and Luthans, 2009 ; Dawkins et al., 2017). In particular, three main actions produce PO: controlling the target - when a person controls an object, it is perceived as part of the self -, coming to intimately know the target - the more details about an object, the deeper
relationship between the self and the target of ownership -, and investing the self into the target - investing energy, time, effort and attention into an object (Pierce et al., 2001).
Having into account the previous section, individuals experience the three main actions just mentioned (PO preconditions) through EPDM. It makes individuals to feel self-control and self-efficacy, by commenting the target individuals can intimately know it, and they invest their energy and effort on the decisions. Plus, they find themselves more
10
connected to the decision (Han, Chiang and Chang, 2010). It also provides a sense of place (belongingness): they have a spot in this process. In fact, previous research proved EPDM to be positively associate to organizational and job PO. Based on different survey studies among employees, Pierce, O'Driscoll and Coghlan (2004), Chi and Han (2008), and Liu, Wang, Hui and Lee (2012) proved that when employees are able to influence organization's performance they are more likely to feel "this is MY organization". Hence, EPDM seems to be a
predecessor of organizational PO.
Based on the theory and the evidence presented, it is expected that when EPDM of a change is provided, employees will feel "this is MY change". Finally, this paper proposes that EPDM of a change will positively influence employees' PO of the change. Hence, the second hypothesis is:
H2. A change message that includes participation in decision making leads to a higher employees' psychological ownership of change than a change message that does not include participation in decision making.
As already stated, one of the PO's components is individuals' self-identity, which is part of the self concept (Avey et al. 2009). Possessions are entities associated with the self, symbols which people identify themselves with. Besides, they contribute to define someone's identity, acting as the extended self (people consider their possessions as parts of themselves) (James, 1890; Belk, 1988). Thus, the same way people make judgements of themselves, they make judgements of their possessions (Beggan, 1992). Ross and Fletcher (1985) claimed that individuals generally present self-enhancing biases when assessing their traits and abilities. Therefore, Beggan (1992) suggested that the same will happen when they judge objects they own: the feeling of ownership will lead the individual to like the object (Heider, 1958). Beggan (1992) called this phenomenon the mere ownership effect.
11
The effect of ownership has been empirically tested since the forties. Irwin and Gerbhard (1946) found that kids preferred objects given to them than objects given to others. They stated that "there is a general principle whereby ownership enhances the value of an object to its owner (p. 651)". Nuttin (1987) proved this relationship regarding the letters of the alphabet. Participants significantly preferred letters that belonged to their own name. This demonstrates that the mere ownership of a target is sufficient condition to increase its attraction to its owner.
Given this rationale, and having into account that organizational changes have been proposed as a target of PO. This paper suggests that people who experience PO of a change will positively evaluate and accept the change due to the mere ownership effect. Thus, the third hypothesis is:
H3. Employees' acceptance of change will be higher when employees experience a higher PO of the change.
Corporate storytelling
As previously stated, both, the content and format of a message influence people's perceptions of what is said. It has been suggested that by using narratives as a communication format in an organizational environment employees' understanding and engagement increases (McKee, 2003; Morrell 2006). A story is defined by Bennet and Royle (2004) as "series of events in a specific order, with a beginning, a middle and an end (p. 55)". They present two basic elements: chronology and causality (Escalas, Moore and Britton, 2004).
When this format is used in organizational communication, it is called corporate storytelling. This term is defined by Gill (2014) as "the process of developing and delivering an organization’s message by using narration about people, the organization, the past, visions for the future, social bonding and work itself in order to create a new point-of-view or
12
reinforces an opinion or behaviour (p. 664)". Marshall and Adamic (2010) claimed that a corporate story contains four distinct characteristics: purpose (a reason to exist), allusion (a situation from the past), people (a storyteller and an audience) and appeal (emotional content). In other words, these stories are experiences of others, they talk about something that already happened which is the current organizational goal and they inspire us.
Previous research has proposed storytelling as a positive internal communication strategy and a good employer practice in organizations (McKee, 2003; Denning, 2005). This paper proposes some reason for that. First, individuals are exposed to stories since they are born. Shankar, Elliot and Goulding (2001) claimed that everybody becomes socially and culturally conditioned into understanding narrations. Thus, people are used to easily capture and process this format (Chang, 2009). Second, due to their emotional content, the audience can identify themselves with the corporate story's characters if they share common traits (Martin, 2016). Often, they imagine themselves in the same situation. Being absorbed by the plot, they become part of the story themselves. Green and Brock (2000) called this
phenomenon narrative transportation. In this way, the listener creates a deep, solid and emotional affiliation with the message (Dowling, 2006; Gill, 2011). Third, Denning (2006) proposed that corporate stories are able to spark action. Their causal nature provides reasons of why things happen and, they help to understand and relate facts (Delgadillo and Escalas, 2004). Wilkins (1984) considered stories as maps that guide the individuals in an
organizational process. Its understanding leads to employee's engagement and commitment (Barker and Gower, 2010; Sinclair, 2005).
Little academic research has been found about the power of this communication style over organizational change. However, as previously stated, in order to achieve a change, employees must perceive it as a fair process in which communication plays a fundamental role: explaining why decisions are made the way they are, and what to expect once the changes are made, between other characteristics (Kim and Mauborgne, 1997; Woodward and
13
Hendry, 2004). Because people are used to it since their childhood, the storytelling format is easy to process and to understand. Moreover, it presents a causal sequence. It goes from a starting point (why the change is needed) to what to achieve and what to expect. These characteristics comply with the requirements to communicate a change fairly.
In addition, through corporate storytelling individuals can experience narrative transportation which activates affective and cognitive responses, particularly warm feelings (Van Laer, de Ruyter, Visconti and Wetzels, 2014). Accordingly, it makes the listeners to evaluate elements more favourably and to be less resistant to persuasion (Kim, Lloyd and Cervellon , 2015). In fact, Adamson, Pine, Van Steenhoven and Kroupa (2006) claimed that "change is as much about relationships, emotions, and gut feel as it is about facts (p. 36)". Thus, an employee who is "transported" into a change story may evaluate it more positively, even accepting it. On his literature review, Gill (2011) stated that corporate stories enhance employee loyalty during change.
Finally, Gill (2014) cites Gardner (2010) who strongly linked using stories to change people’s minds and reinforce opinions. He also cites Forman (2013) claiming that
organizational stories create a memorable message that provokes individuals to take cause and action (e. g. change), if there is an identified interest to the listener.
To conclude, as stories' familiar format is easy to process, narratives fulfil important requirements of a fair change process, they can awake positive responses toward a situation (through identification and narrative transportation), and they are able to promote action, this format seems suitable for a successful change communication. Hence, stories general
characteristics and, corporate storytelling features in particular suggest that the use of corporate storytelling while communicating a change will facilitate its acceptance. Thus, the fourth hypothesis is:
14
H4. A change message in a story format (corporate storytelling) leads to a higher acceptance of change by employees than a change message that is not presented in a story format.
The three main actions required to achieve PO have already been stated. One of them is to intimately know the target of ownership (Pierce et al., 2001). Corporate storytelling possesses characteristics that particularly address this matter. As people are conditioned to this communication style, it is straightforward and easy to process. Moreover, stories provide a concrete context and a causal sequence of facts, they have been considered as maps that indicates individuals the route to follow. Hence, individuals easily capture this format and receive all the information needed to deeply know the target of PO. In this research, an organizational change.
Another main action required to achieve PO is to highly invest the self into the target of ownership (Pierce et al., 2001). Corporate storytelling characteristics may also affect this point. Individuals can feel identify with the characters of the story and, they can put
themselves in the protagonist shoes. Moreover, when they believe they are part of the story and forget the real world, they can experience narrative transportation. These processes show that storytelling reaches the audience in an emotional and personal level, leading people to fully invest their psychic energy and attention on new scenarios.
Producing an intimate knowledge of the message and a deep emotional connection to it, corporate storytelling seems to fulfil two PO's preconditions. Thus, it is expected that a corporate story about an organizational change will positively influence employees' PO of the new procedure. Therefore, the fifth hypothesis is:
H5. A change message in a story format (corporate storytelling) leads to a higher employees' psychological ownership of change than a change message that is not presented in a story format.
15
The interplay between employee's participation in decision-making and corporate storytelling
While communicating a change, what it is said and how is crucial to influence people's understanding and choices about the new practice (Hildon et al., 2012). This section addresses how a particular content and format of the change message may influence employee's
acceptance and PO of the change.
Gill (2011) stated that storytelling supplements decision-making, being the ideal structure to communicate a change. EPDM content addresses the action of giving people a voice and the chance to influence the change. Storytelling format provides the guidelines of what is needed to be done, explaining the reasons that originated the change and showing the consequences of the new implementation. Together, they create a fair process. Moreover, this format reaches people in a more personal way, individuals can relate to the characters and the situation. Hence, this paper claims that change acceptance will be the highest when the change message presents both EPDM and corporate storytelling . Thus, the sixth hypothesis is:
H6. A change message that includes participation in decision making and a story format (corporate storytelling) leads to the highest acceptance of change by employees.
Among the same lines, these communication elements may play a role regarding people's PO of change. Recalling EPDM and corporate storytelling theory, this research suggests that when EPDM is included in the change message, people perceive more autonomy and control of the process. On the other hand, corporate storytelling literature suggests that this format's characteristics promote a deep and personal knowledge of the message, and people can identify themselves on the narration. Individuals can find themselves immerse in the plot, fully investing the self in the scenario presented. Thus, considering PO's
16
preconditions, when the change message includes both EPDM and corporate storytelling of the change, employees will be more likely to experience change's PO. The last hypothesis is:
H7. A change message that includes participation in decision making and a story format (corporate storytelling) leads to the highest employees' psychological ownership of change .
All the hypothesis proposed are represented in the conceptual model (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Methodology
This study consisted in an online experiment in which participants had to imagine they work in a travel agency and they need to start working at the office after years working from home. The company where they work transmitted this information to the employees in 4 different emails.
The design of the experiment was 2x2 factorial, with EPDM (2 levels: "participation" vs. "non-participation") and corporate storytelling (2 levels: "storytelling" vs. "factual cues") change messages, both variables evaluated between subjects. Thus, the independent variables are EPDM and corporate storytelling in the change message. As dependent variables, PO and acceptance of the change were assessed after participants were randomly exposed to one of these four stimulus.
17 Sample
All participants were approached through the social network of the researcher, Facebook. The investigator posted the link to the experiment on her profile, asking her contacts to answer and share it among their friends. The initial data set of this experiment presented 209 participants. After data cleaning, 32 individuals were removed as they did not accept the consent, and 17 abandoned the experiment before answering to all the items. Finally, after analyzing the manipulation check items of each participant regarding their condition, 23 individuals showed not to pay much attention to the experiment. For example, giving the highest mark to the three participation items when they did not were exposed to such stimulus. The final sample for this experiment consisted of 137 adult participants (Mage= 27.01 years, SDage = 7.93 years). Out of the total number of respondents, 66% were female (n = 91), and 93% of the individuals attended university (n = 127). In relation to their mother tongue, 11% of the contestants were native English speakers (n = 15) . Between the non-English speaker, Spanish was the most common language, with 37% of the people (n = 51). Finally, 64% of the sample was employed at the moment the experiment was run (n = 88). Manipulation material
The four conditions were designed based on a real change experienced at Yahoo's offices in 2013 (Swisher, 2013).The manager sent an email to all the employees of the company announcing that in the near future they would start working at the office instead of working from home, as they have always been doing. The email also presented the benefits and inconveniences of the change.
For this experiment, the participants had to imagine they worked from home for a travel agency called On my Way, their job was to create travel packages (fligh+hotel+tour). One day they received an email from the manager team asking them to start working at the office. Four versions of this email were created: factual cues, factual cues + participation, storytelling, and storytelling + participation. In order to make the content of both formats
18
(factual cues and storytelling) to coincide, the conditions were simultaneously created comparing them on a table (Appendix A).
The condition called factual cues presented a factual message. This kind of messages provide a direct description of an object, its benefits and inconveniences (Milton, 1974). This format was selected as the non-storytelling condition because previous research has compared factual cues and storytelling formats in advertisement, showing that narratives enhance
product evaluation (Escalas, 2006; Polyorat, Alden and Kim, 2007).This email asked people to come to work at the office and described the change in an analytical way, it provided objective information without any emotional appeal. The message was based on academic studies which highlighted a decrease of the flexibility in choosing where to work, but an increment of great ideas when people work physically together at the office.
The second condition was called factual cues + participation. It showed the exact same content than the factual cues condition, plus an extra section where the employee's opinion was asked. The text also remarked that their comments would be consider in the implementation of this change.
The third condition was called storytelling. A springboard story was designed to ask the participants to start working at the office. This type of narratives was selected by Denning (2006) as the most effective story to spark action. It introduces a change that was successfully implemented in the past, and motivates people to think about how it would be in their own situation. The change and its consequences were presented through Peter’s experience, an employee of the company just like the participants. Peter participated in a one month trial working at the office. Despite a decrease in his flexibility deciding where to work, the amount of great ideas increased among the employees due brainstorming with other co-workers. Peter was selected as the main character of the story because Martin (2016) found that narratives have more impact on employees when the protagonist is socially close to them and they present common characteristics, like a co-worker.
19
Finally, the last condition is called storytelling + participation. It includes the email about Peter's experience with the change and the section about employee's comments. Pilot study
Two pilot studies were conducted in order to assess the experimental conditions. Qualtrics website was used to perform the trial. They included a brief explanation of the research, the participation agreement, the four conditions and eight manipulation check items. The conditions were randomly and evenly assigned between the participants. The first trial (N = 17) did not show significant differences between the conditions, regarding the manipulation check. Thus, some thoughtful modifications were applied. In order to make clear when EPDM was offered and when it was not, the expression “we ask all employees to be present at the office” was change for “all employees need to be present at the office” in all four conditions. Moreover, to make storytelling and factual cues conditions more distinct, the source of information of the factual cues message was changed. Instead of an employee’s trial,
academic studies were used to introduce the advantages and disadvantages of working at the office. Then, the second trial was conducted (N = 20).
To make sure there is a difference between the conditions than involved EPDM (n = 10) and the ones who did not (n = 10), the relationship between these two groups and three manipulation check items (e.g. “On my Way told me that I can participate in the change") was tested. The result of several independent-samples t-test showed that individuals who were exposed to the EPDM message and individuals who were not, perceived the messages significantly different. Participants who received the EPDM message recognized the opportunity to participate in the change, meaning that the manipulation was successful. Therefore, these conditions could be compared. For statistical results see Table B1.
Second, five items were used to assess the differences between the texts that presented storytelling format (n = 10) and the ones with factual cues (n = 10) (e. g. “The email revolved around a person”). Independent-samples t-tests showed that individuals who received
20
storytelling and the participants who received factual cues perceived the stimulus in a different way. Participants who were exposed to the storytelling format recognized to have read a text which presented storytelling characteristics. Thus, the manipulation was
successful, and these two groups could be compared. For statistical results see Table B2. Experiment
Once all the conditions showed to be consistent, the official Qualtrics experiment was created and its link was posted on the researcher's Facebook profile.
When the participants clicked on the link, information about the topic of the study (communication at work), the researcher and the institution (UvA) was presented. Also, the anonymity policy, an email account for doubts, and the participation agreement. After some demographic questions and control variables' items, the participants were randomly and evenly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions: factual cues message (n = 36), factual cues + participation (n = 32), storytelling (n = 29) and, storytelling + participation (n = 40) (Table C1).
After this, the scales of the dependent variables were presented: PO and acceptance of change. At the end, the eight manipulation check items and a debrief of the research were presented.
Measures
In this section all the scales used in this experiment will be presented (Appendix D). Acceptance of the change. Wanberg and Banas' (2000) openness to change scale was used to measure this concept as it makes reference to supporting a change and showing a positive attitude toward it consequences. This scale is a seven-item modified version of an openness toward organizational change scale developed by Miller, Johnson and Grau (1994). Its items range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (e.g., "I would consider myself to be open to the change"). Four items needed to be reversely recoded as they address a
21
axis factor analysis was conducted. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy presented a highly strong relationship between the variables (KMO = 0.82). At the same time, Bartlett’s test of sphericity showed that the overall significance of all the correlations within the correlation matrix was significant (χ2 (21) = 318.57, p = .000). Thus, the analysis was considered. It suggested a one-factor structure for this scale, the item "Overall, the proposed change is for the better" had the strongest association (factor loading is .74). The internal reliability of this scale was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.82).
Psychological ownership. Four items were selected and adapted from Van Dyne & Pierce's (2004) 7-item scale. They have already been used and adapted by Baer and Brown (2012) to study PO of a target different from organizational PO. These items range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (e.g., "This is my change"). A principal axis factor analysis was also performed. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett's test allowed these results to be considered (KMO = 0.80, X2 (6) = 403.08, p = .000). It showed a one-factor structure for this scale, the item “I feel like this is my change” had the strongest association (factor
loadings .92). This scale showed a high reliability (Cronbach’s α = .89).
Manipulation checks. Eight items created by the researcher were used to measure if the experimental conditions were significantly different and to assess participant's attention to the experiment. These items range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Three of them addressed the message's content: EPDM (e. g. "On my Way told me that I can
participate in the change"), and five referred to the format: storytelling (e. g. "The email revolved around a person").
Control variables. Some personal variables may affect various work-related attitudes regarding this specific change, thus they were proposed as possible control variables to reduce potential confounding effects. Previous research indicated educational level and work
22
Nikolaou, 2005). Participants with a high education and/or long work-experience should present flexibility and adaptability to positively assess the change and to cope with it.
Moreover, having into account that only the 11% of the sample presented the language of the experiment (English) as their mother tongue, and the nuances or misinterpretations of the language, this variable was included as control. For further analysis, dummy variables of the following items were created: educations (non-university studies/ university studies), year of experiences (less than five years/ more than five years), and first language (native English/ non-native English).
In addition, having the opportunity to freely choose where to work in their current job was also proposed as control variable. People who have the chance to be at home in their real life may consider this change as a greater lost. Thus, it may be negatively related to accepting working at the office.
To measure the four variables just named, four single items were used: “which is your educational level?”, "how many years of work experience do you have?", "which is your mother tongue?", "do you have the opportunity to work from home whenever you like?".
Finally, the last control variable considered was resistance to change, the individual’s personal disposition to change. While some people embrace changes and adventures, others cannot easily deal with them. This is embedded in someone’s personality. Thus, this paper suggests that individuals who experience a high level of resistance to change will struggle more accepting it, regardless the type of change or the way it is communicated. Thus, this variable might affect the results. The most representative four items of Oreg's (2003) resistance to change scale were used, one per first order factor (e. g. "I generally consider changes to be a negative thing"). These items range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).One item needed to be reversely recoded as it addressed the ability to easily change ideas (e. g. “I often change my mind”). A principal axis factor analysis was conducted. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlett's test allowed to proceed with this analysis (KMO = 0.61, X2
23
(6) = 91.81, p = .000) . It showed that these items loaded in two factors: three items on external changes (a procedure) and one item on internal changes (the mind). A typically orthogonal (Varimax) rotation was conducted. This scale appeared to be unreliable
(Cronbach’s α = .52). However, by removing the internal change item (e. g. “I often change my mind”) the scale was reasonably reliable (Cronbach’s α = 0.72). As this experiment address a procedure, it also fitted the research better.
Results
Preliminary analysis
Randomization check.
In order to test whether the randomization of participants to factual cues (n = 36), factual cues + participation (n = 32), storytelling (n = 29) and, storytelling + participation (n = 40) was successful, several Chi-Square tests between different personal variables and the four conditions were conducted: education (X2 = 0.61, p (two-tailed) = .893), work experience (X2 = 2.07, p (two-tailed) = .558), first language (X2 = 1.98, p (two-tailed) = .577), and having the opportunity to work from home (X2 = 0.27, p (two-tailed) = .965). All these analysis presented non-significant differences between these four groups.
In addition, in order to evaluate participant's level of resistance to change, a one-way ANOVA analysis was driven . Levene’s test showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met (F (3, 133) = 0.89; p =.447).This analysis revealed no differences between factual cues (M = 3.09, SD = 1.16), factual cues + participation (M = 3.56, SD = 0.93), storytelling (M = 3.30, SD = 1.19) and, storytelling + participation (M = 3.21, SD = 1.13) in relation to resistance to change (F (3, 133)= 1.10; p (two-tailed) = .352).
Manipulation check.
In order to see if the participants of the different experimental conditions experienced the different situations as intended, the manipulation effect was checked.
24
To see if the participation conditions (n = 72) and the non-participation condition (n = 65) were perceived differently by the contestants, several t-tests were conducted between these two groups and the three manipulation items that addressed this condition (e.g. “On my Way told me that I can participate in the change"). The analysis showed that individuals who received the EPDM message and individuals who did not receive it perceived the conditions in a different way. Participants who received the EPDM message recognized the opportunity to participate in the change. Hence, the manipulation was successful and the results could be used to compare these two samples. For statistic results see Table B3.
To assess the differences between the groups that were exposed to a storytelling format (n = 69) and the ones who received factual cues (n = 68), several t-tests were conducted regarding five manipulation items that made reference to this format (e.g. “The email revolved around a person”). These analysis showed that individuals who received storytelling and the participants who received factual cues format perceived significantly different stimulus in the conditions. Participants who were exposed to the storytelling format recognized to have read a text which presented storytelling characteristics. Thus, the
manipulation was successful, and these two groups could be compared. For statistic results see Table B4.
Correlation analysis.
A Pearson's correlation analysis was conducted between the proposed control variables and the main variables of the research. For further analysis, the control variables that
correlated at least .31 (a moderate association) with the dependent variables of this research were considered. As a negative moderate associations was found between the variables first language and psychological ownership (r = -0.39, n = 137, p (two-tailed) = .000), first
language was included as a covariate in all the following analysis. All the correlations can be found in Table B5.
25 Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis 1.
The first hypothesis made reference to a positive effect of EPDM on acceptance of the change. An ANCOVA was conducted. Levene’s test showed that the assumption of
homogeneity of variances was met (F (1, 135) = 0.00, p = .967). The ANCOVA showed that the group exposed to the participation message (M = 4.74, SD = 0.88) and the group who did not have this option (M = 4.61, SD = 0.98) did not show a significant difference in relation to acceptance of change (F (1, 134) = 0.30, p (two tailed) = .587, p (one-tailed) = .294, partial η2 = 0.00). The covariate, first language, was significantly related to the participant’s acceptance of change (F (1, 134) = 10.30, p (two-tailed) = .002, p (one-tailed) = .001, partial η2 =0.07) (β = - 0.79, p = .002). These findings do not support the first hypothesis.
Hypothesis 2.
For the second hypothesis, an ANCOVA was conducted to compare PO of the change of individuals that had the possibility to participate in the decisions about the change and those who did not have this opportunity. Levene’s test showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met (F (1, 135)= 1.04; p = .310). There was a significant difference in the scores for participation (M = 3.57, SD = 1.43) and non-participation (M = 3.05, SD = 1.30) conditions (F (1, 134) = 3.93, p (two-tailed) = .049, p (one-tailed) = .025, partial η2 = 0.03) (Table B6). The covariate, first language, showed to be significantly related to PO of the change (F (1, 134) = 22.31, p (two-tailed) = .000, p (one-tailed) = .000, partial η2 = 0. 14) (β = -1.65, p = .000). These results showed the expected difference between these groups, participants who received the EPDM message presented a higher PO of a change. Hence, the second hypothesis is supported.
26 Hypothesis 3.
A multiple linear regression was calculated to predict acceptance of change based on individual's PO of the change, the hypothesis three. A significant regression equation was found (F (2, 134) = 16.41, p = .000), with an R2 of .20. It showed that by increasing
employee's PO of the change, the acceptance of it increases (β = .25, p = .000). The covariate, first language, was not significantly related to the acceptance of change (β = -.37, p = .139) (Table B7). The findings support this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 4.
In order to assess the fourth hypothesis, another ANCOVA was driven to compare the level of acceptance of change of individuals who were exposed to a storytelling message (M = 4.80, SD = 0.88) and those who received the factual cues (M = 4.55, SD = 0.96). Levene’s test showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met (F (1, 135) = 0.35, p = .556). A marginally significant difference was found between the groups who received the storytelling message and the group who had factual cues (F (1, 134) = 2.33, p (two-tailed) = .130, p (one-tailed) = .065, partial η2 =0.02) regarding change acceptance. The covariate, first language, was significantly related to the participant’s acceptance of change (F (1, 134) = 10.59, p (two-tailed) = .001, p (one-tailed) = .001, partial η2 =0.07) (β = -.79, p = .001). Even though these results showed participants who received the storytelling format presenting a higher acceptance of the change, as expected, they are not consistent enough to support the hypothesis. Hence, the fourth hypothesis is rejected.
Hypothesis 5.
The fifth hypothesis suggested a positive relation between the use of a storytelling format to communicate a change and employee’s PO of the change. To evaluate this association an ANCOVA was driven. Levene’s test showed that the assumption of
homogeneity of variances was met (F (1, 135)= 0.07; p = .793). The ANCOVA showed that there was no significant difference on PO of the change between participants who received
27
the storytelling message (M = 3.32, SD = 1.37) and those who received the factual cues (M = 3.33, SD = 1.42) (F (1, 134) = 0.03, p (two-tailed) = .857, p (one-tailed) = .429, partial η2 = 0.00). The covariate, first language, presented a significant association with PO of the change (F (1, 134) = 23.52, p (two-tailed) = .000, p (one-tailed) = .000, partial η2 =0.15) (β = -1.71, p = .000). Thus, a storytelling format does not seem to enable employee’s PO of the change. These results do not support this hypothesis.
Hypothesis 6.
To assess acceptance of change based on individual’s exposition to the participation and storytelling together, the sixth hypothesis, an ANCOVA was conducted. Levene’s test showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met (F (3, 133) = 0.38, p = .765). The ANCOVA analysis showed non-significant difference between storytelling + participation condition (M = 4.88, SD = 0.79), factual cues + participation (M = 4.55, SD = 0.95), storytelling (M = 4.68, SD = 1.00) and, factual cues (M = 4.55, SD = 0.97), in relation to acceptance of the change (F (3, 132) = 1.10, p (two-tailed) = .353, p (one-tailed) = .177, partial η2 =0.02). The covariate, first language, was significant associated to change
acceptance (F (1, 132) = 10.63, p (two-tailed) = .001, p (one-tailed) = .001, partial η2 =0.08) (β = -.80, p = .001). In addition, Bonferroni post hoc test compared the differences of means between each condition against the other three. The storytelling + participation condition was not significantly different from the factual cues condition (Mdifference = 0.28, p (two-tailed) = 1.000, p (one-tailed) = .500), factual cues + participation (Mdifference = 0.36, p (two-tailed) = .557, p (one-tailed) = .279) and, storytelling (Mdifference = 0.20, p (two-tailed) = 1.000, p (one-tailed) = .500), regarding acceptance of change (Table B8). Hence, the sixth hypothesis is not supported.
Hypothesis 7.
Finally, an ANCOVA was conducted to assess the effect of the participation and storytelling interplay on employee’s PO of the change. Levene’s test showed that the
28
assumption of homogeneity of variances was met (F (3, 133) = 0.37, p = .776). The ANCOVA analysis revealed a marginally significant difference between the storytelling + participation condition (M = 3.37, SD = 1.45), factual cues + participation (M = 3.82, SD = 1.38), storytelling (M = 3.24, SD = 1.27) and, factual cues (M = 2.89, SD = 1.32), regarding the employee’s PO of the change (F (3, 132) = 2.08, p (two-tailed) = .106, p (one-tailed) = .053, partial η2 = 0.05). The covariate, first language, was significantly associated to PO of the change (F (1, 132) = 21.17, p (two-tailed) = .000, p (one-tailed) = .000, partial η2 = 0.14) (β = -1.61, p = .000). A Bonferroni post hoc test was conducted in order to study the marginal difference between conditions in further detail. It compared the means of each condition against the other three. The storytelling + participation condition was not significantly different from the factual cues condition (Mdifference = 0.37, p (two-tailed) = 1.000, p (one-tailed) = .500), factual cues + participation (Mdifference = -0.39, p (two-tailed) = 1.000, p (one-tailed) = .500) and, storytelling (Mdifference = 0.12, p (two-tailed) = 1.000, p (one-tailed) = .500), regarding PO of the change (Table B9). Hence, these findings do not support
hypothesis seven. Nevertheless, a significant difference was found between the factual cues and the factual cues + participation conditions (Mdifference = - 0.76, p (two-tailed) = .091, p (one-tailed) = .046) regarding PO of the change.
Discussion and Conclusion
The relationships among the content and format of a change message, employee's PO, and acceptance of the change were examined in an online experiment. It has been proposed that some message characteristics, EPDM content and storytelling format, would be positively associated to the PO and acceptance of the change. However, not all the hypothesis suggested were supported.
The first hypothesis addressing a positive relationship between EPDM as part of the change message content, and the employee's acceptance of the change was rejected. Lawrence (1969) stated that EPDM in an organizational change process can be perceived by the
29
employees as a mechanism to make people think they want to do what they have been told. In this case, employees negative attitudes towards the change would not decrease. Regarding the experimental design, participants indicated that the short notice of the change (one month) was too radical, and Woodward and Hendry (2004) stated that drastic changes create
additional pressures and stress on the employees. Besides, Beer, Eisenstat and Spector (1990) stated that the first step of any resultant change effort is a well defined problem. In this experiment, the change was not originated from a particular problem but, from a desire of improvement. Thus, employees may not have seen the change as fundamental. Moreover, Kotter and Schlesinger (1989) explained that to reach the aimed change, besides listening employees' advices, managers must follow them. As this experiment could only offer the former, employees may have doubted about their comments being actually considered. Finally, to know exactly what to expect is essential for a successful change. Participants claimed that important details were missing (e. g. office location, parking area, etc.). All these elements could explain the low acceptance of change by participants exposed to EPDM.
The second hypothesis was supported, the positive relationship between a change message with EPDM content and employees' PO of the change. This showed that EPDM enables a higher PO of the change. EPDM seems to offer the three preconditions Pierce et al.(2001) defined to achieve PO: individuals possess control over it, by commenting it they arrive to intimately know the change and, they invest the self in the process, providing their own vision. In addition, EPDM involves belongingness, employees' opinions have a place in this change. Thus, as expected, EPDM facilitates PO of the change.
The positive relationship between PO and acceptance of the change was supported, the third hypothesis. This results showed that PO of the change can actually be experienced by employees, phenomenon that was not tested until now. This perception of "the change is MINE" develops positive attitudes toward the process, as people like objects they possess (Heider, 1958). It seems that the mere ownership effect can be applied to organizational
30
changes, enhancing its value, and being supported by the employees. These results are highly relevant as positive attitudes influence the future implementation of the change (Huy, 2002).
The fourth hypothesis addressed the relationship between the change message's format, storytelling, and employees' acceptance of change. This hypothesis was rejected. Gill (2014) claimed that storytelling does not work alone and it should be included as a part of a complex internal PR strategy. Thus, to achieve a change, it seems that other elements must be also involved. Moreover, Gill (2014) cited Forman (2013) to suggest that storytelling foster action if the listener is interested. It could happen that participants were not interested in the story, the change, or even in the experiment itself. Being completely indifferent to the initiative could have affected its acceptance. Finally, Lundqvist, Liljander, Gummerus and Van Riel (2013) stated that stories have to be credible and authentic to be prosperous, and foster warm attitudes. As the story presented in this experiment was fictional, it could have been perceived as fake reducing employee's positive attitudes, acceptance of change.
The following hypothesis measured the relation between storytelling and PO of the change, a positive effect was not found. Hence, the fifth hypothesis was not supported. Considering the PO's preconditions, control of the target is needed. As storytelling on its own does not provide the employees with any control of the change, it may be possible that it has no influence on PO. On the other hand, a second precondition is to highly invest the self. Participants, who shared characteristics with the character of the story, showed not to feel completely identify with him. It seems that they did not put themselves in Peter's shoes, getting into the story (narrative transportation). They stated: " it might work well for Peter, it might not work well for others...". Being Peter a fictional element itself could have also hinder employees' identification with him. The lack of involvement with Peter and the story may have affected employees' PO of the change.
The sixth hypothesis addressed the interplay of EPDM content and storytelling format as the condition that would present the highest acceptance of change. However, this
31
hypothesis was rejected. Besides the EPDM and storytelling limitations already commented in this section, the email's content and format may have no effect on acceptance of the change. Because researchers have strongly highlighted the need of an energizing context for
employees to embrace the change (Spender and Grinyer, 1995; Beatty, 2015). The channel in which the message is transmitted and the atmosphere it creates could be more relevant than the message itself. The email factor may have affected the results itself.
The last hypothesis was not supported. The employees who received the EPDM and storytelling joint message did not show the highest PO of the change. In addition, the results showed that the role of EPDM differs depending on the format of the change message. When the message presented the factual cues format, the group exposed to the EPDM message presented the highest PO of the change. However, when the message presented storytelling, the presence or absence of EPDM did not show differences in PO of the change. As it has been commented, a reason for storytelling not to affect PO is that participants may consider it as fake. In this case, the content the story presents (EPDM) would not be credible either. Thus, the interplay seems not to affect PO. These findings confirm the role of storytelling, hypothesis five. However, when factual cues is the format of the message, EPDM is the most effective strategy to enable PO of the change. It also confirms hypothesis two.
Regarding the control variable of this experiment, except in hypothesis three, all the analysis showed a significant difference between individuals whose mother tongue was English and the ones that had other first language, regarding acceptance and PO of the change. It seems that speaking the language of the message (English) implies more
acceptance and PO of the change. The person's language seems to be relevant at the moment to capture a message. Because 11% of the sample were English speakers, and its effect was removed from the influence of EPDM and storytelling on the dependent variables, it may has played some role in the results obtained.
32 Limitations and future research
Some limitations of the manipulation material have already been mention and they should be considered for future research: the change should have been presented in a
progressive way, and more details about how the new environment will function should have been introduced. In addition, a longitudinal experiment would have allowed the company to show the employees that their advices were actually considered, and to actually perform a two-way communication which is fundamental not to perceive the change as imposed by others (Ford and Ford, 1995). Finally, the individuals' interest in the change or the experiment itself should have been assessed, it influences the storytelling effect on sparking action (Gill, 2011).
In addition, due to a lack of time and resources, the experiment was conducted online, presenting a change via email. Beatty (2015) stated that, although it is a common practice (e. g. Yahoo's ), an email it is not enough when it comes to introduce an organizational change. An email does not reach the energizing context needed. In the same vein, Gill (2011) stated that face to face is the most effective medium to transmit stories. Besides, because of the online environment, the experiment was based on participants' imagination (the character, the company).The fictive nature of the experiment can be a reason not to find the expected relationships. Participants did not know Peter or how the travel agency worked. For future research, this paper proposes to conduct this experiment in an organization that is going through a real change, where the employees know each other and the company well, and the process is real. The protagonist of the story should be a real co-worker whom the rest of the employees are familiar with. Also, as a more reliable alternative, a survey may be
implemented between employees of different companies who experience a change. As
different companies communicate change in different ways, the presence or absence of EPDM and storytelling in the change message each individual received would be assessed and the
33
two dependent variable scales presented. In this way, the limitations of the manipulation material would be avoided.
Finally, because the importance of the language of the message has been highlighted, future research should evaluate the employee's level of the message's language (English in this case) in order to discover if the negative relationship between mother tongue, and
acceptance and PO of the change is due to not having this language as their mother tongue or to not understanding a second language correctly.
Research and managerial implications
This research presented three main findings. First, it proved that employees can experience PO of an organizational process such as change. Second, it presented empirical evidence on the content of the change message (EPDM) fostering individual's PO of the change. Third, it showed this PO of the change enabling acceptance of change.
While Dawkins et al. (2017) stated that investigation referring different objects of PO was needed, this research addressed an organizational change. Therefore, this paper fills this gap and enlarges PO's literature, indicating that employees of a company can experience PO of a concrete target within an organization. In addition, this research proved that PO of the change promotes positive attitudes and change support. Therefore, this paper also contributes to extend the literature of acceptance of change, addressing the organizational change from the positive psychology perspective.
Accordingly, it is highly recommended to managers to look for ways to increment this PO. Based in the results of this paper, the most effective strategy to enable PO is when the content of the message (EPDM) is together with the factual cues format. Thus, this research proposes to use these elements while designing an organizational change message, if an email is used to introduce the change. Based on previous literature, it is suggested to perform a transformational leadership (Dawkins et al., 2017) , and to present all the information needed for people to know the change in detail. To increase individuals' investment of the self, a real
34
and personal trial of the new change is proposed. Participants being the main actors, living the real experience for some weeks. These actions together should increase employee's PO of the change, and therefore, employee's acceptance of the change.
In conclusion, and answering the research question of this paper, the content (EPDM) and format (storytelling) of the change email does not seem to have a direct impact on
acceptance of change. However, the content (EPDM) of the message does indirectly facilitate the change: fostering a higher PO of the change, it enables a higher acceptance of change. Thus, this findings offer to managers relevant evidence to have into account while designing and implementing a change. Because the email is a common channel companies use to communicate change, these outcomes are highly relevant.
The results section showed that even not being significant and then, supported, most of the averages reported were in line with the research's expectations. Especially, the fourth hypothesis, which addressed a positive relationship between storytelling format and acceptance of the change. To discover the exact features the story should present, more research is needed. Besides, storytelling seems to be part of a bigger picture, a more complex PR strategy (Gill, 2014). Future studies could address the other elements needed for
storytelling to impact change (e. g., the best channel, moment, place, spokesperson, etc.). As additional recommendations, if a company has a very international crew, it is suggested to improve their level of the company's language. The organization could offer courses for non-native speaker and consequently, the employees will get all the nuances of the language, all the aspects of a change message. Besides, the context where changes are communicated seems to be very important. It should be energizing, not exclusively through an email (Beatty, 2015). Hence, personal (e.g. meeting) or even online spaces (e.g. chat) where individuals can engage in a real two-way communication are suggested. They will be useful to solve doubts and make sense of the change together.
35
References
Adamson, G., Pine, J., Van Steenhoven, T., & Kroupa, J. (2006). How storytelling can drive strategic change. Strategy & Leadership, 34(1), 36-41.
Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Crossley, C. R., & Luthans, F. (2009). Psychological ownership: Theoretical extensions, measurement, and relation to work outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior ,30, 173–191.
Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Palanski, M. E. (2012). Exploring the process of ethical leadership: The mediating role of employee voice and psychological ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 21–34.
Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Barker, R.T., & Gower, K. (2010). Strategic application of storytelling in organizations. Journal of Business Communication, 47(3), 295-312.
Baer, M., & Brown, G. (2012). Blind in one eye: How psychological ownership of ideas affects the types of suggestions people adopt. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118(1), 60-71.
Barrett, F.J., Thomas, G.F., & Hocevar, S.P. (1995). The central role of discourse in large-scale change: a social construction perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31(3), 352– 72.
Bate, P. (1990). Using the culture concept in an organization development setting. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26(1), 83-106.
Beatty, C. A. (2015). Communicating During an Organizational Change. Organization Studies, 15(3), 337-352.
Beer, M., Eisenstat, R. A., & Spector, B. (1990). Why change programs don’t produce change. Harvard business review, 158-166.
36
Beggan, J. K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 62(2), 229.
Belk, R. W (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,139-168. Bennet, A., & Royle, N. (2004). An introduction to literature, criticism and theory. United Kingdom:
Pearson Education Limited.
Bignoux, S. (2006). Short-term strategic alliances: a social exchange perspective. Management decision, 44(5), 615-627.
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York, NY: Wiley Press.
Boje, D.M. (1991). The storytelling organization: a study of story performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 106–126.
Chang, C. (2009). " Being hooked" by editorial content: the implications for processing narrative advertising. Journal of Advertising, 38(1), 21-34.
Chi, N. W., & Han, T. S. (2008). Exploring the linkages between formal ownership and
psychological ownership for the organization: The mediating role of organizational justice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 691–711.
Coch, L., & French Jr, J. R. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human relations, 1(4), 512-532.
Dawkins, S., Tian, A. W., Newman, A., & Martin, A. (2017). Psychological ownership: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(2), 163-183.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142.
Delgadillo, Y., & Escalas, J. E. (2004). Narrative word-of-mouth communication: Exploring memory and attitude effects of consumer storytelling. In: KAHN, B. E. & LUCE, M. F., eds. Advances in Consumer Research, 31. Association for Consumer Research Valdosta, GA, 186-192. Denning, S. (2005). The Leaders Guide to Storytelling, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
