GUIDELINES FOR LEADERSHIP &
RESISTANCE TO CHANGE
Master thesis, Msc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Business and Economics
February, 17th 2009 Final version
CHRISTIANE KÜSTERMANN Student number 1754556
Am Lerchenfeld 2, 06722 Droyßig, Germany tel: +31 (0)6 23 94 10 32
e-mail: C.Kustermann@student.rug.nl
Supervisor/ university: Drs. Hans van Polen
Supervisor/ field of study COMPANY X, Germany
ABSTRACT
TABLE OF CONTENT
INTRODUCTION ... 5
The company ... 6
Guidelines for Leadership ... 6
Problem description... 9
Research question... 10
THEORY... 11
Resistance to change ... 11
Redefining resistance to change ... 12
Reasons for resistance to change... 13
Methods for overcoming resistance to change ... 14
Empathy and support... 15
Communication ... 16 Participation ... 16 Expectations ... 17 Conceptual model... 17 METHODS ... 19 Data collection... 19 Sample... 21
The interview guide... 21
Data analysis ... 22 RESULTS... 24 Communication ... 24 Participation ... 26 Support ... 27 Expectations ... 28
Attitude towards guidelines for leadership... 29
Additional topics ... 29
DISCUSSION ... 31
Conclusions ... 31
Recommendations ... 32
Creating top management commitment ... 32
Establishing a regular and formal flow of information ... 32
Establishing clear responsibilities and job descriptions ... 33
Reliability and Validity ... 33
REFERENCES ... 35
INTRODUCTION
Topics such as the financial crisis, (rising) oil price and the euro debate come across in today’s news regularly. Ongoing globalisation, growing internationalization, technological progress and demographic changes – to name only a few catchwords – will never lose their actuality certainly. The world around us is changing rapidly and therefore change management – in the sense of anticipating and adapting to the future – becomes a crucial element for today’s organizations and their success. Albeit change management is so crucial, successful implementation of single change projects is the challenge. According to Burnes (2004) about 60% of change projects fail and findings by Beer and Nohria (2000), who estimate that about two-thirds of change projects fail, underline Burnes’ estimation. According to a recent representative survey of the Technical University of Munich in co-operation with C4 Consulting (2007), which focused on German companies with more than 1,000 employees only, more than one third of all change initiatives are considered to be either a failure or hardly successful. According to Lawrence (1986) and Waddell and Sohal (1998) human resistance is a main factor that explains failure of change initiatives. This is supported by findings indicating that one-half to two-thirds of all change efforts fail, mostly because of human resistance (Maurer, 1996). Other studies support these findings of resistance as a major factor which influences success of change efforts as well (Oakland & Sohal, 1987; Terziovski et al, 1997). These findings are striking because as mentioned above change is a crucial element for successful organizations and the secret of successful organizations for the future will be their capability to anticipate and adapt quickly to changes in their environment. ‘Environment’ hereby covers the economic, socio-cultural, technological and institutional environment and each of them changes rapidly (Bax, 2006). Therefore firms are eager to anticipate upcoming trends and prepare employees to support change initiatives in order to facilitate ongoing adaptability of the organization.
company. Every organization needs employees, who generate and support change in order to be able to react quickly to new (business) environmental conditions. This ‘human capital’ may be the sustainable competitive advantage that distinguishes companies in the future. Highly successful companies like Procter & Gamble have included this already as one of their so called success drivers and put it like this: ‘This is our ability to be fast, flexible, responsive and versatile in a complex and rapidly changing business environment.’ (http://pg.sitebase.net/global/pages/content/pg_success_drivers.html).
This paper examines a change project within Company X, an international operating clothing company headquartered in Germany. The company is planning to develop and introduce guidelines for leadership in order to manifest a joint understanding of leadership throughout the firm. In the following the organization and its background will be presented and the concept of ‘guidelines for leadership’ as well as its implications will be introduced. As a consequence the research question will be formulated.
The company
The company is an international clothing and lifestyle company headquartered in Germany. Company X is managed by the fourth generation.
The organizational culture is influenced to a great extent by the managing partners and their presence in workaday life throughout all departments. One has to be aware that company X is on the verge from being a German family owned and governed company to an international operating and positioned company. All change initiatives have to be seen in this apparent conflict in which organizational members have to reposition themselves.
Guidelines for Leadership
managerial responsibilities. The original content ranged from criteria for delegating responsibility, duties of co-workers and superiors, the leader’s responsibility in the co-worker relationship, to fundamentals of information, critique and acknowledgement and official channels (Höhn & Böhme, 1969, 1980). Although the model has come under strong criticism (Grunwald & Bernthal, 1983) and American management models replaced the Harzberg Model to a great extent, the general leadership principle has survived, even though it lost its strictness. It survived basically under the concept ‘guidelines for leadership’ (Wunderer & Klimecki, 1990).
TABLE 1
Exemplary Guidelines for Leadership BOSCH Guidelines for Leadership (www.bosch-umwelt.com)
1. Aim for success. Profit, growth, quality, customer and process orientation: these are the key metrics with which our corporate objectives are aligned. Regularly communicate these objectives to your associates. Make it clear what each individual can contribute to achieve them.
2. Demonstrate initiative. Together with your associates, generate new ideas and strategies that make our company stronger. Encourage them to embrace change and take initiative on their own and support them in the implementation.
3. Demonstrate courage. Stand by your associates. Make clear decisions and demonstrate determination in implementing them. Be a role model and exemplify the Bosch values.
4. Keep your associates informed. Of course you give your associates factual information. They should also know the business context and background – they are an important prerequisite for identification with the company.
5. Lead by goals. Delegate tasks and give your associates the authority to perform them. Agree on clear goals and allow sufficient space so that creativity, self-confidence, and accountability can be developed. This enables you to lead your associates to success.
6. Give feedback to your associates. Recognize the strengths of your associates and help them to utilize and further develop them. Take a close look: praise your people where praise is due, but also give fair and constructive criticism. Mistakes happen on both sides. Be quick and open in addressing them with the associate.
7. Trust your associates. They are capable and willing to perform. Have the courage to manage with limited control. Your trust will create the entrepreneurial momentum that all of us want.
8. Shift your perspective. Put yourself in your associates’ position and also look at things from their point of view. How would you react to the decisions you have taken as their supervisor, and what rationale would you expect to hear?
9. Shape the future together. Your associates can and do contribute to our company. Integrate them into the preparation of decisions and capitalize on the ideas and the potential that the cultural diversity of our company offers. Work together with your associates to transform mere interfaces into connection points, and barriers into opportunities.
Target group of guidelines for leadership are mostly middle and upper management (Knebel & Schneider, 1994), but for a growing number of companies employees are included as well (Wunderer, 1990). It is important to note that guidelines for leadership are not aiming at regulating (leadership) behaviour in every specific situation but aiming at creating a joined understanding of leadership throughout the firm (Martus, 1993). Therefore guidelines for leadership have to find the balance between giving directions and freedom. Because of the works council’s (‘Betriebsrat’) strong position in Germany change projects should take into account the extra time and negotiation costs that could occur. So it is useful to include the works council or an employee representative already into the planning process to ensure a high employee acceptance. Despite this the German Federal Labour Court (‘Bundesarbeitsgericht’) decided in 1984 that the introduction of guidelines for leadership does not need the agreement of the works council. Guidelines for leadership do not govern new aspects of managers’ responsibilities and therefore they are part of the employer's
managerial authority
(http://www.aus-portal.de/rechtsprechung/entscheidungen/ctg1079949788901/1512.html).
Problem description
The idea of developing guidelines for leadership arose out of the new strategic orientation of the HR department, which aimed at making Company X an attractive employer. Therefore two surveys were conducted in 2006. According to the first study it is possible to distinguish successful and unsuccessful companies by means of their values, namely ‘leadership values’. This study showed that when compared to successful companies Company X underperformed in a vide range of dimensions. Room for improvements was clearly obvious. A core problem seemed to be that high performance is expected from employees but not fully acknowledged by their supervisors. This applies for all hierarchies and organizational members.
As a result of those surveys the HR-department stimulated company wide changes, responding to expressed criticism and therefore aiming at improving the situation and employees’ job satisfaction. The management regards guidelines for leadership as a central factor in order to create a joined understanding of leadership and cooperation and as a consequence improved employee satisfaction. The process of developing guidelines for leadership started in spring 2008, followed by a first voluntary kick-off meeting in July held by the HR-department, namely the head of HR. All employees with managerial responsibility were invited to this meeting, where the idea of guidelines for leadership was introduced. The majority of managers invited participated in this meeting, but especially high-ranking top-managers did not. Managerial partners, employees with only advisory function and the management board did not participate fully. Before and during this meeting concerns were expressed and a discussion about the impact of guidelines for leadership emerged. Despite the HR-department explained the idea, its background and so far process the idea of guidelines for leadership was questioned heavily. Therefore strong resistance towards the topic was obvious and in the end the meeting lasted double as long as planned beforehand and ended without any results. Because it was not obvious for the HR-department where these resentments came from the idea of this research arose.
Research question
As explained above first attempts of developing and implementing guidelines for leadership have been made on behalf of the HR-department but the department had to face strong resistances by employees concerned. Managers doubted any success of guidelines for leadership and questioned their successful implementation and power to change existing conditions. At this point the HR-department is unsure how to proceed further. Because it is considered as important to gain more and specific information where this resistance comes from and which steps have to be taken further the topic of this thesis came up. Therefore the following preliminary research question can be formulated: ‘Which methods are appropriate to deal with resistance to change in order to maximise the chances for a successful introduction of guidelines for leadership?’
THEORY
This chapter will lay down the theoretical framework of this research. The phenomenon of resistance to change will be explained briefly, followed by methods for preventing and/ or overcoming resistance to change in general. This chapter will close with the conceptual model, which follows out of the theory.
Although there are many distinctions of ‘change’ and its nature, in general change can be described based on the extent of the change process and whether it is seen as organic, mostly understood as a bottom-up process, or driven by the top (top-down). Planned change refers to a deliberate product, steered from the top. Emergent change on the other hand happens spontaneously, in an unplanned manner (Burnes, 2004b; Cummings and Worley, 2001; Pettigrew, 2000). Planned and emergent change are more or less a strict theoretical distinction, but in reality most change processes hold elements of both concepts, meaning that change can be planned carefully but there is always the risk of uncertainty (Dawson, 1996).
This research defines change as ‘the deliberate introduction of novel ways of thinking, acting and operating within an organization as a way to of surviving or accomplishing certain organizational goals’ (Schalk, Campell & Freese, 1998: 157). This definition implies that change is a) purposeful and b) brings along a transformation of organizational life, which both may result in aversive behaviour of organizational members (resistance to change).
Resistance to change
whereby she points out three different facets of it. Following her, resistance consists of a cognitive and an emotional state, as well as behaviour. Resistant behaviour can be seen as non-compliance or in other terms compliance can be used as a sign of reduced resistance (Sagie, Elizur & Greenbaum, 1985). Resistance can be viewed in emotional terms as well and Coch and French (1948) define aggression as a component of resistance. In accordance with this Argyris and Schön (1974, 1978) describe that resistance is rooted in defensive routines. The cognitive aspect of resistance involves that resistance could be overcome via arguments, altering existing negative thoughts about the change (Piderit, 2000). In addition to that Watson (1982) suggests that resistance is often only ‘reluctance’, meaning that it could be overcome via convincing arguments. On the basis of the tripartite view of attitudes (Ajzen, 1985) Piderit integrates all three facets into her conceptualization of ‘resistance’. She concludes that resistance to change can result in ambivalent feelings about the change, whereby behaviour, emotion and beliefs are not congruent. This is supported by the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1985), which focuses on the relation among beliefs, attitudes and behavioural intentions and the final behaviour, and rooted in the Self Efficacy Theory (SET) by Bandura (1977). Ajzen (1985) describes that the likeliness for showing a specific behaviour is dependent on the attitude to the behaviour, subjective norms, and perceived behaviour control. These three factors form the behavioural intention, which in turn determines the chances that the desired behaviour is shown in reality. Following the theory resistance to change occurs if individuals or in this case employees do not feel that their behaviour has any consequences (attitudes to the behaviour). If relevant social groups do not support the change initiative employees concerned will be likely to not show the desired behaviour (social norms). Further the theory points out that the desired behaviour will not be shown if individuals do not consider themselves capable of showing and stabilizing the desired behaviour, or to put it differently if they do not feel self-efficient enough (perceived behaviour control). Change management programmes should therefore aim at strengthening all these factors.
Redefining resistance to change
measurement continuum associated with a constant conceptual domain have been recalibrated. Gamma change involves a redefinition or reconceptualization of some domain, a major change in the perspective or frame of reference within which phenomena are perceived and classified, in what is taken to be relevant in some slice of reality’ (1976: 134-135). So beta and gamma changes can be seen as most dramatic, because question familiar things. Therefore Priderit (2000) proposes to conceptualize employees’ response to organizational change as ‘multidimensional attitudes’ (p. 789). Peter de Jager (2001: 25) speaks of resistance to change as a ‘rudder’, a ‘gateway or filter’, which can be helpful for managers to select the most appropriate change. He states that managers need to understand why employees are not supportive of the change from the beginning. In that way resistance is understood as an important source of information for leading effective change (Ford & Ford, 1994).
Reasons for resistance to change
Following Dent and Goldberg (1999) employees resist change not per se; they resist possible negative outcomes, for instance job loss. Lewin (1951) also stated that possible sources of resistance lie outside as well as inside the individual. Oreg (2006) follows this logic and classifies possible reasons for resistance to change: reasons for resistance to change can be either seen as rooted in the personality or in the organizational context according to him. For reasons of practicality and relevance this study will not focus on psychological traits, associated with resistant behaviour. Nevertheless for the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that traits such as self-esteem (Wanberg & Banas, 2000), risk tolerance (Judge et al, 1999), need for achievement (Miller, Johnson & Grau, 1994) and locus of control (Lau & Woodman, 1995) are related to the extent to which people support or oppose change.
willingness to support the change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). In addition to that the social environment, for instance supervisor(s), colleagues, and family of organizational members is a crucial element as well. More specifically this means that if an employee’s social environment resists the change, the employee is more likely to resist as well (Brown & Quarter, 1994). Work groups are such a social environment, and Brown (2000) found that especially highly cohesive groups resist changes which would affect their group massively. Scott-Morgan (1994) added that the stronger the organizational cultures – organizational cultures, which hold values and norms deeply – the stronger the anticipated resistance is towards change initiatives. Change management programmes question existing organizational values and traditions and imply that they are not appropriate anymore. Therefore organizational members resist the change and try to stick to their known organizational culture. This is especially true for strong organizational cultures. Furthermore the ‘not invented here’-syndrome explains a very emotional negative reaction towards improvements, whereby resistance exists basically because those improvements came from outside (Watson, 1975). Similar to that is the ‘threat-rigidity-effect’, where organizational members perceive the change as a threat and therefore reacting with hardening (Staw, Sandelands & Dutton, 1981).
Whatever reasons significant for resistance to change are, because resistance is not accepted within the organization, this resistance will be somehow encoded, showing itself in rumours, staying away from work or showing less commitment (Watson, 1975).
Methods for overcoming resistance to change
Lewin (1943, 1958) was one of the first researchers who discovered methods to overcome resistance. His studies aimed at convincing American housewives to prepare bowels, because of the upcoming food shortage associated with the Americans entering the Word War II, become famous. According to him successful change initiatives are dependent on:
- Active participation within the change project and timely information about the change and participation
- Using the (project) group as a change medium, because groups reduce fears and save time.
- Co-operation among all participants.
necessary (‘unfreezing’). Following Cummings and Worley (2001) this crisis would generate readiness and awareness for the change.
Kotter and Schlesinger (1979:136) proposed the following methods for dealing with resistance to change:
- Education and Communication - Participation and Involvement - Facilitation and support - Negotiation and agreement - Manipulation and co-operation - Explicit and implicit coercion.
Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) propose these strategies for different situations and goals. Education and communication are recommended, when there is a lack of inaccurate information. On the other hand this can be very time consuming and therefore this may not be the right strategy when speed is essential. When speed is an essential criterion, explicit and implicit coercion should be used, albeit it is risky and ‘leaves people mad at the initiators’ (p. 136) according to the authors.
Cummings and Worley (2001:156) emphasize the importance of creating commitment to the change, which can be achieved through two processes a) creating readiness for the change and b) overcoming resistance to change. Additionally Tichy (1993) distinguishes resistance into ‘Technical resistance’, which refers to sticking to common procedures and ‘Political resistance’, which arises when change affects important stakeholders or members of the organisation. Further the author mentions ‘Cultural resistance’, where systems reinforce the status quo and existing values, beliefs and norms. Cummings and Worley (2001) build on Kotter and Schlesinger’s (1979) and Kirkpatrick’s work (1985) and propose the following methods/ strategies to manage change effectively:
- Empathy and support - Communication, and
- Participation and involvement.
According to Cummings and Worley these strategies work for all aforementioned forms of resistance.
change and people affected by the change. Further this provides useful information about resistance and establishes a basis of co-operation. Concerns concerning upcoming projects can be discussed, and defensive behaviour reduced.
Communication. Communication should be used because it can remove uncertainty, by giving organizational members an overview about the planned steps and goals, reducing speculations and fears (Young & Post, 1993). Thereby indirect (e.g. face-to-face or small groups) communication is essential in reducing resistance to change, because people are more likely to change their behaviour, if someone in their trusted environment supports and recommends it (Larkin & Larkin, 2005). In addition to that research found that communication from ones own manager creates four times more employee support than a senior manager town hall-type meeting, and nine times more employee support than an article in the company newspaper (Hay Group, 1997). Cummings and Worley (2001) recommend making use of a new information channel, in order to make information more ‘salient’ (p. 158).
in her study of a change project in the UK (the introduction of TQM) that the extent of employee participation is positively related to perceived benefits of this project.
All these findings stress the importance of supervisors/ managers during change management programmes, because they connect top management’s strategy and their implementation via employees.
Expectations. According to Cummings and Worley (2001) positive expectations concerning the change project can facilitate the change initiative by generating motivation and commitment. Thereby the positive expectation of success may work as a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ (p.157) and further as an engine of successful change (Eden, 1986), because organizational members invest energy in the change programme and therefore facilitating pro-change behaviour.
Conceptual model
The conceptual model following out of the theory mentioned before and therefore used in this research can be seen in figure 1.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model
The model does not negate the possibility that there are other factors, which have not been included in this research. But this research does not aim at discovering all factors, which could influence the overall effectiveness of the change initiative. This research rather tries to give a distinct approach for the situation existing at Company X. This qualitative research completes the picture that the employee survey drew.
This chapter described the theoretical framework of this research. As a result this paper investigates the planned introduction of guidelines for leadership and answers the following
METHODS
The aim of this research is to gain information about managers’ motivation to resist change initiatives and which methods are appropriate to deal with this resistance in order to maximize the chances for successful introduction of guidelines for leadership. I chose qualitative methodology because the literature shows that interviews are accepted readily by most participants (King, 2004). This might be due to participants’ familiarity with the situation (King, 2004). Due to the topic – experienced leadership behaviour of one’s superior – interviews were likely to produce very sensitive information which made it necessary to conduct face-to-face interviews in order to ensure a honest and trusting environment. Barriball (1994) suggests that interviews could overcome low response rates and are an appropriate method to explore attitudes, values, beliefs and motives. Moreover Barriball (1994) states that interviews increase comparability, because all respondents have to answer each question and without help from others. This facilitates obtaining a precise picture of the situation, guaranteeing that there is no information lacking. Further interviews can be classified into their degree of structuredness, varying from open, not structured to fully structured interviews (Madill & Gough, 2008). This research opted for a semi-structured interview technique, which is somewhat in the middle of the aforementioned two extremes, using an interview guide as explained by King (2004). This guide constitutes the framework of data collection, increasing the extent of structure and therefore resulting in higher comparability. By means of the interview guide the topics which have to be discussed and their sequence are given, and questions are suggested, but the interviewer is free to react on answers of the interviewee, helping to indentify additional topics which have not been anticipated during composing the original guide (Kvale, 1996; King, 2004). As a result the researcher achieves a balance between retaining interview control and having a ‘normal’ conversation (Barriball, 1994). This research favoured a neutral interview technique, which emphasizes in contrast to a more soft or hard technique, the need for information and views the interview partner as equal (Bortz, 2006). The interview guide was composed on basis of the theoretical knowledge and tailored to already existing conditions.
Data collection
purposeful sampling method as described by Patton (1990) and Coyne (1997). For reasons of practicability all possible interview partners should be working at one location. It was important that the majority of participants had managerial responsibility, because guidelines for leadership target this group mainly and resentments among this group were anticipated. Additionally participants were chosen from different hierarchical levels, so that the collected data would mirror a broad picture, giving a good overview over the predominant attitudes. Due to time reasons we had to limit the number of interviews. So in sum we identified 18 individuals that fulfilled the premises. The interview guide was presented to the head of HR. After possible interview partners were identified a short e-mail concerning aim and context of this research was sent to each individual using her or his company e-mail address. Participants were asked whether they would be willing to participate. Further they were told that I would contact them during the next days in order to coordinate an interview date. Beyond that the fact that participation was voluntary was stressed; absolute anonymity as well as confidentiality was guaranteed. Interviews were not recorded due to company intern reasons. Mind protocols were made during all interviews and completed right after each interview. Each of the hand-written mind protocols was transcribed on PC. All interviews were hold in German, and translated afterwards into English. Further all interviews were conducted vis-à-vis, with only the interviewee and me present in a separate room (mostly a conference room, or the manager’s office). Two representatives of the work’s council wished to be interviewed together, which was supported by the HR-department. The interviews lasted between 45 to 120 minutes. On average an interview lasted 60 minutes. I took into account King’s (2004) recommendation to conduct a maximum of three hour-long interviews per day; most of the time I conducted only two per day.
Control variables used in this research are - Sex,
- Age, - Job tenure,
- Organizational position and - Managerial responsibility.
Sample. 17 out of the 18 organizational members approached agreed to meet with me. In sum 17 participants were interviewed. All participants were interviewed in Schmallenberg, Germany. As mentioned above two participants wished to be interviewed together. As a result 16 interviews were conducted. Participants covered mostly management positions. In sum I interviewed four members (23.53%) of the top management (managing directors), eight members (47.06%) of the middle management, and five members (29.41%) of the lower-management. 13 out of 17 (76.47 %) participants were male, 4 (23,53%) female. Participants’ job tenure ranged from one to 52 years, the average job tenure was 11.88 years. Participants’ age ranged from 27 to 68 years; the average age was 44.65 years. 16 (94.12 %) of the 17 participants were employed by the Company X, only one participant (5.88 %) was employed by Company Y (part of Company X), both headquartered in Germany. 15 (88.24%) of the 17 participants had managerial responsibility.
The interview guide. The theoretical knowledge was the basis for the interview guide. This helped to define topics, which have to be talked about during interviews. First a ‘test-interview’ was conducted with a member of the HR-department. According to the interviewee’s feedback misleading or ambiguous questions were re-formulated respectively erased. The interview guide consisted of the following topics:
- Communication
- Participation - Support - Expectations
- Attitude towards guidelines for leadership and - Additional statistical data.
For all parts I used non-leading, open questions, as recommended by Barribal (1994) and King (2004) because open questions would trigger explanations and elaborations. The interview guide allowed for additional questions when the original material was not experienced as necessary. Additional questions were also open, asking mainly for examples or explanations of the aforementioned. Questions, which assessed communication, participation and support, were taken from Schalk, Campbell and Freese (1998). Their study was based on Cummings and Worley (2001) as well. Schalk et al. used rating scales, which I considered as not appropriate for this research, given that I conducted interviews.
guidelines for leadership. According to Cummings and Worley (2001) being aware of the change is one of the first steps in reducing resistance and increasing support for change initiatives. ‘Communication’ aimed at discovering the existing communication culture, for instance where participants get their informational needed for their daily work or company news from. Hereby I asked questions such as ‘Do you receive all information needed for your daily work in time?’ or ‘How often do you meet with your supervisor/ subordinates for a formal exchange of information?’
‘Participation’ aimed at discovering the extent to which employees have the opportunity to participate in change initiatives and more specific if they are willing to do so in the case of the upcoming change project: implementing guidelines for leadership. An example question would be ‘In what way do you have the opportunity to participate in planning of change projects?’ or ‘Would you like to participate in the process of implementing guidelines for leadership?’
‘Support’ aimed at employees’ received support on behalf of their supervisors. Therefore I asked the interviewee ‘In your opinion, how much support do you receive when changes (e. g. projects) are implemented?’ and ‘Do you consider your supervisor’s support in respect to new projects/ change initiatives as sufficient?’
Further I asked participants which expectations in respect to guidelines for leadership they have and whether they feel qualified enough in their position. Questions whether they feel qualified enough triggered the concept of ‘self-efficacy’ (Bandura, 1977).
The attitude towards guidelines for leadership was measured using a five point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1 ‘I fully agree’, 2 ‘I rather agree’, 3 ‘no preference’, 4 ‘I rather disagree’, 5 ‘I fully disagree’). Questions were taken from Wunderer and Klimecki (1990), who did a representative study on guidelines for leadership in Germany. Example questions would be ‘I think that guidelines for leadership are beneficial for the organization’. Following recommendations of King (2004) participants were given the opportunity to make comments about issues, which have not been part of the interview so far at the end of each interview. Any disturbing incidents during interviews were noted. The full interview guide can be found in Appendix A.
Data analysis
RESULTS
The results reveal a broad spectrum of opinion. In sum respondents seem to be highly committed to the company, but there are points, which are not regarded as satisfactory at all according to the respondents. The capital letter behind each quote marks the interview from which it was taken. All names are erased, due to reasons of anonymity.
All 17 respondents are aware of the change programme, meaning that they know about the plan of developing and implementing guidelines for leadership. Respondents who are members of the HR-department are in general more aware of the change programme than other respondents. This is not unusual, since the project has been initiated by the HR-department and therefore most of them are either directly involved or at least confronted with the topic. Most members of the HR-department were directly involved in the project planning. Respondents who are members of other departments and therefore not of the HR-department received the information (about the change initiative) largely by e-mail, inviting to the aforementioned voluntary kick-off meeting (as mentioned in the introduction this took place in July 2008). All respondents stated that they missed an official announcement on behalf of the company owners, or their supervisors. This is made evident by a manager saying ‘I personally don’t feel sufficiently informed about the topic. I would like to receive more specific information about the content, aim and background of the project, as well as further tools’ (H). Another manager said that he felt subjectively well informed about guidelines for leadership but that the company has not provided this information. Even a member of the top management said that the e-mail invitation concerning the meeting in July had been the ‘first direct confrontation’ (Q) with the topic. It is notable that none of the respondents who are currently members of the HR department initiated the project or has already been employed when the plan of guidelines for leadership had been initiated. All respondents belonging to the HR-department complained about this fact and explained they felt as if they had inherited this project.
Communication
rumours (unofficial communication). The information that a consulting firm was hired for instance was not made public, until the consultancy literally was present in the company. The majority of respondents experienced this as outrageous. Even a top-manager has not been given this information. Further a manager who has been employed by the company for several years said that he does not trust everybody in his working environment and he experienced a ‘non-trusting organizational culture and a rather emotional organizational culture’ (O). It was also said, that certain information are kept secret and that during meetings of the top management no formal protocol was kept. Besides reasons of confidentiality, which was highlighted by managers concerned, respondents felt as if this should be improved, and made more transparent.
All respondents met their superior one or two times a month for a formal exchange of information, and their subordinates mostly two times in a month, with meetings scheduled in advance. Despite this, a respondent said ‘When Mr. X became my new supervisor I didn’t talk to him for the first six months’ (O). This may be an unusual example but it is important to note that a high-ranking manager said this. In addition to that a manager said that he did not meet regularly with his superior for a formal exchange of information and the only time they meet is actually for their MBO-meeting once a year. Nevertheless one has to take into account several ‘unofficial’ meetings, which happen on a daily basis. Further especially managers who are responsible for members of the external sales force (national as well as international) do not meet their subordinates very often face-to-face, which may result in official face-to-face (sales) meetings of only two times a year. Up to now respondents make not use of video-conferences.
That communication and the information culture are perceived as improvable can be demonstrated by a recent episode, which was explained by a respondent: Company X has acquired trademark rights in April 2008, which means that Company X produces two independent brands at the same time. Emerging questions are related to producing the new products. The actual information that Company X had bought these trademark rights was given to employees via e-mail and too late in respondents’ perception. More detailed information about the integration has not been available to respondents by the time of the interviews. All respondents expressed great dissatisfaction with that, because they feared a heavier workload coming up.
only a rough understanding of guidelines for leadership but this was sometimes even contrary to the understanding of the HR-department. During the interviews two different concepts were mixed up regularly: On the one hand there is an organisation chart, as an overview about functions and hierarchies, and on the other hand there are guidelines for leadership, as a normative description of values and beliefs of a company. Some respondents thought that guidelines for leadership should define hierarchical dimensions and as a result who their superior is. These respondents, who mostly have not participated in the kick-off meeting, understood the concept of guidelines for leadership wrong. Once this was done we could proceed with the interview. It is noteworthy that Company X does not have an organisation chart, due to organizational restructuring. Respondents complained about this regularly, because responsibilities and roles could not be separated accurately. Further all respondents agreed that an organisation chart is needed before it is possible to develop guidelines for leadership. ‘Otherwise one may not even know who one’s supervisor is’ (F), a manager added.
Participation
decisions taken by the management. This can be seen in the aforementioned episode of purchasing trademark rights.
When asked whether respondents would be willing to participate in the new change project, it might not be surprising that 16 of 17 said ‘Yes’ and only one manager said ‘No’. The respondent explained that honestly there is no time for such things. All respondents who said ‘Yes’ stressed that they are only willing to participate if top management and owners of the company support the topic fully. Otherwise they do not see the sense, because it would always imply sacrificing time. While discussing the extent of direct participation during the development of guidelines for leadership respondents agreed that ‘it is more important that those guidelines for leadership are lived’ (B) and that owners as well as managers of all hierarchical levels commit themselves to them. Three managers pictured it quite lively by using a German saying which there is ‘The fish rots from the head down’ (‘Der Fisch stinkt vom Kopfe her.’) (A), which alludes to the managers’ function as a role model for everyone.
Support
feel they could express concerns about changes openly to their supervisor. The remaining answered the question cautiously, stating that it depends on the project. Top management members explained that they foster good relationships with owners and advisors (long-lasting managers, who belonged to the top management and remain close to the company in their function as advisors) but the owners mainly take certain decisions alone.
Expectations
Expectations towards guidelines for leadership reveal hopes and fears associated with the project and give a first insight into respondents’ attitude towards the change. Overall expectations were rather high, which means that respondents consider guidelines for leadership as beneficial for their organizational life. When asked whether guidelines for leadership could change something either in a positive or negative way, all respondents agreed that guidelines for leadership would have a positive impact on the company’s culture. Further respondents expect a clear assignment of tasks and responsibilities and a clarification of their role as a ‘manager’ or to put it better ‘leader’ based on those guidelines for leadership. Further they think that guidelines for leadership could influence the organizational culture in a positive way, e.g. generating more trust in the management and among employees as well, because the development of those guidelines would open the room for a general discussion about leadership culture (with all consequences it may have). A manager who entered the company just recently explained that he wishes for a set of company values or guidelines, which give an orientation of how organizational members interact with each other. Further they could help to prioritise tasks and different roles. Another manager described guidelines for leadership as ‘the foundation of our living together, which have to be brought to life from top to bottom’ (D). This demonstrates the role respondents assign to top management and owners and their expectation that they play an important part in this process.
existing leadership culture. Guidelines for leadership change nothing as long they are a standard tool without consequences and ‘life’.
Attitude towards guidelines for leadership
The majority of respondents described their attitude towards developing guidelines for leadership rather positive, which is emphasized by the following results. 12 out of 16 respondents (75%) think that guidelines for leadership can be beneficial and 14 (87.5%) respondents do not agree when asked whether they experience guidelines for leadership as a waste of time. Further nine respondents (56.3%) said that it is of personal importance to them, that company X has guidelines for leadership. In contrast only two respondents (12.5%) said that it is not of personal importance to them whether Company X has guidelines for leadership or has not at all; two (12.5%) respondents showed no preference. When asked which functions guidelines for leadership could have, 12% agreed fully and 75% rather agreed that they assure that all organizational members know how to interact with each other; 50% agreed that they improve dialogue between leader and superior of desired and not desired leadership behaviour and 25% think that they facilitate handling of conflicts.
Further I asked how respondents evaluate the effects guidelines for leadership have on relationship of for instance leader and subordinates. The outcomes reveal a positive assessment of the effects. That means that 50% think that guidelines for leadership could improve relationships between owners and management board, 62.5% think that guidelines for leadership could improve work relationship between employees/ colleagues, 68.8% think that they have a positive influence of the relationship between employer and works’ council, and 93.8% think that guidelines for leadership have appositive influence on the work relationship between leader and subordinates. In sum the relationship between leader and subordinates is said to benefit the most from guidelines for leadership.
Additional topics
without any real commitment. Works council representatives clearly favoured the inclusion of guidelines for leadership in a works agreement. They argued that it would give employees a basis for complaints and would force managers to change their leadership behaviour.
Another topic, which came up during the interviews was the question whether managers know what is expected from them in their role as a manager/ leader. A manager out of the top management responded that ‘Leadership has never been a topic of discussion’ (Q) and another agreed by saying ‘Managers here (at Company X) do know what is expected of them, but this knowledge is mainly gained from experience in other companies. The company has not manifested and formulated anything’ (O). This demonstrates that managers feel as if they act in somewhat like a vacuum, since there are no feedback instruments of any kind available. A respondent clearly stated that he wishes feedback on behalf of his superior, because this would help him to judge his performance better.
DISCUSSION
This chapter will summarize the most important findings, continues with a critical appraisal of this research, describing its strong points as well as its limitations and will close with highlighting interesting points for future research.
Conclusions
This thesis tried to answer the question why resistance to change in respect to the introduction of guidelines for leadership exists and which methods are appropriate to deal with this existing resistance in order to maximise a successful implementation of guidelines for leadership. Therefore 17 organizational members were asked for their assessment of the situation. All results allow for the conclusion that guidelines for leadership are evaluated positively by organizational members. Moreover employees concerned by the change are not resistant per se, as many researchers have already noted before (e.g. Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Nord & Jermier, 1994). In contrary, respondents actually welcome the idea of guidelines for leadership, because they perceive them as beneficial. According to the majority of respondents guidelines for leadership would mark a starting point for some profound changes in the company, resulting in an improved leadership situation in the future. Nevertheless this positive tenor towards guidelines for leadership respondents strongly doubted that the top management supports this change. Top management commitment, understood as direct participation by the highest level executives in a specific and critically important aspect or programme of an organization, is not visible and therefore experienced as not sufficient. Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchinson, and Sowa (1986) introduce the concept of Perceived Organizational Support, which refers to employees’ perception of existing support during change programmes and highlight its importance.
Perceived disarray within the top management team does not simplify the situation either and lower- and middle-management’s commitment is likely to be weakened as a result. Respondents often wondered how effective implementation of guidelines for leadership should be guaranteed and controlled. This shows on the one hand that the change process is not clearly communicated and on the other hand that that resistance is oriented towards a waist of resources, which would be in respondents’ opinion their time – in case they would participate during the process.
mistakes are not tolerated; a non-trusting working environment results. Guidelines for leadership may open up the room for a discussion about the way organizational members interact and thus improve the working situation.
Recommendations
Based on the interview results and further discussion with members of the HR-department the following recommendations can be made.
Creating top management commitment. As mentioned in this research most important to all respondents was visible commitment by the top management, which was experienced so far as not sufficient. Support and a public commitment by the top management are considered as necessary. And without their recognition and good will the project may end in only talk, without the necessary next steps as feared by some respondents. Following Armenakis and Harris (2002) principal support is essential in successful change implementation. If owners and top management are committed and do support a change initiative, the first step of a successful implementation has already been taken. This is especially true for a topic concerned with leadership and therefore behavioural changes of employees, which is clearly a very sensitive topic and very likely to trigger strong emotional reactions. Since Company X is a family-run company the owners do have an exposed position and function as role models. So it should be one of the priorities of the HR-department, working as the change agent so far, to get the top management directly involved.
Establishing a formal flow of information. Respondents criticized that there would be no regular and formal flow of information and that information that they perceive as important are not made public. Because the project of developing guidelines for change is still in the beginning it is essential to inform all organizational members about upcoming steps, increasing transparency and reducing uncertainty and speculations.
Establishing clear responsibilities and job descriptions. Of major importance to all respondents is a clear assignment of tasks and responsibilities in order to work efficiently. This is not only a condition related to guidelines for leadership but is related to all upcoming changes. Respondents complained that their responsibilities are not clearly distinguished and decision-making takes too long, mostly because nobody feels responsible. This results in inefficient and unfair working loads. The implementation of an organizational chart and binding job descriptions may be necessary for a company of the size of Company X.
Reliability and Validity
This scientific value of this research is limited by its practical research approach and therefore using data of only a single case. Data of different cases enriched this research and verify conclusions. Further this qualitative research can be complemented by quantitative, in particular on the relation between the single factors and how they interact. Another interesting point for future research still is the phenomenon on ‘resistance to change’ and which forms it can have. This research shows how important it is, that organizational members feel their supervisor’s support and commitment to the change.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. 1985. From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior, in J. Kuhi & J. Beckman (Eds), Action-control: From Cognition to Behavior: 11-39. Heidelberg: Springer.
Appleton, J. V. 1995. Analysing qualitative interview data: addressing issues of validity and reliability. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 22: 993-997.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. 1974. Theory in practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. 1978. Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Armenakis, A. A. & Harris, S. G. 2002. Crafting a change message to create transformational
readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 15(2): 169 – 183. Bandura, A. 1977. Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Bamball, K. L. 1994. Collecting data using a semi-structured interview: a discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 19: 328-335.
Bax, E. H. 2003. Informed Decisions. English translation (2006) of Kansrijk Kiezen, Den Haag: SDU/ Academic Service.
Beer, M., & Walton, A. E. 1987. Organization change and development. Annual Review of Psychology, 38: 339-367.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. 2000. Breaking the Code of Change, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Brown, J., & Quarter, J. 1994. Worker Buyouts in Canada: A Social Networking Analysis. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 13(1): 95-117.
Bernthal, W. 1978. Matching German culture and management style: A book review essay. Academy of Management Review, 3: 99-105.
Bortz, J., & Döring, N. 2006. Forschungsmethoden und Evaluation für Human- und
Sozialwissenschaftler (4th ed.). Heidelberg: Springer.
Brown, R. J. 2000. Group Processes: dynamics within and between groups (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Burnes, B. 2004. Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies? The case of XYZ construction. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(9): 886-902.
Burnes, B. 2004b. Managing Change (4th ed.). London: FT/Prentice-Hall.
Bums, N., & Grove, S. K. 1987. The Practice of Nursing Research Conduct, Critique and Utilisation. Philadelphia: WB Saunders.
Cooperrider, D. 1990. Positive Bias of Organizations Image, Positive Affirmative Bias of Organizing. In S. Srivastva, D. Cooperrider & associates (Eds.). Appreciative Management and Leadership: The Power of Positive Thought and Actions in Organizations, San Fransicso: Jossey-Bass.
Cuba E. G., & Lincoln Y. S. 1991. Effective Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Cummings, T. G., & Molloy, E. 1977. Improving Pproductivity and the Quality of Work Life. New York: Praeger.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. 2001. Organization Development & Change (7th ed.). South-Western College Publishing.
Coyne, I. T. 1997. Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26: 623–630.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. 1999. Employee participation and assessment of an organizational change intervention: A three-wave study of TQM. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(4): 439-456.
Daley, D. M., & Lovrich, N. P. 2007. Assessing the performance of supervisors: lessons for practice and insight into middle management resistance to change. Public administration quarterly, 31(3): 313-341.
Dawson, S. J. N. D. 1996. Analysing Organisations. Hampshire: Macmillan.
De Jager, P. 2001. Resistance to Change: A New View of an Old Problem. The Futurist, May-June: 24-27.
Dent, E., & Goldberg, S. 1999a. Challenging “resistance to change.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35: 25–41.
Eden, D. 1986. OD and Self-Fulfilling Prophesy: Boosting Productivity by Raising Expectations. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 22: 1-13.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchinson, S. & Sowa, D. 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 501-507.
Ford, J. D., & Ford, L. W. 1994. Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Academy of Management Review, 19: 756-785.
Folger, R., & Skarlicki, D. P. 1999. Unfairness and resistance to change: Hardship as mistreatment. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(1): 35–50.
Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. 1976. Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: Types of change generated by OD designs. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12: 133-157.
Gomez, C., & Rosen, B. 2001.The Leader-Member Exchange as a Link between Managerial Trust and Employee Empowerment. Group & Organization Management, 26(1): 53-69.
Grunwald, W., & Bernthal, W. F. 1983. Controversy in German Management: The Harzburg Model Experience. The Academy of Management Review, 8(2): 233-241
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addision-Wesley. Hay Group, Communication Measurement – An Oxymoron Bites the Dust, Strategic
Communication Management, February-March 1997.
Höhn, R. 1962. Menschenführung im Handel. Bad Harzburg: Verlag wwt bad harzburg. Höhn, R. 1979. Stellenbeschreibung und Führungsanweisung (10th ed.). Bad Harzburg:
Verlag wwt bad harzburg.
Höhn, R., & Böhme, G. 1969, 1980. Führungsbrevier der Wirtschaft. Bad Harzburg: Verlag wwt bad harzburg.
Houben, A., Frigge, C. Trinczek, R. & Pongratz, H. J. 2008. C4 CONSULTING Success in Change – Representative Study on Success and Failure in Managing Change.
Management Summary. Online:
http://www.veraenderungen-erfolgreich-gestalten.de/pages/pdf/summary_engl.pdf (07.01.2009)
Hultman, K. E. 1995. Scaling the wall of resistance. Training & Development, October: 15-18.
Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. 1999. Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1): 107-122.
King, N. 2004. Using Interviews in Qualitative Research. In C. Cassel & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research: 2-22. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications Ltd.
Kirkpatrick, D. 1985. How to Manage Change Effectively. San Fransico: Jossey-Bass.
Knebel, H. & Schneider, H. 1994. Führungsgrundsätze – Leitlinien für die Einführung und praktische Umsetzung. Heidelberg: I.H. Sauer-Verlag GmbH.
Kotter, J. P. 1995. Leading Change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, March-April: 59-67.
Kvale, S. 1996. InterViews. An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Larkin, T. J., & Larkin, S. 2005. Change the Communication Channel: Web, Paper or Face-to-Face. Communication World, November-December: 16-19.
Lau, C. M., & Woodman, R. W. 1995. Understanding organizational change: A schematic perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2): 537-554.
Lawrence, P. R. 1954, Reprint 1969. How to Overcome Resistance to Change, Harvard Business Review, 32(3): 49-57.
Lawrence, P. R. 1981. The Harvard organization and environmental research program. In A. H. Van de Ven & W. F. Joyce Perspectives on organization design and behaviour. New York: 311-327.
Lewin, K. 1943. Psychology and the process of group living. Bull SPSSL. Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 113-31.
Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science. New York: Harper.
Lewin, K. 1958. Group Decision and Social Change, In T. M. Neweomb, & E. L. Hartley
Readings in Social Psychology (3rd ed.). New York: 197-211.
Lincoln Y. S., & Guba E. G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, California: Sage. Locke, E.A., & Latham, P. G. 2002. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and
task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9): 705-717.
Madill, A. & Gough, B. 2008. Qualitative Research and Its Place in Psychological Science. Psychological Methods, 13(3): 254–271.
Martus, R. 1993. Führungsgrundsätze entwickeln, einführen, umsetzen. Landsberg/Lech: Verl. Moderne Industrie.
Maurer, R. 1996. Using resistance to build support for change, Journal for Quality & Participation, June: 56-63.
Mayfield, E. C. 1964. The selection interview A reevaluation of published research. Personnel Psychology, 17: 239-260.
Miles M. B., & Huberman A. M. 1994. An Expanded Source Book Qualitative Data
Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Nord, W. R., & Jermier, J. M. 1994. Overcoming resistance to resistance: insights from a study of the shadows. Public Administration Quarterly, 17(4): 396-409.
Oakland, J., & Sohal, A .S. 1987. Production management techniques in UK manufacturing industry: usage and barriers. International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 7(1): 8-37.
Oreg, S. 2006. Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1): 73-101.
Patton M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, California: Sage.
Pettigrew, A. M. 2000. Linking change processes and outcomes: a commentary on Ghosal, Bartlett and Weick. In M. Beer, & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the Code of Change: 243-266. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Piderit, S. K. 2000. Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: A multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Academy of Management Review, 25: 783–794.
Probst, T. M. 2003. Exploring employee outcomes of organizational restructuring: A Solomon four-group study. Group and Organization Management, 28(3): 416-439.
Sagie, A., Elizur, D., & Greenbaum, C. W. 1985. Job experience, persuasion strategy, and resistance to change. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6: 157-162.
Schalk, R., Campell, J.W. & Freese, C. 1998. Change and employee behaviour.Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 19(3): 157–163.
Schein, E. 1988. Organisational Psychology (3rd ed.), Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NY. Scott-Morgan, P. 1994. The Unwritten Rules of the Game Master Them, Shatter Them, And
Break Through the Barriers of Organizational Change. New York: McGraw-Hill. Shaw, J. B., Fields, M. W., Thacker, J. W. & Fisher, C. D. 1993. The availability of personal
and external coping resources: their impact on job stress and employee attitudes during organizational restructuring. Work and Stress, 7: 229-46.
Staw, B. M., Sandelands, L. E., & Dutton, J. E. 1981. Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behaviour: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: 501-524. Stewart, G. L., & Manz, C. C. 1997. Understanding and overcoming supervisor resistance
Terziovski, M., Sohal, A. S., & Moss, S. 1997. A Longitudinal Study of Quality Management Practices in Australian Organisations, Department of Management, Monash University, Melbourne.
Tichy, N. 1993. Revolutionize Your Company, Fortune, 13. Dezember: 114-18.
Ulrich, L., & Trumbo, D. 1965. The selection interview since 1945. Psychological Bulletin, 63: 100-116.
Vermunt, R., & Törnblom, K. 1996. Introduction: Distributive and procedural justice. Social Justice Research, 9(4): 305-310.
Waddell, D. & Sohal, A. S. 1998. Resistance: a constructive tool for change management. Management Decision, 36/8: 543–548.
Wanberg, C. R., & Banas, J. T. 2000. Predictors and outcomes of openness to change in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of Applied Science, 85(1): 132-142.
Watad, M. M. & Will, P. C. 2003. Telecommuting and organizational change: a middle-managers’ perspective. Business Process Management Journal, 9(4): 459-472. Watson, G. 1975. Resistance to Change. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, & R. Chin (Eds.),
The Planning of Change (2nd ed.): 488-198. London: Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Watson, T. J. 1982. Group ideologies and organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 19: 259-275.
Works Constitution Act (2001), available at:
http://besondere-dienste.hessen.verdi.de/download-bereich/data/BetrVG%20Englisch.pdf (15.01.2009) Wunderer, R. & Klimecki, R. 1990. Führungsleitbilder. Grundsätze für Führung und
Zusammenarbeit in deutschen Unternehmen. Stuttgart: Schaeffer-Poeschel Verlag. Young, M. B., & Post, J. E. 1993. Managing to communicate, communicating to manage:
how leading companies communicate with employees, Organizational Dynamics, 22: 31-43.
Zaltman, G., & Duncan, R. 1977. Strategies for planned change. New York: Wiley.
http://www.aus-portal.de/rechtsprechung/entscheidungen/ctg1079949788901/1512.html (18.01.2009)
www.bosch-umwelt.com
