The emergence of work group readiness for change. A case-study at the GGD Groningen and Assen.

(1)

The emergence of work group readiness for change.

A case-study at the GGD Groningen and Assen.

University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

January, 2015

Joris Jan Kemperman

Oostersingel 108

9711 XH Groningen

j.j.kemperman@student.rug.nl

Tel: 06-46766002

Student number: s2203472

Supervisor: mrs. H.C. Bruns

Co-assessor: prof. A. Boonstra

(2)

1

Acknowledgements

(3)

2

Abstract

Historically readiness for change has mostly been analyzed on the individual level of analysis. This research extended the focus on the work group or team level of analysis by identifying how readiness emerged within teams. Results were drawn from semi-structured interviews with three different teams all currently in the middle of a change process. Results suggest that teams either prefer a more participatory or programmatic implementation approach. Consequently, readiness for change emerges differently according to the team’s preferred implementation approach. This preference appears to be shaped by the change history of the team and the perceived pressure to be involved in the change process. When teams value a participatory approach results suggest that work group readiness will emerge when the participation approach is perceived as honest and sincere, and when it instills a sense of ownership among team members about the change trajectory. For teams that value a more programmatic approach it was found that work group readiness for change won’t emerge within those teams before clear direction is provided.

(4)

3

1.0 Introduction

Research on successful organizational change tended to take a macro perspective on factors such as the organization’s structure, environment and strategy (Oreg & Berson, 2011). However, there is growing consensus that the reactions of change recipients is key in determining a change initiate’s success (Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph, & DePalma, 2006; Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011). Two of the main researched attitudes towards change have been resistance to change and readiness to change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). This research will deal with readiness for change which has been found to be one of the primary determining factors of a given organizational change intervention’s success (By, 2007).

Several authors have stressed the need to study change readiness in healthcare settings given the complexity of healthcare organizations (Holt, Helfrich, Hall, & Weiner, 2010; Weiner, Amick, & Lee, 2008). Public sector organizations such as healthcare organizations were deemed to be complex given the embedded practices, jurisdictions, bureaucracy, frequently changing senior leadership and complexity of reforms (Ferlie, Hartley, & Martin, 2003; McNulty, 2003). Not surprisingly, given this complexity healthcare organizations have been deemed particularly challenging to change and often only partial implementation success is reported (Ash, Gorman, Seshadri, & Hersh, 2004; Weiner, Alexander, Baker, Shortell, & Becker, 2006). Nevertheless, it was found that the rate of change in healthcare organizations will not slow down given the aging of the public workforce, and the need to innovate and modernize (Cinite, Duxbury, & Higgins, 2009). Therefore it was found relevant to conduct a change readiness study in a healthcare setting, since it is widely agreed upon among change experts and healthcare practitioners that readiness for change is a critical precursor to successful implementation (Amatayakul, 2005; Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; By, 2007; Neves, 2009).

(6)

5 D. Caldwell, Herold, & Fedor, 2004; Whelan-Berry, Gordon, & Hinings, 2003). Nevertheless, these multilevel processes have been ill-reflected in our thinking about change readiness (Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Armenakis, 2013). Recent work of both Vakola (2013)) and Rafferty et al. (2013) introduced a multilevel model to organizational change readiness considering the micro, meso and macro level of analysis, distinguishing between readiness for change on the individual, the work group and organizational level. Rafferty et al. (2013) argue that adopting a multilevel perspective could reveal novel insights and dynamics overlooked in current research. These authors suggest that processes that determine the emergence of change readiness differ at the individual, work group or organizational level of analysis. Also, they suggest that antecedents of change readiness are likely to differ among the three levels of analysis. Despite the potential benefits of a multilevel framework some of its elements are still ill-explored in literature.

This research will focus on the construct of work group readiness which has been largely ignored in the current literature (Vakola, 2013). The work group level of analysis was deemed relevant as researchers have found that interaction processes within groups influence the readiness for change on the individual level (Ford, Ford, & D'Amelio, 2008; Holt & Vardaman, 2013; Rafferty et al., 2013). Moreover, organizational change cannot occur without specific groups and individuals changing (Whelan-Berry et al., 2003). Coghlan (1994) also calls for more attention to the work group level. Coghlan (1994) concluded that work group readiness for change needs to be studied alongside individual readiness for change, since studying the one without the other would provide an incomplete picture. Moreover, it was found that work groups can play a key role in shaping the individuals’ attitudes towards change, such as change readiness (J.N. Cummings, 2004).

(7)

6 readiness for change within healthcare organizations. Given that healthcare organizations have been identified in the literature as particularly challenging to change.

1.1 Research question

The main research question of this research is:

How does readiness for change emerge in work groups/teams?

To answer this research question I conducted a qualitative research at the Gemeentelijke Gezondheidsdienst (GGD) Groningen and AssenGGD Groningen. In this study three different teams were included to explore how readiness emerged within teams. This setting was deemed relevant since all teams are on the verge of the same organizational change. By researching different teams it could be identified if teams responded similarly or differently to similar processes, providing a rich insight into the emergence of readiness within teams.

(8)

7

2.0 Literature review

This literature review aims to provide an overview of what is relevant to this research. Firstly, the literature on individual readiness for change will be discussed in section 2.1. This is followed by a review on work group readiness in section 2.2 and the antecedents of work group readiness are discussed in section 2.3.

2.1 Individual readiness for change

Change readiness has been defined as an attitude towards change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Bouckenhooghe (2010) conceptualizes attitudes towards change as a tridimensional concept. Hereby drawing on the work of Elizur & Guttman (1976) who conceived attitudes as composed out of a cognitive component, an affective and intentional/behavioral component. The cognitive component refers to the opinion and beliefs one has concerning the change. The affective component refers to a set of feelings towards the change and the intentional/behavioral component refers to the actions taken or which will be taken in the future for or against change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Viewing attitudes towards change, such as change readiness, as a tridimensional concept is in line with the thinking of Piderit (2000). She argues that when researching attitudes neglecting one or more components provides an incomplete picture.

Readiness for change has been conceptualized as: “organizational member’s beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully undertake those changes” (Armenakis et al., 1993, p.681). This definition of change readiness refers especially to the cognitions about the necessity or urgency of change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). This necessity or urgency for change sits closely to Lewin’s (1951) concept of unfreezing - the process by which organization members’ beliefs and attitudes are altered so that members perceive the change as necessary making the change process more likely to be successful.

(9)

8 et al. (1993) noted that readiness for change is the cognitive precursor to the behaviors of either resistance or support for a change initiative. They thus made a distinction between resistance and readiness, which has led to a more pro-active and dynamic view of change where change agents are not merely observed as monitors that react to change but rather as coaches or champions for change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). These authors suggest that readiness for change can be created by change agents when they engage in proactive attempts to influence the beliefs, attitudes, intentions and ultimately the behavior of the change recipients.

More recent definitions payed more attention to the affective component of change readiness and defined change readiness as: “a comprehensive attitude that is influenced simultaneously by the content, process, context and individuals involved and collectively reflects the extent to which an individual or collection of individuals is cognitively and emotionally inclined to accept, embrace and adopt a particular plan” (Holt et al., 2007, p.326). This definition extends the popular definition of Armenakis et al. (1993) in the sense that it established the role of context, process, and content of the change and by more explicitly mentioning the role emotions in the emergence of individual readiness for change.

2.2 Work group readiness for change

Before the literature on work group readiness and work group readiness antecedents can be discussed it has to be noted that as to date the two papers by Rafferty et al (2013) and Vakola (2013) are the only two that specifically address the concept of work group readiness for change. Therefore, this section of the literature review will draw on these papers repeatedly.

(10)

9 positive outcomes for the work group and by (2) the occurrence of current or future-oriented positive group emotional responses to an organization change” (p.116).

Kozlowski & Klein (2000), state that when work group members interact, each individual in that group converges on a consensual view of events and key features of the workplace, hereby implying that all work group members consider readiness in the same way. These authors view work group change readiness as an isomorphic concept, implying that all group members perceive readiness along the same set of dimensions.

As can be derived from the definition of work group readiness presented, the cognitive component of work group readiness refers to a group developing shared cognitive beliefs. Individuals in teams are exposed to a range of top-down processes that produce a common set of stimuli, such as leaders, organizational events and processes, that all group members experience (Rafferty et al., 2013). Through communication and rumors work group members come to shared beliefs (cognitions) regarding change events (Rafferty et al., 2013). Vakola (2013) underlines the essence of interaction and communication in the emergence of work group readiness. She holds that group members come to shared cognitive beliefs regarding change events as group members collectively acquire, store, manipulate and exchange information about each other’s attitudes towards change and about their task, context, process and past behavior related to change (Vakola, 2013).

(11)

10 conceptualized as the composition of various shared emotions of the group’s members (Sanchez-Burks & Huy, 2009).

There is no clear conceptualization of the intentional/behavioral component of work group readiness. Researchers have advocated that drawing on social identity theory and self-categorization perspectives can provide more insight in how group membership can influence intentions and behaviors through social influence (Jimmieson, White, & Zajdlewicz, 2009). These theories suggest that when social identity is salient, the individual embarks on a process of constructing context-specific group norms based on shared intra-group information and assimilates themselves to these norms. These group norms can be conceptualized as explicit or implicit prescriptions regarding appropriate attitudes and behaviors as a member of specific reference group (D. Terry, Hogg, & White, 2000). So when there is normative support from a relevant reference group for a given change initiative, behavioral performance is more likely to occur than when there is no support (D. J. Terry & Hogg, 1996). This once again highlights the relevance of the work group. During times of change group members were found to look at their colleagues for providing normative information on how to behave, and thus whether to embark on change supportive behavior or not.

2.3 Work group readiness for change antecedents

Readiness for change at the work group level has not received much attention in literature (Rafferty et al., 2013). It is therefore that not much is known about antecedents of readiness for change at the work group level. However, the work of Rafferty et al. (2013) and Vakola (2013) provides some initial insight in possible antecedents to work group readiness. Important to note is that the suggested antecedents to work group readiness in these papers were not tested on the concept work group readiness but on related concepts or literature fields such as work group change climate, organizational change processes, work groups and resistance, affective tone and group norms.

(12)

11 specific group, (2) a work group-level implementation plan. This view is supported by Ness and Cucuzza (1995) who stress the need for a tailored change vision for the group, this vision should include the implications of the change for the group and engaging in efforts to develop the capability of the group to deal with any pending changes. It was suggested that these processes could possibly also contribute to work group readiness.

Other researchers have focused on the role of participation and communication in the group-level change process. Rafferty and Jimmieson (2010) provided evidence that work groups develop shared perceptions regarding the change process. These shared perceptions about the change process and specifically on participation and communication, contribute to the development of a group change climate. When these shared perceptions are positive it was suggested that it could foster work group change readiness (Rafferty et al., 2013). J.N. Cummings (2004) acknowledges the role participation and communication can play in overcoming resistance in teams. He suggests that resistance in groups can be addressed by the following processes; involving members in understanding the need for change, engaging members in understanding their own situation, creating ownership of the design and implementation phase and by involving members in the decision making process.

(13)

12 suggest that attitudes of influential employees in a work group can influence individual and group attitudes to change in the workplace.

One of the mechanisms of how groups influence members’ behaviors, beliefs and values are through group norms (J.N.Cummings, 2004). These group norms are the informal rules that groups adopt to regulate and regularize group member’s behavior (Hackman, 1992). These rules are developed when group members learn which behavior is necessary for effective group is functioning. Besides, these norms can be formed by statements of supervisors or co-workers and/or critical events in a group’s history (Feldman, 1984). Group norms were found to be elemental in shaping work group readiness for change since its perceived influence on the promotion and adoption of behaviors within an organizational change context (Vakola, 2013). However, this relation only holds when the individual strongly identifies with a certain group (Jimmieson, Peach, & White, 2008). Group norms can thus play a significant role in shaping an individual’s readiness for change as well as its overall work group readiness. From the above analysis it can be derived that in organizational change group norms can both be an enabler as well as an obstacle to work group readiness.

(14)

13

3.0 Methodology

The context of organizational change in a healthcare setting is suited for studying how readiness emerges within teams, since it allows explore how different healthcare teams within the same organization respond to the same change initiative. Hereby it can be researched how readiness emerges within teams that are all on the verge of the same change initiative. This provides the advantage that patterns and findings across teams can be compared. Moreover, the change initiative has very recently started and readiness for change is thus a relevant concept in this stage of the change initiative.

The methodology section will be structured as follows. Firstly, a description of the research design will be provided in section 3.1. This is followed by in introduction of the research site in section 3.2. Thirdly, the data collection method and interview strategy will be provided in sections 3.3 and 3.4. In section 3.5 the data analysis will be discussed. Lastly, section 3.6 will discuss Controllability, reliability and validity of this research.

3.1 Research design

(15)

14 Ultimately the goal of this research is to come up with novel insights and alterations to the existing literature on how readiness emerges within teams.

3.2 Research site

The research site is the Gemeentelijke Gezondheidsdienst (GGD), an organization located in the city of Groningen. The GGD is involved in many activities. However, this research will deal with the tuberculosis (TBC) department in Groningen and in Assen. Since the occurrence of TBC within The Netherlands has significantly been reduced it was proposed to merge the activities of several local branches into four Regional Expertise Centers (REC’s). Talks about reforming the TBC department have been going around for years but recently initiatives started to form the REC’s. Since this change initiative has recently started there is still ambiguity as to some of the consequences of the change. In general, the consequences – or the scope – of the change are perceived to be limited as the respondents note that consequences for their jobs are expected to be limited. Within TBC departments of the GGD three different kinds of occupational groups are present; medical technicians, nurses and lung surgeons. This research included three teams; the nurses of the GGD Groningen, medical technicians of GGD Groningen and the medical technicians of the GGD Assen.

3.2.1. Background information teams

As mentioned, the three teams that will be researched are; the medical technicians of the GGD Groningen, the nurses of the GGD Groningen and the medical technicians of the GGD Assen. In the next section some background information will be provided on the teams. Additionally, in the remainder of the research references will be made to the change agents. These change agents are named ‘Amber’ and ‘Rose’, which are fake names. This section will start off with some background information on these change agents

(16)

15 including the TBC department. Her office is situated across the office of the medical technicians team and next to the nurses’ office.

Rose has multiple roles, first of all she is the coordinator of the medical technicians team in Groningen and works in this team. Secondly, she works one day a week in Assen in the medical technicians team. Moreover, she has been appointed by Amber to take responsibility in the change process and is found to be the spokesperson for the medical technicians team in Groningen. She is very much involved in the change process and together with Amber they are the change agents for the GGD Groningen and Assen. However, it should be noted that Amber has very limited contact with the medical technicians team in Assen.

Medical technicians Groningen - They are responsible for the administration, the lab work and the X-ray activities. There are a total of eight people working in this team. They all work in the same office in close proximity to both change agents.

Nurses GGD Groningen - They are responsible for screening activities, visiting patients and other nursing activities. There are currently three people working in this team since recently one nurse retired. Their office is close to the office of both the change agents.

Medical technicians Assen - They are responsible for the administration, the lab work and the X-ray activities much like their colleagues in Groningen. Their team consists of four people and Rose also works in Assen for a day a week. One team member just got hired and one is about to retire. They recently moved office and as a result they don’t have their own office anymore. Moreover, contact with Amber is limited since she is situated in a different location.

3.3. Data collection method

(17)

16 This study used a theoretical sampling approach (Eisenhardt, 1989). It implies that respondents are not chosen at random but for their theoretical relevance. One of the reasons for selecting cases is because they can extend emergent theory (1989). This research draws on data gathered from two research sites and three different teams to explore how readiness emerges within teams. Occupational groups or teams were chosen because they tend to be homogenous groups who interact often and because of the research goal of identifying how readiness emerges within teams. Including more than one team allows this research to identify both unique patterns and patterns that cut across teams. Hereby serving the research goal of identifying how readiness emerges within teams.

As mentioned this research will draw on results from two research sites and three occupational groups or teams. It is thought that including two research sites and three teams is sufficient since including too many research sites and teams could lead to being overwhelmed by the amount of data (Eisenhardt, 1989). Replication logic is applied, which is an important aspect for using case studies for theory building (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Replication logic implies that every case or team is treated as being a separate experiment that can either confirm or disconfirm conceptual insights (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997).

One of the distinct features of theory development is that data collection and data analysis often overlap (Eisenhardt, 1989). Moreover, this research aimed to be flexible in its data collection strategy by being open to changes in the data collection instrument, which allows to probe emergent themes or to take advantage of special opportunities which might present itself during the data collection phase (Eisenhardt, 1989).

3.4. Interviews

(18)

17 between 20-50 minutes. All interviews consisted of an introduction of the purpose of the interview and the research in general. The interview protocol consists of three parts. First some general questions were asked. These were followed by questions concerning individual readiness for change, work group readiness for change and the antecedents of work group readiness for change consistent with the structure of the literature review. The interviews were guided by the semi-structured interview protocol (see appendix A). This protocol provided consistency and guidance throughout the interviews. However, during interviews a flexible approach was taken to probe emerging themes that could enrich insights of this research. The interview protocol was slightly altered during the research process but remained fairly consistent among participants.

Team Respondents Gender Tenure

MTM Groningen (team 1) 1.1 1.2 1.3 F F M 14 years 15 years 20 years Nurses Groningen (team 2) 2.1

2.2 F M <1 year 14 years MTM Assen (team 3) 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 F F M F 38 years <1 year 16 years 19 years

Table 1: overview of respondents

3.5 Data analysis

(19)

18 2012). Finally, the data was compared to the existing literature that closely fits with the data obtained to examine what is similar, what is different and why (Eisenhardt, 1989).

The coding process was structured as follows. Firstly, interviews were independently coded for the cognitive, affective and intentional component of work group readiness. This was deemed helpful to get an initial feeling and insight with the data. Then the method of Strauss and Corbin (1998) was applied. The analysis was started by identifying initial concepts in the data creating codes for underlying reasons for readiness among teams (e.g. clarity about change trajectory through communication, team experiences influence change process). Moreover, codes were created to identify differences among teams (e.g. team requires to be informed during change process versus disinterest in being informed). Then axial coding was applied to identify relationships and patterns among codes, this process provided the foundation for the establishment of the second-order themes. Lastly, selective coding was applied to merge categories and form theoretical dimensions which provide the basis for the emergent framework (see Figure 1 appendix B)

3.6 Controllability, reliability and validity

Three main criteria have been established to assess the quality of qualitative research: controllability, reliability and validity (Yin, 2003). Controllability first has to be established since it’s considered a condition for the evaluation of reliability and validity. This research is controllable since a detailed description of the research method is provided. Secondly, insight in the coding process has been provided and also tables of data summary (Appendix C) have been constructed so that the data where the findings are based upon can be traced down. Hereby other researchers are able to replicate the study to verify findings (van Aken et al., 2012).

(20)

19 reducing researcher bias. Moreover, guidance was provided by an experienced researcher who provided valuable advice and hereby reducing the researcher bias. Instrument bias was minimized by standardizing the data collection process and the data analysis process, hereby enhancing reliability. Instrument bias was handled by using standardized semi-structured interviews. However, slight alterations to the data instrument were made during the process which could have potentially impacted the reliability. However, the researcher sometimes used different questions for the same construct hereby limiting instrument bias. Respondent bias could potentially be an issue because not the entire team was interviewed. However, the respondents that were interviewed provided data that was representative for the entire team. Although it could be argued that this adversely impacts the reliability of this research. Situation bias was limited by conducting the interviews in different moments of time. Moreover, no major changes or events occurred during the research.

(21)

20

4.0 Results

Work group readiness for change was found to differ among the three teams presented. Teams especially differed in their need for change on the team level and their intentions to engage in change supportive behavior. This will be discussed in section 4.1. This research aimed to explore why these differences between teams existed and how readiness emerged in these teams. It appears that these differences between teams could be partly explained by differences in their encounters with previous change efforts as will be discussed in section 4.2. Teams that did experience a need for change on the team level and intentions to engage in change supportive behavior, as established in section 4.1, where found to attach greater value on being informed and involved in the change process as analysis of the results indicate in section 4.3 and 4.4. Teams that did value being involved in the change process showed differences in their perceptions about change agent communication and participation, and consequently readiness emerged in a different way in these two teams as will be shown in sections 4.3 and 4.4. Moreover, in contrast to being involved in the change process it was revealed that the team that did not experience a need for change on the team level preferred a more top-down approach with little participation in the change process.

4.1. Overview readiness of teams

This section will provide an initial insight in the work group readiness of the three teams. This was done for two reasons. Firstly, because subsequent parts of the result section will draw on the initial insights provided in this section of the research. Secondly, the next paragraphs of the results section will indicate why teams differ in their work group readiness so therefore it was deemed relevant to provide some background on the team’s readiness.

(22)

21 need for change on the team level was triggered by explicit statements of the change agent about the importance of the change and the importance of being actively involved in the change process, since she stressed that the teams otherwise might fall behind in the change process compared to other offices of the GGD. These two teams experienced a certain pressure from Amber (change agent) to be involved in the change process, which was not reported in team three. As becomes clear from table two team three shows very little urge to be involved in the change process and to engage in change supportive behaviour. Teams one and two do feel this need and express a certain motivation to engage in change supportive behaviour, hence intentional readiness. However, in team two it is found challenging to act on these intentions. These differences and their underlying dynamics will be explored in this research. So to provide insight in the emergence of readiness within teams. The following paragraphs of this section provide more insight on how readiness emerged within the teams and why readiness among teams differs as indicated by table two.

Team #1 #2 #3

Cognitive component work group readiness

“I understand why the change is initiated. TBC is declining and offices have already been shut down or are open fewer days a week. It’s something we can’t stop since TBC is just declining” (Respondent 1.3)

“We just have to be organized differently since TBC is simply a disease in decline. So you have to think about how to ensure that in 10-15 years you can remain relevant as a TBC department” (respondent 2.2)

“The circumstances are changing, so it’s only logical that as an organization you respond to that, otherwise you have no right of existence” (respondent 3.1) Need for change team level

“Amber told us that we need to change since there is no way back, you just need to hop on the change train right now otherwise you fall behind, I think this is a good message” (respondent 1.2) We want to make a name for ourselves as the GGD Groningen. For this we require a larger region, and it implies we need to come of our island”(respondent 1.1)

“Amber (change agent) kept telling us that the change is very

important. If we don’t participate then we might fall behind. So yes, I am aware that we might need to reprioritize our activities” (respondent 2.1)

(23)

22 Intentional

component work group readiness

“I believe that we as a team all have a positive attitude towards the change, and everybody is inclined to think along and participate in the change

process”.(respondent 1.1)

“Everybody is truly motivated to change things, but sometimes we struggle as a team to find how we can be involved in the change process. How are we going to take this up? Where do we start? I miss a trajectory in this.” (respondent 2.1)

“We do want to make an effort but we are caught up in our daily activities.”(respondent 2.2)

“We are not very involved in the change process”(respondent 3.3) “Rose (change agent) is very enthusiastic about it, but we as a team are more negative about being involved in the change process and have very little urge to do so” (respondent 3.4) Table 2: overview of work group change readiness

4.2 Change history

What emerged from the data is that the change history of the team was an important source of information and inspiration when team members consider how to respond to the upcoming change initiative. Results indicate that the change history of teams with change provide a valuable starting point in analyzing how readiness emerges within teams. Table six (Appendix C) provides more examples that help illustrate this point. Table three provides quotations that are deemed most representative of the team’s change history.

(24)

23 in the sense that it shaped an initial response and intentions towards the change and can explain some of the variation in work group readiness between the teams.

Team #1 #2 #3

Ch

an

ge

h

ist

o

ry

”Employees used to come to the manager and ask what to do and the manager would put them to work. Now there is much more proactive culture…. We used to have this culture were employees would simply wait to be fed with information. However, then people started to realize that they didn’t stay up to date anymore, and now they are all aware that initiative has to be taken to win information. This has truly contributed to the team being more pro-active and resulted in the team providing much more input” (respondent 1.1). “I think we as a team are in a desirable position since we have been dealing with changes for the last couple of years… And if you look how we changed over the last years than you can say that we handled this very well. This also goes for our response to the opening of the refugee centre in Ter Apel which is open seven days a week (respondent 1.3)

“I’ve been working here for fourteen years now. We used to have a sort of mini Regional Expertise Centre. As colleagues we already had close contact especially with the colleagues of the GGD Zwolle. As nurses we came together and already found a way of collaborating and exchanging information. Then the upper management decided to cancel this process because they wanted to go into a different direction. Now they want us to do the exact same thing we initiated years ago, to work together, something they earlier broke down. This is really disappointing. We want to continue and work together with other GGD offices but the workload is so high which makes it difficult to be involved in this process again. We really do want to be involved but this (the workload) makes it more difficult” (respondent 2.2)

“Seven years ago they have also been talking about initiating a similar change. Sometimes you hear something about it but then we hear nothing for a long time….And because it takes so long you start thinking: oh well, they have been talking about it for such a long time so

everything will just remain the same. I don’t bother too much since I don’t want to change at all because of the possible consequences of the change”(respondent 3.4) (J): How would you describe the general feeling about the change?

(3.3): we don’t totally resist the change but we are not very enthusiastic about it. (j): why?

(3.3) There are many opinions in the region and nothing is done to get any closure. This keeps getting pushed ahead. So that is why we are not too enthusiastic since nothing has been decided for a long time now”

Table 3: change history

(25)

24 “Now we have a culture where people first look at themselves to take initiative instead of

coming to the manager to put them to work. Hereby we gave them more confidence in their capabilities and they felt more important since they realized they can take up things themselves. Now we don’t have to drop information and wait but we get input directly”(respondent 1.1)

A sense of competence to deal with changes and that change can be something positive is instilled within the team because of its previous successful encounters with change. Not only the changes made internally to the team contributed to this but also their response to the inflow of refugees contributed to this feeling of competence to deal with change. This is reflected in table three where respondent 1.3 explicitly mentions that his team is in a desirable position vis a vis other teams in the sense that they have already encountered positive experiences with dealing with changes. This made him realize that as a team they are in a very good position to deal with the upcoming change. Dealing with these changes left the team feeling like they are very capable of dealing with changes and report an open attitude to the current change initiative. This is illustrated by the following example:

“We as a team are open for everything, but when you look at teams in other offices well, they really need to make a transition. Others have to get up to our level to keep up with us”(respondent 1.3).

(26)

25 “I have been active in these working groups. It never ends up with concrete decisions or

initiatives. You talk a lot but nothing really happens. I won’t do it again this time on… I noticed that there are people for the brainstorming and people to just do their work, I belong to that second group and as mentioned previous experiences with being involved in a change process have not been positive”(respondent 3.3).

Because of the change history team members thus feel little urge to engage in change supportive behavior. Team members hold perceptions that the exact same thing is happening as was the case with previous change efforts, meaning there is a lot of talking but the decision making processes are so slow that they all remain waiting before something is decided upon. Only when a concrete decision is made respondents note that they might become more involved in the change process, with the exception of respondent 3.4, who doesn’t want the change to happen at all for personal reasons. The following quotation reflects the general feeling in the team that they won’t engage in any change supportive behavior before something is actually decided upon.

“If you don’t’ even know where the front and back offices are going to be then it’s really hard

to give any direction to the change process, that is the first thing they should do, to get this clear. I feel that the organization is just not there yet, and that is why this whole change initiative remains something that doesn’t keep us busy” (respondent 3.1)

It was found the change history was a good starting point for analyzing how readiness emerges within teams. Since it could explain why teams hold certain perceptions about the change and because teams generally refer to previous change experiences in explaining why a certain intention to engage in change supportive behavior is present within a team.

4.3 Change agent communication

(27)

26 indifferent about the communication processes of the change agents. On the contrary team one and two, who are more aware that change is required and desired on the team level, place greater emphasis on the importance of change agent communication. However, team one and two differ in their perceptions about change agent communication in the sense that team one reports more positively about change agent communication than does team two. The following table provides an overview of the perceptions held by the different teams about change agent communication. A more elaborate representation of representative quotations can be found in table seven (Appendix C).

Team #1 #2 #3

Ch

an

ge

a

ge

n

t

co

m

u

n

ic

ati

on

“Amber has always been clear and open. She always informs us on what steps have been taken in the change process and what is about to happen. Every team meeting we talk about it and its always on the agenda. If something occurs ad hoc she will always consult us, that is why we are always so well informed about the change… We truly have the feeling like we are doing it together. We don’t have the feeling like it is something that’s decided upon from a higher level and that we just simply have to follow, no that is really not the case” (respondent 1.1)

“We need to communicate more, and not like now where the Amber simply tells us to get involved otherwise you miss out. There needs to be more openness in the communication, so that they start understanding what keeps us busy this is lacking now” (respondent 2.1)

“Nothing has been decided upon so that makes it a challenge to talk about the

change”(3.4)

“I once talked about it with Amber but it was nothing serious really”(respondent 3.4)

Table 4: Change agent communication.

(28)

27 they undertake as a team together with the change agents. This in contrast to team two that doesn’t feel understood and has the feeling like the change agents have little understanding for their position. They report that the change communication should be more open, so communication is more one-dimensional in the sense that there is not much openness and consideration in the communication with the change agents. So where in team one the communication process established a sense of togetherness and inclusivity in the change process the exact opposite was found in team two. As a consequence of these different perceptions regarding the change process the teams also differ in the sense that they feel sufficiently informed and experience a sense of clarity about the change. The following examples illustrate this:

“Communication has been clear….Other than that they have been extremely clear about the purpose of the change. That’s why we are so open about the change” (respondent 1.3)

“It is insufficiently clear where the change is going and how is going to look like, so we want to change but right now it’s just not clear what is about to happen” (respondent 2.2)

So it appears to be relevant for teams that the change agent(s) provide some clarity about the change. The team that reports about frequent, open and two-way communication seems to hold a clearer picture as of where the change is going as opposed to the team that characterized change communication as one-way and feel ill-understood by the change agent(s).

(29)

28 interest in the change initiative. It shows that a level of understanding is preferable and fosters effective communication processes with the change agent, however this only goes for teams that show an intention to be involved in the change process. The following quotations provide an insight in the relationship held with the change agent and the level of understanding between the change agent(s) and the teams.

“She (Amber) is saying she doesn’t know what we are really doing everyday but at the same time she is questioning whether what we do is really necessary. Then I really miss the connection and I tend to get disengaged in our talks” (respondent 2.1)

“Amber has given us so many compliments and mentioned that she is very proud of us, that sense of pride is really instilled within the team. We now feel rewarded for our work and that is very important. And we feel heard, even though we as a team might not always agree with her she always listens to us… Communication is thus key”. (respondent 1.1)

“Rose can be very motivating and provide explanation….. but other than that we never talk about the change” (Respondent 3.1)

Teams thus differ in their need to be informed by the change agent(s). Teams that expressed the intention to be involved in the change process, and experienced a need for change on the team level, also experienced a need to be informed about the change process. This in contrast to team three which was found to be rather indifferent about being informed about the change, since the team perceives it not to be worthwhile to talk about something which hasn’t been decided upon by upper management. It appears that when change agent communication is perceived as effective, it can provide some clarity about the trajectory of the change, as was observed in team one. Moreover, results suggest that a level of understanding between the team and the change agent(s) is important in establishing effective communication processes between the team and the change agent(s).

4.4 Change participation and ownership

(30)

29 encounters with the change agent about the team members opinion about the change, no evidence was found for the actively involving team members in the design of the change as was found in team one. Team members of team two reported that they would like to get more involved in the change process, and that initial encounters with participation created a distance. This was contributed to the approach of the change agent who engaged in providing recommendations and made assumptions instead of asking for input. This is contrary to team one where there is a very open collaboration with the change agents and the team members report that it’s encouraged to provide input and that they have the feeling that this input is taken seriously. Consequently the team experiences a sense of influence on the change process as is shown in table five. A more elaborate representation of representative quotations can be found in table eight (Appendix C).

Team #1 #2 #3

Ch

an

ge

p

ar

ti

ci

p

ation

(1.1) Our change agents have been really transparent and involve us with almost

everything, which decision they have to make or if they have to provide input about certain matters. They always encourage us to provide input and involve us regularly.

(J): You are talking about Amber? (1.1): Yes.

(J): How is the style of management of Amber perceived within the team?

(1.1): Amber has always been clear and open. She always informs us on what steps have been taken in the change process and what is about to happen. Every team meeting we talk about it and its always on the agenda. If something occurs ad hoc she will always consult us, that is why we are always so well informed about the change

(J): And this contributes to this positive image about the change?

(1.1) Yes, we truly have the feeling like we are doing it together. We don’t have the feeling like it is something that’s decided upon from a higher level and that we just simply have to follow, no that is really not the case

(J): So as a team you feel like having an influence on the decision making, that your input is considered?

(1.1): Yes absolutely, they truly listen to us. (J): And Amber then takes this input to meetings about the change?

(1.1): Yes or Rose does so.

(J): How do you perceive the degree of participation in the change process? (2.2): This could be improved, that we get more involved and start discussing how we can take this up as a team, since this is a challenge for our team given the time pressure”.(respondent 2.2)

“Amber always sends us the reports and e-mails concerning the change. Also

sometimes she tries to hear our opinion about the change. I think she is well equipped for this… So we do get informed enough but it remains up to yourself what you do with it. (respondent 3.3)

“It’s rather pointless to be involved in everything as an everyday employee. It really doesn’t lead to anything”

“(respondent 3.1)

(31)

30 Team one and two can be compared because they share the notion that being involved in the change process is useful. Especially teams feels that they should be involved in the change process when it concerns matters relevant for their team, or the design of a change plan for their team. In team one the change agents and the team found an effective way of collaborating. The team is informed frequently, feel free to provide input and have a feeling that this input is put to use by the change agents, hereby providing them with a sense of ownership in the change process. The following quotation supports the notion that the team truly feels heard and moreover, that the change agent is actively seeking their input about matters important to them. Team members thus feel like they have a certain degree of influence on the change given the effective participation processes with the change agents.

“Now that we have this big change in front of us and I notice that the change agents now more and more start asking us for input and truly try to find out what we want to discuss and what matters for us on the working floor”(respondent 1.2).

Where team one speaks about an open collaboration the opposite was found in team two: they don’t feel included in the change process. Another difference is that team one illustrates that participation in the change process fostered the sense that they are in this together with the change agents as a team, while team two reports that:

“we are sitting on an island, that is how it feels like. We are a team (referring to the whole

department) but we should approach the change more as a team”(respondent 2.1).

(32)

31

“I mean you can look at working processes critically, and these can be improved, but she is doing it the wrong way around. She should ask us questions first before coming up with recommendations and assumptions. Then you really don’t connect with us and you don’t understand our work. This creates a distance” (respondent 2.1)

From the following example it becomes clear that currently they experience little influence on change related matters relevant to the team. Team one experienced this rather differently since they felt like their input was taken seriously and acted upon. Team two thus has little sense of ownership of the change process given the limited influence they perceive through participation as opposite to team one. Ideally, the team would have more influence in shaping a plan to approach the change in collaboration with the change agents.

“We have to come up with a plan as nurses where we can say what we want. We have to enter into conversations about what they think (the change agents) and what we think and how we can take this up as a team. That would be a whole different way of collaborating, an open approach” (respondent 2.1)

So where team one experience a sense of ownership this was not found in team two because of the perceived lack of influence in the change process which inhibits them from developing a work group level plan that could guide them in the change process. Not surprisingly team two experiences some difficulties with being actively involved in the change process, it was especially found that they miss a trajectory and a clear starting point as is illustrated by the following examples:

“Everybody is very motivated to change things, but it’s found difficult how exactly we have to do this. How are we going to manage this? Where do we start? I miss a trajectory in this. (respondent 2.1)

“We want to make an investment but something is lacking, teams vision how we will make

this investment” (respondent 2.2)

(33)

32 Where team two only mentions intentions to engage in change supportive behavior, team one actually engages in change supportive behavior. Moreover, they don’t always look for the change agents for guidance but take a pro-active approach. Also, it was found that as a team they are well informed and therefore know what is expected of them which enables them to engage in change supportive behavior, as is illustrated in the following example:

“In our team we are very well informed and this is different in other offices of the GGD. In our team we work like this: we discuss where we have to go, and how we are going to make sure we will get there. So no matter what, we approach it positively”. (respondent 1.2)

One team member of team one specifically mentioned that she felt inspired by the approach taken by the change agents and that she feels especially empowered by participating in the change process. She found that given the ease of participating in the change process that she experienced a sense of ownership of the change process which led her to take initiative and engage in change supportive behavior. This is illustrated in the following example:

“Thanks to Amber we have a self-managed team. Here you can always provide input and participate, this is truly different in other offices of the GGD who are very passive, where we are pro-active as a team. Here I truly have the freedom to provide input in the change process and contribute to the change process, like I’m doing now with Finance”(respondent 1.2)

(34)

33 “It would be nice if there was somebody from the top of the organization, someone like a

manager, who is put in charge and that can say well this is how we are going to do it, this is something I would appreciate”(respondent 3.3).

“There is no point in involving us. Maybe I’m old fashioned but you should not engage in too much talking and deliberation because then you won’t reach any closure. There needs to be a certain group of people who are put in charge and who design the change and then the rest just has to follow. Much like just do what the boss tells you to do. That is what we need then we will get somewhere” (respondent 3.1)

(35)

34

5.0 Discussion

The findings of this research will be discussed in section 5.1. Secondly, the theoretical implications are presented in section 5.2. Then the practical implications will be revealed in section 5.3, followed by sections 5.4 and 5.5 discussing the limitations of this study and the directions for future research.

5.1 Discussion

Results suggest that teams could perfectly understand the need for change on the organizational level but experience no felt need to change on the team level. This need for change on the team level appeared to be related to the change history (critical events in the change history) and by the change agent stressing the need for change (explicit statements of the supervisor). So the difference in perceived need for change on the team level could be explained by the concept of group norms. Which could be shaped by explicit statements of supervisors and critical events in a groups history (Feldman, 1984). These explicit statements of the change agent pushed and motivated the team to be involved in the change process. This is in line with the “subjective norms” proposed by Fishbein and Azjen (1975) who suggest that people would ensure that their behavior is in line with behavioral expectations of people valuable to them.

(36)

35 level (Armenakis et al., 1993; Pond, Armenakis, & Green, 1984). Recently, Holt et al. (2010) introduced the term collective efficacy, referring to shared beliefs in conjoint capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to implement change successfully. These authors linked this concept to organizational readiness for change. This research extended this efficacy notion to the team level of analysis in the sense that when teams feel confident about their abilities to deal with change that work group readiness is more likely to emerge.

The team that expressed no desire to be involved in the change process suggested that they would rather wait before things were decided by upper management, thus valuating what Russ (2008) would call a programmatic approach where things get decided upon before them, with little participation in the design of the change. On the contrary teams that expressed a need for change on the team level valued being involved in the change process, so a more participatory approach. This research thus identified that teams who expressed a need for change on the team level require a different approach from teams who express no need for change on the team level. It was found that when teams express a need for change on the team level that they also require some influence in the change process through a more participatory approach. Teams who express little need for change on the team level expressed a preference for a more directive approach where as a team they would get told what to do and where to go.

(37)

36 change. Previous research suggested that to retain momentum in the change process teams should be communicated a group level change vision and a work group-level implementation plan (Whelan-Berry et al., 2003). Results of this study would support this notion but would add that for readiness to emerge within teams it is especially important that they experience a sense of ownership or control of the design of these plans. Consistent with the notion of Bordia et al. (2004) who suggested that participation can reduce uncertainty while increasing a sense of control. Participation has been associated with readiness on the individual readiness for change (Bouckenooghe, Devos, & Van den Broeck, 2009). Results of this research would suggest that participation in the change process could play also play role in the emergence of work group readiness when perceived as sincere, and when a sense of ownership is experienced. However, this research found that a team first has to experience a need for change on the team level, or intentions to be involved in the change process, for participation to become relevant.

5.2 Theoretical implications

One of the main theoretical implications of this research is that it provided more insight in how change readiness emerges within teams. Moreover it contributed that not every single team requires the same implementation approach. Vakola (2013) stressed the role of group norms which were found to be relevant in shaping work group readiness for change since its perceived influence on the promotion and adoption of behaviors within an organizational change context. This research supports this notion and suggests that change history and explicit statements of the change agent are relevant in shaping these norms, or the felt need for change on the team level.

(38)

37 Secondly, for teams that do value a participative approach this research found that participation and communication is only valuable when deemed sincere and when it provides the team with a sense of control or ownership of the change process. Previously participation had been related to overcoming resistance in teams (J.N. Cummings). Findings of this research would suggest that meaningful participation could potentially contribute to the emergence of work group readiness.

Additionally, findings would support the notion that teams require a work group implementation plan (Whelan-Barry et al., 2003; Cucuzza, 1995). This research found that readiness is especially likely to emerge when the team perceives an influence in shaping such an implementation plan. Moreover, results suggest that for readiness to emerge within teams that prefer a more programmatic approach there should be a particular clear vision and implementation plan in place before commencing talks about the change.

5. 3 Practical implications

(39)

38

5.4 Limitations

This research has some limitations. Firstly, findings are based on one single change process in one single organization. Thus findings should be treated with caution given the potential lack of external validity. Secondly, this research gathered data at one specific point in time, it would have been better if the study would have gathered data over a longer period of time since it potentially could have led to more trustworthy results. However, time was lacking for a longitudinal study. Thirdly, results for one team were only drawn from results of interviews with two respondents hereby limiting the reliability of these findings. In line with the previous point it could be argued that a sample size of nine respondents is rather limited and this impacts the reliability of the findings of this study.

5.5 Directions for future research

(40)

39

6.0 Conclusion

(41)

40

References

Amatayakul, M. (2005). EHR? assess readiness first. Healthcare Financial Management : Journal of

the Healthcare Financial Management Association, 59(5), 112-113.

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703.

Ash, J. S., Gorman, P. N., Seshadri, V., & Hersh, W. R. (2004). Computerized physician order entry in U.S. hospitals: Results of a 2002 survey. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

: JAMIA, 11(2), 95-99.

Bartunek, J. M., Rousseau, D. M., Rudolph, J. W., & DePalma, J. A. (2006). On the receiving end sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others. The

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 42(2), 182-206.

Bordia, P., Hobman, E., Jones, E., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2004). Uncertainty during organizational change: Types, consequences, and management strategies. Journal of Business and Psychology,

18(4), 507-532.

Bouckenooghe, D. (2010). Positioning change recipients’ attitudes toward change in the

organizational change literature. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(4), 500-531.

Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., & Van den Broeck, H. (2009). Organizational change questionnaire– climate of change, processes, and readiness: Development of a new instrument. The Journal of

Psychology, 143(6), 559-599.

(42)

41 By, R. (2007). Ready or not…. Journal of Change Management, 7(1), 3-11.

Caldwell, S., Liu, Y., Fedor, D. B., & Herold, D. M. (2009). Why are perceptions of change in the “eye of the beholder”? the role of age, sex, and tenure in procedural justice judgments. The Journal

of Applied Behavioral Science,

Caldwell, S. D., Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2004). Toward an understanding of the relationships among organizational change, individual differences, and changes in person-environment fit: A cross-level study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 868-882.

Cinite, I., Duxbury, L. E., & Higgins, C. (2009). Measurement of perceived organizational readiness for change in the public sector. British Journal of Management, 20(2), 265-277.

Coghlan, D. (1994). Managing organizational change through teams and groups. Leadership &

Organization Development Journal, 15(2), 18-23.

Cummings, J. N. (2004). Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science, 50(3), 352-364.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management

Review, 14(4), 532-550.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32.

Elizur, D., & Guttman, L. (1976). The structure of attitudes toward work and technological change within an organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 611-622.

Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of Management

(43)

42 Ferlie, E., Hartley, J., & Martin, S. (2003). Changing public service organizations: Current perspectives

and future prospects. British Journal of Management, 14(s1), S1-S14.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and

research

Ford, J. D., Ford, L. W., & D'Amelio, A. (2008). Resistance to change: The rest of the story. Academy of

Management Review, 33(2), 362-377.

George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 107.

Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review,

98(02), 341-354.

Hackman, J. R. (1992). Group influences on individuals in organizations. Consulting Psychologists Press.

Holt, D. T., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Harris, S. G. (2007). Readiness for organizational change the systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(2), 232-255.

Holt, D. T., Helfrich, C. D., Hall, C. G., & Weiner, B. J. (2010). Are you ready? how health professionals can comprehensively conceptualize readiness for change. Journal of General Internal Medicine,

25(1), 50-55.

The emergence of work group readiness for change. A case-study at the GGD Groningen and Assen.