TABLE OF CONTENT

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION

2

1.1 Research question

4

2. THEORATICAL FRAMEWORK

7

2.1 Individual change readiness.

7

2.2. Individual change process antecedents

8

2.3 Group change readiness

10

2.4 Group change readiness antecedents

12

2.4.1. Group change process antecedents

12

2.5 Theoretical conclusion

14

3. METHODOLOGY

15

3.1 Research design

15

3.2 Procedure

15

3.3 Case description

16

3.4 Data collection

17

3.4.1 Semi-structured in depth interviews

18

3.4.2. Measurements

18

3.4.3. Secondary data sources

20

3.5 Controllability, reliability and validity

21

3.6 Data analysis

22

4. RESULTS

25

4.1 The reorganisation at X

25

4.2 Within-case analysis

27

4.2.1 The ICT/data team

27

4.2.2 The formula management team

31

4.2.3 The credit controlling team

37

4.3 Cross case analysis

40

5.

DISCUSSION

42

5.1 Propositions

52

5.2 Managerial implications

54

5.3 Limitations and further research

54

Appendix: interview protocol

56

Literature

58

1.

INTRODUCTION

Today's world is increasingly characterized by a simple, omnipresent phenomenon: change. Since the beginning of life, change is the force that has driven evolution of every single form of life ever present. As the famous evolutionary biologist Darwin explained in his book 'The origin of species', it are not the biggest or strongest species that survive and become successful. The most successful organisms are the ones that best adapt to changes in their environment.

The same truth holds for organizations: adapting to change is crucial for an organization if it wants to survive and become successful. As Holt, Armenakis, Harris and Feild (2007) state 'in today’s turbulent business environment, on-going and successful change and innovation are necessary for organisations to survive, be effective and sustain a competitive advantage.' The ability to change is becoming significantly more important because the environment they operate in is changing more frequently. As Piderit (2000) states, 'adapting to changing goals and demands has been a timeless challenge for organizations, but the task seems to have become even more crucial in the past decade.' Technological advances, a global marketplace, and the denationalization and deregulation of marketplaces have consequences for the amount of change present in the environment organizations operate in and forces them to continuously adapt to this accelerating complex environment (Rafferty et al, 2013). This means that the people involved in these

organizations have to deal with a rising number of and more complex change processes. Giving the importance of change, it is interesting and worrying to see that the majority of change projects fail. In 2008, IBM released the outcomes of a study of more than 1500 change management executives from 15 countries, which revealed that over 60 percent of projects aimed at achieving business change do not fully meet their objectives (IBM, 2008). Other research is even more pessimistic, for example Meaney and Pung (2008), who found that two-thirds of respondents indicated that their companies had failed to achieve a true “step change” in performance after implementing

organisational changes. This is why the study of change processes and of the factors that contribute to the success of these processes remains an important task for researchers.

to or support of change is readiness for change (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993). As the authors state, '...readiness for change may act to preempt the likelihood of resistance to change, increasing the potential for change efforts to be more effective.' Change readiness is defined by Armenakis et al. (1993) as 'organizational members beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization's capacity to successfully make the

changes' (p. 681). This well investigated concept (Oreg, 2011; Bouckenooghe, 2010; Rafferty, 2013; Armenakis et al, 1993; Holt et al, 2007) is important in understanding why change projects fail or succeed in organisations. By increasing change readiness, resistance to change is minimised and the chances of successfully completing change projects increase (Armenakis et al., 1993).

beliefs and values (Vakola, 2013). This lack of knowledge concerning group change readiness is a major limitation in present literature, because major organisational change cannot occur without specific groups and individuals changing (Whelan & Berry, 2003). This means that understanding the group change processes that occur as part of organisational change process is crucial for the understanding how change readiness is formed (Whelan & Berry, 2003).

Earlier research has identified work groups to be important in the development of change readiness (Whelan-Barry, 2003; Eby et al. 2000). However, very few studies have examined how change readiness develops in teams (Rafferty et al., 2013; Vakola, 2013). A team is the 'permanent or semi-permanent group to which individuals are assigned, whom they identify with, and whom they interact with regularly in order to perform work-related task' (Anderson & West, 1998). The change process refers to how a change is implemented and is a key variable in the development of change readiness in individuals (Oreg, 2011; Rafferty et al., 2013). Initial research shows that the change process also plays a role in the development of team change readiness (Whelan-Barry, 2003; Rafferty & Jimmieson, 2010) but knowledge about this subject is still limited. That is why ,to gain deeper insight into how change readiness develops in teams, the main research question of this paper is: How does the change process influence the change readiness of teams?

Next to this, change readiness is an attitude (Armenakis et al., 1993). Piderit (2000) states that attitudes consist of an affective, cognitive and intentional component. Conceptualising any attitude – as behaviour, an emotion or a belief – without including all three components is incomplete (Piderit, 2000). However, although few topics have been the subject of so much attention as employees attitudes towards change (Rafferty et al., 2013), it is unclear if the affective, intentional and cognitive component of change readiness have distinct antecedents. This is why this paper also wants to uncover how the change process influences the affective, intentional and cognitive components of group change readiness. Do these different components have distinct antecedents?

1.1 Research questions

The main research question of this study is:

How does the change process influence the change readiness of teams?

To be able to further explore this question the following sub-questions are used, to identify possible factors that influence group change readiness and based on the change process antecedents

1. How do the process antecedents of individual change readiness ( participation, communication and information, interactional and procedural justice, principal support during the change and perceived management change competence) influence the change readiness of groups?

Change readiness is an attitude, consisting of a cognitive, affective and intentional part (Piderit, 2000). Not much is known about the relationship between these different components and the change process antecedents. This is why the next sub-question examines how the change process influences the different facets of change readiness:

2. How do these process factors influence the different dimensions of group change readiness? Are there relationships between change process factors and the

cognitive/affective/behavioural part of group change readiness?

Examining the antecedents and change readiness in this way will likely result in a more complex picture then has been the case in earlier research (Oreg, 2006). Some process factors may have more influence on how people feel about a change, whereas others might influence how people think about a change, and yet others might influence what they do.

However, the study does not limit itself to these known change process antecedents. That is why the next subquestion is:

3. Are there other process antecedents that influence the change readiness of groups? And how do these antecedents influence the different dimensions of group change readiness?

With these questions, this research hopes to uncover which change process factors play a role in the development and sustaining of change readiness in groups. Change readiness is an attitude, consisting of a cognitive, affective and intentional part (Piderit, 2000). Not much is known about the relationship between these different components and the change process antecedents. This is why the next sub-question examines how the change process influences the different facets of change readiness:

shows the relationships between the different concepts that will be studied.

FIGURE 1

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

The theoretical framework of this thesis is divided into two sections. First, change readiness is defined and research concerning the process antecedents on the individual level are described. The individual level is included because it gives suggestions about relevant antecedents on the group level. Next, the same is done for change readiness on a group level.

2.1 Individual change readiness

Change readiness can be seen as an attitude (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Armenakis et al., 2013) Attitudes towards organizational change have been the subject of business research for quite some time. Lewin (1951) was the first to divide the change process into different parts. His construct unfreezing – the process by which organization members' beliefs and attitudes are altered so that members perceive the change as necessary and likely to be successful - can be seen as being equal to readiness to change. It was Jacobsen (1956) that was the first to introduce readiness as a concept. Earlier research towards organizational change and attitudes was mostly focused on resistance to change (Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979; Lippit et al., 1958). Armenakis et al (1993) were one of the first that explicitly state that readiness and resistance to change are not the same constructs. They define readiness as a concept that 'is reflected in organizational members' beliefs, attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization's capacity to successfully make those changes.' (Armenakis et al., 1993). There are many authors that have stressed the importance of this construct, because one of the most important factors that contribute to the failing of change projects are the attitudes of employees towards organizational change (Miller, et al. 1994; Rafferty et al., 2013; Bouckenooghe et al., 2010).

Armenakis et al. (1993) stated that readiness to change refers to the extent to which an individual beliefs and feels that the change is needed and the organization has the capacity to successfully undergo the change. Jones et al. (2005) extended this concept by including that

readiness to change also refers to ‘the extent to which employees hold positive views about the need for organizational change (i.e. change acceptance), as well as the extent to which employees believe that such changes are likely to have positive implications for themselves and the wider

organization’(p 362).

and ultimately the behavior of change targets (Armenakis et al., 1993; 683). By noting that the change agent has a proactive role, the authors argue for a view in which change agents are seen as coaches and champions for change rather than monitors that react to signs of change

(Bouckenooghe, 2010).

Bouckenooghe et al. (2010) define change readiness as a tridimensional state composed of cognitive, affective and intentional/behavioral reactions towards change. This definition is largely derived from the original work of Armenakis et al. (1993), and although other authors have given different definitions of change readiness,most subsequent definitions of change readiness are largely derived from this paper (Rafferty et al., 2013). The cognitive components consists of the opinion an organizational member has about a change. This opinion is based on the perceived usefulness, necessity, advantage/disadvantages of the change and the knowledge required to perform the change. The affective component refers to feelings one has about the change, whereas the

intentional/behavioral component describes the actions that are taken or will be taken in the future supporting or resisting the change. This definition, with its conceptualisation of readiness to change as consisting of three different dimensions, partly answers the call of Piderit (2000) to measure attitudes as a multifaceted construct. She describes that any conceptualisations of an attitude – as a behaviour, an emotion or a belief – that focusses only on one view and forgetting the others is incomplete.

2.2.1 Individual change process antecedents

In the extensive review by Oreg et al. (2011), the most studied category of antecedents of change readiness is the way in which the change was implemented, the change process. The process variable describes the specific methods utilised to implement a change, suggesting that the way in which change agents introduce a change will certainly affect the reaction of the employees to this change (Self & Armenakis, 2007). This category was further divided into the variables participation, communication and information, interactional and procedural justice, principal support during the change and perceived management change competence. These variables are a part of Rafferty et al. (2013) group of antecedents called internal context enablers, and they also note that a substantial amount of research has focused on this group. Next, research is identified that examines the influence of these process antecedents on several attitudes towards change.

et al. (1993) found that involvement of employees in changes creates a sense of agency and control, feelings that are associated with positive attitudes towards the change. Furthermore, participation can be linked to various positive outcomes: enhanced sense of competence, improved interpersonal trust and increased attachment to the organization (Steel & Lloyd, 1988); a greater understanding of the meaning of change, realizing possible gains associated with the change and greater involvement in implementing behavioral change (Bartunek et al., 1999; Bartunek et al., 2006).

Communication has also been the subject of much research (e.g. Schweiger & Denisi, 1991; Bordia et al., 2004; Axtell, Wall, Stride, Pepper, Clegg, Garnder & Bolden, 2002). During a change, effective change-related communication consists of how, when and why changes will occur

(Wanberg & Banas, 2000). High quality information increases acceptance, openness and

commitment to change (Rafferty et al., 2013), and reduces psychological uncertainty (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991). Absence of communication during a change leads to uncertainty under employees and may be a key source of change recipients difficulties when implementing a change (Schweiger & Denisi, 1991). If during a change not enough information is provided, this may result in

problems, such as cynism about change (Wanous, Reichers & Austin, 2000) and gossiping (Bordia et al., 2004).

Procedural justice refers to the judgments of the fairness of the process by which allocation decisions are made and contributes to the acceptance of changes, higher readiness and commitment to change (Korsgaard, Sapienza & Schweiger, 2002). Interactional justice, defined as the degree to which the people affected by decision are treated by dignity and respect (Schemerhorn, 2005), was related with reduced anxiety for a change and overall acceptance of a change (Paterson & Cary, 2002).

Principal support during change refers to change agents and opinion leaders who affect organizational change and the perceived support change recipients get from them(Oreg, 2011).

communication (Oreg, 2011), had a significant effect on the behavioral and cognitive component of resistance to change, but not to the affective component. His case study showed a surprising

relationship between information and resistance: the more information was given to employees, the more they resisted the change. Because of this outcome, he suggests that this relationship depends on the content of the information, and not the amount.

Having examined the process antecedents of change readiness and other change related attitudes on an individual level, the thesis will continue with an examination of the literature that describes change readiness and its antecedents on a work group level.

2.3 Team change readiness

As described in the introduction, authors have come to the realization that change readiness is a construct that exists on multiple levels (Holt & Vardaman, 2013; Rafferty, Jimmieson, & Armenakis, 2013, Caldwell, Herold & Fedor, 2004; Vakola, 2013; Whelan & Berry, 2003). Although the definition of Armenakis et al. (1993) is widely accepted , it does not differentiate between the different levels of change readiness that exist (Vakola; 2013) and different authors (Rafferty et al., 2013; Bouckenooghe, 2010; Oreg 2011) have voiced the need to look at change from a multilevel perspective. Change readiness as a construct exists on 3 levels (Vakola, 2013; Rafferty et al., 2013): micro- level or individual readiness, meso-level or group readiness, and macro-level or organizational readiness to change. Rafferty et al. (2013: p116) propose that group change readiness emerges from 'the cognitions and affects of individuals that become shared because of social interaction processes and that manifest as higher level collective phenomena.' Vakola (2013) describes group readiness to change arising 'because group members collectively acquire, store, manipulate and exchange information about each other's attitude towards change and about their task, context, process and past behavior related to change.' (p102). An interaction

process in which this information is combined, weighted and integrated forms the group readiness. He continues with the statement that group change readiness is 'based on collective perceptions and beliefs that: (1) change is needed, (2) the organization has the ability to cope with change

effectively, (3) the group will benefit from change outcomes and (4) the group has the capacity to cope with change requirements.'

Rafferty et al. (2013) describe that group change readiness exists of the different

experience. Through interaction between the individuals in the group, the members converge on a shared view of events and key features of the workplace over time (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). This interaction with group members is a crucial element in the development of organizational members their attitudes, because it is a fundamental social process: individuals interpret their environment in and through interactions with others, constructing accounts that allow them to comprehend the world and act collectively (Maitlis, 2005). Rafferty et al. (2013) note that it is increasingly clear that the meaning of any change event is negotiated and determined by individual and group

sensemaking efforts.

Next to this cognitive component, there are the affective and intentional components of group change readiness. The affective component consists of shared collective emotions that arise in response to a change event (Sanchez-Burks & Huy, 2009). The processes that lead to this development of shared emotions, emotional comparison and contagion (Sanchez-Burks & Huy, 2009) consists of individuals using two types of cues to synchronize their moods with others: self-produced cues and situational cues (Rafferty et al, 2013). When a change is introduced, an

individual will first focus on the self-produced cues of his or her own expressive behavior. When individuals are engaged in ambiguous and physiologically arousing situations such as a large scale organizational change, he/she will seek out and use cues from similar others to label their aroused state. These cues are perceptions of what the others expressive behavior means in that situation, and are used to provide an accurate measure or evaluating the intensity, nature, or appropriateness of one's emotional state (Rafferty et al., 2013). Through this interaction process, collective emotions are formed, which can be distinguished by researchers and group members (Piff, Martinez & Keltner, 2012).

Although no definition of the intentional dimension of group change readiness is present in literature, Jimmieson, White & Zajdlewicz (2009) give some sort of description when they describe how group norms function as an antecedent of group change readiness. They suggest that the intentional component of group change readiness can be explained through social identity (Hogg & Abrams, 1988) and self-categorization (Turner et al., 1987) perspectives. These theories explain that through social identity, a team member constructs context-specific group norms which are based on shared intra-group information, and then comprehend to these group norms. The intra-group

information that are the fundaments of these norms exists of considerations whether important group members perform the change behavior and the evaluation of this behavior by the group (Jimmieson et al., 2009). Group norms thus are explicit or implicit prescriptions regarding

not.

2.4 Group change readiness antecedents

Both Holt et al. (2007) and Oreg et al. (2011) do not acknowledge the multiple-level facet of the change attitudes in their review of change readiness antecedents. Rafferty et al. (2013) do distinguish between individual, group and organizational level change readiness and antecedents. The antecedents are divided in 3 broad categories, being external organizational pressures, internal context enablers and group/personal characteristics. However, when describing the antecedents of group change readiness, the authors note that with a limited number of exceptions very few studies have examined change readiness at the work group level and that the focus of this research has been on the internal context enablers. The absence of literature regarding the work group level is why resistance to change is added in this review, because groups and resistance to change have been analyzed in the literature (Vakola, 2013).

An important antecedent that influences the willingness of groups to participate in a change are group norms. Cummings (2004) and Jimmieson et al. (2009) found that groups can have a powerful effect on members' behavior, beliefs and attitudes because the group exerts pressure to confirm to group norms. Feldman (1984) describes norms as the informal rules that groups adopt to regulate and regularize group members' behavior. He states that group norms arise through explicit statements by supervisors or co-workers, critical events in the group's history and through the carrying over behavior from past events. Furthermore, the first behavior pattern that emerges in a group often set group expectations. Group norms are an antecedent of group change readiness because these norms shape the level of group readiness to change, by having a strong impact on the promotion and adoption of behaviors within an organizational change context (Vakola, 2013). For example, if there are group norms that support embracing changes, employees should be more likely to be ready for changes because they will regard doing so as a way to gain group approval (Scott & Bruce, 1994) Thus, norms can be a source of pressure to conform to changes or to acquire new knowledge (Katz & Katz, 1978). However, for norms to have any effect on group behavior, it is necessary that the individuals in the group identify strongly with their group (Jimmieson, White & Hence, 2004). Because of this important effect of norms on group change readiness, change management interventions should try to produce positive group norms regarding the change and strengthen in-group identification to develop readiness to change (Jimmieson, White & Zajdlweicz, 2009).

self determination of actions all influence the rising of resistance to change in groups. Groups resist changes through team solidarity, conformity to norms, rejection of outsiders and conflicts (King & Anderson, 2002). Cummings (2004) describes that to overcome resistance in teams, change managers have several options that all relate to participation: involving members in the decision-making process, letting members understand their own situation, creating ownership of the design and implementation plan and making it possible for members to be directly involved in the process that leads to the understanding of the need for change.

Sanchez & Huy (2009) propose that the ability of a leader to recognize the composition of diverse emotions in a collective (e.g. group) influences the effectiveness of the leaders response to patterns of shared emotions that arise during changes. If a leader underestimates the proportion of negative emotions within a group and press on with a change initiative, then he/she will later on encounter attempts to sabotage the success of the change (Sanchez & Huy, 2009). If a leader does detect the rise of contempt during a change, it provides him/her with valuable information about the effectiveness of his/hers actions and the likely success of new ones. This contempt is a signal that employees may resist the change. By picking up these signals and adjusting their actions, leaders may avoid or minimize resistance to change (Sanchez and Huy, 2009). This means that the ability of leaders to recognize collective emotions is an antecedent of group resistance to change (Sanches & Huy, 2009).

2.4.1 Group change process antecedents

Few studies have examined how the change process influences group change readiness. Whelan-Barry et al. (2003) found in a case study conducted in a large US bank to develop a multilevel change model that communication was important in sustaining momentum on a group level during a big change. They suggest that the communication with a group should exist of a vision that explains what the change would mean for the group, and an implementation plan that reflects the particular contingencies present in that group. An other study that involved

communication is that of Rafferty & Jimmieson (2010). They conclude that the provision of change information and the opportunity to participate in change-related decisions making has an impact on not just the individual level but also on the team level of analysis. The results showed that

communication reduced the amount of role ambiguity, role overload and distress present in

2.5 Theoretical conclusion

In the section above it has become clear that change readiness is an important concept, because the attitude of change recipients towards the change plays a big role in either the success or failure of a change. Researchers have examined extensively which factors contribute to the

3.

METHODOLOGY

The following section describes how the research that is conducted to be able to answer the

research question is designed. Next to this, it will address the issues of good qualitative research as identified by Yin (2003).

3.1 Research design

Because of the nature of the research question, the structure of this research is an embedded case study design. The choice for the nature of this study can be justified for a number of reasons. Yin (2002) identifies 3 conditions under which a case study is the most suitable way of doing research. These conditions are all present in this study. The research questions asks how the change process influences the change readiness of groups, and qualitative research is focused on

discovering the why and how of factors (Gordon, 2011; Yin, 2002). Next to this, the study needs no control over behavioural events and focuses on contemporary events, which makes a case study the best way to answer the research question (Yin, 2002). Furthermore, qualitative research is well suited for understanding phenomena within their context, uncovering links among concepts and behaviours and generating and refining theory (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Through qualitative research explanations of beliefs and behaviours can be given (Hutjes & Van Buuren, 1992).

3.2 Procedure

The first step in the research has been the exploration of the problem and the issues surrounding it. With a literature review an overview of known information was created, in which process factors were identified that influence the change readiness of individuals. This research, together with the few papers that are printed about process factors and group change readiness, formed the basis of the interview. The next step was selecting cases. The case requirements, as stated in the email that was send out in which company's were asked to participate, were described as: there had to be a significant change in the last year, in this company teams work should be done in teams and this change should have affected the teams. Finding a company to conduct the

positive when he first was contacted, he did call back a few days later to explain that the board of directors did not want 'someone to watch over their shoulder' when they were executing these changes with severe consequences. Furthermore, interviews did take place at a large public

organisation located in Utrecht. However, once the interviews were analysed, the change that took place in that organisation turned out to be not suitable for answering the research question. There was a significant change, but the consequences of this change were all on a individual level because the team that was interviewed ceased to exists and its members were all relocated to another part of the organisation. The researcher then contacted one of the teams in which a team member was placed, but this team turned out to be already working for years and not subject to any significant changes on a team level. Fortunately, one company did react.The case that was selected satisfies the requirements as stated above.

The first contact was made with the director of X through emailing. Three initial interviews were held to, in which the director introduced the company and the changes. After this, four

managers were interviewed from 4 different teams working on the central department. After these interviews, 3 teams were selected. The director of the company suggested that in one team the reorganisation was a success, while the manager in the other team struggled to make the changes work. These two teams were selected, resulting in a two tail design (Yin, 1984): cases with both extremes are chosen, and this study hopes to uncover how and why the change process has influenced the change readiness of these two teams. One other team was also chosen to hopefully enhance literal replication. After the managers were interviewed, appointments were made with the team members and 9 more interviews were planned, with 3 members of each team.

3.3 Case description

action in order to make the company healthy once again. This resulted in the first reorganisation in the history of the 87 year old company, executed in July 2012. After this change, the company hoped to be adapted enough to the shrimping market so that the figures would go into the black again. Unfortunately, the construction market did not recover in 2012. More than that, it was the worst year for the construction industry until then. This forced X to adopt another reorganisation in 2013. This organisational change consisted of 2 rounds. On the 23th of April, executive

management communicated in a letter to employees that the commercial departments had to be reduced, by combining functions and creating new teams. In this letter it was also mentioned that head office was to big and that 'It is unavoidable to reduce the central department later on in 2013'. Eventually, it took until the third of october before it was announced by top management that the central department was on turn. This reorganisation focused on turning the employees from specialists to generalists, in order to do more with less people. This time, it took only a month before the new structure was in place. On the first of November, the new X central department was in place. The purpose of all these changes was to get the company back on track. As Johan Dikkop, CEO of the X group, noted in the letter that announced the changes: 'the main goal of this

reorganisation is to get the company financially healthy again.'

This study focuses on three cases, teams that are working in the central department of X. Some of these teams at X were newly formed after the last reorganisation, and some only had partial changes in their membership. All teams were responsible for implementing the changes that came along with the reorganisation of their department. The change process in each case has been conducted in a very different way, as can be seen in the results. To ensure literal replication (Yin, 2003), the teams were selected on same size (between 5 & 8 members). Furthermore, the changes had approximately the same impact on all teams, although the consequences for the ICT/data team and formula management team were bigger then that for the credit controlling team.

3.4 Data collection

The contextual framework for the case studies was the development of team change readiness during an organisational change. From this starting point, qualitative data was collected in 3 cases. The main goal was to uncover how the change process had influenced the readiness of the team during and after the implementation of an organisational change.

3.3.1 Semi structured in-depth interviews

him. In total three meetings were held in total, which lasted between 20 minutes and one hour. In these meetings, the director presented the change plans and shared his view on how the

reorganisation had gone, giving the interviewee some initial understanding of both the organisation and the perception of the director with regards to the change readiness of the different teams. For the actual research, in-depth interviews were taken.The data was collected in five weeks.

Blumberg, Cooper and Schindler (2005) describe that a good interview starts with a good introduction. This is why before the interview the interviewer made clear what the motivation of the research was, the goal, the procedure and privacy matters. It was made clear that all answers would be confidentially handled and that anonymity is granted. During the explanation of the goal, it was made clear that the interview was especially aiming at how the change readiness had developed in the team, and that the he / she should answer the questions from this level. Next to this, a short introduction of the change was given to make sure the researcher and the interviewee were talking about the same change. From the literature review, five process factors were identified that could possibly influence employees' readiness to change. These factors participation,

3.3.2 Measurements

Because research on change readiness has not looked at this construct from a team level perspective, questions based on earlier research had to be changed from the individual level to the relevant level of analyses. Rafferty et al. (2013) state that a referent-shift consensus model is appropriate when theorising about and operationalizing change readiness at the group level, meaning that the lower level attributes being assessed for consensus are conceptually through derived from the original individual-level construct (Chan, 1998). Key in this model is within group agreement, because if this is absent, the unit-level measure has no construct validity. To enhance the construct validity, constructs from prior research are the basis for the content of the interviews. This research focused on change readiness and change process factors. Because some of these studies are quantitative, the questions had to be changed into open ended questions so that they fit in a semi-structured interview. Furthermore, the questions had to be translated from english to dutch. This was done with the help of a colleague student, making back and forth translation, in order to make sure the translation captured the essence of the original constructs.The change readiness questions were taken from Bouckenooghe (2009), who developed a change readiness scale. This research was chosen because he distinguishes the different facets that make up an attitude as suggested by Piderit (2000), meaning that change readiness is measured using emotional readiness for change (EMRE), cognitive readiness for change (COGRE) and intentional readiness for change (INRE). Furthermore, their article was used to derive the questions about participation. The article of Rafferty et al. (2013) was used to to help translate these questions to a team level. Table 1 presents the statements and the questions that are derived from them.

TABLE 1

Constructs of Bouckenooghe (2009) Statements from Bouckenooghe (2009) Interview questions EMRE: I have a good feeling about the change

project

EMRE: Which emotions do you feel towards the change process? Do the other working in your team share these emotions?

EMRE: I experience the change as a positive process.

EMRE: Do you think that the team experienced the change process as positive?

COGRE: I am quite reluctant to accommodate and incorporate changes into my work.

COGRE: What does the change include for the team?

COGRE: I think that most changes will have a negative effect on the clients we serve.

COGRE: What will be the effect of the change on the clients and the company itself?

INRE: I am willing to make a significant contribution to the change.

INRE: Did the team want to contribute to the change?

Decisions concerning work are taken in consultation with the staff affected.

Did the team participate in the decision-making process during the changes? In what ways? The department are consulted about the change

sufficiently.

Did the team get sufficient change to participate during the changes?

Wanberg and Banas (2000) their research was chosen for the construct communication and participation. Their research was aimed at uncovering factors that influenced a construct related to readiness to change: openness to change. A selection of their statements was used and transformed in open questions. Table 2 presents these statements and the questions derived from them.

TABLE 2

Constructs of Wanberg and Banas (2000) Statements from Wanberg & Banas (2000) Interview questions I have received adequate information about the

forthcoming changes.

Do you think that the team received sufficient information about the change?

The information I have received about the changes has been useful.

How often and in what ways did the team get informed about the change?

I have been able to participate in the

implementation of the changes that have been proposed an that are occurring.

Did the communication change the way the team looked at the change? Can you give me some examples please?

If I wanted to, I could have input into the decisions being made about the future of the programs.

Holt et al. (2007) their article was used to create questions regarding principal support during the change. Their article discusses the development and evaluation of an instrument that can be used to gauge readiness for organisational change at an individual level. From their construct senior leadership, which refers to the extent to which one feels that the organisation's leadership and management are or are not committed to and support or do not support implementation of the prospective change, interview questions were derived. These statements and questions are

presented in table 3.

TABLE 3

Constructs of Holt et al. (2007) Statements from Holt et al. (2007) Interview questions Our senior leaders have encouraged us all to

embrace this change.

Do you think that the team has had enough support from the managers in the change process?

I believe management has done a great job in bringing about the change.

Did the support of the management influence the willingness of the team to participate in the change?

This organisation's leaders are committed to the change.

Do you feel that the management team embraced the change, and encouraged your team to do so to?

The questions about distributive and procedural justice were based on the article of Gililiand (1994). The statements had to be adjusted to fit into this research.

TABLE 4

Constructs of Bies and Moag (1986) and Elkins and Philips (200)

Statement from Gilililand Interview question

I feel that the company made the wrong selection decision.

Do you think that the reorganization has affected all teams the same?

I felt good about the way the biographical data instrument was conducted and administered.

Do you think that decisions regarding issues and problems during the change were handled fairly?

3.3.3 Secondary source data

At X insight was given into the communication plans of the reorganisation, alongside with planning reports and a strategic document. Furthermore, team members provided communication that was given to them in which the reorganisation was explained.

3.5 Controllability, reliability and validity

The quality of qualitative research depends on the three criteria controllability, reliability and validity (Yin, 2003). The fundament of the other two criteria is controllability (Van Aken, Berends and van der Bij, 2012). The controllability of a study is high if other researchers can reproduce a study, and the basic issue can be seen as one of relative neutrality and reasonable freedom from unacknowledged researcher biases (Miles and Huberman, 2008). The controllability of this study is safeguarded by describing the methods and procedures in detail. A study is reliable when the results are independent of the particular characteristics of a study, and therefore can be replicated in other studies (Yin, 2003). This means that “a repetition of the study by another researcher, with a different research instrument, with different respondents or in another situation, should yield the same results.” (Van Aken et al., 2012: 158) Van Aken et al (2012) note that the methodological literature speaks of four potential sources of bias: the researcher, the instrument, the respondent and the situation. Several strategies were adopted to reduce these biases. To minimise the researcher bias, throughout the study the help of a colleague student was asked who helped the researcher by giving new insights and perspectives. Furthermore, an experienced change manager was consulted before, during and after the case studies. By listening and asking on how the study went, he helped with giving fresh ideas and keeping the results independent of the researcher. Through standardisation of the data collection, analysis and interpretation methods, reliability was further enhanced. Interviews were based on a semi-structured format, and processed in a standardised way so that instrument bias was reduced. Van Aken et al. (2012) give several options to cope with respondent bias, of which two are used. The respondents were selected at random, and because they represented more then fifty percent of the teams, chances are low that the particular sample will yield a distorted picture. Next to this, involving three out of five teams working at the central department and interviewing the team leaders and management of the company at X also reduces respondent bias.

results. In this way, by explaining what happened before the teams got to start, insight is given in the context in which the change process took place.

Validity is the last criterion for qualitative research, meaning that the way results are generated should provide good reason to believe that the research results are true (Van Aken et al., 2012). Construct validity refers to wether a research instrument measures what it intends to measure, and is provided by basing the interview questions upon pre tested constructs. See

'measurements' earlier in this chapter. To increase the validity further, multiple sources of evidences were used. Next to the people working in the teams, the team managers also were interviewed and secondary data was used. This enhances the internal validity of the study. The external validity of the study is taken care of by carefully methodological coding and analytical generalisation,

through which the researcher is striving to generalise the set of results to some broader theory (Yin, 2002). This topic is further explained in the data analysis section.

3.6 Data analysis

In order to be able to analyse the data, the interviews were processed into transcripts. These transcripts are used as the data source for the analysis. Once the transcripts were processed, Nvivo was used to build a coding database. This is a qualitative research program, which helped in the coding process. Based on the literature review, categories were set up beforehand. During the analysis, the data was read word for word and codes were added, changed and deleted (Morgan, 1993). Codes are keywords that belong to certain text fragments (baarda, de Goede & Teunissen, 2005). From the first observation, four labels were derived. These labels were used to organise and group the quotes from the interviewees into meaningful clusters (Coffey & Atkinson, 1994). These clusters turned into the four change process antecedents that were identified. One of them, team building, rose through inductive data analyse. From this, all relevant quotes were put in a table and through induction seven codes came up, which became the seven mechanism uncovered in this study. For two categories, perceived management change competence and justice, not enough data was found to develop useful codes that could uncover mechanisms. The four categories for which sufficient data was found and the codes derived from them are shown in table 4.

TABLE 4 Coding of interviews

Deductive Categories

Communication Clear team vision Team vision is a shared purpose and plan of action that clarifies strategic fit and sets project targets and priorities that are consistent with the firm's design, manufacturing capabilities, and market requirements (Clark and Wheelwright, 1994) Regular team

meetings

Team meetings is group interaction, coordinating team members, tasks, and tools (Ericksen & Dyer, 2004). Participation Participation in

goal setting

Participative goal setting is the process of identifying, adopting, and articulating relevant goals from higher-order objectives, mission, and purpose, and integrating, translating, and adapting them at the team level (Lee & Wei, 2011).

Consultive participation

Consultive participation refers to situations where employees engage in long-term, formal,

and direct participation, focused on job issues (Cotton et al., 1988)

Principal support Support from team manager

The belief that the manager of the team will provide tangible support for change in the form of resources and information (Armenakis et al., 2002).

Inductive category

Team building Team identification The part of an individual’s self concept in which they acknowledge and value being part of a team and they share norms and behaviour codes which develop into a sense of cohesion and interdependency (Tolansky, 2010).

Change supportive group norms

Patterns of behavior present in the team that support the changes (Jimmieson, 2009).

4.

RESULTS

This section elaborates on the results of the empirical research. First, a short description of the reorganisation process at X is given. This is done to provide background for the cases. Second, within-case analyses are performed, after which the discovered mechanisms and codes from the data analysis will be shown. At the end of each within-case analysis patterns that were founded are presented. By doing this, the results section uncovers the mechanisms and patterns by which the change process influences the change readiness of teams. The results of the teams are analysed, and the change readiness in the teams is presented first. Next, the categories of process factors are discussed and consist of, but are not limited to, the process antecedents that Oreg (2011) identified to influence change readiness on an individual level. This sections closes with a cross-case analyse, in which the patterns of all cases are compared. This section starts with a short description of the reorganization process present at X.

4.1 The reorganisation at X

an ideal scenario, and told the employees this is were we are and that is were we want to go. We need these kind of people in the new organisation, and created internal vacancies on which everybody could apply.' Because these teams were formed newly, it is not possible to identify the influence of this period on the change readiness of the teams used in this research. However, it is important to note what the lack of communication between April 2013 and October 2013 did to the atmosphere in the organisation, because this did influence all employees and thus laid the basis on which the new teams started to operate. The importance of this process is underpinned by the fact that eleven of twelve interviewees notice it. The concluding question of the interview was one that asked if the participants could describe what should have been done differently if another

reorganisation would have taken place. Eleven out of twelve interviewees note that the amount of time between the announcement of the reorganisation and the moment that the plans became concrete took way too long. A member of the financial administration team describes this: 'Yes, it took to long. If you do not no what is going to happen, just say so, but do not say nothing. If they had just said: 'We are sorry, it will take two months before we have clarity'. But not saying anything is not good. And if we asked our manager what was happening, he told us he also had no idea what was going on because he neither was informed. So no clarity or information was given.'

Because management chose to inform the central department in April 2013 that later on in the year a reorganisation would follow for that part of the organisation, but provided no further information about how or when this would happen, a feeling of uncertainty was created in the employees. This uncertainty lead to a shared feeling of fear rising when employees tried to make sense of the announcement. This feeling of fear was based on people not knowing whether or not they could stay in the organisation, and influenced the affective change readiness. Employees started to feel fearful over the upcoming changes.

This section now continues with a focus on three within-case analyses. These cases are the teams that were formed in the central department, and the results showed below in the within-case analysis focus on the change process from the first of November of 2013.

4.2 Within-case analyses

4.2.1 Team A: the ICT/data team

Team S1 was newly created after the reorganisation by combining two previous teams, and things changed quite a bit for employees. Some responsibilities of these two old teams were outsourced after the reorganisation. Another big change was the reducing of the number of people working in the teams, thereby broadening the job responsibilities for the remaining team members. During the initial interview with the director, he said that this team ran into trouble after the

reorganisation The interviews took place with four of the seven team members, of which one was the financial director, under which responsibility the team falls, two were working on the ICT section and one on the data section. The team's manager was not included, because he was only working at X for four to six weeks at the time the interviewees took place. This means he had no insight into the change process. Next, the results of this case will be elaborated, starting with the change process antecedents.

Change process antecedents: Communication

Lack of team change vision. All three team members stated that the information provided by management was perfectly clear on an organisational level, but the information did not elaborate on how and why choices were made on a team level. Furthermore, nor the team manager who had left or the interim manager created a vision for the team, which has made the goal of the changes unclear and has lead to the team feeling overwhelmed by the changes. When asked if there were any crucial moments in which the team's change readiness has changed, a team member says that the team is waiting on what the new manager is going to bring and that the team is going to develop readiness or resistance on his vision.

not available to further explain or give support after the reorganisation. This has led to uncertainty in the team, as they could not make sense of what was going on.

Participation

No participative goal setting. The three team members state that none of them has participated in the design of the reorganisation. One of the employees working in the IT section says when asked if they got involved in the design of the changes: 'No, not at all. It did hit us like a freight train, just like the managers I think.. This led to big frustration, because you know that something had to change, but the people who had been fired, the section of it that was erased is not replaceable by other people. So a big part of the team is gone which made technical systems

collapse. And then you try to solve that with other people, but that is not realistic, that is just not possible.' He and an other team member describe that the problems that have risen in the team could have been foreseen if management had involved some of the team members in the designing of the new department.

No consultive participation. The two team members working at IT both describe that there have been moments in which the team was asked to participate in the set up of the execution of the changes that flowed from the reorganisation. However, both team members also describe that nothing has been done with their input. The other IT employee describes that when the manager left after the reorganisation, a lot of problems arose. However, the interim manager chose not to do anything with the suggestions the team gave to solve these problems. This created frustration in the IT section, because the problems kept on coming. Furthermore, he describes that the IT on which the organisation is running is a big risk for the organisation. Although the IT is 'the backbone' of the organisation, the IT team did not get sufficient resources to make sure it is up to date. The organisation already had to deal with servers that collapsed on which there were no back-ups running, meaning that the information on those servers is lost. According to the IT employee, these are all major threats to the functioning of the organisation. However, the team feels not taken seriously because the manager does not listen and keeps the priorities of the changes as they are, leading to frustration.

Managerial support

The two interviewees from the IT section both say that they have the feeling that the interim manager did not listen to them or support them during the changes. One of the team members says that he reacted angry to the team leader because he got the feeling he was not taking their needs serious. This feeling was created because the manager made a decision that turned out to be impossible to implement. The help desk had to be available from 6 o'clock in the morning till 6 in the evening. However, the manager wanted to do this with one person. This was not possible, and it took the team member a lot of effort to get someone to help hem with this.

Team building

No team identification. The interim manager never took the time or willingness to organise an official kick off meeting or any other team building activity. This has resulted in a team that does not feel like a team but more like a collection of individuals. One of the team members describes that he does not have any contact with the rest of the team, nor does he has a good feeling about his team members.

Team Change Readiness

Cognitive component. Team members all agree that the organisation had to change.

However, the team does not understand the decisions that were made on the team level, nor do they have the idea that the team is equipped to deal with the change requirements or that the group benefits from the change. The team members feel overwhelmed by the amount of work and some jobs are not taken care of, because there is a shortage of hands to handle all the new responsibilities that come with the reorganisation.

Emotional. All three team members state that there are negative emotions present in the team towards the changes.

Intentional. All team members describe that the motivation of the team to work on the changes has dropped in the past months. One team member describes that the willingness of him and his colleagues to work overtime has dropped. He tells that: 'People are willing to work, overwork for one time but no more. I think that people are motivated to do more, but because nobody listens to us resulting in us having to work for 80 hours, this motivation is not present. I think everybody does what he has to do out of self preservation.. but after this it just ends.'

Mechanisms derived from this case

In this section mechanisms derived in this case will be elaborated on the basis of three core

categories. These categories are 1) the communication in the change process, 2) the participation in the change process and the 3) managerial support, and their possible influence on the change readiness of the team. For the other categories, not enough data was collected to establish possible mechanisms.

1) Communication

Based on the findings there are two mechanisms mentioned by the team members that indicates how the communication is influencing the change readiness of the team. This mechanism is 1) lack of team change vision and 2) regular team meetings.

1) The three team members talk about the shared feeling of frustration that has risen in the team because of the shifting goal. This feeling rises because the team can not make sense of the changes, since there is no vision in which the changes are explained for the team. This seems to affect the change readiness in two ways. First, because the team has no idea why the manager keeps expanding their workload, they have developed negative affections towards the new changes, influencing the affective change readiness of the team because each new goal triggers explicit negative feelings in the team as they have no idea why these changes are introduced, or what the goal of all the changes is. Next, by continuously introducing new goals the motivation of the team to make the changes work is becoming less as there is no goal on the horizon. This results in a team that, according to a respondent, is more 'doing magic tricks with priorities then actually changing anything'. The intentions to work on the changes thus seem to be reduced because of the missing of a clear team vision towards everyone is working to. 2) Furthermore, two team members note that after the reorganisation was announced, there were no meetings with the interim manager in which he explained what was happening in the organisation or how the team was supposed to go further. This created uncertainty in the team as mentioned by one of the team members. This did create a negative atmosphere towards the changes.

2 ) Participation

Based on the findings of the case there are two mechanisms about the participation of the team in the change that the team members indicate as being important to create change readiness in the team. These are 1) participation in goal setting and 2) consultive participation.

this has resulted in a lot of problems, problems which could have been avoided. This has lead to an atmosphere of frustration in which the team members blame management for the problems arising, because all respondents of the team note that they saw the problems related to the changes coming. Furthermore, the rise of negative feelings in the team towards the changes has resulted in a lack of ownership, which is illustrated by a team member describes who says that instead of solving the problems in the team like he was used to do, they know just report them to the team manager. This has reduced the intentions of the team to work on the changes. 2) The two members responsible for IT say that during the implementation phase of the changes a lot of problems arose. Although they did have thoughts about how to handle these problems, nothing was done with their input. One of them describes that he thinks this is why the intentional change readiness of the team has changed. He says that because nothing was done with their suggestions, the problems remained and the team should make ridiculous hours to handle the changes. However, they are not doing this because the problems could have been much less severe if management would listen to their solutions on a structural basis. So, it seems that the absence of consultive participation has made the motivation of the team to work on the changes less. Furthermore, both team members feel frustrated because management does not listen to their suggestions and problems are arising because of this. This means that the affective atmosphere in the team with regards to the changes is also influenced by the absence of consultive participation.

3) Managerial support

Based on the findings there is one mechanism concerning managerial support that the team members indicate as important in influencing the change readiness of the team. This is Support from the team manager.

The lack of support from the interim manager is mentioned by all three team members. The lack of support is based on the fact that the team is overwhelmed by the amount of work flowing from the changes, but the interim manager was not responding to these thoughts. This seems to influence the cognitive change readiness of the team, as team members are making sense of the change and do not understand how the changes can benefit the team or the organisation.

4.2.2. The formula management team

The formula management team was also newly formed in the reorganisation by combining two teams, these were the category management team and the marketing team. However, the responsibilities that are part of this team were first performed by twice as much people, meaning that the reorganisation has the same consequences with respect to work pressure and broadening of the job responsibilities as in the ICT/data team. The team is made up of four team members and the team manager. The interviews took place with two team members and the manager. The manager from this team stayed in place after the reorganisation. He has chosen to execute the change process in a different way then the interim manager at the previous team. During the initial interviews with the CEO, he mentioned that he thought that this team was doing a really great job with the changes. This section now continues with a description of the change process.

Change process antecedents: Communication

Regular team meetings. The interviewees describe that there is substantial communication in the team, both with the team manager as with the whole team, about the progress of the changes and the goals the team is working on. One of the factors that contributes to this is the set up of the work place, which makes the communication lines shorter. This is mentioned by both the team manager and one of the team members. However, there are also official moments in which the progress of the changes are discussed. One of them describes that the team comes together every two weeks for a work meeting, and every other week for an individual meeting. He says that these meetings do not get cancelled, and that he thinks that this has greatly contributed to the functioning of the team, especially in the start up phase: The other team member notes that the way in which the manager communicates is contributing to the atmosphere in the team. In a previous team, he has had an experience with a manager who did not communicate with the team and that did not work out well. He contrasts this with the present situation: 'We have regular meetings with our team manager to discuss the progress of these projects, so that gets monitored, and we as a team also have a meeting every two weeks to talk about these projects.'

approaches the changes from a team level. He does not say this is it and good luck with it.' The manager says that he expects that the team members have their OGSM with them during their team meetings, so that they are constantly reminded to where the team is working to. Both team

members note that although everyone has their own objectives, during the team meeting they are reminded that they work on the same goal.

Participation

Participative goal setting. The manager of the team decided to let the team member participate in designing the team their strategy. He did this using a method called OGSM, objective goal strategy measurements. During three half-day sessions everyone had to create a strategy that fitted on one a4. The manager says that this strategy is: 'The thing that we all strive for, each one with his or her own discipline. In the end, the objective at the top is owned by all of us.' In this way, according to the manager, the whole team has been the architect of the changes and of the

department as it is today. A team member describes that although the team did not have any

influence over the choices management made in the reorganisation, they did participate in an action plan that decided how the changes were made concrete.

Consultive participation. The manager gives the team ' a lot of space to let themselves decide what they are doing. However, I also expect them to work independently and take

responsibility for their actions.' He thinks that this way of working has contributed to the change readiness of the team. Both team members talk in a positive way about the involvement of the team in the changes. One of them describes that the framework in which the changes management proposes is clear and can not be ignored, but that within this framework they are free to contribute to the execution of the changes. Furthermore, he says that the way in which the team manager let them participate is something he never encountered before, although he already works for thirty years in this field. However, they do not mention the influence of this participation on the change readiness on the team.

Managerial support

Both team members describe the influence of the team manager on the team as very

Team building

Creating team identification. After the reorganisation, the team manager decided to have an informal kick off meeting with his new team members during an afternoon. He rented a location, and the goal of this afternoon was to: 'get to know everybody, what they were dreaming of, what they wanted from this company, and in this way I got a lot of enormous ambitions on the table. But I also wanted to take them serious, by asking them which problems they were running into during all these years at X, what are your worries and where do you want to go.' The two team members both mention this kick-off meeting, and both relate positive to it. One of them says that the team really bounded that day, that a he thinks a real group feeling was created there that day, and that the team's manager played a big role stimulating this and organising things for the team.

Team change readiness

Cognitive component. Although there is some cognitive change readiness present in the team, it seems to be not very high. Resulting from the cognitive organisational change readiness that was present in the company before the reorganisation, team members describe that they all feel that there was a need for change. However, this team also has it's doubts whether they have the capacity to deal with the changes, as mentioned by three of three interviewees, yet their doubts are formulated in a positive way.

Affective component: The three respondents all describe certain shared emotions in the team. When asked how which feelings were present in the team when it was first formed, a team member describes these feelings with the words 'hope, faith, almost euphoric'. These emotions were influenced by an informal team gathering in one of the first days of the new team.

Intentional component: It comes as no surprise that the intentional change readiness in the team seems to be high. Two respondents make clear statements of shared group norms that show the intention of the group to participate in the changes. These norms show that the group members support each other to embrace the change as illustrated by a respondent stating: 'Certain patterns of behaviour have risen in the group , which make that the changes are taken care off. We go through fire and water for someone.'

Mechanisms derived from this case