THREE WORKING PRINCIPLES OF INTERVENTIONS:

(1)

INTERVENTIONS:

ASSESSING THE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNICATION,

PARTICIPATION, AND FACILITATION ON CHANGE

EFFECTIVENESS

Master thesis, MscBA, specialisation Change Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organisation

August 25, 2008

MILON GALEMA Studentnumber: 1334328 Meindert Hobbemastraat 12a

9718 RP Groningen Tel.: +31 (0)6 43 22 90 76 e-mail: milongalema@hotmail.com Supervisor/university B.J.M. Emans/K.S. Prins Supervisor/field of study

S. van der Veen Pentascope, Groningen

(2)

THREE WORKING PRINCIPLES OF

INTERVENTIONS:

ASSESSING THE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNICATION,

PARTICIPATION, AND FACILITATION ON CHANGE

EFFECTIVENESS

MILON GALEMA

University of Groningen

Interventions are sets of structured activities through which organisations can fruitfully achieve change effectiveness at the individual level. In order to know how change agents can better manage the change process, it is vital to define the working principles of interventions. In this study, we hypothesize that communication, participation, and facilitation are the three most powerful working principles of interventions to create change effectiveness. In order to change a persons’ actual behaviour, certain stimulus variables have to be present at the individual level. Therefore, the relationships between the three working principles and change effectiveness are believed to be mediated by the direct antecedents of change effectiveness. These are the following: readiness, attitude towards the change process, subjective norm, perceived behavioural control, and experimentation. Our hypotheses have been tested in a survey among 95 provincial civil servants who were involved in the implementation of an organisational development program. Despite the emphasized role of participation in literature, our results implicate that this working principle is of minor importance. Communication by itself is an important predictor of change effectiveness. Facilitation is the strongest significant predictor of change effectiveness and seems to have a unique contribution to change effectiveness. These relationships appear to be mainly, if not solely, mediated by attitude towards the change process. In this study, we discuss why an active role is required from management or change agents to create change effectiveness.

(3)

Grau, 1994). That is why it is both theoretically and practically necessary to examine how change agents successfully can influence change effectiveness.

Interventions are commonly used to create change effectiveness. Multiple definitions of interventions exist, of which the one by French & Bell (1990: 113) is widely accepted: “interventions are sets of structured activities in which selected organisational units (target groups or individuals) engage in a task or a sequence of tasks where the task goals are related directly or indirectly to organisational improvement”. In other words, interventions implement changes in an organisational work setting which improves organisational outcomes (Robertson, Roberts & Porras, 1993). Therefore, it is vital to know what the working principles are of interventions.

In 1979 Kotter and Schlesinger identified a set of influence strategies to reach change effectiveness, of which communication, participation and facilitation are considered to be the most powerful. Although more recent descriptions of these strategies are presented, no new issues have been injected since this model (King & Anderson, 1995; Metselaar, 1997). Therefore, the strategies communication, participation, and facilitation may be fruitfully considered as the three working principles of interventions. Communication and participation in particular, receive attention as ways of effectively managing changes in the great amount of practitioner-oriented literature that exists (DiFonzo & Bordia, 1998; Elving, 2005). Commonly, prescriptions include the ability to address the uncertainties employees face by means of communication and to widely involve employees. However, empirical evidence of the influence of these working principles of interventions on change effectiveness is lacking (Elving, 2005; Lewis, 1999; Miller, Johnson & Grau, 1994). This is especially the case with the third working principle mentioned above: facilitation. Greater empirical attention to communication, participation, and facilitation will further insight how change agents can better manage the change process within interventions to reach change effectiveness.

Change effectiveness

(4)

1992). Transformational change factors – i.e. leadership, culture and, mission and strategy – deal with areas that require new employee behaviours as a consequence of external and internal environmental pressures. As can be seen, the scope of organisational change is unlimited, but first and foremost, it is initiated and carried out by individuals (George & Jones, 2001).

Developed from a change perspective, it is believed that organisations are contexts within which employees behave (Robertson et al., 1993). Its assumption is that individual behaviour is the most important determinant of organisational outcomes. Consequently, organisations primarily change and act through their employees (George & Jones, 2001). Employees have to acquire new knowledge, absorb new information, learn new tasks and most often they have to modify their work habits, values and attitudes to achieve better organisational outcomes (Kubr, 2002; Robertson et al., 1993). Research of Robertson et al. (1993) shows that organisational performance depends on the actions of its employees and that organisational change can occur when the behaviour of these employees change. That is why change effectiveness fruitfully can be examined at the individual level. Therefore, change effectiveness can be defined as the extent to which the employee has successfully adopted the change in terms of desired behaviour (Elving, 2005; Robertson et al., 1993). The desired behaviour is dependent upon the content of the specific change project.

Consequently, for organisational outcomes to improve, interventions and its working principles can be aimed to change the individual behaviour. However, in order to change a persons’ actual behaviour, certain stimulus variables have to be present at the individual level (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). That is why these variables, which are usually seen as the predictors of change effectiveness at the individual level, are believed to mediate the relationships between the working principles and change effectiveness. Beginning with the early work of Lewin (1947), different authors (Armenakis, Harris & Field, 1999; Judson, 1991; Kotter, 1995) have stressed the importance of these so-believed mediators to reach change effectiveness. The first mediator, readiness, refers to the preparation for the change by the employees (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). The second mediator, intention, reflects the development of willingness to change and captures the motivational factors that influence the behaviour. The third mediator, experimentation, contains experimentation with new behaviours by organisational members to slowly achieve desired results (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999).

(5)

facilitation. In previous studies (Armenakis et al, 1999; Boyatzis, 2006; Elving, 2005; Metselaar, 1997) only one of these mediators is considered a predictor of change effectiveness. For example, Elving (2005) and Armenakis et al. (1999) studied the concept readiness, Metselaar (1997) discussed the variable intention and, Boyatzis (2006) considered experimentation as a critical predictor of change effectiveness. The literature emphasizes the use of readiness, intention and experimentation to accomplish a successful change-effort. Therefore, in this study we will include all three mediators of change effectiveness.

Using a sample of 95 employees at the provincial civil service, Province Friesland, this study examined to what extent the so-believed working principles of interventions influence change effectiveness. These relationships are believed to be mediated by the stimulus variables of change effectiveness, namely readiness, intention and experimentation.

Working Principles

The following paragraphs will consider the hypothetical relationships between the working principles – communication, participation, and facilitation – of interventions on change effectiveness. In addition, we will explain why these relationships are considered to be mediated by readiness, intention and experimentation.

Communication. For long it has been generally agreed among practitioners that

(6)

Bennebroek Gravenhorst, 2005). Furthermore, it is important that information about the change is timely, understandable and that it contains no errors, so organisational members have time to prepare for this mentally and get ready for the change itself (Elving, 2005; Kanter, 1985). This has been hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 1. Good communication regarding the change will lead to high change effectiveness.

However, communication is not the sole factor of influence on change effectiveness. This relation is believed to be mediated by readiness, intention, and experimentation. The communicated change message mentioned above is believed to shape the sentiments that determine reactions to the change. The employee pictures the need for change and the appropriateness of the specific change process. The resulting sentiments can create readiness for change, in which employees become prepared (Armenakis & Harris, 2002).

These sentiments can also contain the intention to change and the positive behavioural cognition towards the implementation of the change. Metselaar (1997) underscores that the amount of intention to change strongly depends upon how those involved are informed of its consequences. Open communication creates favourable attitudes towards change by allaying fears and strengthening an employee’s competence in making the change happen (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004). Concerning the level of uncertainty, communication can be seen as an influential instrument to lessen or prevent uncertainty, and thus possible resistance, the negative antithesis of intention to change.

Furthermore, communication educates organisational members and can provide the organizing cadre for experimentation with the desired behaviour (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004). In other words, communication can be viewed as the framework which guides the employee through the change process for creating readiness and the intention to experiment with the desired behaviour, (Armenakis & Harris, 2002), which ultimately leads to change effectiveness. Thus, the influence of communication on change effectiveness is believed to be mediated by readiness for change, intention to change and experimentation. This has been hypothesized as follows:

(7)

Participation. The change management literature collectively declares that participation

during change is vital for its success (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004). Participation is defined as: the involvement of organisational members by change agents in the decision making process of the content and form of the change (Bouma & Emans, 2005). The level of employee participation can vary from decision consulting to no participation. When employees are involved in the decision-making process of the change project, they perceive the organisational change as one of their own. This leads to a high dedication to make the change successful (Bouma & Emans, 2005). This conviction stems from the Human Relations approach, in which the Hawthorn-research, Lewin’s studies (1947, 1951) and the Harwood experiments of Coch and French (1948) are acknowledged the most. In 1974 Dubrin also stresses the use of shared decision making, whether participation is allowed in decisions concerning the core strategy of the change or the peripheral details, as long as it is open to debate and discussion. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2. A high perceived participation level will lead to high change effectiveness.

As is the case with communication, participation is not the sole factor of influence on change effectiveness. Participation is believed to influence stimulus variables (e.g. readiness, intention, and experimentation) at the individual level, which will lead to changes in the employee’s behaviour. The hypothesis is that active participation leads to the acceptance of organisational change by employees. The acceptance of decisions, even unfavourable, creates change in one’s beliefs (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and stems employees ready for the change (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993).

(8)

behaviour, better known as the ‘subjective norm’ is also seen as an underlying factor of intention to change (Metselaar, 1997). Furthermore, self-discovery goes hand in hand with experimenting the desired behaviour. It provokes experimentation, which goes beyond discovery (Argyris, 1982). Small steps can lead to incrementally achieving change effectiveness. Taken all together, participation can lead to change effectiveness, whereby readiness, intention and experimentation are expected to mediate this relationship. This was tested with the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2*. The influence of participation on change effectiveness is mediated by readiness, intention, and experimentation.

Facilitation. On paper a change process generally seems easy to deal with, however, a

significant change can be expected to be a very difficult process for employees. During the change process a lot of obstacles can block the path to renewal, which have to be dealt with by management (Kotter, 1995). In change management literature practitioners agree that facilitation is vital for the success of change efforts in overcoming obstacles (King & Anderson, 1995; Kotter, 1995). Consequently, facilitation is defined as: assisting the progress of the change process by management by making it easier for employees to cope and deal with the difficulties they face during change (Stuart, 1995). Specifically, it is important that the change process is properly managed in terms of timing and steering (Metselaar, 1997). The timing and steering of the change process affect the rate at which the change process develops, which is very important for the ultimate success of the change project (Metselaar, 1997). The questions whether the intervention is adequately timed and if employees can keep up with the change process are evident in reaching goals. Furthermore, a clear phasing of the change process and a realistic timetable are helpful for employees who are taking part in an intervention. Literature emphasizes the importance of providing help and support by management to employees in order to cope with the change, which will result in change effectiveness (Kanter, 1985). This has been hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 3. A high level of facilitation will lead to high change effectiveness.

(9)

al, 1993). This results in high levels of readiness. Furthermore, this management-led approach is believed to make the intervention feasible and workable during normal work activities, which will stem the employee more positive toward the change (Stuart, 1995). In many organisations employees have to work hard to get their normal work done. An intervention can frustrate an organisational member, when it is not adequately timed and does not have a realistic timetable. Depending on the duration and frequency of change projects, it is important for managers to consider the amount of time and effort they can ask from their employees (Burnes, 2004). Consequently, when employees are helped by management in order to cope with the change process, they will have a high intention to make the change successful (Metselaar, 1997; King & Anderson, 1995). Furthermore, it is important that they can keep up with the change process and have enough time to experiment with new practices. As can be seen, facilitation is not the sole factor of influence on change effectiveness. It is believed to be mediated by readiness, intention, and experimentation at the individual level. This has been hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 3*. The influence of facilitation on change effectiveness is mediated by readiness, intention, and experimentation.

Mediators

The three working principles of interventions do not solely by itself create the desired behaviour. The communication, participation or facilitation experience provides the employee new information which can foster changes in the beliefs and attitudes at the individual level. These concepts are better known as readiness and intention towards the change process. The experiences with the three working principles also create the opportunity for the employee to adequately experiment with the desired behaviour. This experimentation, a high level of readiness and a positive intention are believed to eventually lead to change effectiveness. So communication, participation and, facilitation do not directly influence change effectiveness, but are believed to be mediated by readiness, intention and, experimentation. The following paragraphs explain the roles of the mediators on change effectiveness.

Readiness. During every organisational change, employees make sense of what they hear,

(10)

developing readiness, organisational members become prepared for the change (Armenakis & Harris, 2002) and are receptive to it. Readiness is the result of certain beliefs that an organisational change is needed (i.e. discrepancy) and appropriate given the specific circumstances (i.e. appropriateness). A belief represents the information an individual has about an object which may not be readily obvious (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).

In order for employees to be ready for change, they must believe something in their current situation is wrong and has to change. Discrepancy refers to the belief that a change is needed and is typically exhibited by illustrating the difference between the organisation’s current and desired performance (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). Kotter (1995) also refers to this phenomenon as establishing a sense of urgency. Even when employees feel a need to change, it is important that they believe a specific organisational change is appropriate to eliminate the discrepancy (Armenakis et al., 2007). This belief is called appropriateness. The organisational situation should be properly diagnosed and the appropriate corrective actions should be made, thereby eliminating the discrepancy (Armenakis et al., 2007).

Readiness reflects these beliefs and is considered as a critical predictor of change effectiveness. The assumption can be made that when organisational members are ready to accept change and experience feelings of readiness for change, that the change will be more effective (Elving, 2005). This relationship has been hypothesized as follows:

Hypothesis 4. A high level of readiness will lead to high change effectiveness.

Intention. In the literature some authors tend to use intention and readiness as

interchangeable concepts. Although at first sight intention and readiness show some similarity, they refer to different concepts. In 1975 Fishbein and Ajzen discuss in their conceptual framework that readiness exists of the beliefs regarding the specific object or behaviour, while intention reflects the real intention of a person to act according to his or her beliefs. “Intention is assumed to capture the motivational factors that influence a behaviour; they are indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of an effort they are planning to exert, in order to perform the behaviour” (Ajzen, 1991: 181).

(11)

the behaviour; and the third factor centres on the employee’s perception of its capability to perform the desired behaviour (Metselaar, 1997). Ajzen’s theory has proved to be of real predictive value and Metselaar (1997) used this study as a basis for examining the factors that underlie an employee’s intention to change. From previous research (Dijkema, 2007) the underlying motivational factors of intention are considered to be better predictors of change effectiveness, than intention itself. For that reason, attitude towards the change process, subjective norm, and the perceived behavioural control are considered in stead of the pure concept intention.

Attitude towards the change process. Attitude is introduced in social psychology as an

(12)

Hypothesis 5. A positive attitude toward the change process will lead to high change effectiveness.

Subjective Norm. An employees’ desired behaviour may also be shaped by the social

information available to him or her (Armenakis et al., 1993). Social influence theories imply that individuals develop behaviour partially as the result of opinions of others (Metselaar, 1997). This so-called subjective norm is defined as “..the likelihood that important referent individuals or groups approve or disapprove of performing a given behaviour” (Ajzen, 1991: 195). Groups that form the social environment within an organisation include colleagues, managers, but also the board of directors. Although in Ajzen’s original theory of planned behaviour subjective norm captures the norm of all kind of colleagues, research (Metselaar, 1997) has proven that a distinction should be made between distal and proximal colleagues. Distal colleagues cover the board of directors and proximal colleagues refer to the change recipients’ direct colleagues or managers. These two groups of colleagues determine the level of pressure the employee perceives that he or she has to change (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 1997). It can be assumed that a subjective norm favourably of the change will positively affect the performance of the behaviour of interest (Metselaar, 1997). Including the distinction between distal and proximal colleagues, this was tested with the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 6. A positive subjective norm of distal colleagues will lead to high change effectiveness.

Hypothesis 7. A positive subjective norm of proximal colleagues will lead to high change effectiveness.

Perceived behavioural control. Behavioural control refers to the availability of

(13)

individuals will only try to change to the extent that they have confidence that they can accomplish the stated goal (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 8. A high perceived behavioural control will lead to high change effectiveness.

Experimentation. It requires a commitment to learn to master new practices (Garvin,

1993). Kolb (1984) states in his experiential learning theory that it is the process of learning, through experimentation, that shapes developmental potentialities. To eventually master the desired behaviour it is necessary to gradually build skills through multiple dimensions (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). When an employee is actively trying new ways of doing things, called active experimentation, the focus on reflection is really important (Sheehan & Kearns, 1995). Individuals should review the experience and conclude from it, respectively called reflective observation and abstract conceptualisation (Kolb, 1984). Following the early work of Kolb, Boyatzis (2006) states in his intentional change theory that experimentation contains more than practice with the new behaviour. He explains that an assessment of one’s strengths and weaknesses gives rise to a learning agenda which structures the core of experimentation. Obviously, not all employees have to work on the same aspects to master the desired behaviour. Acting toward the goals does not always require attending courses or a new activity. One can try something different in a current setting; reflect on the experience and experiment further in the current setting (Boyatzis, 2006). When experimentation is conducted systematically it enlarges the possibility of sustainable change in one’s behaviours (Garvin, 1993). Kolb (1984) states that experimentation is most effective when the employee experiences a sense of safety. So on the base of the above I assume that experimentation enhances change effectiveness, which has been hypothesized as follows:

(14)

relationships for each working principle. These assumed relationships are translated into hypotheses, which can be seen in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1 Conceptual model

METHODS Research Setting

The object under study is a provincial civil service, Province Fryslan, in the north of the Netherlands. As a result of a reorganisation in 2002 and 2003 and an obligation by the Provincial Executive Committee to cut down their expenses by 10 million euros, the Province has started a large change project in 2005. The aims of the change project, called ‘Schitterend Organiseren’, were to reduce costs and improve conduct of business. The goal of this organisation development program is threefold: 1) Creation of inspiring leadership within the organisation; 2) People work as effective and efficient possible in the organisation processes; and 3) Being more customer friendly. This case suits our research objective, since it is implementing an organisational change project for two years. This makes it possible to retrospectively evaluate the employees’ perceptions of his or her individual situation. Furthermore, because different interventions are

(15)

used in one change program, it will be possible to have enough response dispersal among the working principles and their effects. Also, response biases due to organisational characteristics are not likely to occur, since the organisational conditions are the same.

Three different interventions were used to reach the three goals, namely: Covey – training (Covey); Management Development trajectory (MD-trajectory); and Process Innovation Teams (PIT). In this study these three interventions will be considered, since they can be viewed as the activities through which changes in elements of the organisational work setting are implemented (Robertson et al., 1993).

Covey. This intervention is based on the seven habits of Covey (1989) and how one can

apply them to their daily work. The purpose is that employees are more effective and efficient in their work and become inspiring leaders for their colleagues. The training exists of four days dispersed over four months and is given by a special educated trainer to a group which consists of approximately twelve persons. Employees from all departments can enrol irrespective of their function.

MD-trajectory. This trajectory is long lasting which starts when someone becomes a

manager within the organisation. The trajectory exists of two different activities, namely intervision and management afternoons which approximately take place once a month. During the afternoons, management is being taught about content-related cases, such as finance. During intervision management can bring up process-related problems they face while executing their function. The purpose of the trajectory is twofold: create more inspiring leadership and effective and efficient management.

PIT. PIT is an intervention with a participative approach developed by Pentascope, a

Dutch consulting firm. During thirteen weeks a team of representative employees and managers of a department of the organisation investigate and redesign their own work processes. Following the analyses of their current work processes, hypotheses for improvement are formulated which are validated at a presentation with the board of directors after three weeks. After this validation new work processes are designed, which are presented in the fourteenth week to the stakeholders of the department. Afterwards the implementation of the design will start. During the thirteen weeks team members will work three days a week on the project, facilitated by consultants of Pentascope.

Data Collection

(16)

adapted to the convenience and clarity of the respondent and customized to the specific intervention. While the questions remained the same, the term intervention was made less abstract and was replaced by Covey, MD-trajectory or PIT. The secretaries were asked which employees of their department took part in an intervention. 204 employees took part in one of the three interventions and during three weeks the employees present at a department were personally approached for cooperation in the form of filling in a paper survey. Ninety-five employees eventually filled in the survey, which was anonymously collected. Of the respondents, 38.9% participated in Covey, 25.3% in MD-trajectory, and 35.8% in PIT.

Measures

All items concerned the individual situation of the employee and how they perceived this situation (see Appendix A for the items of the independent variables, mediators and the dependent variable). Unless otherwise mentioned, all items employed statements to which respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they agreed with them on a five point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree). Most items were derived from existing questionnaires and customized to the current study. Additionally, most items were translated into Dutch.

Dependent variable. A new scale was developed to assess change effectiveness and was

inspired by Bouma and Emans (2005). Each change process is different, so each process is assessed accordingly. In this study the goals of ‘Schitterend Organiseren’ formed the basis for measuring the level of changed behaviour (five items: e.g. ‘Through the intervention I worked more effective and efficient’ and ‘I do not experience a difference in my work behaviour compared to the situation before the intervention’). The scale had a coefficient α reliability of .84.

Independent variables. The items that formed the scale communication were derived

(17)

had a Cronbach’s alpha of .78. Facilitation was measured by items derived of Metselaars’ (1997) DINAMO (i.e. Diagnostics Inventory for the Assessment of the willingness to change among Management in Organisations) which were adjusted to the specific interventions researched in the current study. The six items (e.g. ‘The intervention is purposefully managed’ and ‘The planned time schedule of the intervention is realistic’) generated a Cronbach’s Alpha of .73.

Mediators. To assess readiness, nine items have been used from Armenakis et al. (2007).

Their change readiness concept suggested that readiness exists of a perceived need for change and the appropriateness of the change process for the particular organisation. Their items were adapted to the specific change process within the Province Friesland (e.g. ‘We need to improve our effectiveness and efficiency by changing our work behaviour’ and e.g. ‘The implementation of this organisational change will prove best to the Province Friesland’). One item (‘We need to implement an organisational change to improve our performance’) decreased the reliability of the scale and was removed. The resulting scale generated a Cronbach’s alpha of .85. The items assessing attitude towards the change process (four items: e.g. ‘I positively experience the intervention), subjective norm (three items: e.g. ‘My direct supervisor supports the intervention’) and perceived behavioural control (three items: e.g. ‘I have the capacity to successfully implement the intervention) were all derived of Metselaars’ (1997) DINAMO and were adjusted to the current study. The Cronbach’s alphas were respectively .87, .80, and .72. Subjective norm was divided into two different scales; subjective norm: distal colleagues and subjective norm: proximal colleagues. Although the original questionnaire was especially developed for middle management, it could be easily applied to both management- and employee level. Experimentation was assessed using a newly developed scale based on the work of Boyatzis (2006) and Kolb (1984). The scale existed of seven items (e.g. ‘I experiment and practice with a new way of working’ and ‘I reflect on my experiences’) and had a Cronbach’s alpha of .86. One item (‘I regularly receive feedback about my performance’) decreased the reliability of the scale experimentation and was removed.

RESULTS

(18)

readiness, attitude towards the change process, and experimentation exhibit high values, while the other variables show means midway the minimum and the maximum score.

When looking at correlations in table 1, it seems there is support for the hypotheses 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9. The mediators have significant medium to strong correlations with change effectiveness. Readiness and attitude show similar correlation patterns, from which the latter correlates more strongly. From all the mediators, attitude has the strongest correlation with change effectiveness, followed by behavioural control and readiness. Surprisingly, subjective norm of distal colleagues correlates with almost none of the other variables, except the norm of the respondents’ proximal colleagues and facilitation. Despite of its non-significance, it is taken into account in the regression analyses for completeness. Furthermore, it is striking that participation has weak correlations with the mediators and change effectiveness compared to communication and facilitation.

To test the mediating hypotheses, regression analyses were conducted. Bouma and Emans (2005) explain that to assume a mediating relationship, four conditions have to be met. First, a direct relationship has to exist between the independent variable (i.e. communication, participation and facilitation) and the dependent variable (i.e. change effectiveness). Second, the mediators need to have a positive relation with the independent variable. Third, a positive relation has to exist between the mediators and the dependent variable. Fourth, the significant relation between the independent variable and the dependent variables has to disappear or at least decrease when controlled for the mediators.

(19)

TABLE 1

Scale characteristics and correlations

94 ≤ n ≤ 95 it. α Mean SD 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 communication 12 .84 3.46 0.61 .32** .62** .31** .60** .17 .39** .32** .26* .40** 2 participation 5 .78 2.77 0.85 .25* .11 .35** -.16 .28** .22* .17* .24* 3 facilitation 6 .73 3.55 0.63 .43** .66** .18* .48** .62** .35** .51** 4 readiness 9 .85 3.95 0.53 .57** .15 .38** .44** .38** .40**

5 attitude towards the change process 4 .87 3.80 0.77 .02 .41** .47** .42** .67**

6 subjective norm: distal colleagues 1 - 3.25 0.90 .27** .11 .03 -.04

7 subjective norm: proximal colleagues 2 .80 3.68 0.76 .51** .36** .30**

8 perceived behavioural control 3 .72 3.56 0.70 .46** .41**

9 experimentation 7 .86 3.99 0.50 .34**

10 change effectiveness 5 .84 3.11 0.74

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed), * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed) It. = number of items included in scale, α = Cronbach’s alpha, SD = standard deviation

TABLE 2

Regression analysis of communication on change effectiveness with mediators

scales Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

β sig. β sig. β sig. β sig.

gender .15 .18 .13 .20 .08 .37 .08 .35

age -.24 .81 -.01 .91 .11 .31 .10 .34

years of service .06 .63 .05 .68 -.00 .96 -.01 .94

management .01 .93 .12 .29 .14 .14 .15 .13

readiness ---- ---- ---- ---- -.01 .93 -.00 .99

attitude towards the change process ---- ---- ---- ---- .66 .00 .63 .00 subjective norm: distal colleagues ---- ---- ---- ---- -.10 .27 -.10 .24 subjective norm: proximal colleagues ---- ---- ---- ---- -.01 .94 -.02 .83 perceived behavioural control ---- ---- ---- ---- .10 .31 .10 .33

experimentation ---- ---- --- ---- .01 .94 .01 .95

communication ---- ---- .43 .00 ---- ---- .07 .54

R² .03 .19** .49** .49**

(20)

Table 3 shows the results of the regression analyses for participation, controlled for the control variables. A direct relation exists between participation and change effectiveness as can be seen in model 1 (β = .25, p < .05; or see significant correlation in table 1). It seems there is support for the acceptance of hypothesis 2, although participation does explain a non – significant share of the variance in change effectiveness (R = .09). Furthermore, table 1 shows that condition two is only satisfied regarding four mediators: attitude, subjective norm: proximal colleagues, behavioural control, and experimentation significantly correlate with participation. Moreover, it regards only small correlations and a medium correlation for attitude. Condition three is satisfied, as can be seen in model 2 in table 3 and in table 1. When controlled for mediators, the positive significant relation has disappeared into a negative non-significant relation, so hypothesis 2* can be accepted in the sense that only one of the hypothesized mediators (attitude) has been demonstrated to indeed fulfil a mediating role. The other mediators play no role independent from attitude.

TABLE 3

Regression analysis of participation on change effectiveness with mediators

gender .15 .18 .15 .16 .08 .37 .08 .38

age -.24 .81 -.02 .90 .11 .31 .11 .32

years of service .06 .63 .04 .73 -.01 .96 -.01 .96

management .01 .93 .04 .71 .14 .14 .14 .15

readiness ---- ---- ---- ---- -.01 .93 -.01 .93

participation ---- ---- .25 .02 ---- ---- -.00 .98

R² .03 .09 .49** .49**

β = standardized regression coefficient; sig. = significant; ** p < .01

(21)

sense that only one of the hypothesized mediators (attitude) has been demonstrated to indeed fulfil a mediating role. The other mediators play no role independent from attitude.

TABLE 4

Regression analysis of facilitation on change effectiveness with mediators

gender .15 .18 .14 .14 .08 .37 .09 .30

age -.24 .81 -.01 .91 .11 .31 .11 .31

years of service .06 .63 .03 .81 -.01 .96 -.02 .88

management .01 .93 .14 .17 .14 .14 .18 .07

readiness ---- ---- ---- ---- -.01 .93 -.01 .94

facilitation ---- ---- .53 .00 ---- ---- .17 .19

R² .03 .29** .49** .50**

β = standardized regression coefficient; sig. = significant; ** p < .01 Table 5 shows the results of the regression analyses for communication, participation, and facilitation, controlled for the control variables. Participation and communication do not have a significant relation with change effectiveness, when the three working principles are taken together. Only facilitation remains a significant predictor (β= .42, p <.01) of change effectiveness. It seems that facilitation has a unique contribution to change effectiveness, apart from correlation with participation and communication. It is less likely that communication has a unique contribution to change effectiveness, and this is even less the case for participation.

TABLE 5

Regression analysis of communication, participation, and facilitation on change effectiveness

scales Model 0 Model 1

β sig. β sig. gender .15 .18 .14 .14 age -.24 .81 -.00 .99 years of service .06 .63 .02 .85 management .01 .93 .17 .11 communication ---- ---- .14 .23 participation ---- ---- .12 .20 facilitation ---- ---- .42 .00 R² .03 .32**

(22)

a less significant and substantially weaker relation with change effectiveness. When the three working principles are taken together, it seems that only facilitation has an unique contribution to change effectiveness, apart from correlation with participation and communication. Hypotheses 1*, 2* and 3* are accepted as well; the three relations are clearly mediated. Furthermore, readiness; attitude; subjective norm of proximal colleagues; behavioural control; and experimentation all have a significant relation with change effectiveness; so it seems there is support for the hypotheses 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. Only subjective norm of distal colleagues is of non-significant importance. Attitude has the strongest correlation with both the predictors and change effectiveness and hence the mainly mediator in the relations between them.

DISCUSSION

Implementation of organisational changes by means of interventions is costly in terms of financial resources, employee and managerial time, and emotional morale. Therefore, managers have to find ways to make sure the change-effort is effective and makes sense. Interventions are commonly used to create change effectiveness, therefore it is vital to know what the working principles are of interventions. It was assumed that the three influence strategies by management – communication, participation and, facilitation – could be categorised as the working principles of interventions. Although the tasks of these principles have previously been emphasized in literature, little empirical research has been conducted in the area of organisational change. This applies for facilitation, in particular.

This is the first comprehensive empirical study that investigates the effects of communication, participation, and facilitation on change effectiveness. However, in order to change a persons’ actual behaviour, certain stimulus variables have to be present at the individual level. Therefore, the relationships of the working principles on change effectiveness, as mentioned above, are assumed to be mediated by readiness, attitude, subjective norm of both distal and proximal colleagues, behavioural control, and experimentation. This study points out a number of interesting and novel findings that advance theory and inform practice.

(23)

about the change, gives rise to positive reactions of employees (Lewis, 1999). Successfully sharing information and informing employees adequately of what and why changes are necessary has a positive impact on change effectiveness, as can be seen in this study. Completely contradicting the core philosophy of Organisational Development (OD), participation is found to be of minor importance in reaching change effectiveness. This is a striking outcome in view of decades of research and the widely acknowledged role of employee involvement. Critics of participative management have already outlined the mixed results of participation for years, but Pasmore and Fagans (1992: 379) explain that “the strong bias on the part of researchers in favour of participation has supported continuing research and theorizing despite the lack of convincing evidence that participation works.” They even state that many failures in organisational change programs may be traced to ineffective participation. This statement can be linked with seeing participation as an approach that is linked to conditions. The effectiveness of the strategy is contingent upon several factors. Dunphy & Stace (1988) emphasize that participation is only effective considering minor changes, when complete consensus exists among the parties involved and when there is unlimited time for consultation. Furthermore, some critics (Collins, 1998; Neumann, 1989) argue that employees do not even want to participate when given the opportunity. Individuals have to be adequately prepared to participate in change programs. Pasmore and Fagans (1992) argue that employees should be trained, prepared for and, be ready to participate, otherwise the positive effects of participation might be severely limited. This requires an active role on the side of managers or change agents.

Although participation has a minor direct influence on change effectiveness, it does, however, positively correlate with the mediators’ subjective norm of proximal colleagues and behaviour control. It can be argued that sharing opinions with proximal colleagues reinforces the perceived pressure by an employee to co-opt with the desired behaviour, although it is not strong enough to really influence change effectiveness. The latter corresponds with the idea of Metselaar (1997) that through participation employees can influence the change content and process by which it provides an internal source of control. Although participation has some positive effects, some questions can be stated with the influence on change effectiveness. Concerning the working principles of interventions, it seems that an active role of managers or change agents through facilitation and communication is more effective in reaching change than involving employees. Maybe participation can be more effective when managers recognize the complexity of the participation process and adequately manage it. Adequate and pro-active management is therefore important within working principles of interventions.

(24)

roots in social psychology literature. In classic studies attitude already profiles itself as a strong predictor of behaviour. Readiness is overshadowed by this variable, which can possibly be explained by the general assessment of readiness concerning the change project, compared to the specific assessment of attitude regarding the intervention. So readiness might be influenced by general organisational variables next to the working principles of interventions. The relative importance of attitude towards the change process over behavioural control varies across behaviours and situations (Ajzen, 1991). In this change process the employees think they are capable of changing, so the favourable or unfavourable evaluation of the demanded behaviour is decisive for really performing the desired behaviour. Surprisingly, the positive attitude of distal colleagues, like the board of directors, seems to have no effect on change effectiveness. A possible explanation can be that the pressure is not perceived that high, since the accountability of employees in public organisations is lower compared to that in the private sector. This is one of the widely heard drawbacks of this form of organisation. Furthermore, a lack of unity within the board of directors can prevent employees to perceive high pressure.

Concluding, it can be stated that facilitation and communication are critical for reaching change effectiveness which are leaning on a active role of management. Participation is of minor influence and critics emphasize upon the contingent character of this working principle. An important condition is active management, which carefully considers if the situation is appropriate for involving employees and to adequately prepare them if this is the case. Furthermore, when managing interventions it is vital that employees will favourably evaluate the change and have a positive attitude towards the change process.

(25)

When change agents decide to make use of participation, one of the first things they can think of is who should we involve? Especially with interventions that can not involve everyone because of its complex character, like PIT, the critical mass should be the main criterion for selecting who will be involved. These key stakeholders whose active commitment is necessary to provide the energy for change to happen can be divided in (1) employees who let it happen, (2) those help it to happen and, (3) those that make it happen. Furthermore, it can be worthwhile to include key opinion-formers. Not all three groups have to be involved at the same level. Within interventions that are more focussed on the individual development of the employee, e.g. Covey and the MD-traject, a selection can be made at the base of who needs the training. It is not always wise to let employees participate at a voluntary base, because it is the way of the least resistance. Resistance is always present and the involvement of sceptics can create a critical attitude towards the interventions and can become a powerful generator for change, when the sceptic is won over. However, apart from who should be involved it is necessary to make clear to the participants what is expected from them within the process and where the locus of control lies.

When participants are actually involved in an intervention, it is important to facilitate the change process so people can cope with the change and it does not hinder their daily activities. PIT for example, confiscates three working days a week for each employee, which is a considerable amount of time for a person who also needs to continue his or her normal work. In order to prevent frustration, extra resources can be allocated or the required time by the intervention can be reduced. Furthermore, the content of the training should be purposeful and tailored to organisational and individual needs. Especially for a MD-trajectory, the specific programme should be managed according to the specific programme objective that relates to the external challenges that the organisation is facing, internal organisational issues and necessary personal developments. For example, the way middle-management has to manage the organisational change can be included in the trajectory. In order to provide realistic learning opportunities it is important that both content and process are adequately managed. Furthermore, an intervention does not stop at the end of the training. It is important that feedback will be given when employees continue with their normal work.

(26)

longitudinal research instead of providing a snapshot. In this way real effects over time could be measured, especially when one is capable of measuring at time T0. In this study it was impossible because of time limitations. Furthermore, some remarks can be made regarding the measures. The variable ‘subjective norm of distal colleagues’ consisted of only one item, which can be the cause of its non-significant correlation with other variables. For future research, this variable can be measured by multiple items to investigate its real non-significance. Additionally, it could be argued that the scales ‘attitude’ and ‘change effectiveness’ show some overlap, which could have led to the strong relation between these variables. One could possibly explore in what ways these variables could be measured and more properly assessed. This is also the case for facilitation, since this is one of the first times it has been empirically studied and it has proven to be a valuable predictor of change effectiveness. Also, the data in this study was personally collected, which could have led to a higher response than normal. However, only the employees present were asked to cooperate, which could have made the sample less representative. For future research, it might be better to approach all employees for cooperation. Furthermore, to generalise findings it should be performed in other sectors as well because of the specific character of the public sector. For future research, it would be interesting to include the effect of individual attributes on the perception of the change process. Holt et al. (2007) argue that individual differences have an effect on how change processes are perceived. We expect employees with positive individual attributes to positively influence the perception of the change process. The inclusion of the role of the change agent would be interesting as well. When assessing the perception of employees regarding the working principles of interventions, the role of the change agent and management can have a remarkable influence on how the change process is perceived (Bennebroek Gravenhorst, Werkman & Boonstra., 2003). This research could be good starting point, because the concepts and hypotheses of this study have proved to be of real value.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 50: 179-211.

Argyris, C. 1982. Reasoning, learning, and action: Individual and organizational. San Francisco: Jossey – Bass Publishers.

Armenakis, A.A., & Bedeian, A.G. 1999. Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3): 293-315.

Armenakis, A.A., Bernerth, J.B., Pitts, J.P., & Walker, H.J. 2007. Organizational change recipients’ beliefs scale: Development of an assessment instrument. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(4): 481-505.

(27)

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Field, H.S. 1999. Making change permanent: A model for institutionalizing change interventions. In W.A. Pasmore & R.W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in

organizational change and development: 97-128. New York: JAI Press.

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

Bandura, A. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K.M., Werkman, R.A., & Boonstra, J.J. 2003. The change capacity of organisations: General assessment and five configurations. Applied Psychology: An International

Review, 52(1): 83-105.

Bouma, J.T. & Emans, B.J.M. 2005. Participatief leidinggeven aan organisatieverandering: Een onderzoek rond de implementatie van customer relationship management. Gedrag en organisatie, 18(2): 122-138.

Boyatzis, R.E. 2006. An overview of intentional change from a complexity perspective. Journal of

Management Develpement, 25(7): 607-623.

Burnes, B. 2004. Managing change (4th ed.). Harlow, England: Prentice Hall.

Burke, W.W., & Litwin, G.H. 1992. A causal model of organizational performance and change.

Journal of Management, 18(3): 523–545 .

Chawla, A., & Kelloway, E.K. 2004. Predicting openness and commitment to change. The leadership

and organization development journal, 25(6): 485-498.

Coch, L. & French, J.R.P. 1948. Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1: 512-532. Collings, D. 1998. Organizational change: Sociological perspectives. London: Routledge. Covey, S.R.W. 1989. The seven habits of highly effective people. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Cushman, D.P., & King, S.S. 1994. High speed management. Albany: SUNY press. Difonzo, N. & Bordia, P. 1998. A tale of two corporations: Managing uncertainty during organizational change. Human Resource Management, 37(3): 295-303.

Dijkema, E.J. 2007. Willingness to change: Assessing the influence of communication and

participation on willingness to change at Axenza. Unpublished master thesis, University of

Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

DuBrin, A.J. 1974. Fundamentals of organizational behavior: An applied perspective. New York: Pergamon Press.

Dunhpy, D.C., & Stace, D.A. 1988. Transformational and coercive strategies for planned organizational change: Beyond the O.D. model. Organization Studies, 9: 317– 334. Elving, W.J.L. 2005. The role of communication in organisational change. Coporate

Communications: An International Journal, 10(2): 129-138.

(28)

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

and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesly Publishing Company.

French, W.L., & Bell, C.H. 1990. Organization Development: Behavioral science interventions for

organisation improvement (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Garvin, D.A. 1993. Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71(4): 78-91. George, J.M., & Jones, G.R. 2001. Towards a process model of individual change in organizations.

Human Relations, 54(4): 419-444.

Harris, S.G., & Cole, M.S. A stages of change perspective on managers’motivation to learn in a leadership development context. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 20(6): 774-793. Judson, A.S. 1991. Changing behavior in organizations: Minimizing resistance to change.

Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

Kotter, J.P. 1995. Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2): 59-67.

Kanter, R.M. 1985. Managing the human side of change. The management review, 74(4): 52-56. King, N., Anderson, N.R. 1995. Innovation and change in organizations. London: Routledge. Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiental learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kotter, J.P. & Schlesinger, L.A. 1979. Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, 57 (2): 106-114.

Kubr, M. (eds.). 2002. Management consulting: A guide to the profession (4th ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: International Labout Organization.

Lawrence, P.R. 1969. How to deal with resistance to change. Harvard Business Review, 47(1): 4–12, 166–176.

Lewin, K. 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics. Human relations. 1(1): 5-41.

Lewin, K. 1951. Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Row.

Lewis, L.K. 1999. Disseminating information and soliciting input during planned organizational change: Implementers’ targets, sources and channels for communicating. Management

Communication Quarterly, 13(1): 43–75.

Metselaar, E.E. 1997. Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and validation of the

DINAMO. Dissertation. Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Metselaar, E.E., & Cozijnsen, A.J. 1997. Van weerstand naar verandering: Over willen, moeten en

kunnen veranderen. Heemstede: Holland Business Publishing.

(29)

Neumann, J. 1989. Why people don’t participate in organizational change. In W.A. Pasmore & R.W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in organization change and development, 3: 181-212. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Pasmore, W. & Fagans, M. 1992. Participation, individual development, and organizational change: A review and synthesis. Journal of Management, 18(2): 375-397.

Robertson, P.J., Roberts, D.R., & Porras, J.I. 1993. Dynamics of planned organizational change: Assessing empirical support for a theoretical model. Academy of management journal, 36(3): 619-634.

Sheehan, M., & Kearns, D. 1995. Using Kolb: Implementation and evaluation of facilitation skills.

Industrial and Commercial Training, 27(6): 8-14.

Stuart, R. 1995. The outcomes and influencing factors of change. Personnel review, 24(2): 53-87.

Vroom, V.H. 1964. Work and motivation. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

(30)

APPENDIX: ITEMS IN SCALES

Communication n=12 α=0,839

a. Informatie bij de aanvang van de interventie kwam op het juiste tijdstip b. Informatie bij de aanvang van de interventie is bruikbaar

c. Informatie bij de aanvang van de interventie beantwoordde mijn vragen d. Informatie tijdens de interventie kwam op het juiste tijdstip

e. Informatie tijdens de interventie is bruikbaar

f. Informatie tijdens de interventie beantwoordde mijn vragen g. De doelen van de interventie zijn duidelijk gecommuniceerd h. Er is duidelijk gecommuniceerd waarom we gingen veranderen i. Er is duidelijk gecommuniceerd wat het tijdpad is van de interventie

j. Er is duidelijk geworden wat de gevolgen zijn van de interventie voor mijn functie k. Er is duidelijk geworden wat de gevolgen zijn van de interventie voor mijn afdeling l. Ik ben tevreden over de manier van communiceren

Participation n=5 α=0,777

a. Over wat de bedoeling is van de interventie

b. Bij het opstellen van het plan van aanpak van de interventie c. Bij wijziging van de projectaanpak van de interventie d. Over de gevolgen van de interventie voor mijn werk e. Bij de beslissing om mee te doen met de interventie

Facilitation n=6 α=0,734

a. Aan de interventie ligt een heldere fasering ten grondslag b. De interventie wordt doelgericht aangestuurd

c. Het tijdschema waarbinnen de interventie is gepland, is realistisch d. Ik kon het proces binnen de interventie bijhouden

e. Na afloop van de interventie kon ik voldoen aan de eisen die het in de praktijk brengen van de interventie aan mij stelt

f. De interventie kwam voor mij op een goed moment

Readiness n=9 α=0,849

a. We moeten dingen veranderen in onze organisatie

b. We moeten de manier van werken verbeteren in onze organisatie

c. We moeten onze effectiviteit en efficiëntie verbeteren door onze manier van werken te veranderen

(31)

e. We moeten meer inspirerend leiderschap tonen door onze manier van werken te veranderen f. Een verandering is nodig om onze manier van werken te verbeteren

g. Door onze manier van werken te veranderen zal de provincie erop vooruit gaan h. Ik geloof dat de interventie een positief effect heeft op onze manier van werken i. De verandering die we doorvoeren is de beste manier voor de Provincie Fryslân

Attitude towards the change process n=4 α=0,867

a. De interventie heeft positieve consequenties voor mijn werk b. Ik ervaar de interventie als positief

c. Ik heb baat bij de interventie

d. Ik voel me betrokken bij de interventie

Subjective norm distal colleagues n=1

a. Het MT staat onvoorwaardelijk achter de interventie

Subjective norm proximal colleagues n=2 α=0,797

a. Mijn directe manager staat achter de interventie b. Mijn directe collega’s staan achter de interventie

Behavioural control n=3 α=0,715

a. Ik heb de capaciteit om de interventie in de praktijk te brengen b. Ik heb positieve ervaringen met voorgaande veranderingen

c. Ik heb genoeg tijd en middelen om de interventie in de praktijk te brengen

Experimentation n=7 α=0,856

a. Ik weet wat mijn sterktes en mijn zwaktes zijn in mijn huidige manier van werken b. Ik weet welke punten ik wil verbeteren in mijn huidige manier van werken c. Ik experimenteer en oefen met een nieuwe manier van werken

d. Ik reflecteer op mijn ervaringen e. Ik observeer en leer van anderen

f. Ik trek conclusies uit mijn ervaringen en neem dat mee in mijn werk g. Ik voel me voldoende op mijn gemak om nieuwe dingen uit te proberen

Change effectiveness n=5 α=0,840

(32)

d. Door invoering van de interventie, ben ik klantgerichter te werk gegaan