CHANGE AGENT & CHANGE RECIPIENT INTERACTION -

CHANGE AGENT & CHANGE RECIPIENT

INTERACTION

-

An explorative study on the underlying factors of change outcome

University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc Business Administration – Change Management

June 2013 Inge Vos Student number: S1821377 Damsterdiep 33 9711 SG Groningen Tel: (06) 23456022 E-mail: ingevos89@gmail.com S1821377 Supervisors: Dr. J. Rupert

ABSTRACT

This research aims to explore the impact of behavior of actors involved within change projects (agents and recipients) on their interaction process, which has currently seen little attention throughout literature. To provide insight in the interaction process, change outcome is studied as a result to further look at the reasons why certain change projects fail where others succeed. Based on a case study, qualitative research methods have been employed to study the simultaneous influences of agent- and recipient behavior on the interaction process. These findings were crosschecked for compliance (agents were requested to review recipient behavior and vice versa). This method of studying behavior safeguards a unique approach that provides an important contribution to academic literature.Based on this study, three major conclusion can be derived. First, agent behavior is the main predictor of the interaction process. However, this process is moderated by agent leadership dominancy (this occurs when certain leadership behavior is dominantly present among a group of agents that are responsible for a change project). Secondly, recipient behavior revealed to be a dependent variable. In other words, the interaction process determined recipient behavior, instead of the other way around. Lastly, the interaction process is found to have a direct relationship with change process but not with change outcome. This research provides more insight in the interaction process between agents and recipients, however additional research is needed to further investigate the influence of agent and recipient behavior through the interaction process on change outcome.

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION ... 4

1.1 Organizational context ... 6

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 7

2.1 Change outcome ... 7

2.2 Behavior of the actors involved with the change ... 8

2.2.1 Change agent behavior ... 8

2.2.2 Change recipients behavior ... 12

2.3 The interaction process ... 15

3. METHODOLOGY ... 19 3.1 Data collection ... 19 3.1.1 Procedure ... 19 3.1.2 Respondents ... 21 3.2 Measures ... 21 3.2.1 Change outcome ... 22

3.2.2 Change agent behavior ... 22

3.2.3 Change recipient behavior ... 23

3.2.4 Interaction process ... 23 3.3 Data analyses ... 23 4. RESULTS ... 25 4.1 Change outcome ... 25 4.2 Agent behavior ... 27 4.3 Recipient behavior ... 30 4.4 Interaction process ... 32

5. CONCLUSION & DISCUSSION ... 36

6. REFERENCES ... 43

7. APPENDIX ... 49

Appendix A – Graphical presentation of change ... 49

Appendix B – Interview start-up ... 50

Appendix C – Interview questions change agent ... 51

Appendix D – Interview questions change recipient ... 53

Appendix E – Coding scheme ... 55

1. INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, many people regard organizational change as important. In the 1990s, Hammer and Champy stated that ‘…change evolved in a way that it has become common and ordinary, it is not an exception anymore (Burnes & Jackson, 2011). However, a lot has changed since the 1990’s. Rapid technology developments and increasing sizes of organizations have lead towards the adoption of bigger change projects, with higher risks at play (Shelley, 2012). Since the magnitude of change projects increased, change implementation comes with more complexity, which emphasizes on the

importance of managing change.

That there are hard times managing complex change projects, is reflected in the number of change failures compared to the number of change successes. Realin and Cataldo (2011) for example argue that 75% of the changes fail, and even more alarming; an important cause of organizational failure is failure of change. The main question is, according to Buchanan et al. (2005) – why is the percentage of failing change projects that high? Some researchers propose that the reason for change failure is to be found in the planning, or the lack of a well tuned implementation process (Sonenshein, 2010), others will say it is because of the lack of willingness and motivation with those involved in the change process (Ning & Jing, 2012). Even though there has already been done extensive research on change failure (revealing a wide variety of reasons for this phenomenon), additional research is needed that could help decrease the high percentage of change failure. Since change failure is a clear result of the change initiative, just as change success, and on beforehand of this study it is hard to indicate whether change failure (or change success) occurred, change outcome (which could entail failure or success depending on the degree of satisfaction with the change process and change outcome, Vos & Brand, 2012) represents the dependent variable in this research.

as independent variables. In doing so, this may lead towards new insights that could help explain - and potentially decrease, change failure.

Furthermore, regarding the existing literature about change processes, little has been known about the interaction process. The interaction process is quite a new process and is defined as all explicit and visible interpersonal behavior (Hackman and Morris, 1975), and will be the last variable added in this research. Taken the variables of this study together; change outcome; change agent behavior; change recipient behavior; and the interaction process, this will lead towards two major contributions. First, from a theoretical perspective, the goal of this study is to explore the influence of change agent and change recipient behavior on the interaction process and how these influences lead towards a certain change outcome; failure or success. In this way one is able to gain insights within the interaction process. Second, from a managerial perspective, this study may lead towards an increased understanding about which type of agent behavior is to be best combined with the behavior of the recipients (the different types of agent and recipient behavior will be explained in the literature review), in order to generate change success and, as a result, to decrease the percentage of change failure.

Both contributions are of importance, because the increased understanding of the interaction process between agents and recipients could provide insights that could help decrease the high percentage of change failure. In order to generate these contributions, this study adopts the research question as phrased below:

“How does change agent behavior and change recipient behavior influence the interaction process towards change outcome?”

1.1 Organizational context

After a long history of mergers and acquisitions, the Dutch dairy multinational considered for this research has become one of the biggest players in the production of, amongst others, milk, infant nutrition, and cream powders. Because of their constant growth, especially due to the growing market for Dutch infant nutrition in China, this company is facing difficulties in their existing management layers. Large production team sizes (often teams with thirty operators and one team leader and one assistant team leader), lead to signals from the operators, such as: “When I want to find my team leader, he is always busy, therefore I decided to solve occurring problems on my own instead of asking help or permission from my team leader”. Consequently, this type of behavior results in a decreasing percentage of FTR (products that are produced on a ‘First Time Right’ basis), leading to an increase in product recalls, and as a result, leading to an increase in production costs. Especially, the observed change in operator behavior (I solve things on my own because I can find my team leader when he/she is needed) and the corresponding rise in production costs formed the main reasons to initiate the change project that is studied. This project entailed an alteration in management layers within production teams; instead of one assistant team leader per team, three Mini Business Leader (from now on: MBL) positions within each team have been created, whereby each MBL is now responsible for approximately ten operators (see appendix A for a graphical presentation of the change). All the former assistant team leaders have become MBL, the other two MBL positions per team have been filled in by operators from that team whom were free to apply for the function of MBL. The initiated change should alter the behavior of the operators and, as a result, lead to a smoother way of working and decrease operating costs.

             Figure 1: Conceptual model

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

This section starts with a short outline of change outcome, after which change agents and change recipient behavior will be discussed, where several sub questions are drafted. This section concludes with an examination of the interaction process where all variables will be linked together.

2.1 Change outcome

Change outcome could either entail change success or change failure and as it comes to the latter, evidence reveals high percentages of change failure compared to change success. Burnes & Jackson (2011) for example argue that about 70% of all change initiatives fail, Realin and Cataldo (2011) state that this number is even higher, they report that 75% of all change initiatives fail. Although some difference might exist between the failure rates of different scholars, it should be clear that consensus about high rates of change failure, compared to change success, is indisputable. Remarkable is the fact that within the past decades quite a few ‘one best way’ approaches to change success have been developed. For instance, the ten commandments developed by Kanter (Kanter et al., 1992) or Lewin’s three stage model of planned change (Burnes, 2004). However, recent lecturers acknowledge that not one or two ‘one best way’ approaches to success can enclose all possible change situations; many factors influence the change process, and behavior of the actors involved is one of them (Battilana, 2010; Shin et al., 2012).

2.2 Behavior of the actors involved with the change

By definition, organizational behavior is the interdisciplinary field, dedicated to increase the understanding of the management of people at work. The three basic levels of analysis in organizational behavior are the individual; group; and organizational level (Beulens et al., 2006). As this study focuses on the behavior of change agents and change recipients, behavior of both of the actors will be discussed on the individual level. Throughout this paper the terms change agent behavior and change leadership behavior will be treated as one concept; hereafter called change agent behavior. The same applies for change recipient behavior and employee behavior, from now on labeled as change recipient behavior.

2.2.1 Change agent behavior

Higgs and Rowland (2011) state that the ideas, values, and viewpoints of leaders have been shown to influence their decision making processes and manners of problem solving, thus it may be implied that leaders’ behaviors influence their approach to change implementation. Battilana et al. (2010) argues that there is growing evidence that change agent’s leadership characteristics and attitudes influence the success or failure of change initiatives. As earlier explained, in the context of this paper, the following definition of change agents will be used: change agents have the responsibility for developing and directing the implementation of change within an organization (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Thus, as research of Higgs & Rowland (2011) and Battilana et al. (2010) have outlined (as explained above): change agent behavior plays an important role in the development of the change outcome (success or failure), therefore it is interesting to dive further into this concept by revealing the components of change agent behavior.

do exist. An example that is not been highlighted yet are the studies of Higgs and Rowland (2005 and 2011), one of the few studies that examined leadership behavior in relation to change outcome.

From 2005 until now, the academic literature regarding solutions to the high percentage of change failure, is inconclusive. Because of the increased assertions back then that leadership behavior could be an important determinant for change failure or change success, Higgs and Rowland wanted to investigate this relationship. They conducted a case study that involved seven organizations with 40 informants who provided 70 change stories and they analyzed their data qualitatively as well as quantitatively. In particular, Higgs and Rowland (2005) connected leadership behaviors to actions that influenced the change implementation. Based on their analyses they indentified three broad categories of leadership behavior; (1) shaping behavior, (2) framing change and (3) creating capacity. Since, these three categories represent the three anchor sets of change agent behavior of the Higgs and Rowland studies (their study conducted in 2011 is an extension of their work conducted in 2005), those three concepts will be included in this research and will be used to operationalize change agent behavior.

Shaping behavior involves the communication and actions of leaders related directly to the change, whereby the leader inclines to be the focus of the change process (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Agents that show shaping behavior have characteristics such as; holding others accountable and responsible for delivering allocated tasks, standing clearly above his/her subordinates and they are persuasive and expressive. Framing change refers to creating starting points for the change (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Agents that posses framing characteristics undertake actions as keeping the bigger picture in mind while details will be filled in later on and are keeping the organizational vision in mind while performing the change; one may say agents agent’s that are executing this type of behavior are creating the way for change. Finally, creating capacity involves creating individual and organizational capabilities and communication and is about developing connections (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Change agents that have more creating capacity behaviors, entail characteristics as performing the role of coach and someone who is always seeking for breaking current patterns to create movement, thus challenges the status quo.

However, an additional note should be made regarding the three different behavior sets. Although shaping behaviors seems to influence change outcomes negatively, in some cases shaping behaviors are preferable to creating and framing behaviors. For example, in times of crisis within an organization, there is often no time to communicate guiding principles in the organization (framing change) or to create individual and organizational capabilities and communication and making connections (creating capacity), instead a change leader should then use an individual focus and make others accountable (shaping behavior). As explained above, Cawsey et al. (2012) came up with four different types of leadership styles in different settings and placed those styles into a quadrant, the four styles include: emotional champion (pull (visionary), strategic change), intuitive adapter (pull (visionary), incremental change), developmental strategist (push (fact based), strategic change) and continuous improver (push (fact based), incremental change). Strategic change is episodic, discontinuous and has a major scope; incremental change is continuous, involves small adaptations with fewer risk at play compared to strategic change (Cawsey et al., 2012). The pull side of the quadrant, has more in common with framing change and creating capacity behaviors because pull actions entail the creation or attraction of goals by the change agent that draw willing organizational members to change (group-centric behaviors) (Cawsey et al., 2012). Whereas the push side of the quadrant, overlaps with shaping behaviors because push actions are data based and factual information and are communicated in ways that push recipients’ opinions in new directions (leader-centric behavior) (Cawsey et al, 2012). Thus, one may argue that different leadership behaviors (styles) are preferable within different situations. Higgs and Rowland (2011) also argue that this is the case, they state that when the complexity of the change project increases, group focused leadership styles (framing change and creating capacity) are desired in order to generate change success. Alternatively, in case the change project has a low complexity level, shaping behaviors can also be effective.

Based on the characteristics that a change agent with shaping behavior will likely entail, one may argue that those characteristics are not very beneficial to the interaction process. Shaping behavior is leader-centric, as said earlier; this is behavior of the leader that purposefully (coercively) influences behavior of recipients (Higgs and Rowland, 2005). One can imagine that a leader who will strongly hold others accountable for allocated tasks, who stands clearly above his/her subordinates and is very persuasive, will not be open-mined to an environment where the recipients are able to participate. Another explanation for the likelihood of low levels of participation of the recipients can be found in the adoption of the change approach. Shaping behavior suits with a top-down change approach. This connection can be made because, the top-down approach is just as shaping behavior, leader-centric and focused on one way directives: management tells employees what to do and not the other way around (Jones, 2007), which leaves little room for the employees in lower levels to participate.

and Rowland have pointed out in their studies in 2005, leadership behavior that focuses on the position, role and power of the leader, (shaping behavior) are not related to change success. In addition, in case of the inability of change recipients to participate during the change process, this will result in change failure as different scholars have found that low levels of participation will result in change failure (Bartunek et al., 2006; Holt el al., 2007; Coyle-Shaipro, 2002; Lines, 2004).

In contrast, based on the characteristics that a change agent with framing change behavior or creating capacity behavior will likely show, one may assume that those characteristics are beneficial to the interaction process. A change agent that shows behavior as providing the recipients with a great sense of responsibility or someone who coaches and tries to challenge the status quo together with her/his subordinates, will probably be someone who is more open-minded to involve people in the change project. Again, another explanation for the likelihood of high levels of participation in case a change agent exhibit framing change and/or creating capacity behavior can be found in the change approach. Framing change as well as creating capacity turned out to be the more group focused (group of people act in the same way) behaviors in the research of Higgs and Rowland (2011). Both framing and creating capacity behavior have similarities with the bottom-up approach to change, that is change being initiated by employees at lower levels in the organization that slowly diffuses throughout the organization (Jones, 2007). This bottom-up approach has similarities with framing and creating behavior as this approach to change is just as the framing and creating change, focused on group behavior with an emphasis on a two-way direction (management tells employees what to do, however employees have the possibility to think along with, and provide input to management).

As a result, this higher level of participation is beneficial for the change process and will likely lead towards change success as different scholars acknowledge. Pardo-del-val et al. (2012) for example argue, that participation secures an organization to attain a higher level of commitment from its employees and as a result decreases resistance to change. Furthermore, higher levels of participation will result, amongst others, in higher job satisfaction, positive emotions and higher motivation (Steel and Lloyd, 1988; Bartunek et al., 2006), which makes the implementation of other change initiatives more likely to succeed.

1. How does; shaping behavior, framing change and creating capacity influence the interaction process?

2.2.2 Change recipients behavior

Not only change agent behavior can influence change outcome, recipients behavior also has its impact as various studies endorse. Oreg et. al. (2012) argue that there is growing agreement about the key role that change recipients’ reactions to change have on the development of the change projects’ potential to succeed. As Balogun & Johnson (2005) state, recipients play a key role in making change happen. As mentioned before, change recipients have the responsibility for carrying out the change (e.g. Ford et al., 2008). Therefore, as Oreg et al. (2012) and Balogun & Johnson (2005) acknowledge, not only change agents behavior should be taken into account when investigating the influence of their behavior on change outcome but also change recipients behavior should be included.

Different scholars have come up with different approaches to define the behavior of change recipients. To give an impression regarding this diversity, a few examples will follow. Armenakis et al. (2007) state that change recipients formulate cognitions, emotions, and intentions, which become part of their decision process that result in unsupportive or supportive behavior and in turn influence the change outcome. They combine the cognitions, emotions and intentions, in one term ‘change recipient beliefs’, consisting of discrepancy (belief there is a need for change), appropriateness, efficacy (perceived capability to implement the change initiative), principal support and valence (attractiveness of the perceived outcome of change) (Armenakis et al., 2007). Others, such as Sonenshein (2010) approach recipient behavior from a different angle, using both narrative and sensemaking lenses. Sensemaking is a process where information is sought, translating this information into meaning and corresponding behaviors (that continuously interact with each other) (Ford et al., 2008). Sonenshein (2010) argue that agents tell narratives about how an organization changes and how it remains the same, in order to try to unfreeze and freeze current meanings of recipients. Recipients try to make sense of those narratives, and form their opinion to the narratives which results in certain behavior (resisting or acceptance), something that is time and context dependent (Sonenshein, 2010). As one can image, many other examples do exist. An example that has not been highlighted yet is the study of Oreg et al (2012), which has combined a large period of research regarding recipient behavior and is widely acknowledged in the academic literature.

personal consequences) (Oreg et al., 2012). Since Oreg et al. (2012) combined such a long period of research regarding recipient behavior, this study will adopt the same definition of behavior as Oreg et al. (2012) used in their study. Oreg et al. (2012) define behavior as attitudes, a tri-dimensional concept existing of cognitive (thinking), affective (feelings) and intentional/behavioral (doing) components. Because this study focuses on the influence of behavior on the interaction process, this research will only focus on the ‘explicit reactions’ part of the model and in particular on the behavioral components Oreg et al. (2012) mention in their definition of behavior. The components of recipient behavior used in this study are readiness and resistance behavior, as will be explained below.

Most research regarding change recipient behavior, approximately 92%, separated recipient behavior in two constructs: 1) readiness to change and 2) resistance to change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Since those two constructs are the best-known reactions towards change, this study will also adopt this distinction. Readiness to change is defined in this paper by using the definition of Holt et al. (2007), they argue that this concept reflects the extent to which individuals are willing to accept, embrace and adopt a particular plan to purposefully alter the status quo. Resistance to change will be defined using the definition of Battistelli et al. (2013): they argue that resistance to change is an individual’s unwillingness to change and someone who tries to reinforce the status quo.

That readiness behavior and resistance behavior may be considered as opposites becomes clear when looking at the characteristics that recipients show in both situations. Recipients who are ready for change show characteristics such as; active participation, motivating others to participate and convincing others about the need for change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). In other words; they have a great understanding of the change and actively cooperate during the change. This supportive behavior may occur due to various reasons such as confidence in the change leader, the supportive culture and confidence in themselves to change (Cawsey et al., 2012). Recipients that are resistant to change show characteristics such as willfully slowing down the change (no compliance) and having a lack of motivation/willingness to participate within the change project (complaining/making objections) (Ford et al., 2008). Resistant behavior may occur due to many factors, such as distrust in change leaders, skepticism about the promised change results and being afraid of change (Cawsey et al., 2012). In those situations, recipients purposely want to prevent the change from happening. Logically, those two opposing attitudes towards change (readiness and resistance) will have a different influence on change outcome.

decreases considerably when a low level of readiness behavior leads to a low motivation and eventually to active resistance (Backer, 1995). Furthermore, whereas resistance to change has for a long time been viewed as a one-sided story that favors change agents by stating that resistance is an dysfunctional reaction of recipients (and once appeared it is difficult to change) Ford et al. (2008) came up with manners to change resistance into readiness, in order to increase the chance on change success again. For example, Ford et al. (2008) argue when change agents do not assume resistance will happen, the chance of it occurring is smaller compared to situations where change agents expect resistance to happen. This is also referred to as a self fulfilling prophecy, this begins if an individual beliefs that a certain event will happen, the individual will automatically start to act as if the event is inevitable, which indeed increases the chance of it happening (Ford et al., 2008). To conclude, low levels of readiness behavior are not equal to the inability to change, but in order to create change success, higher levels of readiness behavior are desired. In addition, resistance behavior should not always be regarded as something inevitable and hard to overcome, agents can influence the appearance of resistance and in case resistance behavior occurs, change agents can turn this behavior into readiness behavior, which increases the chance on change success.

Based on the characteristics that a recipient with readiness behavior will likely show, one may argue that those characteristics are beneficial for the interaction process. Recipients that are ready for change will express more attractive reactions compared to recipients that are resistant to change (Armenakis et al., 1993; Miller et al.,1994). In addition, change recipients who are holding high levels of trust in the change agents and who perceive management as supportive and feel respected (both related to readiness behavior), have a greater willingness to cooperate with the change (Cunningham et al., 2002; Kiefer; 2005) which will logically lead to (high levels of) participation. Change recipients that experience high levels of participation tend to perceive the change as less stressful and have the willingness to solve problems encountered during the change, which is related to change success (Bartunek, 2006; Holt et al., 2007). Thus, readiness behavior will likely lead towards (high levels of) participation, and this in turn is associated with change success.

In contrast, based on the characteristics that a recipient with resistance behavior will likely entail, one may argue that those characteristics are harmful for the interaction process. Recipients with resistance behavior, do not want to cooperate with the change and could ultimately reject the change (Kiefer; 2005; Martin et al., 2005). This will likely result in low levels of participation; low levels of participation will have a negative influence on change outcome. As said before, in case of the inability or unwillingness of change recipients to participate during the change process, this will result in change failure as different scholars have investigated that low levels of participation will result in change failure (Bartunek et al., 2006; Holt el al., 2007; Coyle-Shaipro, 2002; Lines, 2004).

could also lead to change, the likelihood on change success will be increased when the level of readiness behavior increases (Backer, 1995). In addition, although there is a big chance on resistance behavior in any initiated change project and resistance behavior is proven to be associated with change failure, agents have an influence on the degree of appeared resistance behavior and they have the ability to turn this behavior into readiness behavior (Ford et al., 2008). Thus, during the change implementation there is room to turn unsupportive behavior (resistance to change), or low levels of supportive behavior, into high levels supportive behavior (readiness to change). To investigate the influence of readiness and resistance behavior on the interaction process (level of participation) this study addresses the following sub question:

2. How does recipient resistance and readiness to change influence the interaction process?

2.3 The interaction process

This part elaborates on the interaction process and will describe the relationship between the variables distinguished in this research. Since the interaction process in this study focuses on interpersonal behavior between agent and recipient, this process will be discussed at the individual level.

Interaction is quite a novel process for theory, as the introduction highlighted. Although the importance of the interaction process has been acknowledged, by scholars that focused on either inter-personal behavior of change recipients (a.o. Balogun & Johnson, 2005) or change agents behavior (a.o. Higgs & Rowland, 2005 & 2011), little has been known about the influence of agents and recipients behavior viewed together on change outcome. Thus, although there is extended research about agent and recipient behavior, there is a gap in the academic literature that view agent and recipient behavior simultaneously on the interaction process and what effect this could have on change outcome. This study tries to make this gap more visible, by considering the interaction process as a mediator of an input-output relation (see figure 1), which means that input (in this case agent and recipient behavior) influences output (in this case change outcome) throughout the interaction process. In doing so, this research can provide new insights to declare a certain change outcome (failure or success) through the interaction process of agents and recipients which, in turn, can lead towards a decrease in change failure.

six types they distinguished belonged to direct participation and the remaining three to indirect participation). Direct participation is participation where employees have the opportunity and/or willingness to provide input for the change by themselves and/or where they have the possibility to influence the decision making process (Cotton et al., 1988). In contrast, indirect participation is the situation where employees do not have the opportunity and/or willingness to provide input by themselves and/or do not have the possibility to influence the decision making process (Cotton et al, 1988). Direct and indirect participation show high similarities with high levels of participation and low levels of participation respectively. Direct participation could be associated with high levels of participation and indirect participation could be associated with low levels of participation. Since so far in this study, only the terms high- and low levels of participation have been used, this terminology will be maintained. However when using one of those terms in the continuing sections one should keep in mind that low levels of participation are similar to indirect participation and high levels of participation are similar to direct participation and vice versa.

High and low levels of participation have different consequences for change outcome. As explained earlier, higher levels of participation are related to change success and other favorable outcomes such as higher job satisfaction, motivation, willingness to change and solving problems encountered during the change (Bartunek et al., 2006; Holt et al., 2007; Lloyd, 1988). In addition, in case of the inability or unwillingness of employees to participate during the change process, this will result in change failure as different scholars have investigated that low levels of participation will result in change failure (Bartunek et al., 2006; Holt el al., 2007; Coyle-Shaipro, 2002; Lines, 2004). Thus, based on the provided information above, one could say high levels of participation are preferable over low levels of participation. However, in this study, the degree of participation (high or low) will be influenced by agent and recipient behavior. Therefore, when making assumptions on how the level of participation will influence change outcome, agent and recipient behavior should also be taken into account which will be discussed below.

So far, expected relationships between the variables are formulated for each variable separately: agent behavior (consisting of shaping, creating capacities and framing change) is discussed in relation to the interaction process and change outcome. The same applies to recipient behavior (consisting of readiness and resistance behavior), this concept is also explained in relation to the interaction process and change outcome and finally, the components of the interaction process (high or low levels of participation/ direct or indirect participation) are presented and are connected to change outcome. Below, relationships between combinations of agent behavior and recipient behavior, and the corresponding influence on the interaction process and as a result, change outcome, will be drawn.

recipients, as explained earlier. In addition, in situations with recipients showing resistance behavior, such as willfully slowing down the change (no compliance) and have lacking motivation/willingness to participate within the change (Ford et al., 2008), this will also lead towards low levels of participation. It is thus very likely, in case of shaping behavior and resistance behavior, to expect low levels of participation, which increases the chance on change failure (Bartunek et al., 2006; Holt el al., 2007; Coyle-Shaipro, 2002; Lines, 2004). However, when combining shaping behavior with readiness behavior, it is somewhat difficult to make any expectations. Shaping behavior is linked with low levels of participation, as explained above, in contrast, readiness behavior is linked with high levels of participation. Change recipients who are holding high levels of trust in the change agents and who perceive management as supportive and feel respected (both related to readiness behavior), have a greater willingness to cooperate with the change (Cunningham et al., 2002; Kiefer; 2005) which will thus lead to (high levels of) participation, as explained before. It depends on the agent to what extent recipients will be allowed to participate, whereby higher levels of participation will probably lead towards change success and low levels of participation to change failure.

Framing change and creating capacity are both associated with high levels of participation, since agents in those situations will probably give recipients a greater sense of responsibility and will make room for improvements (Cawsey et al., 2012) whereby participation of the recipients within the change is needed. Readiness behavior is also linked to high levels of participation, which makes it likely to expect, in case of change agents that posses framing and/or creating behaviors and recipients that are ready to change, change success occurs. However, it becomes more difficult to estimate the level of participation and as a result, change outcome, when dealing with agents showing framing/creating capabilities behavior and recipients that are resistant to change. Where the former leads towards high levels of participation, the latter will probably lead towards low levels of participation. Again, it depends on the agent, to what extent they are able to turn resistance behavior into readiness behavior, which influences the level of participation and change outcome.

different results could be found based on the context dependent factors in case of agent behavior and the interaction process. To investigate the relation between the interaction process (level of participation) and change outcome this study addresses the following sub question:

3. METHODOLOGY

This study takes a theory refinement approach and focuses on the exploration of the interaction process, in-depth interviews have been conducted in order to create a deep and thorough understanding of the underlying processes and to create the opportunity for the researcher to answer ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions (Cooper and Schindler, 2006). Interviews are especially useful for developing theoretical insights when research focuses on areas that existing theories do not cover (Ozcan and Eisenhardt, 2009). As mentioned earlier, little has yet been said about the interaction process between agent and recipient: viewing their behavior simultaneously and as independent variables was one of the main reasons to conduct qualitative research.

3.1 Data collection

A single case study has been executed within a Dutch multinational company in the Netherlands. At the moment of conducting the interviews, the change process was near completion. It was situated in the so-called probation period, which will last for a few months more, whereby everyone operates as if is the change project is already completely implemented. Within the upcoming paragraphs, more information is provided about the procedure and the participants involved within this study.

3.1.1 Procedure

Interviews have been conducted with a group of team leaders (change agents) and their direct subordinates: MBL’s (change recipients). In total five teams (from a single department) have been studied, existing of one agent per team and three MBL’s per agent. For this study, two of the three MBL’s per agent have been interviewed, one of these was a former assistant team leader, while the other was a former operator, as can be deducted from the organizational context in the introduction. One of the three MBL’s (former operator) has not been interviewed due to a lack of availability of the MBL’s at the time of data collection (see table 1). Including multiple groups of respondents (agents and recipients) is beneficial for the reliability of this study, in that way one is able to gather multiple views on the same aspects researched. The respondents have been selected as follows: At the start-up phase of this research, the coordinator of the change project made a list with potential respondents, based on their willingness to cooperate and involvement during the change. This is also known as a ‘convenience sample strategy’ which entails the selection of the most accessible individuals (Marshall, 1996).After the completion of the list, the coordinator of the change sent an email towards the agents and recipients about the upcoming interview and from then on, the researcher contacted the respondents by e-mail to invite them for an interview.

bias). In such a way, interviewees were able to speak openly and share facts as well as feelings and beliefs (Baxter & Babbie, 2003). Different quantitative measurement scales to measure the variables indentified within this research are used as a basis to formulate the open-ended interview questions, as will be explained in the section concerning measures (3.2).

All interviews haven taken place on site between 23th of April and May 6th (2013) and lasted for approximately one hour each. At the start of the interviews, respondents were told that the interviews would be recorded, to be able to recall the interviews as precisely as possible for the researcher at the time of transcription (see appendix B for the interview start-up). The interviewees were guaranteed that all information gathered is kept strictly confidential and anonymous, which resulted in no opposing arguments regarding the taping of the interviews. Furthermore, each interview is held on a one-to-one basis (researcher and interviewee), in a quiet secluded office, where a trustworthy atmosphere was created for the respondents which allowed them to speak openly about the change project to increase the reliability of this study.

Teams Agent Recipients

1 Team leader: interviewed

MBL (former assistant teamleader): interviewed MBL (former operator): interviewed MBL (former operator): not interviewed

2 Team leader: interviewed

MBL (former assistant teamleader): interviewed MBL (former operator): interviewed MBL (former operator): not interviewed

3 Team leader: interviewed

MBL (former assistant teamleader): interviewed MBL (former operator): interviewed MBL (former operator): not interviewed

4 Team leader: interviewed

MBL (former assistant teamleader): interviewed MBL (former operator): interviewed MBL (former operator): not interviewed

5 Team leader: interviewed

MBL (former assistant teamleader): interviewed MBL (former operator): interviewed MBL (former operator): not interviewed

3.1.2 Respondents

The respondents consisted out of two different groups (15 in total), namely the change agents (five team leaders) and two corresponding change recipients per agent (10 MBL’s). The two corresponding recipients per agent existed out of one former assistant team leader and one former operator. By questioning all the five change agents involved within the change project and two recipients per agent, a reasonably distributed database of information has been created. All agents were males and had the Dutch nationality. The age of the agents varied between 41 and 59 with an average age of 47.2. In general, the average age within the corresponding organization entailed 45.1, which means that this selection of agents is representative and reliable. Furthermore, the level of education of the agents varied between MBO and HBO, whereby only one of them had a HBO diploma and four a MBO diploma. Finally, the average tenure of employment in their current function entailed 8.6 years for the agents. Eight out of ten recipients were male, two recipients were female. Again all recipients had the Dutch nationality, and their age varied between 39 and 61, with an average age of 45.6. Thus, the average age of the recipients is also very representative and reliable since the average age of the organization in general is 45.1. In addition, the recipient’s educational level varied between MBO and HBO, two of the recipients had an HBO diploma all the others had an MBO diploma. At length, the average tenure of employment among the recipients in their function entailed one month. Table 2 provides an overview of the given information.

Respondents Group size

#Male/ Female

Average age # level of education

Average tenure of employment Team leaders 5 5/0 47.2 years 4 MBO / 1 HBO 8.6 years

MBL 10 8/2 45.6 years 8 MBO / 2 HBO 1 month

Table 2: Information of respondents

3.2 Measures

Variables Source of measurement per variable

Change outcome Questions related to change process and change outcome (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009)

Change agent behavior Questions related to shaping, framing and creating behavior (Higgs and Rowland, 2005)

Change recipient behavior Questions related to readiness and resistance behavior (Boukenooghe et al., 2009) (Oreg, 2006)

Interaction process Questions related to participation behavior (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009)

Table 3: source of measurement per variable

3.2.1 Change outcome

Within this research, the definition according to Vos and Brand (2012) of change outcome has been used. They argue that change outcome, on one hand is defined as the degree of satisfaction with the change process and on the other hand as the degree of satisfaction with the change outcome whereby low satisfaction with the process and outcome is associated with change failure and high satisfaction with the process and outcome with change success. Logically, in order to measure change outcome to determine change success or change failure, questions regarding satisfaction with the change process and outcome should be asked. Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) already included corresponding questions in their developed questionnaire, Vos & Brand (2012) extracted their definition of change outcome from this research. Therefore, the questions regarding satisfaction with the change process and outcome used in this study are based on the study of Bouckenooghe et al. (2009).

3.2.2 Change agent behavior

3.2.3 Change recipient behavior

Regarding recipient behavior, a separation has been made between readiness and resistance behavior, as explained in the literature review. Readiness behavior includes characteristics such as; active participation, motivating others to participate and convincing others for the need for change, in other words: recipients understand the need for change and actively cooperate during the change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). As an opposite, resistance behavior entails characteristics as willfully slowing down the change (no compliance) and have lacking motivation/willingness to participate within the change project (complaining/making objections (Cawsey et al., 2012)). To measure those elements questions such as recipient’s openness towards-, and the degree of compliance during the change should be asked. The questionnaire of Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) suits best in this case to measure readiness behavior, which is why this questionnaire is employed for the development of the open-ended interview questions within this research. When it comes to the elements of resistant behavior, the questionnaire of Oreg (2006) has been used. His questions are in line with the description of change resistance used in this research, which is why those questions are used as basis for the formulation of interview questions regarding resistant behavior. An additional note should be made, for readiness as well as recipient behavior, only the behavioral components of the tri-dimension concept of behavior have been taken into account by the formulation of the interview questions, as already been outlined within the paragraph regarding recipients behavior.

3.2.4 Interaction process

To operationalize participation behavior, the focus is put on either high levels of participation (direct participation) or low levels of participation (indirect participation). This distinction is made, based on the study of Cotton et al. (1988), which can be found in the literature review. High levels of participation is associated with employees that have the opportunity and/or willingness to provide input for the change by themselves and/or where they have the possibility to influence the decision making process. In contrast, low levels of participation include the opposite; employees that are not willing or do not have the opportunity to provide input for the proposed changes and/or do not have the possibility to influence the decision making process. To measure the level of participation behavior, questions have been asked about the opportunity to participate and the actual degree of participation. Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) already investigated participation behavior and proposed corresponding questions regarding participation behavior. Therefore, this study has been used as a starting point for the formulation of the questions regarding participation behavior in this research.

3.3 Data analyses

coding techniques, open coding and selective coding. Open coding includes labeling concepts/key terms and short sentences, whereby categories will be defined based on their dimensions (Van Aken et al., 2007). Selective coding includes combining the categories and interrelationships in order to understand what happened in the light of this study (Van Aken et al., 2007). To start with the former, the researcher first coded all interviews based on the open coding technique, also referred to as within-case analyses. This includes the transcription of the interviews in order to create a more narrow and specified view on the answers of the respondents, which increases the ability of drawing the right conclusions from it. The latter technique came to the surface when cross-case analyses were conducted: in these analyses data was viewed in various ways whereby the outcomes were compared among the different teams, including the comparison between the five different agents as well as the comparison between the ten different recipients, to find similarities to draw conclusions from. Both analyses will increase the internal validity, as using multiple perspectives during research (within-case and cross-case analysis) will be beneficial to the internal validity (Van Aken et al., 2007). It is important to note that the within-case analyses will not be discussed in the results. The teams that are studied act in the exact same context as they have the same composition, in the same change situation, with the same task in the same organization on the same physical location. The teams that are studied actually work in shifts, substituting each other around the clock. This makes comparison between the teams interesting as each team endures a specific interaction process within a very similar environment (much like within an experiment setup). This makes within-case analysis less relevant as cross-case findings have the potential to discover emerging patterns that endure better generalize ability and broader theoretical and practical applicability for this study.

4. RESULTS

In this section, the results of this research are discussed (an overview of the main findings per team is provided in appendix F). First, change outcome will be discussed where after the variables agent behavior, recipient behavior and the interaction process will follow. In addition, since this research includes two different types of actors (agent and recipients), both their views will be discussed. For each variables applies the same; first the perspective of the agent and then the perspective of the recipient will be presented.

4.1 Change outcome

This study uses the definition of change outcome of Vos & Brand (2012), they state that change outcome depends on the degree of satisfaction with the process and the degree of satisfaction with the outcome of change. Satisfaction with the process refers to the degree of satisfaction with the interaction process from the agent reflecting on the interaction with the recipient and vice versa. Satisfaction with the outcome refers to the degree of satisfaction with the obtained results of the change.

Four out of the five agents reported that they are satisfied with the interaction process during the change. This satisfaction is mainly related to their satisfaction with the information provision process. As one of those agents reported: “The interaction is perfect, every week I will catch up with my MBL’s, and this works well for everyone”. Another agent mentioned: “I am very satisfied if it comes to the interaction with my employees, I think they were always informed with the right information”. Not one of those four agents mentioned any negative points related to the interaction process. However, one of the five agents is less satisfied with the process. This agent made a distinction in the interaction process towards the recipients: the former operators and the former assistant team leaders. This agent argued: “As it comes to the operators I am very satisfied with the interaction process, however I admit I made some mistakes during the interaction towards the former assistant team leaders”. Below the perspectives of the recipients regarding the degree of satisfaction with the interaction process will be described.

concerning the interaction with the former assistant team leaders, mistakes have been made or they provided recommendations to handle the interaction process with the assistant team leaders better in the future. In addition, five out of the ten recipients reported to be dissatisfied with the process (from those recipients four of them were former assistant team leaders and one of them was a former operator). The resistance of the four assistant team leaders resulted often from the information provision and the degree of participation during the change. As one of the recipients mentioned: “In some cases I had get my information of off memo’s that were hung up on the walls, this is way too impersonal for me” and another recipient reported: “If I had the opportunity to think along with the change, I am sure I would be less negative towards the interaction process”. The resistance of the former operator was caused by the attitude of the agent, as it comes to the way of communication of the agent, this recipient argued: “My leader and I have opposite opinions on how we should communicate, my team leader communicates as if we work in the army. This sometimes led to conflict during the change, so I am not altogether happy with this”. Since the degree of satisfaction with the change process has been discussed for the agents and recipients, now the results regarding the change outcome will be provided, starting with the perspectives of the agents.

All of the five agents reported to be satisfied with the outcome of the change. This satisfaction mainly resulted from the positive consequences of the change such as a clearer work environment. As one of the agents mentioned: “I am satisfied with the outcome of the change, everyone appreciates the new way of working, and there is more ease within our team”. Two out of the five agents mentioned that they are so far satisfied; however, the change project is not totally being implemented yet. As one of those two agents mentioned: “We are now situated in the probation period and all works fine right now, however, I hope this will still be the case after the probation period”. In addition, those same two agents reported to be satisfied with the outcome, but also that they are quite uncertain about their new role after the change totally has being implemented. As one of those agents argued: “I am curious what my role will be after the coaching period of the MBL, that is quite uncertain for me at the moment”. Below the perspectives of the recipients regarding the change outcome is provided.

4.2 Agent behavior

To determine agent behavior, the study of Higgs and Rowland (2005) has been used. Questions concerning the three leaderships styles they indentified (shaping, framing and creating) and their characteristics have been asked to identify agent behavior. Shaping behavior has been characterized as agents being persuasive and holding others accountable and responsible for allocated tasks. Framing behavior includes characteristics as keeping the organizational vision and the bigger picture in mind during the change, and creating behavior entails characteristics as coaching behavior and challenging the status quo. Few agents belonged exclusively to one of the three leadership behaviors. However, although all of the agents reported behavior belonging to the three leadership behaviors, some prominent behavioral patterns were visible. Three of the agents scored prominent on shaping behavior, one agent on framing behavior and one agent on creating behavior, as will be explained further below.

Three of the five agents described mainly shaping behavior characteristics, mostly because of their clear steering during activities of the change and holding others accountable and responsible for allocated tasks during the change. Reactions of two of those three agents included: “By formulating deadlines I made sure everything was implemented on time” and “I often checked how things were going”. All of those three agents mentioned to use the same techniques in daily life, this strengthened the case those three agents are ‘shaping’ leaders and not only during the time of the change project. As one of them reported: “Checklists are really my ‘thing’, it gives me tranquility. If I know that everything is written down, I don’t have to remember it. I also use this outside of meeting. That way I know who does what and when certain deadlines are”. In addition, an agreement among all of the five agents was made that, once the change was thought through, no adaptations could be made, which tends to overlap with shaping behavior. Especially this latter agreement caused the agents describing many framing - respectively creating behavior characteristics, (to their dissatisfaction) to employ more shaping behavior characteristics. As one of those two agents reported: “The men [operators] just had to accept and follow, that’s where it came down to. Normally I am quite different when it comes to leading groups, I want to involve them, hear their input and opinion, but decisions were made by majority: I had to adapt”.

Four of the ten recipients that did not perceive mainly shaping behavior characteristics executed by their agent, mentioned for example, that they were kept accountable for their tasks by their agents. However, they also acknowledged that the other agents (that reported mainly shaping behavior) forced this type of behavior executed by their agents (that reported mainly creating, respectively framing behavior). As one of those four recipients argued: “Normally, my supervisor acts different, however the change is implemented by five team leaders and my team leader had to adapt to the dominant style of work; this included more controllability.”

One of the five agents revealed prominent framing behavior, mainly because of keeping the vision of the organization in mind during the change and providing the recipients with a great sense of responsibility. Reactions of this agent included: “ I communicate the deadline, however I do not say anything about how they should reach this deadline, that is the freedom they have” and “In my communication to the MBL’s I often communicated about the importance of this change project for the organization as a whole, every change helps us to get a little better”. This agent also reported that in some situations he had to adapt to the others agents’ perspectives, to his disappointment. As he argued: “During the change I could not employ my personal leadership style, I had to deal with 5 team leaders, and I had to adapt to them, everybody had to, this is why some things are more enjoyable than others. I regret it that there is always so little room for the input of other’s involved”. In addition, one other agent of the five agents in total revealed relatively many framing behavior characteristics. This agent described mainly creating behavior characteristics, but also frequently kept the organizational vision and bigger picture in mind during the change. One explanation for this framing behavior executed by a ‘creating’ agent could be the fact that other scholars also acknowledged this appearance, apparently agents reporting mainly creating behavior characteristics often execute framing behavior and vice versa. The remaining three of the five agents, who reported mainly shaping behavior, all mentioned not to argue about the vision of the organization during the change because they do not think this is effective. As one of those three described:“In every formal business presentation you get the story about the need to get a step higher as plant, well I do not talk about this to my men I believe they are already bored by the many times they have to hear it now”.

now that room for discourse was not there. He really had to adapt to the agreements that were made and the leadership approach of other team leaders”. In addition, the other recipient that mentioned that his agent revealed mainly framing behavior belonged to the agent that described mainly creating behavior characteristics. The second recipient belonging to this agent also reported a noteworthy amount of framing characteristics by this agent. Since this ‘creating’ agent performed many framing behavior characteristics, as explained above, this is traceable. The remaining six of the ten recipients, belonging to the agents that reported mainly shaping behavior characteristics, indeed did not report any worth mentioning comments regarding framing characteristics of their agents.

All five agents revealed creating behavior characteristics. However, only one of the five agents mainly reported creating behavior characteristics, because this agent often adopted characteristics as executing the role of coach and trying to challenge the status quo. As it comes to the latter characteristic, this agent also mentioned he had to adapt to the other agents during the change, and could not challenge the status quo as much as he normally does (to his disappointment). As he mentioned: “It does not fit my likings to address people with: this is how we are going to do it. I really am somebody who likes to look for improvements, always. But yeah, as decisions were made through voting for majority, we did it this way”. For one other agent (of the five agents) the execution of creating behavior is explainable, this agent reported mainly framing characteristics, and as said before, apparently do agents that reveal mainly creating behavior often execute framing behavior and vice versa. Remarkable is the fact that the three remaining agents, the ‘shaping’ agents, showed a relatively high amount of creating behavior. An explanation for this can be the fact that coaching the recipients was part of the agent’s job during the change.

he will always try and help, he has always been that way”. In the following paragraph, the perspectives of the agents and recipients regarding recipient behavior will be provided.

4.3 Recipient behavior

To determine recipient behavior, in this study a separation has been made between the concepts readiness to change and resistance to change. Readiness behavior includes characteristics such as; active participation, motivating others to participate and convincing others for the need for change, in other words: recipients understand the need for change and actively cooperate during the change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). As an opposite, resistance behavior entails characteristics as willfully slowing down the change (no compliance) and have lacking motivation/willingness to participate within the change project (complaining/making objections (Cawsey et al., 2012)).

The gained answers provided by the agents regarding readiness and resistance behavior could each be spitted into two characteristics, which are in line with the provided definitions above of readiness and resistance behavior. To start with readiness behavior, the first characteristic that has been acknowledged is understanding the need for change, the recipients understand why the change should be executed. The second characteristic entails active cooperation during the change; the recipient executes tasks within his/her scope. As it comes to resistance behavior, the first characteristic that has been acknowledged is complaining behavior and making objections. The recipient does not understand the need for change and/or has an opposing view of how the change should have been implemented and how the change is implemented. The second characteristic of resistance behavior includes a passive attitude towards the change and in an extreme variant; no compliance behavior. Below the results regarding recipient behavior can be find, first readiness behavior will be discussed where after resistance behavior will follow.

Six out of the ten recipients reported to be ready for the change, due to their understanding and active involvement during the change. If focusing on the two characteristics of readiness behavior, ten of the ten recipients reported to have a high understanding of the change. As one of the recipients mentioned: “No one was able to keep everything under control when managing a team of 30 operators, not me and not the team leader, understandable of course, but the announced change was highly necessary”. Two of the ten recipients mentioned that the way of communication of the agents probably contributed to the overall high understanding of the change among the recipients. When it comes to the second characteristic of readiness behavior, active cooperation during the change, nine out of the ten recipients reported to have actively contributed to change. However, all ten recipients mentioned they did not have a choice in this, they had to execute tasks because the agents told them to, as one of the recipients reported: “I truly do add value to the change, I have to. I am part of the change as I’ve become MBL. So, yes, then they expect you to execute certain tasks that the team leader directs”. Although the characteristics of readiness behavior are mentioned to a noteworthy extent, only six out of the ten recipients mainly reported readiness behavior. Note that five of those six recipients were former operators, meaning one them was former assistant team leader. Apparently the perception of the change played an important role in the degree of readiness among the former assistant team leaders, since on beforehand all recipients (former operators and former assistant team leaders), understood the reasons for change.

One of the agents described his recipient (only the former assistant team leader) mainly as being resistant to change due to his objections towards side conditions of the change and the recipient’s no compliance behavior. If focusing on the first characteristic of resistance behavior, four of the five agents reported complaining behavior among their recipients. However, this behavior was only indicated among the recipients that were former assistant team leaders and not among their former operators. The complaints mainly focused on side conditions of the change, such as the amount of salary and the application procedure to become MBL, than the change content itself. As one of the agents reported: “But the assistant team leaders did resist, in general against the application procedure and some against the pay”. If it comes to the second characteristic of resistance behavior, only one agent, the one reported mainly resistance behavior characteristics executed by his recipient, indicated this type of behavior and only noticed this behavior concerning the side conditions of the change, and again, not about the content of the change itself. As this agent explained: “My former assistant team leader mentioned if he could not automatically become MBL, he would quit”.

earn more, maybe we have the same amount of psychical work, but the mental pressure increased, now we have to hold performance appraisals and exit talks, this requires a higher salary and my team leader knows my point of view”. The other three recipients (all of them were former operator) complained about the leadership style of the agent. As one of those three recipients argued: “Every step that I had to take was written down, I continually had the feeling my leader was watching me, I thought this was really annoying it stressed me out”. As it comes to the second characteristic of resistance behavior, three out of the ten recipients indicated this type of behavior. All three were former assistant team leaders, as one of them argued: “When I heard about the change I told my team leader that I would not agree upon this, I really did not, and still not, understand why we had to apply for the position of mini business leader”. However, the complaining behavior of the three former operators did not result in overall resistance among them, in contrast, the complaining and no compliance behavior of the former assistant team leaders did lead towards dominant resistance behavior of those four recipients. An explanation for the ratio between resistant former operators and resistant former team leaders is provided earlier.

4.4 Interaction process

To measure the interaction process, either high levels of participation (direct participation) or low levels of participation (indirect participation) between the agent and the recipients have been acknowledged. This distinction is made, based on the study of Cotton et al. (1988), which can be found in the literature review. High levels of participation is associated with employees that have the opportunity and/or willingness to provide input for the change by themselves and/or where they have the possibility to influence the decision making process. In contrast, low levels of participation include the opposite; employees that are not willing or do not have the opportunity to provide input for the proposed changes and/or do not have the possibility to influence the decision making process. This distinction is also made during the time of coding of the interviews, since the answers revealed much overlap with the definition used for high and low participation behavior. In addition, in discussing high and low levels of participation, a separation is made between participation based on the initiative of the agent and participation based on initiative of the recipient. This distinction is made because the interviews revealed a clear separation in this, in such a way that one is able to distinguish participation on a voluntary basis and participation on a prescriptive basis (an agent or recipient had to participate because it was part of their job or were asked to participate).