A case study on the relationship between individual and group attitudes toward change and the influence of change agents’ responses on it
Master’s Thesis MSc. Business Administration: Change Management University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
March 21, 2016
Daniëlle Visscher
Email: d.visscher@student.rug.nl Student Number: 2012693
Supervisor: H.P. van Peet
Co-Assessor: I. Maris- de Bresser
2 ABSTRACT
In the current literature on organizational change, attitudes toward change have been extensively addressed, but mainly on individual level. Therefore, this qualitative research adopted a multilevel analysis and offers insight in the mutual influence between the individual and group attitude.
Furthermore, this research included the role of change agents’ responses on recipients’ reactions, as well as the effect of this response on the further development of recipients’ attitudes and the change success, because this is generally ignored in the current literature. The data is collected within two organizations, including four cases and semi-structured interviews with both change agents and change recipients. The findings reveal that individual and group attitudes can influence each other, but negative or ambivalent recipients are more sensitive for the reactions of fellow team members, than positive recipients are. Negative recipients are influenced by emotional and cognitive contagion, subjective norms and the facilitation of fellow team members. Furthermore, this research reveals that, besides the planned interventions, middle managers respond to recipients with negative reaction and this mainly occur on individual level. The results reveal that responding by means of soft influence tactics resulted in commitment, whereas responding by means of hard tactics only leads to compliance.
Finally, when middle manager’s response on recipients’ reactions is lacking, this results in dissatisfaction with the change process, whereas providing support positively changed recipients’
attitudes and result in satisfaction with the change process and outcome.
Word count: 27.545 (Excluding appendixes)
Key words: Attitudes towards change, individual attitude towards change, group attitude towards
change, change agents’ approaches, agents’ responses, middle managers’ responses, change success
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ... 5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 7
2.1. Change recipients’ attitudes toward change ... 7
2.2. Individual attitudes toward change ... 7
2.3. General antecedents of individual attitudes toward change ... 9
2.4. Missing multilevel analyses of attitudes toward change ... 10
2.5. Group attitudes toward change ... 11
2.6. General antecedents of group attitudes toward change ... 11
2.7. The link between individual and group attitudes toward change ... 11
2.7.1. Individual attitudes toward change influence group attitudes toward change ... 12
2.7.2. Group attitudes toward change influence individual attitudes toward change ... 13
2.8. Responses of change agents ... 14
2.8.1. Interpreting and influencing recipients’ reactions: sense making and giving ... 14
2.8.2. Change agents’ leadership strategies ... 16
2.8.3. Change agents’ behavior and influence tactics ... 16
2.8.4. Focus of leadership strategies and behaviors ... 19
2.9. The role of the middle managers ... 19
2.10. Change success ... 20
2.11. Theoretical framework ... 21
3. METHODOLOGY ... 21
3.1. Theory Development process ... 21
3.2. Research context description ... 22
3.3. Case selection ... 23
3.4. Data collection ... 24
3.4.1. Participants ... 24
3.4.2. Interviews ... 24
3.4.3. Questionnaires ... 25
3.5. Method of analysis ... 25
3.6. Controllability, validity and reliability ... 26
4. RESULTS ... 26
4.1. The change project ... 27
4.2. Change approach Plant Manager – Plant A ... 27
4.3. Case 1 – Technical service department plant A ... 28
4.4. Case 2 – Processing department plant A ... 33
4.5. Change approach Plant Manager – Plant B ... 37
4
4.6. Case 3 – Processing department 1 - Plant B ... 38
4.7. Case 4 – Processing department 2 – Plant B ... 43
4.8. Cross-case analyses ... 46
4.8.1. Plant A: Case 1 and Case 2 ... 46
4.8.2. Plant B: Case 3 and Case 4 ... 49
4.8.3. Cases plant A versus Cases plant B ... 52
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 59
5.1. Discussion, sub-questions and propositions ... 59
5.1.1. Sub-question 1 ... 59
5.1.2. Sub-question 2 ... 61
5.1.3. Sub-question 3 ... 62
5.2. Research question ... 64
5.3. Theoretical implications ... 65
5.4. Practical implications ... 65
5.5. Limitations and suggestions for further research ... 66
REFERENCES ... 67
APPENDIX A: Framework of behavioral intentions ... 74
APPENDIX B: Safety culture ladder ... 74
APPENDIX C: Interview protocol change recipients ... 75
APPENDIX D: Interview protocol change agents/middle managers ... 80
APPENDIX E: Survey change recipients ... 85
APPENDIX F: Survey middle managers ... 88
APPENDIX G: Codebook ... 91
APPENDIX H: Survey results recipients ... 99
APPENDIX I: Survey results middle managers ... 101
APPENDIX J: Table cross-case analysis ... 102
APPENDIX K: Patterns and mechanisms across the cases ... 104
5 1. INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, organizational change is more the rule than the exception due to continuous changes in general and task environments, therefore, it is important to know how to implement appropriate organizational changes that employees will embrace (Armenakis & Harris, 2009; Bouckenooghe, Devos & van den Broeck, 2009). Because of the high failure rate of major change initiatives (Washington & Hacker, 2005), researchers have tried to identify determinants that may increase the likelihood of successful change implementations (Rafferty, Jimmieson & Armenakis, 2013).
Researchers argue that change recipients’ reactions to organizational change, also labelled as attitudes toward change, are a main determinant of this potential success, however, these attitudes were often underestimated by change agents (Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph, & DePalma, 2006; Choi, 2011; Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis, 2011).
Not only change agents underestimated recipients’ attitudes toward the change, also the change literature appeared to take primarily a one-sided change agent-centric view in which researchers implied that change recipients’ understanding of a change ought to be similar to the way change agents understand a change (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008). However, Bartunek et al (2006) argue, “There is no reason to assume recipients and change agents share the same understanding” (p. 183). As a result, in the years that followed, researchers have extensively studied change recipients’ attitudes toward change, mainly by adopting an individual level of analysis instead of a multilevel analysis (Bouckenooghe, 2010). However, change recipients based their attitudes not only on individual reflection but also on the collective sense making that comes from the interaction with colleagues and change agents (Ford et al., 2008). Therefore, an individual level of analysis of recipients’ attitudes would lead to incomplete research.
In the current literature, researchers mainly measured attitudes toward change at individual level and used this data to make statements about the collective and organizational attitude, however, several researchers wonder whether this is possible (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Paul, van Peet & Reezigt; 2012).
Although, in general, researchers agree about the crucial role of individuals’ attitudes and behavior in
determining group change, Bouckenooghe (2010, p. 515) argues “Studies need to report more
meticulously the underlying dynamics and relationship between readiness measured at the individual
level and the conclusions drawn about readiness at the organizational or collective level.” Therefore,
Bouckenooghe (2010) encourage researchers to adopt a multilevel perspective when researching
recipients’ reactions to change because to date research on more than one level is scarce (Paul et al.,
2012). The focus of this research will be on the individual and group level, because individual’s
membership in a group tend to influence individuals’ attitudes (Vakola, 2013) and these individual
attitudes are critical success factors within an organizational change (George & Jones, 2001).
6 As mentioned before, recipients also based their attitudes toward change on their interaction with change agents (Ford et al., 2008). Oreg et al (2011) found that change agents could influence recipients’ explicit reactions by sense giving, which in turn influence the change consequences.
Additionally, they propose that a reversed path of influence may exist, such that recipients’ reactions influence how change agents manage the process at the later stage of the change. They propose: “How change agents respond to change recipient’s reactions is likely to have a direct influence on the change progress and on the ultimate success of the change initiative” (Oreg et al., 2011, p. 55).
Because of the ignorance of the role of change agents’ responses on recipients’ reactions (Oreg, et al, 2011), this research will focus on this interaction process. Furthermore, the change literature revealed that the role of the middle manager is critical for a successful change implementation (Butz, Dresmé, Otto & Vermeulen, 2015); therefore, their responses are also taken into account in this research.
This research seeks to address some the existing research gaps. First, it is not yet clear how individual and group attitudes toward change are related to each other. Therefore, more insight needs to be gained in the underlying dynamics and mechanisms of this relationship (Bouckenooghe, 2010;
Rafferty et al, 2013; Vakola, 2013). Second, researchers generally ignore the role of change agents’
responses to recipients’ reactions on both individual and group level. Due to the potential influence of these responses on the further development of recipients’ reactions and in turn on the change success, it is important to gain deeper understanding in this interaction process (Oreg et al., 2011). Addressing these research gaps is also important for managerial practice, because if more insight is gained in how agents’ responses influence recipients’ reactions, agents can try to adjust their responses in order to influence the change progress successfully. Furthermore, employees work in teams, which made it important to know how the individual and group attitudes can influence each other.
This leads to the following main question:
How do individual and group attitudes toward change influence each other, how do change agents respond to both levels and what is in turn the impact on the further development of attitudes toward change and the change success?
The sub questions of this research are:
1. Which mechanisms underlie the transition of individual attitudes toward change into group attitudes toward change and vice versa?
2. How do change agents respond to individual and group attitudes toward change?
3. What is the effect of this response on both levels of attitude toward change and how does it in
turn affect the change outcome?
7 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
To answer the research questions it is important to provide a clear overview of the current literature about attitudes toward change in general, individual attitudes toward change, group attitudes toward change, the antecedents of both attitude levels, the relationship between both attitude levels and finally, the response of change agents on recipients’ reactions. At the end, a theoretical framework will be provided that serves as the basis of this research.
2.1. Change recipients’ attitudes toward change
Change is a situation in which normal patterns are interrupted and participants enact new patterns (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985). Attitudes toward change are “person’s cognitions about change, affective reactions to change, and behavioral tendency toward change” (Elizur & Guttman (1976) in Vakola & Nikolaou, 2005, p. 162). The affective or emotional dimension refers to a set of feelings about the change and ranges from strong positive emotions to strong negative emotions. The cognitive dimension refers to recipients’ beliefs or opinion about the advantages and disadvantages, usefulness and necessity and about the knowledge required handling the change. This dimension ranges from strong positive beliefs to strong negative beliefs. Finally, the intentional/behavioral dimension refers to the actions already taken or which will be taken in the future, ranging from positive intentions to support the change to negative intentions to oppose the change (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Elizur &
Guttman, 1976; Piderit, 2000).
The all-encompassing term attitude toward change is used for both positive and negative evaluative judgement of change initiatives. Choi (2011) shows in her literature review that readiness for change, commitment to change, openness to change and cynicism about change are the four attitudinal constructs that are used as key variables. Moreover, Bouckenooghe (2010) found that readiness for change and resistance to change are the two most used attitudes toward change.
2.2. Individual attitudes toward change
To conceptualize recipients’ reactions to change, some researchers use more positive laden terms, such as readiness to change, commitment to change and openness to change and other researchers use more negative laden terms such as cynicism toward change and resistance to change (Bouckenooghe, 2010).
The two most used attitudes, readiness and resistance, are described below.
Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) define readiness at individual level as “individual’s beliefs,
attitudes, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s
capacity to successfully undertake those changes” (p. 681). Recipient’s change readiness is influenced
8 by individual’s beliefs that change is needed and appropriate in a specific situation, that he has de capacity to successfully undertake change, that he believes that the organization will provide support for change and that the change will have positive outcomes for his job (Armenakis & Harris, 2002;
Rafferty et al., 2013). In addition, individual change readiness is influenced by individual’s current and future-oriented positive affective emotional responses to a specific change event (Rafferty et al., 2013). Furthermore, Peiperl (2005) defines resistance on individual level as “active or passive response on the part of a person that militates against a particular change, a program of changes, or change in general” (p. 348). Resistance is viewed as multi-dimensional, including a behavioral dimension, a cognitive dimension and an affective dimension (Erwin & Garman, 2010). Authors who view resistance as a negative attitude see it as a set of intentions and actions to maintain the status quo and slow down or hinder the implementation of change. Authors who view resistance more positive see it as a part of a process that fosters learning among organizational members (Bouckenooghe, 2010).
The previous presented attitudes are similar to one another in that both represent individuals’ positive or negative evaluative judgement of a change initiative. However, according to Choi (2011) these attitudes have distinct meanings and provide different information regarding recipients’ evaluation of a change initiative. Therefore, one should be careful with positioning readiness and resistance at opposite ends of the same continuum (e.g., Armenakis et al, 1993; Paul et al., 2012). For instance, resistance to change could also function as a resource or facilitator for implementing a successful change by uncovering gaps in proposed change strategies (Ford et al., 2008). In addition, Paul et al (2012) argue that these attitudes are partly opposites because they could complement each other by representing distinct constructs. Armenakis et al (1993) supported this idea, they define readiness for change as “the cognitive precursor to the behaviors of either resistance to, or support for, a change effort” (p. 681). Therefore, it reveals that there is no explicit answer on how the different attitudes are related to each other. To avoid confusion, this research adopts the multidimensional view of Piderit (2000).
Piderit (2000) distinguishes three recipients’ reactions to change: support for change, resistance to change and ambivalence toward change. She captures recipients’ reaction on three dimensions:
affective or emotional, cognitive and intentional. These emotions, cognitions and intentions become
part of recipients’ decision process that results in resistance, supportive or ambivalent behaviors
(Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts, & Walker, 2007). The multilevel view of Piderit (2000) seems more
complete in comparison to the different labels given to attitudes toward change, because each label
does not always include all the three dimensions (Piderit, 2000, Van den Heuvel, Schalk & van Assen,
2015).
9 Within Piderit’s view, a recipient is likely to support the change when his/her reactions are positive along all three dimensions and a recipient is likely to resist the change when his/her reactions are negative along all three dimensions. When a recipient is neither consistently positive nor consistently negative along all three dimensions, his/her reaction can be labelled as ambivalent. In addition, ambivalence within a dimension is also possible. For example, a recipient could have incongruent emotions by being excited and feared at the same time (Piderit, 2000). According to Bovey and Hede (2001) recipients can support or resistant the change passively or actively, which provide more detailed information about recipients’ behavior. An overview of these behaviors can be found in Appendix A. Additionally, Oreg et al (2011) provide examples of the reactions along the three dimensions of Pidirit (2000). Affective reactions are pleasantness, happiness, stress and negative emotions. Cognitive reactions are change commitment, support for the business strategy, openness to change and perceived fairness. Finally, behavioral/intentional reactions are behavioral intentions to support or resist the change, participation in the change, change commitment and acceptance of the change.
2.3. General antecedents of individual attitudes toward change
Each attitude toward change has its own antecedents; however, there is also a classification of more general antecedents of attitudes toward change. Armenakis & Bedeian (1999) state that three factors – content, context and process – can shape recipients’ reactions to change efforts.
1. The content of the change refers to the type of change being implemented and is specific to each organization. When the impact on the recipients is less serious, it is anticipated that their reactions to change could be more positive or less negative (e.g., Self, Armenakis & Schraeder, 2007).
2. The contextual factor refers to the pre-existing circumstances or conditions in organizations’
internal and external environment (Self et al., 2007). For example, trust in supervisors is one factor that can elicit positive attitudes toward change and a negative change history can elicit negative attitudes toward change (Choi, 2011).
3. Finally, the process factor refers to how the change is implemented which include the actions and methods taken and used by change agents. For example, recipients’ possibility to involve in the planning and implementation of a change is seen as an important antecedent for positive attitudes toward change (Devos, Buelens & Bouckenooghe, 2007; Oreg et al., 2011).
Table 1, on the next page, provides an overview of the different antecedents in each of the three factors that are known from the literature.
In addition, there are also characteristics of the individual level that influence recipient’s attitude
toward change. Factors that might predict positive attitude toward change are internal locus of control,
self-efficacy, positive affectivity, high risk tolerance, openness to experience and need for
10 achievement (Choi, 2011; Oreg et al., 2011). Factors that might predict negative attitudes toward change are dispositional resistance to change and negative affectivity (Oreg et al., 2011).
Antecedents of individual attitudes toward change References Content Nature or type of change
Threatening character of organizational change
Impact of change on recipients’ lives/job
Oreg et al., 2011 Devos et al., 2007 Self et al., 2007
Context External factors:
o Competitive pressure, technological changes, government regulations
Internal factors :
o Trust in executive management and supervisors o Trust in leadership, cohesion and politicking o Organizations’ prior change history
o Supportive environment
o Organizational culture & climate
Walker, Armenakis &
Bernerth, 2007 Devos et al., 2007
Bouckenooghe et al., 2009 Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999 Self et al., 2007
Oreg et al., 2011
Process Participation, quality of change communication, attitude of top management, support by supervisors
Participation during the change
Participation, communication and information, interactional and procedural justice, principal support during the change and management change competence
Bouckenooghe et al., 2009 Devos et al., 2007
Oreg et al., 2011
Table 1: Antecedents of individual attitudes toward change
2.4. Missing multilevel analyses of attitudes toward change
More and more researchers have acknowledged that organizational change initiatives involve the
implementation and adoption of change initiatives at multiple organizational levels, such as group and
individual level (Rafferty et al., 2013). However, Bouckenooghe (2010) found in his literature review
that the majority (84%) of studies on attitudes toward change adopted only an individual level of
analysis, which indicates that research which conceptualize attitudes toward change on more than one
level is scarce (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Paul et al., 2012; Rafferty et al., 2013). Articles that focus on the
individual attitude in isolation from the group seems to be deficient, because attitudes toward change
should be seen as a socially constructed phenomenon shaped by its context. Recipients based their
attitudes not only on their individual reflections but also on the collective sense making that comes
from the interaction with group members (Coghlan, 1994; Ford et al., 2008). Although, researchers are
aware of the importance of the group (Vakola, 2013), a multilevel analysis is lacking; therefore, this
research include both individual and group attitudes toward change.
11 2.5. Group attitudes toward change
The majority of the literature describes attitudes toward change on individual level (Bouckenooghe, 2010). However, only some authors started to review the attitude readiness on multiple levels (e.g.
Rafferty et al, 2013; Vakola, 2013). Rafferty et al (2013) propose that “group’s change readiness attitude emerge from the cognitions and affects of individuals that become shared because of social interaction processes which in turn manifest as higher level collective phenomena” (p.117). Group’s readiness to change is influenced by collective perceptions and beliefs that: change is needed, the group or organization has the ability to cope with change effectively and successfully, the group will benefit from change outcomes and the group has the capacity to cope with change requirements (Rafferty et al., 2013; Vakola, 2013). In addition, Rafferty et al (2013) argue that group’s readiness is also influenced by the occurrence of current and future-oriented positive group emotional responses to an organizational change. Furthermore, Bouckenooghe (2010) has focused on group attitudes toward change in general. He defines group attitudes toward change as “resistance or support of a team or group of individuals” (p. 520). How strongly an attitude is shared in a collective of individuals determines the group’s attitude toward change.
2.6. General antecedents of group attitudes toward change
Researchers found possible antecedents of group attitudes regarding the communication process:
communicating a work group-level change vision that addresses what the change means for the group;
communicating a work group – level implementation plan and participation and communication on group level. Additionally, researchers found other antecedents, such as collective efficacy to deal with the change; the emotional aperture of the change agent; work group psychological safety; the group’s affective tone; group cohesiveness and finally conformity to social norms (George, 1990; Rafferty et al., 2013; Sanchez-Burks & Huy, 2009; Vakola, 2013).
2.7. The link between individual and group attitudes toward change
In the current literature, authors often aggregate individual level data to group level data to make
statements about the group attitudes toward change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). However, Rafferty et al
(2013) mention that “this is problematic because relationships that hold at one level of analysis may
be stronger or weaker at a different level of analysis and may, in fact, even reverse” (p.112). As a
result, authors state that the underlying dynamics and relationship between the attitudes on individual
and group level need to be further explored by new empirical research to clarify the mutual influence
between both levels (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Rafferty et al., 2013; Vakola, 2013). Vakola (2013) and
Rafferty et al (2013) have already started with identifying potential dynamics and they argue that the
two levels of attitudes can influence each other in two ways.
12 2.7.1. Individual attitudes toward change influence group attitudes toward change
Some authors state that individual attitudes can influence group attitudes. For example, Vakola (2013) proposes that when a high proportion of team members have a high individual readiness to change, this will result in higher group readiness because the combination of group members’ psychological state have been associated with group processes. On the other hand, Rafferty et al (2013) wonder whether attitudes of influential recipients can influence individual and group attitudes toward change.
To explain the potential influence of individuals on fellow team members’ attitudes and in turn on the change success, the social interaction process between individuals needs to be further explored (Bartunek, Balogun, & Do, 2011).
Rafferty et al (2013) argue that group attitudes might be the shared belief of the social interaction and communication process between individuals that share their cognitions and affect about a change. The meaning of any change event is determined by individual’s and group’s sense making, which is the interpretive process through which people assign meanings to their experience (Rafferty et al., 2013;
Weick, 1995). Sense making during organizational change happens through connecting new schemas to someone’s current and past experiences and preexisting cognitive and emotional states (Huy, 1999;
Weick, 1995). When individuals try to make sense of a change event, they engage in a collective sense making process in which they interact with others to seek new information and to share information, opinions and experience about the change (Kramer, Dougherty, & Pierce, 2004). In such a way, they develop collective, shared meanings, perceptions and interpretations about a change (Bartunek, et al., 2011). Also Vakola (2013) supports this idea, she state “group readiness to change forms as group members collectively acquire, store, manipulate and exchange information about each other’s attitudes toward change and about their task, context, process and past behavior related to change.
Through processes of interaction, this information is combined, weighted and integrated to form group readiness” (p. 88). However, individuals do not only share their cognitions, they could also influence fellow team members with their affects about the change.
Rafferty et al (2013) propose that team members’ affect could influence the group attitude, because
groups can develop collective emotional reactions - the composition of various shared emotions of the
group members - in response to change, which in turn can influence group-think and behavior
(Barsade, 2002; Sanchez-Burks and Huy, 2009). In change situations, recipients share similar
experiences that consist of emotional components (Bartunek et al., 2011). The processes of emotional
comparison and contagion can contribute to this shared affective response to change. Members use
self-produced cues (individual perception of own behavior) and situational cues (perception regarding
others’ behaviors) to synchronize their moods with other members (Bartel & Saavedra, 2000). First,
emotional comparison occurs when a member use cues from similar others to label their aroused state.
13 This often happens in ambiguous and psychologically arousing situations like change events. A work group is often seen as an appropriate comparison because a member can evaluate the intensity, nature and appropriateness of one’s emotional state. The social comparisons partly determine the specific emotion and intensity that an individual felt (Bartel & Saavedra, 2000). Secondly, emotional contagion occurs when a person or group influence the emotions or behaviors of others through conscious and unconscious induction of emotional states (Barsade, 2002). Bartel and Saavedra (2000) defined it as the “tendency to automatically mimic and synchronize facial expressions, bodily movements, and vocalizations with those of another person and, consequently, to converge emotionally” (p. 201). Unconscious induction happens when “individuals mimic others’ emotional expressions and come to experience the emotions that mimicking represents” (Bartunek et al., 2011, p.
14). In addition, when internal psychological cues about one’s emotions and feelings are weak or ambiguous, an individual rely on behavioral cues of others to infer mood (Bartel & Saavedra, 2000).
Emotions are contagion when individuals perceive others’ emotions as desirable and appropriate for a given situation. It is likely that emotional contagion occurs mainly in uncertain situations, because at those circumstances individuals are more sensitive to emotional signals from others. However, it is not clear how emotional contagion and collective emotions are stimulated during change efforts and how they influence group attitudes toward change (Bartunek et al., 2011).
2.7.2. Group attitudes toward change influence individual attitudes toward change
It may also be possible that the group attitudes influence individual’s attitudes. As mentioned before, change recipients base their attitudes on both their individual reflection and through collective sense making that comes from the interaction with group members (Ford et al., 2008). Groups can have a powerful effect on individuals’ behavior, beliefs and values by exerting pressure on members to conform to group norms, which may in turn result in a shared behavior (Cummings, 2004). Group norms are the informal rules that groups adopt to regulate group member’s behavior (Vakola, 2013).
The subjective norm – the perceived social pressure to perform or not perform a specific behavior – is important for individual and collective attitudes toward change (Vakola, 2013). Jimmieson, Peach
&White (2008) found in their study that group norms only predict individual intentions when members have a strong identification with their reference group. Thus, group norms may influence and shape members’ individual perceptions, beliefs and attitude toward change when their in-group identification is high (Vakola, 2013). Finally, when subjective norms are favorable with respect to support for the change, individual attitudes toward change will also be more positive (Vakola, 2013)
Concluded, based on the literature about the dynamics between individual and group attitudes (e.g.
Rafferty et al., 2013; Vakola, 2013), it is expected that before recipients interact with each other, they
14 individually make sense of the change situation. Through the interaction process with fellow team members a group attitude is created, which in turn influence the individual attitudes. This reveals an ongoing interaction process between individuals. In the next paragraph, the responses of change agents are included in this ongoing interaction process.
2.8. Responses of change agents
Change agents are critical to the entire change process, from diagnosing a change need to the implementation of the change. Furthermore, they may help recipients to recognize the need for change, to show how the future situation may look like and to build support (Cawsey, Deszca, & Ingols, 2012).
However, as mentioned before, research generally ignores the responses of change agents on change recipients’ reactions. In the current focus on change recipients’ reactions, recipients are seen as an obstacle in change agents’ paths toward benefiting the organization (Oreg et al., 2011). Hence, besides researching change recipients’ reaction, this research also focuses on change agents’ responses to explore the perspective and role of both the recipients and agents.
Recipients’ attitudes change over time (Choi, 2011); therefore, it might be important to respond to the reactions of recipients to channel their attitudes to the desired state. Although specific responses of change agents on recipients’ attitudes are rather unexplored, there exist general change strategies, behaviors and influence tactics to influence change recipients’ reaction. This research tries to explore whether change agents use these initial general strategies, behaviors and influence tactics when responding on recipients’ reactions. Before change agents can response to recipients’ reactions, they should make sense of their reactions. Therefore, first, the sense making process of change agents is addressed, followed by the leadership strategies, behavior and influence tactics.
2.8.1. Interpreting and influencing recipients’ reactions: sense making and giving
During organizational change, change recipients based their own meanings of a change on their own sense making process and on the ongoing sense giving of change agents (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991;
Maitlis, 2005). Sense making includes “extracting particular behaviors and communications out of streams of ongoing events, interpret them to give them meaning and then acting on the resulting interpretation” (Ford et al., 2008, p. 363). On the other hand, sense giving is “a process of attempting to influence the sense making and meaning construction of others toward a preferred redefinition of organizational reality” (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991, p. 442). Organizational leaders often use sense giving, with symbols, images and influence tactics, to shape members’ sense making (Maitlis &
Christianos, 2014; Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007).
15 However, since most of the time, the context for understanding what is going on differs for change agents and change recipients, they do not automatically share the same meanings and understandings of the change (Bartunek et al., 2006). It is possible that the way in which change agents interpret recipients’ reactions to change deviate from recipients’ actual reactions (Ford et al., 2008). For example, expectation effects, like self-fulfilling prophecies and a self-serving account can influence change agents’ sense making process. When change agents go into a change expecting resistance, they are likely to find it because they make sense of other’s actions and communications in such a way that their beliefs are confirmed (Ford et al., 2008). Furthermore, resistance has long time be seen as something on the side of change recipients. Therefore, it was and is possible and usual for change agents to attribute unexpected problems in a change process to resistance, to divert attention away from other factors or their own failings (Ford et al., 2008).
In addition, how change recipients make sense of the sense giving of change agents can deviate from what change agents intend (Bartunek et al., 2006). For example, it is possible that change agents unintendedly provoke negative attitudes toward change by violating trust, broken agreements, communication breakdowns and resisting resistance of change recipients (Ford et al., 2008). In addition Klonek, Lehmann- Willebroack and Kauffeld (2014) examined “how change agents and change recipients behavior dynamically unfolds in interdependent patterns over time” (p. 352). Their findings show that change agents use autonomy-restrictive behavior when recipients sustain the current situation. However, this type of behavior in turn elicits sustain talk in recipients. As a result, a vicious cycle might arise in which change agent elicit the reactions that they want to prevent.
Furthermore, Szabla (2007) found in his study the possibility that change agents believe they are employing a specific strategy while the recipients perceive the employment of another strategy. It is possible that change agents employ influence tactics or interventions that are in conflict with the specific strategy a change agent is intended to use. Therefore, the actual use of a strategy may differ from the intended use of a strategy.
To achieving similar understandings of the change, Ford and Ford (2010) emphasized the importance
of ongoing conversations between change agents and recipients. Although mutual influences in change
agent-recipient interactions are unexplored to date, researchers suggest that it is likely that change
agents and change recipients can trigger and influence each other’s behavior over the course of the
interaction, which in turn can lead either to support or to resistance (Klonek et al., 2014). Furthermore,
it is not clear how interactions and communication between change agents and recipients influence
change recipients’ sense making and in turn the success of change (Bartunek et al., 2011).
16 2.8.2. Change agents’ leadership strategies
When change agents make sense of recipients’ attitudes, when they in turn give them meaning, they can act on the resulting interpretation (Ford et al., 2008). Change agents can use several strategies and tactics to deal with changes, which in turn can influence change recipients attitudes. Szabla (2007) is one of the researchers who investigated the relationship between the perception of change leadership strategy by recipients and their attitude toward change along emotional, cognitive and intentional dimensions. Szabla (2007) used the three strategies for planned change of Chin and Benne (1961): (1) rational-empirical, (2) normative-reeducative and (3) power-coercive. The rational-empirical approach uses reasoning as a tactic to implement change. Recipients will adopt a change when it is logically justified and when the benefits of the change are made clear. Change agents presume that change recipients are “guided by reason and use logic to change their behaviors” (Szabla, 2007, p.
528). The normative-reeducative approach assumes that individuals must participate in their own re- education. Before they can change their behavior, they should change their values, norms and attitudes. This approach values principles of representation, equal rights and opportunities, access to information and it focuses on participation of change recipients in designing, developing and implementing the change. Finally, the power-coercive approach is based on the use of power to implement change. This approach assumes that recipients will change because they are dependent on those people with authority (Szabla, 2007). The three strategies of Szabla (2007) are adopted in this research because Szabla’s close examination of the change strategies that came in the literature after Chin and Benne (1961) revealed that each strategy could be traced back to one of the three strategies.
Szabla (2007) found that the rational-empirical approach and the normative-reeducative approach resulted in positive reactions on both cognitive and emotional level. This resulted in intentions to support the change and recipients encouraged others to make the change effective. Furthermore, the power-coercive approach resulted in ambivalent reactions on the cognitive level and negative reactions on the emotional level. However, surprisingly this approach resulted in intentions to support the change; possibly, because the recipients’ thought it was the right thing to do. Finally, from the three approaches, the normative-reeducative approach provoked the most positive cognitions and emotions and the highest intentions to support the change.
2.8.3. Change agents’ behavior and influence tactics
Higgs and Rowland (2011) investigated the impact of leaders’ behavior on the success of change implementations. They identified three broad categories, namely: shaping, framing and creating.
Shaping behavior has a leader centric focus and the communication and actions are directly related to
the change. A leader acts as a role model, expresses his view of the change, wants to control and is
persuasive. Framing behavior is oriented towards establishing emotional connections to the change,
17 establishing starting points, designing the journey and changing the sense of the situation. Finally creating behavior is focused on creating capacity for change by making it possible to communicate and make connections. The latter two sets of behaviors, framing and creating, are subdivided into four behavior categories and are named “framcap” behaviors, see table 2.
Main Category Subcategory Focus behavior
Framing Attractor
Edge & Tension
Pull-oriented behavior focused on establishing an emotional connection to the change.
Challenging others to disturb the status quo and to deliver the change.
Framing &
Creating
Container Creating a clear framework for people to work within and expressing supportive behavior.
Creating Transforming space Creating change in the here and now and providing space to enable people to think and act differently.
Table 2: Framcap behaviors of Higgs and Rowland (2011).
Higgs and Rowland (2011) found that leader-centric behaviors (shaping) tend to have a negative impact on change success, while the more enabling behaviors (framcap) focused on facilitation and engaging appear to have a positive impact on successful change implementation. A situation in which a leader uses many framcap behaviors and less shaping behaviors might be the most successful situation. When both types of behaviors are high, this might have a negative impact on the change success because a leader might use the positive behaviors for his ends. Although the categories of leadership behaviors are linked to successful implementation of a change, Higgs and Rowland (2011) do not directly investigate the impact of those leadership behaviors on change recipients’ reactions to change. This research tries to find out if and how those behaviors influence the reactions of change recipients to change.
In addition, Falbe and Yukl (1992) examined the effectiveness of nine influence tactics. Influence processes are important for understanding how managers, with and without positional power, motivate peers and subordinates and how managers obtain support for a change project (Falbe & Yukl, 1992).
The nine influence tactics are presented in Table 3 on the next page. These influence tactics can be
ordered in push and pull tactics. Push tactics push people to accept the change by using non-emotional
rational persuasion and pressure. Pull tactics pull people in the desired direction by making people
enthusiastic and let them participate in the change.
18
Category Influence tactic ExplanationRational tactics Based on logic and information
Rational persuasion Persuade someone by developing a fact-based, logic argument.
Exchange Negotiation and offer exchange of favors or share of benefits.
Soft tactics Based on affiliation and relationship
Ingratiation Use friendliness, flattery and praise before making a request.
Consultation Show respect by getting someone’s input, seek participation of others.
Inspirational appeals Appeal to someone’s values, ideals and aspirations or increase someone’s confidence.
Personal appeal Appeal to someone’s feelings of friendship or loyalty.
Hard tactics Based on power and intimidation
Legitimating Assert authority or rules and policies to frame a request.
Pressure Use demands, threats, frequent checking and harassment.
Coalition Involvement of others to backup request and creation of subgroups or linkage with other groups to exert pressure.
Table 3. Influence tactics of Falbe & Yukl (1992).
Although change agents underestimate the ways, in which they can positively influence individuals and groups during a change (Kotter, 1979, 2008), there are several influence tactics that are effective to influence change recipients’ attitudes toward change positively. Falbe and Yukl (1992) distinguished three outcomes of influence tactics: commitment (attitude and behavioral change), compliance (only behavioral change and being apathetic) and resistance (avoidance of change). They found that the most effective strategies were two pull tactics: inspirational appeals and consultation.
The strategies of intermediate effectiveness, resulting in compliance, were a combination of push and pull tactics: rational persuasion, ingratiation, personal appeals and exchange tactics. Finally, the least effective strategies, resulting in resistance, were push tactics: pressure, legitimating tactics and coalition building.
Kotter and Schlesinger (2008) argue that a common mistake of change agents is to make use of “only one approach or a limited set of them regardless of the situation” (p, 137). In addition, change agents often underestimate the variety of recipients’ attitudes (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979, 2008). However, they should be aware that change recipients’ attitudes are “largely attributed to the situational variables particular to a change initiative, and as a result, may evolve over time as their experiences change” (Choi, 2011, p. 493). Therefore, change agents must carefully interpret change recipients’
attitudes during a change and in turn, they should adapt their strategies and approaches to enhance
recipients’ support for a change (Cawsey et al., 2012).
19 2.8.4. Focus of leadership strategies and behaviors
Although general leadership literature examined leadership at both individual and group level, the literature about organizational change conceptualized leadership most often on group level. “The appropriate change leadership behaviors, largely prescriptive, are assumed to be aimed at the whole work unit” (Herold, Fedor, Caldwell, & Liu, 2008, p. 348). At the individual level, leaders can use different strategies or behaviors toward different followers. In addition, at the group level, leaders can use behavior focused on the group, which can be shared or experienced by all group members (Herold et al., 2008). Herold et al (2008) argue that future research should research leadership in a change context at both group and individual level and compare them for explanatory power. This might be important because to date, research about how change agents act and react regarding recipients’
attitudes on both individual and group level is not well elaborated. Furthermore, researching leadership at both group and individual level might be necessary to find out if change agents are aware of the difference between both levels of attitudes.
Vakola (2013) is one of the few researchers who made a distinction between leadership interventions on individual level and on group level. At group level, change agents can focus on fostering favorable group norms and in-group identification, whereas at the individual level, they can identify recipients who could benefit from training programs. Furthermore, Penava and Ŝehić, (2014) found in their study that change agents who apply an individualized approach toward recipients are better able to impact recipients’ perceptions of change as something that is needed. In addition, with an individualized approach change agents gain a better understanding of change recipients’ fears and uncertainties regarding the change.
2.9. The role of the middle managers
The middle management is often seen as the critical success factor for a successful change implementation, however to date, the literature about the role of middle managers in change is fragmented (Butz et al., 2015). Middle managers are the connection between the strategic top of the organization and the operational employees. During change, middle managers are both change agents and change recipients. Huy (2002) argues “Middle managers as change agents have to strive continuously to manage their own emotions associated with change. To maintain operational continuity in a radical change context, recipients’ emotions also have to be carefully managed” (p.
33). Middle managers should create support of the workforce, influence attitudes and behaviors of
employees and recipients perceive them as a role model. Therefore, the way in which middle managers
interpret the change intended by the top managers is crucial for a successful implementation (Butz et
al., 2015). Middle managers should translate the change vision of higher levels into local changes and
they should keep the business going during a change (Maitlis & Christianos, 2014). However, this will
20 not happen automatically because they have their own interpretations of the change and can resist or support efforts from top leaders to influence the change (Sonenshein, 2010). Middle managers interpret the meaning of the change for themselves and for their teams through verbal, textual and non- verbal behaviors (Balogun & Johnson, 2004, 2005). They engage in both sense making and sense- giving (Maitlis & Lawrence, 2007) and in turn, they play an important role in influencing change recipients’ attitudes toward the change.
2.10. Change success
Recipients’ attitudes toward change are critical to successfully implementing an organizational change (Rafferty et al., 2013). Furthermore, it is likely that the response of change agents to these attitudes have a direct influence on the change progress and on the success of the change initiative (Oreg et al., 2011). Therefore, this research tries to find out and explore how change agents could influence the success of a change initiative by responding to change recipients’ attitudes on both individual and group level. This is also interesting because to date many studies do not report the actual effects of change because they fail to analyze the extent to which the change goals are realized (Kuipers, Higgs, Kickert, Tummers, Grandia & Van der Voet, 2014).
Change outcomes are viewed as “substantive results of the implementation of change that can be intended or unintended and positive or negative” (Kuipers et al., 2014 p. 12). The intended change outcome is the desired future situation, like an increase in efficiency, effectiveness and safety. The success of a change initiative can be operationalized as the extent to which the intended effect is reached and change objectives and goals are achieved (Kuipers et al., 2014). De Wit (1988) made a distinction between project success and success of project management effort. When projecting this on the concept of change outcome, there is a distinction between the success of the change process (focused on costs, time, quality and performance) and the change outcome (the degree to which objectives are met). When a change process is seen as successful, it is more likely that the change outcome is successful as well. This is in line with the distinction made by Vos and Brand (2012), which is used for this research. They distinguished satisfaction with the change process and satisfaction with the outcome of the change. Satisfaction with the change outcome is conceptualized as the extent to which agents or recipients are satisfied with the achievement of predefined change goals, with the performance as a result of the change and with the benefits of the change for the organization.
Satisfaction with the change process is seen as being satisfied with the participation of people during
the change, with the leadership style of the change agent, with the time spent to realize the change and
with the cost of the resources (money, manpower) used during the change (Vos & Brand, 2012).
21 2.11. Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework, presented in Figure 1 on the next page, is derived from the literature review. The focus of this research is on the right side of the dotted line. Concluded, the goals of this research are: (1) adopting a multilevel analysis to gain deeper understanding in the mechanism that underlie the transition of individual into group attitude toward change and vice versa; (2) investigating how change agents respond to change recipients’ attitudes on both individual and group level; (3) gaining deeper understanding in the effect of change agents’ responses on the further development of change recipients’ attitudes and in turn how it affects the success of the change implementation.
Finally, the role of the middle management will be taken into account because based on the existing literate, middle managers play an important role in influence change recipients’ attitudes.
Figure 1: Theoretical framework
3. METHODOLOGY
In this methodology section the chosen research approach, the data collection process, including the research context and case selection, the method of analysis and the quality criteria are outlined.
3.1. Theory Development process
This research used an exploratory approach because the described business phenomenon has not been
investigated very extensively in academic literature. The objective of this research is to explore how
individual and group attitudes toward change influence each other and how change agents respond to
both levels of attitudes. In addition, this research tries to get deeper understanding in the effect of
22 change agents’ responses on the further development of recipients’ attitudes and the effect on the success of a change. Therefore, a theory development approach fits best with the objectives of this research (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012).
The theory development process is based on the first part of the empirical cycle, starting with observation and induction. The process used in this research is aligned with the work of Eisenhardt (1989). The steps that she describes in her article are followed in this research: select a business phenomenon that is not extensively addressed in academic literature, select cases to build theory, use multiple data collection methods, conduct within-case and cross-case analysis, compare with existing conflicting and similar literature and shape propositions (Eisenhardt, 1989, Van Aken et al., 2012).
3.2. Research context description
This theory development research is conducted in two different plants of a large international dairy company. One plant is located in the southwest of the Netherlands and within this plant consumer products are produced. From now on, this plant is named Plant A. The other plant is located in the east of the Netherlands and within this plant milk powders are produced. From now on, this plant is named Plant B. Within these plants a safety program will be implemented that should trigger a behavioural change of employees focused on safety which should lead to a safety culture.
In this dairy company labour safety is high on the agenda, however initiatives to improve the labour safety were often locally taken, because there was no central safety program. Therefore, in 2013 a safety program was developed for the whole company which should form the basis of any additional project initiated by the different locations. The objective of this safety program is to formally implement safety rules and to create or improve a safety culture in which safety is priority and value number one. Within this program, the model of hearts and minds is used for defining the steps on the culture ladder, see Appendix B. The goal and ambition of the company is to reach the pro-active level within four years and a lost time accidents (LTA) rate of max 0,5 accidents within seven years. Being safe must become the critical aspect of the work employees do every day. To reach this safety culture and zero accidents, each employee is expected to be accountable and responsible for safety of themselves and others, they should follow the safety rules and behave according to it, everyone will intervene when observing unsafe behaviour or situations and finally, every leader demonstrates commitment to safety.
This change project is appropriate for exploring the research questions because it is a change which
affects the daily work of individuals and teams, there are corporate change agents who initiate the
change and plant and middle managers who have to implement the change. Although the basics of the
23 safety program are the same for each plant, to implement the change they plant managers could choose their own approach within the central established limits. Therefore, it likely that there are differences between plant managers’ change approaches.
3.3. Case selection
Within this research, four cases are used. According to Eisenhardt (1989) between four and ten cases usually works well because in this way, you are able to generate theory with complexity and the empirical grounding is convincing. These cases are selected based on theory sampling, which means that they are chosen for theoretical reasons (Eisenhardt, 1989). The case selection is based on the theoretical constructs of the framework used in the research, as described on the next page. Multiple cases are used to extend emergent theory (Eisenhardt, 1989) and allowed to use replication logic. In addition, replication logic is used, “in which the cases are treated as independent experiments that confirm or disconfirm emerging conceptual insights” (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997, p. 3).
In each plant, two cases are selected. In plant A, the technical services department and a processing department are selected. In plant B, two processing departments are selected because it was not possible to include the technical service department. The cases consist of existing teams, which made it possible to research the mutual influence of the individual and group attitude. It is expected that the change approach within two cases of one plant are more or less the same because of the same communication structure. Therefore, the two cases within each plant are used as a literal replication (Blumberg, Cooper & Schindler, 2008). In this way, findings can be replicated within categories (Eisenhardt, 1989). Furthermore, the two cases in plant A and the two cases in plant B are used as theoretical replication (Blumberg, et al., 2008) because it is expected that they are polar cases.
Although the safety program is the same for each plant, the plant managers are responsible for the real
implementation within the plant. Therefore, it is expected that the change approach between the two
plants differ. Furthermore, although the cases are not selected on outcome in advance, there exists a
difference in outcome. At the current moment plant A reached three years without lost time accidents,
while plant B reached 1 year without lost time accidents. The differences in the change approach
between the two plants is chosen as the basis to investigate which effect the different approaches had
on the development of recipients’ attitudes toward change an on the success of the change.
24
Case Expected Change
Approach
Outcome
Case 1: Technical service department - Plant A Approach A 3 years without LTA Case 2: Processing department - Plant A Approach A 3 years without LTA Case 3: Processing department 1 - Plant B Approach B 1 year without LTA Case 4: Processing department 2 - Plant B Approach B 1 year without LTA Table 4. Case selection
3.4. Data collection
At the beginning of this research, an email was send to two plant managers to invite them to participate in this research. They were both willing to participate and they invited their management team and the employees to participate in the research. To gather information for building the cases, several data collection techniques were used: interviews and survey. The information was gathered from December 2015 until February 2016.
3.4.1. Participants
In total, seventeen participants were involved in this research, see table 5. From corporate level, two change agents participated in this research because they were responsible for the content of the change program. Their interviews are used to describe the context of the change. The participants of plant A were the plant manager as a change agent, two middle managers, and five operational employees as change recipients. From plant B, the plant manager, one middle manager and five operational employees as recipients are included. Unfortunately, the middle manager of one team was not able to participate in this research.
Case Recipients Middle
managers
Plant agent Corporate agents
Case 1:
Technical service department- Plant A 3
(1-R1, 1-R2, 1-R3) 1 (1-MM)
1 (PCAA)
2
(CCA1, CCA2) Case 2:
Processing department - Plant A
2
(2-R1, 2-R2)
1 (2-MM) Case 3:
Processing department 1 - Plant B
2
(3-R1, 3-R2)
1 (3-MM)
1 (PCAB) Case 4:
Processing department 2 - Plant B
3
(4-R1, 4-R2, 4-R3) X
