THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CHANGE MONITOR
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics & Business
Master thesis
MSc Business Administrations, Change Management
Groningen, March 2014
First Supervisor: Dr. C. Reezigt
Second Supervisor: Prof. Dr. J.I. Stoker
ii
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CHANGE MONITOR
Abstract
Organizational change tends to be initiated more often in order to survive in an increasingly turbulent environment. However, many change efforts fail to reach their goals. A feedback system can help organizations to change successfully. Nonetheless, there is a lack of attention for the creation of custom-made feedback systems for organizations in order to cope with changes. This paper demonstrates the development of such an instrument for the municipality of Groningen. The municipality is facing many organizational changes, which have been analyzed using stakeholder interviews and documentation of the municipality. Simultaneously, organizational literature was studied. A link between the change initiative at the municipality and theories of organization development (OD) and organizational learning (OL) was found. Based on the organizational change analysis as well as OD and OL theories, constructs have been gathered and selected. The scales of these constructs were combined into a manager and employee questionnaire, which were translated into Dutch. Subsequently, the Dutch questionnaires were pilot-tested using interviews. Five managers and five employees were interviewed by using the Think Aloud Protocol (TAP). The results of these interviews led to 25 adjustments in both questionnaires. Both the final employee and manager versions of this questionnaire are included in the Appendices.
iii Preface
The municipality of Groningen finds itself in a dynamic environment. In order to cope with the changing environment the municipality changes as well. Therefore, the management of the municipality created a department called ‘Organisatie Ontwikkeling’ (OO). The goal of this organizational development department, as the name suggests, is to develop the organization.
Employees of the OO department wanted to get a grip on all the changes. Therefore they turned to the University of Groningen. Supervisors of the Change Management master program offered the
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ... ii Preface ... iii Table of Contents ... iv 1. Introduction ... 6 1.1 The monitor ... 6 1.2 Change context ... 8 1.3 Change analysis ... 8 1.4 A look ahead ... 11 2. Questionnaire Development ... 13 2.1 Theoretical background ... 13
2.2 OD/OL at the municipality ... 20
2.3 Stakeholders at the municipality ... 22
2.4 The selection process ... 25
2.5 Constructs ... 26 3. Method ... 31 3.1 The instrument ... 31 3.2 Cognitive interviews ... 31 4. Results ... 33 4.1 Interview results ... 33
4.2 Revision of the items ... 33
4.3 Final versions of the questionnaire ... 39
5. Conclusion ... 40
5.1 Recommendations ... 40
5.2 Limitations ... 42
v Appendices
A. Poster ‘Eén Groningen, één organisatie’ and its explanation ... 51
B. Sections of the ‘VOS’ program ... 54
C. Desired leadership style at the municipality ... 57
D. Table of interviewees ... 59
E. Matrix of requirements ... 60
F. Translation report ... 63
G. First draft of questionnaire ... 70
H. Interview results ... 74
I. Final questionnaires ... 83
1. Introduction
The environment of organizations is getting increasingly dynamic (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993). Organizations in both the private and the public sector feel the pressure of the changing environment (Oreg & Berson, 2011). In order to survive, organizations need to adapt to this changing environment (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Holt & Vardaman, 2013). However, there is a general acceptance, amongst those studying it, that many change efforts fail (Burnes 2003; McKinsey & Company, 2008; Senturia, Flees & Maceda, 2008). There are several reasons for such a high level of failure. Some examples are poor communication, weak leadership, an inappropriate culture, political infighting, and a lack of readiness to change (Armenakis, et al., 1993; Burnes, 2003; Hoag, Ritschard & Cooper, 2002; Kotter, 1995). During organizational change, information about such matters can help management tremendously to turn change into success. Although measuring everything is not very effective nor efficient, a well-designed and custom-made measurement tool can provide an organization with such information. However, measurement is given very little attention (Cawsey, Deszca & Ingols, 2012). Therefore, this paper focuses on the development of a custom-made measurement instrument for a changing organization. Other change practitioners can use this paper as an example of how a ‘change monitor’ can be custom made for an organization. The municipality of Groningen is encountering many organizational changes and is therefore an excellent organization to use as an example for the development of this instrument.
1.1 The Monitor
According to Palmer, Dunford and Akin (2009), a focus on measurement is important for two reasons. The first reason is that by measuring the change, progress can be monitored. Interpreting measures allows one to see whether objectives are met and, if needed, to modify plans in the light of past experiences. The second reason is that the subject of measurement has a huge impact on people’s behavior. The subject of a measurement influences the direction, content and outcome of a change initiative. As a result of a measurement system, people pay extra attention to their actions (Fred, 2004). The subject of measurement gets extra attention from both employees and management. For instance, if an organization decides to measure ‘customer satisfaction’, organizational members will try to make customers more satisfied. Therefore, it is important that the topic of measurement is also the focus of the organization.
feeling vulnerable. However, these concerns do not dispute that a well designed feedback system could contribute to successful organizational change.
Two kinds of measuring are helpful on organizational change. The first kind is called ‘results measures’; “how we will now that we are there and that we have done it”. The second kind is called ‘process measures’; ”how we will know we are doing the things all along that would get us to it, or whether readjustments are in order” (Kanter, Stein & Jick, 1992, p. 512). Both kinds of measuring are important. A questionnaire is a commonly used measuring instrument and has several advantages. A questionnaire can measure attitudes, opinions, and experiences of employees and track attitudes over time. Furthermore, a questionnaire provides anonymity to respondents and makes it possible to measure the opinions of a group of participants. In addition, a questionnaire allows employees to give their honest opinions. They might not feel comfortable stating those publically (Cawsey et al., 2012). These advantages make a questionnaire a suitable instrument for measuring change. One should be aware, however, that a questionnaire is an instrument that can only provide the municipality with data. Only if data is gathered in a systematic and routine fashion, and then transformed and interpreted, it can be called a monitor.
Nadler (1988) advises organizations to at least conduct a full-scale assessment within six months of the initiation of a major change activity. Burnes (2009) gives advice on its frequency by stateing: “the more uncertain and unclear a change process is, the greater the need for periodic review becomes” (p. 454). However, more feedback is not always beneficial; one should consider that too much feedback reduces task effort and decreases learning and performance over time (Lam, DeRue, Karam & Hollenbeck, 2011).
Although the management of the municipality could not tell exactly which information was needed, there was agreement that longitudinal information about the organizational change could benefit the change. Therefore, an instrument had to be designed. This instrument would have to provide the municipality with valuable information for a longer period of time. The municipality needed a ‘change monitor’, as it was referred to. A change monitor can have several benefits.
colleagues. In addition, if the feedback coming from the monitor is captured in a well-planned process, the opportunity to stimulate and control constructive dialogues about the change increases.
1.2 Change Context
Not only the environment of private organizations is getting more dynamic, but also the environment of Dutch municipalities (Ter Bogt, 2008). The economical crisis of 2008 for instance, brought long lasting pressures on Dutch municipalities (Yerkes & Van der Veen, 2011). On the part of the national government more tasks are accommodated to municipalities while budgets are cut. Some examples are decentralization of the provision of social security and public financed care services (Yerkes & Van der Veen, 2011). Furthermore, reorganizations of Dutch local governments may also be necessary to improve the efficiency of public services. One example is the abolishing of district water boards and transferring their tasks to the provinces (Bos, 2012). In addition, changing needs of local businesses and citizens create an increasingly complex environment in which the municipality resides. Therefore the municipality needs to work more effectively and efficiently.
Groningen. This Dutch city is the capital of the province carrying the same name. Almost 200,000 people live in this city. Groningen has a regional function, as it is the largest city in the north of the Netherlands. Groningen is an old city with a rich cultural history. Nowadays, Groningen is closely associated with its universities and a large number of students. Furthermore, Groningen promotes this image with its media slogan ’Groningen, city of talent’.
Latest history of the municipality. In the beginning of the 1980s, Dutch municipalities were heavily criticized by the public and powerful pressure groups (Ter Bogt & Van Helden, 2000). The criticism was that municipalities spent too much money and that they were having an inward looking attitude. These critical considerations led to organizational changes at Dutch municipalities, such as decentralization (Aardema & Korsten, 2009). The municipality of Groningen created a so-called ‘service model’, which basically divided the organization into eight different services (business units). Each service had its own director, staff, and culture. This was the organizational structure at the municipality of Groningen until 2011.
1.3 Change Analysis
the meanwhile, the city manager lost influence and could only contribute in the role of a panel leader. The increasing inability of the services to work together is called compartmentalization, which is the disadvantage of the service model that is mentioned most (Aardema & Korsten, 2009; RMO, 2008).
One of the negative consequences of compartmentalization was the lacking ability of the municipality to think and act on a strategic level, which is the level above services. Furthermore, due to the compartmentalization collaboration between the services was very difficult and inflexible. It became common practice for services to invoice each other for work done, causing extra costs and delays. Furthermore, when the mayor and the executive board needed to make complex decisions, every service involved gave its own advice, which resulted in several conflicting types of advice and a difficult decision-making process. In addition, the pyramid structure of the services created long communication lines and a slow decision-making process as well as increased bureaucracy (Aardema & Korsten, 2009). Together with an increasingly dynamic environment, these disadvantages of the service model caused employees at the municipality as well as the mayor and the executive board to doubt whether the service model was the most suitable organizational structure for the municipality.
In 2011, the mayor and the executive board decided to replace the old top management team of the municipality. The top management team consisted of eight directors from the eight services. All eight directors were discharged and replaced by five new managers. The new top management team is called the Groningen Management Team (GMT). The GMT was allocated the task to stimulate integration throughout the organization.
Guiding instruments for the change. In order to promote integration throughout the organization, the GMT created three guiding instruments: the vision, the core values and the control model. These guiding instruments were formulated in collaboration with middle management and operational management. The goal of these instruments was to get a consistent stream of actions towards the desired situation: one Groningen, one municipality. The guiding instruments are a new vision, core values, and a control model. These have been visualized by using a poster. The poster and its explanation (Appendix A) provide information on the guiding instruments of the change and are summarized below.
Vision. The municipality of Groningen created and communicated a vision throughout the
wants to become more flexible. This increases the ability to change when the municipality is supposed to.
Core Values. The municipality defined new core values. Collaboration is one of them.
Employees have to connect with direct colleagues and colleagues from other departments. Furthermore, employees need to be reliable, which is a type of behavior that suits a governmental institution. Moreover, employees need to show courage. This is not meant as a call for irresponsible behavior but a call for creativity, for coming up with new ideas for improvement. Related to courage is openness: employees should be more receptive to new ideas and must give their honest opinions. Finally, employees must be decisive. This means not getting stuck in making reports or plans, but being action-oriented. The goal of the new core values is to change the behavior of the employees and thereby the organizational culture of the municipality.
Control model. The control model contains a set of principles on how to structure and control
the organization. The central goal of these principles is ‘less compartmentalization, more integration’. Some examples of these principles are more customer-oriented processes, flat and programmatic structures, a maximum span of control of eighteen employees, and flexible working offices and practices. More detailed information on the control model, vision and core values can be found in Appendix A.
The municipality is working and changing towards ‘one Groningen, one organization’. Collaboration is formulated as the way to achieve this. Therefore, collaboration is visualized as the inner circle in the poster and also described in the guiding instruments. In order to change behavior and to institutionalize the vision, core values, and principles of the control model, several training activities are provided for managers and employees.
Managing the change. As mentioned in the introduction the organizational development department (OO) initiated the request for the monitor. OO is one of the departments that were created in order to control strategic topics. The task of the OO department is to direct the changes in the municipality. Therefore, OO can create, plan, and integrate programs, which will lead to the guiding principle ‘one Groningen, one organization’ (Appendix A). A program is a plan for improvement and consists of several planned change activities. The most important program, by far, is called ‘Verbinden Ontwikkelen Samenwerken’ (VOS). This is a training and development program for all employees of the organization. The goal of the VOS program is to help managers and employees to work in a changing organization. Furthermore, this program helps managers and employees to shape changes in the fields of collaboration, attitudes and behavior (Appendix B). The program is divided into three parts: one for the managers, one for the employees, and one for the new departments. The training for the managers started in December 2013. The other parts of the training start in 2014.
learning manager’. The municipality states in this document: “Because of the increasing complexity of the environment, managers must support employees to carry out their jobs with satisfaction and joy. Success depends on involvement of employees. Therefore, managers must invest time and energy on employees. Furthermore, managers have to give employees the freedom to shape their own careers, explore alternative experiences, and to develop themselves constantly.” This captures the desired leadership style for managers at the municipality, which is targeted by the VOS program. The desired effects of the VOS program on managers, employees, and newly formed departments are described in Appendix B section 1.
In 2013, the OO department worked on the VOS program. This program was officially approved in December 2013. However, the subjects that would have to be measured by the monitor had to be selected before the official approval of the VOS program. Due to the size and impact of the VOS program, the input of the plan could not be discarded nor used as a basis for the change monitor. Therefore, it was decided to use the VOS program as a linkage to organizational theory, which is described in chapter two of this paper.
1.4 A Look Ahead
This paper describes the development process of the change monitor. The change monitor is custom-made at the request of the municipality of Groningen. The creation process is illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Process of the Creation of the Change Monitor.
following constructs are described in this thesis: empowerment, involvement in the change process, collaboration, organizational citizenship behavior, skill flexibility and behavior flexibility. In the thesis of Heico Klaassen the other constructs can be found, these are: shared vision, attitude of top management toward change, general support by supervisors, readiness for change, perceived group performance.
2. Questionnaire Development
This chapter describes how the input for the questionnaire is gathered. First, a literature review about organization development (OD) and organizational learning (OL) is given. Subsequently, the link between the change at the municipality and the OD and OL theories is discussed. In addition, the stakeholder interviews are discussed. Based on the interviews, along with the OD/OL theories, constructs are gathered and selected. This chapter ends by describing the constructs that are used in the questionnaire.
2.1 Theoretical Background
The changes that are initiated within the municipality resemble theories in academic literature. These theories are organization development, commonly referred to as OD, and organizational learning, indicated as OL (Argyris, 2001; Cummings & Worley, 2009). The change at the municipality of Groningen cannot be captured in one comprehensive model. For this reason, the OD and OL theories were used as a theoretical framework for the change at the municipality. First, the theoretical background of OD and OL is discussed.
2.1.1 Organization Development. Many researchers consider Kurt Lewin as the most influential pioneer of planned change and OD (Burnes, 2009). His contributions, like the Three-Step model of change, are the basis for a wide range of theories and other N-step models (Mento, Jones & Dirndorfer, 2002). A particular set of behaviors is the result of an equilibrium between two opposing forces. One of the forces is maintaining the status quo (restraining forces) and the other one is striving for change (driving forces). If both behaviors are equally strong, the set of behaviors is not susceptible to change. Change occurs if this balance is disturbed. This can take place if the change force is strengthened or if the force that maintains the status quo decreases. When the balance is disrupted, new behavior is learnt. Change can be planned in this sense. Lewin believed that in order for change to be successful and lasting, three steps needed to be taken. The first step is unfreezing, which involves destabilizing the equilibrium before new behavior can be learnt. The next step is moving. In this phase, individuals and groups abandon a set of behaviors and move towards a more acceptable set of behaviors. The final step in this process is refreezing. During this stage, new behaviors are secured and stabilized at a group level. Consequently, new behavior can be lasting (Lewin, 1947). Lewin’s Three-Step model of change gives direction for developing planned change initiatives. Taking into consideration that behavioral change consists of several stages, organizations were able to foster desired behavior by ensuring that these three stages are completed. For this reason, OD is considered a process-oriented approach (Bushe & Marshak, 2008).
Levin 2007, p. 5). In conjunction with other factors, Lewin’s groundbreaking work is considered the foundation of OD (Cummings & Worley, 2009).
OD gained popularity during the 1950s. Industrialization of society influenced the way organizations dealt with human labor. There was no labor regulation and labor was cheap. Therefore, working conditions in factories were miserable. Then, a more humanistic approach was introduced. OD is considered a post-war response to the dehumanizing effects of scientific management (Garrow, 2009). French and Bell (1999) elaborate on this by stating that OD is characterized by an integrative framework of theories and practices, which is focused on solving problems in organizations by addressing the ‘human’ side of the organization. They also state that “organization development is about people and organizations, and people in organizations and how they function” (French & Bell, 1999, p. 1). Burke and Bradford (2005) add that OD is a system-wide process of planned change aimed at increasing organizational effectiveness. Effectiveness of an organization can be improved by using an open systems approach, which enhances congruence between key organizational dimensions (i.e. environment, culture, work procedures and processes etc.). To conclude, OD is a field of knowledge with mainly humanistic core values, but it also aims to acquire organizational gains.
Since the 1950s, OD has evolved. Many authors elaborated on this with their models and theories. OD scholars have varying ideas of the definition of OD. Egan (2002) identified 27 different definitions of OD. Unfortunately, there is not a common definition that sums it all up. Although there is no consensus on an OD definition, there is consensus on several OD characteristics. OD is a planned and organization-wide effort. In addition, it aims to increase organizational effectiveness and health by using planned interventions that are grounded in behavioral science (Beckhard, 2006; Brown & Harvey, 2006). Therefore, OD efforts are planned change approaches that involve the entire organization (or a large part of it). OD efforts are always directed at developing an organization or the growth of individual members. This can be achieved by using interventions that are initiated and directed top-down (Brown & Harvey, 2006).
other cases, performance enhancement is emphasized more, involving changes being executed in a more directive and top-down manner (French & Bell, 1999). Besides, participation of the entire organization, which has been mentioned previously, is downplayed. McLean (2006) states that OD recognizes the importance of top management commitment, support, and involvement but it also affirms a bottom–up approach to improve an organization. This coincides with the concept’s underlying idea of empowerment, which is a core value of OD according to McLean (2006). Empowerment refers to the idea of helping employees to increase their level of autonomy. Empowering members of an organization ensures a sense of personal power and courage in order to increase the effectiveness of the organization and the morale of employees. One of many ways to empower people is giving them an opportunity to voice their opinions in surveys.
Data collection is considered an important part of organizational change. According to Cummings and Worley (2009), survey feedback is important in OD efforts. In fact, OD cannot exist without some kind of feedback system. OD can be seen as a cycle, in which information from survey feedback is essential before initiating action. Using a survey-kind of feedback system has several benefits. First, it can indicate the problems of an organization and their locations. Evidently, this can only take place if the feedback system is designed in this fashion. Survey feedback can also be used as a tool to pressure management to respond. Besides, measuring improvement leads to increased motivation among employees and management. And last but not least, employee morale is boosted through a sense of empowerment (McLean, 2006). This fits the empowerment aspect of OD, which was mentioned at an earlier stage. One can say that the notion of action research is the core of OD.
Although OD has been very important in the development of organizations, OD has also been criticized. According to a survey among 6,000 OD practitioners, OD lacks a clear definition and distinction. OD practitioners are not subjected to some sort of quality control. And finally, there is ambiguity when it comes to the value of using an OD approach (Wirtemberg, Abrams & Ott, 2004). This can also be explained by Burke’s (2004) criticism that OD has lost touch with its humanistic roots as lately OD has been focusing on organization-wide change rather than individual development. Contrarily, others state that OD tries to impose its humanistic values onto the client organization instead of working with the values of the organization (Porras & Bradford, 2004). Although there has been much debate whether OD is dead or alive, it is still considered an important field by many (Greiner & Cummings, 2004).
process can be called OD if learning occurs. This relates to another important approach in organizational literature, namely organizational learning.
2.1.2 Organizational Learning. Besides the discussion of a clear OD definition, in academic literature there is much debate about the definition of organizational learning. It seems that many scholars define organizational learning (or the learning organization) in varying ways. ‘Organizational learning’ and ‘the learning organization’ are often used interchangeably. Argyris and Schön (1978) state that a learning organization is the highest state of organizational learning. A learning organization is capable of transforming itself continuously through the development and involvement of all its members. Thus, the learning organization can be seen as the practical implementation of the concept of organizational learning. Although academic literature clarifies the scientific nomenclature of organizational learning, it does not offer adequate unity when it comes to defining the concept.
Since the early 90s, attention for organizational learning (OL) has grown (Argote & Miron-Spektor, 2011). According to Cohen and Sproul (1991) OL is a concept that is “excessively broad, encompassing merely all organizational change”. Argote and Miron-Spektor (2011) state: “the core of most definitions of OL is that organizational learning is a change in the organization that occurs as the organization acquires experience” (p. 1124). These views on the definition of OL are extremely broad and are not conclusive about what OL is, or is not. Garvin (2000) use a more clear definition: “a learning organization is skilled at creating, acquiring, interpreting, transferring, and retaining knowledge and at purposefully modifying its behavior to reflect new knowledge and insights” (p. 11). Although each scholar who defines OL emphasizes different aspects of OL, most agree that learning organizations are effective in retaining and using knowledge to deal with environmental change effectively.
Argyrys (2001), states that an organization is more able to detect and correct errors when the organization is better at learning. He also suggests that an organization becomes more innovative when it evolves into a learning organization. A link between innovation and OL can frequently be found. It is suggested that OL allows an organization to develop capabilities that enhance innovation. Both concepts have also been related to an increased business performance (Jiménez-Jiménez & Sanz-Valle, 2011).
environmental threat. Martin (2000) argues that if employees in an organization are capable of recognizing problems, and solving them by looking for new solutions, the organization is ‘learning on its own’. By encouraging employees to experiment, to take risks, to share ideas and to challenge the status quo, one can set the stage for organizational learning to take place (Carnall, 2003). These practices ensure ongoing, continuous learning and change within the organization, which is resilient against environmental change. An important aspect of OL is encouraging and maintaining a culture that enables learning (as explained earlier). Proper support from top management is considered crucial in this regard (Clarke, 1994). By rewarding and empowering employees to look for new solutions, to experiment and challenge the established order, organization leaders can facilitate OL (Burnes, 2009). Cummings and Worley (2001) state that leadership plays an important role in OL. According to them, managers across the organization must lead, promote and be involved in the learning process of the organization.
One of the most renowned models in OL literature is the model of Argyris and Schön (1978). Argyris and Schön have identified three types of learning. The first, single-loop learning, or adaptive learning, is aimed at improving the status quo. It occurs when members in an organization try to correct errors and reduce gaps between current and desired conditions. An example of this is monitoring quality standards. This can result in incremental changes in the performance of an organization. The second type, double-loop learning, or generative learning, is focused at changing the status quo and goes beyond single-loop learning. Double-loop learning occurs on a more abstract level. It challenges the organization’s underlying norms, values, policies and procedures that create the standards of the organization that employees try to adhere to during single-loop learning (Burnes, 2009). An example of double-loop learning is questioning quality standards and procedures that resulted in the quality standards. Thus, this type of learning is directed at reframing, rather than improving. The final type of learning is triple-loop learning, also called deuteron learning, which focuses on transforming an organization. It involves learning how we learn. Therefore, triple-loop learning could lead to improvements in the way learning is conducted throughout the organization (Argyris & Schön 1978; Burnes, 2009). Coplien (1998) posits that triple loop learning is all about identifying patterns in the organization. Although patterns can be dynamic and complex, much can be learnt from studying those. This strongly relates to the contributions of Peter Senge, who is another leading author in the OL field and has also elaborated on the work of Argyris and Schön.
to environmental situations. As can be noticed by these five disciplines, organizational learning is not just about individual learning, it is also about multiple mental models existing within an organization and about emphasizing the importance of team learning.
OL has proven to be a useful approach to promote and facilitate learning in organizations. However, it has been criticized heavily. Since the end of the ‘80s, the learning organization has gained popularity, but since the millennium interest in the OL concept has decreased. This has partly been caused by the fact that there was not much empirical evidence supporting the existence of true ‘learning organizations’. It was suggested that OL was merely a hype (Smith, 2008). A frequently mentioned drawback of OL is the lack of consensus about a definition of the concept (Cummings & Worley, 2009; Burnes, 2009). Another type of criticism is the fact that the term ‘learning organization’ suggests that the organization itself is learning. This is a misconception as only individuals can learn. Of course, an organization can bolster learning by securing it into its culture, processes, etc. However, an organization is incapable of learning itself (Thompson, 1995).
It is almost impossible to summarize the concept of OL as there are many different views on what OL actually is. However, Burnes (2009) gives five factors inherently to OL that scholars agree upon: (1) An organization’s survival is dependent upon its ability to learn at the same rate (or faster) than the environment changes. (2) Learning is a collective, rather than just an individual process. (3) There is a tendency towards system thinking. (4) By becoming a learning organization, the organization does not merely inherit the capability to adapt to environmental changes, but also to transform the organization itself. And (5) the learning organization can adapt to the environment and ultimately even transform the environment. Thus, a learning organization is not just a collection of learning individuals, but rather a knowledge sharing network that adjusts its ‘hard’ side (i.e. structure, processes etc.) as well as its ‘soft’ side (focus on individual learning) in such a way that it is capable of facilitating learning on a high level.
considered the final goal of any change initiative (Lien et al., 2007). Besides the previously mentioned similarities, OD and OL have the same scope of change. Both consider organizational transformation a possibility for change. As well as OD, OL considers the use of feedback a useful tool in the change process.
The similarities that have been discussed lead to the conclusion that the fields of OD and OL have a resemblance. Although the approaches have certain similarities, the field of OD is seen as a more broad approach in change management, where OL is seen as a part of, or rather an extension of, OD instead of a stand-alone approach to the development of organizations (Burnes, 2009). Besides the similarities, there are also some differences between the two approaches. These differences are discussed. A summary can be found in Table 1. OD considers organizational change a process with a beginning and an end. Arndt and Bigelow (2000) argue that organizational change might not be as Table 1
Similarities and differences between OD and OL.
Similarities between OD and OL Both approaches…
… focus on a team or group level. … have a positive view on learning.
… acknowledge the central position of taking action in the change process. … recognize the ‘human side’ of change.
… emphasize a bottom-up approach.
… are directed at performance improvement.
… emphasize that employees have to be empowered.
… make use of survey feedback as a useful tool in organizational change. … can be used to bring about organizational transformation.
Differences between OD and OL
OD OL
-Change is considered temporary. -Change is a natural state of being. -A comprehensive approach to implement
changes into organizations.
-An approach that prescribes how organizations should work.
-Uses interventions to bring about change. -Considered an intervention, resulting in a learning organization.
-Is directed at organizational change in any given environment.
simple as statically moving from one state to another, i.e. freezing-unfreezing elements in an organization one wants to change, as OD proposes.
Contrary to OD, OL is an approach to change that recognizes that organizational change is an ongoing, unpredictable effort, which is subject to environmental change. Moreover, OD is more of a general approach to bring about organizational change, whereas OL is considered an end goal (the learning organization) and, eventually, a modus operandi of an organization to interact with the environment. Therefore, OD is seen more as an approach that uses interventions and OL, in a certain respect, as an intervention itself. Finally, OD is an approach that addresses organizational change regardless of the environment. OL, however, assumes that organizations reside within a fast moving and dynamic environment.
2.2 OD/OL at the Municipality
The analysis in chapter 1.3 describes the change at the municipality. The guiding instruments drive the municipality to the desired direction and the VOS program explains which behavior of individuals and teams is desired. Furthermore, the VOS program includes a special leadership program. Chapter 2.1 describes the theory of OD and OL and shows that these theories have many similarities. This chapter connects the change at the municipality to the OD/OL theories.
Organization Development. Looking at the change analysis described in chapter 1.3, a few things about the change become clear. First, it shows that some elements of the change were planned (VOS program etc.). The GMT was given the task to stimulate integration throughout the organization. Therefore, together with operational and middle management, the GMT created guiding instruments for the change. Secondly, the change can be described as being incremental as the organization as a whole is not changed overnight, but rather separate parts of the organization are addressed at different times. This is consistent with Burnes’ (2009) view on incremental change, which is a process where change is initiated step by step, one problem and one goal at a time, where large individual parts of the organization are targeted. And finally, in order to support the change, the previously mentioned VOS program is created, focussing on training and development of employees. This program focuses on collaboration of employees in groups, and between groups, which is one of the core values of OD. Furthermore, the VOS program is directed at changing the attitudes and behavior of employees. The goal of this program is to enable employees to work towards the desired situation. The link between the change at the municipality and OD literature is the fact that this is an incremental planned change focussing on changing attitudes and behavior of individuals and teams.
Burke & Van Eynde, 1992). This fits with the documentation provided by the municipality in which a thorough communication strategy is emphasized (Appendix B, section 2). The goal of this strategy is to keep the whole organization informed about all aspects of the change (where they are now, where they are going to, etc.). Another characteristic of OD, which can also be found in the way the municipality plans its change, is the emphasis that is placed on collaboration. ‘Collaboration’ is included in the vision statement of the municipality and it is also one of its core values (see Appendix A, section 1, 2 and 3). To be more precise, the municipality wants to create a culture in which collaboration becomes common practice and is recognized as an essential characteristic of the municipality of Groningen. This is in line with OD literature, which recognizes the collaborative nature of OD (Bushe & Marshak, 2008; Greiner & Cummings, 2004). This collaborative nature can be found in the desired leadership style at the municipality. The municipality is also trying to foster a leadership style that is more servant of character (Appendix C, section 1). The goal of this leadership style is to enable and even empower employees to do their jobs properly. This corresponds with the view of OD that employees have to be empowered to bring about change. As stated before, empowered individuals gain a sense of personal power and courage. The latter concept, courage, is also one of the core values of the municipality (Appendix A, section 3). It tries to promote and bolster a culture where employees show some level of courage in uncertain situations. The municipality tries to foster this attitude as opposed to a culture where employees strictly follow procedures in situations where this is not practical.
Last but not least, a more general remark can be made. Waclawski and Church (2002) posit that OD is a data driven approach to organizational change. Nadler (1977) even states that OD is a data based process, which is driven by survey feedback. This concurs seamlessly with the idea of a change monitor to collect data to drive change. In addition, the use of data collection plays an important role in action learning and Lewin’s action research (Burke, 1987; Wang & Ahmed, 2003). Cummings and Worley (2001) state that continually monitoring and improving the learning process is an important intervention to help an organization’s members learn on a higher level. These examples illustrate that the municipality is initiating a change initiative that shows similarities with an OD effort.
The fast learning of skills and adapting structures and processes to a quicker changing environment has become crucial in the survival of organizations (Burnes, 2009). Although the survival of a public organization is, usually, not at stake when the organization encounters large problems, it is still important to adequately serve the needs of the customers, or citizens in this sense. Therefore, adjustment to the changing environment is as important to public organizations as it is to commercial organizations. By adopting an organizational learning approach, organizations are more capable of dealing with changes in the environment. Consequently, learning on an organizational level can be as important to municipalities as it is to commercial businesses.
Describing new core values, like openness (being receptive to new ideas) and collaboration, indicate a focus on organizational culture (Burnes, 2009). Furthermore, an emergent change approach seems to be the best suited due to the dynamic environment, the change goals, the organizational level of the change and the focus on culture (Burnes, 2009). Therefore, OL seems to apply well to this situation; OL creates a possibility to respond quickly to emerging changes. Moreover, several other aspects show that OL can be related to the change initiative of the municipality. According to Senge (1990), the use of a shared vision is explicitly linked to OL (Appendix A, section 2). Secondly, the municipality is creating a culture and structure within the organization that is flexible, and thus ready for changes in the environment. This aspect can also be seen as a key characteristic of OL (Senge, 1990). In addition, a flat, teamwork-based structure and core values that promote openness, creativity, and can also be related to typical OL initiatives (Cummings & Worley, 2001).
To conclude, the municipality has formulated a desired end situation, which can be associated with a ‘learning organization’. The way it tries to achieve this desired end situation can be described in terms of OD and OL. One of the main elements of the changes at the municipality is the way it heavily emphasizes the collaborative aspect of the change initiative, which is a key distinctive element (among others) found in OD literature (Burnes, 2009; Waclawski & Church, 2002). Another element is the way the municipality literally tries to become a learning organization (see ‘the learning organization’ Appendix B, section 3; ‘the learning manager’ Appendix C, section 4). The way it tries to achieve this also resembles key elements of organizational learning (Wang & Ahmed, 2003).
2.3 Stakeholder Interviews
overview of the people at the municipality who are interviewed in the exploration stage of this study. Due to the scope of this study, not all important stakeholders are interviewed. Considering the number of people employed at the municipality (approximately 3,000), it was impossible to interview every major stakeholder. Therefore, the researchers chose to interview a selection of people who were considered capable of providing the most valuable information. In order to promote honesty and candor of interviewees, confidentiality is guaranteed and data cannot be traced back to individuals. This was the case for all interviewees except for two staff members of the OO, one member of the GMT and the city manager. This was done because these people were also the ‘customers’ of the change monitor. They had to indicate their demands and wishes. Therefore, with their consent, their data could be traced back to them. The other eleven interviewees where not considered direct users of the monitor, and therefore their data cannot be traced back to individuals at their request. As stated earlier, this stimulated frankness of the interviewees.
Besides the more general demand of the municipality to create a monitor that promotes and facilitates a dialogue, the interviewees were asked to give their opinions about the potential content of the monitor. During the interviews, a simple set of questions was used to structure the interviews. These questions were: (1) On what level should the monitor make measurements? (2) Are the process and/or the content important? (3) Which themes do you find important to use for the change monitor?
During the interviews, the first question was about the level of measurement. Six out of twelve respondents thought that measuring on a department/team level would be the most suitable level for the monitor. Three other persons thought measuring on an organizational level would be the best choice. Another three participants preferred measuring on a concern level. The OO argued that measuring on a team level would satisfy the need of the monitor being an instrument, which enhances the dialogue of the change. Measuring on an organizational level was also considered impractical because of the lack of objective benchmarking data. Therefore, it was decided that the monitor would measure on a team/department level.
The second question dealt with the issue of the monitor focus. The question was whether this focus should be on the process or on the content of the change, or both. Three people thought that only a focus on the process was important, and three others thought that a focus on the content of the change was essential. The most frequent answer of the interviewees (nine times), however, was that the focus should be on both the process and the context, instead of just one of the two. Besides, at the beginning of the project the steering committee agreed that the monitor should cover the process as well as the content of the change initiative. Along the way, this strict division became impractical and was dropped. However, it was still regarded important to monitor the process and the content of the change.
uncertainty (3). The numbers between the brackets indicate the number of people who explicitly mentioned the theme during the interviews. See Appendix D for a more comprehensive list in the rightmost row of the table. This table summarizes the demands and wishes of the stakeholders at the municipality have been inventoried. Besides these three questions, the table shows whether the stakeholder is a direct user of the monitor as well as the amount of power the stakeholder has. This was defined by the amount of interest in the monitor by the stakeholder. The degree of importance as a user and the power of the stakeholder were taken into account to assess the weight of the opinions of the stakeholders. The wishes of the previously mentioned group of ‘customers’ (the OO, GMT and the city manager) were considered as more important than the opinion of other stakeholders because they are seen as the direct users of the final instrument.
A requirement of the municipality was that the monitor had to be in Dutch exclusively. The clarity of the questionnaire is also important as both employees and leaders on several levels participate in the questionnaire. In addition, it is important for the questionnaire to be understood the same way by all employees. This means the employees of the finance department should understand the questionnaire the same way as employees in the human resources or ICT department, for instance. To check the clarity of the questionnaire several cognitive interviews were held (see chapter 3.2).
Finally, there are some requirements regarding the employee satisfaction survey (MTO) of the municipality that is conducted every three years. It is a rather broad and extensive questionnaire that covers themes like employee satisfaction and the attitude of employees towards organizational change. The wish of the municipality was that the monitor did not interfere with the content and timing of the satisfaction survey. However, the reliability and validity of the constructs used in this instrument are to be questioned.
Besides the previous requirements for the content, the municipality had some requirements that were more general. One of those is the length of the instrument. It is desirable to keep the number of items as limited as possible. The more extensive the questionnaire, the longer it takes for employees to complete it. This possibly leads to reluctance by the employees to participate subsequent times. Therefore, some constructs are not selected if the number of items of the questionnaires is out of proportion to the importance of the construct. The employee satisfaction survey of the municipality contains almost 150 items. Obviously, this is a lot for any questionnaire. The aim is for the first draft of the monitor to contain 60 items. It is hoped that a small number of items raises the responsiveness of the participants.
2.4 Selection Process
municipality to keep them informed about the process. It stated the monitor had to be a scientifically sound instrument. In addition, the fact that the constructs are grounded in OD/OL literature was agreed upon in a steering committee meeting. The list of constructs is not comprehensive due to the fact that there are numerous suitable constructs that are interesting to measure during the change at the municipality. Obviously, this is outside of this study’s scope. Thus, the list contains constructs that in the view of the authors of this paper are suitable and relevant to the situation at the municipality and/or core themes in the OD/OL field.
The constructs were indicated and rated based on several criteria. The first criterion involves whether the potential construct is related to OD/OL literature, which is discussed in the previous paragraphs. The second criterion is meant to check whether the construct was discussed during the interviews and/or was an explicit demand of the stakeholders (as discussed in the previous section). The intention of this study was to develop an instrument based on existing, validated questionnaires. The availability of such questionnaires is the third criterion. The fourth criterion involves the fact that the existing questionnaires meet academic standards in terms of reliability and validity. The last criterion involves the number of items that the questionnaire contains. However, this criterion was also a demand of the municipality. It was included as a separate criterion due to the fact that the number of items is a rather important requirement for the usability of a questionnaire.
Finally, though not included as a strict criterion, it was taken into account that the whole set of final constructs consisted of both process and content constructs. As stated earlier, OD is a process-oriented approach. Therefore, several constructs are characteristics of OD. Besides, becoming a learning organization is seen as an outcome of the change. Hence, several constructs in the preliminary list are considered ‘typical OL’ constructs. A balanced distribution of both process and content constructs is desired so that the final list of constructs is a good reflection of both the OD and OL fields of knowledge. In short, it is useful to see how far an organization is in becoming a learning organization. Nonetheless, it is also considered valuable to see what factors have been beneficial or detrimental to this process. Thus, it is desirable to measure both content and process.
The aforementioned list of constructs was rated based on these five criteria. This list can be found in Appendix E. Thus, the list of final constructs is a product of a careful selection process where the demands and wishes of stakeholders, academic literature and other practical implications were considered. The complete list of constructs included in the monitor are shared vision, involvement in the change process, attitude of top management toward change, general support by supervisors, readiness for change, perceived group performance, empowerment, collaboration, organizational citizenship behavior, skill flexibility, and behavior flexibility.
2.5 Constructs
change process, organizational citizenship behavior, collaboration, skill flexibility, and behavior flexibility. As discussed in section 2.4 of this thesis, it is important to measure the process as well as the outcome of a change. Therefore, a distinction is made between process and outcome constructs. This way, it becomes clear how these influence each other. Figure 2 shows that empowerment, organizational citizenship behavior and involvement in the change process can be considered process factors, which can influence the ‘outcome’ factors of collaboration and flexibility. In this sense, the process constructs can be perceived as independent ‘variables’ and the constructs that represent the outcome of the change can be seen as dependent ‘variables’. Relations to the other constructs in Figure 2 are important, but these are outside of the scope of this thesis.
Figure 2.The influence of process constructs on outcome constructs.
Empowerment. Empowerment is a concept that entails enabling and encouraging individuals in order to amplify their personal development (Conger, Kanungo & Menon, 2000). There are two main perspectives on empowerment: a psychological and a managerial perspective. From a psychological viewpoint, empowerment aims at promoting a pro-active, self-confident attitude among employees (Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2010). From a managerial perspective, empowerment is a relational construct that describes in which way power, information, rewards and resources are shared by powerful individuals with those who do not have control over such means (Fernandez & Moldogaziev, 2013).
OD places great emphasis on using a bottom-up approach to change initiatives. Therefore, empowering employees to gain more autonomy in their work is crucial to the success of change initiatives. Another benefit is: when employees are empowered and given more decision-making authority, simply more people are working on a problem (Andre, 2013). This way, more people contribute to solutions when problems are encountered. Ultimately, empowerment leads to learning.
derived from this 7-item scale: ‘My manager gives me the authority to take decisions which make my work easier for me’. The internal consistency of this scale has proven excellent in the study of Dierendonck and Nuijten, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .94. The original questionnaire has convergent validity with other leadership measures. Evidence was found that confirmed criterion validity by relating the dimensions to other relevant constructs. Another important factor, which is closely related to empowerment, is involvement in the change process.
Involvement in the change process. Besides empowerment, sincere, open, continuous communication and employee participation are significant parts of ensuring that employees are being involved in the change process (Andre, 2013; Bouckenooghe, Devos & Van den Broeck, 2009). In other words, the concept of involvement in the change process refers to the extent to which employees are involved in, and informed about, decisions that directly affect them. This includes decisions about organizational changes. The importance of bottom-up input from staff members in decision-making processes is greatly emphasized (Bouckenooghe et al., 2009). The foregoing is in line with the core values of OD, which stress the value of a bottom-up approach in the change process (Oswick, 2013). In addition, the concepts of employee participation and empowerment are both explicitly linked to organizational innovativeness (Zhang & Begley, 2011). Continuous innovation is achieved through company-wide employee participation. This is closely associated with the OL concept, where continuous innovation is pursued (Tonnesson, 2005).
As the name suggests, involvement in the change process is considered an important process factor. Increased employee involvement in the change process can lead to less uncertainty and a more clear understanding of the change (Bennett & Durkin, 1999). According to a study by Doyle, Claydon and Buchanan (2000), managers believed that when employees were involved more in the change process, this would yield more favorable outcomes for the change implementation process. In conclusion, it seems that involvement in the change process is a valuable construct to include in the monitor.
Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) developed an instrument that gauges several context and process factors of change that influence the readiness for change. One of these process factors is involvement in the change process, which consists of items that originate from the participation and quality of communication scale. An example of an item in this scale is: ‘We are sufficiently informed of the progress of change’. The 6-item scale in the study of Bouckenooghe et al. (2009) shows good internal consistency (α ≥ .88). Convergent and discriminant validity were confirmed. In addition, concurrent validity was tested and confirmed for the original questionnaire. Besides involvement of staff members in the change initiative, the organization also benefits from having employees who display behavior that is helpful to the functioning of the organization in general.
tasks that are not required, etc. (Lee & Allen, 2002). OCB is of considerable interest to organizations because staff members who engage in such behavior are characterized by going the extra mile, which has various benefits for organizations. Although OCB is generally considered advantageous for organizations, several characteristics of OCB are intended to preserve, or even reinforce, the current status quo in an organization (Choi, 2007). One can imagine that the promotion of existing organizational values does not have a positive effect on any change initiative within the organization.
According to Simon (1993), the major role of altruism in economic theory is greatly underexposed. The occurrence of OCB proves that there is some net advantage to exhibiting such behavior. Somech and Drach-Zahavy (2004) draw upon this by stating: “learning, which is expressed in suggestions, recommendations, and information obtained through social channels, helps overcome the bounded rationality of the individual and serves as major motive for OCBs” (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2004, p. 284). The bounded rationality refers to the idea that in decision-making, people have limited (mental) resources to make a decision. Therefore, people depend on one another to obtain information. In this way, one’s likability can play an important role, because people are more willing to share information with others that they like (Casciaro & Lobo, 2005). Additionally, Simon (1990) states that OCB is associated with increased learning because employees who score high on OCB, are also more perceptive information in their environment. In other words, OCB can play an important role in OL, since OCB can facilitate learning (Somech & Drach-Zahavy, 2004).
OCB is not regarded as a desired end state of a change. It is rather a process factor, which potentially influences the change in both a positive and a negative way. Therefore, the OCB construct has been included in the monitor. The OCB scale composed by Lee and Allen (2002) was selected to represent the OCB construct. An example question is: ‘I help others who have been absent’. The scale in the study of Lee and Allen showed good internal consistency with a Cronbach’s alpha of .83. Furthermore, in their study, convergent and discriminant validity was confirmed. As the example question suggests, helping behavior is one of the key elements of OCB. This is also one of the key features of collaboration.
Collaboration.
Collaboration refers to the notion of people working together to achieve a certain goal. Collaboration corresponds with a number of cooperative behaviors, which in turn consist of a number of positive actions that reflect a willingness to take a vulnerable position towards others, whose actions one cannot control (Costa & Anderson, 2011). Cooperative behavior within teams refers to the idea that employees within a team are willing to rely on one another, to communicate openly, share information, and accept the influence of other team members, and are personally involved with one another (Amabile et al., 2001).
these complex networks (Thomson, Perry & Miller, 2007). In addition, collaborative behavior within teams is widely known to be an important factor for successful innovations in organizations (Wurst, Hoegl & Gemuenden, 2001). In this sense, collaboration plays an important role in the OL approach. Additionally, collaboration is considered one of OD’s core values (Bushe & Marshak, 2009). As can be seen in Figure 2, collaboration is considered a dependent variable. Increased collaboration (or an increased quality of collaboration) can be a desired outcome of a change. Consequently, measuring collaboration is useful. Costa and Anderson (2011) developed a scale to measure collaborative behavior in teams. An example of an item is: ‘Most people in this team are open to advice and help from others’. The 6-item scale used in their study yielded good internal consistency (α ≥ .87). In addition, Costa and Anderson found evidence in their study that confirmed the consensual and divergent validity of the scale. Another important dependent variable used in this study is flexibility. The next paragraph sheds more light on this subject.
Flexibility. Flexibility is a very broad concept that entails several forms of flexibility on several levels. This paper focuses on the flexibility of employees. Bluntly stated, employee flexibility consists of skill flexibility and behavior flexibility (Bhattacharya, Gibson & Doty, 2005). Skill flexibility involves the degree to which the skills of employees can be applied in alternative ways. An organization can increase skill flexibility through training, selection, job rotation, working in project teams, etc. This results in the availability of a broad set of skills in an organization. Skill flexibility is considered invaluable to organizations because highly flexible employees can give organizations an edge over their competition. The other subtype of employee flexibility is behavior flexibility, which represents adaptable behaviors to the extent to which employees possess a broad repertoire of behavioral scripts that can be adjusted and applied to various situations. (Bhattacharya et al., 2005). In addition, employees who are flexible in a behavioral sense can be of great asset to organizations because they can quickly shift their attention to address any given situation.
As stated earlier, the OL approach assumes that organizations reside within turbulent and fast changing environments. Consequently, OL defines that in order for organizations to be successful in such environments, those have to change at the same rate, or faster, than the environment. If an organization succeeds in obtaining a flexible workforce, it is better prepared for the future, which is fraught with uncertainty. Therefore, having a flexible work staff is considered crucial by OL theory. As Figure 2 illustrates, skill and behavior flexibility are dependent ‘variables’, or outcome factors. The scales used to assess employee flexibility are discussed below.
Skill flexibility. Beltrán-Martín and Roca-Puig (2013) developed a scale to measure skill
flexibility. One of the items is: ‘Employees in this department anticipate future skill requirements that may be needed to perform their jobs’. The 5-item scale used in their study attained acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha of .70).
Behavior flexibility. The scale for behavior flexibility originates from the same study as used
3. Method
Some of the aforementioned scales were originally formulated in Dutch (Bouckenooghe, et al., 2009; Dierendonck & Nuijten, 2010). Therefore, adjustment of these scales, before pilot testing, was not necessary. However, some scales were formulated in English. These items had to be translated into Dutch.
3.1 The Instrument
The source language of most of the original scales was English. The items of the following constructs were translated from English into Dutch: shared vision, perceived group performance, collaboration, organizational citizenship behavior, skill flexibility, and behavior flexibility. The items of these scales were translated by using the forward and backward translation technique (Brislin, 1970). First, two independent translators completed two separate forward translations. A third translator evaluated the discrepancies between these two versions. In cooperation with the first two translators, this resulted in a third forward version. An independent master student who had no knowledge of the change management field or any knowledge of the original items was asked for the back translation. The backward translation was made to assess the accuracy of the translated version. The discrepancies between the original items and the backward translation were discussed. If the backward translation deviated from the original version to an extent that the conceptual meaning of the item was distorted, the final forward translation was up for review and changed where needed. This resulted in the final version of the items.
At that moment, the questionnaire consisted only of separate scales. Biographical questions were added. A general introduction text was written, as well as some introduction texts for separate parts of the questionnaire (which can be found in Appendix G). Additionally, during the translation process, it became apparent that the answers to several questions were sensitive to the fact whether the participant had a leadership position or not. Therefore, it was decided to create two versions of the questionnaire: one for employees and one for managers. These versions only differed slightly in the way the introduction texts were formulated. The questions remained the same for both versions. Additionally, response scales were added. Questions can be answered on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. Both final versions were tested in interviews. 3.2 Cognitive Testing
Participants. The steering committee suggested to start the use of the monitor at a newly formed department, called the Shared Service Centre (SSC). Therefore, the interviews were conducted at this department. Nine male and one female participant, aged 41 to 57 (mean age is 49.7), were interviewed. All participants were employed at the SSC. Five of these ten participants were employees and therefore they received an employee-version of the questionnaire. The other five participants were managers and received the corresponding manager-version of the questionnaire. The leadership positions of these managers varied from team leader to director. The positions of the ten participants ranged from journalist to company lawyer.
