• No results found

Instead of the outcomes of employee participation, which is extensively reviewed in the current change management literature, this research focuses on the determinants of employee participation

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Instead of the outcomes of employee participation, which is extensively reviewed in the current change management literature, this research focuses on the determinants of employee participation"

Copied!
61
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

PARTICIPATION DURING CHANGE EFFORTS, WHY AND HOW?

-

A qualitative study on the level of participation during change efforts at organization X

Master thesis, MSc Business Administration - Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

October, 2012

Bas Faaij

Student number: 1998544 Karel Lotsystraat 2

2807 BZ, Gouda Tel: +31 (0)6 36311898 E-mail: b.faaij@student.rug.nl

Supervisor/ university:

dr. J. Rupert drs. H.P. Van Peet

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank dr. Joyce Rupert for her flexibility in answering my questions and her constructive way of providing feedback during the writing process.

(2)

ABSTRACT

Organization X is under heavy pressure of the Second chamber and the Ministry of Justice and Safety with respect to the current IT environment, which does not fit with the daily proceedings of employees A and other lower echelon employees. As a result, too much time is spent on administrative tasks and costs of IT rise. Currently and in the near future, one of the main goals is enhancing participation in changes in IT to create a better fit between new and current systems and daily proceedings of employees A. In that context, this study investigated the level of employee participation in a qualitative manner during a change effort in IT. Instead of the outcomes of employee participation, which is extensively reviewed in the current change management literature, this research focuses on the determinants of employee participation.

Especially, trust, communication and the chosen change approach and their influence on participation is investigated. All three variables appear to influence employee participation, and several additional determinants were found. In this study, all variables were not found to be promoters of employee participation during the change project. As a result, the desired level of participation is not reached.

Keywords: Organizational change, Employee participation

(3)

CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ... 2

CONTENTS ... 3

INTRODUCTION ... 4

Organizational context ... 5

Change process ... 5

Research questions ... 6

THEORY ... 7

Employee participation ... 7

Communication of changes ... 9

Trust ... 11

Change approach ... 14

METHODS... 18

Data collection ... 18

Measures ... 19

Data analysis ... 22

RESULTS ... 24

Employee participation ... 24

Communication of changes ... 28

Trust ... 32

Change approach ... 34

Additional findings ... 38

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ... 41

Limitations and further research ... 46

Practical implications ... 47

REFERENCES ... 49

APPENDIX A INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ... 57

APPENDIX B QUOTES ... 59

(4)

INTRODUCTION

“The only thing constant within organizations is the continual change of these organizations” is a famous and well-known quote used in management and organizational literature (Elving, 2005). Increasingly dynamic environments constantly enforce organizations to realize changes in their structures, strategies, cultures and processes (Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder, 1993). Unfortunately it is commonly known within the body of literature in the field of change management that about 70 per cent of all change efforts fail (Beer and Nohria, 2000;

Szabla, 2007; Burnes, 2009). Many factors are contributing to the success or failure of those organizational change efforts. One factor, important for this study, is employee participation.

According to Spreitzer and Doneson (2008), multiannual empirical research showed that changing in a participative way increased in the last 15 years. 70% of the change cases they researched contained participative aspects. Participation of employees during changes seems to play an important role for a successful and effective change effort (Brown and Cregan, 2008; Price and Chahal 2006). Higher levels of participation during changes do have a positive effect on the change process due to more satisfied employees and the higher ability to meet new objectives (Holt et. al, 2007). Several other positive effects of employee participation are discussed in literature. For example, a higher contribution to the change process because of the possibility to express their opinions (Brown and Cregan, 2008), greater commitment to decisions during the change process (Vroom, 2000), less stressful changes (Holt et al., 2007), and higher degrees of readiness and acceptance for the change effort (Amiot et al., 2006). As described above, a lot of research is done on the positive and negatives outcomes of employee participation during change efforts. Unfortunately, there is less known about the determinants of employee participation (Cabrera et al, 2003). This study contributes to the existing literature by examining communication of changes, trust and the chosen change approach as independent variables influencing the level of employee participation. Two reasons count for the choice to grab these variables as a starting point. First, during preliminary research within Organization X, these concepts are most mentioned as accountable for the current level of employee participation during change efforts. As a result, the choice is made to explore these concepts in depth and to substantiate or refute their relation with participation by empirical findings. Secondly, only few authors indicate the relation between employee participation and their determinants/influencers;

trust (Spreitzer and Mishra, 1999), communication (Locke and Schweiger, 1979) and the chosen change approach (Dunphy and Stace, 1991). The aim of this study is to expand the body of literature on these relationships, to gain more insight in these concepts during a change effort and to expand this preliminary model. The next paragraph describes the organizational context of this

(5)

study, followed by an explanation of the researched change project and finally the leading research questions.

Organizational context

In 2010, the ‘Algemene Rekenkamer’ did a research and wrote a report about the IT facilities at Organization X. This research was performed at the request of the Second Chamber and the Minister of Safety and Justice. The ‘Algemene Rekenkamer’ is a governmental institutional that checks if the government is spending money and implements policies as it was intended. Their findings were presented in 2011 by their report ‘REPORT X’. One of the main problems within the IT at Organization X is that IT is too decentralized and not user-friendly enough for Employees A to perform their job as they should. In other words, the current IT facilities are an obstacle for Employees A to perform their administrative and daily tasks, which are part of their job. It became clear that a change is needed within Organization X to overcome these problems in the future. Especially, there should be more participation of employees A during change efforts in the field of IT. By providing employees A with the possibility to share input during change efforts, the IT facilities that will be implemented are better designed according to the end users wishes and fit better with the operational level. Since the IT facilities within Organization X are under heavy pressure from government, an initiative is started to reorganize all facilities to lower the administrative costs and make new and current systems more user friendly. This initiative is called: ‘PROGRAM X’. One of the main goals of this multiannual program is to provide employees A and other lower echelons employees with a central role during change efforts in IT. Eventually, this should lead to IT systems that better fit with the daily proceedings and become more user friendly. To research this goal in practice, this study aims at a change effort within Organization X, which is further explained in the next paragraph.

Change process

The case used for this study refers to the replacement of the system ABC by a new system called DEF. This change project is initiated to realize more uniformity in the way Employees A can search for important information and other necessary files during their work. Before, Employees A used the system ABC to access this information, but unfortunately, ABC does not searched all possible information registers within Organization X. The new system, DEF, is able to search in all databases to provide more accurate information during daily proceedings of employees A. It requires a different way of working for Employees A so this change project directly affects them in their work. The next paragraph handles the research questions that are leading in this study.

(6)

Communication of changes

Trust Change approach

Employee participation Research questions

The main question to be answered in this study is as follows:

How do interpersonal and organizational mechanisms influence the level of employee participation of Employees A within Organization X, during change efforts for the usage of new information facilities (IT)?

As explained earlier in the introduction, the independent variables of this research contain trust, communication and the chosen change approach. Each variable is researched on the basis of a sub question. These questions are as follows:

1. What is the influence of the way in which changes are communicated on the level of participation of Employees A during change efforts?

2. What is the influence of trust on the level of participation of Employees A in change efforts?

3. What is the influence of the chosen change approach on the level of participation of Employees A in change efforts?

As a result of these research questions, the conceptual model of this thesis is illustrated below.

Figure 1 Conceptual model

The next chapter continues with a theoretical framework around the concepts mentioned in this introduction.

(7)

THEORY

In this theoretical section, all variables within this research will be explained based on a literature review. First of all, the dependent variable employee participation is elaborated.

Afterwards, the independent variables communication, trust and change approach will be described.

Employee participation

A considerable amount of research has already been done on the topic of employee participation in organizations and during change efforts. It is one of the oldest areas of inquiry within organizational behavior (Glew et. al, 1995). This long history in academic research led to a variety of concepts that are used to describe employees influencing their organizations (Coch and French, 1948). The above resulted in a lack of clear definitions of employee participation. One of the main reasons is that participation is continuously linked to concepts as involvement (Leana and Florkowski, 1992), commitment (Macy et. al, 1989) and empowerment (Conger and Kanungo, 1988). As a result, terminology in this area is often confused and terms are sometimes used interchangeably with few commonly-agreed definitions for any one of them (Marchington, Goodman, Wilkinson, Ackers, 1992).

Based on their study about the various definitions of participation, Glew et al. (1995) defined employee participation as ‘a conscious and intended effort by individuals at a higher level in an organization to provide visible extra role of role-expanding opportunities for individuals or groups at a lower level in the organization to have a greater voice in one or more areas of organizational performance’. An earlier definition is the one of Locke and Schweiger (1979), who state that participation is ‘joint decision making, either by a manager and one employee or a manager and a group of employees’. The extensive definition of Glew et al. (1995) will be used in this thesis because it encompassed several commonalities (interaction between individuals, role- expanding behaviors, different hierarchical positions etc.) in participation literature and it provides a wide range of participation arrangements, which can also be present at Organization X.

Other authors developed distinctions between different forms of participation, based on theory. For example, Dachler and Wilpert (1978) characterized participation in three properties;

formal vs. informal, direct vs. indirect and as a location along a continuum which shows the amount of influence an employee can have during decision making. This continuum contains the following levels; no information is given to employees about a decision, employees are informed in advance, employees can give their opinion about the decision to be made, employees opinions

(8)

are taken into account, employees can negatively or positively influence veto a decision, and at last, the decision is completely in the hands of employees (Dachler and Wilpert, 1978).

Furthermore, Cotton et. al defined six types of participative decision-making, based on an extensive literature review of former studies (1988). The six types of their typology are;

participation in work decisions, consultative participation, short-term participation, informal participation, employee ownership, and representative participation. Participation in work decisions refers to workers having a great influence on decisions focusing on the work itself (what is done, how is it organized etc.) (Cotton et. al, 1988). Consultative participation is related to situations where employees exert long-term, direct and formal participation. In contradiction, short-term participation refers to situations where employees have influence for a short duration of time, for example, during training sessions (Cotton et. al, 1988). Fourth, informal participation occurs by interpersonal relations between employees and subordinates. Employee ownership is the type of participation in which employees can influence the decisions made by management through mechanisms as elections of the board of directors and stock or shareholder meetings. At last, representative participation is quite similar to employee ownership. The only difference is that employees do have less influence because they do not participate directly (Cotton et. al, 1988).

Besides these different definitions and typologies, several authors have paid attention to the outcomes of participation. To start, the possibility that outcomes of employee participation are most of the time dependent on the context in which particular decisions are taken is acknowledged in the participation literature (Locke and Schweiger, 1979). In general, participation in the workplace leads to a number of positive outcomes. Employees tent to react positively to higher levels of employee involvement in current and future areas of organizational performance (Lines, 2004). Furthermore, Miller and Monge (1986) argue that employee participation has a positive result on job satisfaction and productivity. In the same study, they found that employee participation does increase the flow of information through organizations. Although job satisfaction and productivity are the most researched variables in the participation literature, numerous other outcomes are discussed (Lines, 2004). Among them are; organizational commitment, involvement, fairness perceptions, motivation, expectancies, and emotional distress (Spector, 1986). As presented earlier, the outcomes of participation are dependent on several contextual factors. Conger and Kanugo (1988) stress that bureaucratic organizations may exert rules and regulations that can limit autonomy and self-expression of employees. This may result into a barrier to the potential of employee participation. The culture of an organization can also affect the level of participation. Miller (1988) found a positive relation between participation and turnover in companies with a collectively oriented culture.

(9)

When considering employee participation in relation to organizational change, lots of studies stress that change recipients who are experiencing high levels of participation reported higher degrees of readiness and acceptance of the change effort. Furthermore, they experienced change as less stressful and presented more overall support for the transition. (Amiot et al., 2006;

Coch & French, 1948; Coyle-Shaipro, 2002; Holt et al., 2007; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1994). Also, Bartunek et al. found that employee participation during change processes is related to more positive emotions, a better understanding of the meaning of change, more involvement in the implementation of behavioral change and a more realistic view on the possible gains of the change effort (Bartunek et al., 2006). The degree of involvement and participation during a change effort does also affects sensemaking regarding the change (Bartunek et al, 2006). Other evidence of the positive relation between change and employee participation comes from Steel and Lloyd (1988), who argue that participation contributed to a better sense of competence, more interpersonal trust and well-developed attachment to the organization (Steel and Lloyd, 1988).

To conclude, based on this literature review, it can be stated that participation does have a positive influence on employees emotions and their attitudes during change efforts. As a result, it is reasonable to expect that more influence of Employees A during changes within Organization X will lead to more positive outcomes. And thus it is even more interesting to find out which factors are influencing this level of participation during change efforts. This theoretical section will now continue by describing the independent variables. To start with communication of changes.

Communication of changes

Based on earlier interviews within Organization X, one of the variables that seems to influence employee participation is the way in which changes are communicated. To create better understanding of the literature about this topic, first the concept of organizational communication in itself will be explained.

To start, it is worth mentioning that the area of organizational communication is vibrant and flourishing. New book series in the area, increasing amount of Ph.D degrees, awards to scholars in this field and major federal grants indicate the vitality of this topic with a strong focus on the description, analysis, critique and understanding of organizational communication (Taylor, Flanigan, Seibold and Cheney, 2000). In the late 1970’s, Weick (1979) was one of the first authors who recognized that through processes of enactment, interaction, and retention, organizational members are able to shape their organizations by communicative processes (Weick, 1979). Nevertheless, in order to prevent a far-reaching historical review of the literature on communication, more recent developments and definitions will be paid attention.

(10)

Although there are several definitions of communication, the definition of Dolphin (2005) is overarching. He states that communication is based on ‘transactions between individuals and groups at various levels and in different areas of specialization and these transactions are intended to design (and redesign) organizations and coordinate day-to-day activities’ (Dolphin, 2005). An earlier and more simplistic definition is given by Daft (1997), who stresses that communication is

‘the process by which information is exchanged and understood by two or more people, usually with the intent to motivate or influence behavior’. This last definition of Daft (1997) is leading in this thesis, mainly because it perfectly describes the communication process and pays attention to the behavioral aspect, which is present in most change situations. To start, a basic model on the topic of communication is that one of Rakich et al. (1992). This well-known model in the communication literature illustrates communication as a process, ranging from a sender, who sends out a message by using a particular medium, to finally reach the recipient (Rakich et al., 1992). The basic knowledge of this model is needed to provide a better understanding on how to carry out this process more effectively to reach organizational desired goals (Rakich et al., 1992).

Now that the basics of organizational communication are mentioned, this section continues with communication in the field of change in which the work of Armenakis (2002) should receive some attention. Their model consists of five main change message components, which together should result in effective communication of changes and as a result, a higher level of recipients’ readiness (Armenakis and Harris, 2002). The five message components are discrepancy, personal valence, efficacy, appropriateness and principal support (Armenakis and Harris, 2002). Discrepancy is demonstrated by illustrating differences between an organizations’

current performance and the desired end-state. People must believe that something is wrong and that there is a real need for change (Katz and Kahn, 1978). The personal valence component has to do with the change recipients’ ‘what’s in it for me?’ question. Efficacy concerns the confidence

Figure 2 (Adapted from Brown, Bopp and Boren, 2005:161)

(11)

of organizational members in their ability to succeed. Appropriateness is needed in the change message because recipients may feel that change is needed, but disagree with the specific change that is proposed (Armenakis and Harris, 2002). At last, the principal support message component is important because for change to institutionalize, resources and commitment from change agents and principals are essential (Nutt, 1989). Armenakis et al. further developed three strategies to communicate change (2002). First, persuasive communication relates to direct communication efforts like speeches, newsletters, memo’s etc. Secondly, active participation refers to involving people directly to change activities. At last, the managing internal and external information strategy makes views of others available, which can generate a change message from more than one source (Armenakis et al, 2002).

Besides a well-crafted change message and strategy, several more authors claim that a positive communication climate or an information environment can also enhance the readiness for change (Armenakis, Bernerth, Pitts, & Walker, 2007; Holt et al., 2007, Miller et al., 1994).

Furthermore, additional information and realistic, supportive and effective communication during a change effort, resulted in more positive outcomes, such as greater acceptance of and more support for the change (Axtell et al., 2002; Gaertner, 1989; Wanberg & Banas, 2000). To summarize, the examination of this literature makes it obvious that a major determinant for the success or failure of changes is the communication processes that are undertaken during a change effort (Dolphin, 2005, Goodman & Truss, 2004; Kotter, 2007).

Several authors paid attention to the relation between communication and employee participation. For example, Lawler (1989) states that managing the openness of communication is one of the most effective and easiest ways to enhance employee involvement within firms. In addition, a positive and satisfying communication climate will have a positive effect on employees’ involvement with and loyalty to the organization (Trombetta and Rogers, 1988;

Guzley, 1992). Locke and Schweiger (1979) stress that several of the main conditions for effective participation are more upward communication and a better utilization of information.

One of the reasons for these relations is described by Randolph (1995), who argues that open communication is necessary for employees to receive the information they need to participate and to make decisions. To conclude, ‘communication is the means by which understandings about participation are created’ (Harrison, 1995). The next independent variable in this research concerns trust.

Trust

In their research, Mayer et al,. propose the following definition of trust; ‘The willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other

(12)

will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party’. The vulnerability aspect of this definition is acknowledged by many other authors (Gambetta, 1988; Rousseau, Burt and Camerer, 1998; Zand, 1972), and thus will be leading in this thesis. According to Rousseau et al., trust refers to ‘the willingness to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations about another’s intentions or behaviors’ (1998).

Although trust has generated an increase of attention in organizational studies, several reasons have led to problematic issues. These issues are mainly associated with the definition of trust itself, confusion about the outcomes and antecedents of trust, confusion about the level of analysis and a failure to consider both parties in the trust relationship (Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman, 1995).

Based on a study on the conditions that lead to trust, Mayer et al., concluded that ability (level of competence in specific area), benevolence (extent to which a trustee wants to do good to the trustor) and integrity (perception of the trustor that the trustee adheres to principles that are acceptable for the trustor) appeared most often in the literature (1995). In addition, Rousseau et al.

stress the importance of risk and interdependency as necessary conditions for trust (1998). Trust is not needed if activities can be undertaken under completely certain and risk-free situations (Lewis and Weigert, 1985). Furthermore, risk creates an opportunity for trust. Interdependency is necessary because interests of one party cannot be achieved without reliance upon another party (Rousseau et al., 1998).

To further study trust in the context of this research, attention will now be paid to several forms of trust under the umbrella of trust in general. First of all, mutual trust will be discussed, followed by trust in management. Numerous studies addressed the importance of a trusting relationship not only between management and change recipients but also among colleagues (Coyle-Shapiro & Morrow, 2003; Eby et al., 2000; Iverson, 1996). To finish, trust in change situations will be elaborated. All three forms of trust will be researched in this thesis, in order to provide the most concrete overview of the concept of trust within Organization X.

A short but precise definition of mutual trust is that mutual trust is a result of person A trusting person B and person B trusting person A (Mayer et al., 1995). Mutual trust can be seen as a shared trust relationship among members of the organization, rather than a one-way trust relationship. This form of trust can be produced from past experiences, institutional signals and common characteristics (Zucker, 1986). In the light of this thesis, it is interesting to find out how mutual trust is developed between Employees A and employees from the information management departments, because it is also their relation that can have influence on the level of their willingness to and degree of participation. As a prediction, numerous authors presented mutual trust as a crucial feature of change (Barrier, 1998; Holoviak, 1999; Marshall, 1999). For

(13)

example, Cashman (1988) emphasizes that 'a trust focus' is the key to change effectiveness and Barrier (1998) stresses the importance of long-term trust building for change.

To continue with trust in management, Michaelis et al. (2009) provided the following definition; ‘An attitude held by employees toward the leadership of the organization that indicates a willingness to be vulnerable to top management’. Several reasons account for the positive outcomes of this concept. First, research has demonstrated that trust in management can provide employees with a better understanding of management’s good intentions (Harvey et al., 2003).

Employees who have trust in management are convinced that they can benefit from decisions made by management (Harvey et al., 2003). Secondly, organizational members who exert high levels of trust in management may feel that they are not always the target or negative attacks and manipulation. They believe that the actions and intentions of management are trustworthy (Byrne et al., 2005). Third, individuals with a high degree of trust in management experience a greater sense of control because they feel protected by the good intentions of management (Byrne et al., 2005).

The concept of trust in the field of organizational change has already demonstrated its importance. Oreg et al. state that there exists a special significance between organizational trust and support for change during times of change. That is why, according to Oreg et al., managers should always invest in a supportive and trusting organizational culture if they expect cooperation of their employees during change efforts (2011). For instance, Armenakis et al. (1993) emphasized the ‘importance of change agents’ credibility, trustworthiness, and sincerity in creating employees’ readiness for change’. In addition, one of the factors that showed a consistent and strong relationship with change reactions is the extent to which target members of change have trust in management (Oreg, 2011).

To finalize, the relation between trust and employee participation will be discussed.

Fox (1974) and Purcell (1981) both support the idea that high trust relations in organizations are linked to effective employee involvement. Also Hodgkinson (2001) concluded that an atmosphere of trust is crucial for employee participation to be effective. Finally, Locke and Schweiger (1979) came up with several mechanism by which employee participation works best. One of these mechanisms includes trust as a condition for effective participation. The explanation behind these relations is best described by Spreitzer and Mishra (1999). First, trust helps to assure managers that organizational members have the ability and skills necessary to perform well on their jobs.

Secondly, when trust is present, managers can rely on their employees by believing that they will do what they say they will do (Spreitzer and Mishra, 1999). These reasons enhance decisions to let employees participate in decision making, influenced by trust (Spreitzer and Mishra, 1999). At last, Lawler (1986) posited that involvement of lower echelon employees in decision making

(14)

requires ‘people who can be trusted to make important decisions about their work activities’. To continue this theoretical section, the last independent variable described in this thesis concerns the change approach.

Change approach

Several authors described different approaches to change (Beer and Nohria, 2000; Weick and Quinn, 1999; Kotter and Schlesinger, 1979; Dunphy and Stace, 1991; De Caluwé and Vermaak, 2002). Later on in this paragraph, some of these theories will be elaborated in more detail in the context of this thesis. First, two common streams in change management literature will be discussed shortly; Planned change versus Emergent change. In the 1940s, Kurt Lewin developed the Planned change, which dominated the change management practice and literature under the umbrella of Organization Development from then until the 1980s (Burnes, 2009). The planned change approach is described by Lewin as ‘change that was consciously embarked upon by an organization, as opposed to unintended changes such as those that might come out by accident, by impulse, my misunderstanding or that might be forced on an unwilling organization’.

Lewin developed four elements on which planned change is based; Field Theory, Group Dynamics, Action Research and the Three-Step model. The main purpose of the Planned change approach is improving effectiveness on the human side of the organization, it emphasizes the collaborative aspect of the change effort (Burnes, 2009). Although, over the years, Organization Development (OD) practitioners developed the Planned change approach into a tool for organization transformation, instead of changing group behavior as opposed by Lewin (Burnes, 2009). From the 1980s, criticisms on the planned approach such as its inability to cope with radical/coercive changes and changes where power and politics are dominant, led to a new approach. ‘The Emergent approach sees change as driven from the bottom-up rather than from top-down; it stresses that change is an open-ended and continuous process of adaptation to changing conditions and circumstances where learning is also seen as a process of change’

(Burnes, 2009). Although these two approaches dominate the literature for a long time, they do not cover the full spectrum of change approaches (Burnes, 2009).

A common distinction in change approaches is made by Beer and Nohria (2000). They argue that managers and organizations can use two archetypes; Theory E approach and Theory O approach. Whereas a Theory E approach reflects the ‘hard’ approach to change, the Theory O approach is more concerned with changing ‘soft’ factors. In Theory E, the only legitimate measure of corporate success is shareholder value. This approach involves heavy use of economic incentives, layoffs, downsizing and restructuring. Leadership in this approach is mainly top-down without any input/involvement of lower levels. This change approach typically focuses on

(15)

structures and systems (Beer and Nohria, 2000). In contradiction, participation is an important trait of Theory O. People are encouraged to engage from the bottom up. The focus of this approach is on developing a corporate culture and human capability by learning the process of changing, gathering feedback, reflecting and making further changes. The authors argue that it is possible to combine both approaches by sequencing them, but the recommendation is to start with Theory E (Beer and Nohria, 2000). An earlier model of Dunphy and Stace can be seen as a complement to the Theory E and Theory O dichotomy. As the authors argue, ‘contingent rather than universalistic approaches are required. Soft and hard approaches are not irreconcilable but are rather parts of a broad set of contingent choices available to decision makers’ (Dunphy and Stace, 1991). The matrix is depicted below.

When analyzing this matrix, Theory E can be linked to the directive/coercive change mode of Dunphy and Stace. They both represent transitions where the main focus is on achieving changes to the ‘hard’ side of the organization. For example, structures, tasks and processes (Burnes, 2004). Furthermore, Theory O and the collaborative approach of Dunphy and Stace can be compared because of the human side of change they both emphasize (Burnes, 2004). Dunphy and Stace have added the dimension of the magnitude of change. Their continuum ranges from incremental to transformative magnitudes of change, something that is not taken into account in the model of Beer and Nohria. Participative evolution is characterized by; incremental changes through collaborative methods, appropriate for first order change and minor adjustments, high levels of employee involvement and at last, the organization is out of fit, but time is available to

Figure 3 Change approaches by Dunphy and Stace (1991)

(16)

change. Charismatic change is characterized by; less time for changes, a high need for radical change, the organization is out of sync, but organization-wide support is present by key employees and collaboration is therefore possible (Dunphy and Stace, 1991). Forced evolution is described by; directive and coercive relations between management and employees, key employees are opposed to change, but time to change is available and organizations are most of the time in line with their environment (Dunphy and Stace, 1991). At last, dictatorial transformations refers to situations where organizations are out of fit with their environment, when there is no time for participation and no support for radical change. Although, radical change is extremely important for survival. These changes have a strong directive and coercive character (Dunphy and Stace, 1991).

At last, De Caluwé and Vermaak (2002) argue that there is a need for a common and clear language to discuss change processes and interventions for change. In order to create this common language within an organization when changes are present, they constructed a model which represents five change approaches, illustrated by five colors. Each color and perspective has its own underlying assumptions, roles of change agents, ideals and pitfalls and types of interventions (De Caluwé and Vermaak, 2002).

The yellow perspective is based on beliefs about organizations where interests, conflicts, and power have great influence. Forming power blocks and coalitions are methods that are used regularly in this change process. Here, change can be seen as a negotiation exercise aiming at achieving consensus. This change processes fits well with complex change situations where a lot of people and parties are involved, all with their own interests and interdependencies (De Caluwé and Vermaak, 2002). The basis of this change perspective lies in the socio-political concepts of organizations. For example, the studies on power of Greiner and Schein (1988) and Pfeffer (1981). The blue perspective is based on rational design and implementation of changes. The far- reaching roots of this perspective came from scientific management of Taylor (1913). This perspective is based on beliefs that things changes if the results are clearly specified beforehand.

A blue-print with high levels of monitoring, controlling and planning will guide the change process. There is less room for participation of employees and the change will, more or less, pursue independent of people. This approach is most applicable for the hard factors of change (De Caluwé and Vermaak, 2002). For example, changing structures, systems and strategies. in contradiction to the blue perspective, the red perspective deals with the more human and behavioral side of the change process. It is associated with stimulating people and gaining commitment to change. This approach strives to make the best out of people’s talents. There is a constant search between what’s best for the organization and what’s best for the employee.

Outcomes of changes are dependent of employees responses and influences, and thus can only be

(17)

partly thought out beforehand (De Caluwé and Vermaak, 2002). A green perspective to change assumes that learning and changing are closely related. People are motivated to learn, because when to learn collectively, the organization learns. As an outcome, organizational behavior will change. People are stimulated to participate and there is no aim to describe top down outcomes of change (De Caluwé and Vermaak, 2002). The study of Senge (1990) on learning organizations lays the basis for this perspective. At last, the white perspective, concentrates heavily on the concept of self-organization. The dominant view is that everything is changing autonomously. It is based on people energy, inspirations and self-confidence, with the expectation that changes will emerge over time. This perspective calls for openness, and allows room for evolution, in which the outcome remains a surprise (De Caluwé and Vermaak, 2002).

When considering the relation between the chosen change approach and employee participation, it seems obvious that the chosen change approach does have a great influence on the level of employee participation. For example, within the Theory O approach of Beer and Nohria, there is clearly more room for employee participation and cooperation than within the Theory E approach (Beer and Nohria, 2000). Furthermore, in the matrix of Dunphy and Stace, one can analyze that there is only room for employee participation in the upper half of the matrix. Thus, the level of participation in organizations using the charismatic change or participation evolution approach, will be much higher (Dunphy and Stace, 1991). At last, De Caluwé and Vermaak stress that the influence of people is minimized in the blue perspective to change. In contradiction, the red perspective to change does heavily depend on the cooperation and participation of employees (De Caluwé and Vermaak, 2002).

Now that all concepts are described based on existing literature, the next page continues with the methods used for the empirical part of this study.

(18)

METHODS

This section deals with the research methods used in this thesis. The procedure for data collection and analysis will be described in detail. This research took place between April 2012 and October 2012. Since this research focuses on exploring instead of testing change situations at Organization X, in-depth interviews were conducted. In order to obtain a rich understanding of underlying processes and meanings, qualitative research is performed (Cooper and Schindler, 2006). Another reason is that by using qualitative research, the researcher is able to answer ‘why’

and ‘how’ questions, which is exactly the aim of this study (Cooper and Schindler, 2006).

Data collection

The in-depth interviews are held in a semi-structured manner. All twenty interviews took place between the 19th of July and the 14th of September. As a guideline, several questionnaires are used to formulate key interview questions. The questions, related to the different research variables, are elaborated in the tables below. The interviews lasted on average one hour and took place on site. At the start of the interviews, anonymity and confidentiality issues are discussed and guaranteed towards the respondents.

The table below illustrates the sample of the interviewees. Three different groups of respondents are questioned to create a complete overview of employee participation during this change effort. The first group concerns Employees A, who are all change ‘recipients’ of the change process and are directly affected by the transition. The second group concerns the project leaders, who acted predominantly as change ‘agents’ during this process. The last group of respondents concerns the IT staff. These respondents both have characteristics as ‘recipients’ and

‘agents’. On one hand, they assist project leaders with their technical knowledge (agent), and on the other hand, they are affected by the change process in their daily work (recipients). All IT employees are working at Organization Y, which is the general IT department and supplier within Organization X. All other respondents are working at Organization X Region Brabant, with the exception of one project leader who is working for Organization X Region Limburg. His selection is based on strong recommendations from the other respondents and his essential role during this change project. All respondents are selected based on their involvement during this change project and their availability for conducting an interview. Contact details of the respondents are obtained from the supervisor in the field of study. Out of 20 respondents, three were female and 17 were male. All interviewees have the Dutch nationality and are aged between 27 and 60.

(19)

Role Sample

Employees A 11

Information Management Department (project leaders)

5

IT department employees 4

Table 1 Sample structure

Measures

Two scales have been used in combination to formulate questions around the topic of employee participation. The first scale is extracted from the CATOCQ questionnaire (2008). This questionnaire is based on the COCQ questionnaire developed by Bennebroek, Gravenhorst, Elving and Werkman (2005). The questionnaire contains several items concerning employee participation, which are mentioned below. A selection is made of the most applicable and appropriate items. Secondly, the questionnaire of Bouckenooghe (2009) is used. This questionnaire is chosen because it contains the complex mix of change including the context, process and reactions towards change. Furthermore, it has proven it’s scientific validity (Bouckenooghe, 2009). Again, the most relevant items for this research are extracted.

Original scale Open interview questions

CATOCQ (2008)

Ik word gestimuleerd om input te leveren voor de verandering

In hoeverre wordt u gestimuleerd om een bijdrage te leveren tijdens de verandering?

Ik word actief betrokken bij het veranderingsproces

Op welke manier heeft u medezeggenschap in besluitvorming tijdens de verandering?

Ik heb onvoldoende zeggenschap over de verandering

Mijn ideeën over de verandering worden serieus genomen

Hoe ervaart u de manier waarop uw input tijdens de verandering wordt behandeld en

gewaardeerd?

Bouckenooghe (2009)

The way change is implemented leaves little room for personal input.

In hoeverre worden uw suggesties en

opmerkingen gehoord

(20)

My department’s management team takes account of the staff’s remarks.

tijdens de verandering?

Changes are always discussed with all people concerned.

In hoeverre wordt de verandering besproken met de personen die erdoor worden beïnvloed?

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

Table 2 Interview questions employee participation

Again, two original scales have been used to define questions concerning the research variable trust. First, several items are extracted from the CATOCQ (2008) questionnaire. The questionnaire of Cook and Wall (1980) is used as a complement because this questionnaire also pays attention to mutual trust in addition to trust in management. In this way, the CATOCQ (2008) questionnaire covers the topic of trust in management, and the questionnaire of Cook and Wall (1980) covers mutual trust. From both original scales, a selection is made of the most applicable items for this research.

Original scale Open interview questions

CATOCQ (2008) Het management geeft het goede voorbeeld voor de verandering.

In hoeverre heeft u vertrouwen in de verander beslissing van het management?

Het management zet bij belangrijke problemen de juiste mensen in Het management besteedt voldoende aandacht aan problemen rond de verandering

In hoeverre laat het management, in uw opzicht, zien in staat te zijn de verandering door te voeren?

Het management bestaat uit bekwame mensen

Het management stimuleert mij om de verandering door te voeren

In hoeverre voelt u vertrouwen in uw kunnen om de verandering succesvol door te voeren vanuit de organisatie?

Cook and Wall (1980)

I feel quite confident that the firm will always try to treat me fairly Most of my workmates can be relied upon to do as they say they will do

In hoeverre vertrouwt u uw collega’s tijdens het doorvoeren van de verandering?

I have full confidence in the skills of my workmates

Table 3 Interview questions trust

(21)

The survey of Bouckenooghe (2009) is also used for the variable communication of changes. The items around this topic that are relevant for this research are mentioned below. Some items from the questionnaire are skipped since they do not fit with the situation at Organization X.

Original scale Open interview questions

Bouckenooghe (2009)

We are sufficiently informed of the progress of change

Hoe wordt de verandering gecommuniceerd in uw opzicht?

There is good communication between project leaders and staff members about the organization’s policy toward changes.

Corporate management team clearly explains the necessity of the change

Information concerning the changes reaches us mostly as rumours

In hoeverre komt informatie over de verandering bij u terecht in de vorm van geruchten?

I am regularly informed on how the change is going.

Wat is uw mening over de frequentie van communicatie tijdens de

verandering?

Information provided on change is clear

Wat is uw mening over de inhoud van de communicatie tijdens de

verandering?

Table 4 Interview questions communication of changes

The earlier described model of Beer and Nohria (2000) is used to define the type of change approach that is used within Organization X. The distinction between a Theory E and Theory O approach has a great influence on the level of employee participation during changes.

Their model consists of 6 dimensions that together typify the type of change approach. The fifth and sixth dimensions regarding the type of rewarding during the transition and the use of consultants will not be questioned, since both are not relevant for this study. The reason for this is that a) employees are not rewarded on top of their base salary for contributing to this change project (which has never been the case previously) and b) during this project no external consultants were contracted. The following table illustrates the questions formulated for each dimension.

(22)

Original scale Open interview questions Beer and Nohria

(2000)

Type of goals In hoeverre zijn de doelen van de organisatie tijdens de verandering gericht op financiële gezondheid dan wel interne groei? M.a.w. Wat is de meerwaarde van de verandering voor Organization X?

Leadership style Kunt u aangeven in hoeverre u een meer dwingende of meer

participerende manier van leidinggeven ervaart tijdens de verandering?

Focus Ligt de focus tijdens de verandering

naar uw mening meer op systemen en structuren (hard) of meer op cultuur en gedragsveranderingen (soft)? M.a.w.

Wat heeft de verandering voor u persoonlijk veranderd?

Process (Emergent/Planned) Wordt de verandering naar uw mening planmatig/programmatisch geïnitieerd of spontaan vanuit een idee op de werkvloer van de organisatie doorgevoerd?

Use of consultants -

Type of rewards -

Table 5 Interview questions change approach

Data analysis

After conducting the interviews, several steps were taken to analyze the gathered data. The first step contains the transcription of the interviews. All twenty interviews are recorded and transcribed in detail afterwards. These transcriptions are made to create a more detailed view on the answers of the respondents. After transcribing the interviews, the application Atlas.ti is used for codifying all interviews. According to Baarda en De Goede (2005), the term ‘reliability’ is replaced by ‘intersubjectivity’ during qualitative research. Two measures are taken to control intersubjectivity during this study. First, 10 out of 20 interviews are codified two times separately

(23)

by the researcher, with a time lapse of 1 day between them. Secondly, a student from the University of Amsterdam codified 2 transcriptions. Afterwards, the codes are compared to each other and this resulted in a final list of codes. The above steps are taken prior to writing the results section, that starts on the next page.

(24)

RESULTS

The results of the empirical study will be described in detail in this chapter. The results will be presented per research variable to keep things clear. Because this study focuses on three different groups of respondents, as explained in the methods section, viewpoints from each of these groups will be elaborated per topic. The sub paragraphs under each variable refer to the interview questions, as can be seen in table 2 till 5 in the methods chapter of this study. In Appendix B, a table can be found that provides a general overview of the variables and their illustrative quotes. This chapter now continues with the results related to the dependent variable of this study; employee participation.

Employee participation

Stimulance. When considering the topic around employee participation during the change process, the respondents thoughts differ a lot. To start with Employees A, most recipients argue that they don’t feel to be stimulated to participate during the change process from ABC to DEF.

Ten out of 11 Employees A do not feel that they are stimulated by their management to generate input for the change process. As one interviewee said: “I don’t feel that we are stimulated to participate, I would say that we are controlled and driven by decisions”. The most respondents out of this audience stress that during the change process, they do not feel that their input is needed to make the change a success. They also stress that they are only stimulated to participate when they showed interest in the project. “Only if I show that I am interested in the change process, I might be able to find someone who can take care of my input. But this does not count for most people out on the work floor”. In contrast to Employees A, the project leaders hold an opposite view. Three out of 5 project leaders argue that they are constantly stimulating people from lower echelons to participate in the change process. In their opinion, lower level employees are regularly asked for their suggestions. Several work councils are organized in which end users can have their voice to be heard. A project leaders explains: “We tried to bring the right end users together in those work councils. In this way we started with participation during the project”. At last, the most respondents from the group of IT employees feel that they are stimulated to take part of the change process. Three out of 4 IT employees share their thoughts. They declare that they feel really important for this change process. “We have the technical knowledge for changing the system ABC to DEF. We wanted to replace the system with something that is at least as good as the old system, so we feel really stimulated”

(25)

Decision making. The interviewed Employees A are in agreement about the topic of decision making during the change process. Their view is that they do not have any voice in the decision making process. During the transition, the choice to replace the system ABC by DEF was already made. One Employee A declares: “The decision making process has totally gone past us.

I have the feeling, and my colleagues will share that view, that the decision was taken in a very top-down manner”. The general view within this group of recipients is that the decision to change the system is taken without their voice, and that they can only participate when the decision is already made. One of Employees A nuances: “I can image that not every Employee A can have his voice in such a big organization”. They also complain about the fact that nobody asked them how ABC should be replaced. Neither the project leaders, nor the IT employees who together should develop a system that facilitates Employee A in his/her daily proceedings. The decision is just made without any consultation. As one Employee A declares: “They don’t know what kind of impact their decision on strategic level has on the operational level we are dealing with”. The general opinion within the group of project leaders (change agents) confirms this viewpoint. Even they did not had an impact on the decision for the new system. They were informed by the decision, and during the implementation they had space to collect the demands of the users. The decision itself is taken on a nation-wide strategic level. A project leader argues: “The decision is made in the higher echelons of the organization. My opinion is that such decisions are often mysterious. And so do my colleagues”. The IT employees who worked on the project from their expertise, also agree with the earlier mentioned situation. All 4 agree with each other that they only have the ability to provide the project with suggestions on functionality. The decision for this system is taken without hearing their voice. One of the IT employees (recipient) said: “Quite simply said, I did not have any influence on the decision making process. I only try to involve myself in collecting and developing the demands of the users towards the system”. The overall view of the recipients (Employees A and IT staff) is that none of them is actually involved in the decision making process, but they seems to be in peace with it, given the size of their organization. They realize that not every employee can participate during changes, but they still feel neglected.

In addition to the topic of decision making, several recipients are asked whether they feel involved or participating during this change project. As opposed in the theory section earlier in this study, the terms employee involvement and employee participation are used interchangeably and mentioned in one breath. In contrast, 4 Employees A and 1 IT employee, indicate that they experience their role during the transition to DEF more as involved than as participatory. Several quotes explain this statement. “I feel involved, not participating. Eventually they will take the decision themselves anyway”. Another recipient: “It’s just a bit of involvement. We don’t have

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

Finally, the data used in this fact sheet indicates that light-moped riders would also benefit from head protection, because their percentage of crashes with severe head/skull

Die kommunikasie tydens evaluasie word veral volgens die programleiers en bevoordeeldes van die drie programme as ’n probleem beskou omdat daar nie direkte

A worst case scenario occurs when we store vectors S with identical slots values in the tree database S = {�s, ...., s�|s ∈ 2 b }.. 2: Sharing of subtrees in

This thesis investigates whether the need for individual and departmental autonomy has a moderating effect on this existing relationship between the possibility

This study explored to what extent change leadership, quality of communication and participation in decision making affect employees’ readiness for change along a

Despite the important role leaders have during organizational change (Conger, 2000; Caldwell, 2003), empirical evidence is missing about the relationship between a charismatic

Finally, the negative effect of appreciative auditing on affective commitment might be related to the employees’ attitude towards the content of the current

In addition, this research was constrained by budget and time, the available data set could measure only a small slice of the field of communication, participation and