CHANGE READINESS: DO COMMUNICATION AND PARTICIPATION PROCESSES REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

CHANGE READINESS:

DO COMMUNICATION AND

PARTICIPATION PROCESSES REALLY

MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and

Organization

June 30, 2008

by

ELIANNE TJOONK

Studentnumber: 1336754

Javastraat 28 bis

3531 PR Utrecht

tel.: +31 (0)6 41779117

e-mail: elianne_tjoonk@hotmail.com

Supervisor/ university:

CHANGE READINESS:

DO COMMUNICATION AND PARTICIPATION

PROCESSES REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

Key words: Change readiness, Communication, Participation, Change effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

lower levels of the organization in the determination of appropriate local visions, operational goals, and tactics.

While many organizational changes are justified, organizational outcomes often fail to meet anticipated objectives. Quinn (2004) estimates that approximately 50% of all change efforts fail, often due to poor leadership. Kotter and Cohen (2002) suggest that these failures are not technical issues, but are commonly related to human issues. Just mentioning change can create feelings of uneasiness and tension by employees, furthermore when organizational change begins to take shape, employees may feel a sense of uncertainty and confusion (Bernerth, 2004). Management must realize that change has an impact on organization’s employees and that readiness for change has to be created in order to manage change successfully (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993). To create readiness for organizational change two appropriate strategies are offered for influencing individual cognitions: persuasive communication (both oral and written) and active participation (Armenakis et al., 1993; Bandura, 1977; Fishbein & Azjen, 1975). These strategies can be used by change agents to intervene in the natural flow of social information processing among employees.

Communication is essential in gaining employees understanding of the need for change. Despite this recognition organizational change communication is little studied explicitly (Frahm & Brown, 2005). Previous research indicated that communication remains problematic. Doyle, Claydon & Buchanan (2000) suggest that this lack of empirical research leads to practitioners frequently lacking success in change communication goals. One of the research results showed that on the question ‘Would you regard your organization as a model of best practice in communicating of change?’ 63% answered no and only 9% agreed to this. A study of Lewis (2000), which collected data from 89 implementers of planned change, revealed that problems with communication rank among the most problematic and furthermore the most frequently noted categories of problems encountered were ‘communicating vision’ and ‘negative attitudes’ (due to communication). This raises the question why, especially because communication is widely recognized as an essential element in change activities. Allen, Jimmieson, Bordia & Irmer (2007) acknowledged that there still remains a gap in the change management literature regarding the role different communication events play in influencing employees’ attitudes towards change. Furthermore, communication approaches and the effects of communication during change are acknowledged as understudied (Lewis, 1999). Attitudes towards change determine the degree of readiness for change. This implies it is important to further explore this gap in literature and identify the communication processes through which employees acquire information during change, and how that influences their attitudes toward the change process.

Furthermore, participation has been argued to lead to qualitatively better strategic decisions (Kim & Mauborgne, 1998). Fishbein and Azjen (1975) argue that it is perhaps one of the most important perceptions that shape employees attitude toward change because it capitalizes on self-discovery. So participation is thought by many scholars to promote better decisions and more effective organizational change, although empirical evidence of such benefits is mixed (Davis & Lansbury, 1996; Sagie, Elizur & Koslowsky, 1996). This is also acknowledged by Seibold and Shea (2001) who state that research reviews do not show unanimous findings regarding the outcomes of effectiveness of various employee participation programmes. Thus, better knowledge of how successful employee participation can be achieved is necessary. Furthermore, participation placed in the context of a public organization takes on special significance (Zajac & Bruhn, 1999). So exploring participation in a public sector would be interesting because of the mixed results regarding research to participation and the special significance it takes when placed in a public sector context.

This article reports on the court in Groningen, a small public sector organization in the Netherlands (220 employees), that reorganized in order to change the organizational structure. As with so many public organizations, a tradition existed in this organization to initiate and manage change from the top. Facing huge financial shortcomings at the end of 2005, the board decided early 2006 to cut back expenditures on overhead and labor costs, while at the same time increasing productivity. The cutback on expenditures resulted in redefinition of jobs, restructuring management and reduction of the workforce. The decision of the board was made in a very short timeframe. Employees were surprised by the rigorous consequences the decision had, because they were still thinking at cut back expenditures on paper and coffee machines instead of diminishing management. While the decision of the board was made in a very short timeframe, almost one month, it took a 10-month period for the actual implementation of all changes. Officially the first of January 2007 was the start of the new organizational structure. In 2006 the sickness absence percentage at the court in Groningen was the highest of all courts in the Netherlands. A high sickness absence percentage is a normal phenomenon when people feel resistance against proposed changes (Scott & Jaffe, 1988). Next to this the director admitted, in an information session, that the communication process was definitely not a model of best practice. This was causing even more dissatisfaction among employees. These facts are signs that the change process was not impeccable.

reviewing the literature on change readiness. This is followed by a description of the research methods and settings. Next to this are the results and discussion chapter.

THEORY Effective change

Organizational change can be predominantly structural or technical or it can focus on changing attitudes and behaviours of employees. But even when change is purely technical or structural there has to be willingness amongst employees to change (Burnes, 2004). They have to accept the new arrangements. One of the most well known change models is proposed by Lewin (1947). According to him a successful change project involves the three stages of unfreezing, moving and refreezing. Several researchers like Armenakis et al. (1999), Klein (1996) and Kotter (1995) have used Lewins three-step model to develop a basic model for practitioners to use as framework for implementing organizational changes. These models reinforce that an effective change is dependent on the way in which change agents manage change.

An effective change effort is the ultimate goal of every organisation that wants to change. In order to reach an effective change effort it is necessary to know when organisations evaluate change as effective. Although there is a huge amount of literature concerned with how to effectively manage change, little or no empirical research is available on effective change (Elving, 2005). This is surprising, taken in consideration that there is a growing notion of organisational learning and continuous change efforts taking place within every part of the organisation. It would be expected when previous change efforts will be evaluated it would lead to better designed future change efforts. In comparison with empirical research, practitioner-oriented literature on how to effectively manage a change is immense (Kotter, 1996; Burnes, 2004). Employee participation, commitment and leadership are commonly mentioned concepts when it comes to effective change management (Burnes, 2004; Cummings & Worley, 2004).

change. Managers expect an immediate return to past levels of performance, but forget that employees need time to let go of the old ways and moving toward the new (Scott & Jaffe, 1988).

Employee level of change

What can be concluded from the previous part is that an effective change effort is dependent on employee behaviour. At the employee level of change, a social integration process takes place in the practice of executing everyday work while implementing newly initiated structures or procedures. Employees interact and enact a process of sense making through interpretive schemes. These interpretive schemes are typifications of the organizations reality employees have experienced over time from their organizational routines and memory traces of past experience. Employee interpretations of change emerge when employees give meaning to managerial actions and texts within their interpretive schemes (Jian, 2007). Interpretive tensions between employees and senior management set up conditions for unintended consequences to emerge. According to Giddens (1984) ‘unintended consequences’ refer to the consequences that would not have taken place if a social actor had acted differently.

A common pattern of transition emerges during organizational change. Several studies researched the way interpretations of change initiatives develop through time and showed that these recipient processes of interaction are key during change (Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Isabella, 1990; Scott & Jaffe, 1988). Scott and Jaffe (1988) developed a change grid which provides an overview model for mapping the various individual or organizational responses to change. Denial occurs when the true meaning of a change does not have impact. Employees cannot or even refuse to believe that a change is necessary to improve business results. This is followed by resistance, employees focus on the personal impact of the change on themselves. They are frustrated and feel uncertain about the consequences that accompany major change. During exploration employees have a lot of new energy and focus on the future again. Finally, commitment takes place as employees want to move ahead. This phase will last until another change initiative will be implemented which starts the cycle of transition all over again.

stage employees amend their view on an event. By a comparison of the conditions in the past situation and the present, managers amend their frame of reference to either include or exclude experienced information. The final interpretive stage is aftermath where employees review and evaluate the consequences of the change. The models of Scott & Jaffe (1988) and Isabella (1990) are similar in concept and parallel to each other (see figure 1). Whereas Isabella describes the stages through which an individual progress as change unfolds, Scott & Jaffe provide an evaluative label for each stage (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Figure 1 show both models integrated.

These models show that employee reactions move from resistance to commitment. As Coetsee (1999) describes it ‘Change management includes getting all those involved and affected to accept the changes and the results of the change process as well as to manage resistance to change effectively’. Judson (1991:23) highlights this position: ‘Any management’s ability to achieve maximum benefits from change depends on how effectively they create and maintain a climate that minimizes resistant behaviour and encourages acceptance and support‘.

Resistance to change

An employee’s perception of readiness for change may be indicative of the organization’s ability to successfully make changes as well as the employee’s attitude toward the organization and his or her job (Eby et.al., 2000). Resistance to change impacts the organizations ability to successfully make changes (Cozijnsen & Vrakking, 1995; Lewin, 1947) That’s why it is important for change agents to cope with possible factors that will cause resistance to change.

As argued before organizational change efforts often run into some form of human resistance. Resistance to change is a natural human reaction. Employees do not only resist because something is changing but also on the content of the change effort (Kayzel, 1998). Although managers are aware of this fact, not many take time before a change effort to determine who might resist and for what reasons (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Surprisingly because it is widely agreed that change can cause deep resistance in people and in organizations and that management has to overcome it by managing change successfully (Dent & Goldberg, 1999).

‘every power which is moving away from the change processes. Zaltman and Duncan (1977) use another definition based on the previous one. They describe resistance as ‘every action which is focused on holding on to the old situation, despite pressure of others to change’.

In the past years several authors have criticized the use of this widely agreed concept of resistance to change in change management practice (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 1997). The term resistance to change as introduced by Lewin (1947) has gone through a transformation in meaning from a systems concept to a psychological one (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). One of these critical authors is Merron (1993) who has probably the most radical view on resistance (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 1997). He argues that it is better to forget the term resistance to change. The use of the term resistance feeds restraining forces that obstruct the progress of a change effort. According to Merron the key to successful change management lies in supporting and work with the various opinions of those directly involved. Piderit (2000) argues that in studies of resistant to change researchers have largely overlooked the potentially positive intentions that may motivate negative responses to change. Some studies have dichotomized responses to change, when in fact employee responses are a complex phenomenon which can be multidimensional viewed along at least three dimensions (emotional, cognitive and intentional) (Piderit, 2000).

As a consequence that a lot of authors kept holding on to the ideas of Lewin, change literature today is filled with namely negative emotions toward change like: fear, doubt, sorrow, anger and paralysis (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 1997). As claimed by the above mentioned authors organizations are ready for a more positive approach to change management (Merron, 1993; Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 1997; Piderit, 2000). A positive model on resistance coincides with a vision on organizations as systems with build-in mechanisms to cope with changes; people (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 1997). Metselaar and Cozijnsen (1997) argue that the more positive view on organizational change is future oriented and aimed at the human being behind changes instead of the past and the organizations behind changes. After all, it is still people who follow and change structures, rules and procedures.

change, change initiatives may fail (Armenakis et al., 1993; Eby et al, 2000; Cunningham et al., 2002). To create readiness for change, according to Lewin (1951), it is often easier making employees dissatisfied with the current status quo, then giving them picture of a successful future. It is widely recognized that change agents have to establish a great enough sense of urgency (Kotter, 1995, Cummings & Worley, 2004). Employees are only ready for change when there are compelling reasons to change. When readiness for change exists, an organization is primed to embrace change and resistance to change is reduced (Rafferty & Simons, 2006). The assumption can be made that effective organisational change will be showed in low levels of resistance to change and high levels of readiness for change by employees (Elving, 2005).

Readiness for change

Readiness for change has been defined and conceptualized in a number of different ways (Holt, Armenakis, Harris & Field, 2002). Bernerth (2004) suggest that despite the volume of literature available, few conceptualizations of readiness take into account the multiple and interrelated aspects of true change readiness. He argues that readiness is more than understanding change, more than believing in change and that the collection of thoughts and intentions toward a change effort is readiness. As noted by Armenakis et al. (1993) the ‘unfreezing’ stage of Lewin (1951) coincides with readiness for change. According to Armenakis et al. readiness can be defined as the process by which employee’s beliefs and attitudes about an opposed change are altered so that employees perceive the change as both necessary and likely to be successfully. Not only the employees’ beliefs and attitudes toward a change are important, but they emphasize also the importance of modifying the social system around an individual, as readiness for change may be shaped by other people in the environment. Readiness is a state of mind. It is a cognitive precursor to behavior of either resistance or support (commitment) (Armenakis et al, 1993).

Communication

One of the strategies offered for influencing individual cognitions is persuasive communication. Daft (2004) defined communication as ‘the process by which information is exchanged and understood by two or more people, usually with the intent to motivate or influence behaviour’. More recently communication has been described as an information processing and uncertainty reduction activity (Frahm & Brown, 2005). DiFonzo and Bordia (1998) suggest that many organizations fail to provide employees with the needed information during change, employees are often left seeking information through other channels because they want to resolve the uncertainty they experience during change. Recent research demonstrated that only providing information is not enough to reduce employee uncertainty; rather it is the perceived quality of the information that influences employees’ appraisal of change (Allen et al., 2007). Furthermore, communication can enhance openness and positive attitudes towards change to the extent that it effectively reduces uncertainty (Bordia et al., 2004).

Elving (2005) started to research the influence of communication on readiness for change. He made a distinction between communication to inform and communication aimed at creating a community. Information given by the organization should comprise reasons for change and should address the worries employees initially will have. To create a community, organisational communication can be considered as an antecedent of the self-categorisation process, which helps to define group identity and create a community spirit, which fits into organizational requirements (Meyer, Irving & Allen, 1998). Communication to create a community within organisations can for instance result in commitment with the organisation, trust of employees with management and organisational identification which will all have an effect on readiness for change (Elving, 2005).

TABLE 1

The Five Message Components to Help Create Readiness to Change

Message Definition Question it looks to answer

Self-efficacy Confidence in individual and group’s ability to make the change succeed

Can we do this? Will this work?

Principal support Key organizational leaders sup-port this particular change

Is management walking the talk? Do organizational lead-ers believe in this change? Discrepancy A gap between the current state

and an ideal state

Why change? Appropriateness The correct reaction to fix the

gap identified by discrepancy

Why this change? Personal valence Clarifies the intrinsic and

extrin-sic benefits of the change

What’s in it for me?

Source: Bernerth (2004)

Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s judgement of his and the organization’s ability

to implement the change successfully and perform the behaviours required (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). Self-efficacy is central in Bandura’s (1986) social-cognitive theory, which contends that behaviour is strongly stimulated by self influence. This coincides with the expectancy theory developed by Vroom (1964). Vroom argues that people consciously choose courses of action, based upon perceptions, attitudes and beliefs, as a consequence of their desires to enhance pleasure and avoid pain. Perceptions of efficacy serve as a behavioural predictor (Bandura, 1986). Change agents have to build self-efficacy of change success, because it helps in creating a sense of organizational readiness.

Principal support. To institutionalize a change it requires resources and commitment.

Employees have so many change efforts seen stranded due to lack of support from management or respected co-workers that they have become sceptical and unwilling to actively support the change until they experience a clear demonstration of support (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). This is supported by referent cognitions theory and justice theories which suggest when managers and other respected co-workers are not behind the change effort, change will cause greater resentment and resistance (Folger & Martin, 1986). Public sector studies also offer evidence of the critical role that public managers play in bringing about organizational change (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006).

Discrepancy. The discrepancy aspect of the change message communicates information about

needs to change (Armenakis et al., 1993). Nadler and Tushman (1989) suggest that energy must be created to get change initiated and executed. To create this energy change agents have to create a sense of urgency. Urgency and energy are emotional issues, and research indicates that employees and organizations develop the energy to change when faced with real pain (Nadler & Tushman, 1989). According to Armenakis et al. (1993) communicating the discrepancy message involves where the organization currently is, where it wants to be, and why that end-state is appropriate. The public-management literature also contains evidence on the importance of determining the need for change and persuasively communicating it through a continuing process of exchange with as many stakeholders and participants as possible (Fernandez & Rainey, 2006).

Appropriateness. Employees may feel some form of change is needed but disagree with the

change as opposed. They must feel that the proposed change will be the answer to fix the problems communicated in discrepancy. If not, employees are not ready to change (Bernerth, 2004). Communicating the appropriateness of the suggested change is similar to much of what change theorists call creating a vision. Employees are only ready for change when they believe that useful change is possible, also when they are unhappy with the current status quo (Kotter, 1995).

Personal valence. If employees do not see the personal benefit for them as an individual they

simply are not ready to change. Employees are interested in the question ‘what is in it for me?’. If they feel that consequences are potentially harmful, they are likely to be nonreceptive for the change effort. But if they see opportunities employees will begin to seek out ways to improve the change process (Bernerth, 2004).

These five message components are critical to successful implementation of a readiness program. Armenakis et al. (1993) state, ‘The purpose of the change message is to create core sentiments in members of the organization by answering a set of five key questions they have about the change’ (p. 103). Employees have to be prepared for change; it is simply not enough to tell change is coming. When the five message components are communicated clearly and effectively, change agents can maximize employees’ commitment. Bernerth (2004) suggests that when one or more of the change message components are not communicated adequately resistance may develop.

Participation

researched the moral context of employee participation. They suggest that there are different views on participation. Some views argue that it is the duty of the organization to let employees participate, when for others, for example when participation is seen as a utility, it serves as a means toward an end, rather than a good itself. It is generally accepted that participation shortens the implementation process and aids its success, although it necessarily lengthens the actual change process. When the change has to be implemented in a short timeframe, it can take too long to let all employees participate. This leads to the discussion whether change is best developed participative, with the active involvement of employees, or led from above, top-down. According to Dunphy (2000) supporters of organizational development (OD) and the socio-technical systems approaches have argued for widespread involvement in the planning and implementation of change. In the 1980’s proponents of strategic management argued that only the management team had the right perspective, knowledge and power to make a change successful. Conger (2000) suggests that widespread participation and buy-in are essential to most successful change efforts. But a purely top-down effort, in which there is no employee participation, is likely to end up in failure just as a purely bottom-up approach. This discussion is still of relevance because of the mixed results shown by research of employee participation (Seibold & Shea, 2001; Lansbury, Davis & Simmons, 1996; Sagie, Elizur & Koslowsky, 1996).

potential resisters in its planning and implementation. Direct involvement in the change process enhances employee readiness for change, partly due to enhanced information flows that help employees understand the need for change and employees having ownership in the change process.

The question whether employee participation should be used takes on a special significance when placed in the context of a public sector organization (Zajac & Bruhn, 1999). Fernandez and Rainey (2006) argue that participation presents a particularly important contingency in the public sector. In the context of public bureaucracies, a sense of efficacy is dependent on one’s participatory experiences in the organization. When it comes to organizational change there are a number of profound differences between a public sector organization and a private sector organization. Not only reasons for change can be different also change concepts and approaches that are transferred from the private to the public sector can lead to contradictory results. When it comes to the public organizational context of participation, Zajac and Bruhn (1999) argue that there are several differences. First, in line with the inclusive values of a democracy, a special argument can be advanced for widespread participation by employees, clients, and the general public in planned change within public organizations. Second, public organizations operating within a diverse, democratic setting must listen to many voices. Everyone has ownership in a public organisation forcing the strategic decision maker to involve all stakeholders in the decision-making process (Wamsley & Zald, 1979). Thus, an argument can be advanced for organizational efforts to provide equal access to voice within planned organizational change. Third, if public employees are to assume special professional responsibilities that come with job tenure, they can reasonably be expected to exercise voice within organizational decision-making processes. This ownership suggests that participation in planned change by employees has greater warrant within public, as opposed to private organizations. Finally, the recent ‘reinventing government’ movement has also special relevance to participation in planned organizational change. This movement emphasizes the need to empower public servants.

Formal – informal participation. Formal participation is laid down in procedures and rules.

Three bases of legitimacy for formal participation are: legal bases, contractual bases and management policies. For example formally established quality circles. Informal participation, in contrast, is a nonstatutary, consensus emerging among interacting members (Cotton et al., 1988). This may occur through the interpersonal relationships between managers and sub-ordinates (Dachler & Wilpert, 1978).

Direct – indirect participation. Direct participation contains immediate personal involvement

of employees while indirect participation mediates involvement through some form of representation (unions) (Cotton et al., 2002).

Access to decision making. Access is the amount of influence employees can have on

decision-making (Cotton et al, 1988). The different levels of access or influence are defined by Dachler and Wilpert (1978). These levels are based on Tannenbaums ‘influence-power-continuum’. Along this continuum different behaviours can be found:

- No (advance) information is given to employees about a decision; - Employees are informed in advance;

- Employees can give their opinion about the decision; - Employees’ opinions are taken into account;

- Employees can veto a decision;

- The decision is completely in the hands of employees.

Content of the decision involved. Outcomes of participation might vary in terms of the content of

the decisions involved (Locke & Schweiger, 1979). De Leede and Looise (1994) made a distinction between: content of the work (e.g. task assignments, job design and speed of work), personnel policies (e.g. working conditions) and organisational policies (e.g. layoffs, profit sharing). These areas often coincide with each other because the content of decision making contains often more than one area.

Duration of the participation. This concerns whether or not participation has a permanent

character. Time may affect organizational and members commitment to participation in decision making. Some forms of participation are temporally but most forms of participation are based for the long term or even permanently (de Leede & Looise, 1994).

Research

It has been demonstrated that the human side of change is an interesting subject in management literature. In order to achieve an effective change one has to understand how employees involved perceive the change. This determines the readiness for change. When change agents overlook this important factor, change initiatives are going to fail. That’s why in this paper two strategies are offered for influencing individual cognitions: persuasive communication (both oral and written) and active participation. By shedding light on these two strategies the article provides insight in these subjects and gives useful lessons to manage these both processes. The research focus is on the question how the communication process and participation process influence the attitudes of employees toward the change process. The attitudes of employees toward the change are captured in the concept of change readiness. Behaviours can move from resistance to commitment.

The objective of the current case study is to analyze the communication and participation processes during the reorganization that took place at the court in Groningen. This analysis will provide insight into factors that have influence on one’s readiness for change. Next to this, when evaluating the change process, it will provide useful lessons as to how the court in Groningen has managed the communication and participation processes. This evaluative research might help them manage future organizational changes in a more effective way. The following model will be researched:

Figure1: Conceptual model

METHODS

To illustrate the key themes discussed in this article a case study is used. A case study approach is suited to answer how and why questions. The approach has been shown to be very effective in analyzing organizational and managerial processes in the past (Yin, 2003). The case study method allows investigators to ‘retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events’ (Yin, 2003). Case studies can involve both quantitative as well as qualitative data. This study is qualitative because in order to answer the main question the various attitudes from employees, regarding the communication and participation processes, are needed. It is focused on the process rather than the outcomes, and on discovery rather than confirmation. This part of the article describes the case study context and explains the procedures used for data collection and analysis.

Data Collection

Interviews. Primary data was collected by means of semi-structured, open-ended in-depth interviews.

Open-ended interviews provide the researcher with the opportunity to ask respondents about the facts of certain events as well as their feelings or opinions (Yin, 2003). In total 33 one- to-one interviews were administered. All the 33 interviews took place in a time frame of two months, November and December 2007. The interviews lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. Each interviewee was promised confidentiality. Interviews were not recorded but note taking was allowed. Each interviewee received a copy of their own interview to check it for accuracy and verify their responses. This member check is favorable for construct validity (Braster, 2000).

TABLE 2

Interview schedule (summary)

ITEMS MAIN QUESTIONS

Communication

Self-efficacy Can we do this?

Principal support Management commitment, is management walking the talk?

Discrepancy Need for change, Why change?

Appropriateness Why this change?

Personal valence Benefits of change, What’s in it for me? Participation

Formal – Informal Was the participation formal-informal? Direct – Indirect Was the participation direct-indirect? Access to decision making Influence on decision-making? Content of the decision involved What content?

Duration Duration of the participation?

Participation process in general: Helped understanding the need for change and ownership in the change process?

Attitude Perception of the ability of the organization to change? Attitude during the change process? (individually)

Change effectiveness Was the change effective?

Based on what factors?

Participants. Interviews were held with employees throughout the organization, varying from all

TABLE 3

Composition of interviewees (n=33)

Who Number Percentage Why

Board members n = 5 15% Responsible for the communication and

participation processes.

Middle management n = 6 18% Partly responsible for the communication and participation processes; target of the restructuring of management. Non-management Administration Secretary Judges Support n = 22 n = 4 n = 4 n= 4 n = 10 67% 12% 12% 12%

31% The quality manager, board secretary and confidante (also member of the work council) were interviewed because of their information-richness.

Document study. Also secondary data sources were used. Several organizational documents consisting

of e-mails and newsletters pertaining to the changes, reorganization plan, intranet logs and minutes from change meetings were gathered. According to Forster (1999) hermeneutic analysis or textual interpretation of company documents bolsters the case study methodology.

Data analysis

RESULTS

In this part of the research the results on the communication and participation processes are shown. Also the influence on change readiness is reflected. Eventually the results of the connection between change readiness and effectiveness are shown.

Communication

In this part insight will be provided in the communication process. Interviewees were asked for the five items derived from literature. See table 5 for the results.

TABLE 5

Communications

Items N _{General opinions}

Discrepancy Need for change 27 16

- The financial position was clearly communicated - It was clear change was necessary

Appropriateness Why this change 16 17 23

- Employees felt this change was not the right one - The reasons for change were not communicated

clearly

- The board did not have a clear vision

Self-efficacy Can we do this 14 15 22

- This change will succeed because there is no choice, the new management model will be put through anyway

- The organization can change if everybody wants to change - I can change Personal valence Benefits of change 19 16

- Employees could not see personal benefits from the change

- Employees felt that the board did not do anything with improvements or suggestions from employees

Principal support Management commitment 18 13

- The board did not motivate and inspire to change - The board did not operate as one team

Discrepancy. For all employees it was clear that the court was heading to huge financial shortcomings.

Appropriateness. For most employees the decision to change the management model came as

a complete surprise. Employees felt that the board used the wrong arguments to come to this decision. Employees doubted the argument that the board already had plans to establish a management model of integral management even when there were no reasons to cutback costs. Especially, because within a short time after the announcement it became clear that even more employees were affected then in first instance was thought of. The board did not have any clue about the consequences for all employees and this leaded to frustration among employees. They felt that the board should have thought about this decision better before bringing out the decision. Also the work council placed questions by the way the board handled. This did not helped understanding the appropriateness of the change for employees because they felt the board did not knew what they were exactly doing. Employees are only ready to make the change work if they are convinced of the appropriateness, therefore the appropriateness factor did not contribute to change readiness of employees.

Self-efficacy. Employees in general were a bit skeptical about the succeeding of this change.

The court has a long history of changes, by legislation or mergers. Thereby taken that an average employee at the court is already working there for ten or more years it is not surprising that employees were not that enthusiastic about reorganizing. They first wanted to see results before they could commit to the change process. Although, they were confident in their own changing capabilities they were not that convinced of the organizations ability to change. Therefore on the self-efficacy factor mixed results are derived concerning change readiness. The believe in one’s own capability to change contributes to change readiness but the lack of belief in the organization’s ability does not.

Personal Valence. Opinions about the personal benefits from this change were not unanimous.

Some employees saw the decision of the board to diminish management as a good decision. By diminishing management the decision making process can be more efficient and faster than before. Others gave more attention to the way the affected employees were handled and therefore did not want to see the benefits. They were not committed to look for ways to improve the change process. They gave critique but the decision was already made, so they felt unheard and not taken serious. As can be concluded also on the personal valence factor mixed results are derived. For some employees the reorganization gave opportunities and therefore these employees were more ready to change for others it did not. For them, the personal valence factor did not contribute to their change readiness.

Principal support. Employees felt that the board was not fully committed to this change.

team and that opinions were sometimes contradictory. This attitude of management caused resistance by some employees to cooperate in the change process. The principal support factor caused a decrease in change readiness because employees did not believe in management.

Participation

Finally the participation process is reflected. Table 6 shows the distinctions based on literature.

TABLE 6 Participation process

Items Form / Examples

Formal-informal participation Formal:

- Work council - Work meetings Informal:

- Information meetings

- Meetings managers/sub-ordinates Direct-indirect participation Direct:

- Members work council - Decentralized level Indirect:

- Central participation through work council Access to decision making Emergence of the problem

- Employees’ opinions are taken into account (work committee)

Decision making process

- No (advance) information is given to employees about a decision

Preparations and approval

- Employees can give their opinion about the decision Content of the decision involved Content of the work

- Redefinition of jobs Personnel policies

- Redefinition of jobs (hours, wage)

Organizational policies (by the work council, but limited influence)

- Reduction of the workforce - Cutback expenditures

- Design of the management model Duration of the participation Permanent character

- Work council Incidental

- Organization wide meetings

Formal-informal participation. The case of the court of Groningen is a mixture between formal and

council gives a (partly) positive advice. Also employees had the right to give their written reaction on the plans. All these rules and procedures concerning reorganizations are laid down in a reorganization statute. Although this kind of participation is formally laid down in procedures not all employees were aware of the role the work council had in the whole process. By means of a newsletter, send end of March, the position of the work council was explained. Next to formal participation through the work council employees could participate through regular work meetings of their departments.

Informal participation took already place in an early stage of the reorganization process. Three employees (including the chairman of the work council) were involved as hearer of board meetings about the reorganization. When plans took more shape several information meetings were organized in order to inform employees about the progress of the reorganization process and to ask for employees’ opinions and ideas. These meetings were not on regular bases or laid down in a management policy. Next to these meetings for all employees, several informal meetings took place between managers and sub-ordinates. This could be to inform an employee about his or her personal situation or to ask for expert advice about how to arrange the new management structure.

Informal participation contributed to a higher degree of change readiness, employees got the feeling they were taken seriously and got the idea they could influence the decision making process. This was the opinion during the process, when looking retrospectively employees came to the conclusion the board did nothing with their advice and ideas.

Direct-indirect participation. Employees of the court were indirectly involved in the process

through the work council. Only a small group of employees, those who volunteer in the work council, are directly involved in the change process. When a distinction is made between a central level and a decentralized level more employees are directly involved. When it comes to work specific issues employees had a bigger voice in the design. Because of the impact of the decision employees wanted to directly participate in the decision making process. Those who did not participate directly felt more unheard then those who did. So for some employees, the ones who directly participated, it had a positive influence on their change readiness for others it had a negative influence.

Access to decision making. Using Tannenbaums influence-power-continuum the case of the

From the interviews it became clear that employees had the feeling that the board did not listen to them. Employees gave a lot of ideas and input as well as critiques but the board did nothing with these suggestions. Employees felt they were involved because the board had to because of their credibility. That’s why the distinction ‘Employees can give their opinion about the decision’ is used and not ‘Employees’ opinions are taken into account’. The degree of access to decision making had a negative influence on change readiness, employees felt unheard.

Content of the decision involved. As mentioned before the areas of the content of the decision

involved often coincide with each other because the content of decision making contains often more than one area. At the case of the court it is the same. The decision to reorganize has influence on all three domains of decision content. The reorganization contains restructuring of management and cutback expenditures. This decision has influence on the (re)definition of jobs and the size of the workforce. Employees and the work council can give advice about the reorganization plans, thus about all areas mentioned before. This had a positive influence on employees change readiness because they felt they got influence on the whole decision, and not just a unimportant part of it.

Duration of the participation. The duration of the participation concerns whether or not the

participation has a permanent character. In the case of the court it is a mixture between a permanent and (mostly) incidental character. Participation of the work council is on legal bases and therefore has a permanent character. The court is obliged to let the work council participate. Work meetings are also on a permanent base. The meetings held to inform about the reorganization were on temporal bases. After working ten months in the new situation it became clear that the span of control for some managers was too big. Therefore the board decided to make some adjustments regarding the management model. Because a lot of the participation was temporal the board made this decision alone. Employees blamed the board for not letting them participate (again) in the decision making process. This did not contribute to their change readiness.

Change effectiveness

reorganization. These employees mostly worked on a created job, because they did not found another job yet. This leaded to an ineffective situation, where the court had to employ people who would rather be somewhere else. After working ten months in the new situation it became clear that the span of control for some managers was too big. Therefore the board decided to make some adjustments to the model. These adjustments decreased the savings that were made on staffing costs. Employees blamed this ineffectiveness to the board. By this time the financial position of the court was above expectation, heading to a positive result of almost € 400.000,-. For all those employees who have been through the whole reorganization process this felt unbelievable, there were a lot rumors within the organization that the reorganization was unnecessary and purely decided by the board.

DISCUSSION

In this part of the article the results of the research will be discussed and conclusions will be made. Furthermore, implications for theory will be given as well as for practice. Finally, limitations and further research options will be discussed.

Influence of change readiness on change effectiveness

Stuart, 2005) who found that the relationship between change readiness and change effectiveness is rather weak.

Metselaar (1995) suggested that this weak relationship, between change readiness and change effectiveness, has to do with rules and procedures that limit a managers’ freedom to make decisions. Employees in his research were professionals who had a lot of autonomy in their daily job, but when it comes to secondary processes had limited freedom. This may also be true for some employees at the court like judges and secretaries. These professionals have all freedom in giving judgments in court cases but are bounded to rules about for example reporting. So for some employees the bounded influence on decision making may have influence on the relation between change readiness and change effectiveness.

Influence of the communication process on change readiness

This study suggests a connection between the communication process and change readiness. In the court, as predicted, commitment of employees will lead to heightening of employees’ readiness for change levels. This finding supports past literature of Armenakis et al. This research also suggests that when the five message components are not communicated clearly and effectively resistance may develop, as can be concluded from employee reactions. The research results show a mixture between message components that heightened commitment and others that caused resistance. Not every message component had the same influence on change readiness. These results support the notion, that a decrease of commitment during the change process can also reduce change readiness. The results will be discussed in order of each message component separately.

Discrepancy & Appropriateness. Employees were quite unanimous about how the

seem to be important parts of creating readiness for change, because without motivation to change employees will not help and the effort goes nowhere.

Principal support .The findings regarding principal support show that employees did not feel

management was actively supporting them to change. This resulted in less commitment towards the change process and a lack of trust in management. This outcome is in line by what referent cognition theory and justice theories suggest; when managers and other respected coworkers are not behind the change effort, change will elicit greater resentment and resistance. Management is crucial for change to occur, not only to realize their own suggestions but also employees’ suggestions. This important role of management is also acknowledged by Antoni (2004). He used an expectancy-valence-theory to explain what supports organizational members in the change process. He concluded that management has the opportunity to positively influence employees change attitudes by how they support and value change. The relationships in his study show that employees see management as role model and thus expect such (supporting) behavior of management. Another important factor is the need of procedural fairness from the board, if employees do not have the information about or doubt the trustworthiness of the board they need procedural justice in the process to decide how to react to the outcomes they received from an authority (van den Bos, Wilke & Lind, 1998). Rhoades and Eisenberger (2001) even suggest that employees’ perceptions of fairness are the strongest driver of perceived organizational support.

As the results show trust seems to be an important factor in the message component principal support. This is in line with research from Whitney (1994) and Kramer & Tyler (1995) who established that trust in management can be manifested in employee behaviors and attitudes. These findings support the notion of Hultman (1998) that even when employees do not completely agree with the change effort made by management, they may be more ready to accept if they trust those who are responsible. So if management at the court had improved their trustworthiness, employees may be more committed towards the change process.

Personal valence. On the personal valence message component mixed results were derived.

Self-efficacy. Employees were not lacking confidence by themselves to change. At the court

changes are everyday business due to legislation or mergers. However, the amount of confidence in the organization’s ability to change was not overwhelming. As stated by Bandura (1986) perceptions of efficacy serve as a behavioral predictor. When looking at the foundation of Bandura’s work the general model of social learning theory is very important. Social learning theory suggest that employees own behavior in the past and their experiences cause them to develop expectations about their ability to perform before even an attempt is made. This implies that employees learn from outcomes of past experiences, this learning provides a feedback loop in which outcomes of the past are bases for expectations of the future. This can be an explanation for employees being a bit reserved towards the ability of the organization to change.

Azjen (2002) argues that self-efficacy is influenced by the concept of behavior control. He argues that self-efficacy is correlated with perceived controllability and that those two components comprise the higher-order concept of perceived behavior control. The construct of perceived behavioral control was added to the theory of planned behavior in an attempt to deal with situations in which people may lack complete volitional control over the behavior of interest. It appears that the self-efficacy message component has antecedent concepts that have not been taken into account in this research and might have influenced the research results.

Influence of the participation process on change readiness

Just like the communication process, the participation process also seems to have a connection with change readiness. If employees feel not committed, because they can’t participate, levels of change readiness decrease. The results show that employees were more ready for change when they saw management putting effort in it. These results are consistent with previous research of Galbraith et al (1993) who suggested that managerial efforts to involve employees may increase their organizational participation and productivity. Furthermore, the results show that when employees participated in the change effort it had a positive impact on trust in management and perceptions of supervisory support for improvement. So the conclusion can be made that employee participation may lead to additional interactions with management and could provide new opportunities for employees to develop trust in management. According to a research by Weber and Weber (2001) employees become more familiar with the change and the grade of impact when employees support for management increases and the change effort increases. This implies that not only during the communication process but also during the participation process principal support seems to be important. Principal support may be a key aspect that influences both processes and where they may get intertwined.

predominantly put through in a top-down way. They have been conceived and executed by management only. The results show that it depends on the phase in the change process to which degree employees are allowed to participate in decision making. In the decision making process opportunities for participation of employees were rather low. In the beginning, only indirect participation was possible through representation of the work council during the change process. Further on in the change process (implementation phase) possibilities of participation increased, also possibilities of direct participation increased. These results are consistent with what researchers define as the ‘participation paradox’ (Kanter, 1983; Cressey & Williams, 1990). When looking at the content of the decisions involved it shows that decisions about organizational policies are made in the beginning of the change process. Implying that employees have less opportunity to participate in these decisions. Further on in the change process, when employee participation increased, decisions were about the content of the work.

Employees felt not heard by the board, especially in the beginning of the change process. They felt management pushing, during the change, through the organization without consulting employees, causing a lot of resistance in the beginning of the change process. There are strong arguments against limiting the drafting of vision and strategies to a small group of employees. Latham, Winters and Locke (1994) concluded that participation in strategy formulation and goal setting directly affects self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is also correlated with goal commitment. As suggested in literature, self-efficacy helps employees in creating a sense of organizational readiness. Further in the change process, employees felt more committed because they got more opportunities to participate in decision making. This relation logically follows from the participation paradox. Another argument against limiting the drafting of vision and strategies to a small group of employees is that involvement of employees in strategy formulation and goal setting helps them further understand the need for change (Lines, 2004). Findings of his research show that employees’ perceptions of the organization’s need for change interact with the use of participation, making the participation-outcome links stronger when perceived need for change is high than when it is low.

So the participation process has influence on self-efficacy which also is part of the communication process, it seems (again) that these processes are connected with each other. Communication is often seen as a one-way, linear process, by involving employees in the change process it becomes a dialogue. Therefore the challenge for management lies in choosing the appropriate form of employee participation, in every phase of the change process.

Theoretical and practical implications

explore the influence that communication and participation processes together may have on change readiness. Furthermore, the relationship between change readiness and change effectiveness has also been taken into account. Because it is a qualitative research based on interviews, it really tries to take a look in the heads of employees. The outcomes of this research support the notion that change readiness is a complex concept that is influenced by more factors then just the communication and participation processes, implying that antecedent and mediating factors need to be explored for progress in both research and practice. This research can guide as a framework for empirical research. Practitioners can use this research to evaluate existing programs and interventions.

The results of this study suggest recommendations for practitioners at the court. As becomes clear from this research, commitment seems to be an important factor to achieve change readiness and eventually an effective change effort. Interventions to increase commitment can also help in being ready for upcoming organizational changes. So the recommendations do not only have an evaluative character but also can lead future change attempts.

the court a feedback channel, communication does not only flow downwards. This also diminishes the information gap about the changes which can cause uncertainty, rumors and grapevine discussions.

Secondly, in order to achieve an effective change effort it is important for management to actively support the change process (again ‘walk the talk’). Actively means that management should support employees in such a way that employees become enthusiastic and inspired to take part in the change process rather than pulling the change by themselves, as happened in the case of the court. More recent study’s about the role of employees in the change process supports such an approach and even report about giving employees the responsibility to pull the change process through (Clegg & Walsh, 2004). In future change attempts, change agents at the court should put more effort in assuring that employees have the ability to succeed in the change process. But they also have to show their vulnerability and dare to make mistakes. It is difficult to convince a group about something they have never done before. Efficacy is probably best communicated through participation, so that employees can gradually build their skills and confidence. More general, efficacy can be communicated through historical examples, showing trust (‘I trust you to succeed’) and appeal to commitment as suggested by Armenakis et al. (1993). By formulating realistic objectives and strategies for communicating how employees can improve the chance of success, management can give employees more confidence in the change process. When employees are motivated they are likely to adapt better to change. Two types of motivation can be distinguished, intrinsic and extrinsic. The court can heighten intrinsic motivation to support task variety, task significance, task identity and task feedback (Hackman & Oldman, 1976). Extrinsic motivation is concerned with externally administered rewards, so the court can give a financial reward or can improve their training program. Also the use of participative strategies, as mentioned before, can be helpful to support employees.

Thirdly, as became clear from equity theory (Adams, 1976) employees want to see how the change will benefit them. Employees want an answer on the question ‘What is in it for me?’. Change agents at the court should have emphasized more on the personal benefits instead of the reduction of cost, which is an organizational issue. They could have emphasized the improvement of decision making within the different departments of the court as well as the efficiency what accompanies these changes. In this way employees could have been more motivated and ready for change. Not only those who got opportunities for a better job because of the reorganization but everyone.

Limitations and further research

Several limitations of this research can be made. A first limitation of this research is that communication and participation are not the only factors contributing to an effective change effort. Also important are trust in management (Whitney, 1994), emotions (Lines, 2005) and behavior control (Azjen, 2002). The actual design of the change and the strategic choices made within this design are also of great importance. If the change design is impossible or totally inappropriate one can communicate and let employees participate as much as they want but it won’t lead to an effective change effort.

Secondly, the suggested relationship between change readiness and an effective change effort has been weekly found in empirical research. This has to do with the fact that there is little or no empirical research available on effective change (Elving, 2005). Although the suggested relationship is not much researched, several researchers have developed models which imply this relation and numerous of handbooks on organizational development report about propositions supporting this relation. Because several researchers agree on the fact that an effective change effort will be dependent on employee behavior, this relationship is included in this research.

Thirdly, the interviews were held 10 months after the change was officially implemented. Therefore the proposed direction of effects can be questioned. The variables formulated to measure employees attitudes towards the change and participation opportunities are aimed on present and not past tense. But these items were measured retrospectively because employees were asked for evaluating the past change effort. This measurement can be questioned because employee’s attitudes can be influenced by the change process and outcomes. A pre-post test design could be used to allow comparisons before and after interventions are implemented. Although this has not been done in this research the results are still of great importance. When it comes to evaluating a change process it is necessary to measure items retrospectively because when questions are asked during the change process the impact is not clear or the outcomes are not yet clear.

Furthermore, a weakness of qualitative case studies is response and interviewer bias. If the interviewer does not create the right settings employees can give answers the interviewer wants to hear (reflexivity) (Yin, 2003). Although, the outcomes can be based on subjectivity if it changes the attitudes of employees toward the change process they are of importance. The researcher tried to eliminate all factors that may influence response and interviewer bias. That’s why the results of this research are of importance.

connection with change readiness and eventually influence (rather weak) change effectiveness. The results can guide further empirical research on managing the communication and participation processes during change.

REFERENCES

Adams, J.S. 1976. Equity theory: toward a general theory of social interaction. New York: academic Press.

Allen, J., Jimmieson, N., Bordia, P., & Irmer, B. 2007. Uncertainty during organizational change: managing perceptions through communication. Journal of Change Management, 7(2): 187-210.

Antoni, C.H. 2004. Research note: A motivational perspective on change processes and outcomes. European journal of work and organizational psychology. 13 (2): 197-216.

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

Armenakis, A.A., & Harris, S.G. 2002. Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of organizational change management, 15(2): 169-183.

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Field, H. 1999. Paradigms in organizational change: Change agent and change target perspectives. In R. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behaviour. New York: Marcel Dekker. Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Mossholder K. 1993. Creating readiness for organizational change. Human

Relations, 16: 1-23.

Azjen, I. 2002. Perceived behavioural control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of applied social psychology. 32 (4): 665-683.

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. 2005. From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: The impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organization Studies, 26(11): 1573 – 1601.

Bandura, A. 1977. Self-efficacy: Toward an unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review, 84(2). Bandura, A. 1986. Differential engagement of self reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational

behavior & Human decision processes, 38(1): 92-114.

Bedeian, A.G., & Zammuto, R.F. 1991. Organizations: theory and design. Chicago: Dryden press.

Bernerth, J. 2004. Expanding our understanding of the change message. Human resource development review, 3(1): 36-52.

Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. 2004. Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about control? European journal of work & Organizational psychology, 13(3): 345-365.

Braster, J.F.A. 2000. De kern van casestudy’s. Assen: Van Gorcum. Burnes, B. 2004. Managing change (4th ed.). Harlow: Prentice-Hall.

Clegg, C., & Walsh, S. 2004. Change management: time for a change? European journal of work and organizational psychology. 13 (2): 217-239.

Coetsee, L. 1999. From resistance to commitment. Public administration quarterly, 23(2): 204-222.

Conger, J.A. 2000. Effective change begins at the top. In: M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change: 99-112. Boston, MA: Harvard business school press.

Cotton, J., Vollrath, D., Frogatt, K., Lengnick-Hall, M., & Jennings, K. 1988. Employee participation: diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of management review, 13: 8-22.

Cozijnsen, A.J., & Vrakking, W.J. 1995. Ontwerp en invoering: strategieen voor organisatieverandering. Alphen aan den Rijn: Samsom Bedrijfsinformatie.

Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. 2004. Organization development and change (8thed.). Mason, OH: Thomson/South Western.

Cunningham, C.E., Woodward, C.A., Shannon, H.S., MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D., & Brown, J. 2002. Readiness for organizational change: A longitudinal study of workplace, psychological and behavioural correlates. Journal of occupational & organizational psychology, 75(4): 377-392.

Dachler, P., & wilpert, B. 1978. Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in organizations: a critical evaluation. Administrative science quarterly, 23: 1-37.

Daft, R.L. 2004. Organization theory and design (8thed.). Cincinnatti: South-Western college publishing.

Davis, E.M., & Lansbury, R.D. 1996. Employee involvement and industrial relations reform: reviewing a decade of experience in Australia. Employee Relations, 18(5): 5-24.

Dawson, P. 1997. In the deep end: conducting processual research on organizational change. Scandinavian journal of management, 13(4): 389-405.

Dent, E.B., & Goldberg, S.G. 1999. Challenging ‘Resistance to change’. The journal of applied behavioural science, 35(1): 25-41.

DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. 1998. A tale of two corporations: Managing uncertainty during organizational change. Human resource management, 37(3/4): 295-305.

Doyle, M., Claydon, T., & Buchanan, D. 2000. Mixed results, lousy process: the management experience of organizational change. British Journal of Management, 11(3): 59-80.

Dunphy, D. 2000. Embracing paradox: Top-down versus participative management of organizational change, a commentary on Conger and Bennis. In: M. Beer & N. Nohria (Eds.), Breaking the code of change: 99-112. Boston, MA: Harvard business school press.

Eby, L.T., Adams, D.M., Russell, J.E.A., & Gaby, S.H. 2000. Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees’ reactions to the implementation of teambased selling. Human relations. 53(3): 419-442.

Elving, W.J.L. 2005. The role of communication in organisational change. Corporate communications: An international journal, 10(2): 129-138.

Fernandez, S., & Rainy, H. 2006. managing succesfull organizational change in the public sector. Public administration review, 66(2): 168-176.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. 1975. Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Folger, R., & Martin, C. 1986. Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: Distributive and procedural justice effects. Journal of experimental social psychology, 22:531.

Forster, N. 1999. The analysis of company documentation. In C. Casell & G. Symon (Eds.). Qualitative methods in organisational research: A practical guide, 9, London: Sage.

Frahm, J., & Brown, K. 2005. First steps: linking change communication to change receptivity. Journal of organizational change management, 25(3): 370-387.

Galbraith, J.R. et al. 1993. Organizing for the future: The new logic for managing complex organizations. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.