Getting employees on board: A study on
communicating change by using social accounts
Student: Nancy Moorman 10459146 Master’s program Communication Science
Master’s Thesis; Graduate School of Communication Supervisor: dr. J.M. Slevin
2 Abstract
Although organizations have to deal with organizational changes quite often nowadays, the implementation of change is often not successful. Employees play an important role in situations of change, as their support is crucial in determining change-success. This study aims to provide insights into how to get these important players on board of a change by use of social accounts in change communication. By means of an online experiment, among 158 Dutch adults, the effects of different types of social accounts on employees’ willingness to change are studied. Additionally, the role of acceptability of social accounts and trust in management are examined. After analyses with the 4th and 7th Mediated Moderation models by Hayes (2013), it turned out that none of the different types of social accounts had a direct effect on employees’ willingness to change. Furthermore, acceptability of social accounts did not mediate this relationship, but a direct effect of acceptability of social accounts on
willingness to change was found. Finally, when trust in management was higher, it was more likely that accounts were accepted. However, this was only true for ideological accounts. Although social accounts do not seem to have direct effects, the importance of acceptance of reasons given for change is stressed by these findings. Future research should therefore focus on further examining the conditions under which employees are most likely to accept
3 1. Introduction
Because of today’s dynamic environments, global markets and advancing technologies, organizations are continually put in situations demanding changes in their strategy, structure, process, and culture (Armenakis, Harris, Mossholder, 1993; Cummings & Worley, 2008; Greenwood & Hinings, 1996). Kanter, Stein and Jick (1992) even state that managers should be concerned with managing change as being one of their main responsibilities, since some form of change is almost constantly going on in an organization. Moreover, it is found that organizational change is necessary for competitive advantages and long-term survival of an organization (Lüscher & Lewis, 2008).
However, most processes of change are not implemented successfully. The findings of LaClair and Rao (2002) invigorate this by showing that of the 50 change initiatives studied, approximately 58% did not reach their proposed goals. Failure rates in other studies present an even worse scenario with numbers climbing up to 70% (Boonstra, 2000) or even 80 to 90% (Cope, 2003).
For a change to be implemented successfully, an organization is dependent on the cooperation of its’ employees. The willingness to change of employees is therefore seen as a key factor in determining the success of implementing change (Miller, Johnson & Grau, 1994). To increase the chance that employees behave in the desired way, effective communication is found to be crucial (Elving, 2005; Schweiger & De Nisi, 1991). Unfortunately, managers often fail to communicate effectively in times of change (Brashers, 2001; Van Dam, Oreg & Schyns, 2008).
Social accounts are a form of communication extensively researched in change literature (e.g. Cobb & Wooten, 1998; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999; Shaw, Wild & Colquitt, 2003). Social accounts are “the explanations one gives another for the decisions and actions he or she has
4 made” (Cobb & Wooten, 1998, p. 148). By using these accounts, employees might better understand decisions leading to change from the point of view of the ones making the decisions. It is argued that this determines whether the implementation of change turns out successfully (Tucker, Yeow & Viki, 2012). Therefore, the aim of this study is to provide insights into whether and under which conditions social accounts are a useful tool when communicating organizational change. By distinguishing different types of social accounts and analyze their effects on employees’ willingness to change, this study contributes to the literature on social accounts. The research question central to this thesis following from this is: To what extent does the use of different types of social accounts in change-communication affect the willingness to change of employees in the process of organizational change?
Usually social account research focuses on outcomes as acceptability or fairness of these accounts perceived by employees (e.g. Bies & Shapiro, 1987; Frey & Cobb, 2010; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999). However, little is known about if the acceptability of accounts actually leads to outcomes like willingness to change (Frey & Cobb, 2010). Therefore this study examines the mediating role of acceptability in the relationship between social accounts and willingness to change. Additionally, it is argued that trust is an important contextual factor under which change communication can be effective (Allen et al., 2007). Therefore, the role of trust in management is examined. Following from the above there are two sub-questions added:
1. To what extent does the acceptability of a claim mediates the relationship between the use of social accounts and the willingness to change of employees?
2. To what extent does trust in management moderates the relationship between the different types of social accounts and the acceptability of a social account?
5 2. Theory
2.1 Organizational change
In general, organizational change is defined as some sort of process in which renewal takes place in an organization (Tucker et al., 2012). Organizational change comes in numerous forms and shapes (Burner, 2004). While in some cases change is implemented step by step and hardly noticed, at other times change can be large and have a huge impact. Despite these different forms of change, the most dominant way of categorizing changes is by the use of the concepts planned and emergent change. Planned changes are assumed to be top-down
processes in which managers are responsible for managing, organizing and leading the change (Birken, Lee, & Weiner, 2012; Burnes, 2004). According to Lewin planned changes go
through a linear process of three stages: unfreezing – moving – refreezing (Lewin, 1952). On the other hand, emergent changes point to bottom-up processes that are unplanned and non-linear. Not the manager, but the people working for the organization together, initiate and stimulate changes in how they work over time (Kuntz & Gomes, 2012).
However the latter type of change has gained in popularity over the last years, planned, top-down approaches of change are still most common (McNulty & Ferlie, 2004). Therefore the focus of this study will be on planned change processes. As is indicated earlier, a great part of these planned changes do not reach their proposed goals (Boonstra, 2000; Cope, 2003;
LaClair & Rao, 2002). The willingness to change of employees was introduced as a key factor determining the success of implementation (Miller et al.,1994). The high numbers of failing change processes lead to the assumption that getting employees on board is a complex process. Why this is such a complex process will be discussed next.
2.2 Complexity of organizational change
A lot of factors contribute to the complexity of an organizational change (Bennebroek, Gravenhorst, Werkman, & Boonstra, 2003). Among these factors are aspects of the
6 organization as well as aspects of the change process itself. One aspect of the organization that is deemed important is the organizational culture (Bennebroek et al., 2003; Harrison & Carroll, 1991). An organization with a more innovative culture is more likely to implement change successfully than an organization with a bureaucratic culture that is more focused on stability. This is due to strong norms and values forming the culture, that employees hold onto when change is implemented (Schein, 1992). That culture can make or break the success of a change, was also shown by Baxter & Connolly (2014) in their study on implementing digital tools in organizations. A critical step in the implementation process was found to be an assessment of the organizational culture. In this way, the change, or in this case the digital tool, can be aligned with the culture.
Aspects of the change process complicating the implementation of change, are more broadly studied. It is stated that change increases employees’ feelings of uncertainty (e.g., Allen, Jimmison, Bordia, & Irmer, 2007). Employees can feel uncertain about different elements of the change like why the change is happening, how it is implemented and what the outcome will be (Buono and Bowditch, 1989). Furthermore, the implementation of change may lead to feelings of uncertainty regarding employees’ own position in the organization (Bordia et al., 2004a). Moreover, as change mostly involves threats for employees, employees
unconsciously protect themselves from these by defense-mechanisms such as denial or disassociation (Bovey & Hede, 2001). These defense-mechanisms, may cause difficulties in adapting to the change.
Garside (1998) argues that there is a simple reason for the complexity of change: managers and employees have different views on change. Whereas managers more often see change as an opportunity to improve organizational processes or structures, employees see change as something intrusive, disorganizing and threatening. This misalignment in views causes struggles and resistance during the process of change.
7 Managing this resistance and turning employees from resistant into willing to adapt to a change is therefore deemed not only a major challenge, but also most important in achieving a successful implementation of change (Allen et al,. 2007; Miller et al., 1994). Willingness to change is defined as the extent to which employees support and are positive towards the proposed changes (Miller et al., 1994). Multiple studies have shown that support for or willingness to change is crucial for the success of change (Bennebroek, Gravenhorst,
Werkman & Boonstra, 2003; Kanter et al., 1992; Miller et al., 1994). When most employees show a willingness to change, the change has a chance of reaching its’ goals (Miller et al., 1994).
While willingness to change is found to be important in organizational change literature, factors influencing employees’ willingness to change are understudied (Miller et al., 1994). To provide better insights for managers in handling processes of change, this study is focused on a factor affecting willingness of employees: communication of the change. Social accounts are a particular form of communication regularly studied in change literature. The next
section will further explain this form of communication and thereby show its’ role in the process of change.
2.3 Communicating change: social accounts
Although it is not an all-solving solution for the complexity of change processes
communication of the change to other employees is of importance (e.g., Schweiger & De Nisi, 1991). When making choices in communication, managers can use multiple styles and tools such as metaphors or storytelling (e.g., Cornelissen, Holt, & Zundel, 2011). However, in contexts of conflict and managing perceptions, social accounts are a tool commonly used (O’Dwyer, 2005). Scott and Lyman (1968) add to this by saying that accounts are only used in situations that are not part of daily routine. Since change, as described above, is a complex process in which some sort of conflict arises and perceptions of willingness have to be
8 managed and above all breaks some sort of daily routine, it is proposed here that using social accounts to communicate change will be useful. Social accounts are “explanations one gives another for the decisions and actions he or she has made” (Cobb and Wooten, 1998, p.75). These reasons are important in communicating change, as the way these reasons are
interpreted by employees affect how they response to a change (Bobocel, McCline & Folger, 1997; Shapiro, Buttner & Barry, 1994). More specifically, social accounts might influence how employees make sense of the change in a way that is consistent with the interests of management (Shapiro et al., 1994). Moreover, social accounts provide the possibility to view the change from the perspective of management and this contributes to a better understanding of the change (Cobb et al., 2001; Tucker et al., 2012). Consequently, it is proposed that employees are more willing to change (Tucker et al., 2012).
In the literature on social accounts, there is a distinction made between different types of accounts. The divide of accounts by Scott and Lyman (1968) into excuses and justifications has been broadly used (e.g. Cobb & Watson, 2001; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999; Tomlinson & Mayer, 2009). Excuses are accounts in which someone admits that the concerning behavior was caused by a factor that is not under control of himself (Cobb, Stephens, & Watson, 2001; Scott & Lyman, 1968). On the other hand, justifications are accounts in which someone does accept responsibility for the concerning behavior, but presents himself as not violating
normative expectations (Cobb et al., 2001; Scott & Lyman, 1968). According to Tucker et al. (2012) this divide has the risk of oversimplifying the different social accounts. A more extensive classification is used by Cobb & Wooten (1998). Cobb and Wooten (1998) use social accounts specifically in the context of change interventions and recognize the active role of managers in communicating these accounts (Tucker et al., 2012). Therefore in this study their classification is followed. Four different types of accounts arise from this
9 classification, but penitential accounts, referring to regret and apology, have consistently been removed in later work (Cobb et al., 2001). The three remaining types of accounts are: causal accounts, ideological accounts and referential accounts (Bies,1987; Cobb et al., 2001; Tucker et al., 2012). Firstly, causal accounts present forces that make a certain behavior, in this case an organizational change, necessary. Thereby, the attention shifts to the context that enforces a manager to implement a certain change. This includes notions about the necessity of change to insure the organizational future. Secondly, ideological accounts refer to the values of a change and what this means for the organization. This includes the presence of how a change offers a solution for current issues in the organization and goals that will be achieved after the change is implemented. Furthermore, Tucker et al. (2012) found that ideological accounts mostly include a reference to the person or department that will answer further questions about the change. Thirdly, referential accounts aim to present a frame of reference for employees to judge the decision of management to implement change (Cobb et al., 2001; Tucker et al., 2012). This means that the change is compared with similar changes in other organization or changes in the past of the own organization (Tucker et al., 2012). By
introducing this other context, managers withdraw their own responsibility for the change to some extent (Bies, 1987).
Despite the recognition in literature, there are only a view studies directly comparing effects of these different types of accounts in an empirical study (e.g., Lines, Selart, Espedal & Johansen, 2005; Tucker et al., 2012). The reason for this could be that it is taken for granted that different social accounts are generally used in one message (Cobb et al., 2001).
Nevertheless, it is argued here that it is important to know which accounts are most effective, so managers have insight into which accounts are most important to focus on when
10 effects of different types of accounts on trust and both found that ideological accounts are the most successful. Referential accounts correlated negatively to trust in both studies. These findings imply that different types of accounts can have different effects on a certain outcome. As discussed above, in general it is expected that using social accounts to communicate change will lead to an increase in employees’ willingness to change. However, which type of account can be used best for this purpose is yet unclear. Therefore the following question is posed:
RQ1: Which type of social account is the most effective in increasing employees’ willingness to change?
With regard to the use of social accounts, positive sounds stem from existing literature (e.g., Tucker et al., 2012). However, it should be noted that effectively communicating a change in any way, including by using social accounts, does not guarantee successful change
implementation per se. It is therefore important to interpret the outcomes of this or any other study on social accounts in light of the complexity of change processes to fully understand communication during change. Managers can be handed all the tools to design an effective message, but if the change itself is wrong or ill-advised, employees’ willingness and thereby the success of this change might not be enhanced by this message. Communicating something in a good way does make employees more intelligent about the change, but this does not necessarily mean that they have the power or resources they need to adapt to this change. Moreover, social accounts aim at increasing feelings of sympathy for the harm-doer (Skarlicki, Olger & Gee, 2004), in this case the manager. However, reducing feelings of blame does not automatically mean that a change communicated by this harm-doer is
11 more. These factors may include for example organizational culture, as described above, interpretation of colleagues, or messages about the change from mass-media outlets. This study tackles this issue by using an experiment with a scenario instead of other studies that mostly use field studies. In this way, participants will be confronted with the change for the first time when they are presented with the social account message to keep external influences or interpretations under control. However, the success of communicating and implementing change is dependent on several factors. Two specific factors that are expected to play an important role in this process are the acceptability of social accounts and the trust of employees in their management. These will be discussed next.
2.4 The underlying process: acceptability of social accounts
While it is stated above that using social accounts will help managers to get their employees on board of a change, it is not yet clear why this is expected. To explain this, the concept of acceptability is introduced here. By explaining why a change is implemented, social accounts want to achieve that employees accept the reasons that are given (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999), meaning that they are perceived as adequate and sufficient (Bies, Shapiro, & Cummings, 1988). In literature on social accounts, this is called aiming for acceptability, fairness or legitimacy of the claims (e.g., Frey & Cobb, 2010; Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999). As Frey & Cobb (2010) notice, these are typically the dependent variables studied in
combination with social accounts. Multiple studies indeed found that social accounts
influence perceptions of fairness (Bies & Moag, 1986; Bies & Shapiro, 1987; Scott& Lyman, 1968). Moreover, by influencing the perceptions of fairness, social accounts help to endure difficulties (Cobb et al., 2001), like change. Following from this: the decisions of
management to implement change are more likely to be seen as fair, when social accounts are used. This is explained by the fairness theory (Folger & Cropanzano, 2001). This cognitive
12 processing model predicts that when people are confronted with a situation in which they are possibly harmed, they ask themselves whether other actions would have resulted in less feelings of moral blame of the action. As social accounts directly address these questions of moral blame (Frey & Cobb, 2010), they positively influence people’s feelings of moral blame regarding harmful situations or actions. In situations of change, this means that when a change is perceived as possibly harmful by employees, social accounts can decrease the feelings of moral blame and increase perceptions of fairness.
Consequently, when employees feel that the decisions of management to implement change are fair they are more likely to accept the reasons given for the change (Bies, 1987; Frey & Cobb, 2010). Although in many studies fairness or acceptability is studied as the dependent variable, Rousseau & Tijoriwala (1999) already touched upon the fact that social accounts do not only affect the acceptability of these accounts, but also have the ability to influence the success of the implementation process itself. In this regard it is argued that if the reasons for change are accepted, employees are found to be more willing to adapt to organizational difficulties implemented by superiors (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Organizational change can be viewed as such an organizational difficulty. Therefore, in this study acceptability will not be examined as the dependent variable, but as a mean to a broader end: willingness to change. The following is expected:
H1: The acceptability of accounts given for change will positively mediate the relationship between the use of social accounts and willingness to change of employees
2.5 Role of trust in management
13 Ferrin, 2001). Often trust is studied as a contextual factor under which change communication can be effective (Allen et al., 2007). Trust refers to “the extent to which one is willing to ascribe good intentions to and have confidence in the words and actions of other people” (Cook & Wall, 1998, p. 39). According to Dirks and Ferrin (2001, p.461) trust “helps individuals assess the future behavior of another party and/or interpret past behavior.” In situations of change, it is the trust that employees have in their management that is of interest, as they are the ones communicating and implementing the change. Nowadays trust has
become an even more important factor as employees have more sources than just management to get their information from. Reasons for change provided by external sources, with mass media being a key source of information, might differ from the ones given by management (Armenakis et al., 1993). In some situations, employees even hear about an organizational change from the national news before it is communicated to them by their management. It is dependent on a trust-relationship, which source employees use to seek information and how this information is perceived (Allen et al., 2007).
In line with this, trust is often found to be a moderator affecting how employees perceive the actions performed by their management (Bies, 1987; Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1999). This moderating role of trust is relevant for social accounts because of two processes. Firstly, trust increases the likelihood and willingness of employees to pay attention to the reasons
presented by management. Secondly, when trust in management is high employees will be more likely to believe the reasons management presents (Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999). Additionally, feelings of trust decrease suspicion and keep employees from searching disconfirming information (Bies, 1987; Tucker et al., 2012). More specifically, Bies (1987) stated that employees who have higher trust in management are more likely to accept the social account that is given by the management. When trust in management is high, employees will believe the reason given for change to be true and justified (Tucker et al.,
14 2012). Findings of Rousseau & Tijoriwala (1999) already indicated this as it was shown that high trust is related to acceptance of information presented by management. Therefore the following is expected:
H2: When employees have higher trust in management, the relationship between using social accounts in communicating change and employees’ acceptance of these accounts will be stronger and the other way around.
Although there are a number of scales developed to measure trust, almost none directly relate to trust in leaders in an organizational setting (e.g., Rotter, 1967; Wrightsman, 1964) or are not completely available (Jones, James & Bruni, 1975). The scale developed by Cook & Wall (1998) is an exception. Their scale acknowledges that different types of trust relations exist in an organization: trusting peers and trusting management. As social accounts are
communicated by management, only the second part is of interest here. Within trust, the authors separate two dimension that can be related to situations of change. Firstly, the faith one has in how trustworthy managements’ intentions are. Secondly, the confidence one has in the ability of management. These dimensions will both be used in this study to measure trust.
3. Method
3.1 Design and sample
To answer the research question an online experiment is conducted. This method was chosen because with this study it is aimed to give an insight into the behavior of a group of people at one point in time. Additionally, it was chosen to do the experiment online because
information about people’s work and their management is often sensible. An online experiment, being the most anonymous way to participate in a study, is the best way to
15 exclude social desirability from the answers people give. Moreover, by using an experimental design external factors, like former news about a change, are tried to be kept under control. In comparison to former field studies, this is seen as a strength of the current study.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
The population consisted out of Dutch employees above the age of 18. It was stated important that organizational changes could potentially be communicated from management to other employees. An additional requirement to take part in the experiment was therefore that respondents had to be working for an organization with more than 5 employees. A convenience sample, collected through the researchers’ Facebook and LinkedIn pages, consisted out of 158 participants (Man = 55, Women = 103). On average respondents were 35.5 (SD = 14.14, min = 18, max = 66) years old. The participants were equally divided on higher and lower educational levels as well as on years of working experience (min = less than 1 year, max = more than 15 years). The majority of the participants indicated to be part of the executive staff, only 22% indicated to be on a middle- or top-management position.
3.2 Procedure
The experiment started with a short introduction on what respondents could expect and they were asked to affirm informed consent. After that, the respondents were asked to fill in
Social accounts Trust in management Acceptability of social account Employees’ willingness to change
16 general information such as gender, age, role at work and time of experience in the
organization. Next, the amount of trust they currently held in the management of the
organization was assessed. Then, they were requested to act as if a presented scenario was at hand in the organization they work for. This scenario described a situation of change in an organization and was accompanied by a fictive e-mail from management in which the change was communicated. The change had to be a very general one, that could be realistic for a large variety of organizations. Therefore a change in opening hours of the organization was
presented in the scenario. Three versions of this e-mail were made: one in which ideological accounts were present, one in which causal accounts were present and one in which referential accounts were present. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of the three social
account types. After reading their assigned text, all respondents received the same questionnaire, measuring the acceptability of the social account and their willingness to change. At the end they were thanked for their participation and assured that their information would be processed anonymously.
3.3 Variables and operationalization
All variables were measured on a 7-item Likert-type scale, except for the more general demographic and work-related variables.
Type of social account As indicated earlier, the classification of Cobb and Wooten (1998) in causal, ideological and referential accounts is used in this study. The fictive e-mails
containing one of these accounts were based on the questionnaire to measure these types of accounts by Tucker et al. (2012). This means that in every stimuli the reason provided for the change differed. Figure 2 shows the specific elements that varied. To secure validity, the rest of the content in the stimuli was kept constant. The complete fictive e-mails can be found within the written version of the online experiment in appendix A. At the end of the
17 fictive e-mail, as a check for the manipulation. This question could be answered by ‘The change is needed to keep making profit, so the organization can continue to exist’, ‘The change is advantageous and solves an existing problem’, ‘Competitors have experienced the change as successful’ or ‘None of the above’. The manipulation was successful as it turned out that in all conditions more than 70% of the participants answered this question correctly. Figure 2. Varying elements stimuli
Type of account: Varying element:
Causal Due to the ongoing economic developments, it will remain necessary to adapt our organization. To be able to continue our businesses we have to keep making profit. Costumer research has shown that increasing our availability will lead to better profit. That is why…
Ideological We are experiencing the problem that costumers cannot always use our services, even though they want this. The planned change can solve this problem. The advantage of the change is that we can provide our
customers with our service more often and in a more flexible way. That is why…
*For questions you can turn to your direct manager
Referential Several of our competitors have expanded their service times in recent years. As they are able to provide their customers with service more often, this has led to an improvement in customer satisfaction. The change is experienced as very successful by other organizations. That is why…
*Based on the classification of Cobb & Wooten, ideological accounts are the only accounts containing an extra element: presenting the person where people can turn to for questions
18 Willingness to change Openness and support are key elements of the definition of willingness to change. Therefore an existing scale for openness to change by Miller et al.(1994) was adapted for this study. To integrate the total definition, ‘looking forward to’ in some items was changed by ‘support’. Also the item ‘I am willing to adapt to the change’ is added to take on the concept of willingness literally. Respondents were asked to indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with in total 5 propositions on a Likert-scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). Other examples of items that are used are: ‘I would consider myself to be open towards the extension of opening hours at my organization’ and ‘I support the changes that the expansion of opening hours bring for me as an employee’. A factor analysis with varimax rotation showed that these items loaded on one component, with factor-loadings all above .750. Furthermore, the 5 items form a reliable scale (Cronbach’s Alpha =.80). On average employees scored 4.53 (SD = 1.10) on willingness to change.
Acceptability of the social account Acceptable accounts have earlier been described as
adequate and sufficient. The items used here are based on a later addition of a third item to the items of Bies et al. (1988) by Frey & Cobb (2010). Respondents were asked to indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with 3 propositions on a Likert-scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). The items all started with ‘The explanation that management provided for the change was..’ and ended with either ‘sufficient’, ‘adequate’ or ‘acceptable’. A factor analysis with varimax rotation showed that the three items loaded on one component, with factor-loadings all above .880. Furthermore, the items form a reliable scale (Cronbach’s Alpha =.90). On average employees scored 4.64 (SD = 1.48) on acceptability of social accounts.
Trust in management As explained above, a scale developed by Cook & Wall (1998) will partially be used to measure trust. This scale exists of two parts: faith in trustworthiness of management’s intentions and confidence in the ability of management. Following Tucker et al. (2012), three items that originally were intended to measure trust in peers, were adapted to
19 items measuring trust in management. In total 8 items were used for this study. Respondents were asked to indicate how much they agreed or disagreed with 8 propositions on a Likert-scale (1 = totally disagree, 7 = totally agree). Examples of items are ‘Most managers can be relied upon to do as they say they will do’ and ‘I have full confidence in the skills of
management’. A factor analysis with varimax rotation showed that these items loaded on one component, with factor-loadings all above .700. Furthermore, the 8 items form a reliable scale (Cronbach’s Alpha =.90). On average employees scored 4.53 (SD = 1.10) on trust in
management.
3.5 Analyses
To test the conceptual model presented earlier, the 4th and 7th Mediated Moderation Models through PROCESS are used (Hayes, 2013) is used. PROCESS is chosen as method of analysis for three specific reasons. First, PROCESS offers the possibility to test different regressions within one model. Since the conceptual model proposed in this study has to be tested with multiple regressions, PROCESS is found to be most suitable. Secondly, in PROCESS the analyses are executed with the use of bootstrapping. In this way it is ensured that analytical models are reliable and produce accurate results. Lastly, when effects are found to be significant, PROCESS gives an insight into the strength of these effects by Sobel-tests (Hayes, 2013). Within the PROCESS models, every route is tested with a separate regression analysis. By this, the effects of the different types of social accounts on willingness to change are tested. Moreover, the indirect effects through the proposed mediator acceptability of social accounts is tested with model 4 and the indirect of the moderator trust in management are tested with model 7. By using dummy-variables, the effectiveness of each type of account is compared to the other two types. To illustrate the outcomes, the model for ideological accounts is presented in figure 3. The other two models can be found in appendix C.
20 4. Results
4.1 Covariates
At first a correlation-matrix is made to check whether some control variables had to be added to the PROCESS model. This matrix showed that gender, age, education level, working experience and position in the organization all did not correlate significantly with the acceptability of social accounts, trust in management or willingness to change. Therefore, it was decided to not add these variables as covariates in the main analyses. For an overview of these correlations, see appendix B.
4.2 Direct effects
Research question 1 questioned which type of social account is the most effective in increasing employees’ willingness to change. Analyses showed that there were no direct effects of causal accounts b = .19, SE = 20, p =.349 ideological accounts b = -.04, SE =.20, p =.854 or referential accounts b = -.15, SE =.20, p =.449 on employees’ willingness to change. The answer to research question 1 therefore is: there is no direct effect of any type of social account on employees’ willingness to change. However, for the second part of the model, a direct effect of acceptability of social accounts on employees’ willingness to change was found b = .30, SE =.05, p <.001, 95% CI [.19, .41]. This means that when employees accept a social account, they will be more willing to change.
4.4 Indirect effects: mediation
Hypothesis 1 expected that acceptability of social accounts would positively mediate the relationship between the use of social accounts and willingness to change of employees. PROCESS mediation-model 4 was not significant for causal accounts F(2, 155) = .34, p =.710, ideological accounts F(2, 155) = .34, p =.710 or referential accounts F(2, 155) = .34, p =.710. Hypothesis 1 is thus not accepted.
21 Figure 3. Schematic presentation outcomes PROCESS: ideological accounts
.52*
-.13 .30*
-04
Note N = 158. CI = 95%. Unstandardized coefficient, * p < .05
4.4 Indirect effects: moderation
Hypothesis 2 expected that trust in management would positively moderate the relationship between using social accounts in communicating change and employees’ acceptance of these accounts. PROCESS model 7 indicated that the moderation model was only significant for participants in the ideological account condition F(4, 153) = 2.67, p <.05. When trust in management is higher, the relationship between social accounts and acceptability becomes stronger b =.52, SE =.23, p <.05. This outcome was not significant for participants in the causal account condition F(4, 153) = 1.53 p =.120 or in the referential account condition F(4,153) = 1.85, p =.121. Hypothesis 2 is thus only partially accepted.
5. Conclusion and discussion
Although organizations have to deal with organizational changes quite often nowadays, the implementation of change is often not successful. The support of employees is crucial in determining change-success. Effective communication can play an important role in getting these employees on board. Therefore, in this thesis the effects of using different types of social accounts during change communication on the willingness to change of employees
Ideological accounts Trust in management Acceptability of social account Employees’ willingness to change
22 were studied. In addition the role of acceptability of social accounts and trust in management in this relationship were examined.
It can be stated that none of the different types of social accounts has a direct effect on willingness to change and that there is no significant mediating role for the acceptability of social accounts in this relationship. However, there is a direct relationship between
acceptability of social accounts and willingness to change. When social accounts are accepted, employees are more willing to change. Furthermore, trust in management is
moderating the relationship between the use of social accounts and the acceptability of social accounts, but this was only true for ideological accounts. When employees have higher trust in management, ideological accounts are more likely to be accepted by employees.
The response to RQ1 was that there are no direct effects from the use of social accounts on willingness to change. Although social accounts are commonly used (O’Dwyer, 2005; Scott & Lyman, 1968), these findings challenge their effectiveness in change communication. Moreover, this finding contradicts previous research that has shown the effectiveness of social accounts in change communication (e.g., Rousseau & Tijoriwala, 1999; Tucker et al., 2012). The differences in results might be caused by the experimental approach of this study
compared to studies done by others that involve real organizational settings (Cobb, Stephens & Watson, 2001; Tucker et al., 2012). In a real-life setting, employees’ responses to the change might be influenced by other factors than the social account communicated. For example, communication about the change among colleagues or messages about the change presented by the media. However, in this study participants were confronted with the organizational change for the first time when they were presented with the scenario. Therefore, the effects measured could not have been caused by other external factors. This implies that social accounts do not have an effect in a controlled situation, but that there are external factors influencing the effectiveness of social accounts. Future research should
23 therefore focus on conditions that are enhancing or diminishing the effectiveness of social accounts.
H1 was fully rejected as acceptability of social accounts did not mediate the relationship between the use of social accounts and willingness to change. However, a direct relationship between acceptability of social accounts and willingness to change was found. Among others, Frey & Cobb (2010) argued that although acceptability of social accounts is often studied as an outcome, little is known about if acceptance actually leads to outcomes like willingness to change. By confirming this assumption, the finding implies that the acceptability of accounts or reasons given for change are an important concept in studying change communication. Although it was shown that social accounts do not directly affect employees’ willingness to change, reasons given for change are found to be important as their acceptance influences whether employees are more willing to change. Future research should therefore focus on specific aspects that make a reason acceptable.
H2 was partially accepted by only finding a moderating effect of trust in management when ideological accounts were used. This implies that it is important for managers to be aware of the level of trust they have gained by their employees. If trust is high, it might be enhancing the effectiveness of the communication when ideological accounts are used compared to causal or referential accounts. That higher trust only increased the chance of acceptability of that account for ideological accounts and not for causal or referential accounts, might be caused by the content of this type of account. Causal accounts are shifting the attention to the context enforcing the management to implement change. Referential accounts are comparing the situation to competitors or significant others. These are both focused on more external reasons for change. On the other hand, ideological accounts are more about internal reasons for the management to implement change as they present change in a context of problem solutions and future goals. When internal reasons are used, trust might play a bigger role as
24 the responsibility for the change lies within the management instead of an external factor. Furthermore, Tucker et al. (2012) argued that the success of social accounts is determined by their ability to help employees understand decisions from the point of view of the
management. Being more internally focused, ideological accounts might be more successful in reporting managements’ point of view. Future research could take up on this by examining the differences between internal and external motivations presented in situations of change.
Finally, based on this study it can be concluded that social accounts do not directly influence employees’ willingness to change, but that the acceptability of these accounts do play an important role in getting employees on board of a change. When employees accept the reasons given for change, they are more willing to adapt to the change itself. Furthermore, trust in management has to be evaluated before deciding the type of social account that is used to communicate change. When trust in management is high, this can enhance the effectiveness of what seems to be more internal motivations for change like ideological accounts, compared to more external motivation like causal or referential accounts.
While this study is delivering some interesting findings, there are also some shortcomings. Firstly, the change-messages presented in this study had to be general in order to provide every participant with the possibility to understand and imagine the change in the context of his or her own organization. However, a study by Frey & Cobb (2010) showed that social accounts have more positive effects when they are formulated specifically. The lack of specificity in the messages used in this study could potentially have influenced the results. Future studies on social accounts should pay attention to these differences in message-specificity to give a more complete insight into what makes social accounts work.
Furthermore, this study was using a scenario to examine the effects of social accounts. This was advantageous compared to real-life settings, as was mentioned before, because in this
25 way external factors such as other messages about the change were excluded. On the other hand, the use of a scenario may have led to less involvement of participants. To overcome this, further research should try to combine experimental research with real-life situations. Although this might be ethically challenging, experimenting with different messages during a real situation of organizational change will lead to most clear insights on change
26 References
Allen, J., Jimmieson, N.L., Bordia, P., & Irmer, B.E. (2007). Uncertainty during
organizational change: Managing perceptions through communication. Journal of Change Management, 7(2), 187-210. DOI: 10.1080/14697010701563379.
Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Mossholder, K.W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703.
doi:10.1177/001872679304600601
Bennebroek, K.M., Gravenhorst, R., Werkman, R.A., & Boonstra .J.J. (2003). The change capacity of organisations: General assessment and five configurations. Applied Psychology 52(1), 83–105. doi: 10.1111/1464-0597.00125
Bies, R.J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In L.L. Cummings & B.M. Staw (Eds), Research in organizational behavior (289-319). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & B. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations (43–55). Greenwich: JAI Press.
Bies, R.J., & Shapiro, D.L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgements: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199-218.
Bies, R. J., Shapiro, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Causal accounts and managing organizational conflict. Communication Research, 15(4), 381–399.
Birken, S. A., Lee, S. D., & Weiner, B. J. (2012). Uncovering middle managers’ role in healthcare innovation implementation. Implementation Science, 7, 28.
27 Bobocel, D. R., McCline, R. L., & Folger, R. (1997). Letting them down gently: Conceptual
advances in explaining controversial organizational policies. In C. L. Cooper & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), Trends in organizational behavior (pp. 73–88). Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.
Boonstra, J. J. (2000). Lopen over water, inaugurele rede. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Bovey, W.H., & Hede, A. (2001). Resistance to organisational change: the role of defence mechanisms. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(7), 534-548.
doi:10.1108/EUM0000000006166
Brashers, D. E. (2001). Communication and uncertainty management. Journal of Communication, 51(3), 477-497.
Buono, A.F., & Bowditch, J.L. (1989). The human side of mergers and acquisitions. Human Resource Management, 28(2), 301–304. doi:10.1002/hrm.3930280217
Burnes, B. (2004). Emergent change and planned change – competitors or allies?
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(9), 886-902. doi:10.1108/01443570410552108
Cobb, A. T., & Wooten, K. (1998). The role social accounts can play in a “justice intervention.” In R. W. Woodman, & W. A. Pasmore (Eds.), Research in Organichange and development (pp. 73-115). London: JAI Press
Cobb, A.T., Stephens, C., & Watson, G. (2001). Beyond structure: The role of social accounts in implementing ideal control. Human Relations, 54(9), 1123-1153.
28 Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment
and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52. Cope, M. (2003). The seven C’s of consulting (2nd ed.). London: Financial Times/Prentice
Hall.
Cornelissen, J.P., Holt, R., & Zundel, M. (2011). The role of analogy and metaphor in the framing and legitimization of strategic change. Organization Studies, 32(12), 1701 1716. doi:10.1177/0170840611425729
Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. (2008). Organizational development & Change. Mason: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Dirks, K.T., & Ferrin, D.L. (2001). The role of trust in organisational setting. Organisational Science,12 (4), 450-467.
Elving, W. J. L. (2005). The role of communication in organisational change. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 10(2), 129-138.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (1–55). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Frey, F.M., & Cobb, A.T. (2010). What matter in social accounts? The roles of account specificity, source expertise and outcome loss on acceptance. Journal of Applies Social Psychology, 40(5), 1203-1234.
Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C.R. (1996). Understanding radical organizational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. The Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022-1054.
29 Harrison, J.R., & Carroll, G.R. (1991). Keeping the faith: A model of cultural transmission in
formal organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(4), 552-582. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.
Jones, A.P., James, L.R., & Bruni, J.R. (1975). Perceived leadership behavior and employee confidence in the leader as moderated by job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 146-149.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of organizational change: How companies experience and leaders guide it. New York: Free Press.
Kavanagh, M. H., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2006). The impact of leadership and change management strategy on organizational culture and individual acceptance of change during a merger. British Journal of Management, 17, 81-103.
Kuntz, J. R. C., & Gomes, J. F. S. (2012). Transformational change in organisations: A self-regulation approach. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(1), 143-162.
LaClair, J., & Rao, R. (2002). Helping employees embrace change. The McKinsey Quarterly, 4. Retrieved March 15, 2008, http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/helping_employees_ embrace_change_1225
Lewin, K. (1952). Frontiers in group dynamics. In Cartwright, D. (Ed.). Field Theory in Social Science. London: Social Science Paperbacks.
Lines, R., Selart, M., Espedal, B., & Johansen, S.T. (2005). The production of trust during organizational change. Journal of Change Management, 5(2), 221-245.
30 Lüscher, L. S., & Lewis, M. W. (2008). Organizational change and managerial sensemaking:
Working through paradox. The Academy of Management Journal, 51(2), 221-240. McNulty, T., & Ferlie, E. (2004). Process transformation: Limitations to radical
organizational change within public service organizations. Organization Studies, 25(8), 1389-1412.
Miller, V. D., Johnson, J . R., & Grau, J. (1994). Antecedents to willingness to participate in a planned organizational change. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 59 -80.
O’Dwyer, B. (2005). The construction of a social account: a case study in an overseas aid agency. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 30(3), 279–296.
doi:10.1016/j.aos.2004.01.001
Rotter, J.B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of personality, 35, 651-665.
Rousseau, D. M., & Tijoriwala, S. A. (1999). What’s a good reason to change? Motivated reasoning and social accounts in promoting organizational change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(4), 514-528.
Schweiger, D. M., & De Nisi, A. S. (1991). Communication with employees following a merger: A longitudinal field experiment. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 110 -135.
31 Shapiro,D.L., Buttner, E.H., & Barry, B. (1994). Explanations: What factors enhance their
perceived adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(3), 346-368. doi:10.1006/obhd.1994.1041
Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse? A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 444-458. Skarlicki, D.P., Olger, R.F., & Gee, J. (2004). When social accounts backfire: the
exacerbating effect of a polite message or an appology on reactions to an unfair outcome. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 322-341.
Tomlinson, E. C., & Mayer, R. C. (2009). The role of causal attribution dimensions in trust repair. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 85-104.
Tucker, D. A., Yeow, P., & Viki, G. T. (2012). Communication during organizational change using social accounts: The importance of ideological accounts. Management
Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 184-209.
Van Dam, K., Oreg, S., & Schyns, B. (2008). Daily work contexts and resistance to organizational change: The role of leader-member exchange, development climate, and change process characteristics. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 57, 313- 334.
Wrightsman, L.S. (1964). Measurement of philosophies of human nature. Psychological Reports, 14, 743-751.
32 Appendix A – Online experiment (in Dutch)*
*An English version is available on request
o Bent u bereid mee te werken aan dit onderzoek o Ja
o Nee
o Werkt u voor een organisatie waar meer dan 5 personen werken? o Ja o Nee o Wat is uw leeftijd? o Wat is uw geslacht o Man o Vrouw
o Wat is uw hoogst genoten opleiding? Als u nog studeert, vul dan uw huidige opleidingsniveau in. o Basisonderwijs o Middelbaar onderwijs o MBO o HBO o WO/universitair
o Geen van bovenstaande
De volgende vragen gaan over de organisatie waarvoor uw werkzaam bent. Heeft u meerdere werkgevers? Vul de vragen dan in voor de organisatie waar u het vaakst of al voor de langste periode werkt.
6. Hoe lang werkt u al voor deze organisatie? o 0 tot 1 jaar 1 tot 3 jaar
o 3 tot 6 jaar o 6 tot 10 jaar o 10 tot 15 jaar o Langer dan 15 jaar
7. In welke groep past uw functie het best? o Uitvoerend personeel
o Midden-manager/leidinggevende van een afdeling o Bestuur/topmanagement
Trust in Management
De volgende vragen gaan over het management van de organisatie waarvoor u werkt. Met het management wordt bedoeld, de mensen die beslissen op welke manier de organisatie, of een proces daarbinnen, wordt geleid.
Geef aan in hoeverre je het eens bent met de volgende stellingen:
1. Het management van mijn organisatie doet oprecht een poging om de inbreng van werknemers tegemoet te komen
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
oneens eens
2. Onze organisatie heeft een slechte toekomst, tenzij er betere managers aangenomen worden (reversed)
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
33 3. Als ik moeilijkheden zou hebben op het werk, weet ik dat mijn managers me hierbij
zouden helpen
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
oneens eens
4. Het management is te vertrouwen in het maken van verstandige beslissingen voor de toekomst van de organisatie
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
oneens eens
5. Het management lijkt efficiënt werk te doen
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
oneens eens
6. Ik ben er zeker van dat het management altijd probeert mij eerlijk te behandelen
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
oneens eens
7. Ik kan erop vertrouwen dat de meeste managers doen wat ze gezegd hebben
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
oneens eens
8. Ik heb het volste vertrouwen in de vaardigheden van het management
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
oneens eens
Stimulus
Introductie: Op de volgende pagina zult u een e-mail te zien krijgen. In de e-mail wordt een verandering binnen de organisatie aangekondigd. Het is de bedoeling dat u zich indenkt dat deze mail afkomstig is van het management van de organisatie waarvoor u werkt. Stelt u zich dus voor dat de aangekondigde verandering van toepassing is op u en de organisatie
waarvoor u werkt.
34
IDEOLOGISCH (verkleind formaat)
REFERENTIEEL (verkleind formaat)
Acceptability of social accounts
Geef aan in hoeverre je het eens bent met de volgende stellingen
1. De uitleg die het management heeft gegeven voor de verandering is voldoende
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
oneens eens
2. De uitleg die het management heeft gegeven voor de verandering is gepast
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
oneens eens
3. De uitleg die het management heeft gegeven voor de verandering is acceptabel
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
35
Willingness to change
Geef aan in hoeverre je het eens bent met de volgende stellingen
1. Ik sta open voor de verruiming van openingstijden bij mijn organisatie
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
oneens eens
2. Op dit moment, voel ik weerstand tegen de voorgestelde verandering in openingstijden (reversed)
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
oneens eens
3. Ik steun de veranderingen die de verruiming in openingstijden teweeg brengt voor mij als werknemer
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
oneens eens
4. Ik ben bereid om mee te werken aan de verandering in openingstijden bij mijn organisatie
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
oneens eens
5. Vanuit mijn perspectief, is de verruiming van openingstijden bij mijn organisatie een goede verandering
Helemaal mee O O O O O O O Helemaal mee
oneens eens
Manipulatie check
U heeft tijdens het invullen van deze vragen een e-mail bericht gezien. Hierin werd verteld dat er bij uw organisatie een verandering in openingstijden zal gaan plaatsvinden. Welke reden werd hiervoor gegeven?
o De verandering is nodig om winst te blijven maken, zodat de organisatie kan voort bestaan
o De verandering biedt een oplossing voor een bestaand probleem en is voordelig o De verandering is door concurrenten als succesvol ervaren
36 Appendix B – Correlation matrix
Table 1. Pearson’s correlation matrix Trust in Management Acceptability of social account Willingness to change Gender -.03 .00 .07 Age -.10 -.05 -.07 Education .04 .03 -.03 Work experience -.13 -.04 .00 Work position -.02 -.10 .03
37 Appendix C - Outcomes PROCESS
Figure 1. Schematic presentation outcomes PROCESS: Causal accounts
-.16
.19 .30* .11
Note N = 158. CI = 95%. Unstandardized coefficient, * p < .001
Figure 2. Schematic presentation outcomes PROCESS: referential accounts
-.32
-.17 .30*
-.17
Note N = 158. CI = 95%. Unstandardized coefficient, * p < .001 Causal accounts Trust in management Acceptability of social account Employees’ willingness to change Referential accounts Trust in management Acceptability of social account Employees’ willingness to change
