UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN
Master Thesis MSc Change Management
The influence of external consultants on change narratives of
change agents and recipients.
MSC, Business Administration – Change Management
Faculty of Economics and Business
University of Groningen
Alexander van der Stelt – S3029875
Gratamastraat 5a
9714 HM Groningen
06-20207964
a.j.p.van.der.stelt@student.rug.nl
Supervisor – University of Groningen
Dr. J.F.J. Vos
2
ndAssessor – University of Groningen
Dr. H.C. Bruns
20 June 2017
2 ABSTRACT
As in extant literature comes forward, changes in sensemaking and sensegiving activities of change agents and recipients are necessary to accomplish successful changes. Many authors relate change narratives closely to sensemaking and sensegiving activities and focus on these narratives from a unilateral perspective. Although some studies focus on the narratives constructed by change agents and how these influence the sensemaking and sensegiving narratives of recipients, little is known about the influences of external consultants on these change narratives of change agents and recipients. This study aimed to find out how external consultants influence the change narratives of change agents and recipients during organizational change. To answer this research question, three separate cases were studied in which organizational change was initiated and whereby consultants, change agents and employees were involved. Within these changes, eleven semi-structured interviews were conducted with three consultants, three change agents and five employees and were transcribed verbatim. To analyze the data properly, within-case analyses were performed and subsequently, cross-case analyses were executed to find patterns in the analyses. This study confirmed that consultants use multiple tactics during different phases of change projects, that influences the change narratives of change agents and employees. Common tactics used by consultants that influence the change narratives of change agents and recipients are clear vision alignments before the change projects starts, creating appropriate change approaches and involving participants during the first phases of the projects and convincing and creating clear recommendations and advices during later phases of the projects. Narratives of participants about the changes shifted over time since they experienced the influence of these tactics used by consultants.
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ... 4
LITERATURE REVIEW ... 5
Role of narratives in sensemaking and sensegiving processes ... 6
Change Agent’s perspective and their narratives ... 7
Recipients’ perspective and their narratives ... 8
External consultants’ influence on changing narratives of change agents and recipients... 9
METHODS ... 10
Case selection and participants ... 11
Data collection ... 13
Data analysis ... 13
RESULTS ... 14
Case 1: Increasing employee satisfaction and structuring growth ... 14
Case 2: Moving to a new location ... 20
Case 3: Towards new HR-procedures ... 26
Cross-case analysis ... 31
DISCUSSION ... 36
Discussion of findings ... 36
Theoretical implications ... 41
Practical implications ... 41
Limitations and future directions ... 42
REFERENCES ... 45
APPENDICES ... 50
Appendix I: Interview protocol consultant ... 50
Appendix II: Interview protocol for change agent (client) ... 52
Appendix III: Interview protocol for employees ... 55
Appendix IV: Coding results case 1: Increasing employee satisfaction and structuring growth ... 58
Appendix V: Coding results case 2: Moving to a new location ... 64
4 INTRODUCTION
Change is more present these days than ever before, and business is becoming more uncertain as the pace of change quickens (Furnham, 2000). With unpredictable futures and uncertainties, external consultants are often hired to assist and give advice throughout organizational change processes (Thong, Yap, & Raman, 1994). Authors such as Clarke (1994), Dawson (2003) and Nadler and Tushman (1999) explain that change was already an ‘accelerating constant’ in the 1980s, and managers noticed that it increased even more in subsequent years. According to Kotter (1995), many organizations face minor or major failures when adapting to more challenging market environments because of the high complexity involved in changes. Because of these high failure rates and accelerating developments, it is interesting to concentrate on the organizational change literature with the focus on the influence of consultants involved in change processes (Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Cawsey et al., 2016).
Sonenshein (2010) and Thomas and Hardy (2011) conducted research with the focus on human factors involved with organizational change. Actors involved with organizational change are change agents (e.g. managers) and recipients (e.g. employees) (Sonenshein, 2010; Mohe, 2008; Higgs & Rowland, 2011), but also external consultants (Pellegrinelli, 2002). Because changes are becoming more complex these days, change agents more often ask advice of experiential external consultants in the field of change management (Pellegrinelli, 2002; Thong et al., 1994). Most literature about organizational change and human factors involved, has concentrated on the roles of each actor separately without focusing on relationships among them (Higgs & Rowland, 2011; Battilana, Gilmartin, Sengul, Pache & Alexander, 2010; Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008; Pellegrinelli, 2002). Sonenshein (2010) focused on the changing narratives of change agents and recipients in organizations, but did not take the relationships and influences of external consultants towards the clients into account. Both Ford et al. (2008) and Sonenshein (2010) mention that recent research on change is mostly based on a unilateral perspective and that interactions and influences between external consultants, change agents and recipients has received little academic attention.
5 individuals during change (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). Sensegiving is a process where individuals, by constructing narratives, try to influence the sensemaking of others (Sonenshein, 2010). As is clear from the literature, change narratives from change agents and recipients are important to construct change, but little is known about the influences of external consultants on these change narratives of change agents and recipients. Therefore, this research focuses on the relationships between change agents, employees and external consultants and takes a triangular perspective.
Sonenshein (2010) incorporates the sensemaking and sensegiving perspectives and focuses on the narratives of change agents and recipients, the author suggests to conduct future research to get a more in-depth view about the tactics change agents use to influence the sensemaking processes of employees. Although, more important for this study is to take this perspective and aim at how external consultants influence the change narratives of change agents and recipients. By conducting this research, analysis will show how external consultants will influence the agent’s and recipients’ change narratives. This research will contribute to both theory and practice, because it will fill the gap and provide deeper understanding of the influences of external consultants and how they might influence the change narratives of change agents and employees. Both consultants and change agents might learn from this study about how consultants might influence the changes in narratives and why these narratives are important to construct change.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the following research question is developed:
How does an external consultant influence the change narratives of both change agent and recipients? The argument of this paper is structured in the following way. First, in the literature review, the roles of narratives are explained and how these might differ from change agents and recipients and how these might change over time by the influence of external consultants during change projects. Second, the research design is explained, which illustrates how cases are selected and how data is gathered and analyzed. Within the results section, the changing narratives of change agents and recipients are described and the tactics used by consultants, both in the within-cases and the cross-case results. Finally, these results are compared to the literature in the discussion section, together with the implications for theory and practice and limitations and future research directions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
6 narratives as well as the recipients’ roles and their narratives are discussed in this section. Finally, the roles and influences of external consultants on the change narratives of change agents and recipients are discussed in this literature review, although little knowledge is available about this yet. Every concept is explained based on several available descriptions and the relevance of it for this study.
Role of narratives in sensemaking and sensegiving processes
Change management research (Brown, 1998; Balogun & Johnson, 2005; Sonenshein, 2010) shows that changes require a fundamental shift in meanings by making use of narratives that lead to sensemaking. Organizational members (e.g. managers) can ‘construct’ meanings (i.e., interpretations of an organization or change) and spread these meanings to others (e.g. employees) with the aim to influence the perceptions of those others about change. These sensemaking and sensegiving perspectives are closely related to narratives. Brown (2000) describes sensemaking primarily as a conversational and narrative process (Watson & Bargiela-Chiappini, 1998), both spoken and written, and formal and informal. Gioia & Chittipeddi (1991: 442), explain sensemaking and sensegiving as two complementary and reciprocal processes, where sensemaking is defined as “having to do with meaning construction and reconstruction by the involved parties as they try to develop a meaningful framework for understanding the nature of the intended change”. Sensegiving on the other hand is defined as “the processes where persons try to influence the process of sensemaking of others towards a preferred redefinition of organizational reality” (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991: 442). Sonenshein (2010) agrees with these statements and explains that narratives are very important since they are used to influence others through sensegiving.
7 Change agents are the persons in organizations, often responsible for creating and directing the implementation of a change (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Within change projects, change agents are often members of internal management in organizations (Cawsey et al., 2016; Battilana et al., 2010; Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Change recipients on the other hand are the persons, often referred to as employees, responsible for carrying out or adapting to change instead of initiating it (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008). Sonenshein (2010) sees narratives as discursive constructions where both change agents and recipients use this in a way to shape their own understanding of change (sensemaking), but also as a tool to influence others’ understandings of change (sensegiving). Capturing these understandings and the way how external consultants influence that can give more insight in how people use narratives to understand and influence change.
Change Agent’s perspective and their narratives
According to Sonenshein (2010), the most important processes of strategic change in organizations occur at the moment change agents create ‘discursive’ and other ‘symbolic materials’ to destroy existing meanings and try to create new meanings in an effort to set a strategic direction. It is about how change agents construct own meanings, such as interpretations of an organization in change, and how they disseminate these meanings to employees in a way to influence them.
Authors as Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) mention that change agents often construct different types of meaning during change, predominantly in a way of positive or negative meanings. These authors explain that recipients will often resist change if change agents create and spread negative meanings of change and that subsequently change agents struggle to overcome these negative resisting efforts of recipients through constructing positive narratives. Sonenshein (2010) sees the perspective of Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) as a limited perspective where he mentions that by accounting for the construction of meanings by change agents, it is possible to understand a wider breadth of these change meanings, as well as how these meanings might change over time and within different organizational levels. Labianca, Gray, & Brass (2000) did similar research and emphasize that change agents create new meanings for recipients by using Lewin’s (1951) approach. Change agents construct new meanings by unfreezing their meanings and then altering them by disseminating new meanings. Sonenshein (2010) found this similar approach within his research, but labels this dissemination of meanings ‘progressive narratives’. At the same time, Sonenshein (2010) found that change agents were disseminating meanings that were in line with preserving existing organizational meanings, what he called ‘stability narratives’.
8 (Eisenberg, 1984; Padgett & Ansell, 1993). On the one hand, managers often construct progressive narratives during change in a form of positive meanings, such as new, shift in strategic direction, move forward, rejuvenate, benefit, increase of performance or improve the organization. By sharing these narratives, change agents talk about change as being significant. On the other hand, Sonenshein (2010) explains that change agents narrate meanings about the change that preserve basic understandings in a way of emphasizing insignificant change, such as old and not dramatically altering the organization, minimizing change and not involving promotional repositioning. Isabella (1990) explains these changes in narratives as change agents shift interpretations about change projects over time. Another possibility according to Bartunek (1984) is that managers may struggle to bridge old and new ways of understanding change.
Recipients’ perspective and their narratives
As Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder (1993) explain, recipients construct meanings during change and increase resistance when change agents disseminate negative meanings about changes. As Sonenshein (2010) also describes for the change agents, it is possible to understand a wider breadth of the change meanings of recipients by accounting for the construction of meanings and how these meanings might change over time.
Sonenshein (2010) find the similar dimension of significant and insignificant meaning construction of the change with recipients, however, he added an extra dimension to it: positive and negative. By adding this extra dimension, Sonenshein (2010) shows four instead of two different kind of narratives and meaning constructions from recipients. The first one is about significant positive meanings, where narratives are spread in ways of welcoming new projects as major transformations elevating the performance. Significant negative meanings are about detrimental change projects, upsetting work routines and being disruptive to in ways of losses. Insignificant negative narratives focus more on the insignificance of a project where it will question the rejuvenation of the organization and that changes would not make any differences in comparison to the old situation. The insignificant positive narratives are about constructing changes that are insignificant, but explained in comfortable ways, about continuity of past job routines or tasks which did not alter due to changes.
9 make sense of the change, however they might add a negative valence (e.g. subversive meanings). This may lead to different constructions of the changes than managers have offered in the first place. So, in contrast to the stability and progressive narratives, regressive narratives of recipients can be explained in ways that are in line with ’bad’ experiences or feelings. Nadler (1981) relates this regressive narrative to the resistance-to-change narrative where employees construct a change as leading to a significantly worse organization.
These four types of narratives can be related to the three identified responses the recipients show in the study of Sonenshein (2010). Change responses are distinguished between resisting, accepting and championing the change. Statements about subverting the change are related to resistance where reduced work efforts or raised objections to new practices are visible that will withhold the change. In addition, statements about increasing the success of the change are noticeable to championing where employees often promote and accommodate the change towards others. Finally, statements about making necessary adjustments to implement changes where learning new procedures are common are seen as part of accepting.
External consultants’ influence on changing narratives of change agents and recipients
In addition to these internal organizational members, consultants are external change agents which have become increasingly important in creating and implementing changes (Pellegrinelli, 2002). These external consultants are hired by change agents of a company, called as their clients, to use theories in combination with knowledge and analytical approaches from past experiences or academic research to formulate and sometimes implement new solutions for organizational issues (Pellegrinelli, 2002). These days, consultancies have a strong influence on individuals, organizations and society (Mohe, 2008; Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2004). Although the expectations of consultants are clear, little literature is available about the interactions and mechanisms consultants use towards their clients (Pellegrinelli, 2002).
According to Schein (1999), consultants are able to carry out activities with the objective to support the change agent during change projects. By doing so, consultants can increase the ability for change agents to recognize, understand and act appropriately on the events that arise in its context. On the other hand, Barber and Nord (1977) explain that change agents have the power to seek for consultants which fit their wishes or and who would act as a role model with whom they can identify themselves.
10 from Sonenshein (2010) that change narratives of both change agents and recipients are very important for constructing meanings and the success of a change. We also know that change agents spread interwoven narratives to recipients and that recipients in turn spread narratives about a change project among each other, but we do not know how external consultants might influence these processes of interaction and their narratives. By taking this into account, it is important for this study to focus on how external consultants might influence the change narratives spread by change agents and recipients during a change project.
Drawing from narratives (Brown, 1998; Weick & Quinn, 1999) and sensemaking (Gioia & Chittipeddi, 1991) approaches to change, it is possible to examine relationships and influences between the sources of meanings (consultants, change agents and employees) and dimensions of meanings (derived inductively) used to construct the change. Although we know that change narratives of change agents and recipients might change during change projects, it is still unknown how external consultant influence these change narratives. Thus, important for this research is to understand how change agents’ and recipients’ meanings evolve over time by looking at how their discourse shifts during the change projects and how external consultants might have influenced these shifts.
METHODS
11
Case selection and participants
Cases are chosen based on suitability of highlighting relationships and logic between constructs (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007). Cases with similar change projects and settings have been sought and selected for this study to ensure literal replication logic (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003). Three cases are analyzed to come up with reliable results (Yin, 2003). Important for this research to get similar cases is that cases are selected where consultants, change agents and employees are or were involved in a change project and which were willing to participate in this research. Change projects should be recently finished or close to completion during this research to get enough data from the participants about the interactions between the involved actors from the beginning of the project till the end.
To have multiple suitable cases, the cases were selected in consultation with consultants of management consultancy firms and in consultations with the supervisor of the university. The ideal situation was that the consultants agreed on the objectives and contacted their clients where they worked with. Subsequently, to get an objective overview from outside the consultant-client relationship, every client of each project asked two employees who were involved with the change to get interviewed. All actors were interviewed about their experiences and feelings of the change project and how the communication and influences evolved among these actors during the projects. This way of case selection may be biased because the possibility existed that managers selected participants who were positive regarding the change project. However, the advantage was that participants are chosen that were fully aware and well informed about the change projects. In order to control the respondents bias of this research, the number of cases and respondents is tried to increase. At the end, three cases were examined, two cases from primary data and one from secondary data. One consultant, one change agent and one, but in two cases two employees were interviewed at each case. This resulted in 11 interviews. Short case descriptions of the organizations, changes and participants involved can be found below.
Case 1: Increasing employee satisfaction and structuring growth
12 motivate them. Although the organization did not finish the entire project yet, there were already results visible after the first phases the external consultant and organization went through.
To analyze this case from a triangular perspective, four interviews were conducted. First with the involved external consultant. Second, the change agent of the client organization, who was responsible for executing the change project, was interviewed and two employees involved with the change project were interviewed.
Case 2: Moving to a new location
The second case is about an organization founded in 1980, which produces and offers products for professional business and individual customers in the baking industry. This organization provides a wide range of baking tools and products that can be used in bakeries but also at home. This organization went from a situation of selling products from their store through a period of developments where they started to sell their products through the internet as well. Because of these developments, the organization grew faster than production could handle and they had to expand to a new, larger location. For this reason, an external consultant was hired to help find a suitable new location and offer guidance during the moving phase, which led to a change with an impact for the entire organization.
Four interviews were conducted. One interview was conducted with a highly involved external consultant. The owner of the company was interviewed about the change project, and two employees which participated in the change project were interviewed.
Case 3: Towards new HR procedures
The third case is about a healthcare organization founded in 2001. This organization provides support to mentally disabled patients. The subject of the change project is about new HR-procedures, since the organization made internal changes which led to the lack of attention to personal development for employees. Employees reflected that little room and attention was given for personal development and career opportunities. Because of internal changes, employees were not able to have conversations with supervisors about personal development issues anymore. Therefore, the organization hired an external consultant to help them with implementing new guidelines and rules for employees within the whole organization. This established the possibility to have personal development conversations among each other in a participative way.
13
Data collection
To investigate the influence of consultants on the change narratives of both change agents and recipients, eight semi-structured interviews were conducted within the first two available cases, because these allowed the researcher to collect consistent primary data across individuals, but also provided the possibility to ask more in-depth questions (Yin, 2003). The remaining three interviews from the third case were collected through secondary data by collecting transcripts of similar previous research. By writing down all procedures during the research, detailed descriptions of these procedures enable others to replicate this study and check whether they get the same outcomes (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012).
To increase the reliability of the study, three interview guides were used, one for the consultants (see Appendix I), one for the change agents (see Appendix II), and one for the employees (see Appendix III) (Yin, 2003). By interviewing multiple consultants, change agents and employees from different organizations, the generalizability of this study is increased. The questions of the interview guides were divided into separate sections, related to the research topics. Open-ended questions were used in combination with probing questions to establish detailed information (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997).
Interviews with the consultants and change agents took approximately 60 minutes each. The interviews with the employees took approximately 40 minutes. Reliability is also increased by using multiple instruments. During this research, information about advisory documents and presentations could be seen and discussed during case-visits and this information could be used as secondary data to increase triangulation (Yin, 2003). Also by researching the websites of the clients gave some extra insights in the developments of the change projects. Another way that increased the reliability and controlled situation bias, is made possible by recording and conducting the interviews at different times and different days at places where other members could not hear what respondents said (Van Aken, Berends, & Van der Bij, 2012). Recording the interviews helped to check everything that was discussed and to prevent that important elements of the interview were being overlooked. Recording and conducting the interviews with two researchers by the first two cases increased the opportunity to observe and focus on appropriate follow-up questions, since it was not necessary to write everything down.
Data analysis
14 and deductive codes, which shows if the codes derive from existing theory or from the transcripts (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008). Because of limited research on the consultant-client relationship and the influences of consultants on changing narratives of change agents and recipients, most codes derived from inductive codes. A visible timeline has been created to give more clarity in the changing narratives and influences exercised by the consultants during the phases of the change projects. These timelines are shown after each within-case analysis and are combined in the cross-case analysis.
To further improve the reliability of this research, the data collection, screening of transcripts and coding processes are done by two researchers (Van Aken, Berends, & Van der Bij, 2012). This enhanced the creative potential of the study and created complementary insights from the data (Eisenhardt, 1989). Within-case analysis of the different change projects was executed to become more familiar with the separate data of the projects. Subsequently, cross-case analysis is conducted to search for certain similarities, differences and patterns among the projects (Eisenhardt, 1989). Multiple-case studies make the results also better grounded than single-case studies (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007) and increases the external validity (Yin, 2003). To increase the external validity, it is necessary to generalize the results of the study (Van Aken, Berends, & Van der Bij, 2012).
RESULTS
This results section will start with the separate within-case analyses. Thereafter a cross-case analysis will follow with insights patterns across cases. Structures of the case analyses are based on the concepts introduced in the literature review as well as additional concepts revealed during the coding procedures. Since it is important to analyze the changing narratives of change agents and recipients and the influence of consultants on these narratives, a timeline has been processed in the results of the cases. For each case, the first part gives a short explanation about the essence of the change project. Then, the most important results of each case analysis are processed in a timeline from the start of the change project till the end. Results are distinguished between the views of change agents, recipients, and consults.
Case 1: Increasing employee satisfaction and structuring growth
This section shows the results from the interviews of the consultant, change agent and two recipients about increasing employee satisfaction within the organization. The coding results can be found in Appendix 4.
15 shows the most important changes in narratives during the project and the influences of the consultant, visible in Figure 1 at the end of this case.
Change agent’s change narratives during change project
From the moment the project with the consultant was initiated, the change agent described the issue as follows: “We just wanted to get rid of the dissatisfied employees, of the complaints about pay rises, the high absenteeism and the problem that no one ever could work over time. That is the situation for which we hired the consultants” (1-M). Because of this dissatisfaction in the organization, an external consultant was hired, hoping that he could figure out why the employees were dissatisfied and what he could do about it. This led to the construction of progressive narratives from the change agent: “So, I do think that the employees had a feeling like: finally, they are doing something about it. The fact that we hired a consultant for that shows of course that we take it seriously” (1-M).
During the first conversation with the consultant, issues about the project were discussed and opinions were shared. The change agent mentioned that consultants should possess certain skills and attitude which he considered necessary. He believed the consultant would have these: “I do believe that this consultant, when looking at people management, listening skills and openness, he is very trustful” (1-M). The change agent mentioned that it is important to compare the frame of references with the consultant: “I think it is the first step you need to look at: what is my frame of reference and what is their frame of reference. If those are already on the same level, then you really need to come up with something to beat someone’s expectations” (1-M). The change agent believed he had the right expertise because of sensegiving questions of the consultant, like: “‘How clear are the goals within your organization and the vision?’ And I agree with them, what they say is all true. People did not know what the purpose was. I am sure now, if you ask what is the goal in the turnover that everyone says [number] euro. And if they do not, then I have done something wrong” (1-M).
16 the result what there is now.” Change narratives were translated towards the employees from the moment the change agent made the report public and talked to the employees: “And I have also explained that I, as the consultants advised in this type of situation, is go back to the beginning. What we really do and why? And how do we do it?” (1-M). Besides asking questions, the change agent constructed more progressive narratives towards the employees by repeating the vision and goals formulated by the consultant such as creating more clarity and communication. The change agent mentioned: “That is what I try to say, the vision is very important and the two key points in their action plan, which we never had before, are clarity and communication. Clarity, job profiles, assessment cycles, communication, work meetings, you name it. People need to know what is expected from them” (1-M). Interesting to see is that the change agent found employees very suspicious and awaiting first, but very enthusiastic at the end of the change project. This thought is underlined with feelings of both employees: “I believe that there is more satisfaction now. It is not yet 100%, but the beginning of the change is notable I think” (1-E1) and “Communication among employees is mainly positive. We are discussing much more with each other now” (1-E2).
Although the manager thought the model used by the consultant was basal and not completely in line with what he had hoped for during the project, he at the same time constructed meanings that the model could be used to build entire organizations with. By using partly his own vision and partly the model of the consultant, he implemented some actions, such as work-meetings and progress-meetings. This, to increase communication and clarity, which subsequently led to more employee satisfaction. He described: “I think that the communication is much more than it has been in the past. Every month, I have planned conversations with everyone” (1-M).
Change recipients’ change narratives during change project
This change project did not change anything substantively for the employees, except the fact that more meetings, communication and clarity was needed in the organization.
Before the change project was kicked off, employees knew the organization was already growing last years and that some internal issues with the communication among employees and their satisfaction arose. They realized that something had to be done, but they did not exactly know what and how. Therefore, the consultant was hired according to employee 1-E1: “Where is the problem? And what are we going to do about it? I think that was the main reason to hire the consultant. How can we make sure that everyone is happy again at his workplace?”
17 was a bit negative, or not negative, but it is the unknown” (1-E2). During this first phase of the change project, the consultant conducted interviews with all employees. One of the employees mentioned that the consultant noted everything down what has been discussed, and some suggestions from the employees were also considered in the report from the consultant in a later stage of the project. After these interviews, employees constructed positive narratives about the approach of the consultant. Employee 1-E1 mentioned: “The consultants were very nice people to talk with. You have the feeling that you are free to talk about a subject”. Employee 1-E2 was also positive about his approach: “When you are face to face with someone you know, you are less likely to tell what you think then when you can explain this anonymously, as during the interviews”. One employee also constructed sensemaking narratives about his own influence during this project. The consultant confirmed that employees would have influence, but clearly mentioned that ideas of employees are important to a less extent: “Yes, the ideas of employees are important, but to a less extent. It is the client who decides what, because the client choses and pays me” (1-C).
At a later phase of the change project, the report of the consultant was communicated by the change agent towards the employees during a meeting in a conference room. Although some employees experienced the formal conversations with the consultant as positive and recognized their recommendations in the report, they constructed positive and negative narratives about the change. This is shown by statements as “The results of the report were a bit disappointing to me. It was a bit of a standard report” (1-E1) and “For me the contact with the consultant was fine, but I would have preferred the final report to be more extensive” (1-E2). While employee 1-E1 mentioned that the report was a bit standard, this employee also constructed positive narratives such as: “I noticed some things while reading the report, you have such a thing of, alright, that indeed seems important to me to pay more attention to” (1-E1).
18 Employees showed more satisfaction and increased communication among each other at the end of the project. The atmosphere increased and employees wanted to do more for each other.”
Even after the change project, employees were still very positive about the change project and the way they work nowadays. However, one of the employees showed uncertainty, he still constructed very positive narratives: “I think that we have a long way to go, but we are moving in the right direction. I have become more open for changes, because in the end you see the results of it” (1-E2). Employees constructed progressive narratives and championing behavior as the following statements show: “It can only help to improve the atmosphere and to indeed support the change to increase to bigger numbers in sales next years. I was definitely open for the change to help as much as possible to make sure that it went well” (1-E1) and “I stimulate also others to welcome change, because you can see that it gives positive results” (1-E2) and “I also tried to motivate my colleagues: ‘It is good what is happening now.’ I tried to be as positive as possible about it” (1-E1).
External consultant’s influence on changing narratives of change agent and recipients
Since the organization decided to increase the satisfaction of employees, an external consultant was hired to analyze the root cause of the problem and to provide possible recommendations to solve this problem.
19 After the conversations with all participants of the organization, the external consultant found out that employees showed a lack of communication among each other and that they felt insecure about the organizational vision and strategy. Key findings and recommendations were written down in a report. By doing so, the consultant wanted to construct both written and spoken narratives to increase their awareness about these findings and provide practical recommendations for the change agent. This can be confirmed by the following quote of consultant 1-C who described: “We delivered a concrete report which they really could use. They have someone in the organization who works with the report and makes his own plan with it”. Besides presenting this report, the consultant asked for feedback. They found out that giving feedback could be the core problem of the client, because if they do not give people feedback, those people will construct regressive narratives. Thus, one of the advices from the consultant was to communicate more often and give feedback to them as well as to the employees, as the consultant explained: “We asked the client to give us the feedback we need. Because that could be the core of their own problem. If they don’t give people feedback, then those people will be uninterested. So, we asked and told this to the client, and that hit them pretty hard” (1-C). Although the change agent found the report not very concrete, it simultaneously confirmed his own vision about the change. Based on that, the change agent created ideas about increasing communication and clarity: “Their report was pretty similar to what I found based on conversations with the employees. So, for me it was more some kind of confirmation that I did it right in their opinion. Based on that, I have created an idea of how we are going to reorganize to ensure we can pursue the vision. (…) I think that the communication is much more than it has been in the past. Every month, I have planned conversations with everyone” (1-M).
20
Case 2: Moving to a new location
Results of the second case described in this section are about the move from one physical work location to another with the guidance of an external consultant. Interviews are conducted with one external consultant, one change agent and two recipients. The coding results of this case can be found in Appendix 5. A timeline at the end of this case shows the most important changes in narratives during the project and the influences of the consultant (see Figure 2).
Change agent’s change narratives during change project
During the change project, the owner of the organization acted as change agent, who made the decision to move to another location with more space to produce and sell their products. Because the organization was growing and more customers wanted their products, they needed to move to a bigger location because they could not fulfill customers’ wishes anymore.
From the start of this change project, both the change agent and some employees already narrated about the old location that it became too small and that employees began to annoy each other because they were often working while getting in each other’s way. The change agent constructed sensemaking narratives about the
21 old location as: “We got a problem with the logistics, so we initiated a project where we needed to move and then [consultant] came in. We were located in [old location] in a few small buildings. And then we started to look for a bigger location, and that is this new property” (2-M). Opinions of the employees at the start of the change project were as follows: “This change was about space. We had no space, and now we do have enough space” (2-E2). From the moment that the change agent recognized they had to move, he made sense of the situation and constructed change narratives of the project as follows: “Because we had really a lack of space and wanted to expand, an extensive warehouse was favorable but also necessary” (2-M). The reason why an external consultant was hired was because this consultant already helped the change agent in the past and because his expertise in the field of transports and logistics: “We compared several premises and in the end this one came out. But that is thanks to [consultant] and his expertise in the field of transports and logistics” (2-M). The change agent requested help from an external consultant with enough expertise in this field and both the change agent and one employee constructed positive narratives about this consultant: “[Consultant] knows all the ins and outs of this organization and that is just perfect” (2-M) and “He [consultant] has experience in this field of changes. He was very critical during the move” (2-E1).
22 something. If it became concrete, I would tell them more in detail” (2-M) and “Yes, I am always open for feedback from employees, it is only sometimes tricky because usually employees have some limited information” (2-M). Employees confirmed this way of working by describing: “[Change agent] did ask me for advice about how to arrange this new warehouse” (2-E2).
At the moment the change agent found a new warehouse where they could move to, he noticed that some employees showed resistance by creating regressive narratives. From that moment, he tried to overcome this resistance by constructing progressive narratives about the new location and showed the benefits the consultant provided: “Employees were not so much against the move, but more against the transport issues. I tried to convince them with solutions and better prospects for the future. Yes, once that is resolved, they look also different towards that issue” (2-M). The change agent also constructed some stability narratives by himself from the moment they moved to the new location: “First of all, I found it actually too big and I thought, pooh, that is quite a thing” (2-M). However, the consultant reconstructed his meaning by creating progressive narratives about the change: “But he [consultant] told me: ‘That will be fine, you should just do it, you will use all the meters’. And that happened indeed” (2-M). The change agent mentioned that there were no struggles furthermore during the move. Everyone agreed that the old conditions were not doable anymore.
Once they moved to the new location and the change project came to an end, the change agent constructed still a lot of positive narratives towards both the external consultant and the employees. As he narrated: “I am very happy that we chose this building on the advice of the consultant. We met more than our goals. I have a beautiful building, costs are good, and we can grow. Our profits increased in the month after we moved” (2-M). This is also shown by statements as “With [client], I know that he is satisfied. Or very satisfied or excellent satisfied. He still tells me sometimes” (2-C) and “He is every day like, this was the best step. He is still very satisfied about the move everyday” (2-E1).
Change recipients’ change narratives during change project
Within this change project, some recipients were more involved than others during this change project. The idea of moving to a bigger location for the organization had some influence on the work-efficiency of employees, some of them also had to travel more, but their work activities mainly stayed the same.
23 From the moment the external consultant joined the project, both the consultant and manager actively searched for new buildings where the organization could move to in order to expand their operations. Employee 2-E1 recognized the need for a bigger building and constructed progressive narratives about the change project as “I was 100% open for this move. Things could only improve compared to the old situation”. Employees were often informed in an informal way if they found a new building. Sometimes by the change agent himself, and sometimes by another employee from the warehouse. Interesting to see is that the interviewed employees did not share the same meaning about the relationship between the consultant and the change agent. One of the employees mentioned the way of working of the consultant as follows: “Every time that [consultant] was here, he also spoke with me to discuss things about the possible new warehouse” (2-E2), while the other employee was not even aware of this: “I did not know anything about the relationship between the change agent and the consultant” (2-E1).
Although not all employees were involved at the beginning of the project, they did already construct progressive change narratives since they knew that it could only be better. Since the new building was selected by the change agent in a later stage of the project, everyone became more involved in the change project. Both the change agent as employees confirmed this: “Everyone was involved in the project. [Change agent] showed us maps of the building, we were taken to the location by him, and personnel from the warehouse were taken here to paint” (2-E1) and “[Change agent] did ask me for advice about how to arrange this new warehouse” (2-E2) and “The communication with the employees is good. (…) We always discuss together about how we should do things and what the employees would prefer. Yes, I am always open for that” (2-M). Employees also constructed positive narratives during the move since they discussed plans with each other which resulted in a smooth and quick move.
24 External consultant’s influence on changing narratives of change agent and recipients
Since the client decided to move to another location, the external consultant was hired to find an appropriate new building that would fit well with the organization.
The external consultant was already familiar with the client organization before this change project started. The consultant helped with finding a new property, which was according to him the goal of this change project. At the beginning of this project, the consultant wanted to know the wishes of the change agent, which they discussed during a first meeting. He explained his approach for this meeting as follows: “That calls for flexibility, listening, monitoring and a calm attitude” (2-C). The consultant mentioned that it is important to take opinions of employees into account, however the wishes of the client are more important: “The client is crucial for us. We see ourselves as an external management team for this client. He can hire every expertise that he needs in our network to solve his problems” (2-C). The change agent found this very important since he has chosen for this external consultant because of his expertise and attitude. The consultant behaved more as a partner in this change and had a lot of communication with the change agent from the start of this project: “This client gave a lot of feedback. He is very critical, but also being honest, and I like that more. Sometimes I sit an hour with hem just to talk about certain things” (2-C). The consultant described that certain behavior is important when involving employees during change projects: “Of course, if I am presenting myself there as an arrogant guy, not empathizing with them, and not trying to make the employees feel comfortable, then the employees are not going to be open to me. So, I have to act as a professional but accessible person” (2-C). The change agent underlined this with the following statement: “The interaction with [consultant] is good to solve certain things” (2-M).
After a while, the consultant started to search for appropriate buildings for the client. Every time he or the change agent found a potential building, they made an appointment to look whether it would be an appropriate building or not. Since the consultant and change agent acted as partners during this project, the consultant explained his opinion about this relationship as follows: “It takes time to build such a relationship, but also good results, that we can convince the client that it is good what you are doing” (2-C). During the search to a new building, the change agent created progressive narratives about some new locations. Nevertheless, the external consultant sometimes showed criticism about these narratives and tried to influence them by sensegiving processes: “There was another premise, which was the cheapest. As entrepreneur, I tend to look at the costs. But [consultant] said: ‘no look around this building, this is going to be nothing’” (2-M).
25 employees by asking them questions: “In the meantime, the consultant had contact with the man of the warehouse. Asking questions like: ‘How do we set up the warehouse? What is the best, how can we do that for the future?’” (2-M). By acting in this way, the consultant tried to create progressive narratives and disseminate meanings about the change towards both change agent and recipients. This is underlined by consultant 2-C who described: “By listening to the needs of both the client and the employees, it is possible to give recommendations that may be of interest for both parties and which they really could use”. Even after the change project, the external consultant and change agent maintained contact. They evaluated the results of the changes and talked about potential future projects. The consultant expressed his feelings about the project and the change agent as follows: “So, he moved last summer from a small property in [location] to a large property in [location] where he is ready for the future. (…) This client is getting obsessed with the support that we offer. I know that this client is satisfied, or even extremely satisfied” (2-C). One of the employees underlined that he became very positive about both the processes as the final outcomes: “I am very satisfied about both the project processes as the outcome. A big 8” (2-E1).
26
Case 3: Towards new HR-procedures
In this section, the final case about HR-procedures implementation in a healthcare company is described. Within this case, interviews are held with one external consultant, one change agent and one recipient. The coding results can be found in Appendix 6. The timeline shows the most important changes in narratives during the project and the influences of the consultant, shown at the end of the results (see Figure 3). Change agent’s change narratives during change project
During the change project, the top-management of the organization including the HR-manager as change agent, decided to reduce the middle-management layer in the organization. Because of this reduction of middle managers, top-management wanted to initiate new HR-practices in the organization. Employees were involved with the project, and the idea behind the project was that employees would hold yearly development-conversations with each other, instead of with a manager as they were used to.
27 constructed the meaning that she immediately had the feeling that the change project should be handled in a participative way in cooperation with the professionals within the organization. She noticed that the external consultant shared the same thoughts: “We found each other very easily in what we considered important and in which ways we wanted to reach those things” (3-M). During the change project, the initial meanings of both change agent and consultant were confirmed since the processes of change were conducted in a participative way.
Working towards these new HR-procedures, the manager and consultant acted both together as change agents and guided the sessions of the sounding boards. Because they worked often together, they constructed shared sensegiving activities. Besides that, the change agent was heavily focusing on building more confidence for employees to work with the new situation and to convince them by constructing progressive narratives that the new situation will be better, while the consultant came up with ideas to use during the conversations. The change agent constructed progressive narratives towards the recipients in a way of asking question to them: “‘If you look at the new situation with these glasses, namely the glasses of efficiency and speed, how many calls do I need and how much time does it cost? Definitely not that much, right?’” (3-M). Another employee of the organization confirmed this way of working about the change agent: “She had a strong commitment towards this change project and aimed to guide us as to how we should behave in the new HR-conversations and how we should develop ourselves to feel strong enough to hold these conversations” (3-E1). The change agent constructed positive narratives about the reduced resistance of recipients during the project as well: “Nobody left the training with a negative attitude. Eventually everybody felt neutral or even more positive regarding the change with the feeling that at least they learned a lot from it. Everybody was very satisfied about the way the consultant did it” (3-M). Although the change agent constructed progressive narratives towards the recipients, little sensegiving efforts through narratives can be described between the consultant and the change agent since they found few differences between their visions.
28 Change recipients’ change narratives during change project
The idea of implementing new HR-practices in the organization had influence on the work of employees, because employees would have to keep yearly development conversations together with other employees while these conversations were happening with managers before the change.
Analysis from the interviews showed that employees were too social in a way that they not really shared feedback among each other. At the start of the change project, employees were negative towards the change. They constructed sensemaking narratives in a negative and uncertain way about the change project: “But first we had to search for the right way of working. Like: I do not want to sit on that chair of assessment” (3-E1). The consultant and manager confirmed this feeling by sharing the same thoughts and repeating sensegiving narratives from employees: “Many employees began the project insecure: ‘Why do I have to do this and am I able to do this?’ There were employees who said from the start: ‘I do not really want to hold these conversations’” (3-C).
Working towards these new HR-procedures, the consultant and manager actively sought the input of the employees. The change agent mentioned that the change project would succeed most if it would be constructed in a participative way. This led to sensegiving activities from the employees since they experienced an increase in influence during the project. The change agent confirmed: “The content of the workshops or training sessions is established by sounding boards, and the consultant actually trained all those support staff” (3-M). The consultant also described that this change project was set up bottom-up where employees would have a lot of influence during the change project: “There was a lot of room for employees, that they had other ideas in order to make it better work at their location. We must be certainly open for that” (3-C). Employees constructed sensemaking narratives about these approaches and agreed with these views: “The consultant asked many questions and his manner of asking questions was very unique. With that he really involved us and he was also leading the process with those questions and answers” (3-E1). This employee also described that she could influence both the consultant and change agent by sharing her experiences: “I think I was able to influence the consultant and manager with my personal experiences. This was confirmed by things that I had brought up and which I recognized in some final documents later” (3-E1).
29 as well: “Nobody left the training with a negative attitude. Eventually all employees felt neutral or positive regarding the change with the feeling that at least they learned a lot from it and everybody was very satisfied about the way the consultant did it” (3-M).
After the change project, the sensegiving narratives from employees were much more positive and the interviewed employee shared experiences and interpretations much more with the consultant and other employees: “What I really see for myself as a new positive difference and what I share with my colleagues is that you now just really do things together. You see each other, you work with each other and you talk with each other, so I think that is positive” (3-E1). Employees also narrate in a progressive way about the change project among each other where they show courage to provide more feedback during their daily routines: “I feel like we now have more responsibility for our own learning process. I see and tell everyone that it is a positive development in comparison with the situation beforehand” (3-E1).
External consultant’s influence on changing narratives of change agent and recipients
Since top-management decided to reduce the middle-management layer and initiate new HR-practices, the external consultant was hired to guide during this process of change.
30 want to hold these conversations” (3-C). Some employees involved in the sounding boards felt negative towards the project, he mentioned. While working towards these new HR-procedures and facing this behavior of the employees, the consultant engaged in various sensegiving activities. As both the change agent and the recipients mentioned, the external consultant did encourage participation in the change project by providing a facilitating role and involving everyone. Instead of acting as an expert, he searched and used the change capabilities already available in the organization. The consultant tried to decrease the resistance and gave sense of the change in a positive way: “I often decrease change resistance by asking them questions how they view the change project. Often, they are not used to that: ‘We thought you guys would do it?’ ‘No, why? We have ideas but we first would like to hear your ideas’” (3-C).
Employees became very positive about this approach and spread positive narratives about it: “He asked us many open questions in a unique way to really help think of ideas for this concept. He paid much attention to which issues we thought were apparent within the organization and within teams” (3-E1). Both consultant and employees mentioned that the consultant influenced the employees by asking these questions in the right way. Besides asking these questions and communicating with everybody, the consultant developed a brochure with information about the change process. By providing this brochure, he influenced employees by providing practical recommendations to encounter difficulties in the organization. The consultant concluded: “My view did change. The HR-conversations are now moments in which there is room for feedback. The ones leading the conversations can easily touch on the subject during these moments” (3-C).
31
Cross-case analysis
Within this final section of the results, the results of the previous three within-case analyses are compared. A short summary of the main findings of every case is given and subsequently some important similarities and differences are identified by comparing the findings of the three cases. By comparing the within-case analyses, influences of consultants and changes in narratives of the participants about the change projects show similar patterns across the cases. The participants explained that both their way of thinking and talking about the change project changed. Table 1 shows an overview of the summarized findings from the analysis, explained by the tactics and reactions of consultant, change agent and recipients. Figure 4 at the end of this section shows an aggregate timeline of the three with-in cases.
TABLE 1. Summary within-case results Case 1: Increasing employee satisfaction and structuring growth Change Phases Change Agent’s Change Narratives Recipients’ Change Narratives
Consultant’s Influence: tactics / interventions
Before Progressive: Already positive about change. Need for change clear. Dissatisfied employees
Kick-off meeting and vision alignment with change agent (Laid-back, listening, asking questions).
Start Progressive: Positive feeling about consultant’s approach, attitude, behavior and knowledge.
Stability: Negative and insecure about change. Interwoven: Positive feeling about consultant’s approach, attitude, behavior and knowledge but unsure about change.
Involving change agent and employees through interviews (Asking questions, showing appropriate behavior, knowledge, skills, trust, accessibility).
Mid Progressive: Communicated positive towards employees about report/advice and made report public.
Interwoven narratives: Report was not very concrete, but simultaneously very helpful. Positive about interventions taken by change agent on advice of consultant.
Communicated results and recommendations through written (report) and spoken
narratives (presentation) to change agent (Facilitating role, delegating responsibility). End Progressive: Initiated actions
and interventions as recommended in report.
Progressive: More communication, clarity and satisfaction and championing behavior.
Changed status to: standby. After Progressive: Positive and sure
about change results.
32
TABLE 2. Summary within-case results (continued)
Case 2: Moving to a new location Change Phases Change Agent’s Change Narratives Recipients’ Change Narratives
Consultant’s Influence: tactics / interventions
Before Progressive: Already positive about change. Need for change clear. Lack of space.
Progressive: Need for change clear. People annoy each other.
Vision alignment with change agent (Listening, flexible behavior, asking questions, monitoring).
Start Progressive: Positive feeling about consultant’s approach, attitude, behavior and knowledge.
Progressive: Positive feeling about consultant’s attitude and skills (Professional and accessible).
Working as partner with change agent (Being social and involved).
Mid Progressive: Construction of positive narratives towards employees about advice of consultant.
Regressive: Unsure about new options.
Interwoven: Employees narrated positive about change expectations, but also negative about change and resist it.
Often communication with change agent to give advice and convince change agent (Explain the positive and negative aspects of options).
Involving employees by listening, asking questions and giving recommendations. End Progressive: Convinced by
consultant and convince employees by showing positive aspects of change advised by consultant.
Progressive: Narrated positive about change since change agent convinced them.
Evaluated change with change agent.
After Progressive: Narrated positive towards employees and consultant.
Case 3: Towards new HR-procedures Change Phases Change Agent’s Change Narratives Recipients’ Change Narratives
Consultant’s Influence: tactics / interventions
Before Progressive: Already positive about change. Need for change clear. New HR-policies
Regressive: Insecure and do not like new situation.
Vision alignment with change agent. Suggesting participative approach in facilitating role.
Start Progressive: Constructed positive narratives towards employees that change will be better for everyone.
Regressive: Resistance towards new way of working.
Working as partner with change agent (Facilitating role, encouraging others, guiding sessions with change agent). Mid Progressive: Trying to convince
people and increase confidence for new situation.
Progressive: Narrated positive about change approach and recommendations of consultant.
Involved employees and decreased resistance (Listening, asked questions, providing building-blocks for workshops and let employees decide, delegating responsibility). End Progressive: Very positive about
change results.
Progressive: Positive about change results after involvement and help of consultant.
Offering brochure with information and recommendations.
33 Change agent’s change narratives during change projects
All participants involved in this research showed developments in the way they think and talk about the change projects, both in a positive or negative way. Looking at the change agents, they all had a positive attitude and construction of positive narratives at the beginning and at the end of the change projects. A remarkable similarity is that the change agents described to have had experiences with the same or different consultants from previous projects and subsequently formed a vision, partly together with the consultants, on how they should handle the change project. Therefore, they could select consultants with approximately the same vision as their own vision.
The results demonstrate different ways of thinking and talking about the situation by change agents and employees. As is clear from the timelines and above results, change agents constructed progressive narratives before, during and after the change projects in general and towards the employees about the change project. Although the change agents already constructed these progressive narratives from the beginning, they constructed even more progressive narratives after the initial meetings with the consultants. Change agents constructed progressive narratives about the change projects since they worked together with the consultant as partners in case two and three. In these cases, they discussed their ideas together and presented these to the employees, which led to shared change agent roles and the commitment of both towards the project.
During later stages of the change projects, change agents in all three cases noticed the valuable contribution of the consultants and their behavior and approach. They made sense of the advices of the consultants in neutral and positive ways and constructed these solutions in a progressive narrative way towards the employees. However, in case two were some regressive narratives visible from the change agent as they showed some inconvenience about the advice of the consultant. As the figures also show, these regressive narratives were only narrated towards the consultant and not to the employees. To overcome these regressive narratives, the consultant convinced the change agent by emphasizing the positive aspects of the new situation. Even in the final phases of the change projects and thereafter, all change agents, including the change agent from case two, constructed progressive narratives again about the change project by referring to the interventions recommended by the consultants.
Change recipients’ change narratives during change projects
