Hard and soft aspects of change
The implications of an ambiguous and equivocal composite narrative
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and BusinessMSc Business Administration – Change Management
Groningen, 30-10-2017 Name Stefan de Boer Student number s3003825 Course
MSc Thesis BA Change Management
Supervisor
dr. C. Reezigt
Co-assessor
1
Hard and soft aspects of change
The implications of an ambiguous and equivocal composite narrative
Abstract
The dominance of organizational literature consistent with the hard paradigm has been of great influence on methodologies and techniques used in practice. However recently, newer methodologies that resonate more strongly with the soft paradigm (e.g., Agile methods) are becoming increasingly popular. Organizations that are implementing newer and softer methodologies are therefore effectively undertaking a paradigm shift. This study investigated how an organization currently implementing such a methodology incorporated and used aspects of change resonating with both the hard paradigm (i.e., hard aspects of change) and the soft paradigm (i.e., soft aspects of change). By conducting 12 unstructured interviews, a composite organizational narrative was constructed in which an ambiguous and equivocal adoption of both hard and soft aspects of change was found. This study uses several concepts from organizational learning to explain the findings and provide theoretical and managerial implications. More specifically, respondents seemed to explicitly espouse theories consistent with soft aspects while deploying actions that were underpinned by theories-in-use consistent with hard aspects, ultimately leading to a prevalence of hard aspects. By equating hard aspects of change with Model 1 theories-in-use and soft aspects of change with espoused theories and Model 2 theories-in-use, this study argues that the incorporation of Model 2 theories-in-use is, by definition, a prerequisite for the usage of soft aspects. Consequently, to implement soft methodologies successfully, organizations are required to substantially educate both management and employees to become aware of their own Model 1 theories-in-use and extensively guide them with redesigning their actions.
Key words: hard aspects of change; soft aspects of change; composite narrative; theories-in-use; espoused theories; Model 1 theories-in-use; Model 2 theories-in-use.
Word count
2
1. Introduction
More than 100 years ago, an American engineer named Frederick Winslow Taylor developed an approach to manage and control organizations. It was named ‘Scientific Management’ and belonged to an influential stream of approaches that advocated a scientific approach to managerial decision-making. Its premise was breaking down the work task into its constituent elements (i.e., differentiation), standardization of tools and processes, assigning each worker to a specific task (i.e., specialization) and money as the sole motivator (Locke, 1982). Could someone like Taylor have ever foreseen the influence his work would have on so many people working in organizations to this day? And that in doing so, people are provided with a frame of reference that hinders many organizations today in successfully undertaking change (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Burnes & Jackson, 2011)? Whereas the latter question is addressed in this study, the former question can already be answered more safely, as Taylor’s approach to organizations is still seen as influential on current managerial practices and assumptions (Locke, 1982). For instance, project management, one of the major organizational disciplines alongside the likes of finance and IT (Mir & Pinnington, 2014; Turner, Anbari & Bredillet, 2013) and often used as a vehicle to undertake organizational change (Hornstein, 2015; Stretton, 2007), is dominated by reductionist techniques and practices that rely on planning and control mechanisms and the use of quantitative measures (Aritua, Smith & Bower, 2009; Atkinson, Crawford & Ward, 2006; Sage, Dainty & Brookes, 2014). This has led to methodologies such as ‘PRINCE2’ and techniques such as ‘GANTT charts’, ‘Work Breakdown Structures’ and ‘Critical Path Methods’ being among the most popular practices used in organizations until at least a few years ago (Fortune et al., 2011). Ultimately, these techniques and practices are an outcome of looking at organizations in the same way as someone like Taylor did. The underlying and fundamental notion is that reality can be measured objectively and thus a ‘one-best-way’ can be determined (Burnes, 2014; Locke, 1982). Pollack (2007) has defined viewings on organizations that are consistent with the notions of people like Taylor as the hard paradigm. Unsurprisingly, the link between organizational literature (e.g., project management) and the hard paradigm is strong (Crawford & Pollack, 2004; Hornstein, 2015; Pollack, 2007).
3
learning, participation and exploration (Pollack, 2007). Over the last few decades, organizational literature resonating with the notions of the soft paradigm have become more apparent (Burnes, 2005; Burnes, 2014; Heracleous & Barrett, 2001). Subsequently – building on the notion that different theoretical outlooks will influence practice in terms of how situations are perceived and what are considered to be valid and effective actions (Pollack, 2007) – methodologies currently growing in terms of popularity are also more in line with the soft paradigm. For instance, ‘Agile’ methods (Agile Alliance, 2001) centre around the idea that in order for an organization to be able to cope with increasing environmental dynamism and competitiveness, it must place human beings and their interactions above processes. Among its principles are the importance of teamwork, collaboration, trust and support, in order to create motivation and more successful communication (Conforto, Salum, Amaral, da Silva & de Almeida, 2014; Hobbs & Petit, 2017). Indeed, these principles are in accordance with those of the soft paradigm. The assumption therefore made in this study is that organizations implementing new and softer methodologies, such as Agile methods, are also undertaking an organizational change that entails a fundamental shift in the general tendency of thinking – a paradigm shift.
4
The remainder of this study begins with a literature review in which hard and soft aspects of change, related to the hard and soft paradigm as presented in this section, are addressed. Identifying the various aspects that both sides comprise contributed in linking different elements of the composite narrative to specific aspects of change – substantiating the findings. The literature review also contains a brief introduction on the concept of narratives. The following methodology section describes the process that was followed in order to execute this study. It explains the process of constructing the composite organizational narrative and the analysis thereof. The outcomes of the analyses are presented in the findings section by distinguishing five separate narratives, each focussing on a different area of hard and soft aspects of change. Finally, the discussion section first summarizes the different narratives into one concluding narrative and subsequently elaborates on it by using theories from organizational learning.
2. Literature Review
5
made by other scholars regarding broader theories on organizational change. For instance, the notions of Beer & Nohria’s (2000) ‘Theory E’ and ‘Theory O’ resemble with those of hard and soft in Crawford & Pollack’s framework – they even speak about hard and soft approaches. The same accounts for Boonstra’s (2004) ‘planned change’ (hard) and ‘OD’ (soft). This study therefore incorporates these theories that, compared to Crawford & Pollack’s (2004) more narrow focus on managing (change) projects, adopt an organization-wide perspective. The added value lies in that it helped enrich the analyses by widening the range of hard and soft aspects of change-related topics to which elements of the narrative could be linked. It must be noted that Beer & Nohria’s Theory O and Boonstra’s (2004) OD do not necessarily argue from the same underlying assumptions as Pollack’s (2007) soft paradigm (i.e., reality is socially constructed). However, as Burnes (2014) mentions, many of the practices and techniques corresponding with these theories do have links with the soft paradigm.
Hard and soft aspects of change
The first dimensions of Crawford & Pollack’s (2004) framework address are the nature of goals. They argue that hard projects typically have high levels of clarity and tangibility; they are clearly defined, unambiguous and it is more apparent how they can be reached. Hence, goals in hard projects are measurable and are therefore accompanied by quantitative success measures that are determined before the data is collected, in order to simplify complex matters (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). As such, they allow for reaching the overarching goal of hard projects which is improving economic or shareholder value (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Measures that capture economic value, such as profitability, have typically been most pursued by organizations (Greve, 2008). Projects that are in accordance with soft aspects have lower levels of goal clarity and tangibility; they acknowledge ambiguity and focus more on problem definition/identification in which negotiation, debate and accommodation are required (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). They are thus increasingly open to subjective interpretation, corresponding with Pollack’s (2007) soft paradigm. Its success measures are qualitative and provide rich and in-depth understanding needed to reach its overarching goal of developing organizational capabilities (Beer & Nohria, 2000).
6
by rigorous planning and the use of established programs (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Accordingly, Boonstra (2004) attributes hard projects with an overall techno-economical process rationality. A prerequisite for hard projects is therefore a stable end situation, implying a view on change as being episodic. Crawford & Pollack (2004) state that hard projects are characterized by the refinement of a single solution, resonating with the hard paradigm (Pollack, 2007) in which it is possible to determine a one-best-way. Contrary, soft projects are open to alternative solutions (Crawford & Pollack, 2004), corresponding with the soft paradigm (Pollack, 2007) that assumes reality is socially constructed, i.e. people can make choices that lead to more emergent change outcomes (Burnes, 2014). The overall process rationality is therefore more focused on socio-political aspects (Boonstra, 2014). Social aspects are not suitable for allowing rapid change, rather they are changed incrementally (Burnes, 2014), hence improvements are to a greater extent based on the existing organization. This implies a view on change as being a continuous process of improvement that encompasses more iterations (Bhuiyan, & Baghel, 2005; Boonstra, 2004). Furthermore, soft projects have more difficulties in determining project boundaries and have lower degrees of impermeability (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). It therefore regards for the ability to alter the change process, meaning it has higher flexibility.
Crawford & Pollack (2004) thereafter address participation and practitioner role. They argue that in hard projects the practitioner functions as the expert, meaning there is little stakeholder participation required. Low degrees of participation also resonate with Beer & Nohria’s (2000) description of top-down and directive change. They add by attributing a stronger reliance on external consultants whom dictate the change by offering the ‘best’ way to go forward. This typically entails a default solution, in line with the aforementioned use of established programs. Soft projects on the other hand have a high degree of stakeholder participation and are guided by management in a more facilitative fashion (Crawford & Pollack, 2004). Whereas in hard projects managers use their position power to steer changes, managers in soft projects use personal power to facilitate collaboration (Boonstra, 2014). Higher degrees of employee involvement resemble a bottom-up process with less reliance on external consultants (Beer & Nohria, 2000). When present, their role is rather to help management discover the best route themselves, supporting the aforementioned description of improvements based on the existing organization.
7
towards employees as human capital to perform objectives (Boonstra, 2004) and thus allows for monitoring and control mechanisms. Contrary, the notion of soft projects imply that employees are creative and collaborative (Boonstra, 2004), resulting in a focus on employee behavior and attitudes to create culture (Beer & Nohria, 2000). Soft projects therefore typically rely more on experimentation, rather than control mechanisms. The underlying assumption is that motivation is created by increasing employee commitment and involvement (i.e., pull-factors), whereas in hard projects the assumption resembles the hard paradigm, meaning financial incentives are used to create motivation (i.e., push-factors).
The concept of narratives
As mentioned in the previous section, this study has constructed a composite organizational narrative to help analyse how an organization adopts hard and soft aspects of change. Several scholars argue that the topic of narratives is becoming increasingly important in organization and management studies (e.g., Dailey & Browning, 2014; Dawson & Buchanan, 2005). Researchers have thus far used three distinct approaches for the analysis of narratives: realist, interpretative and poststructuralist approaches (Vaara, Sonenschein & Boje, 2016). This study adopted an interpretative approach, meaning narratives are analyzed from a subjective point of view; they are seen as constructions of organizational phenomena and it is the task of the researcher to construct the present narrative. Interpretative approaches can focus on either individual or composite narratives – the latter (constructing a narrative out of several individual narratives) contains the largest chunk of interpretative studies (Vaara et al., 2016) and was also constructed in this study.
8
influence ongoing change trajectories (Buchanan & Dawson, 2007). The following research question was therefore adopted in study: “How does a composite organizational narrative
influence the usage of hard and soft aspects during change and what are its implications?”
3. Methodology
A prerequisite for answering the research question was the construction of a composite organizational narrative. The case site for the construction of this narrative was a global financial institution (operating in 40 countries) that was undertaking an organization-wide implementation of a new soft methodology (i.e., Agile methods), whilst currently working according to hard methodologies – thereby compliant with the assumption made in the introduction section, namely that organizations moving from hard to soft methodologies are undertaking a paradigm shift. This organization was therefore an interesting case site to investigate the incorporation of hard and soft aspects of change and its implications.
As described in the previous section, narratives include reasoning, for instance as to why people think certain events occur. Qualitative data is useful for understanding the rationale or underlying relationships (Eisenhardt, 1989). It provides rich data and is well suited for exposing the meaning people place on events, processes and structures, as well as their connection with the surrounding social context (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Naturally, in this study qualitative data was gathered, more specifically by conducting unstructured interviews. In fact, every interview was initiated by asking only one pre-formulated question (“How would you describe
your organization and your role here?”); thereafter the researcher restricted to asking
9
collection methods is called triangulation, which enhances construct validity (Yin, 2013) as well as serving the study’s reliability (van Aken et al., 2012).
First, a single-case analysis was carried out wherein over a period of two months – in which the researcher was physically present four days per week – 12 interviews were anonymously conducted with respondents from various functions and hierarchical levels within one of three existing business lines at the case site. Selecting respondents from all relevant roles and departments within the organization enhances respondent reliability (van Aken et al., 2012) and was required in order to construct a representative composite narrative. Of every interview an audio recording was made (a total of 09h17m17s of audio recordings was gathered) that was then transcribed (see appendix A for all transcripts of the single-case analysis). The transcripts were subsequently analysed by using a software program (‘ATLAS.ti’) to aid in working systematically, thereby increasing researcher reliability (van Aken et al., 2012).
The process for the single-case analysis was initiated by reading thoroughly through all transcripts a first time and assigning codes to all passages that showed resemblance with literature on hard or soft aspects of change. The codes summarized the core message of that passage. For instance, when a respondent stated: “I think one of the prerequisites of the Agile
way of working is safety in the working environment. That you’re allowed to mistakes”, the
following code was added: ‘encouraging experimentation’. After the first round of coding (resulting in a total of 222 different codes) a pattern was discovered in which respondents often acknowledged the importance of soft aspects, while at the same time describing actions of which the underlying reasoning was consistent with hard aspects – the results showed a total of 101 codes resonating with hard aspects and 102 codes resonating with soft aspects. Sorting the codes on groundedness supported this observation; codes resonating with both hard and soft aspects appeared on top, without a clear emphasis on either of the two sides (see appendix B for an overview of the results after the first round of coding). The observed ambiguity and equivocality was deemed as the most interesting further direction for this study, consequently resulting in a second analysis of all transcripts that specifically focused on contradictory accounts in relation to hard and soft aspects of change.
10
number of respondents, reliability was further enhanced (van Aken et al., 2012). Their transcripts were analysed on the same accounts of ambiguity and equivocality as observed in the single-case analysis, again by using a software program for coding. The results of both the multiple-case analysis and the second round of analysis of the single-case, were merged into a codebook (see appendix C) to aid in deriving specific findings out of the gathered data, in order to construct a composite narrative. To distinguish between the different cases, quotes that were used in the codebook were preceded by differing codenames; codenames referring to the single-case analysis are preceded by ‘LS’ (01-12) and codenames referring to the multiple-single-case analysis are preceded by either ‘FM’ (01-12) or ‘TS’ (01-12).
4. Findings
In this section the findings that were derived from both the single-case analysis and multiple-case analysis are presented. As indicated in the previous section, during the single-multiple-case analysis it became apparent that many respondents expressed ambiguous and equivocal descriptions when compared to literature on hard and soft aspects of change. The multiple-case analysis confirmed this observation, i.e. the transcripts of the other cases also contained numerous accounts of contradictory statements (with regards to hard and soft) and thus the same degree of ambiguity was revealed on roughly the same aspects. Small variations were observed in terms of emphasis being put on different elements or aspects, however these were not deemed as significant differences. Due to their concordance, the findings of the single-case and multiple-case analysis are presented here as one. To facilitate for an orderly and comprehensible presentation of the findings, they are structured around five different areas of hard and soft aspects of change: goals of/during change, approach towards change, change execution, role of managers and the look towards employees.
11
Goals of/during change
Almost all respondents expressed matters such as cost reduction or increasing revenue as being the most important overarching goal for any change within their organization. Their underlying reasoning was uniform; ‘we work for a profit organization, the main (or even sole) goal is to earn money, hence a change can only contribute to the organization when it clearly improves financial results’. The notion that developing organizational capabilities will, in itself, lead to better results was mostly neglected. This resonates clearly with hard aspects of change, in which the overarching goal of change is to improve economic and/or shareholder value. Furthermore, in line with this focus on financial results, respondents argued that the most important success measures are quantitative. Although expressed in various ways (e.g., cost reduction, increasing earnings, staff reductions), all success measures came down to quantifiable variables. Respondents felt that (financial) contributions of a change must always be made tangible – numbers allow for such tangibility and can therefore increase visibility of change contributions:
LS06: We do have one rule these days. If you have a big initiative, a big change, you should deliver value. And value is nothing more, nothing less, than to cut costs. Sometimes people are also saying we can add more value in terms of revenues. So the costs maybe increase a little bit, but the revenues will increase much more, so overall you have a business case. These are the big drivers.
The most interesting ambiguity in terms of goals during change was that some respondents, while arguing that change should always lead to improving economic value and must be measured in a quantitative fashion, also expressed that change goals can have lower levels of clarity and tangibility, especially during earlier stages of the change process. Respondents argued that, due to the complexity and size of most changes in their organization, as well as the high degree of interdependencies between processes and departments, it is more suitable for change goals to be defined more generic, so that they are open to alterations during the continuation of the change. This is an indication of ambiguity, as lower levels of goal clarity and goal tangibility resonate not with hard, but with soft aspects of change. The composite narrative thus had to some extent ambiguous elements with regards to the role of goals and goal-setting during organizational change (see figure 4.1).
12
is needed to see that 5 is more than 4) which gives people a feeling of tangibility. Consequently, people feel with quantitative measures they have more control and are subject to less risks as they can more easily justify their actions towards peers and managers:
LS04: You want to create something that is really structured and manageable, rather than running a herd of different sheep and you have no idea where they are going. (…) I think the real motivation stems from making sure that I had a business that I understood. I knew that if I put A in, then probably B will come out, rather than putting A in and then you have a variety of answers coming back.
Factors that at least partly contributed to this need for control and the ability to justify one’s actions came to the fore during the analyses of the transcripts: (1) By being a global financial institution, control (in various ways) was a necessity and control mechanisms were dominant. This notion was consistent throughout all transcripts. Hence, both its macro environment and the nature of the services and products the organization produced, automatically entailed a high need for control – facilitated by quantitative measures. (2) According to most respondents, several restructurings that included rigid downsizing in staff resulted in feelings of lower job-security. As a result, people’s risk averseness increased in order to decrease their vulnerability towards managers – also facilitated by quantitative measures:
LS10: I think the fact that we are now facing a massive transformation program makes it – you know you are being looked at. There is a large visibility now. Everybody is looking at you. And everybody is pushing you to go one step further and take a bigger step. But that also increases the risk of making mistakes. And you want to reduce that number of mistakes, especially the costs of those mistakes. So you must be careful. If I can put a clear, measurable and smart mark on that, then of course that is a lot easier than something which I think will help the business, but is not tangible.
13
The composite narrative with regards to the role of goals during change expresses therefore a degree of ambiguity. It shows that the nature of the goals are open towards soft aspects of change; high degrees of organizational complexity, interdependency and unpredictable and emergent change outcomes are all acknowledged. As a result, lower levels of clarity and tangibility are sometimes used to allow for flexibility. However, whereas literature relates these soft aspects with qualitative measures and change having an overarching goal to develop organizational capabilities, the narrative presented here implicates that, due to several aforementioned contributing factors, change goals are ultimately seen within the boundaries that belong to hard aspects of change; the overarching goal is to improve economic and/or shareholder value and there is strong reliance on quantitative measures.
Approach towards change
Again, the notions expressed by respondents showed equivocality and ambiguity when compared to literature. For goals during change, an element of the composite narrative was openness to lower levels of clarity and tangibility, as it was often deemed not possible to predict the definitive outcome of the change during earlier stages. This notion also implies openness to multiple solution options. This resonates with soft aspects of change, as it moves away from the notion that one can, through technical and rational analysis, determine the optimal solution beforehand. Furthermore, when discussing the end state of a change, respondents advocated for the absence of a static ending; they argued there is not a specific point in time that embodies the ‘new’ organization and you are never really ‘finished’ with changing. This is in accordance with soft aspects of change wherein change is seen as a continuous process of improvement, rather than episodic. Nonetheless, based on the analyses, the composite narrative still appeared to be confined within the boundaries of hard aspects of change (see figure 4.2). This is foremost due to the overall rationality behind the design of the change being more in accordance with the techno-economical perspective, rather than the socio-political perspective:
LS08: We tend to look at what we can see. So we can see organizational charts, we can see processes, we can see management reports, so we tend to design that in a decent manner and implement all of that.
14
LS02: So the approach is, together with the people involved on operational level we build this model together. And then it will be more accepted in the end. (…) I tell them this is the way of working we want to do globally, but the message is: ‘please join us and help us improving it’. (…) So that is my daily work: tuning, discussing, solving issues.
Still, respondents only seemed to take these aspects into account in the sense that they are natural dynamics that simply occur as a result of change. Based on the analyses of the transcripts, there were no clear indications that such dynamics were already facilitated for, and embedded in, the design-phase of the change. In fact, in line with having an overarching goal of improving economic/shareholder value and key success measures being quantitative, changes were approached rational, accompanied by an emphasis on technical aspects: systems, structures, processes and their costs and potential earnings. Interestingly, emphasis was many times put on deadlines for when new formal structures had to be delivered or implemented. The composite narrative therefore showed contradictory elements even within the sole aspect of change being either episodic (hard) or continuous (soft); on the one hand respondents looked towards change as a continuous process that has no real end state, while at the same time noting that meeting deadlines for the delivery or implementation of new structures are considered to be important evaluating criteria (implying static endings of change processes). The same type of ambiguity was identified for the design of new processes. Although not in terms of which organizational activities, there was consensus among respondents that there were at least some areas in the organization not suitable for the new methodology that was implemented:
LS05: No I think not. At least the way we are organized, putting the whole organization together does not make sense, but parts of it does make sense.
15
Figure 4.2: Composite narrative regarding the approach towards change.
The composite narrative in terms of approach towards change has again ambiguous and equivocal characteristics. There are indications that point towards soft aspects of change (i.e., multiple solution options, seeing change as a continuous process of improvement), but the assumptions underpinning the respondents’ actions corresponded mostly with hard aspects of change (i.e., techno-economical process rationality, new design of – default – business processes). More specifically, the narrative here shows that soft aspects seem to confide within the boundaries of the hard aspects; the fundamental outlook towards change comprises a techno-economical process rationality and the design of new processes and structures form the foundation of the change – socio-political elements are acknowledged (and even seen as important) but are not specifically accounted for when designing the change.
Change execution
Respondents described the procedure of implementation in such a way that it resembles a top-down fashion. That is, the most important issues (e.g., how the organization after implementation will look like, how the change process will look like, which processes will be altered etc.) are taken by top management and it is expected of lower management and employees to adhere to these decisions:
LS12: I was not there when it happened, but I think it was just an announcement. We are going to work like this and this and this. And first – it was not implemented in the entire organization at the same time. We were one of the first to implement it. And the rest followed. Basically it is a very simple change. They said we are now running and changing the bank. And we are going to change it in this setup.
16
stated that employees are allowed to make suggestions. However, there were no examples found in the transcripts in which such suggestions actually influenced the implementation process on a larger scale. Several respondents argued that due to (1) the high degree of interdependencies between activities and processes and (2) the lack of overview most employees have on such complexity, it is not feasible for employees to engage in important decision-making:
FM06: It's a big, big organization, and at some stage decisions need to be taken at the top. I mean, there are strategic decisions that are overarching and that are not only for my business, but they are overarching for [organization] – yeah, that is something that needs to be taken on a higher level.
In terms of the impermeability of the change implementation, the composite narrative tilts more evidently towards soft aspects of change (see figure 4.3). In line with the high degree of interdependencies and complexities articulated many times by all respondents, changes in the organization were subject to many external factors that subsequently could or did influence the change process. There also seemed to be general acceptance towards such external influences: many respondents described the need for dealing with many interdependencies as challenging and enjoyable. Also, the lower levels of goal clarity and tangibility (see goals of/during change) and acknowledgement of multiple solution options (see approach towards change) indicate towards openness to external influences. In terms of contributing to the actual change results, no instances were found in the transcripts that express such external influences as desirable, rather they were seen as inevitable. Still, this notion tends to soft aspects of change.
Contrary, the main focus during the execution of the change was put on structures and systems, which is in accordance with hard aspects (see figure 4.3). As already indicated earlier (see approach towards change), dominant topics within the organization were how the new processes and formal structures should look like. The underlying notion implicated by the narrative here is that an optimal composition of such processes and formal structures will more or less equals the optimal change result:
LS03: You have discovery phase, there you identify your main pains and gains. We have problem-fit phase, where at the end you have your validated pains and gains, because you did experiments. Then you go through your solution fit phase where you go to prototype. Then you go to the market fit phase, you build your prototype to the current environment. Then you validate if it is scalable yes or no, and then you go to scalability, and then you can implement.
17
influence to change outcomes was not necessarily neglected – in fact, numerous respondents advocated for the importance of guidance on social aspects – but many respondents were not able to specifically explain what this notion to them entailed. More than often, during the remainder of the interview they expressed contradicting statements that implied structures and systems as are the most important during change. There seemed to be an underlying notion that behavioural aspects do not require substantial emphasis and that employees will automatically seek and determine the most effective manner on their own, i.e. they have the expertise and high degrees of participation is not needed. This was underscored by the high degree freedom employees possessed to determine how to perform their activities (i.e., low formalization); there was no extensive guidance on this matter. Later in this section, the composite narrative regarding the look towards employees further elaborates on this conclusion.
Dominant techniques to guide the change were rigid planning and control mechanisms. All respondents were elaborate on the role of planning in their organization and during change. Moreover, the role of control mechanisms was prevalent when discussing change. In fact, changes involved many pre-determined variables that were frequently checked upon to evaluate whether changes were either on schedule or whether change recipients were adopting the formal structures and processes belonging to the change:
LS08: We have a database with the target, and there are 200 hundred items on that database. Then we say ‘okay, we were in Poland and they have 5 exceptions which we ultimately excepted’. We plot them – so either temporary or permanent. If it is temporary, we also state when it needs to be fixed. So then we know for each location where they deviate from the standard on all of the components of that standard. So the standard has 5 components: product, processes, organization, data and systems. So we can – every location has its core in model compliancy. Sounds maybe childish, but it helps.
18
LS08: We don’t truly apply Agile in doing the change. (…) But sometimes that prevents us from moving in an Agile way to the new state. And if we believe in Agile, I think we should do the transformation in Agile as well, because we might change something and then we learn ‘oh that is a bad move’. So we also want to have quick learning processes.
Figure 4.3: Composite narrative regarding the change execution.
The composite narrative in terms of change execution relates, when compared to literature, more strongly with hard aspects of change. There is a clear pattern visible in the composite narrative that articulates top-down changes with a focus on structures and systems, subsequently facilitated by planning and control mechanisms. Still, whereas hard aspects of change also entail clear boundaries during a change project, the narrative here shows there was openness to external influences. Due to the high degree of interdependencies, changes involve a wide range of employees and processes, consequently opening up to a large number of unpredictable events. This is a clear soft element of the composite narrative that adds to the identified ambiguity.
Role of managers
The composite narrative here articulates elements that are in accordance with both hard and soft aspects. Underlining the aforementioned top-down change execution, the manner in which respondents described the role of managers was more in accordance with hard aspects of change, even though most respondents (who functioned as managers) argued they did not steer changes in a directive manner. These respondents reasoned that their goal, in terms of addressing their employees during change, is to make sure that all can execute their tasks effectively, and that when done so, oversee that all those tasks together form a product, service or process that meets that required criteria:
19
In their view, they therefore did not steer changes, but acted in a facilitative and supportive manner. This however does not foster factors that belong to soft aspects of change, like collaboration. Their descriptions still resonate with hard aspects of change, because employees are herein seen as the experts, each having their own defined roles with accompanying tasks. The respondents hence implied a presence (and preference) of differentiation and to a certain degree specialization – the narrative showed little instances of encouraging employees to cross boundaries. The concepts of differentiation and specialization are consistent with the techno-economical process rationality, where an optimal procedure and/or division of tasks (often in terms of efficiency) is determined. Many respondents functioning as manager therefore rather expressed a facilitation of cooperation, instead of collaboration, and cooperation and steering changes (hard) are not mutually exclusive. Whereas cooperation focuses on effectiveness between the different divisions and divisions of tasks (resonating with the descriptions given by respondents functioning as managers), collaboration focuses more on the actual interaction and social processes between people that result in those people being able to perform their tasks effectively. Instances of respondents specifically focussing on such interaction and social processes were hardly present in the composite narrative. This is in line with the general neglect on employee behaviour and attitudes as expressed in the composite narrative for change execution. Many respondents, despite verbally acknowledging its importance, showed no thorough understanding of such softer concepts and generally had difficulties elaborating on them as extensively as they could with discussing processes and formal structures.
There were some respondents who made an attempt in explaining this observation. They argued that within their organization many people now functioning as manager are used to manage according to the principles they acquired in the past. Considering the characteristics of the organization – namely a hierarchical and bureaucratic culture/structure and the execution of projects according to waterfall methods – it is not surprising that many managers are therefore still influenced to a great extent by hard aspects of change. Although during the interviews they verbally expressed elements that resonate with soft aspects, their underlying reasoning revealed an accordance with hard aspects of change. In fact, several respondents argued that (with regards to the implementation of Agile methods) this was one of the main difficulties the organization had to overcome in order to fundamentally change the organization:
20
There is no such thing as a joint responsibility for instance. That is just an example of a completely different mind-set. So people were trained, really trained, over multiple years, in a different way on thinking about success and failure and on how to build your career. And not so much in really being more, let’s say, trying to be less dominant and trying to be more helpful, facilitating and supportive. (…) That will require quite some time I suppose.
Due to the high degree of complexity and interdependencies identified at the case site, all respondents elaborated on the high amount of meetings needed, as well as the many different employees that needed to be involved in order to “get things done” (as it was often expressed by several respondents). Subsequently, the use of politics and persuasion was for many respondents seen as obligatory. This implies a need for using personal power, which belongs to soft aspects of change. However, again supporting the presence of ambiguity and equivocality, this element of the composite narrative was simultaneously contradicted by other elements that indicated a need for, and use of position power by managers (see figure 4.4). For example, ‘escalating’ was a concept addressed several times by respondents, meaning that whenever there is an issue or disagreement between two parties, the issue is taken up a hierarchical level and left for the corresponding manager to decide the outcome:
LS07: If it does not work, it will become my responsibility. So if the practitioners and operators say ‘guys this is out of the wack’, and designers are fearfully defending what they have designed, then I have to tap the table.
This supports the overall dominance of the hierarchical structure and bureaucratic nature of the organization that was identified during the analyses. Moreover, escalating does not foster, but hinders collaboration. Instead of two parties overcoming disagreements and finding a solution amongst themselves (which is collaboration), there was a tendency to simply forward an issue and rely on the position power of that manager for determining proceedings.
21
The composite narrative concerning the role of managers thus includes both hard and soft aspects. Respondents functioning in a managing position did verbally acknowledge the importance of including employees in the process and organizational characteristics naturally lead to a need for using personal power. These soft aspects nevertheless seem to reside within the boundaries of hard aspects; when important decisions have to be made, the narrative shows that position power remains the deciding factor. Ultimately, managers therefore rather steer changes for cooperation, instead of facilitating collaboration.
Look towards employees
The identified composite narrative here was consistent with the previous narratives presented in this section. That is, analyses showed that elements of the narrative touched upon those aspects of change that are deemed soft, but they ultimately reside within the boundaries of hard aspects of change. The latter remains, also with regards to the look towards employees, the dominant side from which change at the case site was looked at. There were instances in the transcripts that expressed a view towards employees in accordance with soft aspects of change. For example, one respondent described a yearly competition that takes place and in which employees can participate by proposing their ideas to improve the organization. By organizing such a competition, the assumption can be made that the organization sees employees as inherently good (i.e., they will want to propose ideas that help the organization they work in) and that they are also creative (i.e., they are capable of developing ideas that contribute to the organization). As such, participation is encouraged as well. Another indication that pointed towards soft aspects was the emphasis many respondents placed upon the importance of communication. They argued that in order to facilitate change in an effective manner, employees need to be provided with a clear vision and extensive communication:
22
The underlying reasoning here entails two things: (1) When employees do not understand the change and when they therefore experience a lower degree of involvement and ownership of the change, they will feel less motivated to the change and will therefore show lower degrees of commitment. This resembles the principle of pull-factors; making people want to contribute to the change will in itself help the effectiveness of that change. This resonates with soft aspects of change. (2) If employees are not provided with context and a broader perspective on a change, they will form their own diverging views and meanings on that change that could consequently hinder the effectiveness of the change process. Hence, here it is acknowledged that people socially construct their reality which is consistent with the soft paradigm and thus also soft aspects of change.
An element of the composite narrative that inclines to both hard and soft aspects of change was the degree of freedom employees had in performing their tasks (i.e., a low degree of formalization was identified during the analyses). All respondents justified this degree of freedom as desirable, because they saw employees working at their organization as highly educated professionals who are perfectly capable of determining the needed actions to reach their targets on their own. This implies at the one hand a vision of employees being inherently good. They are given trust by assuming that they are not there to hinder or frustrate the organization or change process, but to contribute. This corresponds with soft aspects. At the other hand it also implies a vision of employees being the expert, which is typical for hard aspects of change.
23
competitive behaviour among and between employees was amplified as every employee was inclined to be especially concerned with his or her own targets, even when reaching those targets entailed other employees not reaching theirs. Based on the reasoning of most respondents, there was general acceptance of such competitiveness – it was seen as a part of the organizational culture. In reality, competitiveness hinders the incentive for collaboration, which is a soft aspect. Thus, while respondents showed awareness of individual expectations and needs of employees, the overarching view was that employees are confided within systems and structures and hence are interchangeable.
In addition, several respondents functioning as manager argued that ambitious and challenging targets stimulate employees in achieving the best results:
LS08: That is a bit of a management trap. They have the feeling that if they do not put ambitious enough deadlines, [employees] are going to waste their time on all kinds of golden bells and whistles. And if they give [employees] a strict deadline, they are only going to build what is necessary. (…) But why do [managers] do it? I think distrust. Thinking that people work harder if they give them more ambitious deadlines.
Here it becomes apparent that the fundamental look towards employees as identified in the composite narrative resembles hard aspects. First, while acknowledging the importance and helpfulness that reliance on pull-factors (e.g., high degrees of commitment and involvement) can have, employees were seen as ultimately being triggered into action by reaching their KPIs. These KPIs were mostly quantitative and linked with financial incentives. Motivating employees by either rewarding them (financially) when achieving their targets, or punishing them when failing to reach their targets, is in accordance with push-factors – resonating with hard aspects of change:
LS06: Because with those people I can realize my goals. I can realize the goals of the [organization]. And this is what we all do it for. [Organization] is a company who pays well. So live with it.
24
Figure 4.5: Composite narrative concerning the look towards employees
With regards to the look towards employees, the composite narrative shows there is general awareness of the contribution that factors belonging to soft aspects of change can have. However, descriptions of the respondents show that this awareness has not resulted in the organization actually managing change in accordance with soft aspects. They therefore are subservient elements of the composite narrative. Ultimately, hard aspects of change prevail as financial incentives are used to motivate employees into acting and their actions must fit within the structures and systems they are located in.
5. Discussion
25
tangibility), however they were foremost quantitative and focused upon improving economic and/or shareholder value (hard). Also, there was recognition for soft aspects when addressing employees (i.e., usage of pull-factors to increase involvement and commitment), yet the actual interaction towards employees was according to hard aspects (i.e., using push-factors to motivate employees into acting).
Figure 5.1: Overall composite narrative in relation to the usage of hard and soft aspects of change.
The first part of the research question that was adopted in this study reads as follows: “How
does the organizational narrative of a global financial institution influence the usage of hard and soft aspects during change?”. The composite narrative has already shown the ambiguous
Miron- 26
Spektor, 2011). For clarity and consistency reasons, this study limits itself to the work of Argyris & Schön (1974), as their theories show a strong correspondence with the findings presented in this study, consequently helping to further explain and elaborate on them.
Argyris & Schön (1974) have identified and distinguished two types of theories of action. These theories correspond with the discrepancy that respondents have expressed in this study and that consequently has led to the ambiguous and equivocal composite narrative. The first theory focuses on what people espouse and comprises their beliefs, attitudes and values –
espoused theories. The second theory focuses on the actions people undertake, thus the theory
they actually deploy – theories-in-use. According to Argyris (1995), there is often a fundamental and systemic mismatch between one’s theories-in-use and espoused theories – just as is observed in this study. Also, Argyris (1976b) states that most people are able to detect discrepancies between theories-in-use and espoused theories of other people, but not those in themselves – again just as is observed in this study.
27
outlooks on organizational life influence practice in what are perceived as valid and effective actions (Pollack, 2007). As a result, the methodologies and techniques that have been popular in practice were in accordance with the hard paradigm and thus hard aspects of change. This was also the case for the case site used in this study. The analyses indicated there was, at least until now, a strong hierarchical and bureaucratic structure and culture (hard) present at the case site, as well as a prevalence to execute (change) projects by using ‘waterfall’ methods (hard). Following this line of reasoning, the dominance of the hard paradigm in both theory and practice will have most likely influenced the governing values of the respondents. Taking into account that theories-in-use deploy actions that are designed to satisfy these governing values (Argyris, 1976c), it naturally follows that the dominance of the hard paradigm has contributed to theories-in-use that correspond with hard aspects of change.
Accompanied by theories-in-use are espoused theories. These are the theories people are aware of. They are therefore expressed verbally – and thus explicitly, rather than implicitly (Argyris, 1976a). The findings section has shown that soft aspects of change were often explicitly acknowledged by the respondents. Moreover, several respondents advocated for their importance and preference numerous times. Accordingly, whereas the respondents’ theories-in-use corresponded more strongly with hard aspects of change, their espoused theories showed a stronger resonance with soft aspects of change. This discrepancy was the major contributing factor for the observed ambiguity and equivocality in the composite narrative. The explicit descriptions of respondents contradicted with the implicit underlying reasoning behind their actual actions. Furthermore, because hard aspects resonate with theories-in-use, and soft aspects with espoused theories – and not the other way around – hard aspects of change ultimately prevailed. Elements of the composite narrative that resonated with hard aspects of change are therefore defined as the dominant narrative, while elements resonating with soft aspects of change are defined as the subservient narrative (see figure 5.1).
28
Until now, this study has answered the first part of the research question. First, in the findings section, a composite narrative was constructed in which an ambiguous and equivocal usage of hard and soft aspects of change was found. Second, in this section, an attempt was made to explain this finding by introducing theories-in-use and espoused theories, as well as their subsequent relationship with hard and soft aspects. Taken together, this study provides insight into how the organizational composite narrative influences the usage of hard and soft aspects. The second part of the research question (“(…) and what are its implications?”) focuses upon the consequences of the findings presented here. More specifically, what are the implications of respondents holding implicit theories-in-use that resonate more strongly with hard aspects, while explicitly expressing espoused theories that resonate more strongly with soft aspects. One implication is already given in this study, simply by its finding that hard aspects of change, due to their connection with theories-in-use, will ultimately prevail. The remainder of this section will elaborate on the implications for organizations that seek to shift towards an eventual prevalence of soft aspects. In other words, how can an organization integrate soft aspects of change into its employees’ theories-in-use to a greater extent. This is especially helpful for organizations – like the case site in this study – that are adopting newer methodologies whom are becoming increasingly popular and comprise a paradigm shift in the general tendency for thinking. In order to do so, once again the concept of organizational learning is referred to; however, the focus is now placed more specifically onto Argyris & Schön’s (1974) Model 1 theories-in-use, as well as on their additional Model 2 theories-in-use.
29
the process of single-loop learning, the central features of one’s theory-in-use are maintained (Argyris & Schön, 1978), making it therefore effective in change routines, but ineffective to make fundamental changes (Argyris, 2003). In other words, the governing values – related to hard aspects of change – are not addressed in single-loop learning. As a result, it inhibits a process of learning in which soft aspects of change can be adopted, as the differences between hard and soft aspects reside in exactly those fundamental governing values. It appears that Model 1 theories-in-use will automatically re-establish the usage of hard aspects of change. This pattern is problematic for organizations that aim to implement methodologies resonating with soft aspects of change – like the case site in this study – as discrepancy between the underpinning values of employees and methodologies undermine the ability for successful change (Burnes & Jackson, 2011).
Proposition 1: The notions of Model 1 theories-in-use (i.e., its governing values and
behavioural strategies) are (1) consistent with those underpinning hard aspects of change, and (2) automatically lead to a process in which hard aspects of change are re-established.
30
aspects occurs, Model 2 theories-in-use can result in a process that contributes in the re-establishing of soft aspects.
Proposition 2: The notions of Model 2 theories-in-use (i.e., its governing values and
behavioural strategies) are (1) consistent with those underpinning soft aspects of change, and (2) allow for a process in which soft aspects of change are both incorporated and re-established. The theoretical implication is thus that organizations seeking to move towards increased adaptation of soft aspects of change are – by definition – required to adopt Model 2 theories-in-use. However, a switchover from the ‘hard’ Model 1 to the ‘soft’ Model 2 is difficult to achieve (Argyris, 1976a). It requires one to become aware of his or her own theories-in-use and to question the very fundamentals that have formed their framework for actions (Argyris, 1976b). Argyris (1995) proposes that the use of cases as an intervention tool can (1) help in achieving employees to become aware of the degree to which their theories-in-use are in accordance with Model 1 and (2) help them with redesigning their actions. For instance, an element of the composite narrative described in this study shows how, whenever employees had an issue or disagreement, through escalation the corresponding manager was expected to make the ultimate decision. Consistent with Argyris’ (1995) notion, first, both employees and manager should become aware of how this reliance on hierarchical and bureaucratic structures is in accordance with hard aspects of change (and thus Model 1 theories-in-use) and why it inhibits e.g. collaboration (resonating with soft aspects of change and thus Model 2 theories-in-use). Second, employees should be actively guided and trained in mutual problem-solving skills that allow for collaboration, while managers need to be educated on how to facilitate open discussion – rather than relying on their position power – in order to create a culture consistent with the to-be implemented soft methodology. The managerial implication is the notion that implementing softer methodologies requires the accompanying of substantial and exhaustive education of both management and employees, as their general tendency for thinking (i.e., paradigm) will most likely be inconsistent with those of the new methodology – consequently hindering the effective utilization of that methodology.
Proposition 3: Organizations implementing methodologies consistent with the notions of the
31
This study does not aim to downplay the need for hard aspects of change, i.e. the execution of a change process that focuses on the effective instalment of all necessary structures and systems. However, it does argue that the implementation of soft methodologies will be futile when it is not accompanied by management and employees incorporating its corresponding Model 2 theories-in-use (i.e., a shift in paradigm), how difficult that may be.
Future research and limitations
This study provides an extensive presentation of a composite organizational narrative with regards to the usage of hard and soft aspects. This section contained a holistic elaboration on the identified narrative by making robust equations between, at the one hand, hard aspects of change and Model I theories-in-use, and at the other hand, soft aspects of change, espoused theories and Model 2 theories-in-use. Although the holistic nature allowed for making comprehensible and clear connections, as well as defining its subsequent implications, research that focuses on more specific elements confined within the concepts addressed in this section can allow for a better understanding of the soft aspects that are most important during the implementation of soft methodologies. For instance, the governing values of Model 2 theories-in-use indicate a strong resonance with soft aspects such as high degrees of participation and open discussion to facilitate learning and exploration. Further clarification of aspects that are important for a switchover to Model 2 theories-in-use can contribute in establishing more practical guidelines and techniques – the current lack thereof is considered to be one of the main limitations of organizational literature corresponding with the soft paradigm (Burnes, 2014).
32
group of potential respondents and no interest in identifying differences within that group, random selection of respondents would have been more appropriate. As such, reliability of respondents was compromised.
References
Agile Alliance (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Available:
http://www.agilealliance.org.
Aken J.E. van, Berends, H., Bij, H. van der (2012). Problem solving in organizations – A
methodological handbook for business and management students. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Argote, L. (2011). Organizational learning research: Past, present and future. Management Learning,
42(4), 439-446.
Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge.
Organization Science, 22(5), 1123-1137.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. (1976a). Leadership, Learning, and Changing the Status Quo. Organizational Dynamics,
4(3), 29-43.
Argyris, C. (1976b). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 363-375.
Argyris, C. (1976c). Theories of action that inhibit individual learning. American Psychologist, 31(9), 638.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action approach. Reading, MA: Addision Wesley.
Argyris, C. (1995). Action science and organizational learning. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
10(6), 20-26.
Argyris, C. (2003). A life full of learning. Organization Studies, 24(7), 1178-1192.
Aritua, B., Smith, N. J., & Bower, D. (2009). Construction client multi-projects–A complex adaptive systems perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 27(1), 72-79.
Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & Ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 24(8), 687-698.
Beer, M., & Nohria, N. (2000). Breaking the code of change. Harvard Business Press.
33
Burnes, B. (2005). Complexity theories and organizational change. International Journal of
Management Reviews, 7(2), 73-90.
Burnes, B. (2014). Managing change (6th edition). Pearson Education Limited.
Burnes, B., & Jackson, P. (2011). Success and failure in organizational change: An exploration of the role of values. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 133-162.
Bhuiyan, N., & Baghel, A. (2005). An overview of continuous improvement: from the past to the present. Management Decision, 43(5), 761-771.
Buchanan, D., & Dawson, P. (2007). Discourse and audience: organizational change as multi-story process. Journal of Management Studies, 44(5), 669-686.
Conforto, E. C., Salum, F., Amaral, D. C., da Silva, S. L., & de Almeida, L. F. M. (2014). Can agile project management be adopted by industries other than software development? Project
Management Journal, 45(3), 21-34.
Crawford, L., & Pollack, J. (2004). Hard and soft projects: a framework for analysis. International
Journal of Project Management, 22(8), 645-653.
Czarniawska, B. (1998). A narrative approach to organization studies (Vol. 43). SAGE Publications. Dailey, S. L., & Browning, L. (2014). Retelling stories in organizations: Understanding the functions
of narrative repetition. Academy of Management Review, 39(1), 22-43.
Dawson, P., & Buchanan, D. (2005). The way it really happened: Competing narratives in the political process of technological change. Human Relations, 58(7), 845-865.
Edmondson, A., & Moingeon, B. (1998). From organizational learning to the learning organization.
Management Learning, 29(1), 5-20.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 532-550.
Fortune, J., White, D., Jugdev, K., & Walker, D. (2011). Looking again at current practice in project management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4(4), 553-572.
Greve, H. R. (2008). A behavioral theory of firm growth: Sequential attention to size and performance goals. Academy of Management Journal, 51(3), 476-494.
Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of
Management Journal, 44(4), 755-778.
Hobbs, B. & Petit, Y. (2017). Agile Approaches on Large Projects in Large Organizations. Project
Management Journal, 48(3), 3-19.
Hornstein, H. A. (2015). The integration of project management and organizational change
management is now a necessity. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 291-298. Jiménez-Jiménez, D., & Sanz-Valle, R. (2011). Innovation, organizational learning, and performance.
34
Lines, R. (2004). Influence of participation in strategic change: resistance, organizational commitment and change goal achievement. Journal of Change Management, 4(3), 193-215.
Locke, E. A. (1982). The ideas of Frederick W. Taylor: an evaluation. Academy of Management
Review, 7(1), 14-24.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. SAGE Publications.
Mir, F. A., & Pinnington, A. H. (2014). Exploring the value of project management: linking project management performance and project success. International Journal of Project Management,
32(2), 202-217.
Pollack, J. (2007). The changing paradigms of project management. International Journal of Project
Management, 25(3), 266-274.
Sage, D., Dainty, A., & Brookes, N. (2014). A critical argument in favor of theoretical pluralism: Project failure and the many and varied limitations of project management. International
Journal of Project Management, 32(4), 544-555.
Stretton, A. (2007). A short history of modern project management. PM World Today, 9(10), 1-18. Tosey, P., Visser, M., & Saunders, M. N. (2012). The origins and conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’
learning: A critical review. Management Learning, 43(3), 291-307.
Turner, J. R., Anbari, F., & Bredillet, C. (2013). Perspectives on research in project management: the nine schools. Global Business Perspectives, 1(1), 3-28.
Vaara, E., Sonenshein, S., & Boje, D. (2016). Narratives as sources of stability and change in organizations: Approaches and directions for future research. The Academy of Management
Annals, 10(1), 495-560.
