1
Gaining insights in factors that determine a change strategy
within SMEs
By
Marije Saadhoff
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Businesses
Msc. Business Administration
Small Business & Entrepreneurship
2
Gaining insights in factors that determine a change strategy within SMEs Marije Saadhoff
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
The purpose of this study is to gain more insights in factors that determine a change strategy in small- and medium sized businesses and to investigate the effect of a change strategy on the level of perceived success. This study surveyed 107 SMEs (data from change agent) and it includes data of 3 case studies (data from change agent and one recipient in each case). The results make clear that in this study about SMEs and change management, the strength of change drivers influences the employment of the empirical-rational strategy. It is also revealed that the empirical-rational strategy and the normative-reeducative strategy have a positive effect on the perceived success of outcome of the change; this applies for the change agents as well as the recipients of change. In general, no great differences in perceptions between these two groups are found.
Key words SMEs
Change strategy Change agent
Perceived success of change Change drivers
Scope
Business orientation
Research themes Small Business & Entrepreneurship and Change Management
3
INTRODUCTION
Change is an issue every firm has to deal with; it tends to become a stable state of a contemporary business (Bennebroek Gravenhorst, Werkman and Boonstra, 2003: 84). Unstable environments and internal factors push businesses to think about change and their approach to change. The body of literature dedicated to the understanding of organizational change is impressive (Elias, 2009: 37) and still a lot of research is conducted on this subject. This can partially be subscribed to the high failure rate of 70% (Beer and Nohria, 2000) and because change is a never ending story: it will always be part of the society and thus part of every operating business.
The literature, however, mainly focuses on change management within large firms. It is quite remarkable that limited research is done within SMEs, because more than 99% of the firms in the Netherlands can be categorized within this group (ENSR, 2004). SMEs are defined as enterprises between 10 – 250 employees with a maximum turnover of €50 million a year or a total balance sheet of €43 million a year (European Union, 2005). The focus of this study lies on change management within SMEs. In the process of change, an individual who leads the change is essential: a change agent. Change agents have an important role in change, because they guide the change projects. In SMEs it is often the business owner itself who operates as the change agent. This results in a central position of the business owner in this study.
4
Perceived success relates to the perceived success concerning process and outcome of the change.
This study consists of a survey and multiple case studies, so a comparison between different SMEs can be made. As mentioned before, not much research is conducted within SMEs, which leads to the following research question:
Which factors determine a change strategy within a SME and how does it affect the level of perceived success?
One of the external influences on change discussed in this study is the financial crisis. The economic recession during 2001-2003 was a threat for survival for all firms in the market, but especially for the smaller firms which have much higher fail rates than their larger counterparts (Latham, 2009). Little research on the recent financial crisis (2007-2010) is done, which is a reason to pay attention to this subject in this study. This leads to the following point of consideration: How does the financial crisis affect change projects within SMEs?
Theory on change management is discussed in the following section which leads to the establishment of hypotheses. An explanation of the research method is made in the subsequent section. That section discusses the survey that is used to answer the research question and it discusses the conducted interviews. Thereafter, results are discussed which lead to the final section where remarkable results are discussed in depth and conclusions are drawn.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
5
FIGURE 1 Conceptual model
Perceived success
Every change focuses on achieving a certain new desired future state. But when is a change agent satisfied about the implemented change? In the literature, success is often related to firm performance (e.g. Appiah-Adu & Singh, 1998; Vorhies et al., 1999). Measures for firm performance are often hard, financial measures like profitability and growth (Reijonen & Komppula, 2010). However, change agents in SMEs seldom define goals for success with these kinds of measures; they often have their own idea of success (Reijonen, 2008; Simpson, Tuck & Bellamy, 2004). This makes success a subjective matter. In this study perceived success is based on two different factors: outcome and process. Perceived success of outcome is defined as the perceived success according to the change agent after the change is realized. The process is taken into account, due to the fact that outcome of the change process is often different than what was expected beforehand (Bennebroek Gravenhorst, Werkman & Boonstra, 2003) which makes it interesting to investigate also process-related criteria instead of only outcome of change. The perceived success of the change process is defined as the perceived success of the implementation period according to the change agent.
Change strategy
Any organizational change is connected to a certain approach to change. Academic literature shows many approaches to change, but generally two dominant approaches can be identified: planned and emergent change (Bright and Godwin, 2010; Burnes, 2005; Kanter, Stein & Jick, 1994; Weick, 2000). The planned change strategy has its roots in the work of Lewin (1947). He introduced an approach to organizational change, which included a three-step model: unfreezing – moving – refreezing. In the beginning of the 80s of last century, a new strategy
6
became also widely accepted; the emergent change strategy (Bright and Godwin, 2010). In this study, the focus lies on planned as well as emergent change strategies. The term power is used to explain these strategies, due to the fact that “power is an underlying factor which can be found in all strategies towards organizational change” (Chin and Benne 1969: 52). These authors focus on the planned change strategies, but it is likely that power is also an underlying factor in the emergent change strategy. This is explained more in-depth in the paragraph concerning this strategy. Power has a central role in this study, because it represents the core of difference between the change strategies. How change agents use power in each strategy during the change process is discussed in the following paragraphs and a summary is given in table 1. First, three planned change strategies are explained and subsequently an elaboration on the fourth change strategy is made: the emergent change strategy.
Planned change strategies. Planned change can be defined as “a deliberate and collaborative process involving change-agent and client-systems (…) utilizing and applying valid knowledge” (Bennis, Benne and Chin, 1961: 7). This definition makes clear that a change agent does not have to come from outside the organization (Bennis et al, 1961). Change agents in SMEs can also be individuals from within the organization instead of hiring external change agents. As already made clear in the introduction, it is often the small business owner itself who acts as the change agent in SMEs. In this study, the definition of Bennis et al. (1961) is used including their taxonomy to elaborate on three different strategies of planned change. Chin and Benne (1969) subdivided the planned change approach into three categories: power-coercive, empirical-rational and normative-reeducative.
7
Empirical-rational strategy (ER.) This strategy presumes that “the individuals who undergo the change are guided by clear reasons, facts and logic to change their behaviours” (Szabla, 2007: 528). It assumes that individuals involved are more likely to change when they understand the logic of change and see benefits for themselves from the change (Quinn, Spreitzer and Brown, 2000). These authors argue that people should be educated to understand the drivers and, individual and organizational benefits of a change. The following quote of Miles et al. (2002: 2) make clear how this strategy works in its implementation: “a change is put forward by an individual or group who believes that what they are proposing is desirable and in keeping with the self-interests of the group that will have to change. In the process of putting forward the change proposal, the proposers rationally justify the change, pointing out those elements linking it to the interests of the group and showing how both the group and the individuals will benefit from the change.” Hence, change agents need to convince individuals involved why the change is necessary. Through presenting rational arguments, individuals will change because it also supports their self-interests. The change agents use power by their expertise and knowledge that they have over the individuals involved.
8
Unplanned change strategy - Emergent strategy (ES). Emergent change strategy is connected to an unplanned change process which is a major difference from the other strategies mentioned in this section. No clear goals are set beforehand and less explicit consults with employees for informing, communicating or forcing them. It is more a continuous gradual process which is also explained by Orlikowski. She (1996: 65) defines the emergent strategy as “the realization of a new pattern of organizing in the absence of explicit a priori intentions.” This quote can be complemented with the following highlights: no change is an abrupt or discrete event, there is no dramatic discontinuity at a specific moment and the change process is characterized by having no concrete beginning or end point (Orlikowski, 1996). This makes clear that no clear pattern of the change process can be identified and through the continuity of the changes clear common goals are hard to set. Hence, it seems improper that this change process is called a change strategy, but as such, it still represents a way of implementing change. The emergent change consists of a more bottom-up process for implementing changes (Bright and Godwin, 2010). It makes use of what is happening, which increases the flexibility and learning capability of the involved stakeholders (Burnes, 2004). According to Bright and Godwin (2010) this approach is a way to describe elements of a firm that are for the largest part beyond the control of change agents and leaders, and ideas for changes can come from individuals throughout the entire organization: this assumes that not only change agents have power when this strategy is employed, but also individuals involved in the change process. There is room for individuals involved to initiate and create change, and change agents act more as encourager then.
TABLE 1
Overview of change strategies, core characteristics and use of power
Strategy Core characteristics Use of power (by change agent) Power-coercive strategy Top-down approach
Individuals are forced
Impose power
Empirical-rational strategy Change guided by logical facts and arguments
Just informing
Power by expertise and knowledge
Normative-reeducative strategy
Participation of individuals
Involvement in defining the problem and searching for solutions
Creation of feeling that individuals have some power
Emergent strategy Unplanned
Continuous change process
9
Business orientation
Due to the role that business owners fulfill as change agents in SMEs, it is interesting to know how these owners view their business and to investigate if this influences the choice for a certain change strategy. A classification of business orientation of owners in SMEs is made in this study: owners with an entrepreneurial orientation and owners with a small business orientation. In the literature, it is discussed that these two types of owners have different motives and goals and therefore probably choose different types of change strategies. These orientations reflect two dimensions; owners often possess characteristics of both orientations. This means owners can have multiple motives representing characteristics of the entrepreneurial as well as the small business orientation. However, in this study, the effect of a high level of one of these orientations on the employment of a change strategy is investigated (regardless the level of the other orientation). The two dimensions are discussed separately in the remainder of this section.
Entrepreneurial orientation. Owners of SMEs can have many motives for establishing and running their business. Different approaches are recognized in the literature, with entrepreneurial orientation as one of them. A lot of definitions can be found in the literature. The most mentioned components to measure entrepreneurial orientation are: risk-taking, proactiveness and innovativeness (Covin and Slevin, 1989; Zahra, 1991). These factors are related to organizational change, which is made clear by the following definitions of the factors which imply a certain change would occur. Risk-taking refers to the willingness to invest capital or other resources to projects where costs of failure can be high (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Proactiveness is associated with the degree of anticipation of a venture to future needs in the market, and the ability to recognize and exploit emerging opportunities (Lumpkin and Dess, 1996). Constantly exploiting opportunities requires change. Innovativeness relates to the “possession of newness” (Roerich, 2004) and Tajeddini et al (2006: 533) describe it as: "The willingness and ability to adopt, imitate or implement new technologies, processes, and ideas and commercialize them in order to offer new, unique products and services before most competitors. This willingness is based on a firm's culture in terms of values and beliefs in the organization." New, unique products and services are automatically linked to change.
10
technologies, being willing to seize new product-market opportunities, and having a predisposition to undertake risky ventures.” This definition covers the orientation of the business owner in organizational change by mentioning experimenting with promising new technologies and willing to seize new opportunities. It makes clear that it is likely that owners who score high on characteristics of the entrepreneurial orientation are related to changes due to their ‘experimenting’ attitude. They are focused on constantly constructing. Hence, the more owners have characteristics of this orientation, the more likely they tend to initiate change projects. Owners which have characteristics of an entrepreneurial orientation are therefore probably flexible towards change projects. Constantly changing face similarities with the emergent strategy, where it has no clear end through the continuity of changes. It focuses more on making use of what occurs in the market. Furthermore, as already mentioned by Burnes (2004) it increases the flexibility which corresponds with the entrepreneurial orientation. This leads to the following hypothesis:
H1A: The higher the level of entrepreneurial orientation, the more likely change agents tend to use the emergent strategy.
11
change in a small business oriented business is implemented if it extends their personal goals, not for growth and profit motives. Power is less important - in the way of abusing power - for these owners and their managerial work are characterized by informality (Sayles, 1964). Through informality, the owner is involved in creating a feeling that individuals have impact on defining a problem and creating solutions with each other. Participation and collaboration with involved individuals in the change process is therefore more likely. This corresponds with characteristics of the normative-reeducative strategy, which leads to the following hypothesis:
H1B: The higher the level of small business orientation, the more likely change agents tend to use a normative-reeducative strategy to approach change.
Change drivers
Every change in an organization has its underlying reasons of why the change is needed. What are the drivers of change by change agents in an organization? Change drivers are events, activities, or behaviors that facilitate implementation of changes (Whelan-Berry et al., 2003a) In this study change drivers are considered as factors that initiate change rather than that they facilitate the implementation of change.
Different perspectives of change drivers can be found in the literature. Leana and Barry (2000) make a distinction between organizational and individual forces pursuing change. On the organizational level, they mention reasons such as ‘adaptability’, ‘cost containment’, ‘impatient capital markets’, ‘control’, and ‘competitive advantage’ for change. The authors (2000: 758) argue that “stability and flexibility affect organizational and individual change forces.” According to Ye, Marinova, and Singh (2007) change is fundamental to modern businesses to keep up with market demands and to stay competitive. Staying competitive and improving organizational performance are factors which are also mentioned by many other authors (e.g. Day, 1994; Chan, 2000). The different perspectives of authors make clear that drivers of change can be subscribed to internal (i.e. individual or group forces) as well external influences (i.e. impatient capital markets).
12
times of organizational change with strong change drivers use a power-coercive or empirical-rational strategy due to the fact that these strategies are less time consuming than the normative-reeducative strategy of change. Changes linked to strong change drivers have a high priority – the earlier action over later action - which can arise from internal as well external pressures. In a short time period individuals involved need to change; this is most easily done with imposing power in the change process. Due to time constraints, there is no time to let individuals actively participate.
Furthermore, it is likely that change drivers have a direct influence on the perceived success of the change. This can be both a positive and a negative influence. The stronger the drivers of change, the more the individuals involved perceive the change as less successful. This can be subscribed to the limited time available beforehand to inform, convince and communicate with these individuals, and there is less time to implement the change with a well devised plan and participation of individuals. This can then result in a negative influence on the change process. Failure is often caused by the underestimation of change agents of getting people out there comfort zone (Kotter, 2007). He argues that change agents are sometimes not patient enough which can create defensive behavior of involved individuals. Kotter (2007: 98) states: “When the urgency rate is not pumped up enough, the transformation process cannot succeed, and the long-term future of the organization is put in jeopardy.” On the other hand, if individuals have less confidence in the implementation of the change due to time restrictions and afterwards everything is perceived as better than expected, the change outcome could be seen as a success. According to Kotter (2007) changes are perceived as more successful when it is urgent; the outcome of change is less bad than expected beforehand. This leads to the following hypotheses:
H2A: The stronger the change drivers, the more change agents tend to use a power-coercive or empirical-rational strategy to approach change.
H2B: The stronger the change drivers, the more change agents will perceive the process of the change as less successful.
13
Financial crisis. Through the financial crisis (2007-2010) unstable environments and less predictable markets emerged. SMEs had to respond to the crisis and Kotter and Schlesinger (2008) stated that change is a common response to crises. They are forced to change to survive and achieve organizational goals in the future. Therefore, it is assumed that the recent financial crisis is a driver of change and influenced motives, process and/or outcome of change projects.
Scope
14
influence the change has on individuals involved. The two dimensions that reflect scope in this study are:
Impact: from low (incremental change) to high impact (radical change) for individuals involved. This can range from not frame breaking, small changes to fundamental shifts (i.e. culture, strategy) within an organization.
Breadth: from narrow to broad. This can range from one individual within the organization who encounters the change to the entire organization.
It is assumed that the impact increases when the change tends to be more radical and the greater the breath, the more individuals involved in the change. This applies for the organization, but also for the change agent who has to deal with a greater amount of individuals. It is likely that this will have an influence on the chosen strategy for change. Before going in depth about the link between scope of change and the change strategy, four dimensions of scope will be defined to create clarity for the remainder of this section:
Fine-tuning. Low impact – narrow breadth
Regeneration. High impact – narrow breadth
Reorientation. Low impact – broad breadth
Revolution. High impact – broad breadth
15
H3A: The lower the impact of change (fine-tuning or reorientation), the more change agents tend to employ an empirical-rational strategy.
H3B: The higher the impact of change (regeneration or revolution), the more change agents tend to employ a normative-reeducative strategy.
Summary theoretical framework
Figure 2 represents an overview of the hypotheses of this study. FIGURE 2
Conceptual model including hypotheses
METHOD
Research approachFor this study, a combination of quantitative as well as qualitative research is conducted. There are several methods for quantitative research, with survey and experiments mentioned by Creswell (2003). The approach used in this study is a self-administered survey. It is a low-cost method, respondents have time to think about the questions and it is perceived as more anonymous than experiments (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). Surveys are filled in by the change agents of the SMEs. Quantitative researches provide an objective perception of information, but seldom say something about opinions and attitudes (Cooper & Schindler, 2008).
16
Moreover, there is no intervention between researcher and respondent, which impedes explanation of questions. To overcome these interaction problems, qualitative research is also conducted. Multiple case studies are conducted with semi-structured interviews with the change agent and one recipient of the change in each SME. Research has shown that other individuals than the change agent think often different about the change (Szabla, 2007). Therefore, a recipient of change in each case study is interviewed to research their opinion about the implemented change. An advantage of semi-structured interviews is that the researcher can start with specific research questions, but researcher and respondents have room for comments that go beyond the specific questions. It can provide valuable insights into the case’s issues (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). Moreover, the point of consideration mentioned in the introduction (the financial crisis) can be discussed in-depth. To summarize, through the conduction of qualitative research in this study, the why and how of relationships can be better understood and relevant additional variables can be identified.
Participants
As already mentioned, the participants of the quantitative as well the qualitative research have the following characteristics: the businesses are SMEs and the change projects are to the utmost 5 years ago.
Participants surveys. The quantitative research consists of 107 respondents and data stems from change agents within the SMEs. A database was already available for this study. The respondents are from businesses located within the Netherlands. Furthermore, the businesses are from different industries. Start-ups (less than one year active in the market) are not taken into account in this research, due to the fact that these firms are constantly changing and finding a way to run their business.
Participants interviews. The qualitative research consists of three case studies; a designer and founder of television and internet networks, a producer of agricultural machinery, and a communication-advice office. Due to privacy matters, the businesses in this sequence are referred to as company AA, MM and ZZ.
17
Company MM is specialized in making agricultural machinery related to potatoes. They make machinery for planting, warehousing and transporting potatoes, and the company is founded in 1955. Company MM can be classified as a medium-sized business with a workforce of 105 employees. They changed the way of producing machinery from serial production to order controlled production. This had implications for the entire organization, because it changed the structure and strategy of the company.
Company ZZ is a communication – advice company which is specialized in printed media. The company is founded 1999 and it has 10 employees. Therefore, the company can be categorized as a small business. In the beginning of 2011, they expanded their current activities with ICT activities. This change had implications for the technology and culture of the company.
Data collection
For the quantitative part of this study, data was already gathered. An existing database included data from change agents within particular SMEs. Appendix 1 includes the questionnaire that was used to collect the data.
For the qualitative part of this study, data is gathered by in-depth interviews with the change agents and one recipient of the change. It reduces the chance to get a biased picture, because otherwise data would only stem from the change agent who also decided about the change projects that are discussed in this study. The questions are reformulated for the employees (appendix 2).
Variables and measures
This research includes three independent variables that measure scope of change, change drivers and the business orientation. The two dependent variables are change strategy and perceived success. Appendix 3 gives an overview of the concepts, raw variables and questions related to the concepts.
18
strongly agree).Items of each variable are grouped together into one new variable. These new variables are used for the analyses conducted in this study.
Categories are made to determine a low or high level on each variable and the scope of changes can be categorized in a dimension. To classify a high value, a score of 5 or higher should be reached. In this study, 4 represent ‘having no clear opinion about this statement’ and do not explicitly say something about the variables. Hence, an average of 5 or higher is chosen to determine high scores. Only scores between 5 and 7 reflect positive answers as ‘somewhat agree’ to ‘fully agree’.
Independent variables. Scope of change is measured by impact and breadth of the change and it is categorized in the dimensions: fine-tuning, regeneration, reorientation and revolution. The operationalization is adapted from Balogun and Hope Hailey (2008) and Buitenwerf (2010). A change with a high score on impact means that it has a high impact on the organization and it is assumed that the change is radical. A change with a high score on breadth means that a large part of the organization is involved in the change. The scope of change is measured by 7 items for the impact of change and 4 items for the breadth of the change.
Change drivers are measured by internal and external drivers of change which includes 7 items. The operationalization is adapted from Leana and Barry (2000). In the qualitative research, extra questions are added to investigate the influence of the financial crisis in 2007-2010 on change projects (appendix 4).
Business orientation is operationalized in two variables: entrepreneurial orientation and small business orientation. Entrepreneurial orientation is measured by 4 items for innovativeness, 4 items for proactiveness and 4 items for risk-taking. The small business orientation is measured by 6 items. Instruments for measuring these orientations stem from Runyan et al. (2008) and Baker & Sinkula (2009).
19
and “the Cronbach alpha’s are sufficient and the scales have respectable reliability” (Szabla, 2007: 538). To determine the chosen strategy of the change agent, the scores of the items are summed up to reach total scores. It is possible that on more than one strategy a high score is reached and that no clear one strategy is employed.
Perceived success is operationalized in perceived success of the change process and the perceived success of the change outcome. The change process is the perceived success during the implementation of the change. This includes the time the change process has taken, the communication with individuals involved and the resources (financial and human) that were needed. Are these in line with what was expected, if not, how did it influence the perceived success? The change outcome is focused on the perceived success afterwards the change. Is the change agent as well as the individuals involved in the change satisfied about the results? Is the future state that was predicted beforehand achieved? The perceived success of outcome is measured by 3 items and the perceived success of process is measured by 3 items. It is also possible that success is perceived on one of the two variables, which are independent from each other.
Internal consistency is measured to determine the reliability of the tests and the cronbach alpha’s of each construct is moderate to sufficient (rates between 0.5 and 0.9) with impact of scope as exception: one item is deleted to reach a cronbach alpha of 0.647 instead of 0.499. Statement 7 (‘overall the company has remain the same’) of the questionnaire is deleted, which brings the total items of measuring the impact of scope on 6.
Data analysis
Data from the questionnaires is analyzed by using SPSS 19.0. Descriptive statistics are given for an overview of the distribution of the variables perceived success, change strategies, business orientation, scope and change drivers. The Pearson correlation analysis is performed to investigate correlations between the variables. The scores of the variables perceived success of process and impact of change of respectively hypothesis 2B and 3A are positive when a low score is reached, while other variables are positive when a high score is reached. Therefore, to investigate possible relationships (H2B and H3A), the variables perceived success of process and impact of change are reversed for these specific hypotheses.
20
for the change strategies and change drivers on the perceived success. Analysis is conducted for each change strategy separately, and also separate models of perceived success of outcome and process are presented. Besides multiple regression analysis, stepwise analysis is conducted to test whether these results match with the multiple regression analysis. Moreover, it makes clear which independent variables have most influence on the dependent variables.
RESULTS
The results in this section are subdivided in results of quantitative research and results of qualitative research.
Results quantitative research
Descriptive statistics. 107 change agents filled in the questionnaire. From these respondents, 86 stem from a small business and 21 from a medium-sized business. The means, standard deviations and reliabilities of each variable are summarized in table 2.
TABLE 2 Descriptive statistics
N Mean SD Min. Max.
Emergent strategy 100 4.05 1.03 2.00 6.60 Empirical-rational strategy 101 4.85 0.89 3.00 7.00 Power-coercive strategy 100 4.18 0.99 1.40 6.50 Normative-reeducative strategy 100 3.71 0.94 1.60 5.75 Entrepreneurial orientation 100 5.66 1.13 2.00 7.00 Small business orientation 80 5.46 1.03 2.67 7.00 Perceived success (process) 102 4.00 1.02 1.67 6.17 Perceived success (outcome) 102 4.52 1.16 1.00 7.00 Scope (impact) 107 4.05 0.94 1.57 6.43 Scope (breadth) 107 4.64 0.69 3.33 6.33 Change drivers 103 5.07 0.80 2.67 6.50
21
Correlation analysis. The correlations and significance for the variables are shown in table 3. From these results can be concluded that the strength of change drivers correlate significantly with the empirical-rational strategy (H2A). Furthermore, the results indicate a significant correlation between low impact and empirical-rational strategy (H3A). Table 3 depicts that no significant correlations concerning hypotheses 1A, 1B, 2B, 2C and 3B were found.
Besides testing the hypotheses, some other notable correlations are found. These correlations are not strong, since r < 0.6. A significant relation is revealed between entrepreneurial orientation and empirical-rational strategy (r = 0.333, p < 0.05), this also counts for the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and power-coercive strategy (r = 0.236, p < 0.05). Furthermore, change drivers correlate significantly with empirical-rational strategy (r = 0.229, p < 0.05).
Moreover, a significant relationship is found between low impact (scope) and the power-coercive strategy (r = -0.224, p < 0.05), which means that the lower the impact, the less likely that this change strategy is employed. On the other hand, impact of change does correlate with the power-coercive strategy (r = 0.233, p < 0.05) and the empirical-rational strategy (r = 0.241, p < 0.05).
Multiple and stepwise regression analyses. Multiple regression and stepwise analyses are conducted to test the influence of entrepreneurial orientation, small business orientation, scope and change drivers on the change strategies. In addition, analysis of change strategies and change drivers on perceived success are conducted. Only significant models are shown.
22 TABLE 3 Correlations 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 1.Emergent strategy 1,00 ,240* -0,10 ,506** 0,12 -0,06 0,14 0,17 0,07 ,309** 0,12 -0,14 -0,06 2. Empirical-rational strategy 1,00 -0,04 ,433** ,333** 0,00 0,12 ,264** ,241* 0,05 ,229* -0,12 -,258* 3. Power-coercive strategy 1,00 -,249* ,236* 0,10 0,07 0,09 ,233* -0,07 0,17 -0,07 -,224* 4. Normative-reeducative strategy 1,00 0,17 0,07 0,18 ,256* 0,08 0,12 0,09 -0,18 -0,06 5. Entrepreneurial orientation 1,00 0,16 ,224* ,288** 0,14 0,11 0,19 -,224* -0,14 6. Smallbusiness orientation 1,00 0,03 0,10 -0.11 -0,07 0,00 -0,03 0,09 7. Succes(s process) 1,00 ,723** -0,03 -,205* -0,14 -1,000** -0,01 8. Success (outcome) 1,00 0,16 -0,18 -0,07 -,723** -0,14 9. Scope (impact) 1,00 -0,06 ,230* -0,16 ,000** 10. Scope (breadth) 1,00 ,270** ,205* 0,06 11. Change drivers 1,00 0,14 -,230*
12. Success (process) - reversed 1,00 0,01
13. Scope (impact) - reversed 1,00
24 TABLE 4
Multiple regression empirical-rational strategy (N = 77) Independant
variable B SE t P R²adj. F Sig
Constant 6.229 5.134 1.213 0.229 0.144 3.596 0.006 Entrepreneurial orientation 0.152 0.058 2.606 0.011 Small business orientation 0.006 0.103 0.056 0.955 Scope - breadth 0.100 0.105 0.958 0.159 Scope - impact 0.106 0.075 1.423 0.341 Change drivers 0.119 0.075 1.573 0.120
Stepwise analysis revealed a significant model (R² adj. = 0.147) with entrepreneurial orientation (p = 0.006), but also with change drivers (p = 0.026). From these results it can be concluded that entrepreneurial orientation as well as change drivers have influence on the employment of the empirical-rational strategy.
The model of power-coercive strategy on the independent variables is significant with p = 0.051 as a whole. Table 5 shows that breadth and impact of the change have both significant relationships with the power-coercive strategy.
TABLE 5
Multiple regression power-coercive strategy (N = 76) Independant
variable B SE t P R²adj. F Sig
Constant 11.447 5.891 1.943 0.056 0.080 2.329 0.051 Entrepreneurial orientation 0.049 0.067 0.744 0.459 Small business orientation 0.123 0.12 1.025 0.309 Scope - breadth -0,23 0.119 -1,924 0.058 Scope - impact 0.164 0.085 1.929 0.058 Change drivers 0.081 0.086 0.938 0.351
Stepwise analysis revealed only a significant relationship between impact of change (R² adj. = 0.051, p = 0.027) and the power-coercive strategy.
25 TABLE 6 Multiple regression emergent
strategy (N = 77) Independant
variable B SE t P R²adj. F Sig
Constant 9.666 5.673 1.704 0.093 0.067 2.098 0.075 Entrepreneurial orientation 0.40 0.064 0.615 0.541 Small business orientation -0,041 0.114 -0,361 0.719 Scope - breadth 0.340 0.115 2.949 0.004 Scope - impact 0.053 0.082 0.640 0.524 Change drivers -0,01 0.083 -0,121 0.904
The results revealed no significant model of the normative-reeducative strategy. Neither significant results of low impact (H3A) on the change strategies are found.
Perceived success. Multiple regression analysis of perceived success is subdivided in process and outcome. Analysis revealed no significant model of perceived success of process. On the other hand, perceived success of outcome does have a significant model as a whole (table 7).
TABLE 7 Multiple regression success
outcome (N = 94) Independant
variable B SE t P R²adj. F Sig
Constant 9.829 2.731 3.599 0.001 0,091 2.887 0.018 Change drivers -0.88 0.051 -1.713 0.090 Emergent 0.046 0.083 0.558 0.578 Empirical-rational 0.149 0.087 1.715 0.090 Power-coercive 0.122 0.069 1.758 0.082 Normative-reeducative 0.138 0.086 1.592 0.115
With exception of the emergent strategy and the normative-reeducative strategy, significant relationships with the other variables are found. Stepwise analysis revealed also a significant relationship with the normative-reeducative strategy (R²adj. = 0.059, p = 0.01).
26
of change drivers and the perceived success of the change process and therefore hypothesis 2B is not supported. Hypothesis H2C is supported: the strength of change drivers has influence on the perceived success of outcome of the change. No significant relationship is found between low impact of change and the employment of the empirical-rational strategy, neither between high impact of change and the employment of the normative-reeducative strategy. This means that hypothesis 3A and 3B are not supported.
TABLE 8 Test results
Hypothesis Relationship Conclusion
1A Entrepreneurial orientation - emergent strategy Not supported 1B
Small business orientation - normative-reeducative
strategy Not supported
2A Change drivers - empirical-rational strategy Supported 2A Change drivers - power-coercive strategy Not supported 2B Change drivers - perceived success process Not supported 2C Change drivers - perceived success outcome Supported 3A Low impact - empirical-rational strategy Not supported 3B High impact - normative-reeducative strategy Not supported
Furthermore, analyses revealed that impact of the change has influence on the employment of the emergent as well as the power-coercive strategy and that change drivers have a relationship with the empirical-rational strategy. Change drivers, empirical-rational strategy, normative-reeducative and power-coercive strategy have influence on the perceived success of outcome.
Results qualitative research
27
The change projects
Company AA. Until 2 years ago, firm 1 was dependent on one major customer. They took care of 70% of the turnover. The owner was often told by internal and external contacts that this was ‘a risky business’, due to the fact that contracts with this customer would expire within a few years. The owner decided therefore to hire an external consultant and this consultant advised the owner to grow in order to create a better balance in his customer base. A health ratio of debt had to be realized, which would create a more independent position of the company in the market, it would reduce their vulnerability and it would improve their bargaining power. To make this possible, the company started to focus more on commercial projects which they did not do before. They had to commercialize and find customers in other industries. A part of the long-term plan is realized and that part is the focus in this study. The company grew with 30% (turnover), resulting in a realization of a HRM department, the arrival of an extra layer in the company: middle management, dozens of additional employees, extra offices and a corporate identity change.
Financial crisis. There was a undesirable situation in their market with a lot of competitors and customers made use of their bargaining power. According to the change agent, they had therefore great dependency on their one major customer. To conclude, the financial crisis had some influence on the change project, especially on the motives of initiating the change.
Company MM. The change that the company had to deal with was the conversion of series production to order controlled production. The motives for the change were declining image and sales. They always had a lot of stock and therefore risks and costs were constantly high for the company. The company faced also some internal problems and in 2005 the general manager resigned. That was the moment that the change agent in this study – he is nowadays the general manager – became part of the company. After internal research, it was decided that the company started then with lean production. The goal was to reduce costs and create therefore more profit. It took about 3 years (2007-2010) to change which was one year longer than originally planned. According to the change agent this was because the mindset of all employees had to change and this took a lot of time. In addition, changes in automation took more time.
28
At that time, the process of order producing was extremely accelerated. On the other hand, through the crisis, major investments – such as automation investments – were delayed. To conclude, the financial crisis affected steps in the change process. Final results of the change were not affected.
Company ZZ. At the beginning of 2011, the company decided to expand their activities with a range of ICT activities. The entrepreneur mentioned that their turnover relating to printed media had decreased significantly and he also saw that competitors integrated internet and media into their package offered towards customers. When their biggest customer told the company that they did not want printed media anymore and wanted to focus on the internet (90% of their applications came online), the entrepreneur realized that his company had no other choice than integrating ICT activities into their package. There was no clear plan to implement the new activities, but according to the entrepreneur he literally told his employees and customers: “We are going to change and you are changing with us.” The change process took about 9 months and most time consuming was to get all employees participating in the change. Involvement was created by let them actively thinking about the change and implementation of the change. In addition, during the process, a programmer and a PR
employee were hired, and a new website was built.
Financial crisis. The financial crisis caused that the company had less requests from customers and therefore less revenue. The market was more broadened and customers were able to choose between different suppliers. This meant that the company had less work and profit. It was time to do new things. To conclude, the financial crisis had much influence on the motives to implement the change.
Concise summary of the results
Scope. A great part or even all employees of the organizations were involved in the change processes. Work and collaboration between employees in company AA did not change; on the other hand, the change caused more formalization within the company. In company MM and ZZ the impact of change was high due to a lot of internal changes (i.e. strategy and cultural changes). To conclude, the results showed that the types of these changes can be classified as revolution or reorientation.
29
results make clear that changes were related to external factors, not per se external pressures. No company was forced to change by stakeholders.
Change strategy. In two of the three cases (company AA and ZZ) the change agent and recipient scored high on the same change strategy. In company MM the change agent ranked the normative-reeducative strategy clearly as highest, but the recipient of change scored on each strategy approximately the same. An explanation for this discrepancy can be the involvement on another level of the recipient in the change; he was involved in the production process of the company and did not communicate a lot with staff.
Perceived success. It is remarkable that in two cases (company MM and ZZ) change agents were less satisfied about the change than the recipient. The change agent of company MM was very self-critical and not easily satisfied, which can be an explanation for the gap in perceived success between the change agent and recipient. The change agent in company ZZ was not satisfied about the process of change due to the fact that it took more time than expected. In general: beforehand, it is less clear for the recipients than for the change agents what the change is about. Therefore, change agents are probably more critical, because they have more insight information.
Overall it became clear that the change agent and recipient had no great differences in scores on each variable. The results are further discussed in the next section.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to gain more insights in the change processes within SMEs to eventually answer the question: which factors determine a change strategy within a SME and how does it affect the level of perceived success? The theoretical framework (figure 1), was the foundation for this research. Scope, change drivers and business orientation were expected to influence the decision for a certain change strategy, and change strategies and change drivers were expected to relate to perceived success. The discussion of the results is subdivided in ‘change strategy’, ‘perceived success’ and ‘financial crisis’.
Change strategy
30
agents in this research (this applies for the surveys as well the case studies) did not score high on questions related to the emergent strategy. It is possible that change agents do not view it as a strategy which would be interesting, because it is often discussed in the literature if the emergent strategy should be called a strategy through the continuity of changes. Instead of the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and the emergent strategy, a significant relationship is discovered between entrepreneurial orientation and empirical-rational strategy. The reason that change agents who score high on this orientation link with the empirical-rational strategy can lie in the motivations of the owner (often also the change agent in a SME) for running their businesses. According to Driessen (2005) motivations lie in ambitions and values of an individual and need for power and need for autonomy are important determinants of this group. Need for power and autonomy means that the individual want to be in control which face similarities with the empirical-rational strategy where change agents use power by the expertise they have over other individuals.
Change drivers. It is revealed that the stronger the drivers of change, the more likely that change agents employ the empirical-rational strategy. It is likely that businesses often have to deal with external and internal influences that force or stimulate changes. The researcher expected that more relationships would be revealed, but the relationship with the empirical-rational strategy is the only one found in this study.
Scope. When a change is reorientation or revolution (high impact), change agents tend to employ the power-coercive strategy. This outcome is remarkable, since Balogun and Hope Hailey (2008) stated that the larger the scope of change, the greater the impact for the individuals involved. Therefore, it increases the need for guidance through the change by clear reasons and facts and it would be logical to employ the empirical-rational strategy.
Perceived success
31
other. This seems logical, because it was already stated that people are more likely to change when they understand the logic for the change (Quin, Spreitzer and Brown, 2000). The relationship found between normative-reeducative strategy and the perceived success of outcome confirms what was already found in a study of Szabla (2007) who stated that this strategy has been cited as very successful for organizational change. From the surveys, also a relationship with the power-coercive strategy has been identified. This is rather remarkable, due to the fact that Szabla (2007) found in her study that changes employed by this strategy are least successful. This outcome thus contradicts the results in this study. The discrepancy can be caused by the different groups who were taken into account in the studies. In the study of Szabla (2007) the view of recipients of change was investigated and in this study (survey part) the view of change agents.
Financial crisis
Motives and processes of the changes in the businesses of the case studies were all on a certain way influenced by the financial crisis during 2007-2010. This confirms the results of the limited literature that is written about the recent crisis that it affected SMEs (Latham, 2009). The businesses did not have a strong long-term viability and had therefore to expand (company ZZ) or reorganize (company AA and MM) their business to survive.
32
These conclusions make clear that the strength of change drivers influences the employment of the empirical-rational strategy. It is also revealed that the empirical-rational strategy and the normative-reeducative strategy have a positive effect on the perceived success of outcome of the change; this counts for the change agents as well the recipients of change. In general, no great differences in perceptions of these two groups are found. This is quite remarkable, because, as already stated, literature often suggest that there are differences. Therefore, for further research it would be interesting to investigate whether this also counts when more than one recipient of the change is asked to fill in a questionnaire.
Furthermore, it became clear that the financial crisis had influence on change projects within SMEs. Hence, the point of consideration mentioned in the introduction can be answered: the crisis had influence on either motives of the change or on the change process itself. These results and conclusions are only based on data of 3 businesses, which is too low to make general conclusions. This implies that research on larger scale regarding the impact of the financial crisis on change in SMEs is interesting to investigate. Another reason for further research on this subject is the instable economies of western countries at the moment. This causes assumptions for the possibility of a new financial crisis within a few years. When there is more clarity of the influence of the crisis, SMEs can take recommendations of possible further research into account in the future.
In two of the three cases it became clear that the change took more time than expected beforehand. Further research can take this observation into account to investigate what underlying reasons are for the delay in implementation of the change.
LIMITATIONS
33
Second, data of this study is from businesses in the Netherlands, so results are perhaps not applicable for other countries due to welfare and cultural differences. Furthermore, results of the qualitative data is based on 3 case studies, therefore no general conclusions can be drawn.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to thank Mrs.Vos and Mrs. Brand for their support and feedback during the writing process. Furthermore, the author would like to thank the entrepreneurs and employees who participated and provided valuable information for this study. Last, but not least, the author would like to thank family and friends for their support and motivational words.
REFERENCES
Appiah-Adu, K., & Singh, S. (1998). Customer orientation and performance: A study of SMEs. Management Decision, 36, 385– 394.
Bennebroek Gravenhorst, K.M., Werkman, R.A. & Boonstra, J.J. (2003) The change capacity of organizations: general assessment and five configurations, International association for applied psychology, 52(1), 83-105.
Bennis,W.G., Benne, K.D. & Chin, R. (1961) The planning of change. London: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Chin, R. & Benne, K.D. (1969) General strategies for effecting changes in human systems. In: Bennis, W.G., Benne, K.D. and Chin, R. (1969) The planning of change (2nd ed.) New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Balogun, J. & Hope Hailey, V. (2008) Exploring strategic change. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
34
Buitenwerf, K. (2010) The development of a research instrument on SME leadership strategies of change. Master thesis, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
Burnes, B. (2004) Emergent change and planned change – Competitors or allies? The case of XYZ construction. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24 (9): 886-902.
Chan, David (2000), “Understanding adaptation to changes in the work environment: Integrating individual difference and Learning Perspectives,” in Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 18, Gerald R. Ferris, ed. Stamford, CT: JAI Press, 1–42. Cooper, D.R. & Schindler, P.S. (2008) Business Research Methods (2nd ed) Berkshire:
McGraw-Hill Education.
Covin, J. G. & Slevin, D. P. (1989) Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10, 75-87.
Creswell, J.W. (2003) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
Day, George S. (1994), “The capabilities of market-driven organizations,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (October), 37–52.
Driessen, M.P. (2005) E-scan ondernemerstest: Beoordeling en ontwikkeling
ondernemerscompetentie. ’s Gravenland: Entrepreneur Consultancy BV (Proefschrift RuG, Groningen).
Elster, J. (2009) Urgency, Inquiry, 52(4), 399-411.
European Network for SME Research (2004) Observatory of European SMEs, 2003, European Commission: Brussels. In: Carter, S. & Jones-Evans, D. (2006) Enterprise and Small Business – Principles, Practice and Policy (2nd ed.) Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
35
Ghemawat, P. (1993). The risk of not investing in a recession, Sloan Management Review 34(2), 51–58.
Greenwood, R. and Hinings, C.R. (1996) Understanding radical organizational change: Bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21, 1022-1045.
Jenkins, M., and Johnson, G. (1997) Entrepreneurial intentions and outcomes: A comparative causal mapping study. Journal of Management studies, 34, 895-920.
Kanter, R.M., Stein, B.A. & Jick, T.D. (1994) De uitdaging van organisatieverandering: hoe bedrijven verandering ervaren en leiders verandering kunnen sturen. (vertaling: van Steenis-Perelaër, E.H.) Schiedam: Scriptum Books.
Kotter, J.P. (2007) Leading change: why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, January ’07, 96-103.
Kotter, J.P., and Schlesinger, L.A. (2008) Choosing strategies for change, Harvard Business Review, Juli-August, 130-139
Latham, S. (2009) Contrasting strategic response to economic recession in start-up versus established software firms, Journal of Small Business Management, 47(2), 180-201.
Lewin, K. 1943. Psychological ecology. In D. Cartwright (Eds.) (1952): Field Theory in Social Science. London: Social Science Paperbacks
Lumpkin, G.T., and Dess, G.G. (1996) Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of management review, 21, 135-172.
Metselaar, E.E. (1997) Assessing the willingness to change: Construction and validation of the DINAMO. Doctoral dissertation. Amsterdam: VU-huisdrukkerij. 0-184
36
Chinese Public Sector environments. Innovation Journal, 7 (3), July-December, online at www.innovation.cc.
Miller, D. (1983) The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms. Management Science, 29, 770-791.
Nutt, P.C. (1998) Leverage, resistance and the success of implementation approaches, Journal of Management Studies, 35(2), 213-240.
Orlikowski, W.J. (1996) Improvising organizational transformation overtime: a situated change perspective, Information systems research 7, no. 1: 63-92.
Plowman, D.A., Baker, L.T., Beck, T.E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S.T. and Travis, D.V. (2007) Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Academy of Mangement Journal, 50, 515-543.
Quinn, R.E. & Sonenschein, S. (2007) Four general strategies for changing human systems. In: the nature of organization development. 69-78. Online at http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/17525_Chapter_5.pdf.
Quin,R.E., Spreitzer, G.M., & Brown, M.V. (2000) Advanced change theory revisited: An article critique. Journal of management inquiry, 9 (2), 147-164.
Reijonen, H. (2008). Understanding the small business owner: What they really aim at and how this relates to firm performance: A case study in North Karelia, Eastern Finland. Management Research News, 31, 616– 629.
Michael, S.C. & Robbins, D.K. (1998) Retrenchment among Small Manufacturing Firms during Recession. Journal of Small Business Management, 36, 35-45.
37
Roerich, G. (2004) Consumer Innovativeness: concepts and measurements. Journal of Business Research, 57, 671-695.
Runyan, R., Droge, C., & Swinney, J. 2008. Entrepreneurial orientation versus small business orientation: What are their relationships to firm performance? Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4): 567-588.
Sayles, L. (1964) Managerial Behavior, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shane, S. (2004). A general theory of entrepreneurship: The individual opportunity-nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Siggelkow, N. (2002) Evolution toward fit. Administrative Science Quartely, 47, 125-159.
Simpson, M., Tuck, N., & Bellamy, S. (2004). Small business success factors: The role of education and training. Education Training, 46, 481– 491.
Szabla, D.B. (2007) A multidimensional view of resistance to organizational change:
exploring cognitive, emotional, and intentional responses to planned change across perceived change leadership strategies. Human Resource Development Quarterly. 18, 525-558.
Stewart, W.H., Watson, W.E., Carland, J.C., and Carland, J.W. (1998) A proclivity for entrepreneurship: A comparison of entrepreneurs, small business owners, and corporate managers. Journal of Business Venturing, 14, 189-214.
Tjaddini, K., Trueman, M., and Larsen, G. (2006) Examining the effect of market orientation on innovativeness. Journal of marketing management, 22, 529-551.
Vorhies, D.W., Harker, M., & Rao, C.P. (1999). The capabilities and performance advantages of market-driven firms. European Journal of Marketing, 33, 1171– 1202.
Vos, J.F.M. & Emans, (2011) Teaching organizational change management by enhancing students’ awareness of change contingencies. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Conference 2011.
38
Weick, K. and Quinn, R. (1999) Organizational change and development. American Review of Psychology, 50, 361-386.
Weick, K.E. (2000) Emergent change as a universal in organizations, in: Beer, M. and Nohria, N. Breaking the code of change, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Whelan-Berry, K., Gordon, J. and Hinings, C. (2003a) The relative effect of change drivers in large scale organizational change: an empirical study, in: R. Woodman and W. Pasmore (eds) Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 14, pp. 99–146.
Wickham, P.A. (2006) Strategic Entrepreneurship (4th ed.) Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Woodside, G. (2010) Case study research: theory, methods & practice. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
39
Appendix 1 – Questionnaire for change agent
Over het onderzoek
Als master studente van de Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde (Universiteit van Groningen) voer ik een onderzoek uit naar de wijze waarop verandering plaatsvindt in kleinere en middelgrote bedrijven (MKB). Dit onderzoek is mijn afstudeerproject voor de Master ‘Small Business & Entrepreneurship’.
De onderzoeksdoelstelling is inzicht te verkrijgen in hoe veranderingsprocessen in kleine en middelgrote bedrijven verlopen en welke rol het management van de verandering hierbij speelt. Uit literatuurstudie is gebleken dat onderzoek naar verandering zich vrijwel uitsluitend richt op grotere bedrijven, terwijl het toch aannemelijk lijkt dat verandering bij kleinere bedrijven anders verloopt. Met dit onderzoek wordt geprobeerd antwoord te krijgen op de vraag of dit inderdaad zo is en op welke wijze kenmerkende eigenschappen van kleinere bedrijven van invloed zijn op het verloop en de effectiviteit van een veranderingsproces.
In de vragenlijst wordt steeds van ‘het bedrijf’ of ‘uw bedrijf’ gesproken. Hier worden zowel profit, als non-profit organisaties mee.
Wat is de naam van uw bedrijf?
Wat is de (hoofd)vestigingsplaats van uw bedrijf?
Wat is de datum van vandaag?
De resultaten van het onderzoek zullen anoniem verwerkt worden. De bovenstaande vragen dienen slechts ter verdere codering van de deelnemende bedrijven.
---Start van de vragenlijst---
Algemene vragen
Eerst volgen enige algemene vragen en vragen over uw bedrijf. U kunt uw antwoord invullen op de betreffende plek of het juiste antwoord omcirkelen of aankruisen.
Bent u man of vrouw? 1 man 2 vrouw
Wat is uw leeftijd? Ik ben _________jaar
Wat is het niveau van de hoogste door u afgeronde opleiding?
1 VMBO (het vroegere LBO of MAVO) 2 HAVO of VWO
3 Middelbaar Beroepsonderwijs (MBO)
4 Hoger Beroeps Onderwijs /Hogeschool (HBO) 5 Wetenschappelijk Onderwijs (WO)
40
Welke functie heeft u binnen uw bedrijf?
In welke jaar is uw bedrijf opgericht? (als u het jaartal niet precies weet, probeer het jaartal zo goed mogelijk te benaderen).
_________
Welke producten of diensten levert uw bedrijf?
Tot welke sector behoort uw bedrijf? 1 Landbouw & Visserij
2 Productie van goederen (stuks) 3 Productie van goederen (massa) 4 Bouw, constructie
5 Handel, (groot)winkelbedrijven 6 Transport
7 Energiesector
8 Cultuur, sport, recreatie, toerisme, hotels, restaurants 9 Dienstverlening zakelijk (consultancy, financieel etc) 10 Dienstverlening consumenten
11 Anders, …..
Hoeveel werknemers heeft uw bedrijf (zowel voltijds als deeltijds)?
1 tussen 10 en 50 werknemers 2 tussen 50 en 100 werknemers 3 tussen 100 en 150 werknemers 4 tussen 150 en 200 werknemers 5 tussen 200 en 250 werknemers
Hoeveel voltijdseenheden omvat uw bedrijf (VTE of in Engels FTE)?
1 tussen 10 en 50 VTE 2 tussen 50 en 100 VTE 3 tussen 100 en 150 VTE 4 tussen 150 en 200 VTE 5 tussen 200 en 250 VTE Het veranderingsproject
Nu volgt een aantal vragen om het veranderingsproject duidelijk af te bakenen.
Kunt u drie veranderingen noemen die tussen een half jaar en drie jaar geleden zijn afgerond en waarin u de (of een) leidinggevende rol had? Hieronder staat een aantal
voorbeelden ter inspiratie. Als u direct drie veranderingen weet kunt u de voorbeelden buiten beschouwing laten.
41
2.
3.
Enige voorbeelden van verandering:
- Er wordt een project gestart om de structuur of cultuur van het bedrijf te veranderen; - Een congrescentrum wordt uitgebreid met een hotel;
- Er wordt een ander beloningssysteem (bijvoorbeeld het werken met bonussen) ingevoerd of er vindt een verandering in het beloningssysteem plaats;
- Er worden workshops georganiseerd om werknemers beter met elkaar te leren samenwerken;
- Een bedrijf gaat werken met een kennis-database, waartoe werknemers via een intranet toegang hebben;
- Er vindt een verandering plaats binnen het managementteam;
- Een machine vervangt de functie van een aantal werknemers, waardoor zij een nieuwe functie krijgen.
Welke van de bovenstaande drie veranderingen zou u willen uitkiezen om verdere vragen over te
beantwoorden (bijvoorbeeld omdat deze verandering u het scherpst voor de geest staat)? Kies slechts één van de veranderingen.
Het is van belang dat u erbij
betrokken was als leidinggevende van de verandering (d.w.z. om de
verandering gerealiseerd te krijgen).
1 verandering 1 2 verandering 2 3 verandering 3
Wat waren de achterliggende doelen van deze verandering?
De verandering had vooral betrekking op (aankruisen welke het meest van toepassing is):
1 De technologie van het bedrijf 2 De structuur van het bedrijf 3 De cultuur van het bedrijf
