THE ELEVEN ACTIVE PRINCIPLES
OF
IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS
THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ELEVEN ACTIVE PRINCIPLES, THE NECESSITY OF CONNECTION AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PUBLIC AND SUBPUBLIC DISCOURSES TO IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS.
M.C. Escher, Sky and Water, 1938
Caption to the image ‘Sky & Water’ of M.C. Escher (front page):
Sky and Water is a woodcut print by the Dutch artist M. C. Escher which was first printed in June 1938. According to Escher: "In the horizontal center strip there are birds and fish equivalent to each other. We associate flying with sky, and so for each of the black birds the sky in which it is flying is formed by the four white fishes which encircle it. Similarly swimming makes us think of water, and therefore the four black birds that surround a fish become the water in which it swims."
THE ELEVEN ACTIVE PRINCIPLES
OF
IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS
THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ELEVEN ACTIVE PRINCIPLES, THE NECESSITY OF CONNECTION AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PUBLIC AND SUBPUBLIC DISCOURSES TO IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS.
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization
25th of August 2009
KARINE MIJNHEER Studentnumber: 1335731 Nieuwe Sint Jansstraat 46
9711 VK Groningen Tel.: +31 (0)6 28 39 90 39 E-mail: karinemijnheer@hotmail.com Supervisors/ university: Dr. B.J.W. Pennink Dr. B.J.M. Emans
Supervisor/ field of study Drs. M. Kuhlmann Pentascope, Groningen
* The author gratefully acknowledges the supervisors B.J.W. Pennink’s, B.J.M. Emans, M. Kuhlmann’s, L. de Ruiter’s (consultant of Pentascope) and J.R. Postma and M. Avital (friends)
KARINE MIJNHEER University of Groningen
Implementation is a process of activities to influence conditions in which organizations can fruitfully change and reach a successful implementation. In order to improve management of implementation, it is vital to define the active principles that facilitate beneficial conditions to change successfully. In this study, eleven active principles are hypothesized as the essential ingredients of implementation success. In order to influence social constructed realities of individuals and groups a certain stimulus variable has to be present at organizational level. Therefore, the relationship between the eleven active principles and implementation success is assumed to be mediated through a connection between two powerful organizational realities; the public and subpublic discourses. This study presents empirical findings of the reality expressed from public discourse and subpublic discourses. The hypotheses have been tested through a survey among participants of two implementation processes, focused on organizational development. Three of the eleven active principles especially facilitate organizational balance and integral consistency and have the strongest relationship with implementation success. Six of the eleven active principles especially facilitate variety and stimulate mutual understanding in order to act together. This relationship is not as strong as the previous one, but still important. Despite the emphasized role of authenticity and evolution & match in literature, the results implicate that these two active principles have a weak relationship with implementation success. These eleven relationships appear to be mediated through the connection between the public and subpublic discourses. In this study, the discussion is presented why managing an implementation by utilizing the eleven active principles is essential to reach implementation success.
INTRODUCTION
excist, only limited research has been done on understanding the nature and conditions in which implementation success occur. Empirical evidence of the conditions has yet to be documented (Beats, 2006; Bala, 2009). To facilitate and reach a successful implementation, theoretically and practically, it is necessary to examine those conditions.
An implementation of interventions is commonly used to develop successful organizational change. There are multiple definitions of implementation in the organizational change management literature. The classical view of implementation as a deliberate planned change is not appropriate anymore. However, nowadays implementation is increasingly considered as the whole process in which change is consciously influenced by people (Tsoukas & Chia, 2002; Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn, 2008). Implementation is therefore defined as influencing the movement of a particular situation towards achieving and sustaining a desired situation (i.e., moving from a present to a future state; cf. George and Jones, 1996). This means that, implementation is seen as variations in practice that create conditions for change (Orlikowski, 1996). According to Norbutes (2008) in this conceptualization there is no guiding “in control” leader/change agent nor a predictive process list of change (such as Kotter’s, 1995, 8-steps). Therefore, in order to guide a successful implementation without controlling a checklist, it is vital to know which variations can be influenced to create the conditions for successful change.
Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn (2008) and Brunsting (2008) distinguished eleven variations in practice, or eleven active principles, essential to facilitate those conditions. These eleven active principles – making plural realities productive, involvement of stakeholders, ongoing dialogue, freedom of choice & empowerment, common shared need or desire, reinforce organizational vitality, evolution & match, act integral, act consistent, act transactional, and authenticity – are considered as ingredients of implementation. Consequently, it is stated that the eleven active principles determine the success of second and third order implementations in a high degree. Additionally, experts in the field of organizational change experienced that those principles contribute to the movement, flow and sustainability of the implementation processes (Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn, 2008).
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Implementation success
In order to examine implementation success in organizations, it is necessary to first define this concept. Primarily the seeds of organizational change will described, secondly the essential condition to change successfully, followed by the definition of implementation success.
An organization is socially constructed by people and exists primarily in the way employees behave (Robertson et al., 1993; Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005). Therefore, an organizational change takes place when people change their behavior and behavior in return is based on their social constructed reality. A social constructed reality is a concept or practice that is created through sensemaking by a particular individual or group (Weick, 1979). A social constructed reality is how a people perceive the world and how they interpret the world. It provides the directions how to react and act on that world (van Oss & van’t Hek, 2008). Simultaneously, a social constructed reality is produced and reproduced caused by sensemaking through interaction about the signals from that world. This means that signals, like an implementation, can produce or reproduce a social constructed reality and with that also change.
In a socially constructed context, like an organization, individuals and groups has their own constructed reality. Because of these multiple realities the same interventions during an implementation can be perceived and interpreted quite differently, even conflicting, with how it was mentioned (Moch & Bartunek, 1990). The people involved may construct a reality with radically different ideas about the best way to achieve the goals of change (Bacharach, Bamberger & Sonnenstuhl, 1996). Subsequently, this may leads to different or even conflicting actions. However, to facilitate a successful organizational change consistent, or coordinated, action is essential (Stensaker, Valkenberg & Gronhaug, 2008). Coordinated action means that people harmonize their actions and commit themselves to pursuing their agreed goals (Habermans, 1990; Wierdsma, 2003).
of a desired situation is like a mental model that provides directions to interpret and act upon the issues people face during the implementation process, and at the same time it keeps everyone on course towards the desired situation. Thus, the beneficial condition in which successful change can take place is a platform where people socially construct a shared reality of a desired situation (given that change is a process from a current situation towards a desired situation). Specifically, as implementation is influencing the conditions in which
change takes place, the focus of implementation is therefore; creating a platform where people are able to socially construct a shared reality of a desired situation. Bringing a desired situation into a shared reality will lead to coordinated action and that is essential to reach implementation success.
Given that implementation is defined as the whole process of changes towards achieving and sustaining a desired situation, implementation is a success when the desired situation is achieved and sustained. Achievement and sustainability can only be measured by the extent in which the implementation is supported and owned by the people involved (Asquith, 1998). The desired situation is dependent upon the content and context of the specific implementation process (Shah & Layman, 2005). It is what people belief and interpret as a desired situation; success is a social constructed reality (Jackson & Carter, 2007). Therefore, a social constructionist perspective is used to measure implementation success. Several theorists state that implementation is a success when the implementation is viewed as a success by the people involved (Asquith, 1998; Burnes, 2004; Turner, Cadwallader & Busch, 2008). The more involved people view implementation as a success, the more it is a success (Burnes, 2004). Consequently, implementation is a success when the desired situation is brought into being (achieved) and this reality is shared by the people involved. Moreover, a social constructed shared reality of the desired situation will provides sustainability. Specifically, implementation success is defined as a desired situation that is
brought into a shared reality.
success it is necessary to influence behaviors into harmonious behavior; access, interaction and connection between the public and subpublic discourses is essential (Homan, 2005; Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn). There is, however, still limited knowledge of how implementation may influence the connection between public and subpublic discourses (Laine & Vaara, 2007).
Eleven Active Principles
Principles are shared beliefs, basic thoughts upon which people base their actions regarding their specific context. A principle is defined as ‘a behavioral pursuit of the community, a clear, unambiguous statement that gives insight in the basis conviction, to see how the whole and the parts will behave themselves’ (Hock, in: Merry, 2006). Principles are not fixed laws however, but are testable suppositions (Mohaghegh & Mosleh, 2009). In this sense, principles are common suppositions that guide people’s actions in their specific context. Kuhlmann and Hoogendoorn (2008) distinguish eleven active principles which are interrelated and assumed to create the conditions to reach successful implementation. Specifically, as during the implementation the eleven active principles are applied and utilized, the principles will guide people to change, to create a shared reality of the desired situation and to coordinate their actions to reach implementation success. The eleven active principles are viewed as the ingredients of success of second and third order implementation. A second order implementation is from one situation towards another situation, and a third order implementation is towards an unknown future (Boonstra, 2000). It is assumed that the more the eleven active principles are applied and utilized during an implementation, the more the implementation will be a success. This is hypothesized as follows:
The following hypotheses examine the relationship of each active principle – making plural realities productive, involvement of stakeholders, ongoing dialogue, freedom of choice & empowerment, common shared need or desire, organizational vitality, evolution & match, act integral, act consistent, act transactional, and authenticity- with implementation success in the context of change. In addition, this study explained why these relationships are considered to be mediated by a connection between the public and subpublic discourse.
Active principle 1: Making plural realities productive. The world view of people is influenced by their own realities and experiences (Weick, 1997). The context in which organizational change takes place is therefore a combination of multiple ‘own’ realities. This is defined as the plural context of change; a variety and diversity of views, insights, behavioral options and subjectivity about the change (Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn, 2008;
Bartunek et al., 2006). Organizations in a dynamic environment need to grant freedom to their people to express their ideas to capture these plural realities in order to enhance change performance (Ashforth & Humphrey, 1995). Ashforth and Humphrey (1995) state even that dynamic environments most often require plural views of solutions to reach a desired change. This is described by Beer (1979) as ‘only variety beats variety’. Therefore, to make plural realities productive Barry and Elmes (1997) argue that organizations need a space that legitimizes and juxtaposes different organizational stories and that bestows equality to the various people involved. According to Sullivan and McCarthy (2008) management should accept plural realities (polyphony) by allowing alternative stories to be heard besides the traditional and dominant, managerial story. Specifically, people make plural realities productive by facilitating access to plural realities not by claiming the truth, but by exploring differences and simultaneously focusing on mutual understanding and the interdependencies with each other (Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn, 2008). Additionally, plural realities are a valuable source, the engine, of organizational change (Homan, 2005). Through interaction people develop or even create new constructions of reality which may lead to change (Weick, 1995). Instead of unidirectional management that silences dissent, people should use or tap into the available plural realities to facilitate a platform (a space) for sustainable organizational change (Ardon, 2009; van Loon & Wijsbeek, 2003; Sullivan & McCarthy, 2008). This leads to the following hypothesis:
Active principle 2: Involvement of stakeholders. The change management literature unanimously states that involvement of stakeholders during the implementation is vital for success (Chawla & Kelloway, 2004). Stakeholders, such as employees, customers and interest groups, each have their own realities, their own knowledge and experience. Every stakeholder of the organization holds necessary wisdom for success. A successful change includes all voices of key stakeholders (Danemiller, 2000). Therefore involvement of stakeholders is required within an implementation process. Whether the available voices of the stakeholders are included, is dependent of the level of involvement. This varies from ‘being consulted for decision making’ to ‘no participation’ (Bouma & Emans, 2005). A low level of involvement means not surpassing the level of ‘being informed’ (Bouma & Emans, 2005). Being informed in this context is the provision of data on the business to employees or their representatives (Gollan, Poutsma & Veersma, 2006). Bouma & Emans (2005) distinguish also two higher levels of involvement; ‘being consulted for opinion’, stakeholders are asked for their opinion and; ‘being consulted for decision’, stakeholders are asked for opinion and are allowed to (a certain extent) make decisions. These higher levels of involvement facilitate recognition and
exchange of views, knowledge and experiences. Skinner (2004) suggests that these higher levels of involvement are productive to create change.
Taking the above into account, involving stakeholders within an implementation process and utilizing all available knowledge and experiences will facilitate a platform where people can create; new views and opportunities (Strauss, 2006) and; understanding and ownership, therefore a more sustainable change (Fuller, et al., 2000). This leads to the following hypothesis:
Active principle 3: Ongoing dialogue. It has been generally agreed that interaction is critical to facilitate organizational change (Krap & Helgø, 2007). Organizational change emerges continuously through interaction (Weick, 1997; Norbutes, 2008). Interaction is therefore the gateway to change. Through interaction people become aware and develop understanding of each others assumptions, thoughts and drives. Each individual can create new patterns of thinking and (re)produce constructed realities. Also, through interaction the realities of individuals can converge into a shared reality (van Oss & van t Hek, 2008). However, according to Weick (1995), only through appropriate interaction interpretations of realities are exchanged and may converge into a shared reality. Therefore, by taking the previous principles into account, an appropriate interaction is required that creates a suitable space to utilize the plural realities and the involvement of stakeholders. Ongoing, or continuous, dialogue is a way to approach and integrate various opinions and perspectives (Bohm, 1996). Ongoing dialogue is defined as a movement of thoughts within a group (Senge, 1990). Groups can share knowledge, create understanding and also create a new base of thinking and acting. In a dialogue people express their point of view without judgment; in an environment of openness and trust they respect others and share an interest to learn and create a shared understanding (Bohm, 1991). On a platform through ongoing dialogue; individuals, groups and organizations tell their own story (reality) to create shared understanding and a new base of thinking and acting. This has been hypothesized as followed:
Active principle 4: Freedom of choice & empowerment. Numerous theorists argue that in order to facilitate a successful process of change, particular attention must be paid to empowerment (Akgün, Halit Keskin & Byrne, 2008). Spreitzer defined empowerment (in Chen & Chen, 2008) as reflecting a personal sense of control in the workplace, manifested in
H 1.3 The degree of active principle (3) ‘ongoing dialogue’ is positively related to implementation success.
four personal beliefs of; meaning, experiencing usefulness; competence, freedom to utilize own knowledge; self-determination, making decisions concerning own activities; and impact, perceiving personal influence. Specifically empowerment will increase commitment, ownership and responsibility; the dynamics for effective organizational adaptation and change (Akgün, Halit Keskin & Byrne, 2008). Empowerment commits people by delegating authority to fulfill effectively specific tasks (Chen & Chen (2008), they will perform and function more effectively under changing conditions (Akgün, Halit Keskin & Byrne, 2008). Empowered employees are allowed and expected to make their own choices, because they have the expertise concerning their activities (Verhoeven, 1999). It will facilitate learning (a change in constructed realities) of employees and therefore organizations can align and anticipate faster towards change (Akgün, Halit Keskin & Byrne, 2008). Giving organization members both responsibilities and opportunities and showing confidence in their capabilities is crucial in promoting empowerment. However, organization members will only feel themselves empowered if they have influence, in other words; if they have freedom to choose (Sprenger, 1999). This means that organizational members have the freedom to choose within defined boundaries and guidelines that are determined by others (e.g. management, social groups or systems, stakeholders). However, with insufficient defined boundaries and guidelines, responsibility is not empowerment- it is negligence (Tulgan, 2007). This leads to the following hypothesis:
Active principle 5: Common shared need or desire. A need to change occurs when people notice discrepancy between the current situation and the desired situation (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). This is established as a sense of urgency by Kotter (1995). Longenecker, Papp and Stansfield (2009) state that a sense of urgency usually attributes to a successful change. Moreover, Kotter (1995) states that a sense of urgency is of crucial importance to develop the necessary collaboration. To collaborate, even when employees feel a need to change, they must also share the belief that the organizational change is appropriate to comply with the call for eliminating the discrepancy (Co & Barro, 2009). Therefore a common shared need or desire is necessary (Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn, 2008). A shared understanding and acceptance of the urgency to change will motivate people to change and will help them to act in harmony. As individuals or groups, in an organization, start to broadly express perceived discrepancy a common shared need or desire can emerge (Semonelic, 2006). The strength of the common shared need or desire will contribute to the accomplishment of the desired situation (Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn, 2008). This has been hypothesized as followed:
Active principle 6: Reinforce organizational vitality. Vitality is the force of life of an organization and defined as its identity (Lofy & Lofy, 2003). Lofy and Lofy (2003) state that through reinforcing the vitality of the organization, with the contribution of people at all levels, organizational change becomes more successful. Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn (2008) state that reinforcing organizational vitality depends on two forces that cause organizational change, respectively autopoiesis and adaptiveness.
The autopoiesis force of an organization maintains its identity at all levels. The autopoietic force is important because the identity is the reason of existence and the core force of organizational life (Seihl, 2005). An organization as an autopoietic system is circular, self-producing, self-remaining and self-referencing (Goldspinr & Kayb, 2003; Seihl, 2005). The goal of the autopoietic force of an organization is to maintain identity and continuity, to remain healthy and constant despite influences of the external environment. However, if the autopoietic force is too dominant the organizational change will put lots of effort to maintain their identity without alignment with the emerging environment. This will reduce the vitality and with that change success (Luhmann, 1996).
The adaptive force, in terms of sense-interpret-decide-respond in the context, is the source of change and is a key element to become successful (Seihl, 2005; Seitanidi, 2008). The adaptive force will influence people’s perceptions and behavior (Skinner, 2004). It is the force of organizations and people to adapt, learn, develop and change within an emerging environment. An organization must be able to adapt quickly to the emerging circumstances. Therefore, the organization needs to be open to receive feedback from the environment and be able to quickly respond to signals. Self mutation, innovation and flexible adaptation are characteristics of adaptive forces. However, if the adaptive force is too dominant, the organization is like a plaything of its environment. This will result in identity loss or the organization will begin to exclude environmental influences for self-preservation (Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn, 2008).
Both forces facilitate change, respectively to maintain organizational identity or to adapt to the environment. If one force is dominant it will disadvantage the other change force (Seihl, 2005). Therefore, a balance is necessary in order to reinforce vitality and implement effective: The autopoetic force must facilitate a suitable structure in which the adaptive force obtains sufficient freedom to pull information and align necessary organizational actions to the implementation (Seidl, 2005; Dervitsiotis, 2007). A balance facilitates an orderly (harmonious) development and fosters the desired change (Shing-Ko, Hsiao-Chi, Jin-Jung, 2006). This leads to the following hypothesis:
Active principle 7: Evolution & match. The increased complexity, variety and diversity in the organizational environment, is accompanied by changes in the way people think. Evolution refers to the process of maturing and developing thoughts within an organization. Spiral dynamics from the theory of Clare Graves describe eight different basis systems of thinking, vMEMEs (Beck & Cowan, 1996). A vMEME is a value system, a worldview, a structure for thinking, a mode of adjustment. It is a way of conceptualizing reality, encompassing a consistent set of values, beliefs and corresponding behavior (Beck & Cowan, 1996). Different value systems are incorporated in individuals, groups, organizations and societies. In general individuals and organizations base their actions on one or two dominant vMEMEs. Due to change of context, a dominant vMEME will evolve and another dominant vMEME emerges in order to improve organizational (re)actions. Depending on the demands of the context, the evolution of a vMEME will move along the spiral in an upward or downward direction. Depending of the phase of evolution the organizational capacity and competencies to respond will vary (Connolly, 2006). Keihl (2005) and Kuhlmann and Hoogendoorn (2008) therefore state that it is essential to be aware in which evolution phase the organization is situated, because the meaning and the effect of an intervention is different within each phase.
Awareness will increase the opportunity to match interventions. Marrewijk and Werre (2003) described briefly the typical expressions of the four most relevant vMEMEs within the context of organizations:
- Blue (order, focus on rules): A deal is a deal; planning and regulation is more important than the objective; clarity for all, orderly, obedient to rightful authority; one truth, one right way, always categorical; rules and regulations, logic, step by step; the assigned task is the focus, not the person; limited problem solving capacity and reluctant creativity.
- Orange (success, focus on profit): Success and result-oriented through; the end is more important than the improvement means; means serve the end; informal and pragmatic lines of communication; desire to compete and to become better; quantity and profits instead of quality and durability; no time to enjoy the fruits of success.
- Green (community, focus on concern): group bonding, sharing and caring for everyone must agree others, consensus; using each other’s qualities for mutual to the point growth; makes judgments relative to situation at hand; no leadership - in effect the group decides.
- Yellow (synergy): Self-development and also environmentally concerned; focused on the ability to learn and apply knowledge; flexible organizational forms depending on situations; strong leadership without dominating use of power.
This principle provides essential knowledge about the organizational value systems and therefore the ability to match the interventions with the organization’s phase of evolution. Keihl (2005) and Kuhlmann and Hoogendoorn (2008) state that a matching intervention with specific evolution phase will facilitate effective change. Because then, the largest group of people perceives and understands the interventions and (re)act upon that as mentioned. Intervention methods that do not match with the evolution phases of the organizations will be less effective. This leads to the following hypothesis:
Active principle 8: Act integral. Ken Wilber (1997) summarizes four quadrants of development: intentional (I), behavioral (IT), cultural (WE) and social (ITS). The AQAL-model of Wilber is the abbreviated acronym for All Quadrants and All Levels. Barrett (2006) described the quadrants; I as psychological influences, the internal reality of an individual, the self and consciousness; IT as behavioral influences, the external reality of the individual, the brain and organism, actions; WE as cultural influences, the internal realities of groups, the cultures and worldviews; and ITS as systems influences, the external realities of groups, the social systems and environments. Each quadrant is a lens, or perspective, on a different dimension of reality. It is a perspective of an important part of the whole and this is anchored in, and distributed across, all levels within the quadrant. Each of the four quadrants intrinsically fosters the existence of the other quadrants (Wilber, 1998). This means that all four quadrants complement each others development. Although each quadrant is a condition for change, a sustainable change emerges when all four quadrants of development are in balance (Wilber, 1998). This requires comprehensive and integral actions (Wilber, 1998). Act integral – or genuine theory of everything- attempts to include I as they appear in IT, WE and ITS. It is an act that attempts to be comprehensive, balanced and inclusive (Wilber, 1998). In other words, act integral is; paying attention to balance and development of all four quadrants. This comprehensive principle provides an integral developmental perspective, which is ultimately required to reach a successful and sustainable change (Cacioppe & Edwards, 2005). This has been hypothesized as followed:
Active principle 9: Act consistent. Concerning change and implementation it is essential that the objectives, interventions and activities are consistent with each other (Bax, 2003). Based on the AQAL model of Ken Wilber, described in the previous principle, Barrett (2006) developed four relationships between the four quadrants. He defined these
H 1.8 The degree of active principle (8) ‘act integral’ is positively related to implementation success.
relationships in four types of consistencies. Personal consistency (I & IT): the alignment of values and beliefs of an individual with his or her actions and behaviors. Structural consistency (WE & ITS): the alignment of values and beliefs of a group with their actions and behaviors as codified in the collective rules, laws, and processes and structures of governance. Values consistency (I & WE): the alignment of values of an individual with the values of a group. Mission consistency (IT & ITS): the alignment of an individual’s sense of purpose or mission with the group’s stated purpose or mission.
For a comprehensive and sustainable change, there must be a parallel shift in personal, structural, values and mission consistency. All four relationships must change in the same direction to make a balance possible, in order to find a (new) level of consistency. Due to inconsistencies employees do not act efficiently and waste their energy on non-productive activities. However, inconsistencies or discrepancies can also be the source of movement and change (Gerhart, 2005; Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn, 2008). Altogether, this active principle provides guidance to develop suitable interventions while taking the (in) consistencies into account. This has been hypothesized as followed:
Active principle 10: Act transactional. Transactional action is a way of acting in order to eventually accomplish a transaction. In essence transactional action is making personal differences of opinions, meanings and realities usable (Wierdsma, 2003). Instead of trying to find the so called “truth”, this principle focuses on finding a workable action. This principle provides the possibility to examine differences (through experimentation) and use of this knowledge to develop a shared understanding of the functionality of each others actions. To act transactional both diverging of meanings as well as converging thoughts into action are necessary, with emphasis on action (Wierdsma, 2003). Stensaker, Falkenber and Gronhaug (2008) state that action prior to cognitive understanding might induce quick understanding and create a more sustainable change. Transactional action creates certain flexibility and enables adjustment of action in response to change (Ohman & Ostman, 2007). Ohman and Ostman (2007) state that a temporal agreement creates flexibility and willingness to act amongst people. Wierdsma (2003) developed an acronym to act transactional within an organization, called Temporary Workable Agreement (TWA). ‘Temporary’, because the world can change again due to acting. ‘Agreement’, because the focus is on action (instead of obstruction). ‘Workable’, because the objective is to reach the goal, given the circumstances and context. This has been hypothesized as followed:
H 1.10 The degree of active principle (10) ‘act transactional’ is positively related to implementation success.
Active principle 11: Authenticity. Successful change is pursued in a context characterized earlier as the continuous presence of uncertainty and unpredictability. Within such a context, mutual trust is essential, which requires a relationship between leaders and followers that is capable of doing so (Hoogervorst, Flier & Koopman, 2004). Authenticity can create trustful relationships (Michie & Gooty, 2005). According to George (2003) authenticity is being committed to the truth of who you are. Authentic leaders are truthful and honest to themselves and to others; are willing to sacrifice self-interest in order to do what is important for the collective good; and act in accordance with their own values and commitments (Avolio & Gardner, 2005; George, 2003). Through disclosures of one’s true thoughts and feelings authenticity is stimulated (Kernis, 2003. In: Walumbwa, et al. 2008).
Authentic behavior will be stimulated by: more self-awareness, an internalized moral perspective, balanced processing of information and relational transparency between leaders and followers (Walumbwa et al. 2008). Self-awareness refers to the understanding of your own sensemaking process, and knowledge of your own strengths and weaknesses. Internalized moral perspective is behavior that comes to surface in the decision-making process, which is consistent with internalized regulations and values. Balanced processing refers to how people analyze all relevant data and challenge their deeply held positions prior to decision-making. Relational transparency refers to presenting one’s authentic self to others, to promote trust.
A trustful relationship between leaders and followers is crucial to develop a successful change, therefore this active principle goes beyond the extent of every other principle. In this sense, applying all active principles by being authentic will facilitate successful change. This leads to the following hypothesis:
The role of connection between the eleven active principles and implementation success.
Implementation success does not only depend on the appliance of the eleven active principles. This relation is believed to be mediated by connection. In this study connection refers to converged social constructed realities that present a coherent and unified view of some aspects of the social reality. In other words, the social constructed realities are harmonious and express a shared meaning. (Homan, 2005; Grant & Hardt, 2004). A connection is not primarily dependent of the content of constructed realities; it depends primarily of access and the rules of interaction (Hardy, 2001; Homan, 2005; Laine & Vaara, 2007). Access refers in this study to the amount of contact between the social constructed realities. Interaction rules refers to two different types of rules; “rules in” and “rules out”. ‘Rules in are certain ways of talking about a topic, it is an acceptable and understandable way
of talk, write or conduct oneself. Rules out, limits and restricts other ways of talking, it is conducting ourselves in relation to the topic or constructing knowledge about it’ (Hall, 2001: 71). Through access, supported by interaction rules, social constructed realities can connect (Homan, 2005). It is assumed that the combination of the eleven active principles guides people to create connection:
‘Making plural realities productive’, can create access to a variety of realities. An interaction rule supports this access by restricting that everyone’s truth is true; there is no single truth (Ardon, 2009). ‘Involvement of stakeholders’ can create access to (new) contacts, which may create mutual understanding (Stensaker, Falkenber & Gronhaug, 2008) and may converge stakeholders expectations (Burnes, 2004). ‘Ongoing dialogue’ can, with suitable interaction rules, make available contacts accessible and productive. Bohm (1991) views ongoing dialogue as a coming-together of individuals and groups, in which speakers might maximize the connectivity and reduce the divisions between them. ‘Freedom of choice & empowerment’ create access and utilize the available contacts, though within sufficient boundaries (interaction rules) (Tulgan, 2007). A ‘common shared need or desire’ creates access and interaction to distribute perceived discrepancies to others (Semonelic, 2006). ‘Reinforce organizational vitality’ can create a balance between the “rules in” (autopoeitic force) and “rules out” (adaptive force). A too powerful interaction of “rules in” creates preconceptions and groupthink like “we vs. they”, thereby instead of a connection it creates separation (Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn, 2008). ‘Evolution & match’ can provide insight in the way people think. This provides the opportunity to match their actions with the interaction rules, and thereby the possibility to connect (Keihl, 2005). ‘Act integral’ can provide comprehensive action through facilitation of access to all quadrants and development of suitable interaction rules. This principle can prevent the arising of a dominant quadrant (Grant & Hardt, 2004). A dominant quadrant causes disconnection what can lead to reinforcement of the dominance (Homan, 2005). ‘Act consistent’ will provide attention to express personal, structural, values and mission consistency and thereby the development of access and suitable interaction rules. However, for example when inconsistency emerges on personal level, access may be declined and interaction rules may stabilize or reinforce. This will create or even reinforce disconnection (Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn, 2008). The principle ‘act transactional’ can facilitate access and development of interaction rules in order to act transactional (Wierdsma, 2003). ‘Authenticity’ refers to the ability to create a connection with other people, as well as having suitable interaction rules to connect with others.
Mediator
Connection, as mentioned before, can create harmony between social constructed realities and expression of a shared meaning. In addition to the general assumption in the literature that ‘it is up to individuals to change their circumstances and to achieve this through making new interpretations of organizational situations’, Palmer and Dunfeld (1996) noticed the presence of dominant and ingrained discourses which influences or even resists change. Those discourses, according to Chreim (2006), surpass the individual or group constructed realities in an organization and thereby their influence on change. He argues that social constructed realities are entwined in discourses. Discourses are therefore important to take into account, in order to reach successful implementation.
Pålshaugen (1998) state that in an organizational context two social constructed realities always appear. Homan (2005) elaborates on this subject and defines the institutionalized reality into public discourse and the subpublic reality into subpublic discourses. In narrow sense a discourse refers to the act of conversation (Edwards, 1995), in broader sense Edwards defines discourse as: ‘…the entire field of signifying or meaningful practices: those social interactions—material, institutional and linguistic—through which reality is interpreted and constructed for us and with which human knowledge is produced and reproduced. A discourse, then, is a way of knowledge, a background of assumptions and agreements about how reality is to be interpreted and expressed.’(Edwards, 1995, p. 34). In other words, a discourse brings social objects and subjects (knowledge, relationships, conceptual frameworks etc.) into being (Grant & Hardy, 2004). This implies that a discourse is also able to bring a desired situation into being. Therefore, besides a powerful ordering force in organizations (Alvesson & Karreman, 2000), the public and subpublic discourses will also be a powerful force to reach implementation success.
The public discourse is the formal part of the organization (Homan, 2005). It is the conscious, directive, rational, formal process of organizing. This process contains all vertical activities, stimulated by control, power, persuasion, and rationalization. The public discourse is the public (managerial) communication, where plans and interventions come to existence. The discourse is visible, rational and objective (Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn, 2008; van Es, 2008). Some social groups, especially managers and staff departments, believe that this discourse is the organizational reality (Homan, 2005).
Simultaneously, in the organizational context there also is/are (a) subpublic
discourse(s) (Homan, 2005). The subpublic discourses is less visible than the public discourse, it is subjective rational. Jackson and Carter (2007) describe the subjective rationality as personal (re)actions prominently based on rational decisions which can be
determined by others as irrational or emotional (Jackson & Carter, 2007). The subpublic discourses become noticeable in subpublic (informal) communication with colleagues. They will talk about and give meaning to signals from the public discourse. For example when an idea from the public discourse has been made public, the employees will express whether it is a smart idea or not. Hence, in response to the public discourse the social realities in the subpublic discourses are constructed. In return the subpublic discourses are the nourishment of (re)actions of the public discourse. In other words; the public and subpublic discourses are communicating with each other.
Since each organization consists out of a public discourse and subpublic discourses a connection between these two is necessary to construct a shared reality of a desired situation. Several theorists state that in many organizations the public and subpublic discourse are separated and therefore different realities emerge and are maintained (Caluwe & Vermaak, 2006; Homan, 2005; Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn, 2008). This separation is similar to the espoused and in-use theories described by
Argyris and Schön (1974). Their theory of action is refers to difference between what is said in comparison to what is actually done. The discrepancy creates a difference between what is said publicly and done subpublicly. Subsequently, this discrepancy will increase the separation between the two discourses even more, and thereby reinforce the different realities and (re)actions (Moch & Bartunek, 1990; Rose & Kræmmergaard, 2006). A successful implementation is then difficult to reach. Therefore it is necessary to create connection between the public and subpublic discourses.
Connection can create harmony between the public and subpublic discourses and expression of a shared meaning. An optimum connection, in other words a strong connection, is a context in which the constructed realities of the public and subpublic discourses are converged into a more coherent, shared view of some aspects of the social world (Grant & Hardt, 2004). This implicates that a strong connection
An illustration of connection
between the public and subpublic discourses may contribute to an organizational shared reality. A strong connection means that views, expressions and actions are shared and in harmony. In the context of public and subpublic discourses, the strength of connection dependent on access, in sense of the amount of contacts between the public and subpublic discourses, and the interaction rules within both discourses (Hardy, 2001; Homan, 2005; Laine & Vaara, 2007).
An optimum of connection can emerge between a low and high access level and its interaction rules (Grant & Hardt, 2004; Homan, 2005). In this optimum the public and subpublic discourses have an own (socially constructed) identity that is strong enough to act together with the other discourse. Simultaneously, the discourse is flexible enough to innovate and adapt to changes made by the other discourse (Homan, 2005). In a rapidly changing and complex environment such a strong level of connection seems to be the most optimal position to survive and reach successful change (Homan, 2005). This will be enforced if the public and subpublic discourses have a shared reality of a desired situation. Then, as mentioned before, the public and subpublic discourses will bring their desired situation into being. Together they will be a powerful force that coordinates their actions to reach implementation success. Consequently, this can be hypothesized as followed:
It has been discussed that an implementation influences conditions that change the reality, constructed at individual and group level. Supposing that people utilize and guide their actions based on the eleven active principles, they will facilitate conditions to reach implementation success. To bring a desired situation into being, the organizational members need to have a connection with each other and especially the public and subpublic discourses (organizational level). Striking little or no empirical research exists through which the mediator and to what extent the eleven active principles are mediated by the above mentioned variables. The assumed relationships are translated into hypotheses, presented in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1 Conceptual model Making plural realities
productive
Freedom of choice & empowerment
Common shared need/desire
Reinforce organizational vitality
Act transactional Evolution & match
Act integral Act consistent Authenticity Ongoing dialogue Involvement of stakeholders 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 Connection Implementation success 1* 2 1
Making plural realities productive
Freedom of choice & empowerment
Common shared need/desire
Reinforce organizational vitality
Act transactional Evolution & match
Act integral
Act consistent
Authenticity Ongoing dialogue
Involvement of stakeholders Making plural realities productive
Freedom of choice & empowerment
Common shared need/desire
Reinforce organizational vitality
Act transactional Evolution & match
METHOD
In this research, two implementation process cases were object under study. Based on these two cases, an analysis was performed in order to test the hypotheses. The methodology used within this research will be discussed in more detail. First, the research setting will be described, giving more information about the two case studies that have been used. Furthermore, the method of data collection and analysis will be explained.
Research setting
The objects under study were two implementation process cases of second and third order change. Implementation process Smederijen (case S) is a cooperation between a Dutch municipality and five other organizations. The purpose of case S was to develop a new way of working in order to improve the quality of life within the municipality integrally, by giving the inhabitants more authority. To achieve this desired situation successfully, the people involved needed to change their way of thinking and acting. Implementation process S started in 2005 and lasted until 2008.
The other implementation process, called VOORUITdaging (case V), is a cooperation between two housing corporations. The purpose of V was to develop a stronger corporate social responsibility by improving the quality of living of their customers and society integrally. To successfully achieve this desired situation, the people involved needed to change their way of thinking and acting. Implementation process V started in 2006 and lasted until 2008. Both implementation processes achieved several milestones and results. This creates the possibility to evaluate the views of the respondents about the implementation process in retrospect.
Research design
To examine the outcome of implementation processes, a number of evaluation designs can be applied (Noe et al., 2003). For a variety of reasons it was not possible to undertake a baseline survey prior to the implementation. Therefore, a posttest-only design was chosen to test the relation between the eleven active principles, implementation success, and connection in the context of an implementation process. The findings of a case study gathered with this posttest-only design, can be strengthened by examining another comparable implementation case, which is as similar as possible to the other case (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1984). Together with four consultants in the field of organizational change we selected two comparable cases out of nineteen. The differences and/or similarities in and between the two cases found by the posttest-only design, will be used to test the proposed hypotheses.
Data collection
combination of methods. For post-test assessing the proposed hypotheses of this study, it was necessary to gather data by: a documentary analysis, a questionnaire, and an online discussion. This will create a rich picture of the social constructed realities in organizations. The reality (in organizations) is socially constructed inside individual’s heads, which becomes noticeable in their public and subpublic talk and action (discourse). The strength of a documentary analysis and a questionnaire is their suitability to examine the views on subjects from the public discourse. An online discussion is appropriate to examine the views on subjects from the subpublic discourses. The latter is often neglecting in empirical studies (Laine & Vaara, 2007). This data collection is done on the individual level, because the individual realities are entwined in public and subpublic discourse. The three survey instruments collect data about the degree in which the variables/subjects were observed by individuals of case S and V.
Collecting data of Implementation Success, the Eleven Active Principles and Connection Documentary analysis. The manager of each of the two cases was invited to answer, in written form, five open questions concerning the characteristics, the objectives, the actions and results of the implementation process. Beside the fact that this collects data about the eleven active principles and implementation success, it provided a preliminary exploration to customize the subsequent questionnaire and online discussion (Taylor et al., 2006).
Questionnaire. The questionnaire is developed with a senior consultant (Marcel Kuhlmann) and adjusted based on the feedback of two experts in the field of organizational change and research methodology (Leo Dijkema and Thijs Homan). In collaboration with the manager of the implementation process, a representative selection of the affected employees was made in order to collect their view, with statements, about the eleven active principles and implementation success. They were approached by email and subsequently by two reminders to voluntarily and anonymously fill out the online questionnaire. This resulted in a number of 30 respondents (18%) for implementation process S, and 20 respondents (17%) for V.
Online discussion1. Because we acknowledge the importance of different research methods to gather a rich picture of the reality, an advanced online discussion method developed by Prof. Dr. Homan was used. The four topics of discussion were: accomplishment of implementation goals, impact of the implementation on personal, and organizational level, and overall judgement of the implementation process. These topics were customized in open questions, based on the information gathered from the documentary survey. In contrast with
1
the previous methods, this anonymous online discussion collects opinions through statements made by respondents in subpublic discourse. The statements about the subjects (the variables); eleven active principles and implementation success were distillate. A representative selection of the affected employees and customers was approached by email and two reminders to participate voluntarily in the online discussion. This resulted in a number of 30 respondents (16.8%) for implementation process S, and 7 respondents (4.6%) for implementation process V.
Measures
The questions and/or statements of each survey instrument were the same for both implementation cases – Smederijen and VOORUITdaging –, only the introduction, the implementation name, objectives and vision were customized. This makes it possible to compare the outcomes of case S and V by; an independent t-test, judgement of experts and the author of this article. The survey instruments were in Dutch.
Measuring of Implementation Success, the Eleven Active Principles and Connection Documentary analysis. A jury, consisting of five experts in the field of organizational change, scored the two implementation cases individually on a degree of implementation success and eleven active principles. Subsequently, agreement was achieved by discussion. This intersubjective approximation resulted in an overall judgement of cases S and V in terms of more or less observed (1) implementation success and (2) eleven active principles.
TABLE 1
Characteristics of the scales
Scales It. Cronbach’s α
1 Making plural realities productive 7 0,65
2 Involving stakeholders 10 0,88
3 Ongoing dialogue 11 0,63
4 Freedom of choice & Empowerment 8 0,76
5 Shared need/desire 3 0,81
6 Organization vitality 9 0,79
7 Evolution and match 12 0,51
8 Act integral 5 0,73
9 Act consistent 8 0,89
10 Act transactional 8 0,37
11 Authenticity 8 0,9
12 Implementation success 3 0,71
The degree of implementation success (dependent variable) was assessed by the items derived from Kuhlmann and Hoogendoorn (2008) and had to be answered with an indication of a degree of agreement (three items: ‘I adjust my actions towards the implementation process’, ‘The actions I do, are supporting the implementation process’ and ‘I perceive the overall implementation process as positive’). Apart from being derived from Kuhlmann and Hoogendoorn (2008), the items that formed the scale for each active principle
know where we as organization are good at’). The 12 items to assess evolution and match are from Kuhlmann and Hoogendoorn (2008). The blue, orange, green and yellow vMEME were each adjusted into multiple-choice descriptions concerning the implementation process. Six items concerning the characteristics of the implementation process (e.g. ‘If you have to describe the – way of communication - within the implementation process, which of the following description fits the most….’). And six items concerning the preferences of the respondent (e.g. ‘Which of the following description fits the most with your own preferences, how do you want to do your work?’). The Cohen’s Kappa analysis was applied to quantify the level of a match between the perceived and preferred way of working (Congalton, 1991). To assess comprehensive and integral action four items were used from Brown’s (2005) quadrant elements. For example, one of the items concerning the ‘I quadrant’ is getting the necessary education to assist this process (‘I have had enough training and conversations to assist the implementation process’). Kuhlmann and Hoogendoorn (2008) and Barrett (2006) were inspirators to asses act consistent by eight items (e.g. ‘Within the implementation process there is attention to my personal goals; like better job conditions, career opportunities etc.’). To assess act transactional nine items were inspired by Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn (e.g. ‘During the implementation process it is possible to adjust agreements’). The scale and eight items for authenticity are derived from Walumbwa et al. (2008) and Kuhlmann & Hoogendoorn (2008), (e.g. ‘My direct project leader is aware of his/her qualities and uncertainties’).
The outcomes of the questionnaire show a mean value for implementation success and each active principle observed by the respondents. It shows the degree in which the variables were noticed by the respondents in case S and V.
respondents, and secondly we checked and discussed for agreement with each other. The expressions of the response referring to implementation success and the presence of active principles were scored (low, moderate or high degree of noticed subject). Consequently, the degree of the variables and subjects noticed in respectively, the public and subpublic discourses were compared. The level of harmonious/shared meaning upon each variable vs. subject resulted in the level of connection (weak = low vs. high; moderate = low vs. moderate or moderate vs. high; strong = low vs. low, moderate vs. moderate, or high vs. high).
RESULTS
Results of the outcomes of implementation processes (case S and V).
Table 2 presents the mean values of each active principle as well as implementation success noticed in public discourse. The variables show values midway the moderate and high score concerning both cases. By comparing the mean values of case S and V (fourth column) it is remarkable that case S scored slightly higher upon implementation success and also upon almost every active principle, except ‘common shared need or desire’, ‘evolution & match’ and ‘authenticity’. The results of the T-test (see appendix B) shows non-significant differences between S and V, except ‘involvement of stakeholders’ shows a significant difference of scores between case S and V (t=4.31, p<.01).
TABLE 2
Values of active principles and implementation success, in public discourse (PD)of implementation process S and V a
Variables PD of (S)mederijen Means SD PD of (V)ooruitdaging Means SD Mean differences S versus V 1. Making plural realities productive 3,51 .48 3,38 .53 S> V
2. Involving stakeholders 3,90 .52 3,26 .54 S> V
3. Ongoing dialogue 3,62 .35 3,47 .38 S> V
4. Freedom of choice & empowerment 3,54 .61 3,46 .53 S> V
5. Common shared need/desire 3,48 .76 3,60 .75 S< V
6. Reinforce organizational vitality 3,83 .42 3,76 .47 S> V
7. Evolution & match 3,20 1.23 3,40 1.16 S< V
8. Act integral 3,62 .55 3,53 .68 S> V 9. Act consistent 3,61 .54 3,57 .78 S> V 10. Act transactional 3,32 .38 3,18 .31 S> V 11. Authenticity 3,76 .55 3,77 .67 S< V Implementation success 3,71 .51 3,60 .50 S> V a n = 30 (Smederijen), n = 20 (VOORUITdaging)
degree noticed in case V. This overall judgment is in accordance with the previous mentioned differences shown in table 2 and in addition validated by the outcomes of the online discussion presented in table 3.
Table 3 presents the degree in which the active principles as well as implementation success were noticed in subpublic discourse. A high, moderate or low degree indicates respectively an often, moderate or seldom expression of the items characterizing the measured subject.
The view concerning implementation success resulted in a high degree in case S and a moderate degree in case V. The respondents of case S described implementation success as increased interaction, involvement, collaboration, enthusiasm, customer focus and awareness and; a nicer new way of working. The increased collaboration and awareness as well as a perceived positive change of actions, indicate that the majority of the participants made changes in their constructed reality towards a more shared reality of the desired situation. These essential indicators of implementation success were expressed/noticed by the majority, and therefore resulted in a high degree of implementation success. The respondents of case V described implementation success in different ways: ‘as inhabitant I perceived nothing of the VOORUITdaging’ and ‘a new design of the building improved the accessibility and openness, supported by the employees’. Because of these internal contrasting expressions a shared reality of the desired situation is less noticed, and therefore resulted in a moderate degree of implementation success.
Table 3 also presents the degree of the eleven active principles noticed in case S and V. As can be seen, the respondents of case S described each active principle in a moderate or high degree. But the respondents of case V experienced each active principle in a low or moderate degree.
TABLE 3
Noticed degreeof active principles and implementation success, in subpublic discourse (SD) of implementation process S and V a
Subjects Noticed degree in SD of (S)mederijen Noticed degree in SD of (V)ooruitdaging Differences S - V
1. Making plural realities productive High Low S> V
2. Involving stakeholders High Low S> V
3. Ongoing dialogue High Low S> V
4. Freedom of choice & empowerment High Moderate S> V
5. Common shared need/desire Moderate Moderate S= V
6. Organizational vitality High Moderate S> V
7. Evolution & match Moderate Moderate S= V
8. Act integral Moderate Low S> V
9. Act consistent Moderate Low S> V
10. Act transactional Moderate Low S> V
11. Authenticity High Low S> V
12. Implementation success High Moderate S> V a
The fourth column of table 3 presents the differences between case S and V concerning the noticed degree of implementation success and each active principle. Summarizing these differences, case S scored a similar or higher degree on each active principle and implementation success, compared to case V. This validates the judgment of the jury mentioned before.
Concluding, although the results of statistically non significant differences between S and V enough ground is found to take these differences into account. Namely, the statistically differences are in accordance with the judgment of the jury and the results from the subpublic discourse. Therefore, by taking the view of the jury and its validation based on the results from the subpublic discourse into account, a conclusion can be drawn about hypothesis 1. The results show that the respondents of case S perceived a higher degree of eleven active principles and also a higher degree of implementation success. This supports hypothesis 1; it does support that the eleven active principles regarding the context of change are positively related to implementation success.
Results of the role of connection on implementation success.
TABLE 4 Pearson correlationsa
2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12
Smederijen 1 Making plural realities productive .44** .80** .60** .21 .62** .56** .66** .50** .53** .50**
2 Involving Stakeholders .51** .57** .56** .72** .55** .70** .28 .24 .61** 3 Ongoing dialogue .55** .36* .70** .66** .63** .63** .30 .55** 4 Freedom of choice .40* .65** .53** .60** .31* .39* .35*
5 Common shared need or desire .49** .47** .40* .57** .09 .55** 6 Reinforce organizational vitality .87** .74** .55** .12 .79**
7 Evolution & Match .20
8 Act integral .76** .64** .03 .80**
9 Act consistent .38* .29 .74**
10 Act transactional .00 .51**
11 Authenticity .10
12 Success
VOORUITdaging 1 Making plural realities productive .74** .71** .78** .59** .88** .88** .88** .45* .84** .80** 2 Involving Stakeholders .43* .63** .48* .77** .80** .86** .48* .76** .59** 3 Ongoing dialogue .85** .56** .57** .81** .64** .36 .77** .80** 4 Freedom of choice .72** .75** .78** .76** .43* .78** .84** 5 Common shared need or desire .69** .58** .65** .42* .54** .62** 6 Reinforce organizational vitality .84** .90** .57** .74** .77**
7 Evolution & Match .42*
8 Act integral .87** .58** .90** .80** 9 Act consistent .66** .88** .73** 10 Act transactional .48* .49* 11 Authenticity .74** 12 Success a n = 30 (Smederijen), n = 20 (VOORUITdaging) * p < .05 (1-tailed) ** p < .01 (1-tailed)
The results of connection (mediator) in case S and V is presented in table 5 and provides insights to meet condition two and three to assume a mediating relationship. Table 5 shows the degree of connection between the public discourse and subpublic discourse concerning several subjects in case S and V.
TABLE 5
Degree of connection between public and subpublic discourse
Subjects Level of connection in (S)mederijen Level of connection in (V)OORUITdaging Level of connection differences S - V 1. Making plural realities productive Strong Moderate S > V
2. Involving stakeholders Strong Moderate S > V
3. Ongoing dialogue Strong Moderate S > V
4. Freedom of choice & Empowerment Strong Strong S = V
5. Common shared need/desire Strong Moderate S > V
6. Organization vitality Strong Moderate S > V
7. Evolution and match Strong Moderate S > V
8. Act integral Moderate Weak S > V
9. Act consistent Moderate Weak S > V
10. Act transactional Strong Moderate S > V
11. Authenticity Strong Weak S > V
12. Implementation success Strong Moderate S > V
Overall view S > V
In case S a strong level of connection is measured, and just for two subjects a moderate degree. For example in case S the subject ‘involvement of stakeholders’ scored a strong level of connection: the responses from public discourse made clear that a variety of stakeholders (employees, customers, and organizations) participated in the process. They were highly informed and consulted to share information, and to a certain extent make decisions together. The responses from the subpublic discourse were for instance like: ‘We received lots of information’; ‘Due to interaction with inhabitants (customers) we came up with ideas, and decided together what to do and how we could collaborate (consulted and decision-making)’. This shows that the given meanings in public discourse were in harmony/accordance with the meanings given in subpublic discourse, and therefore case S scored a strong level of connection concerning the subject ‘involvement of stakeholders’.
