HOW TO INFLUENCE THE EMPLOYEES’
WILLINGNESS TO CHANGE?
Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
HOW TO INFLUENCE THE EMPLOYEES’ WILLINGNESS TO
CHANGE?
JANNEKE KANIS, University of Groningen
ABSTRACT
This article provides insight in how three motivational factors can influence the employees’ willingness to change. These three factors are the acceptance of the change, the requisite of change and the ability to change. Additionally, the initiators of the change can also influence the employees’ willingness to change with the help of strategies like education and communication; participation and involvement; and support and facilitation. The results of this case study show that the employees understood the reason for change, but were having difficulties with the complexity of the change process and the level of communication. This resulted in a moderate willingness to change. The Management Team is recommend to make use of a more concrete plan including a communication plan during a next change process. Additionally it is important to assess the available and needed competences of the change initiators as a change process can bring a lot of damage to an organization when it is not managed appropriately.
INTRODUCTION
Tension, stress, increasing absenteeism, work slowdowns and aggression against the management are just a few examples of behaviour that can be observed during change processes. This behaviour does often not improve the mood of the organizational members (Coch & French, 1947; Kanter, 1985; Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 2005). Nowadays,
organizations have to deal with more and more changes. Many changes take place in the external environment and consequently organizations have to adapt the internal structure and culture as well. Cozijnsen & Vrakking (2003) mention that change is the only constant in a changing world. One might think that this implies that managing change is easy, but the opposite is true. Many large-scale change initiatives collapse according to several studies (e.g.: Strebel, 1996; Hirschhorn, 2002; Kotter, 2007). Early work from Lewin (1947)
conceptualized change as a process in which one has to progress through three phases called unfreezing, moving and freezing. According to Armenakis & Bedeian (1999), it is especially during the unfreezing phase that denial and resistance take place. Armenakis & Bedeian (1999) reviewed theory and research of change in the 1990s and comment that “if
organizational members are inappropriately prepared for the introduction of change, then denial and resistance will likely be initial and predictable consequences of a change process.”
After denial and resistance, exploration and commitment are the next stages employees can go through according to Jafe, Scott, and Tobe (1994). In other words, employees can go through several stages, which is important for managers to keep in mind when managing the change process. A change process demands normally a lot from people within organizations and often resistance takes place (Cozijnsen & Vrakking, 2003). Kotter & Schlesinger (2008) identify four major reasons why resistance takes place: “a desire not to lose something of value, a misunderstanding of the change and its implications, a belief that the change does not make sense for the organization, and a low tolerance for change.” These four reasons explain already that resistance is not always meant negative on purpose. Ford & Ford (2009) mention that resistance is an important feedback, often provided by people who know more about day-to-day operations than managers do. This means that listening to their feedback might help to give the change effort a higher profile.
Team (MT) of company X has proposed an internal change in which the aim is to come to an internal structure with clear tasks and responsibilities for each employee. After the idea was communicated by the MT in October 2009, not all the employees were enthusiastic for several reasons; some mentioned the hectic period and the wrong timing in the middle of an extreme busy season, while other employees mentioned that they were very busy with their daily work. Additionally, not everybody was convinced of a positive outcome for this change process. The MT would like to know how they can better manage a change process in the future and especially how they could better manage resistance or more positive called the willingness to change.
Before diving into details, it is important to get a better insight in the complexity of company X. Therefore, the organizational context is explained in the introduction.
Consequently, a description of the change process within Company X is given. Moreover, the concrete focus of this research is introduced and explained.
Organizational Context
Company X is a complex organization as it exists of relationships between many different types of stakeholders. The needs of the stakeholders do change continuously and therefore it is important for Company X to find a better internal structure that supports becoming more customer focused to these stakeholders. There are fifty-one employees working within Company X and they are directed by a general director and a technical director.
Structural Change within Company X.
external change agent. The change agent has set up, in the end of 2009, seven work teams that have to analyze the most important processes that belong to their area and give consequently advice to the MT. The teams focus subsequently on Logistics, Customers, Communication, Purchases, Cost Price, Human Resources and Reporting. Within each work team employees from several departments are participating. The teams consist of about eight employees per team and are coordinated by work team coordinators. The work team coordinators are managers or employees selected by the change agent. Each work team coordinator was allowed to choose team members and each employee was allowed to decide whether to participate or not. From March 2010, there is also a team of “architects” present at the meetings of the work teams in order to coordinate the progress of all the teams and come up with an integrative solution for the MT. These architects are selected by the change agent and are coming from the three different departments.
During the structural change, that started in November 2009 and will last to the summer of 2010, also meeting for all the employees has been planned once per two weeks. In this meeting, the management and/or the change agent provides information about the
progress of the change process and employees are invited to share whatever they like to. The change process is called “Eenvoud, Eenheid & Transparantie” (E.E.T.1
) because it wants to be kept as simple and transparent as possible and it should be done together.
This change can be defined as a planned change as it is consciously planned by Company X (Burnes, 2004). According to Robbins (2003) planned change has two goals: “First, it seeks to improve the ability of the organization to adapt to changes in its
environment. Second, it seeks to change employee behaviour.” Especially, the last part is interesting for this research, as such a large structural change is very demanding for
employees. They do not know the outcome for their specific situation yet. Each employee is different and has his own way to deal with change. For the MT it is very interesting to know how the employees consider this change.
Change Related Behaviour
As mentioned before, the employees can go through several stages during a change process before the stage of commitment to change is reached. Therefore, before the stage of commitment is reached, employees are likely to opposite change in a certain way.
Manifestations of resistance range from hidden covert forms to overt forms (King & Anderson, 2000). As can be seen in table 1, there are several manifestations of resistance mentioned in previous studies.
TABLE 1
Behavioural manifestations of resistance
Behavioural manifestations of resistance
Grievances, high turnover, very low efficiency, restriction of output, aggression against management
Coch & French (1947)
Tension, stress, squabbling, sabotage, turnover, subtle undermining, behind-the-scenes foot-dragging, work slowdowns, needless
political battles, a drain on money and time
Kanter (1985)
Reduced organizational commitment, increased hostility to those initiating the change, increased absenteeism, lateness, or even sabotage of production systems, intentional underperformance, and purposeful lack of realization of potential.
King & Anderson (2000,)
Symptoms of resistance: increasing absenteeism, coming late for meetings, increasing number of conflicts in the organization.
Forms of resistance: Letter of protest to the management, gossip about the organizational change, strikes.
Metselaar & Cozijnsen (2005)
being careful with taking wrong conclusions too soon is necessary. More important is to understand the behaviour of employees. However, understanding employees‟ behaviour is rather complex. Holt, Armenakis, Feild & Harris (2007) mention that several instruments have been developed in order to assess the readiness for change, one of the most important factors involved in employees‟ initial support for change initiatives. They say that these instruments appear to measure change readiness from one of several perspectives, namely, change process, change content, change context, and individual attributes ( Holt, Armenakis, Harris & Field, in press).
The focus in this article is on the behavioural intention that leads to specific change related behaviour. This behavioural intention related to change projects is also called the willingness to change. According to the model of Metselaar & Cozijnsen (2005), the degree of willingness to change is determined by three motivational factors, which are whether one accepts the change, whether one is required to change and whether one has the ability to change. This model is rather broad and comprises several perspectives of the change process. However, the role of the MT is not enough included and therefore, the research questions of this research are:
1. What is the employees‟ willingness to change and how is it influenced by the
motivational factors: acceptance of the change, requisite for change, and the ability to change?
2. How can the MT influence the employees‟ degree of willingness to change with managerial strategies such as education and communication, participation and involvement and support and facilitation?
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this theoretical section, first of all the dependent variable willingness to change is explained. Additionally, the different independent variables that influence willingness to change are elaborated and consequently, the conceptual model for this research is provided.
Willingness to Change
During change processes, one can observe different types of behaviour as was
explained in the introduction. King and Anderson (2002) state that „it is nonsensical to talk of „resistance‟ as a single, unitary behaviour. Whether one has the intention to support an
initiated change depends mostly on the willingness to change of a specific person according to Metselaar & Cozijnsen (2005). Their findings are based on the model of Ajzen (1991) that helps to predict, explain and change different types of behaviour. According to Ajzen, three motivational factors determine a person‟s behavioural intentions. Metselaar and Cozijnsen (2005) define the person‟s behavioural intentions in a change setting as the willingness to change. The degree of willingness to change does determine consequently the type of behaviour that managers can encounter during change processes. Metselaar (1997) made a definition of willingness to change based on the model of Azjen (1991): „A positive
behavioural intention towards the implementation of modifications in an organization‟s structure, or work and administrative processes, resulting in efforts from the organization member‟s side to support or enhance the change process.‟ This definition shows that willingness results in a positive attitude towards the change. It is also possible that one is negative about the change. This is called resistance according to Metselaar (1997). This definition is : „A negative behavioural intention towards the implementation of modifications in an organization‟s structure, or work and administrative processes, resulting in efforts from the organization member‟s side to hinder or impede the change process.‟ This intention will lead to behaviour that is not constructive to the change process. In order to understand, explain and predict the behaviour of the employees it is interesting to know what the willingness to change determines. In figure 1, one can see the relations between the
FIGURE 1
The determinants of willingness to change
Acceptance of Change
This motivational factor refers to the expectations that a person has about the change process (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 2005). These expectations are based upon thinking
(cognitive reactions) and feeling (affective reactions).
Cognitive reactions encompass the expectations that a person has about the change process and more specific, to which degree these will influence their job and the organisation as a whole. Cognitive reactions are based upon rational thinking rather than feeling. Kotter & Schlesinger (2008) identify four major reasons why resistance takes place as has been
mentioned in the introduction. Three of these reasons, namely a desire not to lose something of value; a misunderstanding of the change and its implications; and a belief that the change does not make sense for the organization apply to the motivational factor and more specific to the cognitive aspect. Cozijnsen and Vrakking (2003) mention a very rational reason to resist change, namely because someone is afraid that the financial situation will be affected
negatively. Kanter (1985) is going in more detail when evaluating reasons for resistance. She came up with the ten most common reasons managers encounter resistance to change. Not all of these ten reasons apply to the motivational factor „acceptance of change‟. On the cognitive area, she mentions „the difference effect‟, which means that change requires people to change routines and habits. People might start thinking, “can I handle that?” Moreover, Kanter mentioned „concerns about future competence‟, which means that people are afraid that they will not be competent enough and cannot do what they need to do. Additionally, a reason why people think negative about change is that they are afraid for „more work‟, which requires more energy and time. Subsequently, they are afraid for „ripple effects‟ which implies that they are afraid that the change will disrupt other important (personal) activities. Finally,
Kanter mentioned that „sometimes the threat is real‟. In other words, the change does affect people indeed negatively. This can be because of salary reduction, change in function or even the loss of a job.
The motivational factor „acceptance of change‟ does also include affective reactions towards the change. These affective reactions encompass the positive or negative emotions that are caused by the change process. The fourth reason for change mentioned by Kotter & Schlesinger (2008) is low tolerance for change. This means that people have difficulties with change in general. They are afraid for change and prefer to stay in control. Cozijnsen & Vrakking (2003) also concluded that some people have more difficulties with change than others do. Additionally, Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) analysed 1500 studies and concluded that these people often posses similar personality characteristics. These characteristics are low motivation for performance, fatalism, difficulties with abstraction, high dogmatism and low empathetic capacity. Affective reactions mentioned by Kanter (1985) are first, „excess uncertainty‟ which implies that there is too much uncertainty for people and that they prefer the known situation above the unknown. Second the „surprise, surprise‟ effect that implies that people are easily shocked by decisions that seem to be suddenly made. Their first reaction to something totally new and unexpected is resistance according to Kanter. Third, „loss of face‟, can also happen. This means that people are afraid that the way things were done in the past was wrong and which can make them feel embarrassed. Fourth, „past resentments‟ have also influence on the emotions of people during change processes. Kanter mentions that unresolved grievances from the past can rise up to entangle and hinder the change effort. Cozijnsen and Vrakking (2003) also mention that people might be afraid, doubtful and feel threatened in their position. Moreover, it is possible that people seem to resist change, while they are dealing with competing commitments. Competing commitments is according to Kegan & Lahey (2001) a „psychological dynamic‟ in which „the change is not challenged, but rather is it resisted, or not implemented at all because the employee faces additional issues or concerns related to the change‟. For example, one can understand the reason for change while being positive about the consequences for the job and the organization as a whole, but at the same time one can have difficulties with change in general. As a result this person may be not very enthusiastic during the change process, while rationally the change is totally understood and accepted.
understand the reason for change. For managers this implies to carefully think about how to approach such an employee.
In figure 2, the three aspects that build up the variable acceptance of change are listed. Moreover, the influence on the dependent variable is shown.
FIGURE 2
The attributes of ‘acceptance of change’ and the influence on ‘willingness to change’
Requisite to Change
This motivational factor is in the model of Ajzen (1991) called the subjective norm and refers in the model of Metselaar and Cozijnsen (2005) to the attitude of colleagues; the manager; and director towards the change process. Within an organization, one can feel forced by others to behave in a certain way. The attitude of colleagues towards change can have a huge impact on the behaviour of individuals. The „groupthink phenomenon‟ invented by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a weakening of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment”. These groups ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that affect other groups. Groupthink is most likely to happen when members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision-making. King and Anderson (2000) mention that groupthink in combination with a situation where organizational power is centralized away from a group (Janis, 1972,1982) will likely result in a “tenacious and embedded” form of resistance. Niccolo Machiavelli (1515: VI-1) made a point that became very famous. He said that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things, because this person will have for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions. Cozijnsen and Vrakking (2003) also mention that persons that are enthusiastic about the change can feel guilty towards their colleagues that oppose the change. This might result in a less positive attitude then they actually want to. As Kotter & Cohen (2002) mentioned,
Willingness to change Acceptance of change:
- Consequences for the job - Added value for the
“people will think of themselves or of their subgroups first and be protective and suspicious. Therefore, this motivational factor should not be overlooked during a change process.
In figure 3, the aspect that builds up the variable requisite to change is mentioned. Moreover, the influence on the dependent variable is shown.
FIGURE 3
The attribute of ‘requisite to change’ and the influence on ‘willingness to change’
Ability to Change
This motivational factor, refers to the degree of control the person perceives over the unfolding change (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 2005). In other words, this is about whether a person has sufficient knowledge and experience with change; whether sufficient time and resources are available; whether one perceives to have a certain degree of control over the change; whether one can understand the complexity of the change; and whether one can deal with the timing of the change. Knowledge and experience refer to the degree of knowledge and experience one has with change projects. Someone who had a very bad experience in another organization is more likely to be afraid for such a change. However, someone who got promotion during a previous change can be very happy with another change process. Kotter & Cohen (2002) mention that during a change process it is important to have people who
understand what happens during the process. These people can guide their colleagues through the change. Time and resources refer to the amount of time and resources the employee can spend. One can be very optimistic about a change initiative, but when this person has no time to support this initiative, it will not result in positive change related behaviour. Control of the change process refers to the degree a change process is structured and fixed. A very ad hoc change process gives for example less control for an employee, while a clearly structured process will increase the degree of experienced control of an employee. Winter (1973) suggests that especially in organizations with highly decentralized distribution of power, individuals will exhibit higher levels of resistance since they will perceive a lack of control over unfolding events. The perceived complexity of change refers to the number of processes the change influences. An organisation wide change will give employees less control over the change process than only a change within a department. The timing of the change refers to the
Willingness to change Requisite to change:
moment that the change process takes place. The change can be planned during a very busy moment for the employees, which means that they can get difficulties with setting priorities. These attributes of the motivational factor „ability to change‟ can be divided into self-control factors and extern-control factors. Knowledge and experience are called self-control factors, as this is something that a person possesses or not. The other factors are called extern-control factors as this are factors that the organization should arrange and monitor. These extern-control determinants can have direct influence on the change related behaviour (Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 2005). This implies that although one has willingness to change, it is still possible that due to a lack of time or for example insufficient resources this person can be hindered to behave in the desired way. This is an important aspect to take in mind as it implies that the behaviour of people is not always the same as they intend to behave; certain circumstances block the desired behaviour despite a high intention for that specific behaviour.
In figure 4, the aspects that build up the variable able to change are mentioned. Moreover, the influence on the dependent variable is shown.
FIGURE 4
The attributes of 'ability to change’ and the influence on ‘willingness to change’
Having seen that the three motivational factors influence the willingness to change and sometimes also directly the change related behaviour, one can understand that the attitude of the managers towards the employees during an organization wide change initiative is of great importance. As just mentioned, they should provide the employees for example with enough resources in order to be able to participate in the change process. Additionally, they can give information about the different phases of the change process, which helps the employees understand better what they can expect. In the next session, different managerial strategies that can be used by the MT during change processes are explained.
Willingness to change Ability to change:
- Experience and knowledge
Managerial Strategies
Managers do have a high degree of responsibility during a change process, as they are the ones that initiate the change. In order to create willingness for change among the
employees, a sense of urgency, a feeling of dissatisfaction with the present, there are four steps an organisation needs to take according to Burnes (2004). First one needs to make people aware of the pressure for change. Through this approach, members of the organisation come to appreciate that change is not only inevitable, but is being undertaken to safeguard rather than threaten their future. Second, regular feedback on the performance of individual processes and areas of activity within the organisation should be given. Openness helps people to understand the need for change. Third, one should understand people‟s fears and concerns. Burnes mentions that change does create uncertainty and that some people may resist if they fear the consequences. This implies that change initiators should pay close attention to the organisation‟s past history of change and the extent to which this reduces or enhances people‟s fears and concerns. Moreover, the organisation should review all the consequences of its actions so that it becomes easier to indicate underlying problems. Fourth, successful change should be publicised. One should be encouraged to expect and set credible outcomes for change programmes. This does not mean that mistakes should not be examined, explained and lessons learned. Burnes concludes that “an effective two-way flow of
information is vital. The importance of communication is also mentioned by other researchers. Kurt Lewin (1999), demonstrated during the Second World War that the most effective way to convince people to change is to provide groups with information for them to evaluate and discuss, and letting the group come to its own decision. According to the model of Cozijnsen and Metselaar (2005), the change initiators should check to which degree the employees are willing to, have to and are able to change. By knowing this, one can use strategies to reduce obstacles so that employees are not hindered or blocked to participate in the change process.
Kotter & Schlesinger (2008), propose six strategies that can be used by managers in order to reach the desired behaviour. These strategies, which are education and
communication; participation and involvement; facilitation and support; negotiation and agreement; manipulation and co-optation; and explicit and implicit coercion are also
recommended by Cozijnsen and Vrakking (2003). The focus of this article is on the first three strategies, as they are more related to the beginning stage of a change process.
accurate and clear information. The education aspect could involve according to Kotter & (2008) presentations or for example one-on-one discussions. Second, participation and involvement are used to convince resisters. By involving employees in the design or implementation phase, it is possible to prevent resistance. Kotter and Schlesinger (2008) mention additionally that this approach is also used when the management does not have all the appropriate information necessary to design the change. Moreover, by listening to the employees and using their ideas, employees feel that they really can participate. Third, offering support and facilitation implies providing training in new skills, giving employees time off after a demanding period, or by simply listening and providing emotional support. This strategy is used for employees that find it difficult to adapt to a new situation.
In figure 5, these three managerial strategies that can be used in order to influence the employees‟ willingness to change are illustrated.
FIGURE 5
Three managerial strategies that can influence ‘willingness to change’
Kotter & Schlesinger (2008) warn managers that they should not use only one strategy, but that they should look for an ideal mix. The decision on which strategy is useful in a
certain situation can be made with the help of a continuum. The one extreme on the left is a change strategy that calls for a situation where speed is necessary, a clear plan is available and little involvement of others is possible. The other extreme on the right is a change strategy that calls for a situation where time is not of the essence, where a less clear plan is possible and where many people are involved in addition to the change initiators. Kotter & (2008) propose that with the help of four situational variables one can decide which strategy is appropriate. The first three variables are based on studies of Lawrence & Barnes & Lorsch (1976) and the fourth variable on studies of Beer (1980). These variables are:
Willingness to change Managerial strategies: - Education and communication - Participation and involvement
1. The amount and kind of resistance that is anticipated. The more resistance is present, the more difficult it is to overcome it as a manager. Therefore, the more resistance, the more one will move to the right continuum to find ways to reduce some of the resistance.
2. The position of the initiator vis-á-vis the resisters, especially with regard to power. The stronger the position of the initiator is with regard to power, the more one can move to the left on the continuum.
3. The person who has the relevant data for designing the change and the energy for
implementing it. The more input and commitment from others is needed in order to come to a design and implementation, the more one should move to the right on the continuum. Gaining useful information and commitment from others requires time involvement from others. 4. The stakes involved. The greater the short-run potential for risks to the organization if the present situation is not changed, the more one must move to the left of the continuum.
Kotter & Schlesinger (2008) warn that one should still be aware of other factors that might influence the change, such as great short run potential for risk but having a weak position as a MT. A carefully made change analysis with factors that can be of influence should contribute to a good decision about when to use which strategy.
Conceptual Model
The factors that influence the employee‟s willingness to change, are illustrated in a conceptual model that is used for this article. This model is shown in figure 6 and illustrates the influence of the four independent variables mentioned in this section on the dependent variable willingness to change.
RESEARCH METHODS
The research methods used for this research are described in this section. The
procedure used for data collection and data analysis is explained. This research is a case study as the focus is on getting multiple perspectives of a single process over a period of time (Cooper & Schindler, 2006). In this case, the research took place within Company X between November 2009 and May 2010. More precisely, the research was about the employees‟ willingness to change. By conducting interviews and observations, one could find out how the change process was perceived by employees. Via this type of research, also called qualitative research, one can find out how (process) and why (meaning) things happen as they do
(Cooper & Schindler 2006).
Data Collection
Participants. Within Company X, fifty-one employees including managers and directors were contracted in November 2009. In total 23 interviews were hold. In other words, 23/51 = 45 % of the employees were interviewed. Thirteen of them were female and ten were male. The average age of the interviewees was 40,8. In table 2 one can see which employees were interviewed. The director was interviewed and the managers of the three departments. The director and managers initiated the change. Therefore, it is important to know their
TABLE 2 Overview interviewees Who n. % n. employees / department % interviewed / department Why
Director 1 4% 1 100% Change initiator
Managers 3 13% 3 100% Change initiator
Department 1 6 26% 21 29% Perspective towards
change process
Department 2 10 44% 16 63% Perspective towards
change process
Department 3 3 13% 10 30% Perspective towards
change process
Total 23 100% 51 45%
Interviews. The data collection was done primary via individual depth interviews (Cooper & Schindler, 2006) Each interview took between 1 and 2 hours. The interview was semi-structured and the questions were open-ended in depth questions. This made it possible for the interviewee to share facts as well as opinions and feelings.
TABLE 3
Main questions used for the interviews
Factors Questions
Willingness to change
Intention - To what degree are you positive/negative about the change?
Acceptance of change
Consequences for job - To what degree do you think that the change has positive consequences for your job?
Added value for the company X
- Will this change add value to the organization?
Emotions - How do you experience/feel this change process?
Requisite to change
Attitudes of others - To what degree are colleagues positive about the change?
Ability to change
Internal control determinants:
Knowledge and
experience with change
- What is your knowledge about change management? - What is your experience with change projects? Time and resources - Do you have sufficient time to spend on the change
process?
- Do you have difficulties with setting priorities?
External control determinants:
Control of change process - Does this change process have clear phases? - Is the planning realistic?
Complexity of change process
- Does the change process has a logical and cohesive structure?
- Are the results of this change process easy to come up with?
Timing of the change process
- Can you keep up with the speed of the change process? - Is the timing of the change process convenient?
Managerial strategies
Education and Communication
- Does the manager give sufficient information? - Is the reason for change clearly communicated? - Do managers make sure that information is really
understood as it is meant? Participation and
Involvement
- To what degree are you able to participate? - Are you enough involved in the change process? - Do you think that this level of participation makes you
more satisfied about the change?
Support and Facilitation - Does your manager pay enough attention to your worries? - To what degree are you stimulated to be positive about
Setting. The interviews were promised to be confidentially. Therefore, each
interviewee received a letter, in which was promised that the interview output would be used in such a way that the anonymity of the interviewee was guaranteed. The interview itself was not taped, but it was allowed to make notes. These notes were checked by each interviewee afterwards, which was necessary to guarantee construct validity (Braster, 2000)
Data analysis
In order to analyze the information gathered via the interviews, first the answers were categorized. The answers received for each question were divided in four groups, namely positive, neutral, negative and no opinion. Positive means that the answer of the interviewee had a positive influence on the dependent variable. Whereas negative implies that the answer of the interviewee had a negative influence on the dependent variable. Neutral implies that the answer of the interviewee did not have a strong positive or negative influence on the
dependent variable. No opinion implies that the interviewee did not know what to respond. By making this table, it became possible to analyse what the general opinion and the outliers were for each question. Moreover, the relation between the independent variables and the dependent variables have been determined by earlier research from Kotter & Schlesinger (2008) and Metselaar & Cozijnsen, 2005).
Additionally, relations between the independent variables and the dependent variable within the conceptual model have been checked during the interviews. All of the interviewees agreed with the model. However, due to the fact that the interview took a long time an extra check is done by asking four employees only about the conceptual model. All of these four employees agreed with the relationships between the different variables.
RESULTS
The results of the interviews are provided in this section. First the results of the dependent variable willingness to change are given. Consequently, the results of the three motivational factors and the results of the managerial strategies are provided. Each table shows for each variable the number of positive, neutral and negative answers. This implies that a positive answer has a positive effect on the dependent variable willingness to change and a negative answer implies a negative influence. There were also interviewees that did not answer the question or did not have an opinion about a certain question, which can be found in the table as „no opinion‟. Consequently, all the tables are clarified with the help of
examples of answers given by the interviewees.
Willingness to Change
The results of the interviews on the dependent variable willingness to change is given in table 4. The more positive answers, the more the employees‟ willingness to change is positively influenced. Additionally to the table, a short summary of specific answers is given.
TABLE 4
Results for the willingness to change
Opinions Willingness to change Positive 10 Neutral 9 Negative - No opinion -
with lack of integrity and insufficient communication. An employee explained it: “I am not afraid that I have to do other things, but what I dislike is that our feelings are ignored, somehow it is going wrong. They tell us to work in a certain way, but they do not work that themselves.” Additionally, there are two employees that have lack of trust in a change initiative because they have negative experiences with previous change initiatives. None of the interviewed employees was totally against the change.
Acceptance of Change
The results of the interviews on the independent variable acceptance of change is given in table 5. The three aspects that influence this variable are shown in the table and clarified with the help of examples. The more positive answers, the more positive the willingness to change is influenced by the motivational factor acceptance of change.
TABLE 5
Results for the acceptance of change
Opinions Consequences for
job
Added value for the organization Emotions Positive 10 10 9 Neutral 5 7 4 Negative 4 1 3 No opinion - 1 3
In this figure, one can see that these three attributes of acceptance of change are by at least 50% of the interviewees experienced as positive, which implies that the willingness to change is positively affected for these employees. The other 50% is not satisfied or more reserved. Therefore, it is interesting to describe more concrete what the interviewees answered.
consequences for their job. They are more reserved, as they also expect negative
consequences such as less job satisfaction due to job specialisation. A person was wondering how activities are going to be coordinated and said: “who will control the total chain when most employees are specialising in a certain activity? This should be monitored somehow”. Additionally, there are four interviewees who expect negative consequences for their job. Three of them are afraid that they have to specialise which they do not like and one is afraid to lose the current job.
One of the interviewees that was asked about the conceptual model responded that one can be positive about the change in general, while having difficulties with the consequences for their personal situation. “These consequences have influence on how you behave towards others during such a process”.
Added value for the organization. Ten of the interviewees are sure that this change adds value to the organization by becoming more professional, efficient and more customer focussed. Some mention that it is very urgent to change, as the work situation cannot get worse. There are seven interviewees that were not totally sure that this change will add value to the organization. At least four employees say that the process is not clear enough and managed appropriate and therefore this change will not add the value that it should add. Not everyone is positive about the three pillars, and especially not about the pillar X. The three pillars are communicated, but for some employees it takes a long time before the pillars itself become clear, which makes it difficult for this employee to fully participate. One of the main concerns by various employees is that colleagues that are very valuable will leave due to a new structure. It is important to listen to these employees as they have experience with the daily operations. An interesting suggestion of an employee was: “we should be more
interested in each other”. One interviewee does not expect that this change will add value as this is not seen as the right approach.
change as negative. These employees are missing a clear goal. One said “Let‟s get back to work; I do not like this hectic situation.” Another person mentioned that a more planned and less ad hoc approach could already make a difference. Moreover, clear communication about developments during the change process is mentioned as being important. Three employees found it difficult to answer this question. It could be possible that these employees found it difficult to express their emotions.
One of the employees that was only interviewed about the conceptual model said that “it does not matter how you say things but how you make them feel”. With that saying she wanted to show that emotion is very important during such a process. She said that the employees‟ emotions need to be positive in order to get a high willingness to change.
Requisite to Change
The results of the interviews on the independent variable requisite to change is given in table 6 and additionally clarified with examples. The more positive answers, the more the dependent variable willingness to change is influenced positively by the motivational factor requisite to change.
TABLE 6
Results for requisite to change
Opinions Attitude of colleagues Positive 9 Neutral 8 Negative 2 No opinion -
Attitude of colleagues. Nine of the interviewees experience that their colleagues are positive about the change process. Especially the director, managers and work team coordinators are seen as positive. Eight of the interviewees are both positive and negative influenced by the attitude of colleagues. They are mostly positive about the work team
coordinators. An interesting remark, made several time, was that one thinks that the director is positive about the change, but that they do not hear or see him enough. The opinion per
attitude of colleagues towards the change as more negative than positive. In general, the department 2b was mentioned most often in combination with a negative attitude towards the change. According to the interviewees this is especially because they miss their previous manager and further because they have been very busy with building good customer relationship and therefore do not understand why they have to change.
Ability to Change
The results of the interviews of the independent variable the ability to change is given in table 7. The five aspects that influence this variable are shown in the figure and clarified with the help of examples. The more positive answers, the more the dependent variable willingness to change is influenced positively by the motivational factor the ability to change.
TABLE 7
Results for the ability to change
Opinions Experience & knowledge Time & Resources Control of change process Complexity of change process Timing of change process Positive 8 6 4 5 10 Neutral 5 6 5 4 5 Negative 5 6 8 10 2 No opinion 2 1 2 2 2
In this figure, one can see that these five attributes of the ability to change contribute in different ways to the dependent variable willingness to change. The timing of the process is by at least 50% of the interviewees seen as positive. However, also more than 50% of the interviewees found the change process too complex. Additionally, the control of the change process is also experienced negative by at least eight of the interviewees. Therefore, it is interesting to see what the reason for these answers has been.
mentioned that their colleagues who obtained experience with change processes are not asked for assistance enough during this change process. Five employees have both positive and negative experiences with change. One employee got for example negative experience with change in another organization, but is seeing enough opportunities during this change. Another five employees do not have positive experiences with change at all. Two of these employees mentioned that within the organization often plans were communicated, but finally not used. One commented about this, “the MT was positive about the change, but there was lack of a real leader”.
Time and resources. Six of the employees do not have problems with setting priority. Such a change is always busy according to them and they are willing to spend the time that is needed. Another six employees are less positive, but not negative. They also find the change important, but they do have more difficulties to handle it. Some of them are willing to work at home in order to finish the work. Another six employees are negative about the available time and resources. They have much more difficulties with setting priorities and are sometimes unable to contribute as much as they would like to. One employee said “I am also working at home; otherwise I cannot finish the work. This is too busy for me” This shows the impact that change can have on employees.
Control of change process. The control of the process is not seen as positive by most of the interviewed employees. Eight find the control of the process that they experience negative. They mentioned that the communication is insufficient and that the different stages of the change process are not clear. Moreover, some feel that there is lack of a strategy. Five employees are a little bit more positive, but still conservative about the control of the change process. They mentioned especially the unrealistic planning as negative, but they understand the different stages of the change process better. Four employees are positive about the control of the change process; they find the different stages clear and are also more positive about the information supply.
overview, but it is clear that this change demands a lot from most employees. Ten of the interviewees find the process too complex, while four interviewees can more or less deal with the complexity. Only five interviewees do not find the process too complex and are positive about the level of complexity.
Timing of change process. The timing of the change is in general not confident in the middle of a busy season. However, many employees understand that the timing of such a change is never confident. Only two employees are negative about this timing. They cannot combine their daily work with sufficient contribution in the change project. Fifteen employees understand that this change is necessary and that the timing is tough. Ten of these fifteen employees are more positive, as for them, they do not have (too) much difficulties with combining their current activities. The other five employees experience more difficulties, but they understand the necessity and decide to be loyal to the organization.
Managerial Strategies
The results of the interviews on the independent variable managerial strategies is given in table 8. The results on the three strategies are shown in the figure and clarified with the help of examples. The more positive answers, the more the dependent variable willingness to change is influenced positively by the managerial strategies.
TABLE 8
Results for the managerial strategies
Opinions Education &
Communication Participation & Involvement Support & Facilitation Positive 7 9 8 Neutral 4 6 4 Negative 6 2 5 No opinion 2 2 2
In this figure, one can see that these three strategies are by at least 50% of the interviewees experienced as positive, which implies that the willingness to change is positively affected for these employees. However, the other 50% is not satisfied or more reserved. Therefore, it is interesting to see what these interviewees responded.
communication of the MT and otherwise they ask for clarification. Four employees are
neutral towards the level of communication. Two of them say that the level of communication has already improved and the other two interviewees would like to receive more information. Six interviewees are negative about the level of communication. Two of them mention for example that the reason for change has been communicated clearly, but the process itself not. Another interviewee said that a communication plan is missing. Three other interviewees have the feeling that they only receive a small piece of information.
Participation and involvement. About the level of participation, nine interviewees are positive. They are enthusiastic about the use of workgroups and they feel involved. This level of participation gives at least seven of them a better feeling about the change. Six
interviewees are more reserved. They are positive about participation in general, but they are not sure whether their input is going to be used. One interviewee said that the manager had already made a plan and that contribution in the work team was therefore not seen as very valuable for that person. Two of the interviewees experience the level of participation and involvement negative. One of them has the feeling that their ideas or not going to be used by the MT and the other would like to be involved on a higher level as this person is already working for a long time within Company X.
Therefore, the level of participation is very positive, but the level of trust in what will happen with the employees‟ input is insufficient.
Support and facilitation. The employees think different about the facilitating role of their manager. Eight of the interviewees experience the support and facilitation of their manager as positive. Four of them mention for example that the manager motivates them to think positive about the change process and see it as a chance to serve the customers better. Four employees experience the support and facilitation of the manager as neutral. Three of them say that their manager does not pay enough attention to the personal situation of employees. The
DISCUSSION
In this section, first the results of the interviews are discussed. Then it becomes possible to draw conclusions by answering the two research questions. Additionally,
recommendations to the MT are given and consequently the limitations of this research and suggestions for future research are provided.
Discussion of Results
Willingness to change. The employees‟ willingness to change is rather positive, as ten out of nineteen employees are positive about the change. The other nine employees are more neutral towards the change and none of the interviewees was totally against the change. This seems to be a positive outcome. However, it is important to discover why the ten employees are neutral instead of positive towards the change. The answers that these employees gave show that they are not against a change. They agree that change is necessary, but the current approach is not satisfying according to them. They mention for example that their feelings are ignored; that there is lack of trust; and insufficient communication. These are serious
complaints and consequences may be that they will not support or enhance the change process. Therefore, it is interesting to analyze per variable what the results indicate, as this will help to determine which specific factors leads to a lower willingness to change.
Acceptance of change. For the variable acceptance of change, one can say that more than half of the interviewees expect a positive outcome for their job and the organization as a whole. They expect for example to have better career chances and more satisfaction as a result of better customer service. However, not everybody agrees with these employees. Eight interviewees also believe that change is necessary, but not with the current approach. They are not sure that the current process will help to improve the organization. Although it seems that many employees are satisfied about the change process, there is also a group of employees that does not agree with the current situation. Moreover, the experienced emotions are positive for 50% of the interviewees. They find the change process somehow still scary, but not too much. The other 50% of the interviewees experience more negative emotions. They mention that for example a less ad hoc approach can already make a difference. It feels too hectic; they are missing a clear goal; and they say that that they receive insufficient
process of the change. They have difficulties to deal with a changing environment and do not experience enough control in order to have a positive feeling about this change. Kanter (1985) called this „excess of uncertainty‟, which implies that there is too much uncertainty for people and that they prefer the known situation above the unknown. Additionally she said that people‟s first reaction to something totally new is often resistance. Therefore, rationally these people might understand the change, but they find it difficult to deal with such an uncertain situation. These employees might sometimes even not know why they have negative feelings about a change while they totally understand the change (Kegan & Lahey, 2001). It should be noticed that each person is different. Some persons prefer to work in a stable environment, while others like dynamic environments. During organization wide changes, these differences between personal characteristics become clearer.
Requisite to change. The attitudes of colleagues towards the change is also experienced differently by the interviewees. There were two interesting results for this variable to mention. The first results was that the department 2b was seen as less positive towards the change than other departments. In addition, a reason for this attitude was given. The interviewees thought that this could be the result of the change in management and because they have been very busy in the past with building up customer relationships and therefore do not understand why change is currently needed. The other result is that there were a number of interviewees who mentioned that the director is probably positive about the change, but that they do not see or hear him enough. These two results show that it is apparently important for the employees to have frequently contact with the director and manager during uncertain times such as a change process. Lee & Teo (2005) say that „when employees feel they have leaders (...), who are empathetic and understanding, they are more likely to be cooperative and constructive. This implies for the management, that during change processes it is important to stay in close contact with the employees.
Ability to change. The influence of the variable ability to change on willingness to
of interviewees that is apparently not positive about the process. These employees mention that the communication is insufficient; that planning is not realistic; that the different stages are not communicated clear enough; that there is lack of cohesiveness between the different activities; and that it is not clear how the results of the process are going to look like. The complexity of the change process and the control of the change process are both
extern-control determinants, which implies that the organization should provide this to the employees. This is something the employees cannot control by themselves. In other words, the
complexity and the control of the change process is experienced as difficult which implies that the organization should manage these aspects better in order to support the employees in their ability to change. According to Metselaar & Cozijnsen (2005), a lot of positive energy is lost when somebody is willing to change, but not able to. This is a frustrating situation for employees. As said before, the timing is for a lot of employees also difficult, but that is not too much an issue according to the interviewees. They are loyal to the organization and would like to contribute. However, this becomes tough and frustrating when the process is too complex and when they do not experience enough control over the change process.
Managerial strategies. The different strategies used by the management can also influence the employees‟ willingness to change. The interviewees have different opinions about how the strategies are used by the management. First of all, they are most satisfied about the strategy of participation and involvement. The employees are enthusiastic about the use of workgroups and they feel involved. However, there are also at least six interviewees who are afraid that their input is not going to be used, which implies that there is cynicism towards the management. Investigations of Stanley, Meyer & Topolnytsky (2005), suggest strongly that those who are responsible for managing change are well advised to take change specific cynicism into account as their findings support a relation between change related cynicism and the intention to resist change. In other words, this lack of trust can result in a lower willingness to change. About the level of communication can be said that the reason for change has been communicated clearly and regularly. However, the process itself is not communicated clearly enough. The interviewees have the feeling that there is more
information to be shared. This makes people feel uncertain about what to expect. It would be a good idea to have a communication plan during a next change initiative, so that the
understand the change process. Burnes (2004) argues that „the establishment of a regular and effective communication process can significantly reduce people‟s levels of uncertainty. In turn this eliminates one of the major obstacles to people‟s willingness to get involved in the change process‟. The support and facilitation offered by the managers is also experienced differently by the employees. About half of the interviewees was positive about the support they receive, while there were also five interviewees who missed a people oriented manager. They said that the manager did not pay enough attention to their personal situation. This result does correspond with the result from the variable requisite to change in which was concluded that within the department 2b it was difficult to deal with the change in management. These employees missed their previous manager and had, during uncertain times, to get used to another manager.This made the change process more difficult for them, or in other words, this decreased their level of willingness to change.
Conclusions
The two research questions as stated in the introduction can now be answered:
1. What is the employees‟ willingness to change and how is it influenced by the motivational factors: acceptance of change, requisite to change and ability to change?
The relative high number of positive answers towards willingness to change is mainly because most employees understand the reason for change. This means that the reason for change is clear due to for example communication within the organization and or an
unworkable situation that does not make it difficult to be positive about a change. Although the reason for change is clear, the process itself is not seen as very clear towards the
employees. This gives some employees negative emotions about the change although they are positive towards a change in general. Besides that, it should be noticed that each person is different. Some persons prefer to have control, why others like situations that change all the time. During an organisation wide change, the difference in personal characteristics becomes clearer. Moreover, it is clear that the degree of complexity and perceived control of the
2. How can the MT positive influence the employees‟ degree of willingness to change with the help of managerial strategies such as education and communication, participation and involvement and support and facilitation?
First, the explanation of the change process could have been much better. It has become obvious that the MT has considerable influence on a change process. Especially through providing clear and timely information, it becomes easier for employees to stay involved in the change process. Change causes uncertainty and a situation that is complex and where one does not perceive a high level of control does not lead towards more willingness to change. A communication plan can help to reduce the level of complexity and uncertainty. Moreover, it became clear that a number of employees really missed empathy from the MT during the change process. The combination of these aspects are frustrating for employees and they might experience this as an obstacle to participate in the change process. Second, the level of participation during the change process has been assessed as sufficient, but there was lack of trust among the employees about what would happen with their input. Stanley, Meyer & Topolnytsky (2005) warn that change related cynicism should be taken seriously, as they found a relation between change related cynicism and the intention to resist change.
Recommendations
TABLE 9
The eight steps for successful large-scale change (Kotter & Cohen, 2002)
Step Action New Behaviour Core problem
1 Increase urgency People start telling each other “Let‟s go, we need to change things!”
Not establishing a great enough sense of urgency.
2 Build the guiding team
A group powerful enough to guide a big change is formed and they start to work together well.
Not creating a powerful enough guiding coalition.
3 Get the vision right The guiding team develops the right vision and strategy for the change effort.
Lacking a vision.
4 Communicate for buy-in
People begin to buy into the change, and this shows in their behaviour.
Undercommunicating the vision by a factor of ten.
5 Empower action More people feel able to act, and do act, on the vision.
Not removing obstacles to the new vision.
6 Create short-tem wins Momentum builds as people try to fulfil the vision, while fewer and fewer resist change.
Not systematically planning for and creating short-term wins.
7 Do not let up People make wave after wave of changes until the vision is fulfilled.
Declaring victory too soon.
8 Make change stick New and winning behaviour continues despite the pull of tradition, turnover of change leaders, etc.
Not anchoring changes in the corporation‟s culture
It is strongly advised to prepare complementary to these eight steps a communication plan as Burnes (2004) argues that the establishment of a regular and effective communication process can significantly reduce people‟s levels of uncertainty. This communication plan should contain at least:
1. The reason for change;
2. The mission and vision of the change;
3. Objectives of the change (short term and long term); 4. Time frame;
One person should be selected to make sure that the plan is used as agreed upon on and otherwise this person should explain and clarify clearly why the plan has been adjusted and what the new actions are going to be. Change initiators „must realize that both trust and work satisfaction are important ingredients for the effective functioning of an organization and to actively ensure that support systems or structures are adequate and available to mitigate the negative impact, particularly if the changes are to be implemented are extensive‟(Lee & Teo, 2005). Therefore, it is important for the change initiators to do what they promise to do. This will reduce the level of uncertainty and ambiguity so that employees are better able to participate in the change process. Preferably, the person that is appointed responsible for the communication plan is not part of the management team, as the managers should primarily focus on leading the change as this demands already a lot from managers in general. Moreover, the communication plan can be given as a sort of change handbook to the
employees. In this handbook also citations of the change initiators can be given about why the change is needed and how this is going to be achieved. In addition, citations of other
committed organization members and preferably key-persons could be included as this shows other colleagues why the change is so urgent and important (Kotter, 2002).
Third, a more general recommendation is to evaluate an implemented organizational change periodically (Holt et al. 2007). This evaluation is advised to focus on how the employees feel about the proposed change as this outcome may provide the necessary
information to take whatever actions may be needed to make the change successful. Holt et al. (2007) suggest to include in this evaluation questions about whether the employees felt the change was appropriate, believed management supported the change, felt capable to making the change successful, and believed the change was personally beneficial. These questions are in line with the conceptual model of this research but make more clear that support of the management and an appropriate implemented change are important not to forget. By
evaluating these questions one can measure whether there is a gap between the expectations of the MT and the organization members. In case of a gap, one should take actions, otherwise the change implementation would be threatened (Holt et al, 2007).
Limitations and further research
willingness to change. However, there are several other aspects influencing on a change like for example the influence of organisational culture. Edgar Schein (2004) is very clear about the role of culture as he states that „cultural understanding is desirable for all of us, but it is essential to leaders if they are to lead.‟ This implies that influencing the willingness to change is not only done via strategies such as education and communication; participation and
involvement; and support and facilitation. The organisational culture does determine how employees make decisions. Decisions are made based on norms and values. These norms and values do also play a role during a change process when employees decide whether they like the change or not. In other words, there is a clear link between the organizational culture and organizational change which is not taken into consideration during this research. A second limitation to be mentioned about the conceptual model is that the influence of personality on the willingness to change has not received a lot attention, while a number of interviewees argue that the willingness to change is for a large part determined by the personal
characteristics of the employees. However, with the help of this research one can discover other reasons for a lower willingness to change that play an important role in such a process, in addition to personality and organisational culture. Moreover, it is not very clearly from this research how the independent variables influence the dependent variable. Other researchers have approved these relationships, but it would be very strong if this research could explain this as well. A third limitation to be mentioned is the fact that the interviews were hold
between January and March 2010. Some employees were interviewed during the first stage of the change process, while others were interviewed in a later stage when more things had become clear. This is a limitation of this research as it would be better to know the opinion of the respondents of a similar situation. A fourth limitation is about the openness of the
interviewees. Although anonymity was been promised, it is very probable that people still did not feel free to talk. It might be difficult for example to talk about emotions, as people might feel embarrassed of their emotions during the change process. They also might be afraid that something they say will be used against them. The more open the interviewees have been, the better the quality of the research will be. However, my experience is that people have been really open which has been very valuable for this research.
