The influence of change recipients’ attitudes towards change on change agents’ behavior

(1)

The influence of change recipients’ attitudes

towards change on change agents’ behavior

Annelène Hofstetter

Student number: 3213196

Master Thesis MSc BA Change Management Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Groningen

Supervisor: Drs. H. P. van Peet Co-assessor: Prof. Dr. A. Boonstra

Date: 5 February 2019

(2)

Abstract

In the current literature, a main antecedent of successful change is the reaction to change of change recipients. So, the attitude of change recipients towards a change is studied extensively. However, these studies mainly focused on the attitudes on individual level and lacked on attitudes on group level and their mutual influence. In the existing literature, it is also unclear how the behavior of change agents is influenced by the attitude of change recipients on both levels. Hence, this qualitative study has researched the mutual influence of change recipients’ attitudes on individual and group level and the influence of this on change agents’ behavior. For this study, data has been collected in a youth service organization in Groningen, the Netherlands. Interviews have been conducted in the different departments of the two change managers. Two cases have been researched, using semi-structured interviews with thirteen change recipients and two change agents. Findings show that attitudes on individual and group level influence each other. Especially, the attitude on group level has an influence on attitudes on individual level. Another finding is that change recipients’ attitudes on individual level are more influenceable than attitudes on group level. However, it could also be the case that negative attitudes have a bigger influence than positive attitudes. Additionally, this research suggests that change agents are influenced by the attitude of change recipients on individual and group level.

(3)

1. Introduction

We live in a dynamic and competitive world where change is required to fit the environment (Burnes, 2011; Gordan, Stewart, Sweco & Luker, 2000). Consequently, change is ineluctable for organizations to survive and be successful (Payne, 2005). Surprisingly, most of the organizational changes fail (Burnes, 2014). Many authors have tried to identify why this is the case and which antecedents increase the successfulness of change outcomes (Rafferty, Jimmieson & Armenakis, 2013). Within the researched determinants, several authors acknowledged the importance of the relation between change agents and change recipients (Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph & DePalma, 2006; Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis, 2011). Additionally, Shin, Taylor & Seo (2012) stated that the reaction of change recipients towards the change has a strong influence on the successfulness of the change.

As mentioned above, a main antecedent of successful change is the reaction to change of change recipients (Bartunek et al., 2006; Choi, 2011; Oreg et al., 2011). In literature, this is also called change recipients’ attitudes towards change. There is a lot of research about attitudes of change recipients towards organizational change on individual level, however there is a lack of research about change recipients’ attitudes towards organizational change on group level and their mutual influence (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Paul, Van Peet & Reezigt, 2012). It is important to research the attitudes of change recipients on group level because individuals and groups interact with each other and influence each other. Individuals influence group attitude towards change (Rafferty et al., 2013) and the group influences individual attitudes towards change (George & Jones, 2001; Vakola, 2013). How they influence each other is an important question.

The behavior of change agents towards those attitudes are also important, as Bartunek et al. (2006) stated. According to Oreg et al. (2011), the behavior of change agents has direct influence on change recipients. Because of this influence, it is important to get an understanding of how change agents react to the attitudes of change recipients. It is however unclear how change agents react towards attitudes on group level and to the mutual relation of attitudes on individual and group level. Are the change agents aware of the group attitude and the mutual relation between individual and group level attitudes? And if so, are they making a distinction between these different levels of attitudes?

(6)

Despite the acknowledgement of the importance of the behavior of change agents towards attitudes of change recipients, it is usually ignored in literature (Oreg et al., 2011). This research will address this gap by acknowledging the relation between change recipients’ attitudes and the behavior of change agents. This is also a contribution to managerial interest. When change agents know how their behavior is influencing change recipients’ attitudes, they can take this into account. For example, change agents can adjust their behavior to influence change recipients’ attitudes.

To get an understanding of the relation between change recipients’ attitudes towards change on individual and group level and how these attitudes have an influence on change agents, the following research question is formulated: How do change recipients’ attitudes towards change have an influence on change agents’ behavior?

2. Literature review

To get an understanding of the mutual influence of the change recipients’ attitudes towards change on the behavior of change agents, an overview of the current essential literature is discussed. First, organizational change is discussed. Second, change recipients’ attitude on individual level is discussed followed by change recipients’ attitude on group level. The mutual influence of both is described and hereafter the change agents’ behavior is described. Finally, the theoretical framework of this research is shown.

2.1 Organizational change

Although there are several ways to implement change and there is a lot of discussion about the way organizations should change successfully (Burnes, 2014; Cawsey, Deszca & Ingols, 2012; Senior & Swailes, 2010) planned change is the way that is mostly used (Bennett, 2003; Jooste, 2004; Murphy, 2006). According to Cawsey et al. (2012), change can be seen as a planned activity that is used to improve an organization’s effectiveness. The organization has a present state where problems are experienced, and the organization tries to move towards a desired future state. In the past, a lot of research on planned change is conducted and Lewin’s change model (1952) has had an influence on research. Lewin tried to address how and why change occurs and he identified three stages of change, namely, unfreeze, change and refreeze. In the first stage, the organization should address when the change is needed. In the second stage, what needs to change is identified. In the last stage, equilibrium is established again. Besides planned change, there are other perspectives. For example, emergent change (Burnes, 2004; Mintzberg & Waters, 1985; Weick & Quinn, 1999), this is when an organization has unintentional goals and strategies. According to Burnes (2004), in emergent change, change is continuous and open-ended.

(7)

planned change, there are two key participants (Cawsey et al., 2016). First, a change agent, who is a participant that is responsible to lead the change, identify the need for change and identify the desired outcome (Ford et al., 2008). The other key participant, the change recipient, is according to Kanter, Stein & Jick (1992) the one who is responsible for implementing, adopting and adapting the desired change.

2.2 Attitudes towards change on individual level

The majority of studies on attitudes towards change are on individual level (Bouckenooghe, 2010). The researches of Armenakis & Harris (2002) and Rafferty et al. (2013) mention the influence of attitudes towards change on individual level. They state that the different antecedents that influence the attitudes of change recipients on individual level are divided into content factors, contextual factors and process factors (Penava & Šehić, 2014; Bouckenooghe, 2010). Within those antecedents, those authors mention: the impact of the change on lives of the change recipients, desirability and justification, trust in management, politics, cohesion and trust in leadership, participation, quality of change, communication, support by supervisors, attitude of top management and participation, communication and trust in management (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Penava et al, 2014).

Another approach is taken by Metselaar, Cozijnsen & van Delft (2011), who state that attitudes towards change have several causes. Where Armenakis & Harris (2002) and Rafferty et al. (2013) show the influence of attitudes towards change on individual level, Metselaar et al. (2011) show how these attitudes are created. The several causes comprise: willing to change, have to change and can change (Metselaar et al. 2011). The authors have explained these dimensions as follows. Willing to change is about the attitude towards change. It is about what change recipients think, how they feel and what their reactions are. This can be positive as well as negative. Have to change is about how the environment of the change recipients feels and thinks about the change. The environment has an influence on how strong the change recipients have the feeling that they have to change. If change recipients can change, it is related to how much control the change recipients have over the change.

(8)

the beliefs of change recipients regarding to the change. This involves the advantages, disadvantages, usefulness and necessity of a change. The beliefs of change recipients can be resistant, ready or ambivalent. The emotional attitude is about change recipients’ feelings and moods about a change. The feelings and moods of change recipients can also be resistant, ready or ambivalent. The last and third antecedent is the intentional attitude. It is about past behavior of change recipients and the intentional behavior of change recipients in the future (Piderit, 2000; Bouckenooghe, 2010; Elizur & Guttman, 1976). So, within attitudes the attitude can be expressed as resistant, ready or ambivalent.

Resistance can be defined as an active or passive response on the part of a person that militates against a change and it is coming from change recipients’ reactions, change agents’ sense making of change recipients’ reactions and change agents’ actions (Peiperl, 2005; Ford et al., 2008). Bouckenooghe (2010) mentions that there are authors who view resistance as a negative attitude (e.g., Reichers, Wanous & Austin, 1997; Wanous, Reichers & Austin 2004) and that they see it as a set of intentions and actions to maintain the status quo and slow down or hinder the implementation of change. Bouckenooghe (2010) also mentions that some authors view resistance more positive (e.g. Armenakis, Harris, & Feild, 2007; Datta, Rajagopalan, & Zhang, 2003; Herold, Fedor, & Caldwell, 2007; Meyer, Srinivas & Topolnytsky, 2007) and see it as a part of a process that fosters learning among organizational members. So, the resistance of change recipients towards change can be very helpful for change agents but it can also be counteracting.

Another response to change is readiness. Readiness can be defined as an individual’s belief, attitude and intention regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully undertake those changes (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993). This leads to individuals who form expectations about the change (Choi, 2011). According to Vakola (2013), an organizational change cannot be implemented effectively if the change recipients are not supporting the change. Hence, several studies have tried to identify how to increase the level of readiness. For example, Armenakis et al., (2007) state that efficacy, discrepancy, personal valence, organizational valence and management support are important factors to increase readiness. Efficacy is the belief that the change can be implemented, discrepancy is the belief that the change is necessary, personal valence is the belief that the change is beneficial in a personal way, organizational valence is the belief that the change is beneficial in an organizational way and management support is the belief that management is committed to the change. In addition, Jones, Jimmieson & Griffiths (2005) argue that participation among change recipients is highly important for increasing readiness.

(9)

the change but at the same time react negatively because of previous experiences. This conflicting attitude can be described as ambivalent.

2.3 Attitudes towards change on group level

The studies above mainly focus on attitudes on individual level. However, studies that only focus on attitudes on individual level and not on group level seem to be insufficient. This is the case because change recipients base their attitudes on their individual reflections but also on group sense making (Coghlan, 1994; Ford et al., 2008). Authors increasingly acknowledge that organizational change involves the organization at multiple levels, so also on group level (Rafferty et al., 2013).

The attitude on group level could be expressed as group sense making. Group sense making comes from the interactions of change recipients with other change recipients in a group (Coghlan, 1994; Ford et al., 2008). Rafferty et al. (2013) add to this that the group’s change readiness attitude emerges from the cognitions and effects of individual attitudes that become shared. These attitudes become shared because of the social interaction processes. Vakola (2013) and Rafferty et al. (2013) mention that the attitude of a group is influenced by shared perceptions and beliefs. These shared perceptions and beliefs are about the need for change, the ability to change effectively, if the group will benefit from the change and if the group has the right requirements to change. In addition, Bouckenooghe (2010), mentions that the group attitude towards change is determined by how strong an attitude is shared by the group. So, some researchers are aware of the importance of attitude towards change on group level (Vakola, 2013; Rafferty et al., 2013; Bouckenooghe, 2010), but research into the influence between attitudes towards change on individual and group level is still lacking.

2.4 Mutual influence

Attitudes on individual level influence attitudes towards change on group level in terms of social information processing (Armenakis et al., 1993). This is also defined as a sense making process. During this sense making process, individuals try to compare their schemas and consequently adjust or add new schemas to their existing schemas (George & Jones, 2001). Bartunek, Balogun & Do (2011) add that individuals share emotions and mimic emotions from others, which is called contagion. Barsade (2002) states that there are two kinds of contagion: emotional contagion and behavioral contagion. When an individual or group influences the behavior of another individual or group it is called behavioral contagion and when an individual or group influences the emotions of another individual or group it is called emotional contagion. Rafferty et al. (2013) support this; a group can have different compositions of shared emotions and an individual can have an influence on the affective attitude of the group towards the change.

(10)

attitude towards change on individual and group level (Barsade, 2002). Further, a group can have an influence on attitudes on individual level because of social influence (Lines, 2005). Social influence can be described as sense making of an individual that is affected by the social environment of the individual (Vakola, 2013). Vakola (2013) adds that individuals are more willing to support a change if the group is perceived as ready and supportive towards the change. Cummings (2004) agrees as he mentions that individuals are likely to resist change if it is not agreed by the norms and expectations of the group.

So, in current literature, it is clear there is an influence between attitudes towards change on individual level and group level. Nevertheless, there is not much research about how attitudes on individual and group level influence each other. In this study, the researcher tries to address this.

2.5 Change agents’ behavior

The behavior of change agents plays a crucial role in the successfulness of the change because they have a direct influence (Oreg et al., 2011). Despite the importance, Oreg et al. (2011) describe that the behavior of change agents is usually ignored in research. This is due to how change agents used to see the resistance of change recipients, namely as an obstacle (Oreg et al., 2011; Reezigt et al., 2016; Vakola, 2013). Consequently, current literature shows a lack of understanding of how change agents respond to the attitudes of change recipients, but the researcher tries to address this in this study.

2.5.1 Sense making and sense giving

The behavior of change agents to change recipients’ attitudes can be seen as sense making and sense giving (Sonenshein, 2010). Sense making is when change agents and change recipients try to make sense of each other’s thoughts, feelings and behaviors and give meaning to it (Sonenshein, 2010). Primarily, it consists of conversational and narrative processes. This includes different types of communication; spoken, written, formal and informal processes of interaction (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). Change agents and change recipients can have different understandings of a change because the interpretation of the communication can be different for every individual (Bartunek et al., 2006). So, it is possible that the change agent interprets the reactions of the change recipients differently than the change recipients intend their reactions. It is also possible that change agents have expectations, like self-fulfilling prophecies and self-serving accounts (Ford et al., 2008). When change agents expect resistance, they are likely to find resistance because their sense making confirms their expectation. This is called a self-fulfilling prophecy. When change agents take credit for successful change but blame other factors when a change has failed, it is called self-serving accounts (Ford et al., 2008). This can also work the other way around, as change recipients make sense of change agents’ responses as well.

(11)

& Chittipeddi, 1991). It often happens that change agents try to influence the sense making of change recipients in a more favorable attitude. This can be a very valuable way to influence change recipients’ attitudes on individual and group level, but it can also be dangerous (Vakola, 2013). Ford et al. (2008) agree, sense giving could lead to broken agreements and communication breakdowns. This can lead to disrupted trust which can lead to failure. Therefore, different strategies that a change agent can use, may have an influence on change recipients’ attitudes.

2.5.2 Change strategies

As mentioned above, change agents can use different strategies to react to and influence the attitudes of change recipients. Kottler & Schlesinger (1979) describe six influence strategies:

1) Education and communication. With this strategy, change agents inform change recipients so the change recipients understand the change itself, what is needed from the change recipients and why the change is important.

2) Participation and involvement. With this strategy, change agents involve change recipients and let them participate.

3) Facilitation and support. With this strategy, change agents support and facilitate the change so change recipients are more likely to adapt the change.

4) Negotiation and agreement. With this strategy change agents and change recipients negotiate with each other. For example, this can be used when change recipients’ attitude towards change is resistance or ambivalence.

5) Manipulation and co-optation. With this strategy, change recipients who are resistant or ambivalent towards change get involved with the change and the decision-making process.

6) Explicit and implicit coercion. With this strategy, change agents can use their power to insist a change will pursue.

Other strategies of change agents to influence change recipients are leadership behaviors. Higgs & Rowland (2011) make a distinction in three change leadership behaviors:

1) Shaping behavior. In this style, the communication and actions of the change agent are all related to the change. Change agents make others accountable and they use an individual focus.

2) Framing change. In this style, change agents establish a starting point for change. Change agents design and manage the change and communicate guiding principles in the organization.

(12)

According to Higgs & Rowland (2011), using both ‘framing change’ and ‘creating change’ are related to change success. So, strategies that focus on engaging change recipients and not on shaping behaviors are more likely to be successful. However, it is unclear which strategies and behaviors change agents will use as a reaction towards the attitudes of change recipients.

2.5.3 Change influencing tactics

Next to different strategies, change agents can also use influencing tactics as a reaction to change recipients’ attitudes. Falbe & Yukl (1992) identified nine influencing tactics that were proactively used by change agents.

1) Inspirational appeals. This happens when change agents make use of the change recipients’ values and ideas to make an appealing proposal. Change agents could also increase change recipients’ confidence by telling them that they can start working on the requested proposal. If change agents want to use this tactic, they need to know what the values and ideas of change recipients are. 2) Consultation. This happens when change agents seek change recipients to participate in the change

process. When change recipients feel accountable and they have developed a more positive attitude towards the change after participation, the participation has increased the commitment.

3) Personal appeals. This happens when change agents appeal to change recipient’s loyalty and friendship for the change agent to do something outside their job description. This can lead to commitment, compliance, or resistance.

4) Exchange. This happens when change agents offer something in return to change recipients if they do a request, so they exchange. This can lead to commitment, compliance, or resistance.

5) Ingratiation. This happens when change agents try to make change recipients feel positive about the change agent him/herself before making a proposal. Giving compliments, acting friendly and doing favors are examples of ingratiation tactics.

6) Rational persuasion. This happens when change agents use rational arguments to convince change recipients that the change is necessary. This is most effective when change agents share the same objective as the change recipients. Therefore, rational persuasion can turn out as commitment or resistance.

7) Legitimating. This happens when with the help of authority, change agents make requests towards change recipients. For example, change agents can use rules, policies or traditions of the organization to do requests.

8) Coalition. This happens when change agents use others to influence change recipients. This can lead to compliance or resistance.

(13)

These tactics are often combined with each other. Legitimating, pressure, and coalition are the three least effective tactics. According to Falbe & Yukl (1992), these tactics will most likely result in resistance or compliance. Inspiration, consultation and personal appeals will most likely result in commitment. However, it is unclear which tactics change agents use when confronted with attitudes of change recipients.

2.6 Theoretical framework

In figure 1, the theoretical framework is presented. The main concepts are described in the theoretical background and the theoretical framework derived from this. In this research, the aim is to get a deeper understanding of the relation between change recipients’ attitudes towards change on individual and group level and the influence of these attitudes on the behavior of change agents.

(14)

Figure 1. Theoretical framework

3. Method

As mentioned earlier, how attitudes on individual level and group level influence each other and how this influences the behavior of the change agent has not been researched extensively in the current literature. Therefore, theory development fits best within the concepts of this research (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012). The concept that is researched is the relation between the change recipients’ attitudes and the behavior of change agents. Case studies are useable for ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions (Eisenhardt, 1989; Van Aken et al., 2012), so this study will be conducted in a case study.

3.1 Research site

In this paragraph, the research site will be described. First, the organization Wilster-Het Poortje will be described. Second, the change will be explained.

3.1.1 The organization

(15)

Poortje, there are six different departments, with 8-10 children each. These departments are called: Blauw, Bruin, Groen, Oranje, Rood, and Roze. Within these departments, there are three behavioral psychologists and sixty pedagogical employees. Every department has a manager, there are two managers in total. The departments Bruin and Rood have the same manager. This manager is also the manager of the flex employees and the system supervisors. The other manager is the manager of departments Blauw, Groen, Oranje, and Roze. The departments have their own wing in the building, so they are physically separated. The employees of the different departments see each other only in general meetings or in the canteen.

3.1.2 The change

In 2018, the government of the Netherlands decided that youth services will no longer be allowed to separate children. The separation includes children who are locked up in a room or in a separation cell. At the moment youth services are authorized to separate children when they are a danger to themselves or to their surroundings. The government of the Netherlands imposes that youth services are not allowed to separate children from the beginning of 2020. Different youth services, including Wilster-Het Poortje, signed an agreement of bringing an end to the separation of children in 2020. The Management Team of Wilster-Het Poortje has the ambition of bringing down the separation of children at the beginning of 2019 instead of 2020. So, one year in advance. Next to this change project, there is another change project; reduce the freedom restrictions of children. A child can get restricted in freedom when he or she is rebellious, he or she won’t listen or when employees do not have control over the child. The employees can restrict the freedom of the child by putting the child in his or her own room.

To reach the goal of no separations, the change project is guided by two change agents. The change agents are also the managers of the different departments. In the summer of 2018, the change agents have set up a group, called ‘de werkgroep’. This group is formed with the change recipients because the work activities of the change recipients are mostly affected. The change recipients can think along with the change because only the end goal stands firm. How to reach this end goal and how this change has an influence on the work activities of the change recipients is not clear yet, this is something ‘de werkgroep’ has to realize. This change at Wilster-Het Poortje does not have a specific name but the employees talk about it as ‘declining of separation’ or ‘declining the freedom restrictions’.

3.2 Research approach and case selection

(16)

A multiple-case sampling increases the validity of the research (Miles & Huberman, 1994) and the results of a case study are more robust than a single-case study (Blumberg et al., 2014). So, a multiple-case study is conducted in this research. This method allows the researcher to research the stated theory with a real-life phenomenon (Blumberg et al., 2014). The theory-development process as Eisenhardt (1989) described is partly used for theory building. The theory includes using multiple data collection methods, conducting case analysis and cross-case analysis and a literature comparison. In this study, within-case analysis and a cross-within-case analysis are conducted and a literature comparison is made. However, due to the time limit, conducting interviews is the only data collection method that is used. So, multiple data collection method is not used in this study.

The selection of the cases is very important in this research in order to be able to build a theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). Therefore, the following criteria were used to select a case: (1) the organization in the case is in the Netherlands, (2) there is a recent change project within the organization, (3) the change manager and the change recipients have contact on a regular basis, (4) the teams consist of a minimum of eight change recipients, (5) the change manager is the manager of the team, (6) the change is initiated from the top.

Two cases have been selected with the same change project. To make a distinction in the cases, there is made a difference between the two change agents and their departments. So, case 1 is about departments Bruin/Rood and their manager and case 2 is about departments Blauw/Groen/Oranje/Roze and their manager. All the departments have the same work activities, but they have different children in each group. Therefore, it is expected by the researcher that the results of both cases are more or less the same. However, due to differences in change agents/managers and the number of teams, there may be a difference between the cases.

3.3. Data collection

The data collection took place from September 2018 until December 2018 in the Netherlands. In this paragraph, the data collection is discussed. The interviews took place in Groningen, at the location of Wilster-Het Poortje. The interviews were semi-structured. Within the semi-structured interviews, there was room for additional questions. The first two interviews were seen as pilot interviews. These were the interviews with 1-CR-1 and 2-CR-1. After the pilot interviews, the interview guides were adjusted. The data of the pilot interviews are included in the research results. The final interview guide of the change recipients can be found in Appendix B and the final interview guide of the change agents can be found in Appendix C.

(17)

the pedagogical employees’ list of all departments. Two behavioral psychologists were also selected random, by picking their name out of a box. Per case, there was a minimum of two interviews and the original plan was to have 16 interviews in total: twelve interviews with pedagogical employees of the departments, two with behavioral psychologists and two with the change managers. Unfortunately, one of the interviews with a pedagogical employee of department Oranje was canceled several times. Because of the time, it was not possible to rearrange another interview. The final number of interviews was fifteen. An overview of the participants can be found in table 1.

Case 1 Departments Rood/Bruin Case 2 Departments Blauw/Groen/Oranje/Roze

1-CA-1 (Manager /Change agent) 2-CA-1 (Manager Rood/Bruin/Change agent) 1-CR-1 (Behavioral psychologist/Change recipient) 2-CR-1 (Behavioral psychologist/Change recipient) 1-CR-2 (Pedagogical employee/Change recipient) 2-CR-2 (Pedagogical employee/Change recipient) 1-CR-3 (Pedagogical employee /Change recipient) 2-CR-3 (Pedagogical employee/Change recipient) 1-CR-4 (Pedagogical employee /Change recipient) 2-CR-4 (Pedagogical employee/Change recipient) 1-CR-5 (Pedagogical employee/Change recipient) 2-CR-5 (Pedagogical employee/Change recipient) 2-CR-6 (Pedagogical employee/Change recipient) 2-CR-7 (Pedagogical employee/Change recipient) 2-CR-8 (Pedagogical employee/Change recipient)

Table 1. Overview participants

There is made a difference in interview guides between the interviews with the change recipients and the interviews with the change agents. The interviews were all focused on the same change, mentioned above. Additionally, by interviewing both change agents and change recipients, the respondents’ biases were controlled for. This ensured that all crucial roles were represented in the sample (van Aken et al., 2012).

3.4 Data analysis

(18)

Starting with a within-case analysis allowed the researcher to gain initial familiarity with the cases individually (Eisenhardt, 1989). Besides, it allowed the researcher to find unique patterns within each case (Eisenhardt, 1989). The cross-case analysis was used to find patterns, similarities, and differences between the cases, which allowed the researcher to search for evidence of a relationship between change recipients’ attitudes towards organizational change and change agents’ behavior. Finally, the results of the analysis were compared with the existing literature, which resulted in propositions to extend the existing literature (Eisenhardt, 1989).

3.5 Controllability, validity and reliability

In this research, the researcher paid attention to controllability, validity, and reliability. According to Van Aken et al. (2012), controllability is necessary if you want to evaluate validity and reliability. In this research, all the research activities are described in detail. The description of the research activities can be found in the method section above. To increase the validity, the interview questions were based on literature and checked by an expert. Because of the use of different cases and different participants, the validity is also increased. To have high reliability, the bias of the researcher is reduced by making interview guides for the change recipients and change agents and all the interviews were held by the same researcher. Furthermore, the interviews were semi-structured and recorded. To reduce the bias of the participants, different participants of different departments were interviewed.

4. Results

In this section, the results are discussed. First, the change project is described. Secondly, the within-case analysis of cases 1 and 2 is described. The within-case analysis consists of a description of the case, a description of the researched change recipients’ attitudes, the relation between attitude on individual and group level, the change agent’s behavior and a summary. Furthermore, a cross-case analysis is described. In the cross-case analysis, the two cases are compared to look for similarities, differences, and patterns.

4.1 The change project

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the government of the Netherlands imposed the change of the separation of children. From the beginning of 2020, Wilster-Het Poortje is, like other youth services, no longer allowed to separate children. Furthermore, the Management Team of Wilster-Het Poortje has the ambition of bringing down this separation one year in advance. So, Wilster-Het Poortje’s goal is to have no separations from the beginning of 2019.

(19)

change agent is the manager of departments Blauw, Groen, Oranje, and Roze. In the summer of 2018, the change agents have set up a group, called ‘de werkgroep’. The formation of this group consists of change recipients and one change agent. The change agent and manager of departments Rood and Bruin is the change agent that is in ‘de werkgroep’. In ‘de werkgroep’ the change recipients are invited to think along with the change. In fact, the change recipients have to think about how the change can be successful and what is needed to make the change successful. So, the change recipients do not only have to think along with the change process but also give input about what needs to change in order to reach the end goal of the change.

4.2 Within-case analysis

In this paragraph, the within-case analysis will be described. First, the case of departments Bruin and Rood will be described in detail. Second, the case of departments Blauw, Groen, Oranje, and Roze will be described in detail.

4.2.1 Case 1. Departments Bruin/Rood

The departments Bruin and Rood each consist of 8.6 FTE pedagogical employees and each department has ten children to take care of. As mentioned, the manager of these departments is also the manager of flex employees and system supervisors. The manager manages the processes of the work activities and is in this case also the change agent. The behavioral psychologist is supporting the manager on work activities, she decides what treatment is needed for the children and makes a diagnosis of the children. The departments Bruin and Rood have one manager (1-CA-1), one behavioral psychologist (1-CR1) and 20 pedagogical employees (1-CR-2, 1-CR-3, 1-CR-4 and 1-CR-5 are four of them).

Change recipients’ attitudes on individual level

The cognitive attitude of the change recipients is ambivalent. Four out of five change recipients said their first reaction was resistant, like 1-CR-5 said: “That is not possible, that was my first reaction”. After the first reaction, the change recipients are more positive about the vision of the change but see still see a lot of disadvantages in the change. 1-CR-5 said: “It is necessary, I get the thought behind it but in some cases, it is not possible. The safety will be in danger”. Only 1-CR-1, the behavioral psychologist, is ready for the change (1-CR-1): “I think it is definitely possible for us to no longer separate children”. The affective attitude of the change recipients is resistant. Only 1-CR-1 shows readiness. For example, 1-CR-2 feels frustrated and 1-CR-4 feels skeptical. The intentional attitude is also resistant, as 1-CR-5 said: “Wherever it comes up, in the team meeting or with colleagues or whatever, I will tell them my opinion”.

(20)

work as much with the children directly as the other change recipients. The fact that only the attitude of 1-CR-1 is readiness might have something to do with the difference in function.

As a reaction to the change, change recipients come up with different alternatives for the change. Three change recipients say they are waiting for alternatives so the change can succeed, they are not actively involved in thinking about these alternatives. Two of the other change recipients mention that there needs to be more personnel, like 1-CR-3 said: “I think it’s good that they are looking at the workforce, because that is quite a big part”. Other alternatives that were mentioned are different rooms for the children and another building for the organization.

Change recipients’ attitudes on group level

The attitudes on group level are based on the attitudes of the change recipients of departments Bruin and Rood. The two departments are seen as one group because there wasn’t a difference between those departments. Therefore, when the researcher talks about the group, departments Bruin and Rood are meant. The cognitive attitude on group level of the change recipients is divided between change recipients who are cooperating with the change and change recipients who are negative. As the change agent describes: “It’s two sided, on one side it’s a good idea but, simply said, it will never work, or it won’t be feasible in practice”.

The affective attitude of the group is ambivalent. At first, the group felt fear (1-CR-2): “People are afraid of aggression”. But after some time, the first emotion settled down and people start to think differently (1-CR-2): “The time of only being negative is over, you have to think along with the team”. The intentional attitude of the group is resistant as stated by the change recipients (1-CR-4): “We dragged our heels and didn’t really work against but also didn’t cooperate”. And as 1-CR-5 said: “So there was a little resistance to the fact that there was a change coming. And the main question was: how are we going to do that”.

(21)

Influence between change recipients’ attitude on individual and group level

There is a form of influencing in three different ways. There is influencing in team meetings, general meetings and from informal leaders. The change recipients talk about the change with each other, especially at the beginning when they first heard about the change. After the first emotions and reactions, the employees let it go for a while (1-CR-1): “It has gone away a little because we don’t hear as much about it as in the beginning”. The change recipients feel free to speak about the change and feel comfortable enough to say what they think (1-CR-3): “Yes, in my team they can. Everyone can speak freely during a meeting”.

Only the behavioral psychologist says that there is contagion (1-CR-1): “I think it has always been an influencing process”. All the other four change recipients say that they don’t influence others, especially not on purpose (1-CR-20): “Maybe but not on purpose. But if you give your opinion in a team meeting, maybe you are fixed on your own mindset and you don’t think about influencing other people” and (1-CR-4): “It’s not like that we are like a pack that just follows each other because people are too scared to have their own opinion. Everyone can be very clear about their opinion. And we have space in our team for that, so it doesn’t affect each other”.

Furthermore, the change recipients also don’t feel influenced by others. Only one recipient says she takes it into account (1-CR-3): “Yes, more in a way to take with you and to think about”. However, later in the interview, the same recipient says: “I don’t let other people influence me. I can think peacefully about how I think about such things”.

However, the change agent sees some influencing by the social influence (1-CA-1): “I think that the informal leaders are a few people who are against or are in a way troubled/feared about the change. That has a lot of effect on the whole process and I don’t have strong informal leaders yet who are very much positive about the change and by that influence the process”. The change agent noticed that the informal leaders influence the attitude of change recipients on individual and group level in a negative way. Nonetheless, the change recipients don’t mention this influence.

Change agent’s behavior

According to change recipients the change agent tried to make sense of the attitudes of the change recipients, like 1-CR-2 said: “She definitely gave attention to our reactions”. The change agent also tried to influence the sense making of the change recipients (1-CR-2): “So she certainly has tried to adjust everything”. So, the change agent listens to others and tries to understand their opinion.

(22)

the change agent of case 1 (1-CA-1), a behavioral psychologist and herself (1-CR-1). After a short period of time, they involved more change recipients like pedagogical employees. ‘De werkgroep’ was set up as a method to invite change recipients to think along with the change. This was not a reaction of the change agents towards the attitude of change recipients. ‘De werkgroep’ felt the need to involve more change recipients since the change had a big influence on the change recipients’ work activities. The change agent (1-CA-1) said: “As a metaphor: Actually, we have decided to buy a new car, but we haven’t said which brand or which color and on what kind of gas, so how and what is still left to decide. But it isn’t always experienced that way by the change recipients”.

After some more time, the change agent noticed the resistance of the change recipients on individual and group level. She decided that ‘de werkgroep’ was missing a ‘critical friend’. They invited a change recipient that was against the change to think along with the group. 1-CR-1 said: “I am very happy that the people we’ve invited are very critical about that process, that they think along and that we can take them with us during this process”. So, at the moment ‘de werkgroep’ consists of seven people. The change agent (1-CA-1), behavioral psychologist (1-CR-1) and five pedagogical employees are involved in thinking along with the change, come up with alternatives and come up with ideas. Though, not only the change recipients in ‘de werkgroep’ feel like they are involved in the change, also the other change recipients. Like, 1-CR-2 said: “You feel like they take you more seriously, you get invited to think along”. However, not every change recipient knows how they can get involved, two change recipients don’t know who are involved in ‘de werkgroep’. One change recipient didn’t even know ‘de werkgroep’ existed.

Another influencing strategy of the change manager used is ‘explicit and implicit coercion’. The change agent said: “I have a very clear focus on this vision and where the organization wants to go, and we don’t water that down” and the change recipients feel this pressure. Other influencing strategies and tactics weren’t used according to the change agent and change recipients.

The change recipients are not satisfied with the whole change process. Three out of five change recipients mention that they want better communication regarding the change. As 1-CR-3 said: “I would like it if that would be set as a fixed agenda item”. They said it would be nice to have it as a subject on the agenda in a meeting and that they hear more constantly about the change.

Influence of attitudes on the change agent’s behavior

(23)

but I adjusted ‘de werkgroep’ gradually”. The other influencing strategy was not a reaction towards the change recipients. The influencing strategy ‘explicit and implicit coercion’ was a strategy that the change agent (1-CA-1) has used from the beginning of the change and she did not let the change recipients influence.

Summary case 1

On individual level the majority of the change recipients show ambivalence in their cognitive attitude, resistance on affective attitude and resistance on intentional attitude. Only the behavioral psychologist (1-CR-1) shows readiness. This might have to do with the fact that the work activities of the behavioral psychologist are less influenced by the change. On the attitudes on group level the attitudes are the same as on individual level. All the change recipients mention the influence of the length of tenure on change recipients’ attitudes, the longer people work at Wilster-Het Poortje, the more resistance they showed. People with longer tenure are used to a certain way of working in a more closed environment. Additionally, all the change recipients don’t feel influenced by others and only one recipient (1-CR-1) says she influences others. The change agent, however, noticed some influencing by social influence, especially from informal leaders. The informal leaders have an influence on individual and group level in a negative way. Another reaction of the change recipients was that they came up with different alternatives for the change to succeed. Two change recipients said there is a need for more personnel, one change recipient mentioned the need for different rooms or a different building for the change to be successful and three change recipients are waiting for the change agent or ‘de werkgroep’ to come up with alternatives.

‘De werkgroep’ is set up to involve change recipients in the change, as a form of the influencing strategy ‘participation and involvement’. The formation of ‘de werkgroep’ has changed two times during the change, the second time it was a response of the change agent to the change recipients’ reactions on individual and group level. Because of the similarity of change recipients’ attitude on individual and group level, it is not clear which level has a bigger influence on the behavior of the change agent. Another influencing strategy that is used, is ‘explicit and implicit coercion’. The change agent listens to the change recipients and tries to understand their opinion but is also very clear in her vision and goals. The change agent shows that the goal is still remaining. Within this strategy, the change agent is not influenced by the change recipients’ attitudes.

The change recipients are not fully satisfied with the change process. As improvements, they mention more communication about the change process and ‘de werkgroep’.

4.2.2 Case 2. Departments Blauw/Groen/Oranje/Roze

(24)

is in this case also the change agent. The behavioral psychologist is supporting the manager on work activities, she decides what treatment is needed for the children and makes a diagnosis of the children. The departments Blauw, Groen, Oranje, and Roze have one manager CA-1), two behavioral psychologist (2-CR-1 is one of them) and 36 pedagogical employees (2-CR-2, 2-CR-3, 2-CR-4, 2-CR-5, 2-CR-6, 2-CR-7 and 2-CR-8 are seven of them).

Change recipients’ attitudes on individual level

The cognitive attitude of only two out of eight change recipients is fully positive, as 2-CR-2 said: “I would rather do no more separations. From the beginning, before I worked here when it was a criminal justice system, I always thought why? That’s not necessary at all. But I’m the kind of person that likes to help instead of giving penalties”. One change recipient (1-CR-1) even said that the change was one of the reasons she wanted to work at Wilster-Het Poortje. They both only see advantages of the change and they know from literature or from experience that this change can help children. The other six change recipients have a mixed cognitive attitude like 2-CR-5 said: “Yes I think it is very good that they want to cut back. But we don’t put someone in an isolated room when it is not necessary or without reason”. The change recipients who have mixed attitudes believe that separation is necessary to help the children.

Within the affective attitude, resistance is dominant. Three change recipients said they felt frustrated (2-CR-3): “Like oh god, there we go again and also a little bit of frustration I think”. The change recipients feel frustrated because they feel like the government has no idea what pedagogical employees do within Wilster-Het Poortje. One recipient felt so frustrated and misunderstood that he wrote a letter to the government (2-CR-6): “Then I wrote an urgent letter to the government, to youth care and the ‘ombudsvrouw’”. Only two change recipients feel good about the change, one of them is the behavioral psychologist (2-CR-1): “When I first heard it, I was very happy and was in full agreement. Yes, I think it’s only good. I thought it was more an issue that there was separation going on and I was very surprised by that when I heard they still did that”.

(25)

The change has a big influence on the work activities of the change recipients. All of the change recipients say it has an impact on their primary work activities. The behavioral psychologist says the influence has a fewer impact on her work activities because she doesn’t work as much with the children directly as the other change recipients.

As a reaction to the change, change recipients came up with different alternatives for the change. Three change recipients mentioned the personnel issue, there is a need for more personnel so the change can succeed. One change recipient mentioned that the groups of children should be smaller or there needs to be more personnel so the pedagogical employee can give enough attention to the child instead of separating them immediately. Two of the other change recipients are waiting for alternatives like 2-CR-5 said: “I’m curious about how they will do it”.

Change recipients’ attitudes on group level

The attitudes on group level are based on the attitudes of the change recipients of departments Blauw, Groen, Oranje, and Roze. The four departments are seen as one group because there wasn’t a difference between those departments. Therefore, when the researcher talks about the group, departments Blauw, Groen, Oranje, and Roze are meant. The cognitive attitude on group level is quite diverse, like the change agent (2-CA-1) said: “Very diverse and wide-ranging like: are you out of your mind? But then in other words: Jesus, what would be left for us that we can do? But also: okay and what is the added value?”. But the greater part of the group’s attitude is ambivalent. They know the advantages but think that it is dangerous (2-CR-8): “I think that most of the people will agree with that it is not helpful for these children to be separated. But if you look at it from your own aspect, I think that most people have an opinion that separation is good for their own safety”.

All the change recipients mention that the feelings of change recipients on group level are negative. They fear for their own safety (2-CR-2): “And there just is a lot of fear for aggression, that it goes wrong with suicidal attempts”. In addition, 2-CR-1 said: “Their first commonly reaction is: But what happens with the safety? How will our safety be guaranteed? So, I think that people are mostly scared”.

The intentional reaction that is shown is resistance. One change recipient tried to change her working process but felt resistance from her team (2-CR-2): “I’ve only been here for 6 months and I find that I work differently. I still get resistance from my colleagues if I try something new”.

(26)

Five change recipients say that they don’t influence others (2-CR-5): “I give my opinion but not with the intention to influence others. It’s just a subject to talk about”. Another recipient says that she doesn’t get influenced by others because of the atmosphere in the group. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion (2-CR-3): “Nobody is trying to convince someone, they do give advice, and then I think well yes I could try this and see how it will work out and if it does work out it’s nice but you are helping each other more than you try to convince someone. I don’t feel that pressure at all”.

The other three change recipients say that they do influence others. For example, 2-CR-4, who is ambivalent about the change, says that she thinks she has an influence on others: “I think that I do have an influence on others”. 2-CR-4 says that change recipients influence each other in a way that they temper their resistance.

The two change recipients that are very positive about the change try to influence others with their readiness, but they feel like it has no influence on the group (2-CR-1): “No, I think that I have an influence on individuals but on the team… No, I think that I don’t have an influence on the group as a whole”. They feel like it is wasted energy to fight the resistance of the group (2-CR-2): “But I do notice, that for example, in a meeting I’ve thought like: okay it will be a waste of energy if I give my opinion about this. So, I keep quiet”. So, change recipients who feel positive about the change, are influenced by others. They don’t feel the need to fight against resistance because of all the negative reactions. Although, the same change recipient said that she is not influenced by others (2-CR-2): “No, because that’s not something I’m very susceptible for. They probably will try. But it won’t have an influence”.

According to the change agent, there are some informal leaders (2-CA-1): “Here we have employees with a very strong view. Most of the time there are informal leaders and if they say left, the whole team hears left and then all the negativity just slides away for a bit and they think oh well it should be left then”. The change agent noticed that there is an influence of these informal leaders in a negative way on individual and group level. However, the change recipients have not mentioned the influence of informal leaders on the group.

Change agent’s behavior

(27)

company he will hear ‘yes but that’s not possible’, so he is somewhere in between. He is in between the black and white area… and he would like to enter the grey area”. The change recipients also say that the change agent downgraded the goals of the change like 2-CR-7 said: “The first goal of no separation has been downgraded to okay as little separation as possible. So there already is a modification”. Therefore, the behavior of the change agent is a reaction towards change recipients’ attitudes on individual and group level. The dominant attitude on individual and group level is resistance and the change agent reacted on that. Other influencing strategies and tactics weren’t used according to the change agent and change recipients.

The two change recipients who are positive about the change say that the change agent might use the influencing strategy ‘explicit and implicit coercion’ more (2-CR-2): “My opinion is that it could be more authoritative”. They feel that the change agent can use his power more to force the change.

Another aspect that comes up a lot is that the change agent listens to everyone and wants everyone to be happy with him (2-CR-1): “No he is very yielding with everyone. He always wants everything to be okay and that it stays okay for everyone, he is not that confrontational man. So, he would say one thing to me and another thing to someone else to keep everyone happy”. Because the change agent wants to keep everyone happy, he listens to everyone but does not take action. Change recipients don’t feel heard and they feel like it is not necessary to tell the change agent anything because he only listens to it and doesn’t take action (2-CR-3): “You can say anything, but after saying things to him, you know he only listened, but nothing will happen with what you just said. So, you get tired of just telling your opinion”. In other words, the change agent (2-CA-1) doesn’t react to the attitudes of change recipients.

As mentioned in the within-case analysis of case 1, ‘de werkgroep’ is set up by both change agents. In this case, all the change recipients knew ‘de werkgroep’ existed. However, three change recipients don’t know who is in ‘de werkgroep’ and only two know exactly who are in it. What is remarkable, is that two change recipients mention the fact that there are a lot of groups, almost one for every project within Wilster-Het Poortje. For one change recipient, this is also a reason to not join this group (2-CR-2): “I’m already in different groups, two I think”.

(28)

Influence of attitudes on the change agent’s behavior

The behavior of the change agent is in most cases not influenced by the attitude of change recipients on individual and group level. The change agent listens but does not take action, so he doesn’t react to the change recipients’ attitude. However, the change agent does react towards change recipients’ attitude within the influencing strategy ‘negotiation and agreement’. The dominant attitude of change recipients on individual and group level is resistance and the change agent is open for negotiation about the end goal of the change. Therefore, the behavior of the change agent is influenced by the attitude of change recipients. Because of the similarity of change recipients’ attitude on individual and group level, it is not clear which level has a bigger influence on the behavior of the change agent.

Summary case 2

In case 2 the cognitive reaction of the change recipients is ambivalent. Only two of the change recipients show readiness, the behavioral psychologist (2-CR-1) is one of them. The affective reaction of the change recipients is resistance, they feel frustration. The intentional attitude of change recipients is also resistance. Only the two change recipients who have a positive cognitive and affective reaction, show readiness. The attitude on group level is the same as the dominant attitude on individual level. The change recipients and the change agent mention the difference in attitude between people who worked at Wilster-Het Poortje for a longer period of time. The people who have a longer tenure at Wilster-Het Poortje, have experienced a lot of changes before and for them is really feels like a big change as for the newer employees, it feels more like new information. Another reaction towards the change is that change recipients came up with different alternatives for the change to be successful. Improvements that were mentioned are: more personnel and smaller groups of children. In addition, two change recipients are waiting for alternatives from the change agent or ‘de werkgroep’.

Every change recipient of case 2 knew that there was set up a group (‘de werkgroep’) but only two change recipients know exactly who are in it. The change recipients mention that there are a lot of groups and one change recipient even mentioned that this is one of the reasons she is not in ‘de werkgroep’.

(29)

The majority of the time, the change agent does not react to the attitudes of change recipients on individual and group level. However, when the change agent used ‘negotiation and agreement’ as an influencing strategy his behavior was influenced by the attitude of change recipients on individual and group level. Because of the similarity of change recipients’ attitude on individual and group level, it is not clear which level has a bigger influence on the behavior of the change agent. The change recipients that are positive about the change, both mention that the change agent could use his power more often and use the influencing strategy ‘explicit and implicit coercion’. The change recipients mention more improvements for the change agent: improvement of communication, the need for more understanding of the change agent and the need for a plan.

4.3 Cross case analysis

In this paragraph, the two cases will be compared to each other in order to find patterns and differences. The findings of case 1 are compared with the findings of case 2. In Appendix E, a comparison between cases 1 and 2 is shown.

Attitudes of change recipients on individual and group level

All of the change recipients of the different cases approximately react in the same way. In both cases, the majority of the change recipients show the same attitude on individual level and group level. The cognitive attitude of both cases on individual level and group level is ambivalent. The affective attitude of both cases on individual level and group level is resistance. The intentional attitude of both cases on individual level and group level is resistance. It is remarkable, that in both cases the behavioral psychologists show readiness towards the change. In case 2 there is only one other change recipient besides the behavioral psychologist who shows readiness, in case 1 only the behavioral psychologist shows readiness.

In both cases, the change recipients say that the tenure at Wilster-Het Poortje has an influence on the attitude. They say that people who work for a longer tenure at Wilster-Het Poortje, have more trouble coping with the change. However, the change recipients who participated in this research with a longer tenure at Wilster-Het Poortje, don’t have a different attitude than the change recipients who have a shorter tenure at Wilster-Het Poortje.

(30)

In case 1, only one recipient (the behavioral psychologist, 1-CR-1) says she influences others. All the other change recipients say that they don’t influence others and don’t get influenced by others. The change recipient who said she influences others is positive about the change. In case 2, three out of eight change recipients say they do influence others and the behavioral psychologist (2-CR-1) is one of them. In case 2, the two change recipients who are positive about the change stopped trying to influence others as hard as they did in the beginning. They feel that is wasted energy and they don’t get enough back-up from the change agent. In case 2, two out of three change recipients who say they influence others are positive about the change. Remarkably, in case 1 the change recipients don’t feel influenced by others and in case 2 only the change recipients who are positive about the change are influenced by others. What is also remarkable, is the fact that the positive change recipients of case 2 feel that they have a bigger influence on individuals than on the group.

In both cases, the change agents see that change recipients get influenced by informal leaders on individual and group level. The informal leaders are negative about the change and influence others negatively according to both change agents. However, it is remarkable that in both cases the informal leaders aren’t mentioned by the change recipients.

Change agents’ behavior

The behavior of the change agents differs in each case. In case 1, the change agent’s most used influencing strategy is ‘participation and involvement’. The change recipients feel involved in the change and they feel that they can participate in the change, even though they are not all in ‘de werkgroep’. Within the influencing strategy ‘participation and involvement’, the change agent is influenced by the change recipients’ attitude once: the second time the formation changed. In other situations, the behavior of the change agent is not influenced by the attitude of change recipients. In case 2, the change agent’s most used influencing strategy is different. He used ‘negotiation and agreement’ as an influencing strategy. Within this strategy, the behavior of the change agent is influenced by the attitudes of the change recipients. But again, in other situations, the behavior of the change agent is not influenced by attitudes of change recipients. In fact, the change agent doesn’t react at all towards the attitudes of change recipients. In both cases, it is not clear if the behavior of the change agent is more influenced by the change recipients’ attitudes on individual or group level because there is no difference in attitudes. So, both change agents are influenced by the change recipients’ attitudes once.

(31)

recipients know exactly who are in it. So, although in case 1, one change recipient doesn’t know the existence, it seems that in case 1 it is more known than in case 2.

In case 1 the change recipients all feel heard and taken seriously but also know that the change agent is serious about this change and doesn’t negotiate about the outcome. However, in case 2, the change recipients don’t feel heard. They feel like it doesn’t make a difference if they tell their opinions individually or as a group. They feel that the change agent only listens to them but doesn’t take action. Another remarkable difference between the cases is the fact that the change recipients of case 2 think the end goal of the change (no separation) is no longer the end goal. These change recipients think that the goal is downgraded to as little separations as possible. In contrast to the change recipients of case 2, the change recipients of case 1 still believe the end goal is no separations. Another difference in the change agents’ behavior, is that the change agent of case 1 uses the influencing strategy ‘explicit and implicit coercion’ and the change agent of case 2 doesn’t use this strategy, even though two change recipient of case 2 ask for an approach with more use of authority. Adding to this, the change recipients of both cases came up with different improvements for the change process.

A similarity that came up in both cases is the communication: the change recipients said there is a need for more communication from the change agent or ‘de werkgroep’ about the change process. Another similarity is that change recipients don’t feel that the change agents understand their emotions and ideas. However, this occurs more often in case 2 than in case 1. In case 2, the change recipients had more improvements; make a plan, use more authority and show more support. The fact that in case 2 there are more improvements mentioned might have to do with the fact that there are more change recipients in that case or with the difference in behavior of the change agents.

The differences between the change agents might have to do with the difference in tenure at Wilster-Het Poortje. The change agent of case 1 is working at Wilster-Wilster-Het Poortje for 2 years now and the change manager of case 2 is working there for 12 years. Another difference is that the change manager of case 1 is fully convinced that it is possible for Wilster-Het Poortje to have zero separations where the change manager of case 2 is not so sure. Because of the longer tenure at Wilster-Het Poortje, the change agent of case 2 sees how much Wilster-Het Poortje has already changed. For the change agent of case 2, the change history of Wilster-Het Poortje plays a role whereas for change agent of case 1 it doesn’t. Another difference between the change agents is the difference in the number of groups. The change agent of case 1 has fewer groups to manage than the change agent of case 2.

The influence of change recipients’ attitudes towards change on change agents’ behavior