Individual- and collective attitudes towards change: a case study on their relationship and the approach of the change agent regarding these attitude levels

(1)

Individual- and collective attitudes towards change: a case study on their

relationship and the approach of the change agent regarding these attitude

levels

Lonneke Broeks

Master Thesis Msc Business Administration – specialization Change Management University of Groningen

Faculty of Economics and Business

July 2015

Supervisor: H.P. van Peet Co-assessor: J.F.J. Vos

Fabriekstraat 35 3551 SH Utrecht l.m.broeks@student.rug.nl

(2)

2 ABSTRACT

In the current literature on organizational change, the attitude towards change is a well-discussed subject. However, the majority of these studies are focussed on the individual. This study amplifies the understanding of how individual- and collective attitudes towards change influence each other, by applying a multilevel case study on both attitude levels. Moreover, the approach of the change agent regarding these attitude levels is included as well as the effect of this change agent approach on change success. This exploratory, qualitative research is done by semi-structured interviews with both change recipients and change agents that recently passed through a merger. The findings imply that the effect of the group attitude on the individual attitude is definitely present, with the contribution that more effect is seen if the individuals have a neutral or negative attitude instead of a positive attitude. Moreover, the effect of the group on the individual attitude seems stronger when this grumbling group is very close by during the work activities of the individual. The effect of the individual on the group attitude is felt when this individual is seen as an important and valuable person in the group. This study provides an understanding of the change agent approach on these different levels, which is mainly group oriented. Lastly, this study shows that change agents- and recipients barely linked change success to the approach of the change agent regarding the different attitude levels.

Word Count: 18.007

(3)

3

4 1. INTRODUCTION

To cope with the growing environmental complexity nowadays, companies believe that they have to make at least every four to five years medium to large changes (Kotter and Schlesinger, 2008). These organizational change efforts have a high failure percentage; according to a survey among global companies, the executives see only one-third of the change initiatives as successful (Meaney and Pung, 2008). One of the reasons why change initiatives fail are not so much the flaws of the change initiative itself, but the underestimating of the role of the individual in change processes by the change leaders (Choi, 2011). As Shin, Taylor and Seo (2012) stated, attitudinal and behavioural reactions towards the change play a major role in the success of a change initiative. Overcoming resistance of the employees is not enough; organizational adaptation is reliant on creating support and enthusiasm of the employees for the change initiative (Piderit, 2000).

These attitudinal and behavioural reactions towards the change could be labelled as attitudes towards change, which is an umbrella term that includes for example the concepts resistance, readiness and commitment towards the change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). These attitudes do not stand-alone: they are social phenomena constructed by the context (Ford, Ford and d’Amelio, 2008). Interactions with colleagues and the change agents are the sensemaking mechanisms for individuals to develop a certain attitude towards the change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Since groups can have a significant effect on individual members’ beliefs, values and behaviours, groups play an important part in developing these attitudes (Vakola, 2013). As Cummings (2004) stated, group norms and expectations can have a powerful effect on individual resistance to change.

In view of the foregoing, it is remarkable that the majority of empirical studies about attitudes towards change only focus on the individual level. Most of this research is based on single-level analysis instead of multi-level analysis (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Kozlowski and Klein (2000) bring up this subject in their article about multilevel research. They stated that change is a multilevel phenomenon, and neglecting the contextual level in research will be leading to “incomplete or misdirecting

modelling” (in Bouckenooghe, 2010: 520). Furthermore, Vakola (2013) emphasized that collective phenomena are formed by aggregated individual phenomena. Bouckenooghe (2010) highlights the benefit research on attitudes towards change can have from a multilevel perspective.

(5)

5

essential for the change leader: what is an effective approach for influencing the attitude towards change to reach group- and individual readiness that is necessary for a successful organizational change? Moreover, the change agent has a crucial role in influencing the perception employees have of the change (Penava and Ŝehić, 2014). What is the approach of change agents regarding these different attitude levels, and what is the effect of these approaches on change success? Does the change agent think about the level issue in relation to the attitudes at all?

The previous discussed subjects are not well documented in the current literature. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to contribute to the literature gap by trying to provide a deeper understanding of how collective and individual attitudes towards change affect each other. As shown, another literature gap will be addressed by means of including the approach of the change agent regarding these attitude levels and the success of the change. Accordingly, the following question is posed:

How do collective and individual attitudes towards change in organizations influence each other, and how do change agents cope with these different attitude levels in their change approach?

The sub questions of this research question are:

 What is the relation between the individual and collective attitude towards change?



How do change agents think and act in relation to the different levels of attitudes?



What is the effect of the approach of the change agent in relation to the different levels on change success?

(6)

6 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

In trying to examine the mutual influence of collective and individual attitudes towards change, and how change agents cope with these different levels, there must be a deeper understanding of the theoretical foundation for this question provided first. In this part of the paper, the concept attitude towards change will be explained. This will be complemented with the antecedents for the individual attitude towards change. Furthermore, the relation described in current literature between the

individual and collective attitudes will be addressed as well as the influence of the change agent and the effect of the influence of the change regarding the different levels, on the success of a change.

2.1 Attitudes towards change

Attitude toward organizational change is defined as “a person’s overall evaluation of the change and it’s psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating the change with some degree of favor or disfavor” (Lines, 2005: p.10). This attitude towards change is an indicator of the behaviour an employee will show that will either support or resist the change initiative (Choi, 2011). It is also an important factor whether the change initiative will be a success or a failure (Elias, 2009). A strong, positive attitude toward change will result in behaviour that supports and facilitates the change initiative. A strong, negative attitude toward change will result in behaviour that opposes and resists the change initiative (Elias, 2009)

According to Elizur and Guttman’s definition (1976), attitude is a concept that consists of three components: the affective, cognitive and behavioural component. These three components together are called the tripartite view of attitudes (Rosenberg and Hovland, 1960). The affective component refers to the feelings and emotions towards the change that can range from strong negative to strong positive feelings. The cognitive component refers to the beliefs that express negative or positive evaluations towards the change. Finally, the behavioural component ranges from strong positive intentions to support the change, towards strong negative intentions to oppose the change (Piderit, 2000).

(7)

7

2.2 Antecedents for attitude towards organizational change

Since the individual attitude towards change has much impact on the success of the change initiative, organizational change cannot be established when the individual has no willingness to change or support the change initiative of the organization (Vakola, 2013). The individual has an essential role in change processes, since his or her actions and behaviours have a great influence on the group- and organizational change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). This individual willingness to change can be achieved when there is a positive attitude towards the change. As Oreg (2011) describes, there are several dispositional characteristics that can be antecedents of this individual positive attitude towards the change. He mentions openness to change, locus of control and self-esteem. Elias (2009) also appoints locus of control, but he adds internal work motivation and growth need strength as antecedents for a positive attitude towards change. According to research from Vakola and Nikolaou (2005),

occupational stress and a negative attitude towards change have a strong relationship. They found that the strongest predictor of a negative attitude towards change is lack of a socially supportive

environment (caused by bad work relationships) as well as job insecurity. Lines (2005) comes up with some determinants of attitudes towards organizational change, knowing beliefs of postchange job characteristics, procedural justice and emotions.

(8)

8

Factors that affect the individual attitude

towards the change

Content factors  Impact of the change on the lives of the

employees (Bouckenooghe et al, 2007)  Desirability and justification (Penava et al,

2014)

Contextual factors  Trust in management (Bouckenooghe et al,

2007)

 Politicking, cohesion and trust in leadership (Bouckenooghe et al, 2009)

Process factors  Participation (Bouckenooghe et al, 2007)

 Quality of change, communication, support by supervisors, attitude of top management, participation (Bouckenooghe, 2009)  Participation, communication and trust in

management (Penava et al, 2014) Table 1: Factors that influence the attitude towards change

2.3 Relationship between individual and collective attitude towards change

Lines (2005) points out another important determinant of attitudes towards organizational change: the social influence. The social environment of a person is an important factor in shaping the individual attitudes (Wood, 2000). The individual attitude towards the change and the willingness to change is established by the organizational – and change context. The collective group is an important factor of this social- and organizational context, since groups can have a significant effect on individual members’ beliefs, values and behaviours (Vakola, 2013). Co-workers and work groups are of important value, since they all live in the same organisational environment with roles and norms that form their relationships. In this manner, co-workers and work groups are significant in forming the reactions towards change (Cawsey et al, 2007). Turner (1979) addresses this with the social identity theory, which explains that a positive interpretation of team membership by the individual result in a stronger positive self-concept (Albrell-Vogel and Rowold, 2014).

(9)

9

is a process of social influence, through which people ensure that their behaviour is in line with the behavioural expectations of others who are important and valuable for them. A study of Jimmieson et al (2008) found support for the hypothesis that the group norms perceived by an employee are positively related to the intentions of this employee to engage in change-supportive behaviour, if the co-workers are undertaking change-supportive behaviours. However, this is only the case if this employee has strong in-group identification.

The literature defined the collective attitude as “resistance or support of a team or group of

individuals for change” (Bouckenooghe, 2010: p.520). The influence of a collective attitude on the individual attitude is described in the current literature. From research on groups, it is a basic assumption that the group context has influence on the behaviours and attitudes of an individual (Mossholder and Bedeian, 1983). Vakola (2013, P.101) highlights the importance “to discuss the impact of group readiness on individual readiness to change”. As Lines (2005) stated, the perceptions, norms and the values of the group can be an important factor for the formation of the individual attitude. Since organizational change is complex, multiple interpretations are possible. For this reason, individuals engage in discussions with the group to understand the change and the group establishes shared perceptions towards the change (Rafferty and Jimmieson, 2010). Furthermore, groups can be a source of inspiration for the individual change level (Katz and Kahn, 1978). On the other hand, there is also literature that describes the effect the individual can have on the collective attitude towards change. Rafferty, Jimmieson and Armanakis (2012) stated that the collective attitude towards change could be established by the individual feelings, beliefs and attitudes of individuals towards the change that become shared by the social interaction process. Additionally, the readiness of the collective group is influenced by the individual readiness by means of social information

processing (Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder, 1993).

2.4 Multilevel analyses are needed

As previously mentioned, most research on attitudes towards change is only focused on the individual level (Bouckenooghe, 2010). However, as can be concluded from above, organizational change does not only include adaptation and implementation on the individual level but also on group level (Whelan-Berry, Gordon and Hinings, 2003). Coghlan (1994) mentioned in his paper the need to analyse the group readiness for change along the individual readiness for change. Only focussing on the individual level of readiness creates a one-sided picture, since the individual is analysed in

(10)

10

2.5 The change agent and attitudes towards change

The change agent is essential in the whole change process (Cawsey et al, 2007) for “initiating, managing or implementing change in organizations” (Caldwell, 2003 p.131), The change agent has a role in “minimizing the negative aspects of change” (p.133), by shaping the perceptions employees have in relation to the change and in this manner, influencing the attitude towards change (Penava and Ŝehić, 2014). In ensuring positive attitudes towards change in an organization, the role of the change agent is crucial: he/she should endeavour to influence the beliefs and attitudes the employees have towards the change, that eventually will result in influencing the actual behaviour (Armenakis et al, 1993). The change agent, together with the change recipients, engages in a sensemaking process. The change agent tries to make sense of how the change will be executed and accomplished, the change recipient tries to make sense of what will happen to him or her (Gioia et al, 1994). This sensemaking process “involves the interaction of information seeking, meaning ascription and associated

responses” (Thomas, Clark and Gioia in Ford et al, 2008). Ford et al (2008) describe several ways in which the change agent could affect the reactions of the change agent recipients: by broken

agreements (before and during the change) and failure in restoring the disrupted trust, by

communication breakdowns (failure to legitimize the change) and by resisting the resistance among the recipients.

(11)

11

Specific literature about how change agents think and act regarding the different attitude levels is not well elaborated. In the organizational change literature about change leaders there is not much attention for the individual level; most of this literature is aimed at the group level, the whole work unit (Herold et al, 2008). Armenakis et al (1993) subscribe the importance for a change agent to understand the difference between the collective and the individual readiness, since changing this readiness involves “convincing a collection of socially-interacting individuals to change their beliefs, attitudes and intentions”(p.686). In one of the few articles on this subject, the positive effects of an individual focus of the change agent on the employees are described (Penava et al, 2014). In this study, an individualized approach of the change agent affects the “employees’ sense of loyalty, identification and preoccupation with the change”(p.146). Moreover, this will ensure that the change agent “gain better understanding of employees’ fears and uncertainties regarding the specific change” (p. 146) and more attention on the individual make the change agent “able to impact employees’ perceptions of change as something that is needed and justified” (p. 146). According the study, the previous will ensure that the negative interpretations of the change by employees will reduce and less anti-change behaviour among employees will be expressed. Abrell-Vogel and Rowold (2014) support this by indicating that for commitment to change, individual support given by the change leader is important. However, successful efforts of the change agent to change individuals of parts of the group could result in deviation of these individuals from the group norms and in turn lead to more resistance (Lewin, 1966). Encouraging the goals of the group is important for a change agent (Abrell-Vogel et al, 2014), since the decision of the whole group to change their own behaviours in favour to the change is more effective than if an outsider give pressure to change. (Lewin, 1966 in Coghlan, 1994).

2.6 Change Success and the role of the change agent

As stated, change successes largely depend on employees’ attitude towards change (Rafferty et al, 2012; Armenakis et al, 1993, Shin et al, 2012). Since the change agent has a crucial role in influencing these attitudes towards change, his/her leadership ought to be invaluable for the success of a change initiative. Success of the change is seen here as the success of the implementation of a change imitative, by means of achieving the change goals and by the amount of resistance and the organizational commitment (Lines, 2007). For the achievement of the change goals, “the change agent is directly dependent on cooperation from the change recipients” (Lines, 2007 p.148).

(12)

12

several contributors to the success of a change initiative, namely a clear and structured change agent approach, frequent and open communication and employee participation and engagement. However, in the studies mentioned above these strategies are not linked to the individual- or collective level. Whereas Penava et al (2014) argue that an individual approach is important for successful

implementing a change initiative, Burnes (2014) stated that a main focus of the change agent on the individual, group or system level is dependent on the situation. Even though literature about change success in relation to the attitude of the recipients is comprehensive (Fuchs and Prouska, 2014), the relation between change success and the approach of the change agent related to the individual- or collective attitude level is not well elaborated.

2.7 Theoretical Framework

From this literature review, the following theoretical framework for this research can be derived.

As stated, this paper aims to provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between the individual attitude towards change and the collective attitude towards change. Furthermore, it attempts to gain insight in the approach of the change agent regarding the different attitude levels and the effect of this approach on change success. This will be done by means of a case study.

Thinking and acting of change agent in relation to the different levels Collective attitude towards change Change success Individual attitude towards change

(13)

13 3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

In this part of the paper, different aspects regarding the data collection will be outlined. First, the research site and the different cases will be described. Hereafter, a description of the data collection method will be given. Finally, an outline of how the data is collected and analysed will be described.

3.1 Theory development process

Since the literature related to the phenomenon of this paper is still very exploratory in nature, the knowledge-generating process of ‘theory development’ will be used (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012). The steps of the theory development process will be as follows. The business phenomenon that will be observed, that is not addressed empirically in the existing academic literature, is how collective and individual attitudes towards change influence each other and what the change agent approach is on these different attitude levels. In order to observe this phenomenon, primary data is collected using semi-structured interviews. Subsequently, explanations will be developed and compared with the existing literature as mentioned in the theoretical background. After the data collection, explanations will be developed and compared with the existing theories. Finally, the analysed data will give additions to or changes for the existing literature about this subject (van Aken et al, 2012).

3.2 Research site

The research site is a company in the southwest of the Netherlands. It is a company that supports people with a disability, or people that have a distance to the labour market in another way, to find a job. The company is trying to activate people that receive social insurance to get a job and give them daily routine. The company has a ‘leerwerkbedrijf’ where people with a ‘sociale werkplaats – indicatie’ could take up employment. Furthermore, there is a‘ werkgewenningsbedrijf’ and ‘zorg en activering’ for people who are not able to work but who need care during their activities.

(14)

14

3.3 Data collection method

For this research, three cases are used. These cases are selected by theoretical sampling: they are chosen for theoretical reasons instead of statistical reasons. By theoretical sampling, cases are selected “on the basis of their potential manifestation or representation of important theoretical

constructs”(Patton, 2001. P. 238). There is no ideal number of cases, however by using multiple case studies instead of one case, cross case patterns can be observed (Eisenhardt, 1989). With this amount of cases (three) a proper quantity of interviews can be held to get enough data for a cross-case analysis. Adding too many cases will result in observing phenomena that are seen before and incremental learning will be difficult. Additionally, too many cases result in difficulty with coping with the complexity and the amount of data (Eisenhardt, 1989). Replication logic is used with these cases. Replication logic is an important aspect for using case studies for theory building (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Replication logic entails that every case is treated as an independent experiment that can confirm or disconfirm the conceptual insights (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1997). An overview of the cases can be found in table 2.

(15)

15

3.4 Case overview

Case Department Description Scope of the

change:

Change goals?

Case 1 Arbeidsbemiddelingsbedrijf (ABB)

Providing social insurance to citizens of the municipality.

Large Not achieved

Case 2 Zorg- en activeringsbedrijf (ZAB) Creating external jobs for people with a ‘sociale werkplaats’ indicatie.

Large Achieved

Case 3 Leerwerkbedrijf Creating jobs (internal) for people with a ‘sociale werkplaats’ indication.

Small Achieved

Table 2: case overview for selection

Case 1: Arbeidsbemiddelingsbedrijf (ABB)

This department is responsible for providing social insurance to citizens of the municipality. This is a former department of the municipality. It consists of the parts ‘de poort’ and ‘ABB uitstroom’ with their reintegration coaches and customer managers. The department ABB is moved to the location of the company they merged with in 2012. This department kept their own employees and manager, there were no people added to this department during the merger. The specific change goals as described above, are not achieved according management. The department has ±60 employees.

Case 2: Zorg- en Activeringsbedrijf (ZAB)

This is also a former department of the municipality and is moved to the location of the company they merged with in 2012. This department is responsible for activating people who receive social

insurance and is focused on creating external jobs. This department is more focused on giving care to these people in the form of work. A mission of the ZAB is to stimulate people to do meaningful work in the society. This department has ±30 employees. No new employees were added to this department and the manager remained the same. This department is added to an already existing section of the company were they merged with. ZAB remained a separate unit however their new managing director was one of the company they merged with. The specific change goals, as described above, are

achieved.

Case 3: Leerwerkbedrijf

(16)

16

with the parts ‘Groen en Schoonmaak’. This department was part of the former company that already was located on the industrial area. This department kept their own staff and manager, there were no people added to this department during the merger. The specific change goals, as described above, are achieved by this department.

3.5 Interviews

Seventeen participants were involved in this study; three to four change recipients (employees) and one to four change agents per case. In case three, the participants were only change agents since there was no possibility to interview change recipients. In every case, the department has a managing director. Below this level, there are managers who run different parts of the department. In this study, both the managing directors as the managers of the different parts of the departments can be seen as change agents. However, the latter (the managers) are also seen as change recipients. During the interviews with these managers, both the interview protocol of the change agent as well as the protocol of the recipients is used. In case one, the managing director can be seen as the main change agent, since the manager did not have the position of manager at the beginning of the change. In case two and three, the manager can be seen as the main change agent, the managing director had a more facilitating role. Furthermore, in case two there was one other manager of an existing department and a project-leader involved in supporting the execution of this change, therefore these two are also seen as change agent-recipients.

At the start of the study an email was sent to the managing directors and the managers with the question to participate in the study. These managing directors and managers sent, in turn, their employees an email with the question to participate in the study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to gather data about the change project. This type of interview consists of predefined, mostly open-ended questions. In this way, some control can be exercised over the content that needed to be discussed. However there is also room to ask other questions during the interview. An interview protocol is established for both the change recipient and the change agents, which can be found in appendix 1 and appendix 2. The interviews are held face to face, since personal contact is important in order to prevent missing visual communication (Vogel, 2013). In the beginning of the interviews, the purpose of the research is given as well as an explanation of the interview process. Moreover, it was emphasized that the results remained anonymous thus the interviewee could speak freely.

(17)

17

consisted of three parts: the attitudes of the employee, consisted of both individual and collective attitudes, the change agent approach and the change success.

Case Change agent Change recipients Change agent/recipient

1 (ABB) 1 1CA1 4 1CR1 t/m 1CR4 1 1CAR1 2 ( ZAB) 1 2CA1 3 2CR1 t/m 2CR3 3 2CAR1 t/m 2CAR3 3 (Leerwerkbedrijf) 1 3CA1 - 3 3CAR1 t/m 3CAR3

Table 3: case overview: interviewees

3.6 Data analysis

Problematic for the analysis of data derived from qualitative research, is the large amount of the non-standard data that is obtained (Turner, 1983). Moreover, theories cannot build from actual accidents or activities that are observed or reported, they cannot build from ‘raw data’ (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). The first step is to organize the data in such a way that it is retrievable by means of a transcript. From these transcripts, the cases were coded with the aid of a coding scheme (Appendix 3). This coding scheme is a collection of deductive codes based on existing literature, as well as inductive codes based on the material. The cases were coded and analyzed one-by-one for the within-case analysis. Within-case analysis ensures that a rich understanding of each Within-case can be provided. Furthermore, unique patters can be observed (Eisenhardt, 1989). Hereafter, a cross-case analysis could be obtained to observe cross-case patterns. Using both within-case and cross-case analysis contributes to the internal validity of the study (Van Aken et al, 2012). Finally, the analysis of the data was compared with the existing literature to come up with a new theory that closely fits the data obtained (Eisenhardt, 1989).

3.7 Controllability, reliability, validity

To control the quality of the paper, controllability, reliability and validity are the most important criteria (Van Aken et al, 2012; Swanborn, 1996 ; Yin, 2003). With these criteria, inter-subjective agreement can be established. Inter-subjective agreement is achieved when there is consensus between actors that handle a research problem.

(18)

18

detailed description of the data collection, the respondent’s selections, the interview questions asked, the data analysis and the conclusion drawing. In this manner, other researchers will be able to replicate the study to verify the findings. (Van Aken et al, 2012).

Reliability ensured that the results of a study are independent of particular characteristics of that study, allowing replicating the results in other studies (Yin, 2013). To make this research reliable, there must be ensured that potential biases will be avoided. Researcher bias is avoided by standardization; most procedures for data collecting, analysing and data interpretation are set in advance (case-study protocol, semi-structured interviews). In this way, the influence of the personal characteristics of the researcher on the results can be reduced. Second, asking different questions for the same construct in the interviews reduces instrument bias. Respondent bias is minimized by taking types of respondents within the cases that are representative for the research situation. Lastly, the situation bias is

minimized since the interviews were held at different moments in time (different days and different times on one day). By this, it was recognizable which circumstances are unique and which

circumstances are common (Van Aken, 2012).

(19)

19 4. RESULTS

In this section, the data derived from the interviews will be analysed. First there will be a within-case analysis that consists of four parts: the individual attitude towards the change, the collective attitude towards the change, the change agent approach regarding the different levels and the change success. In this way, similarities and dissimilarities within the case can be discovered. Hereafter, a cross-case analysis is provided, to compare the different cases and to search for similarities and dissimilarities across the cases. Prior to these analyses, a more extensive description of the change project will be given, based on information derived from the data.

4.1 Change Project

In January 2015, the ‘Participatiewet’ is adopted in the Netherlands. This is a new law where the ‘Wet Werk en Bijstand’, the ‘Wet Sociale Werkvoorziening’ and the ‘Wet werk en arbeidsondersteuning Jonggehandicapten’ is combined into one law. The municipality is now responsible for all these people with a distance to the labour market. The target group will be bigger, while the government will reduce the budgets municipalities receive for this target group. The main reason for this change in legislation is that more people with a disability or people that have a distance to the labour market in another way needs to work for regular employers. The inflow of people going through the ‘Wet sociale werkvoorziening (WSW)’ will be stopped. Since 1 January 2015, these people are part of the ‘Participatiewet’. Previously, people with a ‘Sociale Werkplaats indicatie’ were entitled to a ‘Sociale werkplek’ in a ‘Sociale Werkplaats(SW)’company. A Sw-company aims to employ these people and give them intensive support during their activities within the company. Since the inflow going through the WSW will be stopped, the Sw-companies will be faced with fewer employees and eventually with none if nothing will be done for the survival of these companies. The future of these Sw-companies rests in the hands of the municipality.

The company in this research was such an example of a Sw-company. In 2012, this Sw-company is merged with two public services of the municipality. These public services are both involved in the support for people with a distance to the labour market. With the merger, the name of the company changed into a new name. Reasons given for this merger were a response to new legislation by the municipality, preventing the collapse of urban facilities and a response to cutbacks.

(20)

20

clients who are working in the other parts of the company to which they are merged with. Due to this, lines of communication will be shorter and work can be done more efficiently. However, this merger did not go smoothly. The employees of the municipality had difficulties with grounding at the new location. Moreover, cultural differences between the two parties created and still create

misunderstandings and friction between the departments.

4.2 Within-case analysis

4.2.1 Case 1

Case 1 is the department ABB, which is responsible for providing social insurance to citizens of the specific municipality. This department came over from the municipality and kept his own employees and manager. It has ±60 employees. According to management, the predefined goals are not achieved. Change recipient’s individual attitude towards the change

(21)

21

Collective attitude towards the change

Both the change agent and the change recipients define the collective attitude as quite negative, more negative than their own attitude. ‘There was not a positive attitude, it was just negative’. ‘The change was not welcomed with a hurray, everybody was like: why?’ ‘In general, with a few exceptions, the merge was not seen as positive’. This resulted in a lot of questions and commotion among the recipients. The change agent speaks about the uncertainty the employees felt of not being part of the municipality anymore and speaks about the questions the employees had about losing the status as a civil servant. This negative attitude was manifested in complaining about little things: ‘all small businesses in terms of working conditions, interior, climate; everything is magnified, generalized. And a big spotlight on these things’. Two recipients experience that the collective attitude is changed positively over time, while two other recipients, the change agent – recipient and the change agent see that this negative attitude is still there and returns on a regularly basis. ‘No, it is still there. Sometimes it caves in, but when something happens, it will return immediately. ‘It is remarkable that people revert to three years ago (…) it seems they cannot make the transition’. ‘More negative, in my opinion, the negativity is therefore maintained’ referring to the accumulation of things that the

recipients experienced as negative. However, two recipients feel that the negative collective attitude is decreased. ‘It weakens’. ‘In the end, people settle down. People become accustomed’.

Influence of the group on the individual attitude towards the change

(22)

22

Influence of the individual on the collective attitude towards the change

In the group with a high negative attitude, there were a few informal leaders who had a lot of influence on the attitude of the rest of the group. This shows the effect the individual can have on the collective attitude towards the change. The change agent-recipient and a recipient talked about individuals who tried to influence the collective attitude: ‘I know that a person, who had a positive attitude towards the change, expressed this in the group. The group accepted this, however it was not convincing to such an extent that the group were pulled along in this enthusiasm. The group feeling continued to

dominate’. ‘Sometimes it was expressed; however that did not dominate. The group attitude remained the prevailing feeling. The change agent- recipient and another recipient also tried to influence the group by themselves’. Yes, I tried (…). I said that things sometimes. Some individuals said in the end, I’ve never seen it that way. They gained a kind of understanding’. ‘ Yes, you tried to. That had some effect, since I had a position in the group where I could show them to see things in perspective’. The two people who tried to influence the group, hold a special position in the group. One of them was the coach of the employees in his/her department, while the other one became approximately a year after the change, manager of the department. This shows that the people, who did have some effect on the group attitude, had a specific position in the group.

Thinking and acting of the change agent on the different attitude levels

The approach of the change agent in this change process is defined by the recipients as human, with a high amount of communication towards the group. This communication was in the form of briefings and team meetings in which he/she tried to give an explanation for the change and tried to gain understanding for this transition. This could be characterized as an empirical- rational change approach. The acting of the change agent was mainly focused on the group, which is also

acknowledged by the change agent. ‘Yes, for me that was focussed on group level ‘. ‘I think he/she assumed the group approach first’. ‘What I saw was a group oriented approach’. The change agent executed this group approach mainly with team meetings, briefings and some group sessions. Two change recipients did not observe the change agent taking out individuals for a face-to-face

(23)

23

was experienced very positive by one of the change recipients and could be interpreted as a more normative-reeducative change approach.

Change Success

The change agent mentioned that the change could not be seen as a success. ‘In my opinion, we should go further than this’. According to the change agent, not all the predefined goals were achieved. ‘Market orientation is improved, entrepreneurship is not’. He/she is critical about the process and also about his/her approach. ‘I should have started with a more severe plan (…) the individual approach should have started earlier and faster’. According to him/her, this would have ensured that they would have been closer to the predefined change goals. Also the recipients do not always see the success of this change. Two recipients believe that the physical move was not necessary, while another recipient believes that a bigger part of the ‘sociale dienst’ had to move to the company site. Looking at the predefined change goals, two recipients have no idea if these goals are reached. ‘No, I do not dare to say something about that’, while another recipient have a clear opinion about these goals. ‘No, they aren’t reached yet. Market orientation, the intention is there but not achieved yet. Infrastructure? No. More entrepreneurship? No, no’. One recipient mentioned that he/she wondered whether the

predefined change goals actually were goals of his/her department. The change success is in some way related to the success of the collaboration with the company they merged with by the change agent and three change recipients. There is widely spoken about cultural differences that make the merger of the two parties difficult. In general, the recipients have the opinion that the process went well and that the change agent has done enough to facilitate the employees during this change process. ‘ I think there was no other way to address this’. ‘In my opinion, we are incorporated in this process well’. ‘Maybe you can do it better, but in the end you can never do it completely right’. ‘The group approach worked well. You have everyone around the table, you hear each other stories and that helps you to see things in perspective’.

Summary case 1

(24)

24

remained the same as before the intervention of an individual. It is interesting that the change agent-recipient and one agent-recipient stated that they actually had some effect on the group attitude as individual; however these two individuals hold a specific position in the group. The approach of the change agent was mainly focused on the group, with group meetings, briefings and some group sessions. The individual approach was not very visible. In the end, the change agent admits that this individual approach had to be stronger in order to be closer to reaching the predefined change goals.

Nevertheless, the recipients are quite satisfied with the process and the approach of the change agent. The success of the change is not evident, since some predefined change goals are not achieved. However, the change agent and the recipient barely relate the success of the change to their attitude towards the change or to the approach of the change agent, it has to do with the tough collaboration with the rest of the organisation due to cultural differences.

Patterns derived from case 1

 The change agent individual attitude is mainly cognitive, whereas the individual attitudes of the change recipients were more affective.

 A specific training was a turning point in individual attitude for one recipient.

 People with a positive attitude were not influenced by the group attitude, whereas the attitudes of the neutral or negative people were influenced by the group.

 A few informal leaders dominated the group attitude.

 After some individual interference, the group feeling remained the dominant feeling.  Individuals that did have some effect on the group attitude, held a specific position in the

group.

 The change agent approach was an empirical – rational change approach, predominantly focussed on the group level. The change agent communicated through team meetings, by giving explanations and information.

 The change agent indicates that an individual approach would have resulted in being closer to reaching the change goals.

 The change agent – recipients and the four recipients are in the end satisfied with the approach of the change agent. However the change goals are not achieved according all of them.  Cultural differences are mentioned by everyone as an obstacle in the process for change

success.

4.2.2 Case 2

(25)

25

employees are added to this department, however the managing director is changed. The specific change goals, as described above, are achieved.

Individual attitude towards the change

In this case, there is a clear difference between the individual attitude of the change recipients and the attitude of the change agents-recipients. The three change agent-recipients were unanimously positive: ‘Yes, fine. No problems with it’. ‘Yes, my conception of the change was positive’. Their conceptions were mainly cognitive. In their opinion, it was a logical step to merge and that caused the positive attitude towards the change. It is a different story for the change recipients. One recipient was slightly positive, but biding. This recipient already knew the employees of the company where they moved in with and he/she is fond of renewal. This was also manifested in his/her behaviour by proclaiming this slightly positive feeling. Two other recipients were significantly less positive. ‘We did not really want this change, and neither did I (…) On a scale from 1 to 10, from negative to positive, I will say five. Like okay, we will see. However, nobody wanted this change’. ‘I cannot say I was very enthusiastic when I came here. (…) Somewhere in the middle, I was not purely negative, but I was not like, yes we are going to do his!’ These attitudes were more affective: ‘in terms of feelings, it was not great’. ‘I was not afraid of something like that, but I was awaiting: see if we can settle down here’. For the three change agent-recipients and the positive recipient, the attitude did not change much over time. ‘No, no. That remained positive’. ‘I am still positive’. For the two slightly less positive recipients, habituation and time played a role in their change in attitude. ‘You get used to the situation. I quickly got used to this situation’. One recipient mentioned a training that changed his/her attitude: ‘that was a moment where you think, I can go on with grumbling, but that makes no sense’.

The manager of the unit, one of the change agent-recipients, highlights the resistance among his/her employees. ‘The group attitude? The resistance, that was the group feeling’. Another involved change agent-recipient acknowledged this. He/she explains in which behaviour this was reflected: ‘this resulted in complaining about the fact that the toilets were no closed spaces (…) up to the space they had to work in, everything. Heating, all the small things’. Another change agent-recipient describes that the expressed group feeling is not positive. However in his/her opinion, this group forms a minority. ‘If you talk to people individually, you get another story’. Another change agent-recipient describes the same: ‘In individual conversations, they are in general quite positive’. The change agent acknowledges that the cohesion among the group is not strong, however the change recipients

(26)

26

at all’. ‘Yes, surely they were more in the resistance attitude’. The change recipients acknowledged that this was expressed in grumbling about practical things. Two recipients believe that the negative group attitude is changed over time but are not quite sure: ‘I think so, yes’. They both recognize that there are still people who want to return to the municipality but that they are more used to the situation now. One recipient underlined that this negative attitude towards the organisation is still the same.

Influence of the group on the individual attitude

For the change agent and the change agent-recipients it is not quite clear what the effect of the group is on the individual. Only one change agent –recipient felt himself/herself affected by the negative feeling of the group: ‘yes, because you hear where they bump into’. However, as stated before, this did not affect his/her attitude towards the change. Two of the three recipients think that the group affected their attitude. ‘Yes, I think so. I think that is always the case. If people are grumbling about something, you are taken along with this’. ‘Yes I think it has always an effect. However, I think that this effect was not that big; since I could myself close off from this feeling. One recipient clarifies that it didn’t affect his attitude: ‘I did not go with that no. I find that very annoying, I do not like complaining and whining’. It is interesting to notice that two recipient talked about the effect the division of the employees into different rooms had on the attitudes. There are rooms with two or three working stations and there is one big room with twelve working stations. In this big room, the negative attitude was more present. One of these recipients thinks that if he/she were placed in this room, there would be a bigger effect of the group attitude on his/her attitude towards the change. The other recipient acknowledges that in that case, it would have been harder for an individual to stay away from this negative attitude. One recipient said: ‘I have seen that somebody moved to the big room and I thought hey, you got a more negative attitude now. That has a huge effect’.

Influence of the individual on the collective attitude

(27)

27

clearly emerges from the interviews with two other change agent-recipients is that there were a few individuals that caused this group resistance. As stated before, in individual conversations the resistance did not come up quite clearly, however in team meetings ‘a certain mood is put down by some outspoken individuals’. ‘What you notice is that in individual conversations, they are almost always positive. As soon as it is one group, the negative ones predominate’. This indicates that there are a few, very predominating, negative individuals who influence the collective attitude of the group.

The main actor in this change was the manager of the department, one of the change agent-recipients. He/she describes his/her own approach as an approach with a lot of communication and explanations of what was going to happen. This could be classified as an empirical-rational change approach. In order to eliminate the resistance, ‘it was a matter of talking and coaching and individual

conversations’. However, he/she also acknowledges that his/her approach was not really an approach on the individual or on the group, but was more focused on changing processes and procedures. By means of changing a procedure for example, he/she tried to address the resistance. The change agent indicates that he/she and this change agent-recipient had a lot of conversations about the question what was better; a group approach or individual approach. ‘In our opinion, this is difficult. Has the group priority over the individual? I do not know’.

(28)

28

However, the recipients and the other two involved change agent-recipients would rather have seen an individual approach more.

Change success

There is no univocal idea about the success of the change. The change recipients see the change partly as a success. The physical distance and the number of clients put on a trajectory are successes, the connection with the employees of the company they merged with, is not seen as a success. In the opinion of the change agent, all the three predefined change goals have been achieved to a large extent. Two change agent-recipient think that this change could be named a success, nevertheless it is not finished yet. One change agent- recipient is quite clear about whether the goals are achieved: ‘No, quite bluntly said, but no’. The reaction among all change agent and the change agent-recipients on the satisfaction with the process of the change, is that they all think that things could have been done differently. However, they do not know what and how: ‘are there things that could be done

differently? Yes, always (…) but I could not outline how this could be done better’. ‘No idea, I find it hard to say something meaningful about that’. ‘I do not know what, however I know that it would have been done better. The three recipients could not clearly say if the predefined goals were achieved, in their opinion these goals were more goals of the other department, ABB. The recipients are divided in their opinion about the satisfaction with the process. One is satisfied ‘It could not have been done otherwise’, one is partly satisfied ‘not (satisfied) if it comes to the collaboration with the rest of the company (…) yes if it is about the amount of people we put on trajectory’ and one recipient is

definitely not satisfied ‘no it could have been done otherwise.(…) stronger leadership, more guidance, more decisiveness’. Again, there is talked extensively about the cultural differences between them and the company they merged with, and the success of the change is linked to this by both the change agent-recipients and the recipients.

Summary case 2

In this case, there is clear distinction between the individual attitude of the change agent and the change agent-recipients, and the recipients. The change agent and the change agent-recipients have a positive attitude towards the change that is mostly cognitively. Nonetheless, two of the three recipients feel quite the opposite; they are slightly negative. Interesting here is that these attitudes are more based on affective components of the attitude. Also among the more positive recipient, this attitude is more based on the affective component. It is remarkable that the recipients describe the group cohesion as strong, while the change agent do not recognize this due to the difference between the enthusiastic employees and the employees who are negative.

(29)

29

were influenced by the group in a negative way. It is interesting to notice that the influence of

individuals on the group mainly happened among people who had their working station in the ‘big room’ in the department. It seems that the process of influencing is the strongest when the grumbling colleagues are very close by. What comes forward, is that in individual conversations people are not that negative, however in team meetings this negativity has the upper hand. This shows that this negative group feeling could be propagated by only a few, outspoken individuals that determine the attitude of the group. The change agent – recipient, the manager of the department, is blamed for involving only the positive recipients. An individual approach, to get also the negative recipients on board, is missed. The change agent and the three change agent-recipients all believe that in the process, things had to been done differently. However, all four of them could not say what and how this would have influenced the outcome. More interesting is that two of the three recipients think that the change agents could not have addressed this differently.

 The change agent’s individual attitude is mainly cognitive, whereas the individual attitudes of the change recipients were more affective.

 A specific training was a turning point in individual attitude for one recipient.

 Effect of the physical location: working in an area surrounded by a group with a negative attitude, has a stronger effect on the individual attitude. It seems that the influence is the strongest when grumbling colleagues are very close by.

 A few dominant negative individuals determined the group attitude during group meetings - group meetings can be are a tricky instrument. Yet it is used by the change agent and change agent-recipients.

 Individuals that did have some effect on the group attitude, held a specific position in the group.

 The change agent approach was an empirical – rational change approach, predominantly focussed on the group level. Communication of the change agent was done by team meetings, by giving explanations and information.

 An individual approach, possibly complemented by individual coaching, is missed.  Even though the change goals are achieved according management, two change agent –

recipients do not see this. The three change recipients believe that the predefined change goals were more goals of the other department.

(30)

30

4.2.3 Case 3

This department is the ‘sociale werkplaats bedrijf’ where more than 1300 people with a ‘Sociale Werkplaats (SW)’ indication are employed. The responsibility of the ‘leerwerkbedrijf’ is activating people with a ‘SW’ indication, to work in internal workplaces. This department was part of the former company that already was located on the industrial area of Breda. This department kept their own staff and manager. There aren’t people added to this department during the merger. However, among one section of the department, where one change agent-recipients is responsible, there were some people from the municipality added. The specific change goals as described above, are achieved by this department according to the management. In this case, there is only spoken to the change agent and the change agent – recipients.

Individual attitude towards the change

The first reaction among the change agents ant the tree change agent-recipients were all positive. These reactions were mainly cognitive, in the sense that they all thought this was a good step and an opportunity for the company. They barely mentioned their individual feelings and emotions towards the change ‘I thought it was a logical step’. ‘In my opinion, it was a good idea (…) I was extremely positive’. ‘At first, a good thing. I fully agreed with this. I saw opportunities in this’. ‘Very useful’. Among two change agent-recipients, this attitude is changed somewhat over time. ‘Yes, that is changed (…) the collaboration is not how it should be’. ‘At the moment, I tend to the side of negative. This has to do with the execution, how did it go. I’m not completely satisfied with that’. It is safe to say that they perceived the collaboration with ABB as not so smooth.

The group cohesion is viewed as strong among all parts of the department. The change agent did not experience resistance among his/her employees. However, the three change agent-recipients detected some resistance. One of the change agent-recipients said that in general, the attitude was positive. However, there was some fear among the employees caused by the fact that the clients of the

employees of the municipality were now placed in the ‘leerwerkbedrijf’. These people receive social benefits, however they have to work now in order to continue receiving social benefits. These people became somewhat aggressive. Nevertheless, these fears were taken away by an explanation of the situation and interference by the manager. The other change agent-recipient indicates that there was some negative attitude among the few employees from the municipality who were added to his part of the department. These people complained about the location and the view and not about the

(31)

31

necessary (…) we had to take away this among these people’. Apart from these examples, the

collective attitude was quite positive. Apart from the few employees that were added to one part of the department, there did not change much in the activities. This could be a cause of the low resistance.

Influence of the group on the individual attitude

The influence of the group on the individual attitude is barely addressed in this case by the change agent and change agent – recipients. One change agent – recipient answered the question if the group would have been pulled the possibly negative ones in the right positive direction: ‘No, at the moment it is just positive’, indicating that this is not in order since the recipients are positive. However, this same change agent – recipient highlights that humans strengthen each other. ‘If there is a positive sentiment, you will get the whole group with you. Is there a negative sentiment it becomes difficult, since you pull along the whole group into the negative’. What is interesting is that he/she appointed the location where his/her part of the department is located. That is approximately six kilometres away from the company site. In his/her eyes this is an advantage for the employees, since they are not affected by the things that are going on and that could possibly influence their own attitude. He/she is in control over the information that is being transferred to the employees.

Influence of the individual on the group attitude

Two of the three change agent – recipients acknowledge that some negative individuals had an effect on the group, yet they could not clearly describe how. A change agent – recipient noticed this effect in team meetings. Another change agent-recipient noticed that there were still some recipients that stayed anxiously in his/her part of the department. On the question if these few individuals had any effect on the group attitude he/she answered: ‘I think a little. What is tricky in this, is my dominance’. Before the negative individuals could really have an effect on the group, this change agent – recipient dominated with his enthusiasm and his cheerfulness in such a way that this effect was not really at issue. There is also an example where a few individuals affected the group attitude in a negative way. A few

individuals did have some good ideas and expressed this, though the rest of the group did not agreed with these ideas and this caused more resistance among the rest of the group.

The approach of the managing director, the change agent, was to give the managers a framework in which they need to think and give them space. ‘But drag along them into the change was not

(32)

32

something with what you hear. With this, you create more attachment’. The three change

agent-recipients had an approach predominantly focused on group level. This was done by means of group meetings and presentations. One of the change agent – recipient did think about his/her approach on the different levels beforehand: ‘Yes, I did. Yet this was literally one or two times, sit back an afternoon and then say: we are going to do it that way’. His/her conclusion was that first the

executives had to be involved as a group and give them an explanation of what will happen. Only one of the three change agent-recipients explicitly spoke to individuals when he/she saw this person showed resistance. ‘Sometimes you see that in a group, not everything is put on the table. If you discuss it individually, then it does. If you make sure that you take action if something like this happens, will that have a positive effect.

Change success

The change agent could see success in this change, but not yet. A change like this needs a long time before it will be a great success and they are not there yet, but there is a shared future in front of them. Two of the three change agent – recipients also pointed out that the change is not a success so far. ‘There are opportunities for the ‘leerwerkbedrijf’, though it is not a success at the moment’. ‘Up till now, you cannot call it a success’. The problems are mainly in the field of the collaboration with the department ABB. In theory, they had to reinforce each other. ‘But in practice, this seems more tenacious’. Nevertheless, they both see opportunities to make this change a success. None of the four participants in this case relate the satisfaction with the outcome- or the process of the change to the change agent approach on the different attitude levels. Only the change agent brings something up about the approach. ‘In that process, clearer steps could have been taken and more recognizable steps for some employees’.

Summary case 3

(33)

33

individual attitude on the group attitude is felt a little bit more. Yet this effect could not described very explicit. In the end, the predominant approach was a group approach, with a lot of communication and explanations, group meetings and presentations. Just one change agent- recipient took out the

individuals that had some resistance for individual conversations, since not everything is put on the table during group meetings. The change agent and one change agent – recipient see the change as a success, while two other change agent see potential, yet do not think this change is a success right now. No one is satisfied with the process, however this is not linked to the approach of the manager or managing director but to the difficult collaboration with the department ABB.

 The change agents’ and the change agent-recipients’ individual attitude is mainly cognitive.  The effect of the physical location: working in an area surrounded by a group with a negative

attitude, has a stronger effect on the individual attitude.

 The effect of the individual on the group is noticed in group meetings – group meetings could be a tricky instrument, yet it is used by the change agent and the change agent – recipients  The change agent approach was an empirical – rational change approach, predominantly

focussed on the group. The change agent communicated through team meetings, by giving explanations and information.

 Achieving the change goals is not necessarily related to a positive evaluation of the change by the change agents

 The predefined change goals are achieved according management, however the change agent and change agent – recipients did not see this yet.

 Change success is linked to the difficult collaboration with the other department.  Cultural differences are mentioned by everyone as an obstacle in the process for change

success.

4.3 Cross case analysis

(34)

34

Patterns Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Total

Individual attitude Pattern indicated by: 1. Change agent attitude – cognitive 2. Change recipient attitude – affective 1 out of 1 change agent 3 out of 5 change recipients 4 out of 4 change agents 3 out of 3 change recipients 4 out of 4 change agents - 9 out of 9 change agents 6 out of 8 change recipients Influence group on individual attitude

Pattern indicated by:

1. Physical work place as enhancing factor on the effect of the group on the individual attitude 1 out of 1 change agent 1 out of 5 change recipients 0 out of 4 change agents 2 out of 3 change recipients 1 out of 4 change agents - 2 out of 9 change agents 3 out of 8 change recipients 2. Effect group attitude on the individual attitude more present if individual attitude is neutral or negative - 2 out of 5 change recipients - 2 out of 3 change recipients - - - 4 out of 8 change recipients Influence individual on group attitude

1. Specific position of recipient in group as enhancing factor on the effect individual attitude on group attitude - 3 out of 5 change recipients - 1 out of 3 recipients - - - 4 out of 8 recipients 2. Few dominant individuals that determine group attitude in group meetings 1 out of 1 change agent 2 out of 5 change recipients 2 out of 4 changes agents 1 out of 3 change recipients 2 out of 4 change agents - 5 out of 9 change agents 3 out of 8 change recipients Thinking and acting of

change agent

(35)

35

Table 3: cross-case analysis

4.3.1 Case 1 and 2

Case 1 and 2 can be compared in terms of the scope of the change for the employees. The employees had to move and execute their work in another unknown area and got a new employer, which provoked a negative collective attitude among employees in both cases. Interestingly, this was reflected in both case 1 and case 2 by complaining and grumbling about small things (missing small hooks in the toilet, windows, heating). Contrarily, in both cases the change agents were positive about the change and these attitudes are mainly cognitive. With the exception of one person in case 2, the individual attitudes of the change recipients were not that positive in both cases. These attitudes of the change recipients are mainly affective. Furthermore, in both cases the collective attitude is outlined more negative than their own attitude, even among the change recipients who were not that positive.

2. Focus of the change agent on the individual is missed 1 out of 1 change agent 1 out of 5 change recipients 2 out of 4 change agents 2 out of 3 change agents 0 out of 4 change agents - 3 out of 9 change agents 3 out of the 8 change recipients

Success of the change Pattern indicated by:

1. Change recipient is satisfied with the process of focussing on the group level - 4 out of 5 change recipients - 1 out of 3 change recipients - - - 5 out of 8 change recipients 2. Success of the

Individual- and collective attitudes towards change: a case study on their relationship and the approach of the change agent regarding these attitude levels