CHANGE ACTORS’ INTERACTION PROCESS: THE EVOLVEMENT OF MUTUAL EXPECTATIONS
By
ILSE SPOELSTRA
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics & Business
MSc Business Administration - Change Management
July 2014
Grote Appelstraat 9 9712VA Groningen +31 (0)6 13 47 99 19 i.spoelstra@student.rug.nl Student number: s1866907
Supervisor:
Dr. J.F.J. Vos Co-assessor:
Dr. U.Y. Eseryel
2 ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to identify the relevant factors in the shaping and evolvement of expectations by change actors regarding their interaction process. Expectations of the interaction process play an important role in employees’ willingness to commit to a change project, thereby influencing change success. The approach of this research is a multiple-case study that consists of interviews with fifteen change actors at three Dutch firms. This study found that the factors contributing to the shaping of expectations regarding the interaction process are previous working experience, expectation setting by top management, company culture and change agent personality. The main factors that positively influence the interaction process are mutual trust between change actors, high responsibility given to change recipients, and employee loyalty. The foremost causes of problems in the interaction process are one-way communication by the firm’s management, insufficient room for input by recipients, time pressure, and role ambiguity within the change project. This study found that change project goals such as deadlines and budgets can be attained even though change actors negatively reflect upon the interaction process. However, it also shows that a negative interaction process often creates resistance and causes delays in the change project as well as low morale, low motivation, and damaged working relations among employees.
Key words: Change management, expectations, change agent, change recipient, interaction process
Word count (excluding references and appendices): 12.688
3
INTRODUCTION
As Lewis Carroll’s Red Queen once famously stated: ‘It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place’ (Carroll, 1871). In a more simplistic version, to stand still is to regress. For organizations, this means they have to incorporate change into their daily routines in order to keep up with competition and to avoid losing their competitive advantage. In the current age, the complexity of political, regulatory, and technological changes makes the ability to cope with a changing environment more and more important (Greenwood & Hinings, 1996). As a response, organizations spend valuable hours and resources formulating change plans that are to be implemented in varying parts of the organization. What they tend to forget, however, is that most people are not naturally inclined to be supporters of change (Eidelman, Pattershall, & Crandall, 2010). Change projects create uncertainties about future job content and security of employment. These uncertainties of employees can be reduced by interacting with managers, who can help employees to obtain a clearer picture of the change and its consequences. Both managers and employees will have prior expectations about how this interaction process will go, with expectations ranging from positive to negative. Whether or not these expectations are met can have an impact on the actual change interaction process and could therefore also be related to change outcome. Expectations of the interaction process by change actors thus play an important role in the acceptance of a change project by employees and have a potential influence on the quality of change outcome.
Researchers argue that leaders and managers play a central role in influencing employees’ understanding of changes, and thus influencing employees’ willingness to commit to change projects (Portoghese et al., 2012). This highly impacts change success, as both researchers and practitioners found that employees’ commitment to the change project is key in establishing successful and, moreover, lasting change (Meyer, Srinivas, Lal, & Topolnytsky, 2007). The understanding of change projects by employees is therefore essential in enabling successful change; however, not much is known about how employees’ understanding is shaped and how managers influence employees’
expectations. Therefore it is worth posing the question how actors in change decide
whether or not to support a change project, and what is even less known, what shapes
4
their expectations about the interaction between managers and employees. These expectations are of great importance because they are the basis of how committed employees are, and to what extent they are willing to change. Differences in expectations between managers and employees can have negative effects on productivity (King, 1974), a view that could possibly be extended to the context of expectations of the interaction process in change management.
Studies often distinguish between change agents and change recipients in order to define the parties involved in change projects. Change agents are defined as the ones that are responsible for creating and directing the implementation of a change within an organization (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Change recipients are responsible for carrying out or adapting to a change (Ford, Ford, & D'Amelio, 2008). Both parties will form expectations regarding their interaction process, in which various factors play a role. In order to further research these factors and refine our current understanding of interaction process expectations by change actors and their impact on the actual interaction and on change outcome, this paper aims to find out how mutual expectations concerning the interaction process are shaped and what factors in the actual interaction process constrain or enable change. Further exploring this area contributes to the theory on change actors’ interaction and leads to a better understanding of what makes change projects successful. For practitioners, this research helps them further understand the influence of the interaction between managers and employees in change projects, and the role of mutual expectations. This study can provide them with new insights in how to successfully manage their employees in the context of change projects.
This paper will be guided by the following structure. Firstly, a literature review
will provide a look into the available writings and is used to identify possible factors that
influence change actors’ expectations regarding the interaction process. Secondly, the
research design of this study will be explained and discussed. Thirdly, the findings are
explained and this study’s cases are compared. Lastly, the findings will be discussed,
compared to the existing literature and the limitations and implications of this study will
be discussed.
5
LITERATURE REVIEW: ACTORS IN CHANGE AND THEIR EXPECTATIONS In order to realize meaningful change the employees of the organization have to be willing to change and to put in an effort to adapt their tasks and responsibilities to the
‘new way’ of working (Kotter, 1996). Getting employees to commit to change is a difficult task, which involves factors such as the change efficacy and support for the change from leaders (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993). Failing to gain support and commitment from employees frequently leads to lengthy and costly change projects that negatively impact morale and motivation.
Managing expectations, however, is not just ‘getting the message out there’; it involves a change leader seeking out and building effective communication bridges to their stakeholders, and then using those bridges to understand the change process (Spain, 2007). When expectations are not successfully managed and therefore not met, employees are likely to be less satisfied with their job and less committed to the organization (Premack, 1985; Schweiger, 1991). And in change projects, employees’
expectations of change outcomes are considered an important condition for increasing employee readiness for change and commitment to change (Yuan & Woodman, 2007).
However, it is yet to be discovered whether this can also be applied to the expectations concerning the interaction process between managers and employees. The commitment of employees in change projects is crucial in creating successful change, and, as Ning &
Jing (2012) explain, a lack of willingness or commitment of the people involved in the change can lead to a failed project. A better human process would therefore enable smoother and faster change projects, allowing businesses to save valuable time and money.
In this research, the interaction process between managers and employees is the
central theme. But whereas the role of the actors in change projects separately has been
researched quite extensively, there is a lack of information about the interaction between
them. This gap in the literature on this topic is addressed by a few authors, such as Ford,
Ford & d’Amelio (2008), who criticize this one-dimensional view and the lack of
research regarding the influence of change agent behavior on the feelings and actions of
6
change recipients. In their study, they argue that resistance of change recipients can be caused by a lack of communication by the change agent or a failure to use negative recipient behaviors in a constructive way. This is an interesting starting point for further research.
Actors in Change
In every change project, small or large, multiple actors are involved. There are the managers responsible for implementation, employees who have to adapt their daily work routine to the new plans, and in some cases internal or external consultants that provide advice and help with the implementation process. In this study, the focus is on the interaction between the change agent and change recipient. As explained in the introduction, change agents are defined as those responsible for creating and directing the implementation of change within an organization (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). They can be seen as the managers or leaders who are in charge of motivating their team to embrace the change and are often responsible for informing their subordinates about the change goal and process. Change agents are thus one of the key actors in bringing about successful change.
For recipients of change, leaders are considered the first source of information. By communicating with employees change leaders can help them become aware of the possible impact of changes as well as reduce feelings of uncertainty (Portoghese, et al., 2012). In this way, they can create a clear shared vision of the expected consequences of the change project (Rogers, 2003; Berwick, 2003), and characteristics such as interpersonal skills and the ability to coach employees can help them doing so. Most studies concerning change agents focus on these personal traits that change agents (should) possess and how these influence the chance of change success. Higgs and Rowland (2011) suggest that successful change agents use systemic- and group focus change tactics as well as bottom-up approaches in order to successfully lead change.
Well-developed interpersonal skills and the ability to anticipate the emotional reactions of recipients are also identified as important change agent characteristics (Huy, 2002;
Oreg, 2003). However, communication should not be a one-way process in which
recipients have no say. And even when the agent possesses the skills described, how do
7
they know what to expect of their employees in terms of cooperation and behavior? And how can they be sure the expectations regarding the project are aligned?
Change recipients, as stated before, are responsible for carrying out or adapting to a change (Ford et al., 2008). The term recipient suggests that they are on the receiving end of the change and might not actually have a say in the change project (Bartunek Rousseau, Rudolph, & DePalma, 2006). Many authors nowadays strongly disagree with that conception. Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis (2011) state that there is a growing agreement about the important role of change recipients and their impact on change success. Therefore, Cawsey, Deszca & Ingols (2012) discard the term recipient; they stress the importance of the employees and their role being more than just executing and adapting towards change. The actions and beliefs of recipients are a large part of the way the change process is shaped and their commitment is crucial to change success. This puts ‘recipients’ in a powerful position within change projects and makes them an interesting subject for further study.
Whereas change agent research focuses on the behavior of the successful agent, change recipient literature deals mostly with the reactions of recipients to change in general and to change agents specifically. Sonenshein (2010) distinguishes between resistance, acceptance and championing behavior as the possible responses of change recipients; Bouckenooghe (2010) differentiates readiness and resistance behavior. But recipients are not just subjects exhibiting certain behavior without cause. Many scholars have engaged in research to identify what causes these behaviors, their explanations varying from skepticism of the results, a lack of communication by the agent, not using resistance behavior constructively, a lack of trust in the change agent, or cynicism about organizational change in general (Ford, Ford & d’Amelio, 2008; Cawsey et al., 2012;
Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2005). Another interesting concept as to why change
recipients might not always agree with change could be the notion of psychological
contracts, sets of individual beliefs or perceptions regarding reciprocal obligations
(Levinson, 1963; Rousseau, 1989). Employees’ psychological contracts might be
damaged by change, when employers no longer offer the security that was implied at the
8
start of the working relationship (Robinson, 1996). These concerns could be taken away by change agents to secure cooperation and align expectations. Because when recipients are cynical or skeptical about the results or the necessity of the change project, expectations could be negative.
Interaction Process
Organizational change is a context-dependent, unpredictable, non-linear process, in which intended strategies often lead to unintended outcome (Balogun & Johnson, 2005).
The interaction between change agent and change recipient is what shapes this process and determines the change outcomes. Dewulf & Bouwen (2012) state that people interact in order to comprehend complex situations and make sense out of ambiguous issues;
which they call ‘issue framing’. As Mintzberg & Waters (1985) explain, change interrupts normal patterns of the organization and causes employees to reconsider their role in the organization. Change agents will wonder ‘How will this get accomplished?’
whereas change recipients try to decide ‘What will happen to me?’ (Gioia, Thomas, Clark, & Chittipeddi, 1994). This process creates many questions and insecurities for both agents and recipients. In this process change agents play an important role; they are responsible for the ‘peace of mind’ of their employees. Unfortunately, this is not easy to accomplish and often unsuccessful. As Ford, Ford & d’Amelio (2008) explain, change agents influence the reactions of recipients by breaking agreements both before and during the change and by failing to restore the loss of trust that follows (Andersson, 1996;
Cobb, Wooten, & Folger, 1995; Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). The interaction between agent and recipient is a delicate process, and it is difficult to analyze the feelings, beliefs, and behavior involved. As Sonenshein (2010) explains, existing research often represents a very narrow view of the types of meanings that managers and employees construct during change by mainly focusing on positive or negative meanings of change (Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder, 1993; Piderit, 2000). Sonenshein (2010) argues that the ‘change agents dealing with recipient resistance’ view is too constricted and that there is a much larger variety of meanings constructed during change.
The influence of the interaction process on the attitudes and behavior of agents
and recipients has not been thoroughly researched yet. It is not only important to know
9
whether or not the actors in change are in favor of the change, but also what constitutes their opinion and what role the interaction process plays. Why employees develop positive or negative reactions is also dealt with by Sonenshein (2010), who explains that these behaviors can be a response to whether or not employees view the change as significant. The expectations that actors in change have regarding the interaction process are also related to the why of change reactions; their expectations are one of the determining factors in how positive or negative (or in between) responses come to be, and how they could be handled.
Mutual Expectations
Expectations are defined as the beliefs individuals hold about what leads to what in their environment (Porter, 1975). Employees’ expectations regarding their current work are often influenced by previous work experiences or by their beliefs of what work should be like, which creates possible mismatches in expectations (Porter, 1975). However, when employees’ expectations are not met, this could lead to lower commitment, decreased productivity, less trust and higher dissatisfaction and absenteeism (Davy, 1988).
Employee expectations of the outcomes of change are considered an important condition for increasing both employee readiness for change and commitment to change (Yuan &
Woodman, 2007). At the beginning of a change project, both agents and recipients form
expectations about the change process, their role within this process and their interaction
with other change actors. There is a clear separation of expectations; expectations
regarding the change outcome of the change as a project, and expectations of the
interaction process between change agents and change recipients. The subject of
importance here is the interaction process between change actors and the role of mutual
expectations in this process. But whereas social expectations have been extensively
researched in psychology and in other organizational fields, literature about expectations
regarding the interaction process between change actors is limited to non-existent. The
literature reviewed therefore takes place in the more general context of possible
expectations in change projects in order to identify potential variables that could also
influence the shaping of expectations regarding the interaction process itself.
10
Concerning general expectations in change projects, a comparison can be drawn with the body of research that deals with expectations in acquisitions. Acquisitions very much resemble organizational change projects in terms of the redistribution of roles and the expected insecurity and uncertainty. One could argue that an acquisition is a change project in itself, bringing about the same uncertainties about future job content and new ways of working. Hubbard and Purcell (2001) argue that employees in acquired companies have expectations ranging from immediate job and employment worries to behavioral and cultural concerns in the ‘new’ organization. An important aspect of the acquisition process is how management seeks to shape and meet the expectations of employees (Hubbard & Purcell, 2001). Buono and Bowditch (1989) have shown that employees suffer from the uncertainty accompanying acquisitions, a finding that could possibly be extended to uncertainty in expectations regarding the interaction process.
Another comparison that can be drawn is related to research in expectations during new hire recruitment, where studies have found that new employees that receive realistic job previews are likely to be more satisfied with their jobs and to be more committed to their organizations than others (Schweiger, 1991). Wanous (1978) has shown that clear expectations lead to increases in role clarity and decreases in role ambiguity. These expectations can also be applied to change management projects, where employees have expectations about their future role, job content and the changed working environment. Many researchers argue that if organizations want to reduce uncertainty and anxiety and promote positive beliefs about change outcomes, they must provide adequate information regarding the change project (Portoghese, et al., 2012).
Expectations about the change project and its benefits and the expectations of the
interaction process between change actors can be created by top management through
effective communication, as research has shown that change projects often fail because of
a lack of communication (Al-Mashari & Zairi, 2000). According to Yuan and Woodman
(2007), managers inform their employees regarding change related issues and concerns
such as the reason for change and the type of change desired. Managers particularly focus
on increasing positive expectations, thereby actively managing the perceived benefits of
11
the change project (Yuan & Woodman, 2007). However, management must also be careful not to set expectations too high as this could result in disappointment. A balance between both the positive and negative expected consequences can help employees build a realistic view of the change project (Berwick, 2003; Rogers, 2003).
Another factor that could highly influence expectations is trust, as preceding broken agreements are found to have a negative effect on employees’ expectations of future violations (Shapiro & Kirkman, 1999; Tomlinson, Dineen, & Lewicki, 2004).
When employees trust their manager, and managers trust their employees it could be likely that they hold positive views as to their future interaction process. However, when change agents or recipients have had negative change experiences in the past and these damaged relationships are not repaired there is a higher likeliness of cynicism; which leads to lower work motivation and commitment (Andersson, 1996; Dean, Brandes, &
Dharwadkar, 1998; Reichers, Wanous, & Austin, 1997). How expectations in change projects exactly come into existance and what happens when expectations are not met is researched in this paper.
Change Outcome
Quinn (2004) states that roughly half of all change efforts fail; an alarming number.
However, an interesting question is what exactly is meant by failure. Change outcome could be seen as the extent to which organization members demonstrate the desired change beliefs and commitment. Change outcome could also be whether or not employees exhibit the behaviors that the change project was supposed to trigger.
However, change outcome may also consist of changes in formal working structures, deadlines that are met or other change goals that are not linked to psychological factors internal to employees.
Change outcome can be seen in two different dimensions; both the satisfaction
with the change interaction process itself and the satisfaction with the actual change
outcome (Vos & Brand, 2012). Such a dualistic view gives room to different
interpretations of change success and is helpful in identifying the relevant factors in the
shaping of change outcome. It could be possible that large discrepancies exist between
the satisfaction with the change outcome and the satisfaction with the way this outcome is
12
produced. Change outcome should be analyzed on an individual level, as interpretations of success can differ among change actors. Employees hold certain expectations about change outcome, and whereas positive expectations will increase an individual’s affective commitment to change; the expectation of a negative outcome will decrease the individual’s commitment to change (Ning & Jing, 2012). It remains unknown whether or not this is also applicable to the expectations concerning the interaction process between change actors.
FIGURE 1 The change process
13 METHODS
The methods of this research are explained, emphasizing the process of data collection and analysis (Philliber, Schwab, & Samsloss, 1980). This part of the paper serves as a blueprint for all phases of the research and ensures reliability and validity. Because little is known about the subject of change agent and change recipient interaction and the role of mutual expectations within this interaction, this research focuses on theory development and generating theoretical insights that are not yet covered by existing theories (Ozcan & Eisenhardt, 2009). In this research, a multiple case study is the means that is used to uncover new phenomena that can be observed in practice.
Through this type of study, a set of suggestions for further research is developed.
Change agents and change recipients are interviewed regarding their expectations, feelings and beliefs regarding the interaction between these two change actors. These interviews are used in order to gain information about possible aspects of change agent and change recipient interaction and the role of expectations, aiming to identify variables, mechanisms or patterns that complement current research.
Data Collection
In-depth semi-structured interviews of around thirty minutes were used to explore the phenomenon at hand. This type of interviews were used in order to secure that any differences in the answers were due to differences among the respondents rather than in the questions asked (Gordon, 1975). Semi-structured interviews are well suited to explore the perceptions and opinions of the respondents, because they secure validity but also enable probing for more information or the clarification of answers. Because of the theory development nature of this research, semi-structured interviews provided the opportunity to explore interesting aspects in more depth that emerged during the interviews (Hill, Knox, Thompson, Williams, Hess, & Ladany, 2005; Hill, Thompson, &
Williams, 1997).
All interviews were executed by one researcher, and were recorded for validity
and verbatim transcription purposes. The interviews were divided into two phases: the
beginning phase and the end phase. Firstly, the participant was asked a number of general
questions about the change project, such as the duration and their role. Secondly, the
14
participant was asked to look back to the start of the project, after which questions were posed about their prior expectations regarding the interaction with the agent (for recipients) or with the recipients (for the agent). Thirdly, the participant was asked to look back at the project and describe the actual interaction process. Lastly, the participant was asked about the satisfaction with both the actual interaction process and with the outcome of the change. An important note regarding this research design is the potential influence of the actual change interaction process on the memories of the prior expectations of the interviewees. In order to improve the reliability of the answers, factual questions are used before asking the opinions of the interviewees (Boyce & Neale, 2006), this is helpful in retrieving memories before the start of the change process without interviewees becoming too involved with what actually happened.
All interviews took place between March and July 2014. These interviews were transcribed in order to enable coding, which yielded around fifty thousand words in raw text. The interview protocols for both agent and recipient can be found in Appendix 1.
Coding Process and Data Analysis
In order to make sense of this rich amount of data, a mix of inductive and deductive
coding has been used to take from the available literature but also to allow research
findings to emerge from the frequent, dominant or significant themes inherent in raw
data, without the restraints imposed by structured methodologies (Thomas, 2003). The
literature review described before indicates some directions for possible interpretations
which are integrated in the coding scheme as deductive codes, however most findings
have been extracted from the data and are therefore inductive codes. The coding scheme
was composed through the following method. Firstly, the textual data was thoroughly
read, then specific segments of information were identified, after this the segments were
labelled in order to create categories, overlapping categories were merged and a
representative amount of categories was created to ensure both completeness and
comprehensibility (Creswell, 2002). This lead to the creating of a few categories; prior
expectations and the factors that play a role in the shaping of these expectations, a
posteriori reflections on the interaction process and the factors that play a role in whether
or not the expectations are met (divided between change issues and change enablers).
15
For example, in terms of the expectations and how they are shaped (prior expectations), one of the codes used was ‘former working relationships’. This code was for instance applied to the following interview segment:
‘Most people have known me for a long time, because I have been working here for a very long time as well. So people know how I do my work, which makes me easy to approach.’
In the interviewee answers regarding the a posteriori reflections on the interaction process, one of the codes used is ‘two-way communication’ which was used to label for example this interview fragment:
‘Well, I think the interaction was good. When there are any difficulties they (the recipients) always discuss this with a manager, and I am also able to connect with them and ask them how things are going.’
By means of a coding scheme and by using quotes to illustrate results, a meaningful representation of almost 50,000 words in raw data was created. This research technique enabled easier identification of common patterns, and allowed results to be sparked with vivid quotes in order to make the research livelier and easier to relate to. The resulting coding scheme can be found in Appendix 5.
Within-Case and Cross-Case Analysis
After the coding process, the within-case data-analysis was executed. The factors that
played a role in the shaping of negative or positive expectations were examined, common
patterns within the case were identified and the most representative factors were
extracted. In the a posteriori reflections of both change actors, whether or not the
expectations were met was examined and the most mentioned factors that lead to a
positive interaction process (change enablers) and the representative factors that lead to a
negative interaction process (change issues) were identified. This subsequently led to
several main factors in both the shaping of expectations and the factors within the actual
interaction process that enable or constrain change. After composing a table with the
main factors in each case, the cases and their main factors were then compared in the
cross-case analysis. This has helped to generate more insights and to draw conclusions
16
based on multiple findings instead of just one. Because the research consisted of three cases in different organizations an interesting comparison was drawn.
Case Study Design and Participants
Cases were selected in which a group of employees were part of a change project in the past three years. The change projects in these cases needed to be currently finished or very close to completion. This type of cases made it possible to compare expectations before and after the change and ensured that participants had a lively memory of the interaction process. Three cases were used to draw individual case conclusions as well as complete a comparison of the cases for deeper understanding. By means of an analysis of the differences between the prior expectations and the a posteriori reflections, the relevant factors that influence the interaction process between change agent and change recipient were identified and their influence on change outcome was assessed.
The cases took place in different organizations in order to improve research results. The number of employees and the agent versus recipient ratio was constant between cases. For each case one agent and four recipients have been interviewed, who were selected in terms of who has the most to do with the change project. The selection of participants was executed by the involvement of different contact persons at each respective organization. In conclusion, the study consists of 15 participants, 3 of them being change agents and 12 change recipients. This number of participants was chosen in order to be able to perform a meaningful within- and cross-case analysis while still taking into account time constraints of this research.
Case 1: MEN The first case described in this paper is based on interviews conducted at a Dutch organization in the insurance industry with about 2,500 employees.
This firm in its current form has been active on the market for around eight years. The
change project that was studied took place in the IT department of the firm, where a new
organization-wide IT system was being implemented. This IT system was used by all
employees to arrange company cellphones and various other work materials. The
participants are divided between one agent; an internal advisor focused on human
17
resource management, and four recipients; software developers and functional application managers.
Case 2: GAT The second case analyzed in this research took place in a Dutch organization in the energy industry with an employee count of around 200. GAT in its current form has been active on the market for almost ten years. This organization launched a change project to adapt to ‘the new way of working’ with flexible office spaces, a paperless office, and the ability to work from anywhere through a digital workspace. In order to accomplish this, GAT moved from one location to another, providing fewer parking spaces and thereby encouraging employees to find more environmental friendly ways to travel to work. The agent that was interviewed is the project leader, the four recipients have varying functions; communication staff, business analyst, and project leader.
Case 3: NOD The third case analyzed in this paper is based on interviews that took place in a Dutch publishing company with around 350 employees. NOD has strong roots in the publishing industry, having been active since the industry’s early history. The change project under study was the reorganization in which four departments were merged into one, handling all aspects of customer service. In this project many employees have been made redundant and whereas the project was scheduled to be finished in 2013, it has still not been fully completed yet. The agent that was interviewed had the role of department leader, the recipients were all part of the customer service team.
In the following table, an overview is given of all participants, listing their specific roles
within the change projects. See the next page.
18
TABLE 1 ParticipantsParticipant Change project role Gender Age Years of
experience at the firm
MEN
Case 1: Participant 1 (Agent) Staff and organization advisor Male 50 27 Participant 2 Business information manager Female 46 27 Participant 3 Business information manager Male 43 14
Participant 4 IT User manager Female 39 13
Participant 5 Software developer Female 42 20
GAT
Case 2: Participant 6 (Agent) Project leader Male 47 25
Participant 7 Communication manager of the change project
Female 47 17
Participant 8 Representative employee Male 44 7
Participant 9 Representative employee Male 57 30
Participant 10 Change ‘champion’ Male 30 3
NOD
Case 3: Participant 11 (Agent) Department manager Male 38 1
Participant 12 Customer care employee Female 35 1
Participant 13 Customer care employee Female 37 3
Participant 14 Service desk employee Male 26 3
Participant 15 Team captain service desk Male 46 22
19 FINDINGS
The findings per case are described first, after which the cases will be compared. The results are divided between firstly the prior expectations of both change actors concerning the interaction process, secondly to what extent these expectations were met for both agents and recipients (a posteriori reflections) and thirdly the influence of the actual interaction process and whether or not expectations are met on change outcome. The factors that play a role in this process are described and explained by using quotes from the interviews. In Appendix 2, 3 and 4 complete overviews of the coded quotes of factors mentioned by interviewees can be found, which provides a larger picture of the emotions and opinions expressed in the interviews.
Case 1: MEN
Prior expectations Both the agent and the recipients had positive expectations regarding the interaction process within the change project. The agent indicated that those positive expectations were partially based on role clarity, the fact that everyone was well aware of the ways of working and where to go with problems. Two other factors that were mentioned by the agent are the former working history they shared, and the agent’s own personality; based on these two factors people knew what to expect of the agent, which was also confirmed by recipients. The recipients mentioned a variety of factors that influenced their expectations, putting emphasis on top-down communication in which they were informed about the process itself and their role within the process. In this top-down communication, management emphasized the involvement of recipients throughout the change project. Based on those expectations set by management recipients all shared the feeling of participation in the change design and execution, and expected two-way communication in which they could provide their input throughout the process.
Both the agent and the recipients expressed a sense of excitement, ‘let’s make this happen!’ which can be illustrated by the following quote from one of the recipients:
‘And back then we thought ‘hey, we’re going to use this new tool and we are
really going to make this great’, that was the feeling I had, and everybody felt that
way, you could sense that.’
20
A posteriori reflections The agent expressed positive expectations regarding both the interaction process and the change outcome, for the interaction process these expectations were met. The agent clearly stated how satisfactory the collaboration with the recipients was, and emphasized the role of the great loyalty that MEN’s employees have towards their firm. The agent also expressed that this project was mostly the same as the previous working experiences the agent and recipients shared together. According to the agent, two-way communication was a large part of the interaction process, even though this was sometimes in an indirect way where recipients first talked to their direct manager before discussing the subject with the agent. This is illustrated by the following quote:
‘We still have the tendency to communicate through different pillars or groups..
And that communication could be better, because then more problems could have been identified and solved and satisfaction could have been higher.’
Recipients were also quite satisfied with their interaction with the agent. 2 out of 4 recipients mentioned several positive aspects in the interaction process with the agent, which were the high own responsibility that they received and the mutual trust that existed between them and the agent.
In MEN, the agent was only partly responsible for communicating with recipients
about the change, as most communication was sent by top management. In the interaction
with the board, recipients collectively had negative experiences.. Factors that were of
influence in the interaction between top management and the recipients were the time
pressure that management put on this project and the fact that communication stopped
being two-way halfway through the change project. Recipients felt that even though they
were told they would have input in the change design and the process, as the change
project progressed they felt they were no longer asked for their opinion and were solely
responsible for carrying out top management’s plans. As one recipient stated:
21
‘The feeling I had within the change project was that we had to do this and we had to do that, all the things that the board told us to do.. Not things we had come up with ourselves or things we had actually discussed.’
Closer to the end of the change project, however, all recipients indicated that their opinions were again more valued. This happened when some aspects of the change project encountered difficulties and recipients became resistant, which caused the board to turn to the recipients for help. Furthermore, when some of the project deadlines had been met, there was more room for feedback from the recipients. Based on this, the positive prior expectations that recipients had were still met, but only in the early beginning and the end phase of the change project, and not in the middle phase.
Agent versus recipient expectations and a posteriori reflections In this case, the agent and the recipients largely shared the same expectations regarding the interaction process. The only difference in the reflections of both change actors on the interaction process that can be noticed is that 3 out of 4 recipients indicated they had negative experiences concerning the interaction process with the board whereas the agent did not.
Since the agent in this project was the link between the recipients and the management board, this is remarkable.
Change outcome In the overall success of the change project, there were clear
consequences for change outcome caused by the lack of interaction between the board
and the recipients. Because some parts of the change project (a new IT system) were not
sufficiently tested and modified, there were difficulties in the functioning of the system. 2
out of the 4 recipients expressed great resistance during the change process, refusing to
further help implementing the new system. This negatively influenced change outcome in
terms of the delivery of a complete and well-functioning system. The negative
experiences of all recipients concerning the interaction process with the board also caused
some deadlines to be missed. Furthermore, the difficulties in the interaction process also
caused recipients to be less committed to the change project and less willing to work with
the new system.
22
Relevant factors Through assessing the codes used most frequently in the interviews, the most relevant factors can be identified. Based on this analysis of the interviews with MEN’s employees, the following relevant factors can be identified.
Appendix 2 shows a complete overview of participants’ quotes regarding these factors.
TABLE 2 Relevant factors at MEN
Positive expectations (process) Role clarity
Former working relationship Own personality
Internal network Factors: Change issues in the interaction
process
One-way communication
Factors: Change enablers in the interaction process
Employee loyalty High responsibility Mutual trust
Case 2: GAT
Prior expectations At GAT, the prior expectations of recipients regarding the interaction process could all be classified as neutral to positive. 2 out of the 4 recipients had a view that they described as ‘realistic’, they did not expect to be involved in all details of the change project but expected to be part of the important decisions, they trusted that the change project team would be able to complete the task.
The other two recipients had positive expectations, mentioning factors such as the
‘standard way of doing’ and the culture within their company as their grounds. The most
stated reason for their expectations, however, were the expectations set by the board and
the change project team. These parties provided information regarding the project to the
recipients, and clearly stated that recipients would have input throughout the process.
23
‘Management told us that they highly valued our feedback and that they would ask for our input in the design and execution of the change process.’
Although half of the recipients had positive expectations and half of them had neutral expectations regarding the interaction process, to some of them it was unclear what communication channels would be used and what the role of the change champions would be.
The agent in this case had a slightly more negative view on the interaction process, this was based on previous experiences with GAT’s employees and culture, through which the agent expected to experience some difficulties in the interaction process.
A posteriori reflections There is no agreement between the recipients about how they have experienced the interaction process. 2 out of 4 recipients expressed positive emotions, and mentioned factors such as mutual trust, high responsibility and a clear communication structure through which feedback could be given. The other half of the recipients look back at the interaction process with more negative feelings and disappointment; they stated that two-way interaction was almost non-existent and feedback was not used by management at all. All recipients agreed that they were well- informed about the progress throughout the process, but some indicated that they would have rather had less information and more room to give their own input. In fact, some recipients noted that the amount of communication during the change might have been too high, which made them anxious because they felt that apparently they needed to be
‘convinced’ the change was a good idea. Almost all recipients agreed that they had expected their feedback to be incorporated in the change and that they felt disappointed that this was not actually the case. Whereas there were plenty of feedback sessions with a large amount of input, recipients felt that the results of these meetings were not used by the project management team and the board.
‘Within the departments there were regular events in which the change project
was discussed and we were asked how we thought the project should be shaped,
what our concerns were and what we thought should be altered within the project
24
But in the end they almost did not use our suggestions at all, and they did not tell us why not.’
The recipients were more positive about the outcomes of the change project, they agreed that the project was successful and 2 out of 4 recipients noted that even though they did not appreciate the way the interaction process was executed they did value its results. The change agent also reflected positively on the outcomes of the project, and looks back with mixed feelings on the process. The agent indicated that if the impact on GAT’s employees’ would have been more clear in the beginning of the project, the approach might have been different. However, the agent also stated that GAT is not a democracy in which everybody has a vote in everything. Whereas the agent stated that from the beginning of the project it was clear that recipients would have little to no say in the change design, recipients expected the exact opposite.
‘I mean, I would have understood if we did not have a say in everything.. But then don’t tell us at the beginning that we do!’
Agent versus recipient expectations and a posteriori reflections In this case there was a clear distinction between the expectations of the agent and the recipients.
Whereas the agent felt it was a project that needed to be finished on time and within budget, the recipients all felt that their input should have been taken into consideration and that the board and change management team also gave them the idea that this would be the case. 2 out of 4 recipients said they valued how the agent completed the project on time and without any major difficulties, but virtually all recipients agreed that the human component of the change project was not well enough executed.
Change outcome The interaction process between change actors at GAT was not as positive as expected and according to recipients, not as it ‘should be’. This has had a negative impact on change commitment. However, in this change project commitment was not necessarily highly relevant, because of the nature of the change (a move to a new building and a new IT system) employees were ‘forced’ to go along with the change.
Therefore change outcome is not significantly impacted by the problems in the
interaction process between the agent and the recipients.
25
Relevant factors Based on this analysis of the interviews with GAT’s change actors, the following relevant factors can be identified. Appendix 3 shows a complete overview of participants’ quotes regarding these factors.
TABLE 3 Relevant factors at GAT
Positive expectations (process) Culture
Standard way of doing
Expectations set by management Factors: Change issues in the interaction
process
Role ambiguity
One-way communication (no input) Factors: Change enablers in the interaction
process
Mutual trust High responsibility
Case 3: NOD
Prior expectations In the case of NOD, expectations that recipients had of the interaction process were negative to neutral. Because the current agent was hired after the announcement of the change project, recipients were unsure what to expect of their future interaction and collaboration. However, 2 out of 4 recipients stated that because of past negative experiences they did not expect much of this change project. There were large differences between the opinions of long-term employees and new hires, as explained by a long-term NOD employee:
‘So they announce yet another change project.. And all the new people are really excited, but I know that they will run into a wall (at the board level) eventually because that is what always happens.’
The factors that were most mentioned by recipients as to what shaped their expectations
were the culture at NOD and previous experiences with change projects and change
interaction processes at their firm.
26
The agent in this case had more positive expectations of the change project and the interaction with employees. Since the agent was hired after the change project had already started these expectations were largely based on what the agent was told by the board within the job interview process. As a project manager, the agent expected to be concerned mostly with the processes surrounding the project. Based on the agent’s own personality and leadership style the agent had positive expectations about the interaction with the recipients, the agent expected that recipients would easily express their concerns.
A posteriori reflections NOD probably had the most turbulent change process, their large reorganization left many employees without a job and the sentiment of this event could be clearly seen in the reflections by recipients. The high rotation in staff made people unsure of who was responsible for what, and left people confused as of the new distribution of roles and tasks. 1 of the 4 recipients also indicated that the department did not feel like a team anymore because of all the people that were fired and the large amount of new hires in the form of temporary employees. All four recipients indicated that communication was top down, not by the agent but by the board, and they felt that whereas they received information about what was happening they never heard the reasons behind why this is the case.
‘Because of the merge of the departments (the reorganization) many of my colleagues have been fired, but there was still the same amount of work.. We are all extremely busy, and we don’t see why they did it this way.. Because now we have to hire temporary employees all the time’
3 out of 4 recipients did experience the interaction with the agent as pleasant, and indicated that the agent’s personality gave them the feeling they could trust the agent with their problems and concerns. However, one recipient indicated that their department sometimes felt the agent only told them half of the story which made them more anxious about what was going on.
‘Sometimes we heard him telling things to our team manager, so we heard half of
the story but not everything.. This is very confusing and annoying, and I have
noticed that it stressed people out.’
27
The agent in this project felt disappointed, based on the expectations set by management the agent expected that the change would be mostly about changing processes. However, the agent became the manager of a group that was actively resisting change and needed guidance on an emotional level. This enabled the agent to improve the human side of the change project and of their own skillset, but it was not in line with the expectations set by management.
However, the interaction process was described by the agent as very good with the relevant factors being mutual trust and high responsibility and independence given to recipients. Recipients agreed, they collectively stated that the interaction with the agent was better than expected.
‘At first you’re like okay you think you can fix all of this, let’s wait and see for ourselves. But now it is really true, he does what he says he will do and he really appreciates our input.’
In conclusion, resistance and negative emotions were high within the change project.
However, the interaction with the agent was viewed positively by all recipients. The interaction with the board was looked upon negatively, and the agent is in this case apparently unable to do something about this.
Agent versus recipient expectations and a posteriori reflections There were clear differences between the expectations of the agent and those of the recipients.
Whereas the recipients had a mostly negative view based on their previous experience with failed change projects at NOD, the agent had positive expectations based on what the management board told about the change project. Within the interaction process, 2 out of 4 change recipients had neutral expectations not yet knowing what to expect of their new manager, whereas the agent had positive expectations based on the agent’s own personality and previous work experiences in other firms.
Change outcome Because of the problems in the interaction process between the
board and the agent and the recipients, the change project at NOD was behind on
schedule and not attaining its expected goals. The resistance exhibited by employees
made the duration of the change process longer. It could therefore be stated that the
28
change outcome was negatively influenced by the interaction process between the change actors.
Relevant factors Based on this analysis of the interviews with NOD’s change actors, the following relevant factors can be identified. Appendix 4 shows a complete overview of participants’ quotes regarding these factors.
TABLE 4 Relevant factors at NOD
Negative/neutral expectations (process) Previous negative experiences High employee turnover Culture
Factors: Change issues in the interaction process
One-way communication by board Resistance by recipients
High employee turnover High work pressure Factors: Change enablers in the interaction
process
Mutual trust
High responsibility/freedom to recipients
Cross-Case Analysis
Prior expectations By comparing the findings of all three cases, a number of
similarities and a few contradictions could be identified. In the first case (MEN),
expectations of change recipients were predominantly positive (4 out of 4 recipients) and
based on a strong former working relationship between agent and recipients, the internal
network of both agent and recipients, the clarity in who is responsible for what and the
calm and open personality of the change agent. In the second case (GAT), expectations
were neutral (2 out of 4 recipients) to positive (2 out of 4 recipients) based on the normal
way of doing, the open culture of the firm and especially based on the expectations that
were set by higher management during special information gatherings. In case three
29
(NOD), half of the recipients expressed negative expectations (2 out of 4 recipients) and the other half had neutral expectations, the agent stated their expectations were positive.
The lack of positive expectations was mostly based on previous negative experiences, and the high employee turnover. Two out of the three agents (NOD and MEN) expressed positive expectations regarding the interaction process, emphasizing their working relationship with the recipients, the expectations top management gave them and their own openness to feedback. One agent (GAT) had slightly more negative expectations, expecting difficulties with ‘stubborn’ recipients based on previous experiences and the organizational culture.
Together, these three cases cover a large part of the spectrum of expectations, ranging from positive to neutral to negative. Why these expectations were different can be explained based on the factors mentioned above and will be discussed more in-depth in the discussion section of this paper.
Expectations and a posteriori reflections of agent and recipients The reflections of the change actors interviewed provided an interesting perspective on change agent change recipient interaction, because whereas virtually all recipients were satisfied with their personal interaction with the agent, none of them were satisfied with the overall interaction process in a firm-wide context. On a team-level, both agents and recipients were pleased with their collaboration and the openness of the relationship that enabled recipients to discuss their change-related concerns and provide general feedback.
However, on the change project management or board level, recipients felt they were not taken seriously and in all three cases stated that either their input was not asked at all or was requested but was not incorporated in the change design and/or process. None of the agents expressed concerns of this kind, suggesting they did not experience these issues.
The only change issues stated by both agents and recipients are non-interaction related issues, examples being technical problems such as IT issues and infrastructure problems.
Even though these problems have little to do with the interaction between agent and
recipient, they did cause resistance and made the overall change project more difficult.
30
Relevant factors overall Based on this comparison of the three cases the following factors can be identified as most commonly mentioned by the fifteen interviewed change actors.
TABLE 5 Overall relevant factors
