The interaction process between the change agent, middle manager and recipient and the effect on change success

(1)

The interaction process between the change

agent, middle manager and recipient and

the effect on change success

(2)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 2

The interaction process between the change

agent, middle manager and recipient and

the effect on change success

Name: Eelco Tanghe

Student number: 2229889

University: University of Groningen Faculty: Economics and Business

Master program: Master of Science in Business Administration Specialization: Change Management

Telephone number: 0646673860

E-mail: eelco_tanghe@hotmail.com

(3)

Preface

This master thesis is written on behalf of the graduation program of the study Business Administration in the field of Change Management at the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. The final phase of this study consisted of five months conducting intensive research. With this study, I attempted to broaden the academic knowledge about the interaction process between persons by doing research about a phenomenon within Centraal Justitieel Incasso Bureau. Despite the fact that it was an intensive process, it was very challenging and a great experience to me. During this research I learned a lot about doing research, but also gained insight in the business life. Therefore I was able to combine the theoretical perspective with the practical issues of an organization.

To bring this thesis to a good result, I want to thank a few persons. First of all, I want to thank my supervisor from the University of Groningen, dr. Joyce Rupert. She made a significant contribution to this paper with her constructive feedback and guided me through the process with her guidance and support. Moreover, my thanks go to co-assessor dr. J.F.J. Vos. Furthermore, I want to thank everyone at CJIB for their willingness to cooperate and contribution to this paper, especially Willem Slagter, who was my contact person within the organization. He created support and publicity by approaching and informing persons within the organization. Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends for their support during the process in the last couple of months.

(4)

0 Abstract

Centraal Justitieel Incasso Bureau (CJIB) underwent a change in order to work more flexible, this change is called Anders Werken (AW). Since the change affects all persons, this will have its effect on the behavior. In that context, this qualitative study investigated the interaction between agent and recipient and the effects on change success during organizational change by focusing on the change agent behavior, recipient behavior and the role of middle management. Surprisingly, little academic research has been conducted in the field of the interaction process between the change agent and recipient. This study tries to clarify linkages and contribute to fill the existing gap in the literature. This study reveals that the agent behavior is determinative for interaction to occur and that a precondition for change success is a good interaction process in which everyone is involved and participates. Also, in this change the middle managers have the largest influence on the interaction process since they are the connection between agent and recipients and also are the agent for the recipients. As an agent, most middle managers fostered the interaction and as a result, the change is labeled as a success.

Key terms

(5)

1 Introduction

Nowadays, the world is changing and developing rapidly. In the modern business environment, organizations face rapid change like they never did before. It is necessary for organizations to react on the environment and anticipate on trends and innovations in order to ensure that they remain competitive. Change has become increasingly important, especially since only thirty percent of the changes in businesses become a success (Burnes, 2009). In order for change to be successful, the literature suggests that individuals must perceive that there is a compelling need for change (Fernandez and Rainey, 2006: Armenakis and Harris, 2009). These individuals possess different thoughts about the change and also differ in hierarchical rank: hence multiple parties are involved in the change process.

The persons at the receiving end of the change are the recipients: they are either the subject of change or have the responsibility to carry out the change (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008). The other party is the change agent (interchangeably used with agent or leader): he or she is responsible for creating and directing the implementation of change (Higgs and Rowland, 2011). Change agents are the persons who are necessary to bring about successful change. Furthermore, Higgs and Rowland (2011) argue that the role of leadership in the change process does affect significantly the success of change, because the beliefs and mindsets of change agents have been shown to influence their orientation of choices and approaches to problem solving. Therefore, the behavior of the recipient and the leadership behavior of the change agent will be central to this study as predictors of the interaction process.

Sometimes persons within an organization can be both agent and recipient: these persons are known as the middle managers who can have a double role. Middle management is the intermediate management level of a hierarchical organization, being subordinate (recipient) to the senior management but above the lowest levels of operational staff (agent) (Aucoin, 1989). This implies that middle management has an important role to facilitate the change in the right direction. They are the conversation partner with management in which they are the recipient and they are also the conversation partner with recipients in which they are the agent themselves. This implies that middle management serves as the linking pin between different hierarchical levels. Because of their importance, these persons will also be subject in this study since the introduced change within the organization put the focus on middle management to make the change work.

(7)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 7 Dijk and Van Dick, 2009). The use of participation, which is part of the interaction process, seems to be related to successful implementation of change according to Lines (2004). However, the interaction process between agent and recipient is under researched. That is why this study investigates the effects of interaction on the change success during organizational change at Centraal Justitieel Incasso Bureau (hereinafter referred to as CJIB) by focusing on the change agent behavior, recipient behavior and the intermediate role of middle management.

1.1 Organizational context and business phenomenon

CJIB experienced a change: this change will be central to this study. CJIB, founded in 1990, is an executive agency of the Ministry of Security and Justice and is located in the Northern of the Netherlands. The establishment of the CJIB is closely linked to the introduction of the Act on Administrative Enforcement Traffic Regulations in 1989. The organization consists of approximately 1400 employees, works commissioned by the government and is responsible for the collection of traffic fines.

The change which will be investigated is about Anders Werken (AW). This is derived from the general concept of Het Nieuwe Werken (HNW). HNW is about the renewal of the physical workplace, organizational culture, management style and the mentality of the worker and his manager (Bijl, 2007). HNW is a collective name of various ways of working smarter, more efficiently and effectively. The reason for the change was that it was suggested that the building was overcrowded and all persons couldn’t have been given a place within the building. However, there were structural many empty workplaces in the entire building. So an occupancy investigation was held, which showed that the occupation was so low that the available space was not used efficiently and therefore housing was too expensive since the average occupancy rate was measured at 33% and at the summit 65%.

(8)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 8 better. The change of paradigm is an organization-wide process (Van de Wiel, 2011). persons are the subject and behavior is the most important component that needs to change and falls apart in the creation of a new mindset and a new context since the way of working is different. Every organizational member has to work according to the new concept in which they need to adapt and get used to the new situation. This is quite a change, however the main motivator for change was reducing the costs and making the organization more future oriented. For more details about the financial calculation and the process of the introduction of the change is referred to appendix A.

1.2 Practical and scientific contribution

The objective of this paper is twofold. The practical relevance from an organization will be connected with the theoretical substantiation from literature. On the one hand, a practical contribution for CJIB forms an important part. This includes an evaluation and advice about the implemented change, hence the implementation of AW. The organization already implemented the change, however there has not been an evaluation yet about the success, the implementation, leadership and satisfaction about the change: especially how leadership is filled in and interaction occurred during the change. The results of this study can be used to learn lessons from the process that has taken place. On the other hand, the goal of this study is to discover what the effect of interaction on the change success is during organizational change at CJIB by focusing on the change agent behavior, recipient behavior and the intermediate role of middle management. Hence this paper provides a theoretical contribution to and extension of existing literature on the interaction between agents and recipients since little information is available in this field. The theoretical and managerial perspective will be combined: the management question (i.e. what is the cause of the poor acceptance of the new concept and which role does leadership play during the change?) will be translated in the following research question, which contributes to the theoretical perspective by also focusing on middle managers and the under researched process of interaction:

How do change agent behavior, recipient behavior and the role of middle management affect the interaction process and how does this relate to the change success?

In order to answer this research question, four sub questions are composed. Each variable within the conceptual model is researched on the basis of a sub question. The sub questions are as follows: 1. How does change agent behavior influence the interaction process?

(9)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 9 As a result of these questions, the conceptual model of this paper is illustrated in figure 1.

Figure 1 – conceptual model

1.3 Paper outline

(10)

2 Literature review

This study investigates the effects of interaction on the change success during organizational change by focusing on the change agent behavior, recipient behavior and the intermediate role of middle management. The aim of this study is to investigate the influence of the change agent and recipient in the interaction process by focusing on their behavior toward change. This is the aim since a gap in the literature consists, as in most cases it is described from the perspective of either the agent or the recipient. This paper will focus on the agent as leader and recipient as follower and, in particular, their interaction and the role of the middle manager during organizational change. This chapter is structured according to the variables in the conceptual model. The dependent variable, which is change success, will be explained first and then the independent variables will be described.

2.1 Change success

This paper investigates the effects of the interaction process on the change success since only approximately thirty percent of the initiated changes become a success (Burnes, 2009). There can be concluded that this percentage is very low and thus it is important to measure the change success, which is the dependent variable in this study. Perhaps most importantly, it is necessary to measure the success in order to identify the cause of the possible failure of the change. Higgs and Rowland (2011) argue that the role and behavior of leaders (i.e. agents) in the change process does affect significantly the success of the change. Likewise, according to Oreg et al. (2011) the focus on change recipient characteristics has also highlighted the importance of opinion leaders in successfully implementing change. Lines (2004) confirms the importance of recipients, by stating that the involvement of recipients will lead to change success. He concludes by arguing that the use of participation seems to be related to successful implementation or result of the change. But how does the interaction process influence the success of change? The focus on this study will be on the change agent behavior, recipient behavior and the intermediate role of the middle manager as predictors for the interaction process.

(11)

2.2 Change agent behavior

There is clear and growing evidence that the role of leaders in the change process does affect significantly the success of change (Higgs and Rowland, 2011). The change agent is responsible for creating and directing the implementation of change (Higgs and Rowland, 2011). Battilana et al. (2010) strengthen the belief that the role of leaders in the change process does affect the success of change: they argue that there is growing evidence that change agents’ leadership characteristics and behaviors influence the success or failure of organizational change initiatives.

This study focuses on the change agent behavior since it is known that they play an important role during the change. In their study of 2005, Higgs and Rowland came up with different types of leadership behavior. Higgs and Rowland (2005) differentiate three types of leadership behavior and their impact on change success, which they categorize as: 1) Shaping behavior: 2) Framing change: and 3) Creating capacity. First, shaping behavior refers to the communication and actions of leaders related directly to the change such as making others accountable, control tasks and think about change. This type of behavior is leader centric, which means that the leader focuses on put forth his view of the change and how it should be implemented. Higgs and Rowland (2011) demonstrated that the shaping behavior had a negative impact on change success in all the contexts examined. This behavior has a negative emotional feeling and impact on change success since the shaping leader will control and persuade other persons which is experienced as unpleasant.

The second category is framing change, in which the agent establishes starting points for change by communicating the vision and guiding principles in the organization and sets clear boundaries. The leader gives freedom to the recipients to achieve the goals. Framing change is about the creation of meaning and how to make sense of the change and is often seen in emergent changes. Bartunek (1984) states that by exposing framing behavior, leaders provide structure that guide follower sense making. Finally, creating capacity is about working organization wide to gain support and creating individual and organizational capabilities. Creating capacity is also about communication and making connections. More characteristics of creating capacity are coaching, setting boundaries, creating alignment at the top and creating a safe environment and act in here and now (Higgs and Rowland, 2005). While framing is more about how to make sense of the change, creating capacity is about facilitating the process.

(12)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 12 be expected that this will be low when the shaping style is performed since this style is characterized by agents who want to be in charge and others to follow their lead. However, shaping behavior can also have a positive effect when there is no time to communicate guiding principles or making connections between persons.

Besides the shaping behavior, there are also framing change and creating capacity. Framing change is about guiding follower sensemaking, while creating capacity is about communication, trust and making connections. These two types of leadership behavior, which are divided in four categories, are likely to have a positive influence on the interaction process. In this paper, interaction is about communication and participation. Framing change is about spreading the vision and sensemaking, this means that recipients are more involved, give meaning to and think about the change and hence they participate during the process. Creating capacity is very much people-oriented and creates ownership. Creating capacity is about developing followers, coaching and encourages followers to think organization-wide. This is necessary for recipients to participate and feel involved in the process. Furthermore, this style is also characterized by high-quality dialogue skills. It can be assumed that this will have a more positive influence on the interaction process than the shaping behavior since ownership and dialogue is enhanced.

The success will be influenced by the interaction process, which is affected by the behavior of the agent. Therefore, although positive or negative: the role of leaders in the change process is likely to affect the success of change.

This results in the following sub question:

How does change agent behavior influence the interaction process?

2.3 Role conflict middle manager

(13)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 13 Wolters and Di Natris (2012) confirm this by stating that middle managers have a strong influence on the success or failure of the change because they form a crucial link in the implementation of change processes. Furthermore, the middle managers’ role as change agent will continue to increase in importance as organizations become increasingly complex and geographically distributed (Balogun and Johnson, 2004). In this study this can also be the case since the organization is big and complex.

Since middle managers can possess both the role of agent and recipient, this can lead to tensions or conflicts: middle managers need to deal with both roles. This tension can lead to a role conflict: this is the consequence of contradictory expectations of key stakeholders about middle managers’ roles, which may inhibit role transition (Currie and Procter, 2005). Floyd and Lane (2000) continue by stating that role conflict occurs when managers face inconsistent behavioral expectations based on the need to efficiently deploy existing competencies and the need to experiment with new ones. Floyd and Lane (2000) continue by making the term more explicit: when dissensus poses problems for individuals holding multiple roles, it creates role conflict. Role conflict can occur from dissensus within an individual who holds multiple and conflicting goals and from dissensus between two or more individuals about which of multiple roles is appropriate. The last part seems appropriate for this study, since it is likely that the middle manager possesses a double role: agent and recipient.

(14)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 14 It seems logical that the effectiveness of the change can be strengthened when the agent involves the middle manager in decisions. But when there is a lack of communication, it can be argued that the middle manager feels a bit lost and isn’t involved anymore. This can result in pressures and ambiguity, especially towards the recipients since these persons also don’t receive sufficient information. This is acknowledged by Luscher and Lewis (2008) who state that with role conflict, the manager gives mixed messages to the team. Eventually, this can result in low motivation which in turn will result in lower satisfaction and success. Thus it can be argued that communication is one of the largest responsibilities of middle management since they are the conversation partner with their recipients.

According to Conway and Monks (2011) some research suggests that middle managers may have a negative impact on change success, particularly due to their resistance to change and the ways in which they may slow down decision-making. Yet it can also be suggested that middle managers make a contribution to organizational performance since they are also responsible for carrying out the change in the organization. Balogun and Johnson (2005) focused on the interaction between middle managers as change recipients and how they make sense of top-down change initiatives and how their sensemaking affects resulting organizational changes, while Conway and Monks (2011) described the role of middle managers from the perspective as agents of change. In this paper, the focus is on middle managers because they possess a double role: agent and recipient, hence the role of middle managers in this study will be described from two perspectives and how they handle this situation.Other authors like Wolters and Di Natris (2012) argue that middle managers have a strong influence on the success or failure of the change because they form a crucial link in the implementation of change processes. Furthermore, Cawsey et al. (2012) state that the immediate supervisor is key: the level of trust and understanding between an employee (i.e. recipient) and his or her supervisor can make the supervisor a valuable part of a communications strategy, which is part of the interaction process. Returning to role conflict, in combination with the interaction process, Floyd and Lane (2000) describe this aptly by arguing that in order to interact with operating management, middle managers must maintain a degree of technical competence and a detailed understanding of the organization’s capabilities. To interact with top management, they must also understand the organization’s goals and strategy. Role conflict occurs when middle managers struggle with the combination of both roles.

(15)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 15 This results in the following sub question:

Howdoes the role of middle managers affect the interaction process?

2.4 Recipient behavior

After describing the behavior of the agent and the role of the middle manager, now the behavior of the recipient will be clarified. Change recipients are those who find themselves on the receiving end of a change initiative and who have little power to alter the direction or content of a change initiative (Cawsey, 2012). However, as Oreg et al. (2011) argue: there is a growing consensus about the key role that change recipients’ reactions to change have in determining the change’s potential to succeed. Although recipients still do not have the power to alter the direction or content, they are the persons who need to execute the change. This is acknowledged by Ford et al. (2008), who state that recipients are responsible for carrying out or adapting to a change. Though, the focus traditionally was on the agent and their behavior, but information about the recipient was lacking. Since it is known that recipients are an important element regarding the success of the change, the focus should also be on them instead of only on the behavior of the agent and thus in this study the recipient reactions are taken into account.

Oreg et al. (2011) classify explicit reactions to change in three attitude components: affective, cognitive and behavioral. Affective reactions are feelings and emotions like stress, pleasantness and anxiety. Cognitive reactions are thoughts and beliefs like sensemaking and commitment. Behavioral reactions are ways of acting or behaving like participate, accept or resist the change. This paper will define recipient behavior by only focusing on the behavioral reactions to change since this study is about the behavioral side of both the agent and the recipient. In many cases, reactions to change are the result of a certain action. However, in this study the reactions to change of the recipients is not the result, but the predictor of the interaction process and finally on the change success.

(16)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 16 as negative since the view of Smollan is supported. Causes for the development of resistance are according to Van der Heijden and Kraai (2011): lack of leadership of the agent, employee (i.e. recipient) has difficulty with change and the need for change is unclear. According to Bouckenooghe (2010), recipients resist change when the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. As a consequence, change does not occur unless the individual is motivated and ready to change (Alas, 2007). Readiness to change is considered a critical precursor to the successful implementation of complex changes and refers to organizational members’ change commitment and change efficacy to implement organizational change (Weiner, 2009). This means that members should share the same values and beliefs to implement a change. When organizational readiness for change is high, organizational members are more likely to initiate or accept change, exert greater effort in support of change and exhibit greater persistence in the face of obstacles or setbacks during implementation (Weiner, 2009). The role of the recipient in the interaction process is important because they possess a key role in determining the change’s potential to succeed by their reactions to change. In order to be successful, an organization needs to ensure that the recipients are ready for change.

When recipients are negative towards the change, they will show resistance which eventually will lead to a lower participation. It can be suggested that recipients who are negative towards the change, will not participate in order to contribute to the change. Recipients who are resistant keep themselves on the surface or just participate in a negative way to prevent that the change would take place. However, when the readiness for change is low, this does not automatically imply that change will not occur. But the change success will decrease when a low level of readiness is set, since this can lead to lower motivation and possible resistance. When the participation is low and recipients are not willing to contribute, two-way communication will also not occur and hence interaction is low. Though, participation seems to be related to successful implementation of change (Lines, 2004), while resistance will only slow down the process. Thus it is necessary to enhance readiness: readiness to change is regarded as a positive attitude towards change. Positive persons embrace the change and these persons can be seen as enthusiastic, committed and willing to participate. As Weiner (2009) argues: when readiness for change is high, organizational members are more likely to exert greater effort, exhibit greater persistence and display more cooperative behavior. When the change is supported and carried out by every member within the organization, this will have positive effects on the interaction process, which can lead to greater success of the change. When recipients feel involved because of interest in the change or because they see the need to change and the agent give them the space to participate, then this can lead to greater success.

(17)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 17 This results in the following sub question:

How does recipient behavior influence the interaction process?

2.5 Interaction process

After describing the behaviors of both the agent and the recipient and the role of the middle manager, the interaction between these parties will be described. According to Stromer-Galley (2004), interaction occurs between two or more people communicating with each other, in which subsequent messages consist of responses to prior messages in a contingent fashion and can be described as a process of communication. Furthermore, Stromer-Galley (2004) argues that communication leads to increased participation. This paper will focus on the interaction between the agent and recipient with the middle manager in between. In this paper, interaction is a combination of communication and participation since these components reinforce each other in the interaction process.

First, communication is the exchange and flow of information and ideas from one person to another: it involves a sender transmitting an idea, information, or feeling to a receiver: communication occurs if information moves from the input to one process to the output from a second process (Losee, 1999). Effective communication occurs only if the receiver understands the exact information or idea that the sender intended to transmit. Cawsey et al. (2012) argue that good communication programs are essential to minimize effects of rumors, mobilize support for change and sustain commitment. If recipients get the vision of the organization and understand the direction and perspective of where the organization is going and why, they are more likely to embrace their future role (Cawsey et al., 2012). It is critical to communicate information during change (Lewis, 2000). De Venney (2010) argues that communication affects the ability to lead change, engage recipients, develop relationships, build business, achieve client satisfaction and loyalty, gain support for ideas and innovations, and just about every aspect of success individually and as an organization.

(18)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 18 the aim with this approach is to involve recipients in the change process by participation. One condition regarding this approach is that management is able to adapt.

Second, participation is a conscious and intended effort by individuals at a higher level in an organization to provide opportunities for individuals or groups at a lower level in the organization to have a greater voice in one or more areas of organizational performance (Glew et al., 1995). Often there is some reluctance by the executives to give recipients a greater voice, because management fears that the outcome of the change could be different than they had in mind. That is a reason why management often only informs recipients afterwards. This means that there is hardly any participation (Glavimans and Reijnders, 1994). However, participation is necessary in order to implement a change successfully. Recipients need to understand the change, be satisfied with it and willing to change. Glavimans and Reijnders (1994) continue by stating that there have to be a balance in participation. A distinction has to be made between the purpose of the change and the way in which it is executed. Recipients can have a say in how the change should be completed, while it is clear that the change will occur, whereby it is the task of the change agents to adhere to the ultimate goal (Glavimans and Reijnders, 1994). Between the two extremes of fully democratic decision making and simply impose the change are a number of variants. Glavimans and Reijnders (1994) distinguish six variants which can be plotted on a continuum in which the degree of participation increases:

1. No information or minimal information to the employees: 2. Only provide information to the employees:

3. The employees are given the opportunities to give advice: 4. The opinions of the employees play a role in decision making: 5. Joint decision making:

6. Employees have complete control over the decision.

The choice for one of the six positions depends, for example, on the leadership style. Besides this, also the time factor is important. Time constraints may hinder the deployment of participation and communication. Other authors developed distinctions between different forms of participation. For example, Dachler and Wilpert (1978) characterized participation in three properties: formal versus informal, direct versus indirect and as a location along a continuum which shows the amount of influence an employee (i.e. recipient) can have during decision making. Participation is evaluated by the different types of decision making of Cotton et al. (1988), they defined six types of participative decision making based on the three properties of participation of Dachler and Wilpert (1978): formal/informal, direct/indirect and long term/short term:

(19)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 19  Consultative participation: related to situations where recipients focus on parts of the job and exert long term, direct and formal participation. This type of participation allows individuals to express their opinion, however they do not have the rights to make decisions:

 Short-term participation: refers to situations where employees have direct influence for only a short period of time, like formal training sessions in which they have influence in the decision making process:

 Informal participation: participation occurs through indirect and interpersonal relations between the change agent, middle manager and change recipient:

 Employee ownership: refers to a situation in which the recipient has the right to influence or participate in decisions made by management through mechanisms as elections of the board of directors or shareholder meetings. This type of participation is formal and indirect since the manager has the final right to make a decision:

 Representative participation: this kind of participation refers to a situation in which the recipient can influence decisions, however they do not participate directly and have less influence in comparison with employee ownership.

Cotton et al. (1988) investigated the effectiveness of these six types of participation and found that informal participation seemed most effective and had a positive influence on satisfaction. As described earlier, it is argued that the role of leaders in the change process does affect significantly the success of change. Hence, leadership is necessary during change. Interactional skills are essential leadership behaviors and the ability to communicate effectively is a critical skill for successful leaders (De Venney, 2010). The way in which the agent behaves or shows leadership has consequences for the interaction between the agent and the recipient. For example, shaping behavior of the agent has a negative impact on change success because it is an approach in which the agent controls what gets done and is persuasive. This behavior is characterized by an authoritarian agent in which it seems that there is no space for participation or two-way communication. It can be expected that the shaping behavior will negatively relate to the degree of participation, especially in combination with resistance behavior of the recipients. Combining those behaviors together will result in a low level of participation, since the recipient is unwilling to support the change, possibly because of the style of the agent. As already explained, shaping behavior is linked to a low level of participation. However, when this behavior is linked with readiness of the recipients, which is linked with high a level of participation, what would occur then?

(20)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 20 behavior and readiness to change increases the change success. However, an agent can possess the framing or creating behavior and the recipient still shows resistance to change. Where the agent behavior leads to increased levels of participation, the recipient behavior leads to lower levels of participation. Hence the role of the agent becomes important, since he or she needs to turn resistance into readiness in order to increase the change success.

It could be that the role of the middle manager is even more important to the recipient than the leadership shown by the agent because the middle manager has a direct relation with the recipients. This can be either positive or negative. A negative attitude can be transformed by the middle manager by pursuing another, more positive style. This can be achieved by allowing more participation and clear, direct communication. Though, the middle manager can also have a negative impact when they cannot handle the double role they have (i.e. cannot translate the information from the agent to the recipient and vice versa). In this case, a role conflict can occur which is unfavorable since this is passed on to the recipients and can lead to ambiguity for both the middle manager and the recipients. As a result, recipients are resistant to change and lack motivation to participate within the change project (Ford et al., 2008).

Besides the agent, there is also the recipient who shows readiness or resistance as a reaction to the change. As explained earlier, change recipients’ reactions to change are important to take into considering since they can determine the change’s potential to succeed. Cunningham et al. (2002) argue that staff (i.e. recipients) in higher hierarchical roles reports a higher readiness for organizational change and as a result participated in a greater number of activities. Hence it can be argued that readiness to change can have a positive effect on participation and is fostered by the right style of leadership behavior. To what extent the recipients are allowed to participate depends on the agent. Recipients that are ready for change are positive toward change, see the need and believe in the success of the change. According to Cunningham et al. (2002), change recipients who are holding high levels of trust in the agent and perceive them as supporting have a greater willingness to cooperate with the change.

(21)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 21 recipients influence the interaction during change and which influence this interaction process has on the change success.

This will lead to the following sub question:

(22)

3 Methodology

This chapter describes the procedures and research methods used in order to give an answer to the research question. This research took place between February 2013 and June 2013 and is executed in the context of an agency of the Ministry of Security and Justice. Since this research adopts a theory refinement approach and focuses on exploration, in-depth interviews were conducted in order to obtain a rich understanding of underlying processes and meanings, thus qualitative research is performed (Cooper and Schindler, 2006). Another reason for using qualitative research is that the researcher is able to answer ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions. The research is based on a business phenomenon that is not fully addressed yet in academic research, hence this research is based on a gap in the current literature. A case study within one organization is used since case studies are most suited for answering how and why questions in the context of a contemporary set of events (Gassmann, 1999), like the change that will be studied. Since the variables are aimed at studying and understanding persons, individual in-depth interviews will be held with agents, middle managers and recipients in order to understand the perspective and behavior of a person and generate new insights into the phenomena and the underlying mechanisms that explain the effects of the interaction process.

3.1 Respondents

This study investigates the change within one organization, hence one case study will be executed, however within this case study, five units will be investigated within one organization. Hence one case study consists of five different units with all one agent, one middle manager and two recipients and five specific change stories. The organization underwent a change which was applicable for the whole organization. Three different groups of respondents are interviewed in order to create a complete overview. The first group consists out of unit managers, who are the agents of the change. Then, the second group concerns the middle managers: they possess both the agent and recipient role. The last group of respondents concerns the employees, who are the recipients of the change. This is graphically displayed in table 1.

Male Female Total

Change agent 3 2 5

Middle manager 4 1 5

Recipient 5 5 10

Total 12 8 20

Table 1 - respondents

(23)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 23 explain the effects. For this purpose it typically deploys theoretical sampling. The units are not picked randomly for a reason since this research focuses on agents, recipients and the middle managers, only units with three levels were selected. In total, five units are selected for this case study. This means that there is an agent, a middle manager and recipients. Hence, all the hierarchical functions (agent, middle manager and recipient) are included in the number of respondents, which increases the reliability.

In total, twenty interviews were held, divided into five agents, five middle managers and ten recipients. From these twenty respondents, eight (40%) of them are female and twelve (60%) of them are male and they all possess the Dutch nationality. The age of the respondents varies, in which the youngest respondent is 29 years old and the oldest respondent has the age of 59. In total this results in an average age of 47.1 over all the twenty respondents. Regarding education, all the agents have a master’s degree. Most of the middle managers possess a Bachelor’s degree. However, regarding the recipients, there is not much to say since some of them only joined secondary education, but also some recipients do have a Bachelor or Master’s degree. This variation in education can be related to the nature of the work and the degree of independence of the recipients. The respondents in this sample have many years of work experience with an average of 23 years and an average of seven years in which they are working in their current function. It is striking that all the agents have many years of work experience, however not in their current function. The general work experience varies between eight years and 44 years and the work experience in the current function varies between the three and sixteen years. Moreover, all respondents have a permanent contract.

3.2 Data collection

(24)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 24 in a semi-structured manner. A semi-structured interview is open and allowing new ideas to be brought up during the interview. All the twenty interviews took place between the 22nd of April 2013 and 14th of May 2013.

3.3 Procedure

This section elaborates on the procedures used to execute, which makes the controllability high as it gives detailed insights on how the study was executed. To begin with, one of the drivers of the change was contacted by mail and is asked to be the internal supervisor within the organization. After permission, an introductory conversation took place in order to exchange information and making intentions clear.

In total, five units were selected since five out of the ten units within the organization possess a hierarchical structure with three levels. In each of these five units, there is one agent, one middle manager and two recipients. The selection of units occurred non-random because of the existing hierarchical structure instead of the preference for certain respondents. It can be concluded that the reliability is increased since five different units within the organization were selected.

The internal supervisor approached five agents personally, explained the purpose and asked for approval, which was given. Subsequently, the researcher contacted the agents by mail, often via the secretary. The agents or secretaries passed the names of the middle managers and recipients. Since all the names were known, everyone was sanded a mail with the purpose and all respondents were asked for permission, which they all gave. After response, an appointment was made for the interview. There were a few initial conditions: 1) each respondent must have experienced the change, 2) the initiated change took place less than three years from now, 3) the agent, middle manager and recipient need to be subordinates in hierarchy, control and accountability.

(25)

3.4 Measures

Different measurement scales were used in order to measure the variables in this study. The interview questions are derived from measures which are used in other studies. An overview of the original measures is provided in table 2. Besides the overview, each variable will be discussed briefly. All the measurements are used from studies which has proven to be scientific valid. However, in this study only the most relevant parts are used.

Variable Measurement

Change agent behavior Shaping, framing, creating (Higgs & Rowland, 2011)

Role middle manager Role conflict (Currie and Procter, 2005)

Recipient behavior Readiness (Bouckenooghe, 2009) Resistance (Oreg, 2006)

Interaction process Participation (CATOCQ, Bennebroek et al., 2005, Bouckenooghe, 2009)

Communication (Glavimans and Reijnders, 1994)

Change success Satisfaction with process and result (Vos and Brand, 2012)

Table 2 – measurement per variable

3.4.1 Change agent behavior

The study of Higgs and Rowland (2011) will be used as measurement for the change agent behavior in this study. Higgs and Rowland conducted a qualitative empirical study on change leader behaviors and came up with three broad categorizations: shaping, framing and creating. Each behavior has certain characteristics: these characteristics are used to develop questions for the interview to determine which behavior the change agent possesses.

3.4.2 Role middle manager

The role which the middle managers fulfill within the organization is asked and hereby the term role conflict is important. On the basis of the description of Currie and Procter (2005), the term role conflict is asked during interviews.

3.4.3 Recipient behavior

(26)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 26 order to measure resistance. Only the behavioral aspect will play a role in this study, since this study is aiming at generating more insights into the interaction process by investigating the behavior of the recipient.

3.4.4 Interaction process

The interaction process is split up in two components in order to measure it. First, communication is measured by using the study of Glavimans and Reijnders (1994) about one-way or two-way communication and three types of communication which are related: monologue, dialogue or discussion. Second, participation is measured by using the study of Bouckenooghe (2009). Also questions about the participation part are derived from the CATOCQ questionnaire of Bennebroek et al. (2005).

3.4.5 Change success

Change success is considered as 1) satisfaction with the change result and 2) satisfaction with the change process. These two components are adopted from the definition used by Vos and Brand (2012), these authors state that change outcome depends on the degree of satisfaction with the outcome and the degree of satisfaction with the process of change. The success of the change is measured by satisfaction, derived from the study of Biswas (2011).

3.5 Data analysis

(27)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 27 place on the basis of the variables and on the basis of the individual persons. Eventually, this process leads to results which are described in the results section, which is the next chapter.

Category Subcategory Code

Shaping SHA

Framing FRA

Creating CRE

Attractor ATR

Edge and tension EAT

Container CNT

1. Change agent behavior

Transforming space TRS

Readiness to change REA

2. Recipient behavior

Resistance to change RES

Role ROL

3. Middle manager

Conflict CON

One-way or two-way communication COM

INF (informing) ADV (advice) VIS (vision) PAR (participation) DEC (decision making) Indirect participation: LPI, LPA (low participation own initiative or through agent) 4. Interaction process 4.1 Communication 4.2 Participation Participation Direct participation: HPI, HPA (high participation own initiative or through agent)

Satisfaction with result SWR 5. Change success

(28)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 28 Van Aken et al. (2012) argue that research results are more reliable when they are independent of the person who has conducted the study. In this research, interviews are used which depend more on the personal characteristics of the interviewer than a written survey does. In order to reduce the problem of researcher bias and thus increase the reliability of this study, two transcriptions were also coded by another student of the Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, who is also proficient in the field of change management. This is done in order to have multiple perspectives on the results. Afterwards, the findings and differences were discussed and when necessary, the transcriptions were recoded. In this study the validity is assured by basing the meaning of the concepts on thorough literature studies. Each concept is operationalized and interviews were used in order to be sure that all the aspects of the concepts are covered

(29)

4 Results

This chapter describes the results of this empirical study. The results section presents the collected data from the interviews in an organized way by using the coded transcriptions. Each variable from the conceptual model of this study will be described individually per paragraph. All the results are taken together in order to discover similarities and possible relationships.

The organization underwent a change (Anders Werken), but what was the change about according to the agents, middle managers and recipients? All of them were aware what the change was about. A few statements from the interviews are formulated below:

“We changed from traditional office concept with dedicated workspace to flexible work places where no one has an own workplace anymore”.

“With the few square meters adequate housing should be provided. It all has to do with efficiency, thus the workplace factor of 0.8 was introduced and people could also work from home and some persons are provided with mobile devices”.

“The square meters are being utilized in a different, more efficient way since the occupancy rate was too low and housing became too expensive. The change is primarily financially driven, that was the basis”.

The overall change had to be implemented in all units of the organization in which each unit manager (i.e. agent) is responsible to implement the change in the unit. It was up to them how the change was introduced and implemented and to what extent the recipients were involved in the implementation of the change. The vision and the change were clear since decision making had already taken place, however within the framework there was space created for the agent to execute the change and interact with the recipients. It depends per unit in the way in which they handled this.

4.1 Change success

(30)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 30 All agents and eleven of the fifteen recipients are satisfied with the result. As one agent argued: “we use less work place and we can work more flexible now. So given the business-side, the results are achieved”. This practical side is also acknowledged by another agent: “I am very satisfied about the result. The space is made incredibly profitable for little cost”. He was strong supporter of the change and told that the financial goal is achieved and the change is made future proof. Another agent was very clear: “it is fine, the results are achieved. We still have plenty of space”. This view is acknowledged by all agents, as one agent told: “the workplace factor will be further reduced to 0.7. Now we have enough space, however than we have to respond more adequately”. Just like many other agents, one agent argued that the change had not a huge impact. However, three of the five agents and the corresponding middle managers (3) and recipients (6) are all satisfied with the result.

The middle managers agreed with each other about the fact that the space is now better utilized, but also that the impact was not high. One middle manager argued: “now we have more freedom and can work from home. Everyone is used to the new situation and they would not go back to the former situation”. Also, just like the agents, all middle managers acknowledge that there is still plenty of space and hence the need to work flexible is not high. However, purely looked at the result, one middle manager told that the result was achieved: “productivity remains the same, absenteeism remains low and flexibility is increased”. One of the five agents is satisfied, just like the middle manager. Solely, only one of the two recipients was dissatisfied about the result, though this was also the person who showed resistance to the change. Then, one agent is, just like the other four agents, satisfied about the result, but the middle manager and recipients (2) are not, as the middle manager stated: “the team falls apart and the need is simply not there for us since we have enough space. We do not have to change”. The recipients of this middle manager confirm this statement.

(31)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 31 Fifteen of the twenty agents, middle managers and recipients are satisfied with the process and five of the twenty are not satisfied with the process. Four of the five agents are satisfied. All four agents stress that the process was clear and just fine. One agent argued: “the process was good. It has been a careful process in which we have completed the change jointly and there was enough input from everyone”. Another agent told: “the whining is finished now, it has become normal and people are satisfied”. This agent is not completely satisfied with the process: “the interaction was well organized, but I would like to eliminate the hassle. However, that is debit to change”. Then, one of the five agents was not satisfied with the process: he told that the process was far from successful: “little participation has taken place. A factor contributing to the low satisfaction with the process is that there was some pressure to implement to achieve the desired effect”. The recipients of this agent acknowledge this view and were also not satisfied with the interaction process. The middle manager as recipient of the agent stated: “there was little interaction, which was quite annoying”. Then, four of the five middle managers agreed that the process was good. One middle manager argued: “I think that one has been able to obtain adequate responses by representatives”. Another middle manager argued that the process was interactive and enjoyable.

Seven of the ten recipients are satisfied with the process. Three of the ten recipients weren’t satisfied and two of these three recipients belong to the same unit in which the middle manager and the agent also indicated to be dissatisfied with the process. Both recipients stressed the lack of interaction and information: “the process was unclear, communication was limited and hence the interaction was very low”. It can be argued that the process wasn’t good organized within this unit. Overall, the recipients argued that they are satisfied with the process as one recipient stated: “it has been a gradual process and this was just fine”. Another recipient about the process that has taken place: “the process ran smoothly and was quite good in which we had no problems”. Two positive recipients praised the process of the change: “there were enough moments to attend meetings and we were informed adequately”. Another recipient enhanced this by indicating that he would not know how to organize and execute the change in another way.

(32)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 32 result since all the related recipients, agent and middle manager were not satisfied with the interaction process and also all of them indicated that the change was not a success.

4.2 Change agent behavior

The study of Higgs and Rowland (2005) is used to determine the behavior of the change agent. They identified three broad leadership styles: shaping (give the right example, controlling, put forth own view), framing (communicate vision and guiding principles and give recipients autonomy) and the last style is creating (give trust, coach, stimulate and gain and give support). The results of this section will be classified in these types of behavior.

The results of this section are split up into two parts since there are two kinds of agents: 1) five agents of the upper level in which the five middle managers are recipients of the agents and 2) five middle manager as agent for the ten recipients since they possess a double role and are the direct supervisor of the recipients. From the interviews it is known that the middle manager indeed possess a double role in which they are the agent for the recipients and the recipients actually see the middle managers as their agent. See figure 1 for more clarity. First, the results of the agents of the upper level will be described in which the middle manager is the recipient. Second, the results of the agents will be described from the perspective of the middle manager as change agent for the recipients.

4.2.1 Change agent behavior

In this section the results of the agents of the upper level will be described from the perspective in which the middle manager is grouped as recipient. Sometimes behavioral styles overlapped to a certain extent: most of the times it was obvious, but in case of multiple styles, then it is mentioned or the most dominant style is applied. Three of the five agents acknowledged framing as the most prominent behavior during the change, as one agent told: “I communicated the vision and allowed the execution to middle managers and gave them the freedom to do this”. One of the five agents argued that he pursued the creating leadership behavior. His style is very much based on giving trust and leaving some space for self development, as the agent stated: “I want to make the employees aware and give them trust in which I do act more as a coach”. The last agent is a special case, since he argued: “I had difficulties with the change and only explained the ‘why’ of change”. This agent gave inconsistent answers by stating that he tried to convince the recipients of the need and giving the right example, but also giving broad direction of the change.

(33)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 33 freedom to fill in their role since our unit is fairly independent in terms of people”. The agent who did adapted his style to fit with the change mentioned: “since change is experienced differently by people, I adopt situational leadership and treat everyone in the best way”.

The perspective of the recipients about the leadership behavior of their agents often coincides. First of all, the perspective of the middle managers, as recipients of the agent, will be discussed. The three agents, who classified themselves as showing framing behavior, are classified quite similar by their middle managers in whom three of the three middle managers confirmed this. One middle manager of the framing leader confirms this by arguing that she gives a lot of autonomy and confidence. This view is shared by another middle manager about her agent who pursues the framing leadership behavior. This middle manager stated: “she gives us the space to execute the change and keeps track on the big picture”. Then there were two other leadership styles dominant according to the agents. One agent told that his style was based on trust in which he acts as a coach. This is confirmed by the corresponding middle manager: “he is open and connects our unit and gives everyone a lot of space to execute the change. He exudes confidence and we do not confound this”. There was also one exception in which the agent couldn’t be placed in one of the three styles. There was a lack of leadership as the middle manager stated: “the agent showed too little leadership during this change, this is a shame”. The middle manager was quite negative about his agent. He indicated that he was the only advocate within their unit who tried to make the change work.

(34)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 34 and everything was communicated and that there was room to make mistakes. As one of these recipients told: “in this way, we get more involved, have a challenge and are willing to contribute to certain goals”. The last agent told that he gave little direction to the change and thought that this was fine. However, the middle manager as recipient of the agent was quite negative about his agent. Both recipients of the lowest hierarchical level of the unit proved that the middle manager was right and acknowledged that the agent of the upper level was too distant, detached from the unit and didn’t gave direction to the change: “the agent should have played a bigger role during the change”, according to both recipients.

4.2.2 Middle manager as change agent

In this section the results of the agent will be described from one step lower on the hierarchical ladder, hence from the perspective in which the middle manager is the agent for the recipients. See figure 1 for more clarity. All middle managers indicated that they are direct responsible for the recipients. From the interviews is known that the agents of the middle managers see them as an important person in between of the agent and recipients, as one agent argues: “he has more interaction with the employees and is the direct contact person for them. Besides this, he is an important ambassador of the proposed change”.

Two of the five middle managers showed characteristics of the shaping behavior. One middle manager argued: “in the beginning, I tried to give the right example”, while the other middle manager with shaping behavior told that he was direct responsible for the recipients and controls them. Then, two of the five middle managers classify themselves as being a creating leader. The first middle manager thinks that she plays an important role: “I try to be a coach and bring the change positively to the recipients in order to gain acceptance and commitment”. The second middle manager argues that his style is people-oriented: “I take time for people and make all things negotiable”. The last of the five middle managers had a combination of shaping and creating. He explained this: “I am a facilitator, discuss with people and try to connect persons with each other”, however he also indicated that he made agreements with recipients about goals and checked this.

(35)

Master thesis – Eelco Tanghe 35 the leader with a combination of shaping and creating and the other four recipients belong to the leaders with creating leadership behavior. The thoughts and opinions of the two recipients about the leader with the shaping behavior were quite the same and hence they confirmed that their agent (i.e. middle manager) showed characteristics of the shaping behavior by arguing: “the middle manager had more control and knew what was going on within the team and he convinced us of the advantages of the change”.

Then, there were two middle managers who labeled themselves as creating in their agent role. The four recipients as subordinates of these middle managers agreed with the similarities with this behavior. One of the two creating middle managers stressed the importance of being a coach and trying to gain acceptance by stimulating the recipients of the lowest hierarchical level. The two recipients about this middle manager as agent: “she listens very well, she understands us and deals with the problems”. The other middle manager who showed creating behavior had more or less the same style as his agent: “my style is people-oriented in which I support the employees”. The recipients (i.e. employees) of this middle manager confirm this by stating that he informs and talks a lot and participates in the change: “he stimulates us to speak out”. The last middle manager translated his role as agent for the recipients as a combination of creating and shaping. Since this is an infrequent, uncommon combination, surprisingly the recipients confirmed this by mentioning that: “he is open, very clear and points us at the rules and checks this”. However, the recipients also state that: “he coaches us a lot and is the mediator between people when necessary”.

The interaction process between the change agent, middle manager and recipient and the effect on change success

The interaction process between the change

agent, middle manager and recipient and

the effect on change success

The interaction process between the change

agent, middle manager and recipient and

the effect on change success

Preface

0

Abstract

Table of contents

1

Introduction

2

Literature review

3

Methodology

4

Results