The influence of the interaction process between change agent and recipient during different phases of organizational change on the change outcome in the Dutch public sector

The influence of the interaction process between change agent and recipient

during different phases of organizational change on the change outcome in

the Dutch public sector

Master thesis, MSc Business Administration - Change Management

University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business June, 2013 Barthold Gijssen Student number: S2233525 Saffierstraat 94 9743 LK Groningen (06) 16277971 b.gijssen@student.rug.nl Supervisor/ university: dr. J. Rupert dr. U.Y. Eseryel Acknowledgements

Abstract

Municipalities are often the subject of organizational change due to governmental pressure. This research is executed among three collaborations or mergers between municipalities in the Netherlands. There are three projects selected which, at the moment of investigation, are each working in a different phase of an organizational change process. This paper describes a qualitative research on the role of the interaction process between change agents and recipients. There are many studies aimed at the effects of leadership on the change outcome. However, this paper does not only include the effects of leadership behavior but also the effects of recipient behavior. It describes the influence of the degree of participation on the change outcome in terms of satisfaction with the process and the content of the change. So, the role of agents and recipients during the interaction process is included from both perspectives. This paper shows that both the behaviors of the agent and the recipient influence the interaction process which is measured by considering the degree of participation. Agents with framing and creating behavior have a more positive influence on the interaction process than agents with shaping behavior. Moreover, recipients who show behavioral readiness have a positive influence on the interaction process, while recipients with resistance behavior have a negative influence on the interaction process. This study also shows that agents are able to adapt their leadership behavior to the change situation.

Contents

Change agent behavior ... 9

Recipient behavior. ... 13 Interaction process ... 17 Research method ... 22 Data collection ... 22 Procedure ... 23 Sample ... 24 Measures ... 24 Analysis ... 26 Results ... 28 Outcome ... 28 Agent behavior ... 30 Recipient behavior ... 34 Interaction ... 38 Phase of change ... 42 Additional findings ... 43

Discussion and conclusion ... 45

Research questions ... 45 Theoretical implications ... 47 Practical implications ... 49 Limitations... 50 References ... 52 Appendix ... 56

Appendix A – interview questions ... 56

Introduction

Organizations are, due to increasingly dynamic environments, often the subject of organizational change (Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder, 1993). Most of organizational changes are characterized by the fact that there at least two different parties involved. There are change agents, which are responsible for creating and directing implementation of change (Higgs & Rowland, 2011), and there are recipients, which are either the subject of change or have the responsibility to carry out the change (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008). So, these different parties are carrying out different stakes. The interaction process between them implies their relationship and their subsequent information exchange. This process of information exchange is called the interaction process.

Both agents and recipients expose interaction behavior during the interaction process. During the interaction process change agents and recipients construct their perception of the environment and are able to reinforce the focus of others and interpretations and meanings within organizations (Bartunek, 1984). Agents and recipients influence each other with their behavior and due to that they also influence the therefor the change outcome (Shelley, 2012). This implies that the behaviors of both the change agent and the recipient are important indicators for the progress and possibility of success for organizational change.

organizational change seems to enhance chance on success of the change (Brown and Cregan, 2008; Price and Chahal, 2006).

The development of organizational change does influence the Dutch public sector. The Dutch government has determined to decentralize governmental responsibilities to lower levels of the political hierarchy (Regeerakkoord, 2012). In order to make municipalities more self-reliant and more capable to execute these responsibilities, an aspired minimum size of municipalities is set on 100.000 citizens. Most of the Dutch municipalities are much smaller than this aspired size, so many of them attempt to merge or are already in a process of merging with other municipalities. The governmental decision of autumn 2012 results in much large-scale organizational change in the public sector. The mergers between municipalities are highly political processes whereby the interaction process between municipals in the role of change agents and the officials in the form of recipients plays an important role. Cooperation between municipalities varies from some

government tasks or elements of responsibilities to complete mergers between groups of municipalities. The change is large-scale because of the impact for the employees and the risks involved (Hoetjes, 2009). It is for example not unlikely that functions or tasks disappear within individual municipalities in case of extensive cooperation in the form of mergers. This study investigates the effects of interaction behavior of change agents and recipients on the outcome of change in the public sector. A distinctive part of current research contains the examination of these effects in different phases of organizational change. If taken into account different phases, possibly this reveals that elements of interaction which are determinative for the outcome of change, vary by phase. The results of this study can be useful for municipalities that are planning to merge in the near future.

Research question

study examines how the interaction process influences the outcome of change from the perspective of the change agent during the different phases of organizational change? This implies that the role of the change agent during this process will be investigated in order to find the tactics and resources he uses to influence the recipient and the change outcome. The second question is: what is the influence of the recipients during the interaction process during the different phases of change and how do they influence change agents and thereby outcome of change? The research will be

conducted in three collaboration projects between municipalities with the same desired outcome. The three different projects contain groups of municipalities that are planning to merge,

municipalities that are currently merging and municipalities that already have passed the merger. The following sub questions are addressed:

• How does change agents behavior influence the interaction process? • How does recipients behavior influence the interaction process?

• Which elements of the interaction during different change phases between agent and recipients within a change context are determinative for change outcome?

Figure 1 shows the conceptual model of this research.

Literature review

The current review presents a description/discussion of the research to date concerning change agents and recipients. The most relevant topics will be discussed in this review: change agent behavior, interaction behaviour corresponding with the change agent, recipient behaviour and the recipient interaction practices. The aim of this study is to examine the influence of the behavior of change agent and recipient on the interaction process. So, it is also interesting to investigate the relationship between the change agent and the recipient from different scientific perspectives. The literature review will summarize the most recent developments in relation to change agents and recipients but also their theoretical backgrounds.

Organizational change

Given the subject of this paper, it is necessary to introduce the concept organizational change. One of the most dominant distinctions within change literature is planned change versus emergent change. Kurt Lewin is seen as the founder of planned organizational change in the 1940s (Burnes, 2009). Despite the fact that the planned change approach developed over the last 70 years, there are some central ingredients. The approach implies that change is discontinuous, which

subsequently holds that change moves an organization from one stable state to the next stable state. Another common characteristic within the planned change approach is that the initiative of change is top down. This means that the initiative of change is coming from the top of the

organization and is executed by organizational member out of the lower regions of the

Kanter and J.P. Kotter. This approach considers change as continuous, open-ended, bottom up and as an unpredictable process of alignment with the changing environment (Falconer, 2002). This means that change is seen as an on-going process without a clear begins and ends. The change does not necessarily have to be initiated by organizational members at the top of the organization. Approaches that meet the criteria for emergent change will be treated in this paper as bottom-up approaches.

Change outcome

The dependent variable in this research is the change outcome. This paper investigates the effects of the interaction on the change outcome. Armenakis & Bedeian (1999) describe two elements of change outcome which will be used in this research. The first element contains the satisfaction of the agent and the recipient with the change process. The second element of the concept change outcome is satisfaction with the change content. This satisfaction of the agent and recipient is related to the content of the change. The content of the change for this paper is collaboration between large municipalities. Both the elements of the change outcome will be reviewed on the basis of existing literature.

to the effect that the change will have on the involved employees. So, change with positive

consequences for agents and recipients will probably result in satisfaction with the change outcome.

Change agent behavior

The change management literature strongly emphasizes the importance of personal competencies to effective change management (Crawford & Nahmias, 2010). This particular study also underlines the fact that the role of change agents in organizations becomes more and more important because of the turbulent character of these times. Most of the theorists in the field of change management agree that a substantial part of the change attempts fails (Kotter, 1990; Hammer and Champny, 1993; Higgs and Rowland, 2000). Buchanan, Claydon, & Doyle (1999) show that managers have neither the expertise nor capacity, to implement change successfully and that managing change according to theory textbooks is difficult. This outcome supports the growing evidence that the leadership characteristics of the change agent influence the degree of success of organizational change (Higgs & Rowland, 2000).

The direction of leadership literature has been developed over the last century. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, ‘great man’ leadership theories were considered as most important (Shelley, Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991). These theories claim that leadership qualities are inherited, especially from people of the upper class. This ‘trait theory’ implies that someone with the right leadership traits guarantees successful leadership. Contradicting evidence (Mann, 1959) has driven the theoretical direction towards leadership behavioral oriented research. One of the most

latter style does not provide the augmentation effect (Bass, 1985). This implies that transactional leadership behavior results in expected outcomes, whereas transformational leadership provides outcomes beyond expectations of the leader. However, the trait theory and the behavioral styles theory still resulted in inconsistent findings (Buelens, van den Broek & Vanderheyden, 2006). These inconsistencies have resulted to the third leadership theory; the situational theory. The situational theory suppose that the effectiveness of a particular leadership behavior depends on the situation. The leader-member relation, the task structure and the position power of the change leader influence the situation and thereby the most appropriate behavioral style according to the situational theory (Fiedler, 1977). Since this paper focuses on the influence of change agents behavior on the interaction process, the behavioral aspect of leadership will be further elaborated.

The role of behavior is studied by several studies including Higgs and Rowland (2005 and 2011). These authors identify, partly based on earlier research in 2000, three broad sets of leadership behavior in 2005. This study was aimed at identifying leadership behaviors, which are associated with effective change management. The work of Higgs and Rowland (2005 and 2011) is used in this study because it is one of the few studies that has investigated behavioral styles of change leaders. The sets of leadership behavior will be elaborated and then their relationship with the interaction process will be described.

interpretations and behaviors of others (Daft & Weick, 1984). Leader-centric behaviors seem to have a negative impact on change success in all their examined contexts. This conclusion is in line with other studies, which take a critical stance against heroic and leader-centric models (Higgs, 2003; Kouzes & Posner, 1998; Gill, 2002). The individual focus of the change agent and their tendency to control their subordinates allows us to categorize shaping behavior as a top-down approach.

The second leadership behavior can be identified as framing change. Leaders with this type of behavior are focused on the development of vision and on providing the space for recipients to accomplish the desired end state on their own way. Higgs and Rowland (2005) acknowledge that framing is a well-known phenomenon in leadership theory. Bartunek (1984) shows in a study that leaders with framing behavior help recipients with their process of sensemaking. Weick (2005) defines sensemaking as the process of comprehension of the recipient which will possibly result in action of the recipient. This implies that the leader is concerned with the creation of meaning, thus being a ‘sense giver’ as well as a sense maker. Higgs and Rowland (2011) describe a change agent who practices framing behavior as ‘someone who establish starting points for change’, and ‘someone who designs and managed the journey and communicate the guiding principles in the organization’. Higgs and Rowland (2005) state that these types of leadership behaviors appear to be more likely encountered and related to success in short time scale, high-scope, high magnitude and externally driven change. However, framing seems to be less appropriate for internally driven long term change in organizations with a long change history.

build the capability to change and adapt and embed this in an organization. Both framing and creating are behaviors which acknowledge the importance of involving recipients in the process of change. This is manifested in the fact that framing behavior aims at the development of

understanding while creating capacity stresses the importance of talent development of recipients. These characteristics allow us to categorize both framing behavior and creating capacity among the bottom-up approach.

Higgs & Rowland (2005) describe substantial differences between the three sets of

leadership behavior. The behavioral sets framing change and creating capacity are more focused at collective and group change (bottom-up), which they describe as positively related to success in most of their context examined. The main difference between framing and creating capacity is that framing is more about how to make sense and the understanding of change while creating capacity is more about facilitating change. Furthermore, they found that shaping behavior tended to be more encountered within the more top-down change approaches, whereas framing and creating are pre-dominant behavior sets in approaches that are based on the recognition of change as a complex phenomenon, which are related to bottom-up approaches. Higgs and Rowland (2005) identified that leaders who had a notable combination of the framing and creating capacity behavioral sets

appeared to be particularly successful implementing change across most of the context examined. The conclusions of the work of Higgs and Rowland (2005) are supported by the work of Stacey & Griffin (2005) that views leadership as a ‘complex responsive process and asserted that it is through innumerable of interpersonal interactions that individuals within an organization cope with the complexity and uncertainty of organizational life’. Also Griffin (2002) describes a view of leadership and a range of associated behaviors, which comprise the framing and creating behaviors of Higgs and Rowland (2005).

investigated. Parnell, Bell & Taylor (1992) developed a scale to measure change agents tendency for participative management. They conclude that managers have three considerations when they decide to introduce participation. The first consideration is the belief regarding whether the organizational culture supports recipient participation. The second is the managers belief that participation improves or impedes managerial effectives. The last is the managers belief whether or not participation results in an increase or decrease in managerial power. The concept of interaction assumes that there is an exchange of influence between, at least, two parties. Shaping behavior is defined as leader-centric, individual focused and top-down. These characteristics do assume that there is an exchange of influence but only at one direction. A change agent with shaping behavior does not likely appreciate input from recipients during the change. Higgs & Rowland (2011) show that top-down approaches are less successful than bottom-up approaches and support their earlier findings that leader-centric behavior has a negative impact on change outcome. The second leadership behavior, framing change, is more likely to achieve input from both the agent and the recipient during the interaction process. Change agents with framing change behavior create vision and work together with the recipients to realize the desired state. This collaboration does require input from both the agent and the recipient. The last behavior, creating capacity, is about

development of talents of the recipients and change together along common goals. These characteristics also require support and input from the recipients. The last two approaches are categorized as bottom-up, involvement of all recipients, which is believed to be a precondition for successful change (Bargal & Bar, 1992).

Recipient behavior.

effective change outcomes. This paper will focus on the behavioral aspect of recipients since we also focused on the behavioral elements on the side of the change manager.

There are different models to define leadership and agent behavior towards subordinates as described in this paper. However, there are no common models in change management literature yet to define recipients styles or input to the change on an equivalent level as the change agent. There are studies that try to define and capture the (behavioral) reactions of recipients towards change. For this study, however, recipients behavior is not treated as the result of the interaction with the change agent, but as a predictor of his or her function during the interaction process and thereby on the outcome of change. Therefore, some of these behavioral reactions studies will be described and reviewed and used to define recipients behavior as an predictor to the interaction process

Bouckenooghe (2010) reviewed 58 journal articles about attitudes of recipients towards change because he believe that there is a lack of consensus about these attitudes. The concept attitude towards change captures the individual experience, perceptions and reactions of recipients towards the change. 92% of the reviewed articles contain the distinction between the positive laden term ‘Readiness for change’ and the negative laden term ‘Resistance to change’. Since the research of Bouckenooghe (2010) show that this distinction is the most common in literature, these terms will be used in this paper to define recipients behavior. Before we discuss how these two contrary attitudes manifest them on behavioral level, the definitions of readiness and resistance will be explained.

attitudes towards change, most of the authors agree on the fact that resistance is negatively related to change success (Reichers, Wanous & Austin, 1997). On the other hand; Readiness for change seems to be essential for successful planned change (Miller, Johnson & Grau, 1994).

Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) conceive readiness ‘as organizational members’ beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes”. Armenakis et al. (1993) stress the importance of readiness by stating that change initiatives may not produce the intended results if recipients are simply not ready. Recipients readiness is expressed by exhibiting a proactive and positive attitude that can be translated into willingness to support and confidence in succeeding in change initiatives (Vakola, 2013). This author emphasizes the difference between readiness and resistance by stating that ‘readiness for change may act to pre-empt the likelihood of resistance to change, increasing the potential for change efforts to be more effective.’

Now that the definitions readiness and resistance are described, we will focus on how these attitudes influence the interaction process. There is a consensus in literature that both readiness and resistance are conceived as a tridimensional concept (Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis (2011), Piderit, 2000). This tridimensional concept contains cognitive, affective and behavioral elements. Explicitly in this context is defined as a reaction that is pertains directly to how recipients feel (affect), what they think (cognition), or what they intend to do (behavior) in response to the change. These explicit reactions, with the focus on the behavioral element, will be used in this paper to define recipients behavior.

The behavioral part of the tridimensional concept contains explicit behaviors in response to the change or intentions to behave (Oreg et al. 2011). Explicit behavior is behavior that is caused by the change, while intentions to behave are behaviors that are expressed on forehand of the change. Since recipients behavior is treated as an predictor for the interaction process in this paper,

when a recipient shows ready or resistance behavior? In order to answer this question the effects of the intentions to behave as ready and as resistant will be elaborated.

Andrews, Singh & Bond (1993) describe resistance as conscious and unconscious defense mechanisms that arise when someone is confronted with a new situation. Resistance will show up when the new situation is related to negative past experiences, fears or worries. More specific, it exists when habitual thoughts, feelings or behaviors in the unconscious mind conflict with the new thoughts, feelings in the conscious mind (De Board, 1983). An automatic defensive reaction of the recipient follows to protect them against unpleasant feelings. This defensive reaction results in the development of habitual or behavioral use to react in certain situations (Andrew et al. 1993). These unconscious forces direct and divert the energy of a recipient elsewhere and away from the task of change (Oldham & Kleiner, 1990). This means that this defensive reaction and subsequent

behavioral habits will cause the recipient to try to avoid contribution to the development of change. This kind of behavior will most likely have consequences for the contribution of the recipient during the interaction process. When the defensive reaction is weak, it will probably lead to a situation in which the recipient avoids becoming involved. The recipient ignores the change and will hope that is does not affect him. When the defensive mechanism is strong, it is possible that the recipient reacts with more aggressive behavior. It is even conceivable that the recipient is trying to become involved in order to hinder the change. The defense mechanism resulting in behavioral habits is seen as the main cause for inefficiency in organizational change (de Board, 1983).

Bernerth (2004) describes readiness of recipients as the collection of thoughts and intentions towards the change effort. Armenakis, Harris & Mossholder (1993) describe that

readiness are more likely to participate in organizational change. This means that the behavior of ready recipients is open and possibly eager to interact with the change agents because they are willing to participate. Recipients with this kind of behavior are motivated and prepared for change (Madsen, Miller & John, 2005). It can most likely be said that the more a recipient is able to participate during the interaction process, the more he is able to influence the change outcome.

In conclusion it can be said that both readiness and resistance of recipients influence the interaction process and thereby the change outcome. Hatcher, Ross and Collins (1991) found that recipients decisions to become involved in voluntary participation programs depended on their desire to improve performance, to make the work easier and to become involved in work decisions. Apathy and negative behavior towards the change initiative, the management and the company have a negative impact on the willingness of recipients to participate. We assume that readiness influences the interaction with the change agent in a positive way. Recipients with this kind of behavior are more likely to be motivated and willing to participate in the change. Resistance is more likely to have a negative influence on the interaction process. Recipients with this kind of behavior either avoid participation or participate with the aim to hinder the change. However, there are authors who claim that resistant behavior does not necessarily have to be bad. Ford et al (2005) state that recipients have the opportunity to participate in the conversations and discussions, which would not be the case in complete harmony. Moreover, according to Amason (1996) resistance is a form of conflict and it is shown that conflict improves the quality of the discussion and also the implementation of those decisions. This different vision on resisting behavior should become visible during the interviews when the recipients reflect on their own behavior and when agents reflect on their way of dealing with resistance.

Interaction process

followers. This means that an interaction is a process of reciprocal action or influence by at least two parties. In order to operationalize this definition in the context of this paper, we will use the concept participation. Locke, Schweiger & Latham (1886) describe participation as joint decision-making, either by a manager and one employee or a manager and a group of employees. The outcome of this interaction between change agent and recipient is a joint production of the influence of both parties. However, participation is not an unilateral concept in a sense that there is a widely accepted definition by researchers (Dachler & Wilpert, 1978). The most common elements of the definition of participation are: influence sharing (Mitchell, 1973), joint decision making (Locke and Schweiger, 1979) and the degree of employee involvement (Miller and Monge, 1986). In order to bring consistency in the definition of participation Locke, Schweiger & Latham (1986) define five characteristics which cover participation. Participation refers to extra-role or role-expanding

behavior. Ordinary and expected cooperative behaviors delineated within a specific job are generally not referred to as participation. The second criteria underlines the relation between the

operationalization (participation) of our variable and the variable itself (interaction). It states that participation requires conscious interaction between at least two individuals. Attitudes and

behaviors of individual actors are not typically labeled as participation. The third character proposes that the interaction have to be visible to both the parties which are involved in the interaction. The fourth criterium also fits in the context of this research since it states that participating actors typically occupy different level positions in a hierarchical, as opposed to a horizontal, relationship. The last character refers to the way in which someone influences the opponent. Locke et al (1986) describe this as ‘voice, which in this context covers any vehicle through which an individual has increased impact on some element of the organization’.

opportunities for recipients. On the other side, from the perspective of the recipients, these efforts are actions which are aimed towards the change agent with the intention to expand their daily and routine work. In the context of this research are these extra activities related to the change efforts.

Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-hall & Jennings (1988) contributed to the participation literature with important conclusions about different types of participation and their effectiveness. They assert that participation could take a number of diverse forms, for example: short- or long-term, formal or informal and direct or indirect. The work of these authors results in six types of participation decision-making. These six types of participation will be used in this research to identify direct or a high degree of participation and indirect or a low degree of participation during the change, whereby the first three types are used to identify direct participation and the last three to identify indirect participation.

The six types of participation are:

1) Participation in work decisions: workers have a great deal of influence in decisions focusing on the work, typically dealing with how it is organized.

2) Consultative participation: refers to situations which employees engage in long-term, formal and direct participation in a context of job issues. The difference with the former type is that it involves a lower level of employee influence.

3) Short-term participation: this type of participation may be characterized as formal, direct, and concerned with work itself; through it, workers have complete influence in the decision making process.

4) Informal participation: participations occur informally through the interpersonal relationship between managers and employees.

6) Representative participation: this type of participation is classified ad formal, indirect, and as having medium to low influence. Employees do not participate directly but through

representatives. This type is similar to employee ownership; expect the influence of employees generally is lower.

Cotton et al. (1988) continued their work by investigating the effectiveness and outcomes of these six different types of participation. The outcomes differ from each type of participation, some forms are effective, while others are quite ineffective, therefore, Cotton et al (1988) state that

participation is a multidimensional concept. There are many positive outcomes which are related to participation. However, in the context of this paper, we are especially interested in the effects of these types for the outcome of organizational change. The positive effects that are relevant for the outcome of organizational change will be elaborated.

Participation is identified in literature as an essential factor that characterizes successful change, as it makes recipients responsible and provides them with a sense of agency and control (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Dunphy & Stace, 1990; Gagné, Koestner, & Zuckerman, 2000). Authors come up with different explanations for this successful mechanism. Korunka, Weiss, Huemer, and Karetta (1995) describe that employees who perceived high levels of participation during organizational change reported lower levels of stress and levels of higher job satisfaction than recipients who perceived low levels of involvement throughout the change process. Others argue that participation causes a stronger connection between the organization and the recipient, more confidence of the recipients about their competences and more interpersonal trust (Steel & Ljoyd, 1988). Another important positive effect of participation is the role of information during the change process. Miller & Monge (1986) show that participation enhances the flow and use of critical

In conclusion, it can be said that a high degree of participation will most likely influence the change outcome positively. In change situations with a low degree of participation, the change process does not benefit from all the described positive effects of participation. Different types of participation with different intensity of effects are described. However, all types have some effect on the process of organizational change. This research will investigate how the behavior of the

Research method

This chapter elaborates on the research methods that are used to investigate the influence of the interaction process on the change outcome. This elaboration contains procedures of the data collection, a description of the sample, the used measures and the data analysis procedure. In order to study the role and the influence of the exposed behavior of the agents and recipients, qualitative methods are selected to gain understanding and deeper insights in this process (Aken, Berends & van der Bij; 2010). Qualitative methods acknowledge that people assign meaning to the objective world and relevant phenomenon (such as participation) and their experiences are situated within social context (agent – recipient relation) (Tesch, 1990). The data is collected with the use of

interviews, which allows researchers to derive interpretations from respondent talk (Warren, 2001). Ozcan and Eisenhardt (2009) state that these types of studies are especially useful for developing theoretical insights when research focuses on areas that extant theories do not address well.

Data collection

This research is (between February and June 2013) executed in the context of the Dutch public sector. To be more specific, it is performed within three individual collaboration projects between three or more municipalities. These municipalities are: BAR municipality (Barendrecht,

the following criteria. The recipients must have experienced the whole change project. They also have to be affected by the change project. The last criterion is that they had interaction with the change agent in a direct way and not by an intermediary.

The three phases of change, that are selected are: change is implemented in the organisation no longer than three years ago, the organisation is currently changing and the organisation will implement the change within one year. Therefore the samples are unequally divided between the three projects for the following reason. The agents and recipients in the first two phases have already had more interaction than the agents and the recipients in the last phase. Therefore, the composition of the sample is: 3 agents and 6 recipients of the first phase, 1 agent and 3 recipients of the second phase and 1 agent and 3 recipients of the third phase.

Procedure

Several procedural actions are taken to increase the reliability and validity. Joppe (2002, p. 1) defines reliability as ’the extent to which results of a study are consistent over time and an accurate

Sample

The sample for this research contains two different groups of respondents. The first group are the agents, which are the CEO’s of the municipals. The other group of respondents contains the recipients. The recipients are employees, which are directly managed by the agents during the organizational change. The educational level of the respondents is at least HBO (hoger

beroepsonderwijs) and their nationality is Dutch. The agent sample consists of five agents, four men and one women. Their age varies from 44 to 57 with an average age of 49. The size of the

organizations of the agents varies from 160 to 800 employees. The agents have 23 years of work experience in the public sector, on average.

12 respondents have participated in this research to represent the perspective of the

recipients, 4 women and 8 men. The age of the recipients varies from 35 to 62 with an average of 49. Their work experience in the Dutch public sector varies from 8 to 41 years with an average of 24. All of the recipients are subordinates of the agent but do have a managing function by themselves.

Measures

Table 1 provides an overview of the interview questions and their original (quantitative) measurement of each variable.

Table 1

Variable Measurement per variable

Change outcome Satisfaction with change process/outcome Armenakis & Bedeian

(1999)

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

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

Satisfaction with the change process an outcome is used to operationalize the variable change outcome. Self et al. (2007) define these concepts as satisfaction with the ‘how’ and ‘what’ of the organizational change. The questions, which are used to measure the degree of satisfaction with the change process and outcome are based on the work of Armenakis & Bedeian (1999). The developed questions to measure change outcome are included in appendix A1.

Change agent behavior is measured in this study based on the work of Higgs & Rowland (2005). These authors developed three broad sets of leadership behavior; shaping, framing and creating. Shaping is defined by Cawsey et al. (2012) as: ‘Actions that attempt to shape what people do by acting as a role model, holding others accountable, thinking about change, and focusing on individuals in the change process’. These authors define framing as: ‘Behaviors oriented toward changing the sense of the situation, establishing starting points for change, designing the change journey, and communicating principles’. The last set of leadership behavior, creating, is defined as ‘Behaviors focused on creating the capacity for change by increasing individual and organizational capabilities and creating and communicating connections in the organization’. The three types are distinguished based on behavioral characteristics. The questions in this research are aimed to discover these characteristics in the behavior of the agent respondents. These characteristics are used in this research to define the leadership behavior of the agent respondents. The developed questions to measure agent behavior are included in appendix A2.

Both Oreg (2006) and Bouckenooghe (2009) define resistance and readiness as a tridimensional concept, as described in the section ‘literature review’. Only the behavioral dimension is used for this research, since the focus of this paper is on behavior. The questions which are defined to measure recipient behavior can be found in appendix A3.

In order to measure interaction this concept is operationalized in this research as

participation. The most well-known elements of the definition of participation are: influence sharing (Mitchell, 1973), joint decision making (Locke and Schweiger, 1979) and the degree of employee involvement (Miller and Monge, 1986). The degree of participation between the agent and the recipient is measured with questions which based on the CATOCQ (2008) survey and the work of Bouckenooghe (2009). This survey is an extension of the work of Bennebroek, Gravenhorst, Elving & Werkman (2005). The questions which are developed to measure the degree of participation are included in appendix A4.

Analysis

After conducting the interviews the recorded data is analyzed. The analysis started with the

Results

The result of this research will be elaborated in this part of the paper. The variables, described in the literature and the method section, are used as guidance in this section. After describing the findings related to each variable, this section will end with the influence of the mediator ‘phase of the change’ and additional findings, which emerged during this qualitative study. Since this study encompasses both the view of the change agent and the recipient, these both perspectives are included in this section. Among each variable, first the perspective of the agent and then the perspective of the recipient will be elaborated.

Outcome

In order to measure the influence of the interaction behavior on the outcome, this last definition is separated in the literature section of this paper in satisfaction with process of the change and satisfaction with content of the change. Satisfaction with the change process relates to the degree of satisfaction of the interaction behavior from the agent reflecting on the recipient or vice versa. The degree of satisfaction with the content of the change relates to satisfaction with the actual changes as a result of the change intention.

Four of the five agents acknowledge that they are, to a certain degree, satisfied about the process of interaction during the change process. An agent argues: ‘We have accomplished a lot together with our employees, am not only proud on what we have reached but also how we did it.’ While all five agents state that they are satisfied with the process of interaction, also several points for improvement are mentioned. For example: ‘We should have put more energy in the development of our budget.’ However, all these points for improvement are mentioned under the condition that, seen the length and impact of the change, it is quite natural to have critical remarks. Three of the five agents mention that the employees needed time to get used to the changing working

more aimed at the current time than towards the start-up phase of the change. After describing the perspective of the agent, the perspective of the recipients will be analyzed.

Ten of the twelve recipients are satisfied about the process of change. The satisfaction of the process is often related to the appreciation for the agent by the recipients. A recipient states: ‘I have the possibility to be involved in decision making and to be informed about personal relevant subjects by the agent.’ These recipients feel that their input is respected and valued by the agents. Six of the twelve recipients mentioned positive habits of the agent and a good relation with the change agent as a cause for satisfaction with the process: ‘The relation with the agent has always been very good.’ Three of the twelve recipients are not satisfied with the process. One of the causes for

dissatisfaction is the attitude of agents. The recipients have the feeling that their concerns and fears about the future are often neglected and wiped away with positive stories about the future. A recipient argues: ‘I would really be glad if the agent would pronounce his understanding for our worries.’ Another cause for dissatisfaction by the recipients about the process is related to reflection on their own role and is mentioned by two recipients: ‘I don’t think that the agent is very satisfied about our behavior during the early phase of the change.’ The factor ‘time’ is also mentioned by five of the twelve recipients in a negative context. A recipient says regarding to time pressures: ‘The risks are a lot higher with the current time pressure; we have an high risk on losing people because of sickness or better job opportunities for our employees.’ Time pressure is related by the recipients to unnecessary mistakes, to less attention to the concerns of individuals and the absence of the right people on the right place. After describing the degree of satisfaction of the respondents with the process of interaction, the degree of satisfaction with the content of the change will be elaborated.

between municipalities as examples of the accomplishments of the change. The positive reactions about the content of the change are also supplemented with remarks about the future state of the organizations. Three of the five agents mention that they are proud but also aware that the change projects are not totally finished. One of agents says about this remark: ‘The loose products or building blocks are there, now it is time to connect everything with each other.’ This statement is in line with the vision of agent of, phase 3, the project which is implemented two years ago: ‘It takes at least a year after the implementation before the results of the change really become visible’.

Despite the fact that some recipients were not very satisfied about the process of

interaction, they are satisfied about the content of the change. All twelve recipients report signs of satisfaction with the content of the change. A recipient states proudly: ‘The constructing of the town hall in which we currently are, has started less than one year ago, at this moment a whole

organization is working right here.’ The feeling of proudness is shared by most of the recipients: ‘I am very proud of our results at this moment.’ The earlier described concerns about the future, described by satisfaction of the process of the recipients, are elements that cause dissatisfaction with the content of change. These concerns of the recipients are caused by doubts about the realization of the vision and are mentioned by the six recipients of the project which still has to be implemented. These recipients say that they are glad with the results, but are concerned about the concretizing of the current vision and the actual consequences of the changes: ‘Am a bit concerned about the synchronization of our ICT systems with the other municipalities during the

implementation of the change.’

It can be concluded that the degree of satisfaction with the process varies, both among the recipients and the agents. Despite the mixed views about the process, all recipients and agents are satisfied with and proud of the accomplishments and the content of the change projects.

Agent behavior

creating behavior. Shaping behavior is defined as top-down, directive and as controlling the progress of the change. Framing behavior refers to leaders who provide vision and giving space to

subordinates to reach the desired state on their own way. Creating behavior contains leadership which is focused on the development of the talents and capabilities of subordinates.

Three of the five agents report shaping leadership behavior as the most prominent behavior during the recent organizational change. ‘Due to the high time pressure, employees needed clear overviews of responsibilities and tasks.’ One agent shows creating behavior as the most common leadership behavior. ‘I give people the space and help them with their personal development, creating a synergy between their development and those of the organization.’ The last agent has the most similarities with framing behavior: ‘I try to pull the employees in a certain direction but am glad to see that they move on their own particular way.’

Although it was not the most dominant leadership behavior, all the agents show some creating behavior. This aspect of their leadership behavior is often mentioned in the context of ‘Making the change with the organization, using the internal capacities and talents.’ So, the agents develop a common vision by discussions and reach the desired state with, and with the help of, the recipients. However, this aspect of leadership behavior seems not sufficient to obtain the desired state of the future organization given the dominance of the shaping leadership behavior. A possible explanation for this phenomenon comes from an agent expressing his/her displeasure about the passive behavior of the recipients during the development phase of the vision of the organization: ’It was quite a hard job because due the passivity of my managers, it did not actually work to develop a common vision.’ Although not all agents expressed this feeling as explicitly as the last mentioned agent, this trend seems to be applicable to more of the agents behavior during the change process. The agents seem to adapt their leadership behavior to the situation.

expectations. These feelings are attended among the organizational members in the highest hierarchical levels of the organization. Moderate reactions or passive behaviors of the recipients in the early phase of the change cause the agents to adapt their original leadership behavior as one of the agents states: ‘I think that I adapted my style to the situation, maybe more directive.’ The change has to happen and time presses on the shoulders of the agents. Shaping behavior, with elements of framing behavior, replaces their original leadership behavior in order to make progress. Three of the five agents mention that they adapt their leadership style to the situation due to time pressure. The shaping behavior becomes visible through, as mentioned by two agents, a more ‘project

management’ style of leadership with deadlines, clear responsibilities and holding people

accountable for progress. The elements of framing behavior are attended due to the fact that the agents communicated their vision: ‘I tried to create a vision, a spot on the horizon, towards we can grow as organization.’ The two agents of phase 2 and 3, phases whereby the change is already implemented, state that they switch back to their original leadership behavior: ‘I have made a conscious decision to leave the project management style of leadership and focus on getting people along after the date of implementation.’ Now the perspectives of the agents on their own leadership behavior are described, the perspective of the recipients on the leadership behavior of the agents will be analysed.

leadership behavior: ‘Attention for personal development was quite scarce during the change, I expect that this will increase after the official implementation.’ The agent who shows framing behavior in his own view is confirmed in this perspective by all his three recipients. Besides the similarities between the perspectives of the agent and the recipient, also differences became visible.

Besides differences on individual level, a more overarching difference is the perspective on framing behavior. Only two agents show some characteristics of framing behavior in their own descriptions, but in the perspective of the recipients all the agents have some similarities with framing behavioral leadership. Eleven of the twelve recipients ascribe framing behavior to their agents. These characteristics are mentioned in a context of receiving the space to fulfil tasks

according own insights: working towards the desired future situation which is designed by the agent. One of the recipients states: ‘I find satisfaction in the fact that I have the freedom to give a personal touch to my job.’ Most statements of the recipients about framing behavior are in a positive context such as: ‘We had the freedom to do our job on our own way’. However, some of these ascriptions conceal some irritation about the leadership behavior of the agents as one of the recipients states: ‘The level of thinking of the agent is only on a high level, this has also disadvantages: there is less attention for our concerns on a lower level of thinking or the details.’ Four of the twelve recipients appoint this feeling of lack of attention for their concerns as a disadvantage of the freedom to fulfil their responsibilities on their own insight. Besides the overarching differences between the

perspectives of the agents and the recipients also individual differences showed up.

perspective of the agent self is touched by the fact that one of the recipients called the organized discussion sessions: ‘Meetings are organized to discuss the consequences of the change together with the employees.’ However, the actual influence of these discussions is, between the lines, doubted by this recipient: ‘The agent is unwavering and you need good reasons to convince him.’

The development of leadership behavior from creating to more shaping and framing is also mentioned by three of the twelve recipients. Two recipients are not satisfied with their own

behavior in the initial phase of the change: ‘Unfortunately we did not see our role in the development of vision in the initial phase of the change.’ This recipient argues that the behavior would probably be less directive if the managers had taken a more central role during the initial phase. It is remarkable that these two recipients both argue that the agent has tried to involve them, working together on a vision, but without any success. As explanation for this failure of involvement is mentioned the following reason: ‘We did agree with his vision of the organization, but were more aimed at our daily job, it was more something of the agent.’ The overall opinions of the recipients about the agents were positive, both on a professional level as leader as well as the relational level as person. Now both the perspectives of the agent and the recipient about the leadership behaviors are described, the behaviors of the recipients will be elaborated in the next section.

Recipient behavior

In order to measure the behavior of the recipients, two behavioral states are defined in the literature section. The first one is readiness for change. This behavioral state implies that the recipients are open and positive regarding the change. The other behavioral state, resistance to change, includes behavior that slows down or hinders the change.

cognitive aspect, it will be described as well. The second category is a state of readiness whereby the recipient sees the benefits of the change and actively acts as such. He or she does already execute tasks within the scope of the change on own initiative.

Four of the five agents mention that their employees were in a state of readiness during the initial phase due to understanding. An agent argues: ‘The employees know that this decision has to be made to the benefit of the organization.’ All agents call the major occurring behavior of the organizational members as ready whereby the first category of readiness is the most frequently observed one. However, the second category, readiness by involvement, is also mentioned by four of the five agents. This state of readiness is often mentioned in a context of dependency on the recipients: ‘Without the active input and attitude of the recipients, we never could have finished within the planned scope of time.’ Several examples of readiness by involvement are given: ‘There were lots of employees who offered to participate in project teams working on the change.’ Besides the enthusiastic reactions of the recipients, signals of resistance are reported.

The types of behavioral resistance, which are mentioned by the agent, can also be split into two categories. The first type of resistance becomes visible through anxiety and complaints of recipients. The second category contains passive behavior. The last category is related to recipients who try to ignore the change by passivity. The agents do not report any active or aggressive

The second category of resistance, passive behavior of recipients, is reported by one of the five agents. The agent mentions that he was disappointed about the passive behavior of the recipients during the initial phase of the change: ‘People can try to resist change on an active way, but they can reach the same effect by doing nothing.’ The managers of this agent did not become actively involved in the development of vision of the organization, despite the attempts of the agent. These attempts are i.e. sessions with the managers outside the organization with the help of

specialists. This passive behavior has caused a development of the leadership style of the agent as earlier described in the results about agent behavior. The agent himself gives a possible explanation: ‘I was possibly too directive in my demand to think about the future of our organization.’ He

continues with memorizing that the managers maybe were a bit overwhelmed by the enthusiasm of the agent and too much focused on their daily routine. After elaborating on the perspective of the agent, the perspective of the recipients on their own behavior will be described.

When describing the perspective of the recipient, the bothcategories on readiness and resistance as in the section of the agent will be used. The first category of readiness is based on understanding, the cognitive aspect. Ten of the twelve recipients report that they were ready for the change because they understand the urgency and value of it. One of the recipients states:

‘Technically I understand that it is good to merge the municipalities on our island.’ Another recipient reflects more on the content of the change: ‘It is a missed shot if we as a municipality don’t gain from the experience and learning curve of our neighbour municipalities.’ The readiness due to understanding also has led to the willingness to involve, the second category.

was very orienting; I already sought contact with colleagues from other municipalities to gauge the possibilities.’ Another recipient reports similar activities: ‘For a couple of years I take preparations for the collaboration with the other municipalities.’ These own initiatives show that the managers value the change initiative because it has added value for their own job.

The recipients also make statements about the state of readiness of others. These are the organizational members around them in the organization. Eight of the twelve recipients report that the organizational members in general were ready for the change. A recipient states: ‘The employees had in general an open attitude towards the change; this became visible by the fact that a lot of employees offered their help.’ Another statement of one of the recipients makes clear that most of the employees also understood the urgency for change: ‘We are way too vulnerable in the current organizational form, employees are aware of this.’ Besides the signs or readiness of the recipients, there are also less positive behaviors of the recipients aimed at the organizational change.

Three of the twelve recipients report that they resisted in the form of anxiety and

complaints about the question of the change was really as effective as it was suggested. The content of the change is partly determined by politics. A more extensive collaboration between the

municipalities would be more effective, but due to the political landscape, would not be feasible. This is something for the recipients to deal with: ‘I knew that this would happen, I had to accept it and live with it.’ However, it has caused some rumours throughout the organization. Two of the twelve recipients report complaints about the process in the initial phase of the change: ‘I don’t have something against the change itself but I am sometimes a bit frustrated about our preparations.’ An example of a complaint about the process is the proposed speed of the change during the initial phase.

of the agent which were aimed to involve them. The awareness of the recipients of their passivity came after a couple of years. Besides the second category of resistance of two of the recipients, also statements about resistance of other organizational members are mentioned.

Eight of the twelve recipients report signs of resistance in the form of anxiety and complaints about some organizational members during the launch of the initial idea for the change. A recipient states: ‘People are afraid of losing their jobs, the economic conjuncture also has influence on the amount of work in the public sector.’ A possible explanation for these fears may lay in the fact that one of the reasons for the change is cost reduction and efficiency benefits. These concepts are often related to reduction of the amount of employees. However, these fears have caused no active resistance among the employees and decreased as they became used to the idea of change and had more insight to the consequences of the change.

Interaction

The degree of interaction is measured along the degree of participation between the agent and the recipient. The answers of the respondents are categorized in direct, high degree, and indirect, low degree, participation. Both the categories (direct and indirect participation) are subdivided in participation on initiative of the agent and participation on initiative of the recipient. The last distinction is made because some participation activities of the recipients are part of their job and imposed by organizational membersout of the upper hierarchal layers of the organization.

All five agents report a high degree of participation of the employees on the initiative of the agents. As described earlier: the original idea of the change is that the municipalities have tried to reach the desired state with and due to the employees. If an agent states: ‘If you want to accomplish change with the help of employees, you have to realize that their qualities need to excel.’ In the context of this all agents report that they let the employees participate in the change process: ‘There has been a lot of attention to the exchange of knowledge and experience during the change.’

responsibility to deliver building blocks for the ‘new organizations’. Despite the fact that employees could show their enthusiasm for participation in project teams, it was the agent deciding whether or not someone was selected. The degree of participation between the project teams and the agent was high: ‘I shared information during the weekly meetings but I also consulted these members of the project teams.’ Other agents underline the important position of the involved employees for their decision making: ‘These people have very valuable information; I surely have benefit from these employees.’ Besides the participation on the initiative of the agent or formal participation, also the agents report initiatives on behalf of the recipients.

Four of the five agents report participation whereby the initiative was coming from the recipients. This kind of participation became visible through critical remarks on the visions of the agents or ideas of the recipients to increase the quality of the change process. Participation on own initiative of the recipients may occur within the context of a project team or without such a team as an ordinary employee. Four of the five agents report that they redesigned plans because of the input of recipients: ‘They come up with good remarks about my idea, things which I definitely would forget.’ An example of an adapted plan due to the participation of the recipients is a recreation of the future job design of middle managers. One agent says about this situation: ‘We extensively discussed our ideas with the recipients and finally came to the conclusion that we had to change our original idea on the job design.’ The four agents also underline their view on the importance of different visions within the organization: ‘I am glad if employees help me by proposing improvements on my own ideas.’ All five agents show their appreciation for own initiative of the recipients. Two of the agents mention that they would appreciate more participation on own initiative of the

personally and the change processes.’ A possible explanation could be, as described earlier, the behavior and the position of the agent, which he has taken because of the passive reactions of the recipients in the initial phase. Now the perspectives of the agents are described, the analysis of the results continues with the perspectives of the recipients in the next paragraph.

All twelve recipients report high participation due to the initiative of the agents. All recipient respondents have participated in project teams or other official teams. One recipient states for example: ‘I have contributed to the change through my membership of multiple project teams, which are created to develop parts of the new organizations’. The recipients who participated in project teams do have the experience that the agents use their expertise and knowledge: ‘We as a project team and the agent had a meeting every Monday to speak about the progress of the projects.’ All twelve recipients agree that the agents stimulated them and other organizational members to participate with the change. However, formal participation was initiated by the agents: ‘Not every enthusiastic employee had the possibility to receive a position in a project team.’ Next to this

limitation of the recipients by the agents some sceptical feelings about the effectiveness of the input of the recipients are mentioned. Four of the twelve recipients say that they do not know the

effectiveness of their input: ‘Sometimes I ask myself: what influence do we actually have in this on-going train?’ Also participation on initiative of the recipients instead of on initiative of the agent is mentioned.

In contradiction to what the agents report; all twelve recipients mention that they

officially involved in the change but did participate by supporting others.’ An explanation for the difference between the perspective of the agent and recipient on participation on own initiative can possibly be found in the difference between the levels of participation. The agent, who states that he was missing participation on own initiative, was speaking on a level of vision development. The recipients of this agent have the feeling that they participate on own initiative. However, the examples that are mentioned by these recipients are on a detailed level. After these recipients accepted the vision of the agent, they had some freedom to realize the vision. An example of this detailed level: ‘I proposed to install video equipment in our meeting room.’

Three of the twelve recipients report that their degree of participation was low because of their own initiative. Two of these three recipients are stating this by reflecting on their own functioning: ‘I believe that we should have had a more active role during the change.’ The third recipient reflects on the general attitude towards participation of the employees of the organization: ‘People in this area are quite passive.’ She is stating this in a context whereby she explains that the employees are not used to execute role expanding work on own initiative.

Phase of change

The phase of change is considered as a mediator on the effect between the behaviors of both the agent and the recipient and the interaction process. So, the question is: does the phase of change influence the effects of agent and recipient behavior on the degree of interaction? The influence of this mediator will be described for both agent and recipient behavior, starting with the first group of respondents.

As described at the results of the variable agent behaviour, there are three agents in the sample who adapted their style of leadership to the change situation: ‘I was, seen the time pressure, more direct and result oriented during the change.’ The leadership style of these agents shifts, temporally, to a more project management oriented style. As the deadline of the implementation comes closer, the pressure of time increases for both the agents: ’I do have worries about the actual effects of our plans’ and the recipients: ‘I am more and more worried when the available time decreases.’ This implies that the time pressure and thereby the project management style of leadership become more attendant as the available time decreases. This means that the change agents are more direct and result oriented during the last phase before the implementation. In the result section of leadership behavior is already described that the shift towards this type of

leadership results in a different type of participation. Based on this information the following conclusion can be drawn: the phase of change does have a mediating effect on change agent

to think about the vision of the organization. Six of the twelve recipients acknowledge that they liked the idea of collaboration between municipalities but none of them confirms that they have

participated in the development of the organizational vision. Two recipients state that their agent has tried to involve them in the development of the organizational vision. Unfortunately, this did not succeed. One recipient states about this attempt: ‘We are probably missing a certain level of

abstract thinking.’ However, after the organizational vision was crystalized by the agents, the degree of participation seemed to increase. It was the task of the agents to explain the vision and the future to the recipients. One agent says: ‘By lots of talking and discussing, they more and more understand our idea of the desired future.’ If the vision is understood by the employees, the increasing degree of participation seems to have a self-reinforcing effect. An agent; ‘Employees are more enthusiastic and willing to participate as the plan becomes more and more concrete’, and a stated from the

perspective of the recipients: ‘The more we go in to detail, the more the agent depends on us.’ It is self-reinforcing, because the plan takes more shape en becomes more concrete by the execution of tasks of the recipients in order to realize the change. A One recipient states about his colleagues in the organization: ‘The enthusiasms increased among the employees during the phase of

preparation.’ To conclude: the phase of change does have a mediating effect on the degree of participation of the recipients. The willingness to participate and enthusiasm increases as the plans take more shape and the last phase before the implementation comes closer.

Additional findings

was essential, everything becomes liquid under pressure.’ This recipient refers to the speed of decision making and sense of urgency during the last months before the deadline. The, often attended, inertia within the public organizations disappeared due to the pressure of time.

Another additional finding is related to the key success factor of mergers between municipalities. Four of the agents and five of the recipients refer proudly to the fact that their organizations accomplished successes with their own people. A lot of the more complicated tasks and challenges of the municipalities is outsourced to external companies. There are several examples of municipalities in the Netherlands, which are merged by external consultancy