Opening the black box:
An explorative study of mechanisms underlying the
relationship between change recipient participation
and Business Process Change (BPC)
Master Thesis
January 23, 2017
Master thesis
MSc. Business Administration – specialization Change Management University of Groningen, the Netherlands
Faculty of Economics and Business
ANNEMIEK HEGEN Lingestraat 46 9725 GS Groningen Tel: +31 (0)6 19 44 16 70 a.hegen@student.rug.nl student number: s2197316 Supervisor: Dr. B.J.M. Emans Co-assessor: Drs. J.C.L. Paul
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ... 2 ABSTRACT ... 4 1. INTRODUCTION ... 6 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ... 10
2.1. Business process change (BPC) ... 10
2.2. Change recipient participation ... 11
2.3. Characteristics of participation ... 12 2.4. Mechanisms of participation ... 15 3. METHODOLOGY ... 22 3.1. Research method ... 22 3.2. Case description ... 22 3.3. Data collection ... 23 3.4. Data analysis ... 24 4. RESULTS ... 26 4.1 Mechanisms of participation ... 27
4.2 The influence of change recipient participation on the change recipient’s attitude towards BPC ... 27
4.3 The influence of change recipient participation on the quality of the new process design 35 4.4 The influence of change recipient participation on the change recipient’s attitude towards the organization ... 39
5. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION ... 42
5.1 Mechanisms of participation ... 42
5.2 Theoretical and managerial implication ... 47
5.4 Limitations and suggestions for further research ... 49
5.5 Conclusion ... 50
6. REFERENCES ... 52
APPENDIX I. ... 56
APPENDIX II ... 58
4
ABSTRACT
6
1. INTRODUCTION
“Change is the law of life and those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future”
- John F Kennedy
In accordance with the above fragment, change is a phenomenon that is important for all human beings in order to grow. If you keep standing in the same place, you will never move forward; a self-evident fragment which is true for all organisms. Because of the importance of change, it is not surprising that change is one of the greatest study-themes in the social sciences (Pettigrew, Woodman & Cameron, 2001). A lot of research exists on the birth, development, transformation, decay and decline of human and natural systems.
Where change is important for all human beings, the same is true for organizations. Due to the environmental changes organizations face, organizations constantly have to restructure their practices in order to stay competitive (Burnes, 2009). According to Kotter & Schlesinger (2008), organizations must undertake major changes every four or five years.
Business process change (BPC) is a change approach that allows organizations to compete in the changing global world (Sachs, 1995). BPC handles with the rethinking and redesign of business processes in order to achieve improvements in business performance outcomes such as cost and time reduction, improved service quality and greater customer satisfaction (Hesson, 2007; Al-Mashari & Zairi, 1999; Sikdar & Payyazhi, 2014).
Notwithstanding the importance of BPC to organizations, achieving the intended performance from a BPC is a critical challenge. Most organizations have failed to achieve their BPC objectives (Jurisch, Rosenberg & Krcmar, 2016; Jurisch, Ikas, Wolf & Krcmar, 2013; Sikdar & Payyazhi, 2014). According to Burnes (2011), approximately 70% of all change initiatives in organizations fail.
7 Higgs & Rowland (2011) highlighted that the engagement and involvement of change recipient is important for a successful change implementation. Also, Jurisch et al. (2016) identified participation of change recipients as a major facilitator of BPC success. This is confirmed by a Global Survey of McKingsey & Company from 2010, which found that the success rate of change initiatives increases with 70% when change recipients are engaged during the change implementation.
In alignment with the aforementioned, this qualitative research paper is about a research to the relationship between change recipient participation and BPC implementation success. More specifically, the research focuses on a BPC implementation inside a service organization.
The importance of change recipient participation during a BPC implementation is identified by more researchers in the organizational change literature. Most of these researchers argue for a positive relationship between change recipient participation and BPC implementation success (Markus & Mao, 2004; De Waal & Batenburg, 2014.) Those studies of change recipient participation primarily focus on the amount of change recipient participation as an influence on implementation success instead of how and why this participation leads to implementation success (De Waal & Batenburg, 2014).
In their research, Markus and Mao (2004) did identify three mechanisms underlying the relationship between participation and Information System (IS) implementation success (i.e. the influence of change recipient participation on the change recipient’s attitude towards the change, the quality of the new process design and the attitude of the change recipient towards the organization). However, according to these authors, more research is needed on the different aspects of change recipient participation and the conditions under which this participation takes place.
Therefore, the purpose of this research is to open the black box by exploring the three mechanisms as identified by Markus & Mao (2004) in a BPC context. Moreover, the research aims to further open the black box between change recipient participation and BPC implementations by exploring the extent to which the above-mentioned mechanisms are influenced by participation characteristics.
8 participation contributes to a successful BPC implementations. This can prevent BPC implementation failures.
To do the research, qualitative data is collected at the call center department of a Dutch roadway assistance organization. Sixteen employees of this organization are interviewed to gather information about change recipient participation during a BPC implementation in that organization.
10
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The aim of the theoretical background section is to provide definitions of ‘business process change’ (BPC) and ‘participation’. Furthermore, the section elaborates on three participation characteristics and mechanisms that are supposed to underlie the relationship between change recipient participation and BPC implementation success. Based on the provided theory, three research questions are formulated.
2.1.Business process change (BPC)
For the purpose of this research, BPC refers to ‘the process by which managers redesign how tasks are bundled into roles and functions to improve organizational effectiveness’ (Jones, 2010, p.306). As this definition points out, BPC implementations focus on changes in processes instead of changes in organizational functions (Jones, 2010; Sikdar & Payyazhi, 2014). This means that the functions that belong to employees stay the same, however, the way how the work is done, changes by BPC implementations.
The aim of BPC is to increase efficiency and to improve organizational performance outcomes such as production speed, product or service quality and cost reductions (Harmon, 2007; Hesson, 2007, Jones, 2010; Stoddard & Jarvenpaa, 1995). It enables organizations to adapt their processes to the changing circumstances in their environment, to stay competitive (Burnes, 2009; Whipp & Pettigrew, 1992). Whipp & Pettigrew (1992) argue that an organization is an open learning system that acquires, interprets and processes information about its environment. The organization uses this information to determine how the organization can fit its processes with the environment. In alignment with this, BPC implementation is a tool used to achieve the alignment of the organization with the environment.
Despite the importance of BPC for organizations, it also imposes risks that counteract the implementations success. One important factor that is recognized is the importance of internal alignment. Sikdar & Payyazhi (2014) investigated that 70% of the BPC implementations have failed because of a lack of integration of the whole organizational system. Where business processes have a horizontal influence across the organization, BPC implementations have an impact on several subsystems of the organization (e.g. on tasks, technology, people and organizational structure; Kettinger & Grover, 1995). As a result, internal alignment is important for BPC implementation success (Kettinger & Grover, 1995)
11 elaborated further on this, and they recognized employees as important facilitators of positive BPC implementation outcomes. According to the authors, this is especially the case for service organizations. Where employees of a service organization have to provide the service to customers, they have an important role in the quality of that service. The experience of changing circumstances in the work environment, due to a BPC implementation, influences employees’ job satisfaction and their performances (Kettinger & Grover, 1995). For example, employees that are less satisfied about their work environment, are maybe less motivated to provide the customers with high quality services. This can have detrimental consequences for the overall performance of the organization.
Even though employees are important facilitators of BPC implementation success, most of the BPC implementations are initiated and developed by organizational members other than these change recipients. Therefore, to ensure the internal alignment, Zairi & Sinclair (1995) promote a bottom-up approach. These authors highlight the importance of change recipient participation during BPC.
However, Sikdar & Payyazhi (2014) advocate that answers on how and when this supposed relationship between change recipient participation and BPC implementation success takes place, remain unanswered in existing literature. Therefore, this research is interested in how participation of change recipients can positively influence the BPC implementation success.
The next paragraph further explains the concept of change recipient participation. After, the research focuses on different characteristics and mechanisms of participation that are supposed to underlie the supposed relationship between change recipient participation and BPC implementation success.
2.2.Change recipient participation
On a general organizational level, in recent years a shift has taken place where participation of employees in organizational decision making has become part of the management policy of most organizations (Sagie & Koslowsky, 2000).
12 We base our definition of change recipient participation on the definitions that are provided by Heller, Pusic, Strauss & Wilpert (1998), Wilkinson & Dundon (2010) and Wilpert (1994).
Heller et al. (1998, p.15) describe participation in organizations as ‘a process, which allows employees to exert some influence over their work and the conditions under which they work’. Wilkinson & Dundon (2010: p.3) define participation as a broader phenomenon: participation is the ‘umbrella term covering all initiatives designed to engage employees’. In his definition of participation, Wilpert (1994, p.295) is more specific and he also pays attention to the different forms of participation. He explains: ‘participation is the totality of forms, i.e. direct (personal) or indirect (through representatives or institutions) and of intensities, i.e. ranging from minimal to comprehensive, by which individuals, groups and collectives secure their interests through self-determined choices among possible actions’.
Based on the aforementioned definitions, we refer with change recipient participation to the activities, differing in the exertion of influence, in which recipients direct or indirect are engaged in a BPC implementation.
In addition to this definition, the next paragraph elaborates further on three participation characteristics that are supposed to influence the relationship between change recipient participation and BPC implementation success.
2.3.Characteristics of participation
This research focuses on how characteristics of participation influence the BPC implementation success. Existing literature on participation explain that outcomes of participation in organizations depend on the interpretation of change agents by which forms of participation to use (Dundon, Wilkinson, Marchington & Ackers, 2004; Marchinton, 2015).
Based on the definition of Wilpert (1994) the research focuses on directness of participation and the degree of control of change recipients. Additionally, the timing of participation is added as a third characteristic.
2.3.1 Directness of participation
13 However, because of the organization-wide scope of BPC implementations, it is not always possible to involve all change recipients. BPC implementations often affect more change recipients than can directly participate in the process (Markus & Mao, 2004).
As a solution, most organizations use indirect participation. Indirect participation relates to meetings between change agents and some change recipients that represent the workforce. Here, not all change recipients have the opportunity to participate but instead, a few change recipients are selected to participate and to represent the other change recipients (Heller et al, 1998).
However, Markus & Mao (2004) warn for a gap between the actual change recipients and those change recipients that were able to participate. In other words, change recipients that participate are maybe not able to represent the other change recipients. Therefore, we expect that directness of participation has an influence on the supposed relationship between change recipient participation and BPC implementation process.
2.3.2 Timing of participation
Participation can take place in different phases of the BPC implementation. For the purpose of the research we distinguish four different phases in which change recipient participation can take place. These phases are based on the distinction provided by Heller et al (1998).
First, Heller et al. (1998) distinguish the initiation phase. In this first phase the need for a BPC is identified by the management, and a BPC is initiated.
In the next phase, the development phase, the design of the new process takes place. In this phase the current process is analyzed and bottlenecks of this process are identified. Furthermore, in this stage the requirements for the new process are determined. In the end the new process is designed.
The third phase entails the ‘finalization’ in which the details of the process are determined in order to finalize the new process design.
During the last phase, the actual BPC implementation, the organization and its employees start working according to the new process design.
2.3.3 Degree of control
14 Based on the Influence Power Continuum (Heller et al., 1998) six levels of control are distinguished. Heller et al. (1998) argue that the degree of control lies on a continuum between low and high influence, ranging from no involvement at all, to full delegation. This scale consists of the following six levels:
1. No involvement
In the first level, change recipients are not involved at all. They are not informed about the change and they certainly experience that things have changed.
2. Information
The second level implies that change recipients are informed about the change. This is a downward communication where change recipients cannot react on the provided information (Fröhlich & Pekruhl, 1996). They only get to know that something will be changed and how this will change. Newsletters, briefings and group meetings are examples of downward communication.
3. Give opinion
In the next level of degree of control, change recipients are not only informed about the change, but they are also able to give their opinion on the ideas for change. This upward communication enables change recipients to react to ideas for change and to provide input (Fröhlich & Pekruhl, 1996). In this level of control, the actual decision making lies at the management level.
4. Consultation
In the fourth level, change recipients exert more influence, because they are asked for their views (Fröhlich & Pekruhl, 1996). They can provide information that will be used for the BPC implementation process. For example, they are asked for workplace-specific information which is used to determine requirements for the new process. Also in this level, the actual decision making lies at the management level (Fröhlich & Pekruhl, 1996).
5. Joint decision making
In the fifth level, change recipients have the opportunity to make decisions together with their managers. This is called ‘joint decision making’. During meetings, both the managers and the change recipients will discuss about the change project, and will make decisions about the change.
6. Delegation
15 Now that we have discussed BPC, change recipient participation and different participation characteristics, we turn to three mechanisms that are supposed to underlie the relationship between change recipient participation and BPC implementation success.
2.4.Mechanisms of participation
This section elaborates on existing literature about mechanisms that underlie the supposed relationship between change recipient participation and BPC implementation success.
Here, we build further on the work of Markus & Mao (2004), who did research to participation during an IS implementation. Based on their research, three mechanisms are identified: the influence of change recipient participation on the attitude towards the change among change recipients, the improvement of the quality of the new process design and the creation of a better relationship between the change recipient and the organization.
Furthermore, the aim of this study is to further open the black box by investigating to what extent these mechanisms are influenced by the three participation characteristics as described above. Therefore, based on theory we formulated three research questions regarding the mechanisms and participation characteristics.
2.4.1 The influence of change recipient participation on the change recipient’s attitude towards the change
The way change recipients react to a BPC implementation is a decisive factor for BPC implementation success (Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis, 2011). Attitude towards a BPC implementation refers to ‘an employee’s overall positive or negative evaluative judgment of a change initiative implemented by his or her organization’ (Bouckenooghe, 2010, p.502).
In the existing literature, a distinction is made between three dimensions of change recipient responses to a BPC implementation (i.e. cognitive, affective and behavioral responses, Bouckenooghe, 2010; Oreg et al., 2011).
First, a cognitive response refers to a change recipient’s assessment about the value of the BPC for themselves, the organization or both (Oreg et al., 2011). It entails the opinion of the change recipient about the BPC (e.g. about its usefulness, its advantages and/or disadvantages). Also, cognitive reactions entail the extent to which the change recipient think that he or she has the knowledge which is required to handle with the BPC (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Cognitive reactions towards a BPC are determined on a continuum between positive and negative responses.
16 (e.g. feelings of pleasantness or change-related satisfaction) (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Oreg et al., 2011).
Lastly, the behavioral response towards a BPC refers to explicit or intended behaviors of change recipients in response to a BPC implementation. Change recipients can actively behave according to the new process design or they can withdraw from the change. For example, they continue working according the old process (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Oreg et al., 2011).
Where this research aims to explore if change recipient participation contributes to a positive attitude towards the BPC among change recipients, and to what extent this is influenced by three participation characteristics, the first research question is as follows:
“To what extent is the underlying mechanism ‘influence of change recipient participation on the change recipient’s attitude towards the BPC’ applicable to a BPC implementation and how is this mechanism influenced by three participation characteristics (i.e. directness of participation, timing of participation and degree of control exerted by change recipients)?”
Change recipient participation is assumed to contribute to a positive attitude towards the change on the cognitive, affective as well as behavioral dimension. Markus & Mao (2004) explain a ‘psychological effect’ of participation on change recipients. This effect makes change recipients that participate during BPC implementation feel committed to the BPC. These change recipients are expected to see the BPC as relevant for themselves as well as for the organization because they have helped to develop the BPC.
Also, according to Bouma & Emans (2005), this state of ‘co-ownership’ makes them more aware of the common goals of the BPC implementation for the organization as well as for themselves.
Moreover, participation is also likely to influence the behavioral response dimension, because participating recipients are expected to be more motivated to work according to the new processes (Barki & Hartwick, 1994; Markus & Mao, 2004) and they are less likely to withdraw from the change.
17 Also, Markus & Mao (2004) argue that only by change recipients that directly participate in the BPC implementation, psychological involvement can represent the explanation for the positive relationship between participation and BPC implementation success.
Regarding the degree of control, we expect that change recipients need a certain degree of control to create a positive affective reaction towards the change. If they are not able to influence the decision-making process, they are likely to feel cynical and manipulated (Markus & Mao, 2004). For example, when their input is ignored during the decision-making. Furthermore, it is expected that change recipients at least need to be informed about the change to create a cognitive positive attitude towards the change. By providing information, they know what is expected from them and they can determine the advantages, disadvantages and usefulness of the change (Bouckenooghe, 2010). In addition, Battilana, Gilmartin, Sengul, Pache & Alexander (2010) argue that communicating the need for change is important because change recipients need to understand why the organization is going to change its processes. By explaining why the change is needed and how the change will take place, change recipients’ confusion and uncertainty will be reduced (Battilana et al., 2010).
Here, we make a link to the timing of participation, where we expect that change recipients need to be informed in the early phases of the BPC to understand the need for change. In addition, to ensure a positive attitude towards the change, it is also expected that participation of change recipients during the BPC implementation is most important during the development phase. During the development phase of the new process design the feeling of ‘co-ownership’ is developed and this helps the change recipients to create a positive attitude towards the change (Bouma & Emans, 2005).
2.4.2 The influence of change recipient participation on the quality of the new process design
The second mechanism that is supposed to underlie the relationship between change recipient participation and BPC implementation success relates to the influence of change recipient participation on the quality of the new process design. The quality of the new process design is assumed to be improved when change recipients are involved in the development and implementation of this new process design (Bouma & Emans, 2005; Markus & Mao, 2004).
18 identifying all the requirements for a new process design is a difficult job for change developers. Every organizational member has a limited view of the whole process, where these members only have a good view over their own job contents and those contents closely related to theirs.
To explore the second mechanism, we formulated the second research question as follows:
“To what extent is the underlying mechanism ‘influence of change recipient participation on the new process design quality’ applicable to a BPC implementation and how is this mechanism influenced by three participation characteristics (i.e. directness of participation, timing of participation and degree of control exerted by change recipients)?”
We assume that participation contributes to a fit between the new process design and the requirements from the ‘local situation’ (Bouma & Emans, 2005). Change recipients have a good knowledge of their job content and therefore they can provide the change agent with essential and relevant information that is needed to align the new process with the workplace. When change recipients participate they have an opportunity to provide the change managers with this information (Markus & Mao, 2004). As a result of this, participation of change recipients is expected to prevent BPC implementation failure from happening because the process quality is more aligned with the workplace requirements.
Regarding the participation characteristics, we expect that not all change recipients need to be directly involved to provide sufficient information about the workplace. Change recipient participation contributes to the new process quality when change recipients provide the change project team information about the local work situation (Bouma & Emans, 2005). To achieve the intended quality results by participation, a few change recipients are expected to be able to represent the whole workforce and to provide the change project team with valuable information about the current process.
Moreover, it is expected that participation of change recipients is especially needed during the initiating and the development phase of the organization, to achieve a positive effect on the quality of the new process design. During the initiating phase, the input from change recipients can be used as a trigger for the BPC (Heller et al, 1998). Change recipients may face problems with the current process and argue for improvements in order to improve the quality of the process design.
19 determining the requirements of the new process. When it is the case that change agents already have decided on the new process design when change recipients are involved, the effect of this participation on the quality of the new process design is expected to be low. In addition, to contribute to the new process quality, change recipients at least need to be consulted in order to provide the change managers with valuable information. When the provided input of change recipients is not considered by change managers, there exists a gap between the requirements and the design quality (Markus & Mao, 2004).
Also, it is expected that delegation will not be effective, where it already is argued that every organization member has a certain, restricted view on the process, and that all views need to be considered: as well as the view of change recipients as well as the view of change managers (Bouma & Emans, 2005). When change recipients are fully delegated with the decision-making, it is expected that they may do not take the overall organizational perspective into account. For example, they may do not take BPC objectives into account when these objectives do not align with the personal objectives of the change recipient.
2.4.3 The positive influence of change recipient participation on the relationship between the change recipient and the organization
The last mechanisms that we discuss, concerns the relationship between change recipients and the organization. Markus & Mao (2004) explain the relationship between participation and system implementation by focusing on emergent interactions between the change recipients and the change agents. This is expected to lead to a better relationship between the change recipients and the organization.
According to Bouma & Emans (2005), participation gives change recipients the feeling that they are respected as individuals and that they are valuable to their organization. When change recipients and change agents together work on a common goal, they socialize and bond together. This improves their relationship. Thus, participation contributes to more feelings of equality between change recipients and change agents and that is a key factor for trust among change recipients and the organization (Bouma & Emans, 2005).
The third and last research question concerns the extent to which the third mechanism apply to a BPC implementation and the extent to which it is influenced by participation characteristics. Therefore, the last research question is as follows:
20
characteristics (i.e. directness of participation, timing of participation and degree of control)?”
The social exchange theory argues that the closer the relationships between a change recipient and change agents are, the more the change recipient is willing to reciprocate for change initiatives (Fuchs & Prouska, 2014). It is expected that when employees feel heard by change managers, they create a positive attitude towards these change managers and the organization as a whole.
Based on the theory of Bouma & Emans (2005), we expect that change recipients have to participate directly because otherwise the change recipient will not build a relationship with the change agents and the organization.
Regarding the degree of control, we expect that the degree of control exerted by change recipients is positively related to the creation of a relationship between change recipients and the organization. As to say, when change recipients experience that they can exert control, for example because they are heard, this will positively influence their attitude towards the organization. In contrast, when they have the feeling that they only can ‘follow’ and do not have any control on the situation, it is expected that his will hamper the relationship with the between the change recipient and the organization.
22
3. METHODOLOGY
This methodology section describes how the research has been performed.
First, it provides a description of the research method. Next, this section elaborates on the case that has been used to do the research. After, the procedure of the data gathering and the data analysis are described.
3.1.Research method
As already mentioned in the introduction section, this research aims to contribute to existing literature by exploring how participation works in a BPC implementation. More specifically, this research explores the mechanisms that underlie the supposed relationship between change recipient participation and BPC implementations. Also, the research focuses on the extent to which these underlying mechanisms are influenced by three different participation characteristics.
To explore this supposed relationship between change recipient participation and BPC implementation success, data is collected by conducting sixteen in-depth interviews with employees of a service organization in the Netherlands. This service organization provides its customers with road assistance. Specifically, data is collected at the call center department of this organization, where the intakes of the service calls from customers take place. We made use of a single case study, which provided us a thorough analysis of a BPC implementation and enabled us to analyze this BPC implementation in depth.
3.2.Case description
23 both the ‘intake’ and the ‘follow-up help’ of the customers in that service line. To achieve this, employees had to be arranged to one line and they had to learn the whole service process (‘intake’ as well as ‘follow-up help’).
The initiative of this BPC was in the summer of 2015, when the change project team started with an analysis of the process at that time. After analyzing this situation, they mapped bottlenecks and shortcomings of the former process and searched for requirements for a new process design.
At the beginning of 2016, the new process design was finalized by the change project team and they presented this new process design to the employees. Implementation teams were assigned with the task to fill in the details of the new process design (e.g. trainings or designing logos for the service lines). After that, the employees were assigned to different service lines and received training to become familiar with the new process.
In the spring of 2016 the new process design was implemented, which meant that, from that moment on, the employees had to work according to the new process design.
3.3.Data collection
As already briefly described, data is collected by conducting sixteen interviews with employees of the call center department. Half of the amount of respondents is male and half of the amount of respondents is female. The working experience of the respondents in the organization ranges from 3 to 25 years.
To make a complete view of the case, employees with different functionalities and from different service lines were interviewed. Interviews were held with eleven change recipients, one business change manager and four line managers. The change recipients and line managers were randomly selected by the business change manager.
From the eleven change recipients that were interviewed, five change recipients were asked to provide the change project team with input during the analyze and/or implementation phase of the BPC (i.e. ‘participating change recipients’). The remaining six employees were not directly involved in the decision-making during these phases (i.e. ‘non-participating change recipients). Interviewing participating as well as non-participating change recipients enabled us to look for differences in attitudes between the two categories of change recipients. This provides a complete overview of the case.
24 The interviews were ‘open’ in-depth interviews. This means that not all questions were set in advance. Only a global outline of questions was made before the interview in an interview protocol. This interview protocol is provided in Appendix I.
First, a few questions were set to start the interview. These questions were used to put the interviewee on ease and to brush up on the BPC.
After, the interviewee was asked to what extent change recipients could participate during the implementation and how this participation appeared. The purpose of these questions was to get more information about the appearance of the different characteristics of participation (i.e. directness of participation, timing of participation and degree of control). For example, answers on these questions gave information about when participation was used, how change recipients could participate and how this participation was perceived by change recipients.
Then, there was room for an open conversation about participation and the effects of this participation. The purpose of the open conversations was to gain more information about the supposed mechanisms and about the extent to which the participation characteristics influence these mechanisms.
At the end of the interview, some general concluding questions were asked to summarize the information. These questions were used to give the respondent the opportunity to share some last information the respondent wanted to share.
3.4. Data analysis
In order to analyze the collected data, the interviews were recorded and this enabled us to make written transcriptions of the interviews. Interviews were written out word by word which allowed us to analyze the information precisely. For making the transcriptions, Microsoft Office Word was used.
In the next step, we set up a codebook. Based on the literature, deductive codes about the three participation mechanisms and participation characteristics were set up in advance.
25 As a result, a total of twelve deductive codes were set up in advance. The codebook can be found in Appendix III.
To ensure the inter-rater subjectivity and reliability of the results (van Aken, Berends & van der Bij, 2012), the codebook was checked by a peer. She checked whether she agreed on the definitions of the different codes. After setting up the codebook, both the peer and the researcher coded two interviews with the use of the codebook. Both coded interviews were compared afterwards and the outcomes of these codes were discussed. Based on this discussion, the codebook was adjusted at several points. An example of a code that was adjusted based on the discussion was the ‘attitude towards the organization’- code and the ‘attitude towards the BPC’- code. Here, the initial codes caused an overlap between the two codes and therefore a clearer distinction between the two codes was needed.
Thereupon, all the interviews were coded with the use of the coding program ‘Atlas.ti’. First, we labeled text fragments of the interview transcripts with different codes from the codebook that agreed with the definition of the code. After that, the coded text fragments were further analyzed. For example, text fragments regarding the degree of control were further analyzed by determining if the text fragment shows low or high control.
Next, we looked for fragments that suggest causalities. First, we looked for causalities within one interview. For example, fragments that show that the degree of control influenced the attitude towards the change of a change recipient. After, we compared the codes of different interviews between participating and non-participating change recipients to find new causalities and patterns.
26
4. RESULTS
This section provides the results of the analysis of the collected data. As already described in the method section, the conducted interviews were transcribed and coded with the use of a codebook that was set up in advance.
During the coding process, it turned out that some codes were ambiguous. That is, these codes had overlapping fragments with other codes. As a result of this, some fragments were labeled with more than one code. Examples of this state of affairs are fragments that are linked to the ‘attitude towards the BPC’ –code as well as to the ‘attitude towards the organization’ – code. Also, overlap exists between text fragments relating to the code ‘directness of participation’ and the code ‘degree of control’.
In addition, no inductive codes were identified during the coding process. Only the deductive codes, that were set up in advance, were used.
Besides those two implications, the codebook turned out to be sufficient.
Taking the order of the theoretical background section in mind, we describe the outcomes per mechanisms and per mechanism we provide the outcomes regarding the participation characteristics.
The findings are grounded with quotes from the interviews. These quotes are linked to an abbreviation that indicates the respondent who provided the quote. The abbreviation ‘LM’ refers to ‘Line Manager’, ‘BCM’ to Business Change Manager, ‘PCR’ to ‘Participating Change Recipient’ and ‘NCR’ to Non-Participating Change Recipient. Participating change recipients had the opportunity to participate in an analyze- and/or implementation team where they were consulted and able to join the decision-making process. In contrast to participating change recipients, non-participating change recipients did not have the opportunity to participate via consultation or decision making in the analyze phase and/or the implementation phase
It is important to mention that the distinction between ‘Participating change recipients’ and ‘Non-participating change recipients’ only relates to the direct or indirect participation during the analyze- and implementation phase. It is not the case that non-participating change recipients were not involved at all. However, they were to a lesser extent and on a different control level involved in the BPC (e.g. during the plenary meetings and briefings).
27
4.1 Mechanisms of participation
The interviews provide information about all the three mechanisms as discussed in paragraph 2.2 of this research paper. Furthermore, information is provided about the influence of three participation characteristics on these mechanisms.
In the following of this section we describe the outcomes per mechanism.
4.2 The influence of change recipient participation on the change recipient’s attitude towards BPC
The first supposed mechanism that is described in the theoretical background of this paper refers to the influence of change recipient participation on the change recipient’s attitude towards BPC. A distinction has been made between three dimensions: cognitive, affective and behavioral attitudes towards BPC.
Regarding the first dimension, cognitive attitude towards a BPC, the interviews show that all change recipients (participating as well as non-participating change recipients) expressed that they understand the need for change (i.e. cognitive attitude towards BPC).
According to one of the line managers, change recipient participation by communicating a change message contributed to cognitive attitude of the change recipients:
• “If you have a clear message, you will have more support for the change” - LM3 Furthermore, respondents argued that because of participation they understood better why organizations decided to change.
• “Because people were involved they could put the change into a sort of picture” – PCR5
However, even though change recipients expressed that they understand the idea behind the BPC, not all respondents were satisfied with the way the organization approached the change (i.e. affective attitude towards BPC). Here, there exists a clear distinction between non-participating and participating change recipients. More information about this is provided in the subparagraph about directness of participation.
Regarding the behavioral dimension of change recipients’ attitudes towards the BPC, it turned out that all respondents work according to the new processes after the implementation, even though they are not satisfied with the BPC. Change recipients argued that they are motivated to work according the new processes because they are ‘helpers’ and feel responsible for their customers:
• “Well, you know, we are helpers. So, you do not want the customer to be the victim of
28 • “Most of the people work here because they like the work and they like to help people.
That is nice for an employer because he knows that if something happens, employees are available to work.” – NCR6
Only in one situation employees refused to change. Some employees had no control over their division to a service line, because this assignment took place by lottery. For these employees, the assignment by lottery felt wrong, and this had a great impact on their attitude towards the BPC:
• “The organization has made the choice for me that I have to work for that service line.
Well, the first day you hear that, well, it is okay. Until you go home, and you start puzzling and you think, ‘well this is actually not what I want…’. And then, the day after it was really bad” – NCR2
After a while, the organization realized that the lottery was not needed and they asked some employees to go to the other service line (the line where the respondent would have chosen for). This inconsistent change message had an influence on the behavioral attitude of change recipients where employees refused to switch to another service line after the assignment:
• “They were nonetheless obligated to work on the other department. And for a few that
really dropped like a rock. Justified. Then you really feel used. And I know that some of them fully have refused to switch to the other department” - NCR3
4.2.1 Directness of participation
As turned out from the interviews, different forms of directness of participation are found in the case and these different forms had several effects on the attitude of change recipients.
First, all change recipients were directly involved in the BPC by plenary meetings in which they were told about the change. Because of this information provision, they get to know why the organization wants to change, and how the organization approached the change. Based on that, change recipients could develop their attitude towards the BPC. After that plenary session, employees were invited to give their reaction.
29 • “We looked at which employees have a lot of resistance towards the change and who
we can get with us by letting them participate. We do have looked at… As if there was someone with a lot of resistance, it can also influence the rest of the group. This may lead to negative developments. So yes, if we then can get these people with us, then you may avoid this negative spiral for the rest of the group.” - BCM1
So, change recipients who may resist the change were selected for participation. Because by letting these change recipients participate, they want to make them less resistant. Also, when they are less resistant, the change project team hoped that this had a positive influence on other resistant employees
Even though these selected change recipients were directly involved to represent other change recipients, this indirect participation was not perceived by the non-participating change recipients. Six interviewed non-participating change recipients expressed that they did not have the idea that change recipients were involved at all.
• “And yes, probably there should have been input, but I cannot remember that this
input was from us as helpers themselves” - NCR6
• “No. We as employees were kept out of the decision making.” – NCR5
The information from the interviews shows that the change recipients that could participate in analyze- and/or implementation teams, better understood why the organization has decided to do the BPC and why the organization has decided to do it the way they did it (i.e. cognitive attitude towards BPC).
In addition, 4 out of 5 interviewed participating change recipients expressed feelings of satisfaction with the BPC and the way the organization approached the BPC (i.e. affective attitude towards BPC). The participating change recipients expressed attitudes as openness to change and from the interviews it turned out that they took a broader perspective about the change. They did not focus only on the (negative) implications of the change for themselves, but they also considered the consequences of the change to the whole organization. These change recipients all argued that the organization did its best to do the change as good as possible. Examples of expressions are:
• “I think in the end, if you take all average… At the end of the story, it went good. Of
30 • “I found the change desirable. Even though there are still things that have changed
for me personally, and where I am less satisfied with. But that is separated from the change itself.” – PCR5
Non-participating change recipients understood to a lesser extent why the organization has decided to do it this way. 5 out of 6 non-participating change recipients that were interviewed showed disappointment in the way the change took place (i.e. affective attitude towards BPC). In the interviews they linked this dissatisfaction to participation, where they argue that they would have liked to have more opportunities to participate.
• “To me, it feels very wrong. Especially, how they did it. Maybe I would have had more
input. And anyway, maybe yes... Yes pff, I am also just a ‘number’. But if you are together with more employees, than perhaps you could have had more input. Like, 'please, do things differently!’” - NCR1
4.2.2 Timing of participation
Change recipient participation during different phases of the BPC influenced the attitude towards the BPC among change recipients.
First, according to 10 out of 11 change recipients, the BPC is an answer to a need for change that was felt among most employees. That is, these change recipients explained that they had the idea that the change project team had based the initial idea for the BPC partly on this need for change from the workplace. The business change manager and the four interviewed line managers confirmed this.
• “There was a need for clarity, a delineation of your work, your focus. There was a
really need. And this project was, yes really a ‘godsend’ by way of saying…” – LM2
• “At some point, you no longer knew where you should go with your questions. So, the
change was quite logical: doing what you are good at.” - NCR2
• “As I understood, more employees had indicated that they had a need for more need
to excel, so that they became more specialized in certain areas.”- PCR4
31 because then they could have had a better view about what was expected from them (i.e. cognitive attitude towards BPC):
• I think if we were more engaged in the process, we could have had a more realistic
view about the situation that they want to change. – NCR6
Second, according to the non-participating change recipients, involvement earlier in the process would have contributed to a more positive affective attitude towards the BPC. Now, when they were informed about the change everything was already set and done. Non-participating change recipients expressed the feeling that they only could ‘follow’:
• "In the meeting, it was just on the projector like 'This is how we do it'. So, in principle,
it was just we to 'follow'. Haha, this may sounds harsh and negative, but that is just how it is." - NCR1
During the development phase, there was no room for change recipients to participate. Between de analyze phase (summer 2015) and the announcement of the BPC (winter 2016) there was a complete “radio silence” about the BPC.
At this phase, decisions had to be made top-down and according to the business change manager it was not necessary to let change recipients participate. The main goal of the BPC was to increase efficiency, and it was unavoidable that the change project team would disappoint some change recipients because the BPC influenced their work drastically.
Because of the impact, the business change manager argued that a clear line needed to be set in this phase. Furthermore, change recipient participation in this phase maybe influences the attitudes of the change recipient unnecessarily:
• “The goal was to clearly arrange the responsibilities. And because of that, we
decided we have to approach it 'top-down', because we need to be clear. Furthermore, it really had an impact on the tasks of employees and at that moment we did not know if it would be a re-organization. So, we thought, if we discuss this with employees now, we may create commotion while there is no need for that".
As she argued, the input of change recipients during the analyze phase was used during the development phase. Almost all change recipients understood that in this phase no participation on a decision-making level was used:
• “I think if they would have done it that way, that we would have discussed for years
32 • “Because, then it becomes a really huge and ‘woolly’ project and at a certain point
you just have to draw a clear line about how you think of it.”- LM2.
• “Managers have to determine direction at a certain point” – NCR6
After the development phase and the “radio silence”, the employees were informed about the BPC and about the new process design. This happened through a plenary meeting in which the director announced the change. After that, implementation teams were formed. Here, some change recipients got the opportunity to directly participate. Creating support was one of the reasons why the change project team consciously decided to involve change recipients directly in this implementation phase.
• "That the people that joined those implementation groups, that they jointed-up
thinking. That they came in the participating-mode... The idea was that it gave confidence to the rest of the group that a representative of them was able to participate in the thought-process about how things will change" – BCM1
In addition, during the implementation phase all employees kept informed about the BPC by timely briefings and celebrations of implemented processes. According to the business change manager and the line managers this proposed to create a positive feeling towards the BPC among change recipients:
• "There have been several milestones that have been celebrated. Real attention was
paid to those moments, for example with cake. And I guess that has been good, involving employees in those milestones to keep it alive. I mean, personally I would not have opted for cake, but that is something else..." – LM3
4.2.3 Degree of control
As can be derived from the information provided by the interviews, change recipients have participated with different levels of control.
First, all employees were informed about the change (i.e. information, level 2). During plenary meetings before the implementation of the BPC, they were informed about what was going to change. In these meetings, the reason for the change was explained. This communication contributed to the attitude of the change recipients, because based on this information they could form an opinion about the change (i.e. cognitive attitude towards BPC).
33 explained that especially in the beginning of the BPC communication was not clear. According to this respondent, this made it difficult for change recipients to understand some decisions of the change project team:
• “And in the beginning, the communication was not that good. And then employees do
not understand why the organization has decided to do things this way.” – LM1
• “It’s only…. It’s all overtaken by event. And that just makes it sometimes difficult to
understand the choices that have been made” - NCR6
• “There is still a lot unclear, and I think there is no need for that. They have made a
planning for this work division, and then everyone should know what his or her job is. But that is not the case…” – NCR5
Furthermore, the situation about the lottery as described earlier in this paragraph, describes that inconsistent information providing (i.e. when change project team alter the course) also influence the affective and behavioral attitude towards the BPC.
After the plenary session, where all change recipients were directly involved, change recipients were invited to react and to give feedback on the ideas after the plenary session (i.e. give opinion, level 3).
• "Yes, everyone had the ability to link it back and everyone was free to provide input
after that session." - PCR3
• "In a meeting the change was announced. And after that, in groups employees could
talk with their line managers. They could give their reactions, and talk about their emotions." - BCM1
Even though these respondents argued that there was room for response for all employees, most non-participating employees did not feel that they could give their opinion. They did not perceive this degree of control and perceived that it was all decided top-down, as the following quote highlights:
• “It was all decided top-down. So, in fact, we could not give input about how they
should do it. It was all set and done.”- NCR1
• “Well, what irritates the most to me is that if we say something, if we give input, that
34 Besides that, all change recipients were involved on level 2 (information provision) and level 3 (give opinion), the ‘participating change recipients’ had the opportunity to participate on the fourth and fifth level (i.e. consultation and joint decision making). Some change recipients were asked to provide the change project team with information about the former process during the analyze phase. In addition, some change recipients were asked to participate in the implementation team, where they were consulted but where they also joined decision making.
However, according to one of the participating change recipients who was involved in an implementation team, the perceived control was very low. This perceived low control did influence the attitude towards the BPC:
• “I mean, if you have, like now, the feeling like ’well, just talk shit, but we already
extensively decided what we do’. Then it makes little sense to engage employees because then you just encourage friction, or how do you say? Demotivation…” –
PCR2
In addition to the three participation characteristics, the perceived impact of the BPC also influences the attitude of the change recipients towards the BPC. For some employees, the BPC had a huge impact on their work, where they complained that their work is less challenging now:
• “Well, for me personally and for some colleagues, the change means that we also
have to work for a certain market, this is perceived as unpleasant. Just because the work is not challenging.”– PCR5
Only one interviewed non-participating change recipient was satisfied with the BPC approach. However, as he argued, the impact of the BPC on his work was very low. The BPC did not change his work and therefore this low impact influenced his attitude towards the BPC:
• "The change had little implications for what I do, I was doing. So, it did not impress
me that much." – NCR4
• “At my department, the damage was less than expected. But I can imagine, when they
35 The role of impact of a BPC is also highlighted by a line manager. She argued that the BPC did not have many implications for the service point she supervises. According to her, this low impact influenced the attitude of the change recipients at the service point:
• “It was not a matter of concern on our service point. Especially because employees
estimated that it would not bring a lot of dramatic consequences for them. So, they did not perceive it as a threat.” – LM3
4.3 The influence of change recipient participation on the quality of the new process design
The second supposed mechanism that is described in the theoretical background of this paper refers to the influence of change recipient participation on the quality of the new process design.
Regarding this second mechanism, all respondents argued that change recipient participation contributed to the quality of the new process design. They argue that change recipients possess information and knowledge that is needed to map the bottlenecks of the current process and to determine the requirements of the new process. The quotes below are examples of expressions from respondents of all categories:
• “I think it is good to listen to the workplace. Because the workplace signals things at
first and managers generally have the tendency to only look at a kind of picture of the reality, so to look at numbers, statistics. Instead of to what is really happening.” –
NCR6
• Just change recipient input was needed. Because, in the top you can conceptualize
everything, but then you still do not know how the practice will be. And it can still be the case that it wrenched when you do not exactly know how the work system works” -
PCR3
• “And I think you are going to miss a lot of bottlenecks if you do not involve the
experts, the executers.” – BCM1.
• “You know, the people who in the end have to work with the new product, the process,
36
4.3.1 Directness of participation
To contribute to the quality of the new process design, some change recipients were directly consulted during the analyze phase of the BPC. These change recipients were selected by the line managers based on their expertise:
• “We looked for those employees who are most concerned. People with a lot of
expertise. So, who are the most suitable people who can participate, so that we can get as much input from the reality, from the workplace?”- LM2
As one participating change recipient explained, he asked his non-participating colleagues for information. By doing this, he ensured himself that he had all the information he should provide the change project team.
• “For one of the processes I asked for input from my colleagues. Just to check if I
had the information right.” – PCR4 4.3.2 Timing of participation
The interviews provided information about several phases of the BPC where change participation was used to contribute to new process design quality.
First, during the analyze phase, a few change recipients were consulted to get information about the current work processes. This direct consultation was needed in this phase because of the expertise of change recipients:
• “Because we needed expertise to map how it actually works locally in the workplace” – BCM1
Expertise of change recipients contributed to the identification of bottlenecks in the current process. Furthermore, the participation provided information for improvements in the process that should be considered in the design of the new process. In addition, change recipients argued that change recipient participation especially during the analyze phase contributes to process design quality:
• “Because of our knowledge. That you know where we have to deal with on a daily
basis, where we run into. They have to look at that from the beginning”. – NCR6
• “Participation is needed from the oriental phase. I mean, use brainstorm sessions.
There are a lot of great ideas at the workplace. And you know, that the management team decides for additional things, well okay. But besides that, use the input from the workplace” – PCR2
37 • “We had to resolve things afterwards that could have been prevented if we had used
change recipient participation in the beginning of the process…. It would have been handier when those things where obviated before this and that went live” – LM4
As already described in the results paragraph about the first mechanism, during the development a ‘radio silence’ occurred. In this phase, no change recipients were involved at all. One line manager explained that this ‘radio silence’ of a few months had effects on the quality of the implementation of the BPC. He explained that based on this long period of silence, they had little time to prepare the workplace for the new processes (for example, hiring and training new employees). According to this respondent, if they were informed earlier about the expected changes, they could have been prepared in advance.
Because the change project team needed the expertise of the employees, some change recipients were invited to participate in implementation teams during the implementation phase. This change recipient participation was needed to fill in the details of the new process and to ensure the quality of the new process.
However, according to a change recipient that was involved in an implementation team, this participation did not add much value to the quality of the new process design because everything was already set and done:
• "They are quickly with an implementation team like 'oh we should involve an
employee", but at the end of the day it is all set and done. And I think that they should ask for input before they make the decision. As 'how should we do this?'" – PCR2
• ‘But now in that implementation team it was only about logistics things actually, then
you think ‘yes, as an employee I do not add much value’” – PCR2
At the time of the interviews, the new process was implemented and for almost five months they had to work according to this new process. 14 out of 16 respondents argued that participation of change recipients now, during the post-implementation phase, contributes to the quality of the new process. During the work, they face things that may do or do not work. So, now it is the time to adjust those things:
• “So, along the way, everyone understands that, the process must be further developed.
38 • “It is logical that now there are improvement-teams…Because in the start-up phase
you are dealing with the bigger change, and now you can see where you run into and how that can be improved” – PCR3
4.3.3 Degree of control
The case provided information about how the quality mechanism is influenced by the degree of control of change recipients.
To contribute to the quality of the new process design, participating change recipients were consulted and asked to give the change project team feedback on the mapping of the new process design (i.e. consultation, level 4). According to the participating change recipient this feedback was considered and therefore it could contribute to the quality:
• "They already had some scattered ideas about how to handle certain things. Also,
things that we as employees already had tried in the workplace. But then we notified that, and argued that they might should take into account these things, like how things eventually will work in practice instead of what they had written down on paper." –
PCR4
• “They have, as far as I brought ideas, listened. Or, they at least came to the same
conclusions, because it is implemented as how I envisioned” – PCR4
Furthermore, to contribute to the quality of the process, all change recipients could provide the change project team with feedback during the implementation phase. For example, when they faced problems with the new process design, they reported it to the change project team. According to some change recipients, this feedback was taken into account:
• “But there where parts of the process of which we thought 'Oh boy, this is not going
to work at all, we really need to do that differently'. And eventually they had used our input, and it was adapted.” - PCR1.
• “Well, they first decided to leave the ‘service call’ in the new process. However, soon
we figured out that it did not work. So, these decisions were turned back because everyone in the workplace saw it as a bad change” – PCR4
