From the individual and group perspective: The responses of change agents
to change recipients’ attitudes towards change
Albina Vladimirovna Vitochina
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
Msc Business Administration: Change Management
January, 18 2016
Supervisor: H. P. Van Peet Co-assessor: I. Maris-de Bresser
Eemskanaal Noordzijde 23a 9934RD Delfzijl The Netherlands 06-28116188
2 Abstract
This qualitative research offers insights in change recipients’ reactions towards change on cognitive, affective and intentional dimensions and is viewed from individual and group level of analysis. This research tries to provide a deeper understanding in the relationship between those two levels. Moreover, change agents’ and middle managers’ sensemaking and their approaches towards change recipients’ attitudes are provided. A connection is made between these concepts and the expected change outcome. Theory was developed based on data collection within one company. In total sixteen respondents are interviewed, including two change agents, three middle managers and eleven change recipients. The findings imply that informal leaders have a crucial role in influencing others’ attitudes, the group attitude and change agents’ sensemaking. Several factors, such as previous experiences with change, false promises, the organizational culture and the occurrence of organizational silence, hinder change recipients to express their thoughts and feelings. The same factors result in change recipients’ distrust in the change outcome, leading to the expected change failure. Finally, change agents’ approaches did not influence change recipients’ individual or group attitude towards change, and did not influence the expected change outcome.
Word Count: 20.326 (excluding appendices)
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ... 5
2. Theoretical background ... 7
2.1 Organizational change and its participants ... 7
2.2 Antecedents of change recipients’ attitudes towards change ... 7
2.3 Change recipients’ attitudes towards organizational change ... 8
2.3.1 Readiness to change ... 9
2.3.2 Resistance to change ... 10
2.3.3 Change ambivalence ... 11
2.3.4 Group attitudes towards change ... 11
2.3.5 Relationship between individual and group attitudes towards change ... 12
2.4 Change agents’ approaches towards change recipients’ attitudes ... 14
2.4.1 Sensemaking ... 14
2.4.2 Influence strategies ... 15
2.4.3 Influence tactics ... 15
2.5 Linking pin: the role of the middle managers in the change process ... 17
2.6 Change outcome ... 18 2.7 Theoretical framework ... 19 3. Methodology ... 20 3.1 Research design... 20 3.2 Research site ... 20 3.3 Case selection ... 20 3.4 Data collection ... 21
3.4.1 Semi-structured in-depth interviews ... 22
3.4.2 Observation ... 22 3.4.3 Online survey ... 23 3.5 Method of analysis ... 23 4. Results ... 24 4.1 Change Project ... 24 4.1.1 Current situation ... 24 4.1.2 Desired situation ... 25 4.2 Case analysis ... 27
4.2.1 Change recipients’ individual attitudes towards change ... 27
4.2.2 Change recipients’ group attitude towards change ... 29
4.2.3 Influence of group on individuals’ attitudes towards change ... 30
4.2.4 Influence of the individual’s attitude on the group attitude towards change ... 31
4.2.5 Change agents’ sensemaking and confrontation with the reality ... 31
4
4.2.7 Change agents’ approaches ... 35
4.2.8 Middle managers’ approaches ... 36
4.2.9 Change outcome ... 37
4.2.10 Summary ... 38
4.2.11 Patterns ... 39
Discussion and conclusion ... 41
5.1 Discussion and propositions ... 41
5.1.1 Sub-question 1 ... 41 5.1.2 Sub-question 2 ... 43 5.1.3 Sub-question 3 ... 43 5.1.4 Sub-question 4 ... 44 5.1.5 Sub-question 5 ... 46 5.2 Research question ... 47 5.3 Theoretical implications ... 47 5.4 Practical implications ... 48
5.5 Limitations and suggestions for further research ... 49
References ... 50
Appendix 1: Basic moods: positive and negative affect... 57
Appendix 2: Framework of behavioral intentions: readiness and resistance ... 58
Appendix 3: Interview protocol change agents ... 59
Appendix 4: Interview protocol middle managers ... 62
Appendix 5: Interview protocol change recipients ... 66
Appendix 6: Observation protocol ... 70
Appendix 7: Online survey ... 71
Appendix 8: Deductive coding ... 76
Appendix 9: Inductive coding ... 81
Appendix 10: The change process ... 83
Appendix 11: Description of change recipients’ survey results ... 85
Appendix 12: Visual representation of change recipients’ moods ... 88
5 1. INTRODUCTION
To survive in this competitive and dynamic world, organizations need to rapidly change themselves to fit their environment (Burnes, 2011; Gordon, Stewart, Sweco & Luker, 2000). Change is therefore inevitable and is needed in both business and life situations (Payne, 2005). Organizations believe that medium to large changes are needed every four to five years (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008), although most of the changes, about 60 to 90 percent, fail (Burnes, 2009). In trying to identify the underlying causes of these failures, authors recognized the importance of the interaction process between change agents and change recipients (e.g. Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph & DePalma, 2006; Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis, 2011). Especially change recipients’ attitudes towards change are of a significant
importance for the successful implementation of a change project (Rafferty, Jimmieson & Armenakis, 2013; Shin, Taylor & Seo, 2012). Several attitudes towards change are mentioned in the literature (e.g. commitment to change, cynicism about change and openness to change), however most of the
literature is regarding resistance and readiness to change (Bouckenooghe, 2010).
Change recipients’ attitudes towards change are, in the literature as well as in this research, viewed from three dimensions, consisting of cognitive, affective and intentional dimension (Piderit, 2000). The cognitive dimension is about an individual’s beliefs regarding the topic, the emotional dimension is regarding individual’s feelings and moods and the intentional dimension is about past behavior or the intention to behave in a certain way in the future (Piderit, 2000). A positive set of change recipient’s reactions on these three dimensions represent ‘readiness to change’. A negative set of reactions represent ‘resistance to change’. ‘Ambivalence towards change’ represents responses that are neither consistently negative, nor consistently positive (Piderit, 2000).
The majority of the literature regarding change recipients’ attitudes is about the individual level of analysis (Bouckenooghe, 2010; Paul, Van Peet & Reezigt, 2012). The importance of understanding why and how change recipients react towards organizational change is recognized (Bartunek et al, 2006; Oreg et al., 2011), however there is a lack of understanding of the group attitudes towards organizational change. Individuals and groups interact with each other. This social interaction process within a group exists of ongoing influences: individual members influence the group attitude (Rafferty et al., 2013) and the group attitude influences individuals’ attitudes towards change (George & Jones, 2001; Vakola, 2013). An explanation about the underlying mechanism between both levels (individual and group) is also lacking in the current literature.
6 recipients’ attitudes, is lacking in empirical research (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Change agents’ approaches will thereby influence change recipients’ attitudes and will probably have influence on the eventual outcome of the change project (Oreg et al., 2011). Change agents’ sensemaking plays thereby a crucial role; how change agents interpret change recipients’ attitudes will influence change agents’ responses.
Change agents’ responses towards change recipients’ attitudes are almost neglected in the current literature (Oreg et al., 2011). Therefore, the main purpose of this research is to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between change recipients’ attitudes (multi-level analysis) and change agents’ responses towards these attitudes. Sensemaking process and the role of middle managers will be investigated. In addition, a connection is made between the interaction process, between change agents and change recipients, and the change outcome. The theoretical relevance of this research is to contribute to the multi-level analysis and to investigate the mechanism between group attitudes towards change and the individual attitudes. Furthermore, it aims to contribute to the literature gap by investigating how change agents respond towards different attitudes on the individual and group level, and if these responses lead to changes in change recipients’ attitudes. In line with the above, the following research question will be addressed:
How do change agents respond towards change recipients’ individual attitudes and group attitudes towards change and what is the influence of the interaction between change agents and change recipients on the expected change outcome?
Literature will give insight into the possible change recipients’ attitudes towards change and the antecedents of these attitudes. The following sub-questions are developed to gain more knowledge and to answer the research question appropriately.
1. How do individuals’ and group attitudes towards change influence each other?
2. How do change agents respond to change recipients’ individual attitudes and group attitudes towards change?
3. What is the influence of change agents' approaches on change recipients’ individual and group attitudes towards change?
4. What is the role of sensemaking in the interaction between change agents and change recipients? 5. How does the interaction between change recipients’ attitudes and change agents approaches
eventually influence the expected change outcome?
7 2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
“If there is any one secret of success, it lies in the ability to get the other person’s point of view and see things from his angle, as well as from your own”.
– Henry Ford
In trying to get the other person’s point of view and to understand the interaction between change recipients’ attitudes towards change and change agents' responses to these attitudes, a comprehensive theoretical background is needed. First, the process of organizational change and change participants are described. Secondly, the antecedents of individuals’ and group attitudes towards change are described. Furthermore, change recipients’ attitudes are explained from multi-level analysis. Change agents’ sensemaking and how change agents respond towards change recipients’ attitudes will be addressed. Finally, the importance and relevance of the middle management is highlighted, and the influence of the relation between change agents and recipients on the expected change outcome is described.
2.1 Organizational change and its participants
In this research organizational change is seen as a planned activity designed to improve the
organization’s effectiveness (Cawsey, Deszca & Ingols, 2012). During a change, the organization tries to move from the present state to a more desired future state. The change participants are change agents and change recipients. Change agents are those who are responsible for identifying the need for change, creating a vision, specifying a desired outcome and lead the change (Ford et al., 2008; Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Change recipients find themselves at the receiving end of change (Cawsey et al., 2012). They are affected by the change and are responsible for implementing and adopting the change (Ford et al., 2008).
2.2 Antecedents of change recipients’ attitudes towards change
Antecedents are actually the reason of the existence of a certain attitude. A 60-year review of
8 was implemented, and it exists of five variables: participation, communication and information, interactional and procedural justice, principal support during change and management change competence (e.g. Choi, 2011; Oreg et al., 2011). The fourth antecedent is perceived benefit or harm from the change, thus change recipients’ evaluation of possible harm or benefits resulting from the change. The final antecedent is the change content, the nature or type of change being implemented. Some antecedents, which are specific to a certain attitude, are distinguished by Choi (2011). She mentioned that employees’ belief in the organizational ability to accommodate to changing situations, trust in peers and leaders, policies supporting change, participation, self-efficacy, organizational commitment, perceived personal competence and job satisfaction are all factors which increase the level of change readiness (Choi, 2011). An antecedent of more negative attitudes towards change is, for instance, a non-effective leadership style. Positive experience with previous change, involvement and participation all decrease resistance towards change (Choi, 2011). When employees feel
threatened about their job security, when they are afraid of losing their identity or when they perceive the change as not ambitious enough they will often resist a change (Sonenshein, 2010).
2.3 Change recipients’ attitudes towards organizational change
Change recipients try to make sense of the new environment during a change and they draw conclusions about possible change outcomes (Choi, 2011). As a result, change recipients form assumptions, expectations and impressions regarding the change and whether or not it has a positive influence for them as individuals and for the wider organization (Choi, 2011). This can result in positive, negative or ambivalent attitudes towards organizational change. Change recipient’s attitude towards change is actually an individual’s overall evaluation of the change and its psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating this change with some degree of favor or disfavor (Lines, 2005). These attitudes are critical for the success rate of a change project (Elias, 2009; Miller, Johnson & Grau, 1994; Shin et al., 2012).
According to Elizur and Guttman (1976) “Attitude towards change is a multi-facetted concept comprised of a set of feelings about change, cognitions about change and intentions toward change. Each of these three facets reflects three different manifestations of people’s evaluations of a change” (p. 612). The three facets represent the tripartite view: the cognitive, affective and intentional
9 moods (Barsade & Gibson, 2007). Affective reactions might be the result of current experience or imaginative experience (Rafferty et al., 2013). Currently experiencing an emotion is due to the expectation of future desirable or undesirable events (Baumgartner, Pieters & Bagozzi, 2008). Imagining the experience of certain emotions in the future can also result in current positive or negative emotions. The intentional dimension focuses on past behaviors or intentions to act in the future (Piderit, 2000). Intentions are related to the motivational factors that influence this behavior, and they are indicators of how hard a person is willing to try or puts in effort to perform a behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
Viewing attitudes from these three dimensions is helpful in understanding their complexity and the potential relationship between attitudes and behavior (Robbins & Judge, 2012). All three components are related, cognitive and affective components are even inseparable (Robbins & Judge, 2012). The range of possible reactions by change recipients is complex, since the change is assessed against their interests, attitudes and values (Cawsey et al., 2012). However, as already mentioned, a distinction will be made between change recipients’ positive set of reactions along the three dimensions, indicating attitude ‘readiness to change’ and a negative set of reactions along the three dimensions, indicating ‘resistance to change’. Ambivalence attitudes towards change indicate that the recipient was neither consistently positive, nor consistently negative (Piderit, 2000).
2.3.1 Readiness to change
Readiness to change can be defined as: “Organizational member’s beliefs, feelings, and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization’s capacity to successfully make those changes”(Choi, 2011). Readiness to change shows positive responses along all three dimensions: cognitive, affective and intentional. Change recipients with this attitude exhibit a proactive and positive attitude towards change, related to willingness to support and confidence in succeeding (Vakola, 2013). However, this definition does not make a distinction between the three levels of readiness to change (organizational, group and individual level) (Vakola 2013).
10 (Bovey & Hede, 2001). An overview of these behaviors, distinguished on two dimensions (overt-covert and active-passive) can be found in appendix 2.
Commitment to change and openness to change are also seen as positive attitudes towards change, reacting positive on all three dimensions (Bouckenooghe, 2009). Commitment to change can be defined as “A force (mind-set) that binds an individual to a course of action deemed necessary for the successful implementation of a change initiative” (Herscovtisch & Meyer, 2002: 475). Openness to change is also a condition that increases employees’ readiness to change (Devos, Buelens &
Bouckenooghe, 2007). Openness to change is explained as the willingness to accommodate and accept change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000).
2.3.2 Resistance to change
Resistance can be seen as any set of intentions and actions that slows down or hinders the
implementation of a change project (Del Val & Fuentes, 2003). According to Piderit (2000), change recipients who react negative along three dimensions show resistance towards the change. The cognitive component of resistance to change regards the negative thoughts about the change. The affective component of resistance describes emotions which change recipients feel during change. Individuals usually experience loss and grief when they are confronted with change (Bovey & Hede, 2001). This can lead to feelings of anger, sadness or anxiety (Sullivan & Guntzelman, 1991). The intentional component of resistance to change is explained by considering resistance to change as a restraining force which moves in the direction of maintaining the status quo (Lewin, 1951; Piderit, 2000), thereby hindering a successful implementation of a change project (Bouckenooghe, 2010). Resistance can result in behavior such as sabotaging, blaming, complaining or work slowdown. Loss of loyalty, loss of motivation, increase in errors and absenteeism are also examples of resistance which are more difficult to handle, from the agent’s point of view (Bovey & Hede, 2001). An overview of different types of resistance is provided in the appendix 2.
The view on resistance was one-sided for a long time, management saw resistance as one of the major reasons why change projects failed (Georgalis, Samaratunge & Kimberley, 2015). Therefore,
11 Cynicism about organizational change can also be seen as a negative attitude towards change, reacting negative along all three dimensions. Cynicism involves a negative or pessimistic viewpoint regarding the potential success of change (Bouckenooghe, 2010) or regarding the change agent (Ford et al., 2008). Cynicism can involve loss of faith in the change leader (Stanley, Meyer & Topolnytsky, 2005), lower job satisfaction and lower commitment (Bouckenooghe, 2010).
2.3.3 Change ambivalence
Piderit (2000) recognized a third attitude, besides readiness and resistance to change. This third attitude is change ambivalence. Individuals can have strong, but conflicting, views about an organizational change (Oreg & Sverdlik, 2011). Change recipients might feel positive emotions regarding the change, but react negative on the cognitive component. This ‘conflict’ is described as change ambivalence. Almost every individual´s reaction to change will have some kind of
ambivalence according to Piderit (2000). These mixed, unclear feelings, thoughts and behaviors about change are a result of the increasing level of complexity, uncertainty and risk which change recipients experience (Cawsey et al., 2012). Arkowitz (2002) even mentioned that some management and psychology scholars have re-conceptualized resistance to change in terms of ambivalence.
There is a lot of complexity regarding resistance and ambivalence towards change. Some authors (e.g. Paul et al., 2012) imply that resistance and readiness are not opposites, Ford et al., (2008) imply that resistance is not necessarily a negative attitude and might be a resource, or resistance is actually ambivalence. Nevertheless, to avoid this complexity involving different perspectives on resistance and ambivalence, this paper will consider change recipients’ attitudes on the cognitive, affective and intentional dimension, whereby a positive set of responses on these levels represent readiness to change, a negative set of responses represent resistance to change and responses that are neither consistently negative nor positive represent attitude called ambivalence towards change. 2.3.4 Group attitudes towards change
12 As mentioned before, change readiness on group level is almost neglected in the literature. Group readiness to change is based on collective perceptions and beliefs that change is needed, the group or organization has the ability to cope with change effectively, the group will benefit from change outcomes and the group has the capacity to cope with change requirements (Vakola, 2013). Resistance can also exist on the group level. Several group characteristics can produce resistance to organizational change, especially when groups have strong informal norms (Jones, 2010). When these group norms and expectations do not support a change, this will probably lead to group resistance (Cummings, 2004). Resistance can occur because these norms, informal expectations, tasks and role relationships are influenced by a change (Jones, 2010). Therefore it is easier and more obvious that groups block, rather than accept, change as a first reaction (Pilar, 2015).
Mechanisms which contribute to the shared group beliefs and emotions
Members of the same group are all influenced by a range of top-down processes that produce a
common set of stimuli, therefore these members develop shared beliefs (Rafferty et al., 2013). Besides shared beliefs, groups can also develop shared emotions and feelings (Sanchez-Burks & Huy, 2009). Several mechanisms can contribute to the emergence of shared emotions. These mechanism are similar interpretations about the change, previous experiences, identity with the organization, organizational culture, emotional contagion and emotional comparison (Mackie, Devos & Smith, 2000). Group members which have the same interpretation about and similar experiences with a change project will experience similar emotions. Group members, who strongly identify themselves with the same organization (strong organizational culture), will also experience similar emotions. Emotional comparison is another mechanism that contributes to shared emotions, meaning that individuals seek out and use cues from similar individuals (usually group members) to label their aroused state in a situation (Rafferty et al., 2013). Final mechanism is emotional contagion, which is a process whereby an individual or a group influences the emotions or behaviors of another individual or group, through the conscious or unconscious induction of emotion states (Barsade, 2002).
Emotional contagion occurs, for instance, by mimicking others’ expressions and movements, which will result in similar emotions.
2.3.5 Relationship between individual and group attitudes towards change
13 Individuals’ attitudes towards change influence group attitude towards change
A common group attitude is a representation of all individual group members’ feelings, beliefs and behaviors towards change. These beliefs, feelings and behaviors become shared by the social interaction processes (Rafferty et al., 2013). These social interaction processes are a product of constant and ongoing individual and group interactions in organizational settings (George & Jones, 2001). According to George and Jones (2001), the social interaction can occur reciprocally among the individuals, between an individual and a group, between the groups or between individual and
organizational culture. Individual team members all have their own emotions. These individual emotions converge into shared group emotions, which can happen in small groups, as well as in large work teams (Barsade, 2002).
Research reveals that informal leaders have a strong influence on group processes, norms and outcome (Pescosolido, 2001). Informal leadership is therefore a good example whereby an individual influences the group. Informal leaders exist among the group members and they are accepted by the group members. Informal leaders have the respect and credibility that allows them to influence these group members without any formal authority (Peters & O’Connor, 2001). Several individual characteristics promote informal leadership, so that an individual shares his or her thoughts, feelings and behaviors with his or her group members, thereby influencing the common group attitude. These individual characteristics or leadership qualities are for example confidence, ability, knowledge, willingness to lead and the ability to influence (Stincelli & Baghurst, 2014). Each group experiences one or more informal leaders. Although there is extensive literature about informal leadership, there is a gap in the current literature about specific methods of influence or the effect of these methods on the group (Pescosolido, 2001).
Group attitude towards change influence individuals’ attitudes towards change
Group attitudes can have an enormous effect on individuals’ attitudes towards change (Vakola, 2013). The groups’ perceptions, values and evaluations are likely to influence an individual’s attitude. Groups can exert pressure on individuals to conform to the group norms, which are stuck in the group
14 2.4 Change agents’ approaches towards change recipients’ attitudes
The previous paragraph discussed the possible attitudes change recipients may have towards change. However, change agents also play a crucial role in the change process. Both parties will likely influence each other’s behaviors (Klonek et al., 2014). According to the interpersonal theory, the behavior shown by one participant of the change will affect or limit the behavioral options of another participant (Kelly, Holmes, Kerr, Reis, Rusbult & Van Lange; 2003). Change agents and change recipients trigger each other’s behavior over the course of their conversation, which leads to
encouraging or discouraging the change initiative (Klonek et al., 2014). Due to this, change recipients’ reactions may evolve over time, which in turn have an influence on the eventual change outcome (Piderit, 2000). These shifts in change recipients’ attitudes can be influenced by, among others, change agents’ responses (Kotter & Schlesinger, 1979). Nevertheless, research has generally ignored the role of change agents’ approaches towards change recipients’ attitudes (Oreg et al., 2011). Therefore this research tries to discover change agents’ approaches on change recipients’ attitudes.
2.4.1 Sensemaking
How change agents respond towards change recipients’ attitudes, and how change recipients incorporate these responses, is influenced by their sensemaking. Sensemaking plays a crucial role in organizational change (Gioia, Thomas, Clark & Chittipeddi, 1994). During the process of
sensemaking, change agents and change recipients try to make sense of each others’ thoughts, feelings and behaviors. It is mainly a conversational and narrative process, including different types of
communication (spoken, written, formal and informal) (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). Change agents’ expectations, of what kind of attitudes change recipients may show, play an important role in agents’ sensemaking. Expectations can be in terms of self-fulfilling prophecies or self-serving accounts (Ford et al., 2008). The essence of the self-fulfilling prophecy is that individuals’ expectations or beliefs determine their actual behaviors. When a change agent expects something, he or she will use a specific approach towards this expectation.
For instance, if a change agent expects resistance, because “there is always resistance”, he or she will already act as like if there ‘is’ resistance. This approach will eventually influence change recipients’ attitudes towards change. So, no matter which attitude a change recipient is showing during the change process, the expectation of the negative attitude ‘resistance’ will influence change agents’ approach and eventually will affect change recipients’ attitudes. Self-serving account arises when change agents take credit for successful changes, and blame other factors when the change projects become a failure. Change recipients make sense of change agents’ responses. Change agents show different approaches towards change recipients’ attitudes and change recipients extract particular behaviors and
15 towards these interpretations. Therefore, change recipients’ sensemaking of change agents’ approaches might influence change recipients’ own attitudes towards change.
2.4.2 Influence strategies
Change agents can use approaches, in terms of influence strategies, to influence change recipients’ thoughts, feelings and behaviors. Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) described in their research how to influence individuals and groups. Six influence strategies which change agents might use as their response towards change recipients’ attitudes are addressed below.
1. Education and communication. This strategy is used to help others to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the change initiative, what is required of them and why this change is important. 2. Participation and involvement. This strategy includes involving change recipients and let them
participate in the change process. This strategy only works if the agent has enough time and when he or she needs voluntary compliance or support from the change recipients.
3. Facilitation and support. The change agent provides change recipients with guidance and other forms of support, to increase the possibility that recipients will adapt the change. This influence strategy is useful when recipients show emotions like anxiety or fear, or when there are concerns about insufficient access to needed resources.
4. Negotiation and agreement. This strategy includes negotiations between change agents and change recipients. This strategy is appropriate when change recipients show attitudes like resistance or ambivalence towards change.
5. Manipulation and co-optation. This strategy is often used when recipients show resistance or ambivalence towards change. These change recipients are engaged in discussions and ingratiating behavior, and will sometimes lead to shifts in change recipients’ attitudes towards change. 6. Explicit and implicit coercion. This strategy is based on the authority of the change agent. Agents
often have the legitimate right to insist that changes are performed. The conditions to use this strategy are characterized by limited time and if others options have been exhausted.
2.4.3 Influence tactics
Change agents can also respond towards change recipients’ attitudes by using several influence tactics. Yukl (2001) identified eleven proactive influence tactics and the conditions where each tactic is most appropriate. Yukl (2001) describes these influence tactics between leaders and their followers. This research places these tactics within a change situation, involving change agents and change recipients. 1. Rational persuasion involves logical arguments, explanations and evidence. This tactic is most
16 2. Apprising as an influence tactic whereby a change agents explains to the recipient why a change is
likely to benefit the recipient, such as benefits in individuals’ career. This tactic is appropriate when the agent knows and recognizes the needs of his or her recipients (Yukl, 2001).
3. Inspirational Appeals involves an emotional or value-based appeal with the aim of developing commitment or enthusiasm. To use this tactic, a change agent needs to understand the values, hopes and fears of the change recipients. Inspirational appeal is one of the two pull tactics which are the most effective influence tactics and results in commitment to change (Cawsey et al., 2012; Falbe & Yukl, 1992).
4. Consultation occurs when change recipients are invited to participate in the change process. This tactic is usually used to influence the recipient to support a decision already made by the change agent. Consultation is another, besides the inspirational appeal, pull tactic which is effective and has a positive outcome, namely commitment to change (Falbe & Yukl, 1992).
5. Exchange tactics are used when agents offer something to the recipients (tangible or intangible benefits), if the recipients agree to carry out a request. Usually change agents use these tactics with recipients who are indifferent or reluctant about a change, meaning that the change will not bring any benefits to the recipient and will cost him or her effort and inconvenience. A prerequisite condition to use this tactic entails that a change agent needs to have certain power about something what a recipient wants and the change recipient must recognize this certain power. This tactic has an equal distribution of the following outcomes: commitment, compliance and resistance (Falbe & Yukl, 1992).
6. Collaboration involves an offer to provide resources or assistance to the recipient, if he or she will carry out the change. This offer is usually regarding the accomplishment of similar tasks or same objectives.
7. Personal Appeals includes asking the recipients to do a favor out of friendship or loyalty to the agent. Personal appeals tactics are often used when the change agent asks something of the recipients that is not part of the recipients’ regular job. Personal appeals can result in commitment, compliance and resistance and has therefore an intermediate effectiveness (Falbe & Yukl, 1992). 8. Ingratiation influences the way how change recipients feel about the change agent. Giving
compliments, doing favors and acting friendly are examples of ingratiation tactics. This tactic is most useful for the long-term relationship. Ingratiation is a strategy which results in intermediate effectiveness, meaning that there is equal distribution of outcomes resistance, compliance and commitment (Cawsey et al., 2012; Falbe & Yukl, 1992).
9. Legitimating Tactics are based on authority. Change agent seeks to establish the legitimacy of a request by using his authority or by verifying that it is consistent with organizational policies, rules or traditions.
17 (threats) are more likely to undermine the relationship between agent and recipients, whereby the soft pressure tactics (often request something) are more likely to not affect this relationship. 11. Coalition Tactics includes help from others, e.g. peers or superiors, to influence the recipient.
These tactics are often combined with other tactics.
The three tactics that were least effective were push tactics: (9) legitimating tactics, (10) pressure and (11) coalition tactics. These three influence tactics will likely result in resistance or compliance (Falbe & Yukl, 1992).
Change agents will often use one of these influence tactics to influence change recipients’ attitudes towards change. These tactics may lead to changes in recipients’ attitudes towards change (Cawsey et al., 2012). Current literature does not make a distinction between change agents’ approaches, e.g. influence tactics or strategies, towards individuals’ and group attitudes. Therefore this research aims at exploring the use of different change agents’ approaches towards individuals’ and group attitudes, and if these attitudes are influenced by these strategies and tactics.
2.5 Linking pin: the role of the middle managers in the change process
Middle managers play a crucial role during a change process (Balogun, 2003; Huy, 2001). From the hierarchical viewpoint, the middle managers are placed between the top management and the work floor. Lines (2007) described middle managers as those people with special responsibility for the planning, implementation and outcome of strategic change. Middle managers can, and should, therefore both look upwards and downwards, considering the strategic objectives and operational imperatives (Gateby, Rees, Truss, Alfes & Soane, 2015). This research uses the description of middle managers as ‘linking pin’, whereby the middle managers function as an intermediary between the top and the workspace (Likert, 1961). This crucial function of middle managers is recognized by many others, e.g. Wooldrigde, Schmid & Floyd (2008) and Vink (2009). Middle managers play a dual role during a change, they are both change agents and change recipients (Balogun & Hope Hailey, 2008). Middle managers need information from above (top management) about what the strategy is and from below (the workforce) to track progress and current conditions. Due to their dual role, their
interpretation (sensemaking) is of a significant importance in realizing a successful change (Otto, Vermeulen, Dresmé & Butz, 2015). According to Huy (2001), middle managers are even more influential than top managers because middle managers interact more with their employees.
18 How middle managers make sense of a change project and behave towards this expectation would probably have influence on change recipients’ attitudes towards change. This research tries to complement this literature gap by researching how middle managers’ approaches, from their role as change agents, influence change recipients’ individual and group attitudes towards change.
2.6 Change outcome
As stated, change recipients’ attitudes towards change are of a significant importance for the
successful implementation of a change project (Rafferty et al., 2013; Shin et al., 2012). The acceptance of the change project by change recipients is seen as a key factor in determining the success of any organizational change (e.g. Bartunek et al., 2006). This acceptance is part of change recipients’ readiness to change. There is also clear and growing evidence that change agents’ responses, within the change process, has a significant influence on the success or failure of a change project (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Research revealed that change agents and change recipients will likely influence each others’ behavior (Klonek et al., 2014). It is likely that change agents’ responses will influence change recipients’ attitudes towards change (Kelly et al., 2003; Oreg & Berson, 2011) and thereby have influence on the eventual change outcome. Change outcome is described in terms of the eventual success or failure of a change project. Change success is when the company successfully implements change and achieves the predefined change goals. Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the interaction process between change agents and change recipients, and its influence on the change outcome. Change outcome Change recipients'attitudes Change agents' responses sensemaking
19 2.7 Theoretical framework
Below is the theoretical framework presented. This research has several objectives, which are (1) provide a deeper understanding of the relationship between change recipients’ individual and group attitudes towards change, (2) investigate how change agents make sense and respond, e.g. which approaches they use, towards change recipients’ individual and group attitudes, (3) try to figure out if, how and in which way change recipients’ attitudes are influenced by change agents’ approaches, (4) provide more information about middle managers’ roles, as change agents during a change process and (5) investigate how change recipients’ attitudes and change agents’ approaches are related to the expected change outcome.
20 3. METHODOLOGY
This part of this research describes the research design, research site, case selection, case selection and method of analysis.
3.1 Research design
There is a certain amount of literature available about change recipients´ attitudes, change agents’ approaches, the relation between individuals’ and group attitudes, the role of middle managers and its relation with change outcome. However, the literature is not very extensive or elaborate about these concepts. Therefore, the most suitable design for this study was theory development approach. The theory development approach was more suitable in situations where the business phenomenon is still very exploratory in nature and where there are unresolved issues in a scattered literature field (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012). The theory development process is based on the first part of the empirical cycle, starting from observation and includes induction (developing theory) and deduction (generating propositions). Eisenhardt’s (1989) study of ‘building theories from case study research’ was used as a guideline in this study.
3.2 Research site
The research site is a company named Reym B.V.(from now on: Reym). This company, which is a part of the Shanks Group, is a service company which is active in the industrial cleaning, transport and waste-management sectors. Reym is from origin a Dutch company, which operates in the Netherlands and Germany. The company is subdivided in three regions: region Northeast, region Northwest and region South. The headquarter is established in Amersfoort.
The growth of the company between 2004 and 2015 (from respectively 365 till 619 employees) was one of the reasons why the communication, within this company, worsened. An employees’
satisfaction report (2014) showed that the employees were unsatisfied about the amount and the content of communication within the company. According to this report, the dissatisfaction was a result of the unclear line of hierarchy and the communication with the supervisors. This employees’ satisfaction report (2014) was the trigger of this change project which started in April 2014. The aim of this change is to create an organizational structure with clear lines of hierarchy. Several functional layers, existing of senior foremen and senior executives, were reorganized in terms of their tasks and responsibilities..More detailed information about the change project will be provided in the section results: the change project.
21 In order to collect data about change recipients´ attitudes towards change on individual and group level, change agents´ approaches towards these attitudes and the role of middle managers, case selection was based on several factors. First, change recipients encounter a changing situation, so that they can express their thoughts, feelings and behaviors towards this change. Second, change recipients work together within a group, so group attitude and the influences between individual and group level could be researched. Third, two change agents and three middle managers are interviewed, whereby change agents’ approaches can be described.
The aim of this research was to collect the data from two regions, Northeast and Northwest, and to compare those two cases, which were selected by theoretical sampling. A comparison could be made between different change agents’ approaches and its influences on change recipients’ attitudes, and eventual its influences on the change outcome. The purpose was to interview, in both regions, the change agents, middle managers and change recipients. Unfortunately, the human resource manager of the region Northwest did not saw the added value of this research to their region and therefore he declined the request to collect the data. Furthermore, conducting the interviews within the region South was excluded. Region South is namely not in the same change phase as the other two regions. This region is just started with this change project and not all senior foremen are informed about this change. Including this region would not provide the needed information about change recipients’ attitudes towards change. The remaining possibility was to collect all the data from one region and to analyze one case in depth.
This one case includes all the participants which are directly influenced by this change, within the region Northeast. It includes sixteen individuals, existing of a managing director (change agent), human resource manager (change agent), three senior executives (middle managers) and eleven senior foremen (change recipients).
3.4 Data collection
The aim of the study was to answer the ‘how’ questions, therefore qualitative methods are more suited and were used in this study to get a deeper understanding of the concepts (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). Qualitative methods are those that are oriented at the discovery of qualities of things, for instance, phenomena, situations, people, groups, organizations or societies(Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2007).
22 format is used, to ask comparable questions to the interviewees. The interview questions are partly based on the literature to ensure a good foundation of the questions and ensure construct-validity. Several instruments are used to gather data (triangulation), the aim was to decrease the possibility of occurrence of a researcher bias. Semi-structured interviews, one observation of a work meeting between change agents, middle managers and change recipients and an online survey are used to gain more insight.
3.4.1 Semi-structured in-depth interviews
The main source of data were sixteen semi-structured in-depth interviews, which were conducted in Dutch and took on average one hour. By doing a semi-structured interview a questionnaire with specific questions is used. However, there is sufficient room available for additional information (Van Aken et al., 2007). During the conduction of the interviews, the researcher had a dual role: content-oriented and management role. The content-content-oriented goal is aimed at getting clear and unbiased answers to the research questions. The management role is aimed at managing the interview, including managing the time spent on the various issues and at maintaining an open and pleasant atmosphere (Van Aken et al., 2007). The advantage of a semi-structured interview is that the researcher is able to decide how to use the limited time available in an interview situation (Patton, 1987). Besides that, it helps to create a more systematic and comprehensive understanding of the different concepts and makes it possible to compare the interviews (Patton, 1987).
Three interview protocols were developed to guide these interviews (Appendix 3, 4 and 5). The first interview protocol was developed for change recipients, regarding their individual’s and group attitudes towards change. The second protocol was developed for middle managers, regarding their sensemaking and their approaches towards change recipients’ attitudes. The third protocol was developed for change agents and shows similarities with middle managers’ protocol, e.g. regarding change agents’ sensemaking and their approaches.
3.4.2 Observation
23 3.4.3 Online survey
A short, online questionnaire was developed to gain a better understanding of individuals’ attitudes and their group attitude. The online survey (appendix 7) was used in addition to the interviews to strengthen the content. Despite of the small amount of questions asked in the survey, this data can be used for descriptive statistics to give the researcher a better overview of the concepts. The survey was only meant for the change recipients to determine their individuals’ and group attitudes. All the surveys were retuned, indicating a 100% response rate.
3.5 Method of analysis
Interviews were recorded with an electronic device and transcribed manually on the computer. The interviews were transcribed literally, which ensured that the loss of data was minimized. The
transcriptions were systematically coded. Two types of coding are used: deductive codes and inductive codes. Deductive codes were predetermined and developed from the literature review, prior to
24 4. RESULTS
In this section, the data derived from sixteen semi-structured interviews, one observation and an online survey are analyzed. Firstly, a more extensive description of the change project and the change participants are given. One case analysis describes the attitudes of change recipients towards change on individual and group level, how change agents and middle managers responded to these attitudes, and how these approaches influenced change recipients’ attitudes. This paper describes in more detail change agents’ sensemaking process. Furthermore, their expectations are compared with actual results (actual attitudes showed by the recipients). The relation of the concepts with the expected change outcome is described. The quotes are used for more understanding and are translated from Dutch by the researcher.
4.1 Change Project
As already mentioned in the methodology section, this research investigates changes regarding the organizational structure. The management team of Reym decided in April 2014 to reorganize the hierarchical structure of the organization. Therefore this change is implemented top down. This research is conducted at the region Northeast and therefore all the information is derived from this specific area. Firstly the current situation at Reym is described, thereafter the desired situation is presented. Information about the change process is provided in appendix 10.
4.1.1 Current situation
25 The organization chart presents the current situation (figure 3). This visual representation is based on the functional division of supervisors. The three location managers and the chief operating officer were hierarchical placed under the control of the managing director. The operational staff (e.g. senior foremen, foremen, senior machinist) had no hierarchical supervisor, only a functional supervisor on the job (which differs daily or weekly). Therefore the exact amount of employees cannot be
mentioned, because it differs daily.
Figure 3: Current organizational chart at Reym B.V. Region Northeast*
* Other departments (e.g. sales, finance) which are not relevant to this change project are excluded. The HR manager is not included in this chart because his supervision is from the headquarter in Amersfoort (and this chart is only from the Region Northeast).
4.1.2 Desired situation
26 The structural change is regarding the hierarchical division of the operational staff. The change is related to aspects such as personal issues, performance evaluation and future career possibilities within the company. This means that, next to the functional division, there will exist a new hierarchical division of employees. The purpose of this change initiative is to improve the communication between the top management and the operational staff and thereby improve the overall quality of the internal processes. The company strives to achieve this structure before April 2016. The new organizational chart is presented in figure 4, which is based on the hierarchical division of employees. Due to this change every senior executive will become directly responsible for two to five senior foremen. Every senior foreman would become directly responsible for five to eleven operational employees.
Figure 4: New organizational chart of Reym B.V. Region Northeast
*The HR manager is also not included in this chart, because he is placed under headquarters in another region.
Several participants are directly involved in this structural change process. There are two change agents, the managing director and the human resource manager. Three middle managers are involved
27 in this change process, namely the three senior executives. The senior executives have a dual role in this change project: (1) they are change recipients and (2) they are change agents. Senior executives have knowledge about the strategy and the decisions which needs to be taken, but are also involved in the actual execution of the daily work of the operational employees. They are the linking pin between the management and the operational staff.. During this change their role as change agents is
researched. The change recipients in this change process are the eleven senior foremen. Their tasks are enlarged and they receive more responsibility regarding their subordinates. The new tasks are keeping annual performance evaluation with their subordinates, being involved in personal life of the
operational employees (e.g. knowing if there is someone sick or absent, and the reason why) and answer the questions of their subordinates. Summarized, the senior foremen get more managerial tasks.
4.2 Case analysis
This case comprises all direct participants of this change project within the region Northeast. It includes two change agents, three middle managers and eleven senior foremen. All participants are male, the average age of change agents is 46.50 years, the average age of middle managers is 41.33 years and the average age of change recipients is 51.27 years. An overview of the average age and average experience (in years) within this company can be found in Appendix 11. Appendix 11 also provides an overview of the survey results.
4.2.1 Change recipients’ individual attitudes towards change
Six recipients (54.54%) reacted positive on the cognitive dimension, e.g. “Something needs to change, that is one thing for sure”(R2). Five change recipients (45.45%) saw especially the disadvantage of this change, “ They want to dump the extra tasks at the lower levels”(R4). Self-reported data among the interviewees showed that the mean of change recipients’ cognitive reactions is 3.45 (on a scale from 1= totally negative to 5= totally positive), indicating that this answer is between neutral and relatively positive. The mean rating on the statement “I understand that this change is necessary for Reym” was 3.64, whereby answers ranged from 2 (not agree) to 5 (totally agree).
28 describe or were not aware of their emotions, the survey among the interviewees determined
afterwards which emotions/moods recipients felt. In total six recipients (54.54%) indicated that they felt “calmness”, four times (36.36%) was the affect “alert” highlighted, three recipients (27.27%) felt “sereneness” and felt themselves “relaxed”. The mood “Calmness” is an example of low negative affect, “Alert” belongs to high positive affect, being serene and calm are examples of low negative affect. An overview of these moods (and moods which were only mentioned once) are presented in appendix 12. The survey results showed that the average score on the affective dimension is a 3.36 (with answers between 3 and 4) meaning that this rating is between neutral and relatively positive. The appearance that all recipients answered 3 or 4 (on a scale from 1 to 5) might contribute to the previous conclusion, recipients were not aware of their emotions and feelings and rated themselves therefore in the middle.
The recipients showed no behavior in terms of active resistance or support towards the change. The recipients showed only passive behavior or mentioned that they have intention to behave in the future in a specific way. Positive reactions on intentional dimension were characterized by answers as, for example, “You are trying to do as well as possible”(R2). Negative reaction were shown by four recipients (4/11), “I am not going to do that. Work related, of course I will help them, but not with personal issues”(R9). Individuals also mentioned behaviors as sightseeing, observing, waiting and giving in. The survey measured score of 3.45 on the intentional dimension, which indicates a location between neutral and relatively positive. However, one recipient answered 2 on the intentional
dimension, indicating ‘negative’, and one recipient answered 5 on this dimension, indicating ‘totally positive’.
Based on the above, the eleven change recipients can be subdivided in three groups. One group is the group with a positive attitude, readiness to change. The second group is the group with a more negative attitude, indicating resistance to change. The third group indicates ambivalence, recipients reacted positive and negative on different dimensions.
29 4.2.2 Change recipients’ group attitude towards change
Some aspects need to be addressed before discussing change recipients’ group attitude. Due to the project based work, the eleven senior foremen work only partly together, in separate small groups of two, three senior foremen. They see their colleague senior foremen, as a total group of eleven men, only at the meetings (approximately one meeting within two months). According to the recipients, this is one of the reasons why change recipients had difficulties with describing the group attitude. Another reason, why it might be difficult to describe the group attitude, was the presence of middle managers and change agents during the meetings, according to the change recipients. During several meetings, the change was communicated top down by the two change agents (CA-1 and CA-2). Most of the recipients mentioned that “You are more reluctant in presence of a change agent” (R2). Discussing this change with group members was only possible within smaller groups, not during meetings, “We have never talked about this change before”(R3), “ Sometimes we did talked about emotions, but that was in smaller groups, more informal” (R6). Change agent (CA-2) confirmed their thoughts, “In a setting where the senior foremen will be together, only the senior foremen, they will be more open about their thoughts and feelings”. Although, another change agent (CA-1) emphasized that the group did talk about this change project about their thoughts and behaviors, even during the meetings with their supervisors.
The organizational culture of Reym can also play a role in describing the group attitude. Change agent (CA-2) described this organizational culture as a “Male culture”. Recipients described several aspects of this culture, one aspect was highlighted a lot: giving compliments was not done, but punishment was okay. Recipients described this as “There was never a pat on the back here”(R2), “If you say ‘no’, you become a loser”(R6). This might be, according to change agent 2, one of the reasons why the senior foremen did not talk about their feelings (and thoughts) regarding this change.
Fifty percent said that the group was close, the other half did not recognize this meaning, “We all work on separate islands” (R2). The change agents said that the group is not close, they have to many different opinions (CA-1) and they work separately from each other (CA-2). All middle managers confirmed the change agents’ opinions, the group of eleven senior foremen is not seen as a close group.
30 The group attitude on the affective dimension was more negative towards this change. Positive
reactions on affective dimension were “Emotion is difficult to describe, but I think that everybody agrees with this change” (R3) and “The group feelings are moderately positive” (R11). Negative reactions are, for example, “I think that most of the senior foremen think the same: we have more and more tasks, but we are still paid the same amount of money”(R2). A change recipient indicated that there was frustration among the group members regarding the regional business coach. The researcher observed this frustration also during the meeting. There was also frustration regarding the priority of the several changes within the company. Four change recipients (36.36%) did not know how to answers these questions regarding group feelings, “They are very down to earth”(R9) and “I do not hear negative sounds from the group, so you can assume that the group is positive”(R3).
The group did not really behave in a specific way regarding this change. The group can be described as more passive in terms of behavior. Positive intentional reactions are for example “We will give it a try”(R1) and “We discussed, a few years ago, within the group of senior foremen, that quality should be monitored. The company grew very hard. And in the context of ‘monitoring the quality’ we contribute to this change” (R8). Complaining and questioning change are examples of negative passive behaviors.
Concluding, the group attitude is ambivalence towards change. The self-reported survey confirmed this and showed that the group thoughts, feelings and behaviors were all 3.36 (scale 1= totally negative to 5 = totally positive). The answers on three dimensions ranged from 2 to 4, indicating that no
recipient estimated the group attitude as totally negative or totally positive. Only four people (36.36%) mentioned that the group attitude was changed over time. One thing was noticed by the researcher, change recipients describe the group attitude in extension of their own feelings and thoughts. More positive people described that the group attitude was positive. Individuals who showed resistance to change described the group attitude as more negative.
4.2.3 Influence of group on individuals’ attitudes towards change
31 During the observation of their work meeting, the researcher did not observe the influences of the group on individuals’ thoughts, feelings or behaviors.
4.2.4 Influence of the individual’s attitude on the group attitude towards change
During the observation, the researcher noticed that one change recipient can be appointed as the spokes person of the group. He (R9) has, in general, a negative attitude towards anything. In relation to this change, he did not see the added value, sees only the extra tasks and is tired of changing the way they are working. He expresses his negative feelings and thoughts through verbal, “This report is destructive” and non verbal communication (shaking his head).
During the interviews, several change recipients mentioned that there were some dominant people within the group, “A few spokesmen with a strong opinion”(R1). In general the recipients mentioned three spokesmen (R6, R8 and R9) which might be the informal leaders of the group. The similarity between these three persons is the way in which they express themselves. All three men are strong in verbal communication. However, these men do not share same thoughts or feelings regarding this change. The change recipients recognize that these individuals might have influence on shared group thoughts, especially by using arguments to convince people, “ If I have something, I will try to
convince other people to receive some support from them”(R6). On affective level they are convinced that everybody already is on the same level, “ We already agree on that part, we were in the same modus” (R2) and “We have the same feelings”(R1). However, the researcher discovered, during the conversations, that there were differences in their answers on affective dimensions, and that not everybody is on the same level.
4.2.5 Change agents’ sensemaking and confrontation with the reality
Beforehand, both change agents already had thoughts about change recipients’ attitudes, this research determines these expectations and confronts these expectations with change recipients’ real attitudes towards change. These real attitudes are based on data which is derived from interviews and the online survey (appendix 13).
Change agent 1- Managing director
Sensemaking
He expected that six change recipients (54.54%) would react negative towards change and five recipients more positive (45.45%). Change agent 1 expected from three change recipients (3/11) negative feelings, trust and distrust, “Confidence in their ability, distrust in the results”, this
32 The group attitude was expected to have a “Healthy amount of resistance”. “I know these men for eight years now, and everything what is outside their expertise, their daily job, will they react with resistance”. According to change agent 1, following words perfectly summarize change recipients’ thoughts: uncertainty, not expected, unknown and not familiar. The group feeling was about the enlargement of the tasks, change agent 1 thought that the following questions would represent the group feeling: “Can we handle this? Do we have the knowledge and skills? Do we have enough time? Why should we do this in that way?”. Change agent’s sensemaking regarding the behavior of the group was that the group will not react with enthusiasm, “The group will not be enthusiastic, towards any change it all, It can be uncertainty or confidence”.
Change agent’s 1 sensemaking confronted with real change rec ipients’ attitudes towards change
Briefly, change agent’s sensemaking was not accurate. Of the six people, who were expected to reacted more negative, only three reacted indeed more negative towards change. Change agent expected that five recipients would react more positive. Two of these five recipients have indeed a positive attitude towards change on all three dimensions. Summarized, it can be said that change agent 1 estimated five change recipients’ attitudes right, indicating that his estimation was right for 45.45%. Three expected attitudes were partly confirmed (27.27%). These three ‘partly confirmed’ attitudes showed ambivalence towards this change. Change agent 1 estimated also three attitudes incorrectly, which indicates a percentage of 27.27%.
Change agent 2- The human resource manager Sensemaking
This change agent expected that six recipients (54.54%) would react negative towards change and five recipients (45.45%) more positive. These expectations were different from the first agent, regarding two recipients (R3 and R11). His sensemaking about the group was “Within a group, I expected some resistance. Whereby some people are precursors, and some people will show, but will not verbalize that way, that they are not glad with the situation”. The change agent (CA-2) is not convinced that the group understands what the advantages are of the change, “The group only sees the disadvantages”. He expected, in general, more resistance than support from the recipients (mainly on the cognitive level), which was in line with the first agent. Change agent 2 expected that three or four recipients (27% - 36%) would express their feelings regarding this change, more in the negative direction towards this change. He also said: “ I did expect that there were almost no reactions. This is confirmed. This is a group, which do not express themselves easily, and therefore do not show how they think about something. There will be a few people who can tell, in a tactical way, how they think about something.”. Beforehand, change agent 2 expected only a passive form of behavior:
33 Change agent’s 2 sensemaking confronted with real change recipients’ attitudes towards change
Change agent 2 had also not an accurate expectation of the eleven change recipients’ attitudes. He expected negative attitudes from six recipients, from only three of these six were indeed more negative. He expected that five change recipients would show more readiness to change, only one change recipient (of the five) was indeed positive. In total change agent 2 estimated four attitudes right, indicating a rate of 36.36%. Three change recipients’ attitudes were partly confirmed, because they were ambivalent towards change (27.27%). Change agent 2 did made a wrong estimation about four change recipients’ attitudes (36.36%).
Below is table 1 presented which gives a visual representation of the change agents’ sensemaking and its confrontation with the real attitudes. Real attitudes are defined by the researcher, based on the conducted data during the interviews (see also appendix 13).
34 estimation
Table 1: Comparison of change agents’ sensemaking and real change recipients’ attitudes towards change
4.2.6 Middle managers’ sensemaking
There are three middle managers (CAM-1, CAM-2 and CAM-3) and, as already mentioned, their role as change agents will be the focus. Regarding the cognitive dimension, two middle managers (of the 3) expected that most recipients would react negative, this estimation was based on change agents’ knowledge, “I know them, I know their personality” (CAM-1). Middle manager 2 expected mainly positive reactions from the group, however he mentioned that there are five or six persons (50%) who do not want to take their ‘new’ responsibilities. According to the middle managers, the change recipients showed afterwards more negative thoughts.
Two middle managers (of the three) also expected that the negative feelings would become more present, “for instance feelings like anger”(CAM-1). Middle manager 1 expects anger, because this change project is another thing what is imposed on the change recipients. Middle manager 3 expects that this change a surprise for the recipients, “That they speak together about this, ‘ did you know that?’. Senior foremen talk to each other about this change and that they do not want these new tasks.”. Middle manager 2 expected beforehand more positive feelings. However, he saw afterwards, during the meetings, that the group did not react very enthusiastic.
All three middle managers had the same expectations regarding behavior of the change recipients: the group would not react in terms of behavior. According to two of them, this expectation was confirmed. “The group in general would not stimulate the change. The will only hear about this change and only a few group members would react”(CAM-2). Middle managers were aware of the current uncertainty which dominates the group. In terms of behavior, change agent 3 mentioned that the change recipients are waiting, “waiting for what is going to happen”(CAM-3).
