AGENT AND RECIPIENT: SAME SAME BUT DIFFERENT “

(1)

AGENT AND RECIPIENT: SAME SAME BUT DIFFERENT

“A bilateral study on how different agent-recipient exchanges influence change

effectiveness.”

Master thesis, Msc Business Administration, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business

16th February, 2015

Anke Mellema Student number: 1883267 Amalia van Solmsstraat 30

(2)

2

ABSTRACT

Change has become an inevitable aspect of organisational life, but often fails to meet intended objectives. In order to enhance the change effectiveness, it is important to know what

determines change effectiveness. This paper examines the agent-recipient exchange (ARX) and provides a bilateral perspective. The focus is on three concepts, quality, asymmetry and perceiver type. The aim was to find the (dis)similarities between agents and recipients

regarding the effect of ARX on change effectiveness. One survey-based study was conducted with 92 change teams. An inter-group analysis was done. Results demonstrate that the quality of the ARX increases the change effectiveness for both parties. However, asymmetry only decreases the change effectiveness for agents. Finally, results show that the change

effectiveness differs between the two perceiver types for recipients, but not for agents. Findings, implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

(3)

3

INTRODUCTION

Organisational change continues to occur at high rate in modern organisations (Armenakis and Harris, 2009; Herold and Fedor, 2008). Today’s organisational environment is more turbulent than ever in consequence of various trends and developments in the environment, such as new technologies, globalization and changing social, cultural and demographic patterns (Cawsey, Deszca, & Ingols, 2012). That is why organisational change – defined as alterations of organisational components to improve the effectiveness of the organisation (Cawsey et al., 2012) – has become a central focus in strategic and change management literature (Pettigrew, Woodman, & Cameron, 2001). Nevertheless, very often, with estimates up to 70 per cent of all changes, organisational change fails to deliver expected results and/or meet intended objectives (Quinn, 2004; Marks, 2006; Burnes & Jackson, 2011). Moreover, Kotter & Cohen (2002) suggest that these failures are usually linked to human issues, rather than technical issues. Research on organisational change has improved our understanding of the challenges that organisations have to cope with during the change process. Literature often distinguishes two different parties that are involved with organisational change, namely the change agents and the change recipients. Change agents are those individuals who are involved in providing leadership and direction for change (Cawsey et al., 2012). Concerning the change agent literature, returning topics are change strategies that change agents deploy (Yukl and Falbe, 1990; Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008), specific leader behaviours (Higgs & Rowland, 2011), and leader characteristics (Bass, 1990; Battilana, Gilmartin, Sengul, Pache, & Alexander, 2010; Yukl, 2006). Change recipients are those individuals who find themselves on the receiving end of a change initiative (Cawsey et al., 2012; Bartunek, Rousseau, Rudolph, DePalma, 2006). It is often the change recipient who has to change his/her behaviour to ensure that the change is effective. Regarding the change recipient literature, some of the explored topics are recipient reactions to change (Cunningham, 2006; Oreg, Vakola, & Armenakis, 2011), and recipient characteristics (Martin, Jones & Callan, 2005).

(4)

4

a bilateral perspective on organisational change has shown that a combination of both views is valuable because that can result in a reconsideration of prevailing assumptions (Ford, Ford & D’Amelio, 2008).

Different attempts have been made to integrate the change agents and change recipient perspective for example by Balogun & Johnson (2005), Ford et al. (2008) and Sonenschein (2010). These studies focussed on the interaction between the agent and the recipient and have taken a sensemaking perspective. In relation to agent and recipient interaction the process of sensemaking has been highlighted in which the change agent is often described as the sense giver and the change recipient as the sense maker. Sensemaking can be described as ‘an active process that involves the interaction of information seeking, meaning ascription, and associated responses’ (Thomas, Clark & Gioia, 1993). In the occurrence of organisational change, both change agents and change recipients engage in sensemaking. Agents will try to determine how to get things accomplished, whereas recipients will try to determine what will happen to them (Gioia, Thomas, Clark & Chittipeddi, 1994). Through the lens of sense making, problems are not viewed as givens, rather they are constructed from new, ambiguous or problematic situations that are puzzling or uncertain to organisational members (Weick, 1995). Change agents take actions consistent with their own interpretation of a problem. Meanwhile, they tend to rely and objectify the problem as if it exists independent of them although it was them who created it (Ford et al., 2008). So, change agents are actually key players in the process of sensemaking including authoring, discovery and creation (Gioia et al., 1994). Likewise, earlier research on sense making and cognition (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Brown & Humphreys, 2003; Labianca et. al., 2000) has revealed that recipients are also likely to be key to change success. Their interpretations of change plans proposed by agents are important and also how these interpretations are mediated by their existing context of action, ways of thinking, and interactions with others (Balogun & Johnson, 2005). Thus, regarding the interaction between the agent and the recipient it can be said that they interact through a subjective process in which the agent gives sense to a change initiative and the recipient has to make sense of it in order to gain understanding.

(5)

5

likely to feel obligated to repay this action through performance, commitment, or some other favour directed toward the agent (Bernerth et al, 2007). Agents and recipients contribute differently to their relationship as a result of their different roles in the change process. Change agents have to provide leadership and direction, and recipients are on the receiving end of the change and have to change their behaviour to ensure that the change is effective. Earlier research has elaborated on what agents and recipients should or should not do to build a strong relationship in order to successfully change. Explored topics related to agents’ contribution to the relationship are providing support (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2008), building trust (Kieser, 2001; Six & Sorge, 2008), insuring fairness (Cobb, Wooten, & Folger, 1995), and recipient involvement (Armenakis, Bedeian, & Niebuhr, 1979). Returning topics on recipients’ contribution to the relationship are commitment (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002), and active participation (Armenakis et al., 1979; Cawsey et al., 2012). A high quality exchange is described as one in which both agent and recipients feel the obligation to repay individuals who have acted in a way that was favourable to them. In relation to organisational change, agent-recipient exchange could be defined as the quality of the social exchange between the agent and the recipient. Rogulic (2013) has found that the agent-recipient exchange increases the change effectiveness.

(6)

6

why an asymmetry between agent and recipient occurs. Moreover, the existence of an asymmetry regarding the social exchange between agent and recipients is likely to have consequences for the overall change effectiveness. Change effectiveness does not only include satisfaction with the substantive outcome of a change, but also agents’ and recipients’ satisfaction with the change process. It is relevant for organisations to know the effect of agent-recipient asymmetries in order to know whether and when to engage in sensemaking practises and/or in expectation management. Hence, the research question is: “In what way do agent(s) and recipients differ in their perception of the quality of agent-recipient exchange and how does this influence change effectiveness?”.

(7)

7

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Agent – Recipient exchange

As indicated the agent-recipient exchange stems from the LMX. This LMX construct has gone through a conceptual evolution (Bernerth, Armenakis, Feild, Giles, & Walker, 2007). Schriesheim, Castro & Cogliser (1999) identified that overall, LMX at its most basic level, is a phenomenon characterizing the quality of the exchange relationship between leader and subordinate. The theoretical basis of today’s LMX measure relies heavily on the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). Gouldner’s norm of reciprocity states: “(1) people should help those who have helped them, and (2) people should not injure those who have helped them” (Gouldner, 1960, p. 171). Living up to these basic principles is said to promote stability in organisational and social life. Berneth et al. (2007) describe that the norm of reciprocity creates a sense of obligation to repay individuals who have acted in a manner that was beneficial to the receiver. However, Blau’s (1964) social exchange theory builds upon this norm of reciprocity and emphasizes the uncertainty involved in social exchange. Social exchange is not just about an equivalent given in return, but is defined in general, diffuse terms (Berneth, 2007). So, social exchange goes beyond the idea of a mere ‘give-and-take’ economic exchange.

(8)

8

simply an economic ‘give-and-take’ exchange as proposed by Gouldner (1960), but also involves feelings such as gratitude, trust, and altruism that cause uncertainty (Blau, 1964). Hence, a high-quality relationship is not something that naturally exists, but is something that has to be established. If this does not happen, for example due to lack of trust, both the agent and the recipient separately may not feel the obligation to repay the individual who acted favourably. Although this in terms of Gouldner (1960) could be seen as a balanced out relationship, in this study this relationship where both parties feel little or no obligation to repay the other is referred to as a low-quality agent-recipient interaction. Moreover, a different situation may occur in which the agent and the recipient may not feel the same obligation towards the relationship. For example, a situation where the agent provides support for a change, but the recipient does not feel the urge to reciprocate agent’s action and does not participate. The opposite may also happen, for instance a situation in which the recipient is committed to a particular change but the agent does not feel the need to reciprocate his action and does not provide guidance. Thus, in this study a third relationship is distinguished that is described as an asymmetric agent-recipient interaction. Note that, according to the reasoning of Gouldner (1960), it are these asymmetric or social outbalanced agent-recipient exchanges that run the risk, at a certain point in time, to mediate towards a low-quality relationship.

(9)

9 Asymmetry

An asymmetry reflects the difference in perceptions among team members (Jehn et al., 2010). In this study the focus is on the difference in perceptions among the agent and the recipients in change teams regarding the quality of their relationship. Agent-recipient exchange symmetry, or low agent-recipient exchange asymmetry, occurs when both parties perceive the relationship to be of similar quality. If the agent and recipients have different perceptions on the quality of their relationship there is a high agent-recipient exchange asymmetry, or asymmetrical views on the agent-recipient exchange. Reasons for different views on the relationship may stem from the fact that either things that are known are different (expectations) or things that are not known will result in different understandings (sensemaking). Expectations resemble the prospect that in the future certain behaviours or events will occur. As such, expectations are a subjective phenomenon. Expectations are likely to be influenced by position as well as earlier experiences. In general, it is probable that agents’ expectations regarding a change initiative are positive (Sonenschein, 2010). However, recipients expectations regarding the change may vary to a greater extent, for example due to their different backgrounds and positions in the organisation. This can have major consequences for whether or not a recipient is willing to engage in the agent-recipient interaction. Moreover, recipients’ expectations of those who lead the change can also lead to different understandings of the relationship. For instance, Armenakis & Harris (2009) state that individual expectations of the beliefs and values of important others in the organization, particular leaders in interpreting and changing are vital for achieving success. So, the attributes of the change agent, such as leader characteristics, behaviours, and credibility, will influence the willingness of the recipient to engage in the agent-recipient exchange (Armenakis & Harris, 2009). Likewise, agents’ expectations of those implementing the change can also lead to different understandings of the relationship. For example, attributes of the change recipients, such as competence and attitude are likely to affect the willingness of the agent to engage in the agent-recipient exchange.

(10)

10

engage in sensemaking to gain understanding of the situation. Nevertheless, each individual has his/her own ‘frame of reference’ (Weick, 2005), also referred to as ‘schemata’, describing an individuals’ stock of knowledge that they draw on in the production and reproduction of knowledge (Giddens, 1979). Therefore, when making sense of the relationship, it is likely that this process will result in different understandings. These different understanding, in turn, might influence and/or cause agents and recipient difference in perception regarding the quality of the relationship.

As a consequence, when the agent and recipients have different perceptions on the quality of their relationship, there will be one party with a more positive view and one party with a more negative view towards the quality of the relationship. So, within each relationship two different perceivers can be distinguished. The party that has a more positive view can be referred to as a ‘high-perceiver’. On contrast, the party that has a more negative view can be referred to as a ‘low-perceiver’. When there are asymmetrical views regarding the agent-recipient exchange, the direction of the asymmetry, so whether a party is a high-perceiver or a low-perceiver with regard to the quality of relationship, may matter. Accordingly, the agent-recipient relationship can be categorized in one of the two different types of asymmetry, agent high-perceiver or recipient high-perceiver.

Change effectiveness

(11)

11

with the change process will be considered. The change outcome refers to the result of the change, whereas the change process refers to the manner in which the change was implemented (Self, Armenakis & Schreader, 2007). Therefore, change effectiveness is defined as one’s satisfaction with the change outcome as well as with the change process regarding a change initiative. Note that the subjectivity of change effectiveness also endorses the need for a bilateral study to enable a more holistic view on organisational change.

Hypotheses

Based on the theory examined above assumptions can be made about how agent-recipient exchange (ARX) will influence the change effectiveness. Ford et al. (2008) stated that a good relationship is likely to result in a more successful change. A high-quality agent-recipient exchange resembles a good relationship. This exchange is argued to result in trust and commitment which is likely to have a positive influence on both satisfaction with the change process and the change outcome and thus with the overall change effectiveness. Moreover, various prior studies have found that the LMX, so most probable the ARX as well, is linked to outcomes such as follower satisfaction and performance (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). Therefore the following hypothesis has been formulated:

H1: The higher the quality of the agent-recipient exchange the more effective the change.

Furthermore, The exchange relationship between agent and recipient appears to be more complex due to uncertainty and agent and recipient sensemaking. Therefore it seems presumable that an asymmetric exchange relationship can exist. Nevertheless, the difference in perceptions among agent and recipients is likely to have a negative influence on the relationship. Possibly a conflict will arise, due to feelings of discomfort and/or inequity, drawing away effort and energy from the change initiative. Gouldner (1960) described that the agent-recipient interaction should balance out over time. However, the more the perceptions differ, the more likely that penalties are imposed on the party that does not equally contribute to the exchange. This may negatively influence the perceptions towards both the change process and the change outcome and will thus result in a lower overall change effectiveness. Therefore the following hypothesis is formulated:

(12)

12

Moreover, the direction of the agent-recipient asymmetry may also matter with regard to the influence of the relationship on the change effectiveness. When a party is a high-perceiver, so perceiving the agent-recipient relationship as more positive than the other party, the asymmetrical exchange is likely to have a more positive effect on the change effectiveness than when a party is a low-perceiver. Therefore the following hypothesis is formulated:

H3a: Being a ‘high-perceiver’ in an asymmetric agent-recipient relationship will enhance the

change effectiveness.

Furthermore, each asymmetric agent-recipient relationship is, as a consequence, either characterized by an agent as ‘high-perceiver’ or by recipients as ‘high-perceiver’. Thus it can be said that there are two different types of asymmetric agent-recipient relationships. It might be that one of the two relationships is more favourable in regard to enhancing the overall change effectiveness. Concerning the two parties involved in change, it has been mentioned that it are the recipients who are at the receiving end of a change initiative and have to change their behaviour (Bartunek et. al., 2006). Prior change literature has emphasized the importance of the employment of participative change approaches by agents in order to ready the organisation and to overcome change resistance (Burnes, 2009). One may view the agent-recipient relationship as a means to achieve this. The agent-agent-recipient exchange may resolve social conflict and problems of disadvantaged groups, such as recipients who have to change their behaviour radically as a consequence of organizational change. Accordingly, it may be that a high appreciation of the agent-recipient relationship by the recipients may therefore be more effective. Therefore the following hypothesis is formulated:

H3b:An asymmetric agent-recipient relationship that is characterized by recipients as

(13)

13 METHOD Data gathering procedure and sample description.

The measurement instrument in this study was composed of two different surveys, one designed for the agents and one designed for the recipients but both included the same constructs. Before the surveys were used for the actual data collection a pilot was done in order to fine tune the measurement instrument. Thereafter, change teams that were willing to fill out the survey were gathered. These change teams included at least one agent and one recipient, but most of them include one agent and a group of recipients. Both agent and recipients had to be part of the same change initiative. By e-mail each member of a change team was send a link to the online survey and a participation code. The latter was used to distinguish and couple agent and recipient(s) to allow for further analyses. Data were collected in 4 clusters in the period between September 2013 until December 2014. Because it is difficult to establish different degrees of asymmetry using qualitative measures, a quantitative approach was found more suitable.

Participants were 374 individuals 92 (24,6%) agents and 282 (75,4%) were recipients. Of the agents 64 (69,6%) were male, and 28 (30,4%) were female, with a mean age of 44 years (Mage= 43,77, SD = 10,03). Of the recipients 159 (56,4%) were male, and 123 (43,6%)

were female, with a mean age of 39 (Mage= 39,02, SD=12,24) years. Data were obtained from

92 change teams at 69 different organisation that were, or had been, undergoing an organisational change. The size of the change teams varied from 1 agent and 1 recipient to teams with 1 agent and 10 recipients. However most change teams (44,9%) included 1 agent and 4 recipients.

Measures and construct development

For both variables measured in this study, respondents were asked to rate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with each of the items on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

(14)

14

include “I knew that if I did the change agent a favour, I would get something in return” and “There was a balance of inputs and outputs with the change agent.”

Change effectiveness. Change effectiveness was measured according to two constructs namely the change outcome and the change process. Change outcome was measured with three items resembling part of the scale of Vos & Brand (2012) designed to tap change participants’ satisfaction with the change. The items were similar for both agents and recipients and included “I think that the goals of the change process are achieved (or will be achieved)”, “In general, I believe that the organization benefited (or will benefit) from this change process” and “I believe that the change is (or will be) successful”. The change process was measured with an 2-item (self-developed) scale to measure agent’ and recipients’ satisfaction with the change process. Sample items of the agents’ survey include “During the change process the communication between the employees and myself went well”. Sample items of the recipients’ survey include “During the change process we (the change agent and the employees) have successfully addressed the issues that arose”.

(15)

15 TABLE 1

Factor analysis based on agent’s and recipients’ perceptions

1 2 3

Agent recipient exchange (ARX)

ARX_1 During the change process I knew that if I did the

employees¹/change agent² a favour, I would get something in return.

.810 .161 -.011

ARX_2 During the change process my relationship with the

employees¹/change agent² was composed of comparable exchanges of

giving and taking.

.802 .081 .383

ARX_3 During the change process voluntary actions on my part were returned in some way by the employees¹/change agent².

.802 .148 .005

ARX_4 During the change process my efforts were returned with equal efforts of the employees¹/change agent².

.792 .086 .363

ARX_5 During the change process I could expect that my efforts were reciprocated by the employees¹/change agent².

.771 .078 .305

ARX_6 During the change process there was a balance of inputs and outputs with the employees¹/change agent².

.700 .131 .378

Change Effectiveness

PCE_1 During the change process the communication between the

employees and myself¹/the change agent and the employees² went well.

.308 .183 .857

PCE_2 During the change process we (the employees and me¹/the

change agent and the employees²) have successfully addressed the issues

that arose.

.221 .367 .811

CO_1 I believe that the change is (or will be) successful. .179 .897 .176 CO_2 In general, I believe that the organization benefits (or will

benefit) from this change.

.139 .876 .077

CO_3 I think that the goals of the change process are achieved (or will be achieved).

.065 .823 .256

(16)

16

To enable further analyses new variables were made for both agents and recipients. First, the items ARX_1 to ARX_6 (questions about the perception of the agent recipient exchange) were combined into one new variable, “Sum_ARX” (α = 0.905, N=6). Secondly, the items PCE_1, PCE_2 and CO_1 to CO_3 (questions about the satisfaction with the change process and change outcome) were combined into one new variable, “Sum_Cheff” (α = 0.847, N=5). Moreover, to enable inter-group analysis a new variable “ARX_Rgrp” was created, using “Sum_ARX” (representing a recipient individual perception), to resemble the average perception of a group of recipients regarding the agent-recipient exchange. Also, using “Sum_Cheff” (representing a recipient individual perception) a new variable “Cheff_Rgrp” was created to resemble the average perception of a group of recipients regarding the change effectiveness. For those change teams with only 1 recipient (for a few cases only) these individual values have been used as average perception for further analyses. Moreover, a new variable was created “Asymmetry_AR” in which the difference between the agents’ score on the ARX (“Sum_ARX_A”) and recipients’ score on the ARX (“ARX_Rgrp”) was captured to resemble the degree of asymmetry, the difference in perceived quality of the agent-recipient relationship. An interval variable was created where 1 resembled no asymmetry (e.g. “ARX_Agrp” 4; “ARX_Rgrp”4), and 7 resembled the greatest asymmetry possible (e.g. “ARX_Agrp” 7; “ARX_Rgrp” 1). In Table 2 various examples are given in which agents’ ARX score and the recipients ARX score are given as well as the resulting asymmetry. Note that for computing the asymmetry variable, the direction of the asymmetry, thus whether the agent or the recipient perceived a higher quality of the exchange, was not accounted for. Rather the focus regarding the asymmetry variable was on the distance between the perceptions of agent and recipients regarding quality of ARX. Moreover, each asymmetry figure was corrected with plus 1.

TABLE 2

Constructing the Asymmetry variable

Change team Agents ARX score Recipients ARX score Asymmetry A-R

A 4.83 4.83 1.00

B 6.00 2.56 4.44

C 3.50 5.61 3.11

D 3.00 2.58 1.42

(17)

17

Finally, for both agents and recipients a new dichotomous variable was created “perceiver type” in which each agent-recipient relationship was categorized where 1 resembled a high-perceiver and 2 resembled a low-high-perceiver.

Data analysis

Multiple analyses have been conducted in order to analyse the data. In order to provide a bilateral perspective it was decided to compare the agents perspective with the related group of recipients, thus to carry out an inter-group analysis. In order to test Hypotheses 1 and Hypothesis 2 a multiple regression was conducted twice, once for the agent and once for the recipients. The goal was to shed light upon the (dis)similarities between agents and recipients regarding the effect of ARX quality and ARX asymmetry on the change effectiveness. Hence, two separate multiple regressions were performed, one for the agents and one for the groups of recipients. In order to test Hypothesis 3ab a 2x2 ANOVA was performed to gain insight in

(18)

18 RESULTS Descriptives

In Table 3 an overview of the survey results is presented. It appears that the recipients on average perceive a slightly lower quality of the ARX than the agents. Further, the recipients view the change as less effective than the agents. These results may provide support for the idea that agents and recipients have different perceptions.

TABLE 3

Main descriptive statistics regarding agents and recipients’ perceptions

N M Min Max SD ARX_A (quality) 92 4.62 1.00 7.00 1.14 ARX_R (quality) 92 4.44 2.00 6.33 0.87 Cheff_A 92 5.88 2.40 7.00 0.73 Cheff_R 92 5.11 2.60 6.80 0.89 Asymmetry_AR 92 2.09 1.00 5.17 0.81

All variables are measured on 7-point Likert scale.

Moreover, when the asymmetry variable was reconstructed to create the high-low perceiver variable, it was found that of the 92 change teams the asymmetry resulted in 51 cases (55%) from the fact that the agents perception of the quality of the exchange was more positive than the recipients perception. In the other 41 cases (45%) the asymmetry resulted from the fact that the recipients perception of the quality of the exchange was more positive than the agents perception. Table 4 shows the number of cases in which the agent and the recipients are high-perceiver or low-high-perceiver.

TABLE 4

Agent-recipient exchanges based on direction of the Agent-Recipient Asymmetry

High-Perceiver Low-Perceiver

Agent 51 41

Recipients 41 51

(19)

19

Correlations between the continuous dependent and independent variables were measured for both agents and recipients. In addition, the analysis of variance between dichotomous and continuous pairs of variables were examined for both agents and recipients. The correlations provide an initial insight in whether, and the degree to which, the main variables correlate in line with the hypotheses.

In Table 5 an overview of the Pearson r correlations between the dependent and independent variables of the agent are presented. From the agents’ perspective there are no correlations which are in line with the expectations expressed in the hypotheses. The analysis of variance between the dichotomous independent variable perceiver type and continuous independent variable change effectiveness was not significant, F (1,90) = 0,390, p = 0.534. The association was found that for the agent high-perceivers and low-perceivers do not differ in their change effectiveness.

TABLE 5

Correlations between dependent and independent variables: AGENT Change Effectiveness Agent-Recipient Exchange Agent-Recipient Asymmetry Change Effectiveness - Agent-Recipient Exchange .17 - Agent-Recipient Asymmetry -.16 .08 -

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

In Table 6 an overview of the Pearson r correlations between the dependent and independent variables of the recipient are presented. From the recipients perspective the ARX is positively correlated with change effectiveness, which is in line with Hypothesis 1. Moreover, there is a negative correlation between agent-recipient asymmetry and agent- recipient exchange. The analysis of variance between the dichotomous independent variable perceiver type and continuous independent variable change effectiveness was significant, F (1,90) = 7,304, p =

(20)

20 TABLE 6

Correlations between dependent and independent variables: RECIPIENTS Change Effectiveness Agent-Recipient Exchange Agent-Recipient Asymmetry Change Effectiveness - Agent-Recipient Exchange .63** - Agent-Recipient Asymmetry -.12 -.35** -

**Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Testing the Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 and 2: Agent

(21)

21 TABLE 7

Multivariate linear regression result; AGENT

Predictors quality of ARX and agent-recipient asymmetry on change effectiveness

Independent variables β p SE Quality of ARX .116 0.084* 0.066 Asymmetry -.157 0.094* 0.093 R² .058 F 2.73 N 92 *** p <0.01 ** p <0.05 *p<0.1

Hypothesis 1 and 2: Recipients

(22)

22 TABLE 8

Multivariate linear regression result; RECIPIENTS

Predictors quality of ARX and agent-recipient asymmetry on change effectiveness

Independent variables β p SE Quality of ARX .686 .000*** .089 Asymmetry .124 .196 .095 R² .407 F 30.483 N 92 *** p <0.01 ** p <0.05 *p<0.1

Hypothesis 3: Agents and Recipients

In order to analyse the influence of the change party and perceiver type on change effectiveness a 2 (change party: agent vs. recipient) x 2 (perceiver type: high vs. low) ANOVA on change effectiveness was performed. Both main effects proved to be significant. Being an agent leads to a higher change effectiveness (M=5.88) than being a recipient (M=5,11), F(1,180)=39,19, p=0,000. Also, being a high-perceiver leads to a higher change effectiveness (M=5,68) than being a low-perceiver (M=5,31), F(1,180)=6,05, p=0,015. This confirms Hypothesis 3a. The interaction effect did not appear significant, F(1,180)=2,715,

p=0,101. However, for recipients it does make a difference regarding their score for change effectiveness. Especially when a recipient is high-perceiver this leads to a higher change effectiveness (M=5,38) when compared to when a recipient is a low-perceiver (M=4,89). Furthermore, for agents the type of perceiver does not matter, because in both cases they have a relatively high score for change effectiveness (Mhigh-perceiver=5,93 and Mlow-perceiver=5,83).

This confirms Hypothesis 3b. The most important conclusion is that being a high-perceiver is

(23)

23 DISCUSSION Discussion of the findings

The aim of this paper was to explore in what way agents and recipients differ in their perception of the quality of agent-recipient exchange and how this influences the change effectiveness. The results show that, for both agents and recipients, a higher quality of the exchange leads to a higher change effectiveness. This corresponds with what has been elaborated in earlier studies in which a good relationship is said to establish trust, loyalty, to enhance knowledge sharing, and to increase delegation of responsibility and discretion (Yukl & Fu, 1999). This suggests that the relationship between agent and recipients may be an useful determinant to predict the change effectiveness. Moreover, the results show that the asymmetry of the agent-recipient exchange has different effects for agents and recipients. The results revealed that for agents the more asymmetric the agent-recipient exchange the lower the change effectiveness. However, for recipients asymmetry does not affect the change effectiveness. This is an interesting result and supports the idea that different perceptions between agents and recipients matter. For agents, asymmetry may be related to conflict. One might expect that asymmetry, resulting from different perceptions, may lead to conflict. Where conflict may take many forms such as ignorance (passive-aggressive) or imposing penalties upon the other party (aggressive) this is likely to lower the change effectiveness.

(24)

24 Theoretical contributions

This research has provided a bilateral perspective and shows that perceptions matter. First, the results revealed that agents perceive the change effectiveness to be better than recipients. This could be explained using the idea of Burnes & Jackson (2011) who argue that a greater satisfaction with the change results from alignment between the values of the one engaged, the change objective and the change approach. Since it is the change agent who initiates and designs the change initiative, the agent is likely to lead the change according to his own values instead of leading according to the values of the recipients. This can be explained through the process of sensemaking, whereas agents will design solutions in line with their own interpretation of a problem. Thus, in general the values of a change objective as well as the approach, can be said to be closer aligned with the values of the agent. Therefore the agent is likely to perceive the change as more effective than recipients.

Moreover, this study has elaborated on different types of agent-recipient exchange. A contribution has been made through the distinction between quality and (a)symmetry. Earlier research distinguished between high-quality relationships, referring to balanced, symmetric exchanges, and low-quality relationships, referring to outbalanced, asymmetric exchanges (Gouldner, 1960). However, this research has argued and found support for the fact that asymmetry does not equal low-quality. This study has examined the notion of outbalanced, asymmetric exchanges. The results show that the type of agent-recipient asymmetry matters, and that it can both positively and negatively influence the change effectiveness. Thus agents’ and recipients’ perceptions also matter in regard to the influence of the agent-recipient relationship on change effectiveness.

Limitations and recommendations for future research

(25)

25

account for expectations. Further, as indicated, in times of uncertainty both agent and recipient engage in sensemaking. For example, if an external change agent is assigned to the change initiative both parties do not know what to expect from the relationship. Due to the fact that sensemaking is a subjective process, that relies on individuals interpretations, different perceptions are likely to evolve. The ARX does not include these subjective sensemaking processes, and rather views social exchange as a rational phenomenon.

This research made an attempt to include the complexity involved in social exchange as a reason for the presence of different agents and recipients perceptions. However, including the uncertainty of the social exchange as the cause of asymmetry may be insightful, but it may not be sufficient. The focus of the ARX is on a mere give-and-take relationship and neglects uncertainty involved in the social exchange. Since ARX does not account for exchange complexities it might not be a sufficient measure to study the agent-recipient interaction. It may not be possible to capture the complexity of social exchange in one single concept and therefore it may not be sufficient to study agent-recipient interaction though means of quantitative research. Future research should therefore elaborate on the agent-recipient exchange using a qualitative approach. Observations and interviews will allow for a more thorough and indebt understanding of the complexities involved with social exchange.

Second, the change effectiveness is described as ‘one’s satisfaction with the change outcome as well as with the change process regarding a change initiative’. In this research both change outcome and change process were taken together to represent the overall change effectiveness. Although, it might be that the effect of the agent-recipient relationship on change outcome is different from the effect on change process. However, this was not accounted for in this study, whereas the focus was on the agent-recipient interaction rather than on the difference between change process and change outcome. Nevertheless, this can be examined in the future.

(26)

26

time constraints and the prospect of acquiring diminished results led to the decision not to account for other factors. Future research however, could focus on change situations or factors such as nature or magnitude of change which could enforce or restrain the effect of the quality and asymmetry of an agent-recipient relationship on the change effectiveness.

In addition, this research did not account for and neither distinguished between specific organisational changes or change contexts, but rather focused on organisational change in general. Data collection took place in 69 different organisations on many different types of projects. Possibly, the importance of the agent-recipient relationship may vary across different types of changes. The agent-recipient exchange may also vary during the change process. For example Battilana et al. (2010) distinguished three main change activities, namely communication, mobilizing, evaluation. Perhaps will the agent-recipient relationship be more important during the different phases of change or will different exchange types be more effective depending on the phases of change. Thus, further research on agent-recipient interaction could include contextual factors in relation to agent-recipient interaction.

Furthermore, the level of analysis taken in this research has also some implications. An inter-group analysis was done in order to enable a bilateral perspective as well as the construction of an asymmetry measure. However, in order to make the analysis more containable recipients were grouped per change team. This has one major downside, namely the risk of having obtained diminished results. For example, if a group of four recipients included two very positive perceptions and two very negative perceptions regarding the quality of the exchange, a moderate figure regarding the exchange was obtained to represent the group. However, one can assume that this figure is not representative for the 4 individual perceptions. One way to encounter this limitation would be to study the agent-recipient exchange on dyad-level. Besides the fact that this will avoid the risk of obtaining diminished results, this will also give the opportunity to study intra-group asymmetry. Little research has been done on the different agent-recipient relationships within a change team and is another suggestion for future research.

Practical implications

(27)

27

A remarkable insight that has been obtained is that a ‘bad relationship’ is different in the eyes of the agent from what is seen as a ‘bad relationship’ by the recipients. After all, for agents a more asymmetric relationship is considered to be ‘bad’, whereas for recipients an asymmetric relationship is only ‘bad’ when the recipients are low-perceiver. However, one agent-recipient exchange type is considered to be a ‘good relationship’ for both agents and recipients. This is the relationship in which both agent and recipient perceive the exchange to be of high quality, so the symmetric high-quality exchange. This suggests that when an organisation aims to achieve an effective change for both agents and recipients, it should aim to establish a agent-recipient relationship in which both parties feel a high commitment and a strong need to repay the other.

Further, the results show that in order to achieve a good relationship, and thus successful change, the recipient is crucial. For recipients asymmetric relationships in which they are the low-perceiver have a negative impact on the change effectiveness. On the other hand, quality relationships or asymmetric relationships where the recipient is the high-perceiver have a positive impact on the change effectiveness. In sum, for the recipients, only those relationships that are highly valued by the recipient have the potential to contribute to successful change. Thus, when an organisation changes it should make sure that the recipients feel positive towards the agent-recipient relationship in order to achieve effective change. Agents commonly perceive change to be more effective than recipients, and although an asymmetric agent-recipient relationship has shown to lower change effectiveness, they are less receptive to the type of relationship.

(28)

28

external agent will leave the organisation after the fulfilment of the change initiative, it is likely that the change effectiveness will increase. This example shows that (in)experience may lead to certain expectations regarding an agent-recipient relationship which are likely to influence the perceived quality of the relationship. However, knowing that it are the recipients who have to perceive the agent-recipient exchange as positive might make the recruitment of an external agent a good choice for inexperienced organisations.

(29)

29 REFERENCES

Armenakis, A., Bedeian, A. & Niebuhr, R. (1979). Planning for organizational intervention: the importance of existing socio-psychological situations in organizational diagnosis. Group & Organization Studies, 4(1), 59–70.

Armenakis, A.A., Harris, S.G., & Field, H.S. (1999). Making change permanent: A model for institutionalizing change interventions. In W. Passmore & R. Woodman (Eds.),

Research in organizational change and development (Vol. 12, pp. 289-319). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organisational change research and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9, 127–142.

Balogun,, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523-549.

Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2005). From intended strategies to unintended outcomes: the impact of change recipient sensemaking. Organisation studies, 26(11), 1573-1601. Bartunek, J.M., Rousseau, D.M., Rudolph, J.W., DePalma, J.A. (2006). On the receiving end:

sensemaking, emotion, and assessments of an organizational change initiated by others. Journal of Applied Behavior, 42(2), 182-206.

Bass, B,M. 1990. Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership. New York: Free Press. Battilana, J., Gilmartin, M., Sengul, M., Pache, A., & Alexander, J.A. (2010). Leadership

competencies for implementing planned organisational change. The Leadership Quarterly, 21: 442-438.

Bechtold, B.L. (1997). Chaos theory as a model for strategy development. Empowerment in Organisations, 5(4), 193–201.

Bernerth, J.B., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S., Giles, W.F., & Walker, H.J. (2007). Leader-member social exchange (LMSX): development and validation of a scale. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 28, 979-1003.

Blau, P.M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bouckenooghe, D., DeVos, G., & Van Den Broeck, H. (2009). Organisational change questionnaire-climate of change, processes, and readiness: Development of a new instrument. The Journal of Psychology, 143(6), 559–599.

Brown, A., D., & Humphreys, M. (2003). Epic and tragic tales. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), 121-146.

(30)

30

Burnes, B., & Jackson, P. (2011). Success and failure in organizational change: an exploration of the role of values. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 133-162.

Burnes, B. (2014). Managing change (6th ed.). Edinburgh: Pearson Education

Cawsey, T., Deszca, G., & Ingols, C. (2012). Organisational Change: An action-oriented toolkit. Los Angeles: SAGE.

Cobb, A.T., Wooten, K.C., & Folger, R. (1995). Justice in the making: Toward understanding the theory and practice of justice in organizational change and development. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 8, 243-295.

Cunningham, G.B. (2006). The relationship among commitment to change, coping with change and turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 15(1), 29–45.

Galinsky, A.D., Magee, J.C., Ena Inesi, M., & Gruenfeld, D.H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17(12), 1068-1074.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Theory: Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Gioia, D.A., Thomas, J.B., Clark, S.M., & Chittipeddi, K. (1994). Symbolism and strategic change in academia: the dynamics of sensemaking and influence. Organization Science, 5, 363-383.

Graen, G., & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 6, 219-247.

Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J.P. (2002). Commitment to organizational change: Extension of a three component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 474-487.

Herold, D. M., & Fedor, D. B. (2008). Change the way you lead change: Leadership strategies that really work. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Higgs, M., & Rowland, D. (2011). What does it take to implement change successfully? A study of the behaviors of successful change leaders. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(3), 309–335.

Huber, G.P., & Glick, W.H. (1993). Organisational change and redesign: Ideas and insights for improving performance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Jehn, K.A., Rispens, S., Thatcher, S.M.B. (2010). The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 596-616. Kieser, A. (2001). Trust as a change agent for capitalism or as ideology? A commentary.

(31)

31

Kotter, J., & Cohen, D. (2002). The Heart of Change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, J.P., & Schlesinger, L.A. (2008). Choosing strategies for change. Harvard Business Review, July-August, 130–139.

Labianca, G., Gray, B., & Brass, D, J. (2000). A grounded model of organizational schema change during empowerment. Organization Science, 11(2), 235-257.

Marks, M.L., (2006). Workplace recovery after mergers, acquisitions and downsizing: Facilitating individual adaptation to major organisational transformations. Organisational Dynamics, 35, 384–398.

Martin, A.J., Jones, E, & Callan, V. (2005). The role of psychological climate in facilitating employee adjustment during organisational change. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 14(3): 263–289.

Oreg, S., Vakola, M., & Armenakis, A. (2011). Change recipients’reactions to organisational change: A 60-year review of quantitative studies. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(4), 461-524.

Pettigrew, A.M., Woodman, R.W., and Cameron, K.S. (2001). Studying organisational change and development: Challenges for future research. Management Journal,44, 697–713.

Quinn, R. E. (2004) Building the Bridge as You Walk On It: A Guide for Leading Change (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

Rogulic, D. (2013). Towards understanding agent-recipient exchange during change projects; a bilateral study on the influence of change-recipients exchange on change effectiveness [online]. Available from: http://scripties.feb.eldoc.ub.rug.nl.proxy-ub.rug.nl/root/bdk/MSc/Bus.Adm./CM/2013/. [accessed 15-5-2014].

Rousseau, D.M. (1998). The ‘problem’ of the psychological contract considered. Journal of organizational behaviour, 19, 665-671.

Schriesheim, A, C., Castro, S.L., & Cogliser, C.C. (1999). Leader-member exchange (LMX) research: a comprehensive review of theory, measurement, and data-analytic practices. Leadership Quarterly, 10(1), 52-63.

(32)

32

Six, F., & Sorge, A. (2008). Creating a high-trust organization: an exploration into organizational policies that stimulate interpersonal trust building. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 857-884.

Sonenshein, S. (2010). We’re changing-or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 477-512.

Snyder, C. R., & Shorey, H. (2003). Hope and leadership. In K. Christensen (Ed.), Encyclopedia of leadership. Harrison, NY: Berkshire.

Sull, D.N. (1999). Why good companies go bad. Harvard Business Review, 77(4), 42-50. Thomas, J.B., Clark, S.M., & Gioia, D.A. (1993). Strategic sensemaking and organisational

performance: Linkages among scanning, interpretation, actions, and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 239-270.

Vos, J.F.J., & Brand, M.J. (2012). How do change agents in SMEs approach change? A cross-sectional study into change projects within Dutch SMEs. Presented at the EURAM Conference 2012, Rotterdam.

Weick, K.E. 1995. Sensemaking in Organisations. CA: SAGE.

Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.

Whisnant, B., & Khasawneh, O. (2014). The influence of leadership and trust on the sharing of tacit knowledge: exploring a path model. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 6(2), 1-17.

Yukl, G., & Falbe, C.M. (1990). Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward, and lateral influence attempts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(2), 132–140.

Yukl, G., & Fu, P.P. (1999). Determinants of delegation and consultation by managers. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 20(2), 219-232.

(33)

33

APPENDIX A – MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENT; SURVEY

An overview of the measurement instrument is provided below. An overview of the items to measure the agent recipient exchange (ARX) and change effectiveness from both the agent as well as the recipients version of the survey is given in Table I and Table II.

TABLE I

ARX: Agent-Recipient Exchange During the change process..

ARX_1 ..I knew that if I did the employees¹/change agent² a favour, I would get something in return.

ARX_2 ..My relationship with the employees¹/change agent² was composed of comparable exchanges of giving and taking.

ARX_3 .. Voluntary actions on my part were returned in some way by the employees¹/change agent².

ARX_4 .. My efforts were returned with equal efforts of the employees¹/change agent². ARX_5 ..I could expect that my efforts were reciprocated by the employees¹/change agent². ARX_6 ..There was a balance of inputs and outputs with the employees¹/change agent². ARX_7 ..I did not have to specify the exact conditions to know the employees¹/change

agent² would return a favour.

ARX_8 .. I had a two-way exchange relationship with the employees¹/change agent².

TABLE II

ChEff: Change Effectiveness

PCE_1 During the change process the communication between the employees and myself¹/the change agent and the employees² went well.

PCE_2 During the change process we (the employees and me¹/the change agent and the employees²) have successfully addressed the issues that arose.

CO_1 I believe that the change is (or will be) successful.

CO_2 In general, I believe that the organization benefits (or will benefit) from this change.

CO_3 I think that the goals of the change process are achieved (or will be achieved). ¹: Agent version

(34)

34

APPENDIX B – CONSTRUCT DEVELOPMENT

In Table III the outcome of the rotated Varimax factor analysis regarding agent’s and recipient’s perception of ARX and change effectiveness is displayed. It can be seen that the factor analysis was computed for 2 factors, namely agent recipient exchange and change effectiveness. Change effectiveness was expected to consist out of 2 variables namely change process and change outcome. Table III shows the first results of the factor analysis and shows that based on eigenvalues greater than 1 a total of 3 factors was extracted. Nevertheless, there was no perfect match between the items and the factors whereas some items cross loaded or even loaded on ‘other’ factors.

Following, because the item ARX_8 , “During the change process I had a two-way exchange relationship with the employees/change agent”, did not load on the same factor as ARX_1 until ARX_7 it was removed. This second factor analysis based on eigenvalues greater than 1 only extracted 2 factors. The items PCE_1, “During the change process the communication between the employees and myself/the change agent and the employees went well” and PCE_2, “During the change process we have successfully addressed the issues that arose” cross loaded on both ARX and change effectiveness. Therefore a factor analysis was computed in which a fixed number of 3 factors, presumably ARX, change process, and change outcome, were to be extracted. Table IV shows the results of this factor analysis based on a fixed number of 3 factors.

(35)

35 TABLE III

Preliminary factor analysis on agent’s and recipients’ perceptions

1 2 3

.802 .114 .135

giving and taking.

.758 .439 .091

.813 .061 .147

.749 .426 .094

.731 .381 .078

.641 .484 .121

*ARX_7 During the change process I did not have to specify the exact conditions to know the employees¹/change agent² would return a favour.

.415 .636 .096

*ARX_8 During the change process I had a two-way exchange relationship with the employees¹/change agent².

.294 .724 .088

.223 .801 .233

that arose.

.147 .739 .416

CO_1 I believe that the change is (or will be) successful. .170 .190 .892 CO_2 In general, I believe that the organization benefits (or will

.142 .087 .869

.055 .229 .832

(36)

36 TABLE IV

Factor analysis based on 3 fixed factors on agent’s and recipients’ perceptions

1 2 3

.810 .152 .023

giving and taking.

.791 .083 .386

.801 .153 -.001

.782 .090 .362

.763 .077 .314

.691 .119 .418

*ARX_7 During the change process I did not have to specify the exact conditions to know the employees¹/change agent² would return a favour.

.521 .126 .475

.286 .186 .851

that arose.

.201 .371 .802

CO_1 I believe that the change is (or will be) successful. .179 .895 .183 CO_2 In general, I believe that the organization benefits (or will

.141 .877 .077

.062 .822 .261