REDUCING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE AT IKEA CCCN BY COMMUNICATION

(1)

REDUCING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE AT IKEA CCCN BY COMMUNICATION

Master thesis, MscBA, specialization Change Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization

May, 2014 MARIËLLE EILERS Student number: 1889664 Troelstrastraat 52 3601 WD Maarssen tel.: +31 (0)629482723 / +46 (0)762434148 e-mail: mar.eilers@gmail.com Supervisor university Dr. P.H. van der Meer

Second evaluator Dr. C. Reezigt

Supervisor field of study Els Meeuwissen

(2)

나

ABSTRACT

In August and September 2011 a change initiative named “Working with Skills” (WwS) was implemented at IKEA CCCN. This was met by a lot of resistance from employees in the

Frontoffice and Solutions departments. Management wants to know how this can be prevented in future top-down change initiatives.

By means of a survey amongst employees of the Frontoffice and Solutions departments, their general attitude towards change as well as their attitude towards WwS were determined. Additionally respondents were asked to evaluate the change communication around WwS. This paper shows a significant relationship between resistance to change and change

communication. Moreover, indications are provided as to how change communication can be improved in order to reduce resistance to change.

(3)

다

CONCEPTUAL MODEL ... 7 METHODOLOGY ... 9 INTERNAL DOCUMENTATION ... 9 SURVEY ... 9 Population ... 10 Representative of response ... 10 Scale reliability ... 11 Statistical Procedures ... 14 RESULTS ... 15 INTERNAL DOCUMENTATION ... 15 Change initiative... 15 Communication of WwS ... 16 SURVEY OUTCOMES ... 16 CCCN ... 17 Resistance to Change ... 17 Change Initiative ... 17 Change Communication ... 19

Frontoffice & Solutions ... 22

Resistance to Change ... 22 Change Initiative ... 24 Change Communication ... 26 CORRELATIONS ... 29 REGRESSION ANALYSIS ... 33 CONCLUSIONS ... 38 RESISTANCE TO CHANGE ... 38 CHANGE INITIATIVE ... 38 CHANGE COMMUNICATION ... 38

CENTRAL RESEARCH GOAL ... 39

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 40

LIMITATIONS ... 41

(4)

라

APPENDICES ... 45

APPENDIX A: SURVEY QUESTIONS ... 45

APPENDIX B: RESISTANCE TO CHANGE ASPECTS AND COMMUNICATION... 48

(5)

1

INTRODUCTION

This report was written for the Customer Contact Centre of IKEA Netherlands (IKEA CCCN). In September 2011 a change initiative named “Working with Skills” (WwS) was implemented. The understanding is that when it was introduced, the initiative was met by a lot of resistance from co-workers. Management wants to know how to prevent this during future change initiatives. Next, the organisational context will be discussed, followed by the central research question. Organisational Context

CCCN is the contact centre for IKEA Netherlands. This means it handles all incoming phone calls, e-mails and chats for the twelve IKEA stores in the Netherlands. Additionally, it solves

complaints for eleven of the stores. CCCN consists of five departments, namely: - Frontoffice; handles incoming e-mails, phone calls, chats, and regular mail - Solutions; solves complaints

- Business; performs Frontoffice and Solutions as well as administrative tasks for business customers

- Finance & Administration: IT support, planning, and accounting

- Business Support: internal communication, and process & quality control.

This report will focus on the departments Frontoffice and Solutions as these two departments were most heavily affected by WwS.

The change implemented in September 2011 roughly consisted of changing from a multi-skilled approach to more specialised employees. In the situation before WwS, Frontoffice was not split into smaller units. Solutions co-workers were divided over two smaller units: general and kitchen worktops. WwS split both departments into three units (skills), namely kitchens, services, and general (basic). Previously Frontoffice was located on one floor and Solutions on another. With the implementation of WwS the Frontoffice and Solutions employees would be working on the same floor. The skill kitchens was moved to one floor, and services to the other. Employees with the general skill were divided over both floors. The duties of employees also changed. The two main changes are:

- Frontoffice employees with a kitchen or service skill get less variety in calls.

- Employees from the Solutions department can now receive direct calls from customers and also have less variety in the complaints they handle.

(6)

2 The change was communicated in steps. Partly because not all the information was available right away and partly because the communication specialist thought employees would have a better understanding of the project if they received smaller bits of information at one time. The change was mainly communicated through a special newsletter, which was distributed at irregular intervals.

The change was met by a lot of resistance and anxiety from co-workers. Once management received indications that employees were anxious and dissatisfied, they started up “question hours” where employees could voice their concerns and ask questions.

Management Problem

As was mentioned above, WwS was met by a lot of resistance from employees. Thus, management wants to know what went wrong in the process of implementing WwS. As employees now seem more satisfied with the changes that WwS brought, management suspects the answer may lie in the way the change was communicated and/or the attitude of the team managers towards WwS.

Thus, management is wondering if and how they resistance to change can be reduced by

communicating the change differently. Management wants to use the lessons learned from WwS to prevent the same levels of resistance from occurring with future change initiatives.

Research Objective

The main objective of this research is to be able to provide management with advice on how change communication can be handled during future change initiatives. This with the goal of reducing resistance to change amongst employees.

Research Goal

In order to solve the management problem, the following research goal has been defined: Determine if IKEA CCCN can improve change communication for

future top down change initiatives as to reduce resistance to change Research Questions.

In order to reach the research goal, a few things need to be determined. Firstly, the level of resistance to change; in order to determine the cause of the resistance the level of resistance towards WwS has to be known. Additionally, it has to be determined whether the co-workers generally do not like changes, or if they were specifically negative towards WwS. Therefore, a general level of resistance to change has to be determined. This leads to the first research question:

1. What was the level of resistance to change?

Secondly, it has to be determined what may have caused the resistance. Therefore, the change initiative itself is evaluated, as well as the communication of the change. Which prompts the following additional research questions:

2. What is the relationship between how co-workers evaluate the change initiative and the resistance to change for WwS?

3. What is the relationship between how co-workers evaluate the change communication and the resistance to change for WwS?

(7)

3 These five dimensions are skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. Thus, it has to be determined how the co-workers rate their jobs based on those five

dimensions, compared to their job before WwS.

Answering the third research question prompts the need to learn how the co-workers evaluate the communication of WwS. The model for institutionalising change and developing change messages (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Armenakis, Harris, & Field, 1999) states a change message should consist of five components, namely discrepancy, appropriateness, self-efficacy, principal support, and personal valance. Apart from the content of change message, communication also deals with timing and communication channels or tools. First timing, each model of change offers different phases, but most are based on Lewin’s (1947) model of unfreeze, move and refreeze. Change

communication, when delivered on time, can help employees navigate through the different stages of change (Armenakis & Harris, 2002).

Finally, the communication channels or tools. Several authors (Armenakis & Harris, 2002; Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993; Fishbein & Azjen, 1975) emphasize the benefits of letting employees participate in the change process. Additionally, management at IKEA CCCN currently has the option to use over ten different communication tools. When communicating the next change effort, it will be beneficial to know which tools reach most co-workers and which tools the co-workers prefer.

(8)

4

THEORY

As the previous chapter has shown, this research project is aimed at understanding the communication factors that can reduce resistance to change for top-down change initiatives within IKEA CCCN. This chapter will first look at resistance to change in general and

subsequently focus on change communication factors. Resistance to Change

Resistance to change is the negative response amongst affective, cognitive, and behavioural dimensions (Piderit, 2000). In other words it are negative feelings, thoughts, and actions towards the change initiative. A more positive view on resistance to change is seeing it as commitment to the current state (Armenakis, Harris, & Field, 1999).

Resistance to change is closely linked to readiness to change. As “readiness for change is seen as the cognitive precursor to the behaviours of either resistance to, or support for, a change effort” (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993, p.681-2). It can thus be argued that by

ensuring readiness for change, resistance to change is prevented. Therefore, aspects from both resistance to change and readiness for change will be used over the course of the research project.

Resistance is believed to be caused by several factors, some of which can be attributed to the change agent, some cannot (Ford, Ford, & D'Amelio, 2008). Combining a number of sources (Beer & Nohria, 2000; Dent & Goldberg, 1999; Dent & Goldbert, 1999; Ford, Ford, & McNamara, 2002; Gadiesh & Gilbert, 2001; Giangreco & Peccei, 2005; Oreg, 2006) Palmer, Dunford & Akin (2009) came up with a list of fourteen reasons why people may resist change:

1. Dislike of change

2. Discomfort with uncertainty

3. Perceived negative effect on interests

4. Attachment to the established organizational culture/identity 5. Perceived breach of psychological contract

6. Lack of conviction that change is needed 7. Lack of clarity as to what is expected

8. Belief that the specific change being proposed is inappropriate 9. Belief that the timing is wrong

10. Excessive change

11. Cumulative effect of other changes in one’s life 12. Perceived clash with ethics

13. Reaction to the experience of previous changes

14. Disagreement with the way the change is being managed

When assessing these fourteen factors, one can see that many of them deal with, or are heavily affected by, communication. This goes for items 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12. To a certain extent numbers 2 and 14 could even be added to this list. The next section explains how these reasons why people may resist change are related to communication.

Communication and resistance to change

(9)

5 new reality. This new reality affects the way people think as well as they way they act. Ford & Ford state that “change is a phenomenon that occurs within communication” (1995, p.542). Thus, they argue that change is communication and communication is not just one aspect of change. Self, Armenakis & Schraeder (2007) state that how the change is introduced to the employees will have an impact on how the employees respond to the change initiative.

This has been confirmed by research with outcomes including that employees who felt like they were well informed during the change process showed more acceptance towards the change initiative (Allen, Jimmieson, Bordia, & Irmer, 2007) and that some of the negative reactions to organizational change originate at management’s failure to acknowledge the importance of communicating a consistent change message (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). Furthermore, there is a negative relationship between the quality of change communication and feelings of

uncertainty regarding the change (Bordia, Hobman, Jones, Gallois, & Callan, 2004). Internal (change) communication however is not a simple act (Harkness, 2000), it is “the

strategic management of interactions and relationships between stakeholders at all levels within organizations” (Welch & Jackson, 2007, p.184). When dealing with communicating

organizational change, management has to consider three things, namely what, when, and how to communicate. The subsequent sections will cover each aspect.

Content of Communication The content of change communication is referred to as the

change message. Armenakis et al. (2002; 1993; 1999) have developed a model which states the change message should consist of five elements, namely discrepancy, appropriateness, self-efficacy, principal support and personal valence.

Discrepancy answers the question whether the change is really necessary (Armenakis, Harris, & Field, 1999). Research (Ford, Ford, & McNamara, 2002) has shown that a more negative

response towards the change can be expected when people do not feel the need to change. The discrepancy element of the change message is in line with Palmer et al’s (2009) sixth reason for resisting change; “Lack of conviction that change is needed”. Additionally it is related to the ninth reason, which is “Belief that timing is wrong”. Thus, the discrepancy element needs to convey why change is necessary, and why it is necessary at this precise moment. In order to do this it needs to be shown that the current performance of the organization differs from the desired situation (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

The second element of the change message is appropriateness. Appropriateness of the message explains how the change initiative introduced is the right reaction to the discrepancy at hand (Armenakis, Harris, & Field, 1999). When looking at the reasons why people may resist change, one can see that appropriateness is connected to reason number 8, which is “Belief that the specific change being proposed is inappropriate”. People may consider the proposed change inappropriate because they think it is a bad idea, but also because they have a fundamental different understanding of the vision. (Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2009). Therefore, it may be worthwhile explaining the relation between the change and the vision. Furthermore, when dealing with appropriateness it might be helpful to include external sources of information. This is because in general a message which is received from more than once source is deemed more believable (Gist, 1987).

The third element, self-efficacy, gives employees the belief they will be able to implement the change successfully, both at an individual and group level (Armenakis, Harris, & Field, 1999). This part of the change message is related to several reasons of resistance to change,

(10)

6 contract), seventh (Lack to clarity as to what is expected, and twelfth (Perceived clash with ethics). Moreover, it shows that change communication can be seen as the part of the change effort which focuses on the soft factors (Lies, 2012).

The psychological contract consists, amongst other things, of the tasks which the employee is supposed to carry out and guidelines on how performance is assessed (Strebel, 1996). Many employees will not believe they can implement the change successfully if they are unsure about which tasks will have to be carried out after the change, and how they are supposed to be done. The psychological contract also consists of a social part, which deals with the values of the organization. When the proposed change clashes with key parts of the psychological contract, it is likely that change will result in resistance (Pate, Martin, & Staines, 2000; Strebel, 1996). It is therefore important to emphasize where the psychological contract and the proposed change match, as well as take away as much uncertainty as possible.

The purpose of the fourth element, principle support, is to show the members of the organization that management is committed to successful implementation of the change

initiative. (Armenakis, Harris, & Field, 1999). Especially middle management plays a central role in convincing other members of the organization (Giangreco & Peccei, 2005). In part this

element of the change message can in part be connected to the fourteenth reason of resistance to change, “Disagreement with the way change is managed” as commitment to successful implementation is part of the way change is implemented.

Finally, the fifth element, which is personal valence, it describes what the benefits of the change initiative are for the individual organizational members. This final element of the change

message deals with the third, fifth, and twelfth reasons for resisting change. These are “Perceived negative effect on interests”, “Perceived breach of psychological contract”, and “Perceived clash with ethics”. This because the benefits or disadvantages for the employees are related to their interests, their understanding of the impact on their agreement (psychological contract) with the employer, and the employees’ personal ethics compared to their perception of the organization.

Time of Communication Many models of organizational change have been developed.

Each offers different stages, however most of them are based on Lewin’s (1947) three stages of unfreeze, move, and refreeze. Change communication can “serve to coordinate the three

change phases by providing the organizing framework for creating readiness” (Armenakis & Harris, 2002, p.171).

Vos & Schoenmaker (2005) only focus on the first two phases and offer three communication activities: announce the change, maintain involvement in the organization (unfreeze), and stimulate the process of change (move).

Ford & Ford (1995) on the other hand offer a series of communication options that help navigate through all three phases. They offer four “conversations of change”. The first type is initiative conversation, which focuses on getting the receiver’s attention on what should or could be done. Second, conversations for understanding, which offer the opportunity to explain the situation, why change is necessary and how the organization can move forward. Both can be seen as fitting into the unfreeze phase of the change process.

(11)

7

Communication Tools In their model Armenakis et al (1993) offer three strategies to

communicate the change message. Two of which are persuasive communication and active participation.

Persuasive communication is mostly used to help convey the discrepancy and efficacy aspects of the change message. It is a source of explicit communication, but also includes non-verbal communication such as the time taken by the CEO to talk to employees. Persuasive

communication can be done in person, but also by newsletters, e-mails, and letters.

Active participation includes allowing people to engage in activities which help them discover information by themselves. The advantage of these activities is that the information gathered by self discovery is seen as more trustworthy (Fishbein & Azjen, 1975). The downside is that the change agent has no control over the message received by the audience. Active

participation can be used very well to generate readiness for change amongst (middle) management (Armenakis & Harris, 2002).

The change initiative

Resistance to change is not only determined by how the change is communicated, but also by the actual change initiative. As has been stated above, employees tend to resist change when they think the change does not benefit their interests (Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2009). Whether or not the change is beneficial to the employees can be determined by assessing the quality of work life as it currently is and as it will be after the change.

Hackman & Oldham (1975) stated five core job dimensions determine the quality of work life. These five dimensions are skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. Skill variety refers to the degree to which an employee has to utilize different skills and talents in order to perform different activities. Task identity is the degree to which the job involves completing a complete task, that is, “doing a job from beginning to end, with a visible outcome (Hackman & Oldham, 1975, p.161). Task significance is the degree to which the work influences the work or lives of other people. Together these three core job dimensions determine the experienced meaningfulness of the work.

Autonomy concerns the level of freedom independence, and discretion of the employee in determining the time and manner in which duties are carried out. The level of autonomy influences the degree of responsibility for outcomes of the work experienced by the employee. Finally, feedback, which refers to both feedback from the job itself and feedback from agents. Feedback from the job is feedback is feedback which the employee receives by carrying out the work activities. Feedback from agents is feedback received from supervisors and co-workers. Feedback determines the knowledge the employee has of the actual results of the work activities.

Conceptual Model

The theory explained above can be summarized into the following conceptual model. Both change communication as well as the change initiative influence the level of resistance to change

The change initiative’s effect on resistance to change is determined by five dimensions, namely skill variety, task variety, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. There is a positive

(12)

8 will also reflect a more negative attitude. Each dimension has a direct and independent

influence on the level of resistance to change.

Change communication consists of three factors, namely time of communication, content of communication, and communication tools. These factors also have a positive relationship with resistance to change. Thus, if the change is not communicated well and in a timely manner, the level of resistance will increase. All three factors directly influence resistance to change.

(13)

9

METHODOLOGY

The following section discusses the research methods. In order to answer the research questions it firstly has to be established how the project group approached change

communication. This will be done by assessing internal documentation, namely the minutes of the project group meetings.

Secondly, it has to be examined how employees evaluated the use of change communication. In order to conclude whether there is a relationship between the evaluation of change

communication and resistance to change, the level of resistance amongst employees has to be determined. This will be done by means of a self-administered survey amongst all Frontoffice and Solutions employees of IKEA CCCN.

Internal documentation

Internal documentation was used to evaluate the communication tools that are available within IKEA CCCN and the extent to which the use of these were discussed during the project group meetings for WwS

Survey

A survey was distributed amongst all Frontoffice and Solutions employees of IKEA CCCN. Ideally resistance to change would have been measured during the change implementation, and the current attitude would have been assessed. As resistance was not measured before, this is not possible. Therefore a survey was distributed now, asking employees to look back on how they felt at the time WwS was being implemented. It thus has to be taken into account that recall bias may influence employees’ recollection of their feelings, attitudes and events that occurred during the implementation of WwS (Raphael, 1987). The respondents’ current attitude towards WwS may influence their memories of the implementation process.

The survey items can be divided into four different sections, namely:  Demographics

 Resistance to change

 Attitude towards change initiative  Communication aspects

The first question of the survey was whether the participant already worked at CCCN at the time WwS was implemented. If the answer was no, the participant was excluded from the survey.

The questions relating to resistance to change have been based on Bouckenooghe, Devos & Van den Broeck’s (2009) organizational change questionnaire as well as Oreg’s (2003) Resistance to Change measure. The questions cover the three dimensions amongst which resistance takes place, namely affective, cognitive, and behavioural. For each dimension questions are asked about an individual’s general attitude towards change as well as the attitude to WwS. Those items covering the communication aspects are also based on Bouckenooghe, Devos & Van den Broeck’s (2009) organizational change questionnaire. Additionally, questions were developed that were based on the change message model of Armenakis et al (2002; 1993; 1999).

(14)

10 Finally, the demographics focused on length of employment, gender, department, and age. The complete survey can be found in Appendix A

Population The survey was distributed amongst all the employees of Frontoffice and

Solution, in total 129. 61 surveys were returned, which leads to a response rate of 47.3% percent. Six employees did not work at CCCN before WwS was implemented, therefore the number of usable surveys is 55 (n=55), which is 42.6% percent of the population.

The questionnaire was only distributed amongst co-workers that still work at IKEA CCCN. Therefore, some employees that were unhappy with the change may have left the organisation between the implementation and the distribution of the survey. The turnover rate of IKEA CCCN is low for a contact centre and has not increased since the implementation of WwS; 15.6% in 2012 compared to 33.8 and 21.7 percent in 2007 and 2008.

Representative of response In order to determine whether the collected data is

representative of the population, a frequency table (table 1) is provided. This table can be used to compare the survey response to the population. The data on the population has been

collected in the month prior to the survey and is therefore up-to-date.

As can be seen in the table above, the department Frontoffice is overrepresented whereas Solutions is underrepresented. The representations of males and females is very close to the division of gender over the whole population. Finally, age, the age group 15-35 seems to be well represented, as is the group of >55. The group 36-45 on the other hand is

underrepresented, whereas 46-55 is overrepresented.

In order to see if one can draw conclusions about differences between the various skills, a frequency table of the co-workers that already worked at CCCN during the implementation of WwS was developed. This frequency table can be found in table 2. As can be also seen in this table, the distribution of respondents over the various skills is close to the distribution in the overall population.

No significant differences between response and population frequencies were found for any of the control variables (Department (x2_{=1.585; df=1; p=0.208); Skill (x}2_{=0.223; df=2;}

(15)

11 It has to be noted, however, that the number of respondents for the Basics skill is extremely low, therefore conclusions cannot be drawn about the whole population. Thus, in the remainder of the outcomes for the Basics skill will be shown in tables, but will not be discussed or included in statistical tests when comparing the different skills. The data from the Basics skill is included when discussing the outcomes of the whole contact centre or when comparing Frontoffice and Solutions.

Scale reliability The design of the questionnaire was inspired by the questions of Van

Bouckenooghe & Devos (2009) and adapted to the situation around WwS and to fit the

variables described in the theory section. To establish whether items on the questionnaire can be grouped into factors, an exploratory factor analysis was performed.

First, the factor analysis for the change initiative, the scree plot showed there are two factors. The results for these two factors are shown in table 3a. The two factors can be grouped as task significance and skill variety.

TABLE 3a

Factor Analysis Change Initiative

Task Significance Skill Variety

My work has become more varied since WwS ,269 ,657*

Since WwS I feel like I can help the customer better ,724* -,169 Since WwS I feel like I have more responsibility ,298 ,051 Since WwS I have more freedom in how I do my work ,141 ,083 Since WwS I get more feedback from my colleagues ,061 -,012 Since WwS I have more freedom in when I do my work ,225 -,347 Since WwS I have more influence on how the customer

will be helped ,739* -0,192

Since WwS I execute more different tasks ,082 ,890*

(16)

12 TABLE 3b

Factor Analysis Resistance to Change General

Affective Behavioural I would feel stressed because of a sudden, large change ,628* ,298 I get stressed when things do not go according to plan ,744* ,-206

I often change my mind ,065 ,041

I find changes a lot of fuss ,364 ,009

When life becomes routine I actively look for ways to

change this ,253 ,513*

I prefer doing the same over trying something new ,340 ,641*

Third, resistance to change WwS, where the scree plot indicated only one factor. This factor corresponds with the behavioural element of resistance to change WwS as shown in table 3c.

TABLE 3c

Factor Analysis Resistance to Change WwS

Behavioural

I had a good feeling about WwS ,241

I experienced the implementation of WwS as a positive process ,178

I thought WwS would simplify my work ,389

I was prepared to actively do my best to make WwS a success ,865* I was prepared to invest energy in the implementation of WwS ,825*

Finally, change communication. Here the scree plot indicated five factors. These were grouped in discrepancy, appropriateness, self efficacy, personal valence, and participation. The results are shown in table 3d.

TABLE 3d

Factor Analysis Change Communication

Discrepancy Appropriateness Self Efficacy

I knew the reason for implementing WwS ,675* -,271 ,383

I thought this was a good reason ,778* -,176 ,118

WwS was the right solution -,099 ,786* ,130

My TM supported WwS ,335 ,253 ,327

I saw benefits for CCCN in i WwS ,267 ,044 -,093

I was regularly updated on the progress of

implementing WwS ,356 -,030 ,285

The way of implementing WwS left enough

room for input from co-workers ,382 ,336 ,178

I saw benefits for myself in WwS ,212 ,017 -,309

I felt like CCCN could implement WwS

successfully ,300 -,237 ,570*

I felt like MT supported WwS ,260 ,258 ,290

I felt like I would be able to cope with the

changes of WwS ,130 -,017 ,530

When implementing WwS co-workers were

asked for enough input ,206 -,119 ,055

I thought I would gain more knowledge

because of WwS ,277 ,797* ,277

I felt like I would be more confident in the

(17)

13 TABLE 3d continued

Factor Analysis Change Communication - 2

Personal Valence Participation

I knew the reason for implementing WwS ,213 -,152

I thought this was a good reason ,012 -,278

WwS was the right solution -,081 -,298

My TM supported WwS ,261 -,191

I saw benefits for CCCN in i WwS ,519 -,231

I was regularly updated on the progress of implementing

WwS ,134 ,274

The way of implementing WwS left enough room for input

from co-workers ,312 ,470*

I saw benefits for myself in WwS ,498* -,148

I felt like CCCN could implement WwS successfully ,173 ,014

I felt like MT supported WwS ,012 ,242

I felt like I would be able to cope with the changes of

WwS ,148 ,131

When implementing WwS co-workers were asked for

enough input ,300 ,661*

I thought I would gain more knowledge because of WwS ,206 ,085 I felt like I would be more confident in the execution of

my work after WwS ,141 ,160

Table 4 shows the Cronbach’s α scores for resistance to change, the communication content, and the change initiative. All scales are based on the factors identified above. Where a factor was expected in the setup of the questionnaire, but this did not became evident in the factor analysis, the expected factor was split back to single items. This is the case for Affective WwS, Cognitive General, Autonomy, and Principal Support. Affective WwS concentrated on the feelings about WwS itself as well as the process of implementation, therefore this element will be split in these two categories. Cognitive General originally consisted of three questions that related to how co-workers think about change in general. Eliminating one of the items did not result in a difference in the factor analysis, or a sufficient score on C Cronbach’s α. As two of the items (I often change my mind and Once I reach a conclusion I often stick to it) are rather similar, we will continue with one of these items, namely I often change my mind. The remaining item, I think changes are just a lot of fuss, will also be reported separately.

(18)

14 TABLE 4

Scale Reliabilities

Scale Cronbach’s α

Resistance to change score WwS 0.573 Affective – implementation n/a

Affective – solution n/a

Behavioural 0.822

Cognitive n/a

Resistance to change score general 0.616

Affective 0.550

Behavioural 0.607

Cognitive – change mind n/a Cognitive – changes fuss n/a

Change Initiative Score 0.675

Skill variety 0.664

Task identity n/a

Task significance 0.774

Autonomy – how n/a

Autonomy – when n/a

Feedback n/a

Change Communication Score 0.827

Discrepancy 0.789

Appropriateness 0.655

Principal support – TM n/a Principal support – MT n/a

Self efficacy 0.633

Personal valence 0.687

Participation 0.731

Statistical Procedures Over the course of this report several statistical procedures are

performed. In order to determine a difference between two departments or skills the independent samples t-test is performed. Only two skills – services and kitchens – are compared as the number of respondents for the basic skill is too low to draw conclusions. To verify an association between two variables, a correlation matrix was composed. The test use to compose the matrix is Pearson’s product correlation. This test was used as a linear relationship is shown in the scatter diagrams and the data of the survey can be processed as ratio or interval data.

In order to gain more insight into the relationship between the different change communication aspects and resistance to change, a regression analysis was performed.

(19)

15

RESULTS

This chapter aims to provide the results of the research project. Firstly the results of the internal documentation will be presented. Next are the survey results for the whole CCCN, followed by specifications for Frontoffice and Solutions.

Internal Documentation

Apart from a survey, internal documentation was assessed to gather information related to the change initiative and the change communication.

Change initiative Next to the survey used in this research project, how employees

responded to WwS can also be assessed by the turnover rates, as well as the scores on the employee satisfaction survey (Voice) results. The turnover of IKEA CCCN is low compared to other contact centres in the Netherlands. The turnover rates for the past six years are shown in Graph 1.

Voice is the employee satisfaction program. The last score before WwS (2009) was 571, the scores after the implementation were 650 in 2012 and 691 in 2013. It can thus be concluded that overall employee satisfaction has increased after the implementation of WwS.

When looking at the Voice results at a more detailed level we can try to determine whether specific parts of co-worker satisfaction has increased since the implementation of WwS. The main goal of WwS was to increase the knowledge of co-workers, in the Voice survey this is shown as the item competence in 2012 and 2013. In 2009 the Voice survey consisted of

different items, so “in my department everybody has received enough education and is capable of answering our customers’ questions” was used. In 2009 67 percent of the co-workers

answered positively to this question. In 2012 and 2013 the score was 72 and 76 percent respectively.

A sub-goal of WwS was to increase the cooperation within CCCN, cooperation is also included, the scores were 30% (2009), 63% (2012) and 67% (2013).

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Graph 1: Turnover rates IKEA CCCN

(20)

16 Other aspects on which we evaluate a change initiative in this research project are skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. Not all of these items are directly included in the Voice survey, however the responsibility score is an indicator for the aspect autonomy. The responsibility scores are 54% (2009), 77% (2012), and 83% (2013).

Thus, based on the internal documentation, it can be concluded that since the introduction of WwS the co-worker satisfaction has increased, co-workers feel more competent and this is not accompanied by a higher than average turnover rate.

Communication of WwS The communication plan of WwS was a brief statement of the

target audience (co-workers and team managers) and the goals, followed by a list of actions. The goals were described as follows: “The communication during the project has the goal to inform the concerned co-workers about the project and over the course of the project inform them about developments, so they feel able to start with the changed way of working on September 1st_{. It is important to base the communication on the information needs of the} co-worker in order to create a support for the upcoming changes. In creating support the team managers play an important role. Additionally, it has to be clear that there will be no changes in the organisational structure.”

The actions were:

- Inform the co-workers about the start of the project in the bi-weekly newsletter of week 20.

- Write a communication instruction for team managers. - Regular short update in bi-weekly newsletter.

- Depending on impact and necessary changes set up extra activities to make the change process live amongst co-workers.

- Prior to the start of new work routines a newsletter dedicated to WwS with highlights, details and delivery of the whole.

- Page with background information on intranet site. - Extra special newsletter in week 27.

As can be seen in the list above, communication of WwS mainly took place on paper. Most important communication was communicated in the bi-weekly newsletter, the Inbus, with occasional special editions dedicated to WwS.

More adhoc information, and information relevant to the daily operation was placed on the internal blog. Additionally walk-in sessions were organised later in the process. Mainly to deal with the unrest and dissatisfaction, but these were not attended as often as the project team had hoped for.

Looking at the information available about the change communication, it can be concluded that the communication plan focused mostly on the communication tools and the time of

communication. Little attention was given to the content of the communication. Furthermore, the communication tools focused on one-way communication and did not incorporate

participation. Survey outcomes

(21)

17 Unless stated differently for all survey items the lowest score was 1, and the maximum score 4. A higher score indicates higher resistance to change, more dislike of the change initiative, and more dissatisfaction about the change communication. All the scores are reported on the 1-4 scale. When a score consisted of several items, the scores were added together and divided by the total number of items.

CCCN Next the results for CCCN as a whole are discussed. First the Resistance to Change

items, followed by the change initiative and the change communication. Resistance to Change

The resistance to change scores are divided into a general score, representing the general attitude towards change, and a score specific for WwS.

TABLE 5

Resistance to Change Score General

Affective 2.2

Behavioural 2.1

Cognitive – change mind 2.9

Cognitive – fuss 2.1

Overall 2.3

As can be seen in tables 5 and 6, the overall resistance to change score was higher in general than it was for WwS specifically. As the scores are below, but close to, 2.5 it can be concluded that there was medium resistance.

The overall resistance to change scores consist of several sub-items, all related to the affective, behavioural, and cognitive aspects of resistance to change. When looking at the separate score, one can see that the scores for WwS were all higher, except for the behavioural aspect. In fact, the behavioural aspect received by far the lowest score for WwS. This may indicate that the co-workers showed less resistance than they actually felt.

As the change mainly dealt with specialisation and dividing co-workers over different skills, the next step is to identify whether there is a difference between these different skills. When looking at table 7, it can be concluded that there are no convincing differences between the different skills. This is confirmed by the results of the t-test (t=0.104; df=49; p=0.918).

TABLE 7

Resistance to Change Score WwS per skill

Basic Kitchen Services

Affective – implementation 2.5 2.4 2.3

Affective – solution 2.5 2.4 2.3

Behavioural 1.8 1.7 1.8

Cognitive 2.5 2.5 2.6

Overall 2.2 2.1 2.1

Now that the level of resistance has been determined, it is time to look at the change initiative. Change Initiative

As noted in the theory section, the change initiative is evaluated on several aspects, namely skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. The autonomy aspect is split in how I do my work, and when I do my work.

TABLE 6

Resistance to Change Score WsS Affective – implementation 2.3 Affective – solution 2.4

Behavioural 1.7

Cognitive 2.6

(22)

18 TABLE 8

Change Initiative Scores

Skill Variety 2.8 Task Identity 2.4 Task Significance 2.2 Autonomy – how 2.7 Autonomy – when 2.9 Feedback 2.7 Overall 2.6

Table 8 show the scores for the change initiative. As the overall score is higher than 2.5, it can be concluded that co-workers are less positive about their jobs now than they were before the implementation of WwS. The only items that score below 2.5 are task significance, indicating workers feel like their work makes more of a difference, and task identity, showing co-workers have the impression they are working on a more complete task than before. Although, the differences for both aspects are minimal, thus neither indicates a great improvement in the eyes of the co-worker.

As one of the main goals of the change initiative was specialisation, it was to be expected that the skill variety would be judged more negatively. The autonomy and feedback scores however were not intended. On the contrary, management was aiming for more collaboration between the Frontoffice and Solutions department, so a better score on feedback was the goal.

Table 9 shows the Change Initiative Scores per skill. There are no major differences between the skills. This is confirmed by a t-test for kitchen and services (t=1.060; df=49; p=0.294).

TABLE 9

Change Initiative Scores per skill

Skill Variety 3 2.8 2.7 Task Identity 2.8 2.4 2.4 Task Significance 2.4 2.1 2.3 Autonomy – how 2.5 2.8 2.6 Autonomy – when 2.8 2.8 3 Feedback 3 2.5 2.8 Overall 2.7 2.5 2.6

(23)

19 TABLE 10

Compared to August 2011, my opinion about WwS is now....

A lot more positive 7

More positive 28

The same 15

More negative 5

A lot more negative 0

Total 55

TABLE 11

Compared to August 2011, my opinion about WwS is now.... per Skill

# % # % # %

A lot more positive 0 0 4 16 3 11.5

More positive 1 25 15 60 12 46.2

The same 1 25 5 20 9 34.6

More negative 2 50 1 4 2 7.7

A lot more negative 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 4 100 25 100 26 100

So in conclusion, the co-workers are more positive about the change initiative than they were during the implementation. However, based on the assessment of quality of work, overall the change initiative was not an improvement. Co-workers are only slightly more positive about task identity and task significance. But this does not lead to an overall positive score.

Now that it has been established how the respondents feel about the change initiative, the next step is to assess how they evaluate the change communication.

Change Communication

The Change Communication Scores for CCCN are shown in table 12, whereas table 13 depicts the scores per skill. The scores can be evaluated along the same scale as the Resistance to Change Scores, thus as the vast majority of the scores are below 2.5 it can be concluded that the co-workers hold mildly positive opinions about change communication on almost all separate aspects. Only participation receives an insufficient score. There are no significant differences between the scores for the different skills (t=-0.112; df=49; p=0.911).

TABLE 12

Change Communication Scores

Discrepancy 2.1 Appropriateness 2.2 Principal Support TM 2.2 Principal Support MT 2.0 Self Efficacy 2.2 Personal Valence 2.2 Timing 2.4 Participation 2.6 Overall 2.2

(24)

20 TABLE 13

Change Communication Scores per skill

Discrepancy 1.8 2.2 2.1 Appropriateness 2.2 2.2 2.2 Principal Support TM 2.3 2.2 2.1 Principal Support MT 1.8 2 2 Self Efficacy 2.1 2.1 2.3 Personal Valence 2.1 2.2 2.2 Timing 2.5 2.5 2.3 Participation 2.5 2.7 2.6 Overall 2.1 2.3 2.3

The scores for discrepancy indicate the co-workers were mostly aware of a reason for change. However, in order to be sure the reasons for change the respondents had in mind was the same as management’s idea, respondents were asked what the main reason for implementing WwS was. As was stated in the introduction, management’s main reasons for implementing WwS were increasing the knowledge of co-workers and increasing the customer satisfaction.

Increasing the efficiency of co-workers was mentioned as a secondary benefit. When looking at table 14 it can be seen that co-workers recognise increasing customer satisfaction and

knowledge of co-workers as goals. Increasing the efficiency of co-workers is also listed as a main reason, although it was a secondary reason for management.

TABLE 14

Main reason for WwS was...

Cutting costs 13

Increase customer satisfaction 50 Increase knowledge of co-workers 46 Increase efficiency of co-workers 41

Don’t know 2

Other 0

Total 55

The Change Communication Scores present a rather positive image of the communication around WwS, however almost 55 percent of the co-workers answered negatively to the statement “I think the communication around WwS was good”. A little over 50 percent also believes the communication around WwS was not clear. The exact results of both statements can be found in table 15.

TABLE 15

The communication around Wws was... Good Clear Completely Agree 0 0 Agree 25 27 Disagree 25 23 Completely disagree 5 5 Total 55 55

(25)

21 the information came on time. Only two respondents were of the opinion that the information came too early.

TABLE 16

The information came...

Much too Early 0

Too early 2

On Time 26

Too Late 20

Much too Late 7

Total 55

During the change process different communication tools were used. Co-workers were asked which ones they recollected as being used. Table 17 shows the number of times a

communication tool was remembered as being used during the change process. Respondents were able to choose as many items as they wanted. None of these tools were mentioned by all respondents, though the newsletters, blog, and walk in sessions were recollected by the vast majority of respondents. Team meetings were supposed to be used, but recollected by little less than half of the respondents as being one of the communication tools.

TABLE 17

Communication tools used

Inbus 41 Inbus Special 41 Blog 46 Rollcall 28 Team Meetings 27 Walk in Sessions 43

Business Plan Sessions 24

Personal E-mail 3

Flatscreen 3

Signs in Pantry 3

Posters and Streamers 6

IKEA Inside 3

Other 3

Co-workers were also asked to allocate a total of 100 points to the different communication tools, based on which tools they preferred to be used during a change process. Table 18 shows the total number of points the different tools were given and the number of times they were given points.

(26)

22 TABLE 18

Most popular tools... Total points # mentions Inbus 415 19 21.8 Inbus Special 1075 38 28,3 Blog 915 38 24.1 Rollcall 540 24 22.5 Team Meetings 1360 41 33.2 Walk in Sessions 210 13 16.2

Business Plan Sessions 365 18 20.3

Personal E-mail 400 14 28.6

Flatscreen 30 1 30

Signs in Pantry 5 1 5

Posters and Streamers 15 2 7.5

IKEA Inside 10 1 10

Other 160 4 40

Almost 30 percent of the respondents indicated they missed one or more communication tools during the implementation of WwS. Those respondents that indicated they missed tools were asked which tools they missed. Fourteen respondents answered this question, listing the following tools:

- Discussion afterwards about negative, unforeseen results of WwS - Personal information (3x)

- Team meetings (4x)

- Direct involvement of co-workers - Personal e-mail (3x)

- Rollcall

- Walk-in sessions

What is striking about this list is that apart from personal e-mail, they all relate to two-way, face-to-face communication. When looking at the list of tools used, most of the tools that were named are one-way communication and allow for very little or no input by the co-worker.

Frontoffice & Solutions The overall scores presented above provide a good picture.

However, since factors such as team manager and contents of the change itself were different for the Frontoffice and Solutions department their scores will also be examined separately. The focus remains on the difference between the departments and skills as the interpretation is similar to the situation described for CCCN as a whole. Only when scores should be interpreted differently will this be pointed out.

Resistance to Change

The general resistance to change score is higher for the Solutions department on all accounts; the difference however is small, ranging from 0.1 to 0.3. The difference between the

departments is not significant (t=-1.544; df=53; p=0.129).

(27)

23 TABLE 19a

Resistance to Change Scores General

Frontoffice Solutions CCCN

Affective 2.1 2.4 2.2

Cognitive – change mind 2.9 3.0 2.9

Cognitive – fuss 2.0 2.2 2.1

Overall 2.2 2.4 2.3

TABLE 19b

Resistance to Change Scores General – Frontoffice

Basics Kitchen Services

Cognitive – change mind 2.7 2.8 3

Overall 1.9 2.1 2.4

TABLE 19c

Resistance to Change Scores General – Solutions

Basics Kitchen Services

Cognitive – change mind 3.0 3.2 2.9

Overall 2.2 2.3 2.4

When looking at the resistance to change scores specifically for WwS, we again find that

Frontoffice co-workers are more positive than Solutions co-workers, but the difference is bigger. This is confirmed by the t-test, which shows a significant difference between the two

departments (t=-2.923; df=53; p<0.01).

Three separate scores show quite a difference between Frontoffice and Solutions for three aspects, namely both affective aspects as well as behavioural. On all accounts the score is higher for Solutions. For the affective aspects these differences are significant (implementation t=-2.205; df=53; p<0.05 and solution t=-2.667; df=53; p<0.05). For the behavioural score it is not (t=-1.653; df=53; p=0.104).

For neither Frontoffice (t=0.486; df=29; p=0.631) nor Solutions (t=0.332; df=18; p=0.743) a significant difference between the different skill exists.

TABLE 20a

Resistance to Change Scores WwS

(28)

24 TABLE 20b

Resistance to Change Scores WwS - Frontoffice

Affective – implementation 2.3 2.3 2.1 Affective – solution 2.3 2.2 2.2 Behavioural 1.7 1.5 1.7 Cognitive 2.3 2.5 2.6 Overall 2.1 2.0 2.1 TABLE 20c

Resistance to Change Scores WwS – Solutions

Affective – implementation 3.0 2.5 2.6

Affective – solution 3.0 2.7 2.5

Cognitive 3.0 2.6 2.6

Overall 2.6 2.3 2.3

When looking at the resistance to change scores WwS for the separate departments it can be concluded that the resistance to change was lower within the Frontoffice department than in the Solutions department. There are no significant differences between the different skills for either department.

Change Initiative

The Change Initiative scores for the two departments follow similar patterns, the t-test therefore confirms that there is no significant difference between the two departments (t=-0.203; df=53; p=0.840). The only aspect of the change initiative where the scores between the two departments differs a bit more is skill variety, where the score for Frontoffice is more negative (t=1.768; df=53; p<0.10).

(29)

25 TABLE 21a

Change Initiative Scores

Frontoffice Solutions CCCN Skill Variety 2.9 2.6 2.8 Task Identity 2.4 2.5 2.4 Task Significance 2.2 2.2 2.2 Autonomy – how 2.6 2.8 2.7 Autonomy – when 2.9 2.9 2.9 Feedback 2.6 2.8 2.7 Overall 2.6 2.6 2.6 TABLE 21b

Change Initiative Scores – Frontoffice

Skill Variety 3.0 2.7 2.9 Task Identity 2.7 2.2 2.4 Task Significance 2.2 2.1 2.3 Autonomy – how 2.3 2.8 2.5 Autonomy – when 2.7 2.8 2.9 Feedback 3.0 2.2 2.7 Overall 2.6 2.5 2.6 TABLE 21c

Change Initiative Scores – Solutions

Skill Variety 3.0 2.9 2.2 Task Identity 3.0 2.5 2.5 Task Significance 3.0 2.1 2.4 Autonomy – how 3.0 2.8 2.9 Autonomy – when 3.0 2.7 3.1 Feedback 3.0 2.8 2.9 Overall 3.0 2.6 2.6

When assessing the scores on the co-workers’ attitude now compared to August 2011, the Solutions co-workers are a little more positive now. The difference between the scores is not significant (t=0.294; df=53; p=0.770) and the percentage of co-workers that are more negative is comparable.

When looking at the different skills for Frontoffice and Solutions, the Kitchen skill is significantly more positive now than in August 2011 (t=2.526; df=18; p<0.05). For Frontoffice there is hardly a difference between the skills (t=-0.098; df=29; p=0.923).

TABLE 22a

Compared to August 2011, my opinion about WwS is now....

Frontoffice Solutions CCCN

# % # % # %

A lot more positive 5 15% 2 10% 7

More positive 15 44% 13 62% 28

The same 11 32% 4 19% 15

More negative 3 9% 2 10% 5

A lot more negative 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

(30)

26 TABLE 22b

Compared to August 2011, my opinion about WwS is now.... – Frontoffice

# % # % # %

A lot more positive 0 0% 2 15% 3 17%

More positive 1 33% 6 46% 8 44%

The same 1 33% 4 31% 6 33%

More negative 1 33% 1 8% 1 6%

Total 3 100% 13 100% 18 100%

TABLE 22c

Compared to August 2011, my opinion about WwS is now.... - Solutions

# % # % # %

A lot more positive 0 0% 2 17% 0 0%

More positive 0 0% 9 75% 4 50%

The same 0 0% 1 8% 3 38%

More negative 1 100% 0 0% 1 13%

Total 1 100% 12 100% 8 100%

Thus, when evaluation the change initiative for the two departments, there is no significant difference in the overall score. A score that does stand out is the one for skill variety for the Solutions Services skill, the only skill with a score below 2.5. This does however not lead to a more positive evaluation of the change initiative as a whole as the autonomy scores reflect more negative attitudes. Solutions as a whole, and specifically kitchens, has the biggest change in attitude toward the WwS now, compared to August 2011. The change is a positive one. Change Communication

The Change Communication scores show that Frontoffice is more positive than Solutions, but it is not a significant difference (t=-2.604; df=53; p=0.12).

On all the separate aspects Frontoffice has the same, or a lower score than Solutions. For Self Efficacy (t=-2.133; df=53; p<0.05), Personal Valence (t=-2.632; df=53; p<0.05), and

Participation (t=-2.658; df=53; p<0.05) the difference between the two departments is larger and significant.

There are no large differences to be observed between the different skills for both Frontoffice (t=0.193; df=29; p=0.849) and Solutions (t=0.228= df=18; p=0.822).

TABLE 23a

Change Communication Scores

(31)

27 TABLE 23b

Change Communication Scores - Frontoffice

Discrepancy 1.7 2.2 2.1 Appropriateness 2.1 2.1 2.1 Principal Support TM 2.3 2.2 2.0 Principal Support MT 1.7 2.0 2.1 Self Efficacy 2.0 2.0 2.2 Personal Valence 2.0 2.0 2.2 Timing 2.7 2.5 2.3 Participation 2.2 2.5 2.4 Overall 2.0 2.2 2.2 TABLE 23c

Change Communication Scores - Solutions

Discrepancy 2.0 2.3 2.2 Appropriateness 2.3 2.2 2.4 Principal Support TM 2.0 2.3 2.3 Principal Support MT 2.0 2.0 1.9 Self Efficacy 2.5 2.3 2.5 Personal Valence 2.5 2.5 2.4 Timing 2.0 2.5 2.4 Participation 2.5 2.8 2.9 Overall 2.4 2.4 2.4

When analyzing the reasons co-workers gave for implementing WwS in table 24, it appears the thoughts of the co-workers in the Solutions department are most in line with those of

management. Frontoffice co-workers indicated more frequently that they believed an increase in efficiency was a goal of WwS.

TABLE 24

Main reason for WwS was...

Frontoffice Solutions

Cutting costs 10 3

Increase customer satisfaction 30 20 Increase knowledge of co-workers 30 16 Increase efficiency of co-workers 27 14

Don’t know 1 1

Other 0 0

Total 97 53

(32)

28 TABLE 25

The communication around Wws was...

Good Clear

Frontoffice Solutions Frontoffice Solutions

Completely Agree 0 0 0 0

Agree 19 6 19 8

Disagree 14 11 14 9

Completely disagree 1 4 1 4

Total 34 21 34 21

Table 26 depicts the respondents’ opinion about the timing of the change communication. Frontoffice appears to be a little more positive, but the difference is not significant (t=-0.645; df=53; p=0.522) .

TABLE 26

The information came...

Frontoffice Solutions

Much too Early 0 0

Too early 0 2

On Time 19 7

Too Late 12 8

Much too Late 3 4

Total 34 21

When looking at the communication tools used, a similar pattern can mostly be observed between the two departments. With one striking difference; the different opinions about team meetings. Over sixty percent of Frontoffice respondents indicated team meetings were used to communicate WwS, whereas this is the case for less than thirty percent of the respondents from Solutions. This difference may account for the more negative evaluation the Solutions

(33)

29 TABLE 27

Communication tools used

Frontoffice Solutions Inbus 25 16 Inbus Special 25 16 Blog 29 17 Rollcall 18 10 Team Meetings 21 6 Walk in Sessions 26 17

Business Plan Sessions 14 10

Personal E-mail 2 1

Flatscreen 2 1

Signs in Pantry 3 0

Posters and Streamers 5 1

IKEA Inside 0 3

Other 1 2

In conclusion it can be said that Frontoffice is more positive on almost all aspects of the change communication. A notable difference is the low number of Solutions’ co-workers that mentioned team meetings as one of the communication tools used.

Correlations

Now that the level of resistance to change, as well as the evaluation of the change initiative and the change communication has been determined, the relationships between the variables can be analyzed.

First, scatter diagrams were produced of change communication and change initiative versus the resistance to change score related to WwS. When comparing the two diagrams, the one focusing on change communication indicates a positive linear relationship. Whereas the diagram for change initiative shows no indication of a positive relationship between the two variables.

This is observation confirmed by determining the Pearson product correlation coefficient for both items. For change initiative is shows there is no significant relationship (r = 0.135;

p=0.324; n=55) when in fact there is one for change communication (r=0.578; p<0.01; n=55). To gain a more detailed understanding of the relationship between the different aspects of

(34)

30 TABLE 28

Correlation Matrix Change Initiative & Resistance to Change WwS Resistance to change WsW Affective – I WwS Affective – S WwS Behavioural WwS Cognitive WwS Change Initiative Pearson Correlation ,135 ,211 ,065 ,157 -,168 Sig. (2-tailed) ,324 ,122 ,639 ,251 ,220 N 55 55 55 55 55 Skill Variety Pearson Correlation -,169 -,049 -,149 -,038 -,249*** Sig. (2-tailed) ,217 ,724 ,276 ,785 ,067 N 55 55 55 55 55 Task Identity Pearson Correlation ,078 ,262*** -,017 ,080 -,188 Sig. (2-tailed) ,572 ,054 ,904 ,560 ,169 N 55 55 55 55 55 Task Significance Pearson Correlation ,375* _,191 _,302** _,345* _,026 Sig. (2-tailed) ,005 ,163 ,025 ,010 ,850 N 55 55 55 55 55 Autonomy – How Pearson Correlation ,072 ,298** _,027 _-,004 _-,145 Sig. (2-tailed) ,599 ,027 ,846 ,976 ,291 N 55 55 55 55 55 Autonomy – When Pearson Correlation -,057 ,014 -,133 -,030 -,003 Sig. (2-tailed) ,679 ,920 ,332 ,826 ,982 N 55 55 55 55 55 Feedback Pearson Correlation ,092 ,058 ,103 ,073 -,016 Sig. (2-tailed) ,506 ,675 ,455 ,597 ,907 N 55 55 55 55 55

(35)

31 Despite the fact that there is no significant relationship between the overall resistance to

change score and the change initiative, table 28 does show several significant relationships for the individual aspects. Trough a significant relationship with the behavioural and affective - solution aspects, task significance influences the overall resistance to change score. These relationships are moderately strong. There are three more, weaker and less significant,

relationships to be found. Two of those are positive, namely between task identity and affective – implementation, and autonomy – how and affective – implementation. Finally, a negative relationship exists with between skill variety and the cognitive aspect or resistance to change. When looking at the correlations between change communication and resistance to change WwS in table 29, many more significant relationships can be found. One of the first things that can be noticed is that there are no significant relationships between any of the change communication aspects and the cognitive aspect of resistance to change. For the remaining aspects of

resistance to change there are significant relationships with change communication. They will be reviewed by each aspect of change communication followed by change communication overall. First, Discrepancy; discrepancy shows moderate relationships with the affective –

implementation and the behavioural aspect of resistance to change, as well as to the overall resistance to change score.

Appropriateness shows slightly moderate to moderate relationships with all the aspects of resistance to change, except for the cognitive one. Additionally there is a moderate relationship with the overall resistance to change score.

Together with timing, the principal support aspect shows the fewest relationships with the aspects of resistance to change. Principal support MT and timing both show a relationship with the behavioural aspect of resistance to change. Principal support TM shows a relationship with the affective – implementation aspect of resistance to change. Timing correlates with the behavioural aspect of resistance to change.

Self efficacy and personal valence both show a moderate to strong relationship with the affective – solution aspect of resistance to change. Self efficacy also has a significant

relationship to the behavioural aspect. Resulting in a moderate to strong relationship of both change communication aspects to resistance to change overall.

Participation, like appropriateness, shows significant relationships to all but the cognitive aspect of resistance to change. The relationships for participation however are stronger.

(36)

32 TABLE 29

(37)

33 Resistance to change WsW Affective – I WwS Affective – S WwS Behavioural WwS Cognitive WwS Participation Pearson Correlation ,446* _,266** _,441* _,352* _,006 Sig. (2-tailed) ,001 ,050 ,001 ,008 ,965 N 55 55 55 55 55

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); **. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed); *** Correlation is significant at the 0.10 level (2-tailed).

In conclusion it can be said that there are moderate to strong relationships between many aspects of change communication and the aspects of resistance to change. There is however never a relationship with the cognitive aspect of resistance to change. Appropriateness and participation specifically have a relationship with all but the cognitive aspects of resistance to change. Thus, even if there is a direct relationship between change communication and resistance to change, it does not appear that change communication can affect what the co-workers think about the change. Change communication may however be able to influence the employees’ behaviour and feelings towards the change.

There are far less relationships between the change initiative scores and resistance to change. Task significance is an exception and has a significant relationship with the overall score as well as the affective – solution and behavioural aspect of resistance to change.

Now that it has been established which variables show an association, a regression analysis will be performed to determine how big the influence of the various aspects is.

Regression analysis

The section above provided insight into the relationships between the various aspects of the change initiative and change communication with resistance to change. In order to gain a better understanding of these relationships a regression analysis will be performed. The outcomes of all aspects will be shown, however the focus will be on those aspects between which a significant association has been determined in the previous section.

The first regression analyses will focus on change initiative as a whole (table 28) and the various aspects of the change initiative (table 29).

REDUCING RESISTANCE TO CHANGE AT IKEA CCCN BY COMMUNICATION