The influence of agent and recipient behavior on the interaction process and change success

(1)

The influence of agent and recipient behavior on the interaction

process and change success

University of Groningen (RUG) Faculty of Economics and Business

MSc Business Administration – Change Management 03/07/2013

Frits Hugo Moonen Aquamarijnstraat 739 9743PT Groningen (06) 17385284 fritsmoonen@hotmail.com S1688952 University of Groningen: Dr. J. Rupert Co-Assessor: Dr. J. F. J. Vos Word count: 28.634 Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Dr. J. Rupert for her provision of constructive feedback and guidance in the process. Secondly, I want to thank the company of ING for their

(2)

Abstract

This qualitative study investigates the influence of agent and recipient behavior on the agent-recipient interaction process and the influence this interaction process has on change success. The investigation of agent and recipient behavior at the same time is what makes this study unique and valuable as a contribution to the known theory as most research has focused primarily on the effect of leadership behavior of the agent on change outcome. Different behavioral leadership styles are addressed, as are the different behavioral states of the recipients; readiness and resistance. The concept ‗interaction process‘ is operationalized by making use of the concept ‗participation‘. This study shows that the leadership behavior of the agent and the behavior of the recipients both influence the interaction process, and that this interaction process influences change success. Shaping behavior of the change agent has a negative influence on recipient participation while framing and creating behavior of the change agent have a positive influence on the direct participation of the recipients. Concerning recipient behavior, resistant behavior of the recipient shows to have a negative influence on the interaction process and encourages indirect participation. Recipient readiness behavior on the other hand has a positive influence on the interaction process and stimulates direct participation of the recipients. Concerning the dependent variable this study has shown that recipient direct participation has a positive influence on overall change success. The influences of agent and recipient behavior and the influence of direct and indirect participation on satisfaction with the content (the ‗what‘) and the process (the ‗how‘) of the change are discussed.

(3)

1 Introduction

―Only by changing constantly could organizations hope to survive‖ was the outcome of a recent global survey of McKinsey & Company (2008). The topic change management‘ took a flight since Hammer and Champy (1993:23) declared in 1993 that change had become both pervasive and persistent; it became normality. The speed, magnitude, unpredictability and, consequently, the importance of change has increased considerably (Burnes, 2009a). Companies in literally every industry are

increasingly being challenged to both respond to and anticipate on continuously changing competitive, market, technological, economic and social conditions to the point where change is described as the ―new normal‖ (Jørgensen, Owen and Neus, 2008). More dynamic times require flexible organizations which are able to change to the fast changing environment. Not only in order to be more successful than the competitor, but in the first place just to survive.

Together with this rise in awareness of the importance of organizational change, there was another important rise; the rise of change failures. The research of Meaney & Pung (2008) showed that only one-third of organizational change initiatives were considered successful by their organizational executives. Moreover, the research of Realin and Cataldo (2011) showed that as much as 75% of change initiatives fail to actually effect change. Even though this amount might look appallingly high it has been backed up with evidence from numerous leading management consultancies (Senturia et al., 2008), leading academics in the field (Kanter et al., 1992) and reviews of change literature (Smith, 2002, 2003; Burnes, 2009a). So, due to increasingly dynamic environments, organizations need to change (Armenakis, Harris and Mossholder, 1993) but, on the other hand, successful change has shown to be hard to achieve (Realin and Cataldo, 2011).

In most organizational changes there are at least two parties involved. There are the change agents

which are the employees who manage, supervise and implement the change (Battilana et al., 2010), and there are the change recipients which are the employees who find themselves on the receiving end of change initiatives (Cawsey, 2010) and who are responsible for carrying out, or adapting to, the change (Ford, Ford & d‘Amelio, 2008). The agent and the recipient work together and exchange information, i.e. they interact with each other, which is called the interaction process. In this

(6)

the recipient on change outcome this study aims to examine the influence of the agent-recipient

interaction behavior in the interaction process on change success. The aspect of this interaction process on which this study focuses is participation. Participation is positively related to a successful

implementation of a change project according to Lines(2004) but, as a part of the agent recipient interaction process, under-researched. Because this interaction process is seen as an important factor in achieving overall change and is an under-researched part of organizational change, this study seeks to create a better understanding of the agents‘ and recipients‘ interaction behavior and its influence on change success. In order to do this, attention has to be paid to the behavior of the change agent, the behavior of the change recipient, and on the agent-recipient interaction process and its influence on overall change success.

The continuously changing complex financial markets and shifting customer demands obligate the company of ING to engage in organizational change to be most effective with their resources. The company of ING decided to change the structure of their unit-support teams in order to make sure that better and more skilled support could be given to their employees and that their unit-support teams would have more direct customer contact. Therefore they transformed the existing teams and created larger teams with more recipients to be supervised by one agent and changed some of the working activities regarding the job. The merging of teams, the performing of different tasks than before, and the participating in larger teams with less direct supervision changed the way in which the agents and the recipients worked together and therefore influenced the agent-recipient interaction behavior. In this study the process of this change and its influence on the agent-recipient interaction behavior are examined. This possibly leads to a better understanding of the influence of agents‘ and recipients‘ behavior on the interaction process and might show factors determinative for influencing change outcome. This can be a useful contribution to the existing organizational change literature and can give new insights as a management tool for future change projects. The researched change project at ING consists of three different units, each consisting of a change agent and his subordinates (recipients). Each of these units is investigated and analyzed as a case on its own and in a cross-case analysis.

1.1 Research Question

(7)

order to see how the recipients influence the agent-recipient interaction process. Finally the influence of the agent-recipient interaction process on overall change success is investigated. The variables are shown in the conceptual model, Figure 1. This research might provide valuable information for organizations and managers to enable the identification of factors determinative for influencing change outcome. This might be of great value as research has shown that the agent and the recipient influence each other with their behavior and by doing so also influence the outcome of the change, but no research examined the influence of the interaction process between the actors involved in change initiatives. The research question for this study is:

―How does the behavior of agents and recipients influence the agent-recipient interaction process and

how does this interaction process influence the outcome of organizational change?”

In order to answer this question the following sub questions are addressed:

 How does change agent behavior influence the interaction process?  How does change recipient behavior influence the interaction process?

 How does the agent-recipient interaction process influence overall change success?

Figure 1 Conceptual model

(8)

1.2 Outline of this Paper

This section discusses the outline of this paper. This section is the end of the introduction chapter and the next chapter (chapter two) continues with the literature review and discusses the relevant literature and the variables of the conceptual model. Then, chapter three will discuss the way in which the data is collected, measured and analyzed. In chapter four the results are stated and described per variable. Chapter five contains the conclusion and discussion of this study, findings are discussed and

(9)

2 Literature Review

This chapter addresses the behavior of the actors involved,- the change agent and the change recipient. It examines the factors of change agent behavior and change recipient behavior that influence the interaction process and it examines which factors of the interaction process influence overall change success. Relevant literature on agent and recipient behavior is addressed, as well as relevant literature on the interaction process and on change success.

2.1 Behavior of the actors involved

This research focuses on the behavior of the change agent and the change recipient and the influence of their behavior on the interaction process and the influence of that interaction process on overall change success. Agent and recipient behavior is analyzed on the individual level as we are looking at the leadership style of the agent and the readiness/resistance behavior of the recipient.

In the interaction process two groups of actors can be defined: the change agents and change

recipients. Firstly, there is the change agent, the employee who manages, supervises and implements the change and who is responsible for communicating the change, mobilizing his subordinates and evaluating the change afterwards (Battilana et al., 2010). He is responsible for creating and directing the implementation of a change within an organization (Higgs & Rowland, 2011). Secondly there is the recipient. The recipients are those who find themselves on the receiving end of change initiatives (Cawsey, 2010) and are responsible for carrying out or adapting to a change (Ford, Ford & d‘Amelio, 2008). Therefore, the two groups of actors each play their own part in the change, the change agent leads the change and guides the change recipient, while the change recipient carries out the changes and is managed by the change agent.

2.2 Change Agent behavior

The role of the change agent has become a subject of multiple studies that suggest that the role of the agent in the change process significantly influences the chances of change success (Conner, 1992, 1999; Higgs, 2003; Higgs & Rowland, 2001; Kotter, 1995, 1996). What a change agent does, how he does it and how it is perceived by the recipient is part of their interaction process and will influence the recipients behavior. Clear links between agent behavior, follower behavior and performance are demonstrated by multiple studies (Alimo-metcalfe, 1995; Avolio et al., 2009; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Higgs, 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004).These outcomes show the importance of the agents behavior and his interaction with the recipient and the importance of clarifying this process.

(10)

transformational leader inspires his followers to do more than initially expected from them, this leadership style involves strong emotional attachment to the leader and create emotional and motivational arousal among followers as a consequence of the leader‘s behavior (House, Woycke & Fodor, 1988). They let followers join in a shared vision of the future (Hater & Bass, 1988), broaden their interests and generate their awareness and acceptance of the purposes and the mission of the group (Yammarino & Bass, 1990). A transactional leader, on the other hand, motivates subordinates to perform as expected and the relationship is based on a series of exchanges or implicit bargains

between the leader and the follower. The leader discloses the performance criteria and states what is expected from subordinates and what they receive in return for their performance (House et al., 1988). To conclude, transactional leadership results in outcomes that are expected, transformational

leadership results in outcomes that might exceed expectations because of a more challenging and envisioning approach of the change agent.

Higgs and Rowland do not limit themselves to transformational or transactional leaders, but elaborate on this by studying the role of the change agents behavior in the change process and specifically link leadership behaviors to activities involved in implementing change. Because of this specific link and the emphasizing of their study on behavioral styles of change leaders we will use the leadership behavior sets of Higgs and Rowland. Higgs and Rowland first identified five broad areas of leadership competence associated with successful change implementation and, continuing on their earlier

research identified three broad sets of leadership behavior in 2005: shaping behavior, framing change and creating capacity (Higgs & Rowland, 2005), which will be discussed in the following part of this chapter.

Shaping behavior is characterized by communication and actions of leaders which are directly related to the change, and by a more top-down approach. Leaders with this kind of behavior make others accountable, think about the change and use an individual focus in doing so (Higgs & Rowland, 2005). They act as a role model and expect their subordinates to work hard and perform at least as well as they do. They appoint tasks to subordinates and hold them accountable. Higgs and Rowland identified this kind of behavior as leader centric behavior, a set of behaviors in which not the change but the leader tends to be the focus of the action, and in which the agent focuses on his view of the change and his view of the best way of implementation. Their analysis showed that leader centric behavior had a negative impact on change success in all their contexts. This outcome aligns with the broader criticism on leader centric behavior, as discussed in multiple other studies in the field (Judge & Piccolo, 2004, Avolio et al., 2009).

(11)

The second set of leadership behavior is framing change, change agents who adhere to this second set of behavior establish the starting point for change and an emotional connection to the change (Higgs & Rowland, 2005). They design and monitor the journey of the change and communicate guiding

principles in the organization. Moreover, they challenge others to deliver the change (Higgs & Rowland, 2005). So, these leaders communicate a clear vision and set boundaries for their

subordinates but give freedom and provide space for their recipients to achieve the goals in different ways of their own choosing. In addition, these leaders are willing to cooperate with their subordinates and openly communicate with them. In contradiction to the top-down approach of shaping behavior, the framing change leadership style is characterized by cooperation and maintaining a bottom-up approach.

The third and final set of leadership behavior is creating capacity, which is also very much a bottom-up approach. These are agents who focus on creating individual and organizational capabilities (Higgs & Rowland, 2005). They provide the emotional, temporal, and physical space to enable people to think and act differently. Leaders with this style try gaining support from their employees to make the change a collective operation. These leaders are focused on communication, making connections and developing their subordinates‘ skills.

The second and third set of leadership behavior, framing change and creating capacity, are grouped together as group- and systematic-focused behaviors, and the outcome of the research of Higgs and Rowland (2005) showed that they were positively related to success in most of the contexts they examined. This outcome was in consensus with leading researches like the research of Bartunek (1984) and the research of Cooper, Scandura & Schriesheim (2005) on authentic leadership. Shaping behavior, on the contrary, had a negative effect on change success. The mentioned framing and creating behavior can be seen to enable followers to develop their potential and contribute to goal achievement. These two sets of leadership behavior have a more bottom-up approach when compared to the shaping behavior style, which holds a more top-down approach in managing recipients.

Grouping framing and creating together as group- and systematic-focused behaviors does not mean that there are only minor differences between these two. Before more similarities are discussed, first the clear differences between framing and creating have to be mentioned: Framing change should be seen as an approach trying to make sense of the change, while creating capacity is more focused on facilitating the change.

(12)

and creating behavior showed to be more successful in most the change contexts that they analyzed (Higgs & Rowland, 2005).

Important to realize is that Higgs and Rowland do not state that shaping behavior is something that should be banned or at least avoided in all situations because of the fact that not the change but the leader tends to be the focus of the action. Rather, they claim that a combination of framing and creating behavior is more successful in most change contexts. They describe situations in which certain behavioral leadership might be more appropriate. Therefore, there are situations, such as times of great stress or organizational insecurity and crisis, that a shaping leader who makes others

accountable and does not spend valuable time on communicating guiding principles (framing change) or on communicating and making connections (creating capacity) can be most effective. So there are change situations in which shaping behavior might be the most appropriate behavior for the manager to deal with the situation.

To summarize, certain change approaches might be more effective in particular situations involving a certain kind of recipients. A recipient who needs a firm leader, constant supervision and a constant flow of tasks might benefit more of a change agent with a shaping leadership style. On the other hand, a recipient who wants to feel supported and favors the possibility of influencing the change process might be most satisfied with a change agent who exerts framing and shaping behavior. This is an important aspect of this research, because a change agent might need to adjust his leadership style because of the change context, or because of recipient behavior. Naturally, this works the other way around as well, the recipient might needs to adjust to the agent‘s leadership style or to the change context to be able to effectively manage or cope with the change and have a positive influence on the agent-recipient interaction process. An important aspect of this study is to get a clear view and better understanding of how the agent‘s leadership style in combination with certain recipient‘s behavior influences the interaction process. This results in the following sub question:

How does change agent behavior influence the interaction process?

2.3 Change Recipient Behavior

(13)

(Kim & Mauborgne, 2003; Robertson, Roberts, & Porras, 1993) and their work performance following the change (Neubert & Cady, 2001).

Elaborating on that, the studies of Balogun & Johnson (2005) and Oreg et al. (2012) state that there is growing consensus that the change recipients reaction to the change is of key importance in bringing about the success of the change. So, as multiple studies address, it might be just as important to investigate recipients‘ change related behaviors as it is to study change agents‘ behavior when looking at factors influencing the agent-recipient interaction process and change success.

Recipient behavioral intentions and attitudes are analyzed by multiple studies which are discussed in the following section. Elizur and Guttman‘s (1976) research conceptualized these different labels and definitions and connect them into their definition of attitudes. They conceived attitudes as a

(14)

addressing recipient behavior and attitudes as a subject best divided in a positive term: change readiness, and a negative term: change resistance, and researched it as such, this research will follow that line of research and make use of both the positive term ‗change readiness‘ and the positive term ‗change resistance‘ for recipients‘ behavioral intentions and attitudes.

The definition of readiness to change used in this paper will be the most cited definition in research on readiness of change as stated by Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993), they conceived readiness ―as organizational members‘ beliefs, attitudes and intentions regarding the extent to which changes are needed and the organization‘s capacity to successfully make those changes‖. In contradiction to readiness to change, where one definition clearly stands out in its field of research, resistance to change has numerous definitions as most papers dealing with this subject provide their own definition. In this research the definition of change resistance as stated by Del Val and Fuentes in their 2003 research is used, as it fits with our focus on the recipient resistance behavior. They define resistance as ―any set of intentions and actions that slows down or hinders the implementation of change.‖(Del Val & Fuentes, 2003).

Some elaboration on the concept of resistance to change will be of value in fully understanding this concept, fully, this because of the recent developments in this field of research. In the article of Jaramillo et al, (2012) multiple views on recipient resistance are discussed: Giangreco and Peccei (2005) state that individuals‘ resistance to change is dependent upon the extent to which they see change as a threat to their interest and degree of their involvement in the change process. Other researchers elaborate on that belief by stating that employees typically resist change because they see it as disruptive, intrusive, and threatening to their stability and continuity as a whole (Strebel, 1996; Weeks et al., 2004). The article of Kotter and Schlesinger (2008) asserts that a major driver of resistance to change is the person‘s belief that with change comes the loss of something valuable. Acceptance or resistance to change would thus result from employees‘ assessment of the costs and benefits associated with the change (Shum et al., 2008) or whether the disadvantages outweigh the advantages (Bouckenooge, 2010). Therefore, it is mostly the fear of losing something obtained or the fear of a possible threat to the individual‘s stable and continuous state that drives recipients towards resistance. So if in the recipient‘s perception the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, he will most likely resist the change. This assessment will make the recipient decide if he will engage in behavioral changes or not (Bouckenooge, 2010).

The decision of the change recipient to engage in readiness or resistance behavior influences his attitude towards the change, and therefore also influences his behavior and his willingness to participate and manipulate his input in the interaction process. Because of the importance and

(15)

discuss the effects of this behavior. When the recipient is resistant to the agent‘s change, they have different expectations of the futureand do not strive to achieve the same goal, this will have its impact on the interaction process and the effectiveness and pace of the change project. When the recipient holds a negative attitude towards the change he is likely to behave in a resistant way and likely to lower his participation. When there is mild resistance the recipients will most likely try to avoid any responsibility and will not take any initiative in the change. When there is fierce resistance the recipients might possibly try to hinder or sabotage the change, refrain from any kind of participation and even convince others to do so. Recipient readiness behavior is expected to have a totally opposite effect. When a recipient holds a positive attitude towards the change, he is less likely to resist and more likely to accept the change. Readiness behavior will positively influence his interaction with the change agent and therefore increase the quality of the interaction process and the level of the

recipient‘s participation. Recipients showing readiness behavior will be more motivated and driven to pick up the change and participate in the process. The study of Herold et al., (2007) stresses the influence of the change recipient in the process as they show that employees‘ acceptance and support for organizational changes are regarded as an important determinant of successful change initiatives.

The clear understanding of how certain recipient readiness and recipient resistance behaviors influence the interaction process and change success can be of great value when combined with the acquired information of agent behavioral style (shaping behavior, framing behavior, and creating capacity behavior), to be able to determine how successful certain combinations can be and which

combinations should be avoided. In other words, which leadership style fosters recipient readiness and recipient participation, and which leadership style instigates recipient resistance and less recipient participation?

An important aspect of this study is to get a clear view and better understanding of how the behavior of the agent and the recipient influences the interaction process and its effect on change success. This results in the following sub question:

How does change recipient behavior influence the interaction process?

2.4 Agent-Recipient Interaction Process

After discussing the agent‘s behavioral style (shaping behavior, framing behavior, and creating capacity behavior) and the recipient‘s behavioral attitudes and intentions (readiness to change, and resistance to change), this section will discuss the agent-recipient interaction process.

Concerning this agent-recipient interaction process, multiple studies agree that both parties influence this interaction process and that clear links between agent behavior, follower behavior and

(16)

agent and recipient have on this interaction process and the influence of this interaction process on change success. Therefore, we want to get a clear view and understanding of this interaction process to be able to draw conclusions about the effect of agent and recipient behaviour on this interaction process and eventually change success. When looking at the conceptual model, this interaction process can be seen as a mediator between agent and recipient behaviour (the input) on one side and change success (the output) on the other side. This means that when a certain outcome (for instance change success) is known, the examination of the interaction process could explain why this outcome occurred. This accounts for any of the variables in this conceptual model, research can show a certain combination of agent behavior and recipient behavior influence the interaction process in a certain way and how it can lead to a certain change outcome.

Regarding the interaction process ‗participation‘ was one of the most prevalent of the variables considered in the study by Oreg (2011) and its importance has been addressed by multiple studies. (Wanberg and Banas, 2000; Devos, Buelens and Bouckenooghe, 2007). It is important to first get a clear view on the concept participation because the word participation has become a word with many meanings and not all who use it share the same opinion about its meaning (Schregle, 1970). Glew et al, (1995) defined participation as ―a conscious and intended effort by individuals at a higher level in an organization to provide visible extra role of role-expanding opportunities for individuals or groups at a lower level in the organization to have a greater voice in one or more areas of organizational performance‖. Another definition of participation has been given by Locke and Schweiger (1979); ―joint decision making, either by a manager and one employee or a manager and a group of employees‖, which is closely related to the definition as provided by Mitchell (1973) who defines participation as sharing influence between hierarchical superiors and their subordinates (Mitchell, 1973). In this study we make a distinction between the amount of active influence by separating participation into direct participation and indirect participation. Direct participation entails decision making by the employees themselves, their own direct effort and influence on the change situation. Direct participation is best defined by Locke, Schweiger & Latham, 1986 when they state: ―Workers have a great deal of influence on decisions focusing on the work, typically dealing with how it is organized , what is done and who does what‖ (Locke et al, 1986). Indirect participation, on the other hand, entails decision making through representatives of the employees, without direct effort and influence of the recipients themselves. Indirect participation is also clearly defined by Locke et al. (1986) when they describe: ―This type of participation can be classified as formal and indirect, employees can influence the decisions made by the management through such mechanisms as election of the board of directors and stockholder meetings‖ (Locke et al, 1986). Studies on participation focused on the effect of the degree to which change recipients were involved in planning and

(17)

change situations seems to play an important role in achieving successful and effective change effort (Brown and Cregan, 2008; Price and Chahal 2006). Therefore, direct participation is expected to have a positive influence on the interaction process and change success, while indirect participation is expected to have a negative influence on the interaction process and change success.

The role of the change agent and his leadership style are expected to influence interaction process and therefore recipient participation. An agent using a shaping leadership style will consult his recipients less but control what they do more. Therefore shaping behavior is expected to have a negative influence on our dependent variable change success. An agent that makes use of framing and creating behavior is more likely to engage in two sided communication with his recipients and to work together with them. Such leaders motivate their recipients to achieve goals and give them the space to use their own methods. This approach encourages recipient participation, which has a positive influence on the interaction process and therefore is expected to contribute to change success. The recipient‘s behavior also influences the interaction process. A higher level of recipient readiness is expected to positively influence the level of participation of the recipients and will therefore have a positive influence on overall change success according to Lines (2004). Recipient resistance behavior, on the other side, is expected to have a negative influence on the interaction process, because resistant recipients are less likely to cooperate and will therefore have a negative influence on change success. In the next paragraph the influence of high levels of participation is explored further.

Multiple studies show that change recipients who experienced high levels of participation tended to report higher readiness and acceptance of change, appraised change as less stressful and exhibited overall support for the change because of the degree to which these recipients were involved in planning and implementing the change (Amiot et al., 2006; Coch & French, 1948; Coyle-Shaipro, 2002; Holt et al., 2007; Sagie & Koslowsky, 1994; Steel & Lloyd, 1988). It also has a positive effect on the change process due to more satisfied employees and a higher probability to meet new objectives (Holt et. al, 2007), it makes recipients give higher contributions to the change process because of the possibility to express their opinions (Brown and Cregan, 2008), and it gives greater commitment to decisions during the change process (Vroom, 2000).

(18)

are to be strived for, because of its multiple positive influences on recipient contribution, trust, attachment, readiness and ultimately change success.

Holt, Armenakis, Field & Harris (2007) argue in their article that when recipients participate, it is generally believed to increase their acceptance of proposed changes and that this effect may occur through a number of mechanisms (Holt, et al. 2007). They define two mechanisms of which the first one described how those who participate in the planning and implementation of a change, often become affectively committed to the change effort and therefore support the change overtly (Miller & Monge, 1985). The second mechanism they define is that those who participate often in the process of change have a greater access to information related to the change than those who do not participate (often) (Holt, et al. 2007). This extra information enables participants to achieve better understanding of the justification for the change and its goals (Holt, et al. 2007). A higher degree of participation also creates a stronger connection between the organization and the recipient, it leads to more recipient confidence of their competences, and it gives them more interpersonal trust ( Steel & Lloyd, 1998) As Holt, et al (2007) conclude, it seems fair to expect that those who actually do participate in the

development of a new organizational structure will be more committed to the change and will strive harder to achieve change success than non-participating employees. So the positive influence of recipient participation on change success comes from becoming committed through participation in the process, and from the earlier access to change related information which provides them with better understanding of the change. As becomes clear from the literature discussed above, direct recipient participation is associated with numerous positive outcomes such as greater involvement, higher ability and more satisfaction through numerous mechanisms and will have a positive influence on the change success (Lines, 2004). This research focuses on how agent behavior and recipient behavior influence the degree of participation and therefore the outcome of change. This results in the third and final sub question:

How does the agent-recipient interaction process influence overall change success?

2.5 Change Outcome

This study investigates the influence of the agent-recipient interaction process on change success, which is the dependent variable in this research. The importance of this dependent variable has been explained earlier in this chapter, where Meaney & Pung (2008) state that only one-third of

organizational change initiatives were considered successful by their organizational executives. This emphasizes the importance of receiving a better understanding of this dependent variable, which this study is trying to achieve.

(19)

change outcome, the change results and the interaction process. The change result can be seen as the ‗what‘ of the change, while the interaction process can be seen as the ‗how‘ of the change. This study looks at the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of agents and recipients with the results of the change, the change content. Furthermore this study investigates the satisfaction and dissatisfaction of the agents and recipient with the interaction process. To be able to identify factors influencing a certain change outcome it is of major importance to get a clear image of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the change content and the interaction process first.

The influence of change agents and change recipients on the outcome of a change is described in multiple studies. Lines (2004) states that the involvement of employees is positively related to a successful implementation of a change project. In the studies of Kotter & Cohen, 2002 and Van Knippenberg, martin & Tyler, 2006 it is concluded that employees play an important role in the failure or success of change in organizations. Balogun & Johnson (2005) and Oreg et al. (2012) emphasize that to bring about success of the change, the change recipient‘s reaction to the change is of key importance. Then, concerning the change agents, multiple studies suggest that the role of agents in the change process significantly influences the chances of a successful change (Conner, 1992, 1999; Higgs, 2003; Higgs & Rowland,2001; Kotter, 1995, 1996) and clear links between agent behavior, follower behavior and performance are being demonstrated in a large number of articles(Alimo-metcalfe, 1995; Avolio et al., 2009; Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003; Higgs, 2003; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Therefore, it is important to address the recipients opinion about the change outcome, focusing on the satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the interaction process and the change content.

Factors that influence the degree of satisfaction with the interaction process are described in the study by Armenakis & Bedeian (1999). They name seven factors: persuasive communication, active participation by those affected, human resource practices, training and development programs, symbolic activities, diffusion practices, management of internal and external information, and formal activities that demonstrate support for change activities. When these seven factors are applied in the change process, the parties involved will experience more satisfaction with the interaction process according to Armenakis & Bedeian (1999). Holt, et al. (2007) argue that there are two important mechanisms in this process of creating satisfaction with the interaction process: Active participation increases the acceptance and makes one committed to the change effort, and those who are

participating often have greater access to information and therefore a better understanding of the process (Holt et al. 2007).

(20)

(21)

3 Methodology

This chapter explains the qualitative research approach used in this study and clarifies the methods used, the process of data collection and the data analysis. Qualitative research has multiple advantages for this study. It is the best way to obtain a rich understanding of the underlying processes and

meaning (Cooper and Schindler, 2006). Another reason for taking a qualitative approach in this study is that it enables us to answer the ‗why‘ and ‗how‘ questions, which are the aim of this study (Cooper and Schindler, 2006). The use of interviews allows researchers to derive interpretations from the respondents‘ responses to the questions (Warren, 2001). Advantages of in-depth interviews are that they provide plenty of possibilities to obtain a thorough understanding of underlying motives, thoughts and ideas. Therefore, detailed information can be obtained about the exposed behavior of the agents and the recipients. Furthermore, this type of study is especially useful for developing theoretical insights because it focuses on an area that existing theories do not address well (Ozcan and Eisenhardt, 2009).

This study makes use of semi-structured interviews which consist of several key questions that help to deﬁne the areas to be explored, but also allows the interviewer or interviewee to diverge in order to pursue an idea or response in more detail. The flexibility of this approach, particularly compared to structured interviews, also allows for the discovery of, or elaboration on, information that is important to participants but may not have previously been thought of as pertinent when shaping this research. These possibilities, the ability of paying attention to things that emerge as important and the ability of elaborating on this, improve the validity of this research.

This study entails a theory refinement approach and by means of in depth interviews it strives for a better understanding of the factors of agent and recipient behavior that influence the agent-recipient interaction process and the influence of this scarcely researched interaction process on overall change success.

3.1 Data Collection

(22)

requirements for inclusion in this study. To meet these requirements, only recipients and agents were included who were working in the unit support department for the past two years, who were involved in the change project, and who were not leaving the company before June 2013 in order to make sure that they were available for an interview. This was done to make sure that the interviewees were the right individuals of whom to measure thoughts, feelings and attitudes, in order to get a clear view about this change, and to improve study validity. So the composition of the sample regarding this study is three change agents and twelve recipients, four from each of the agent‘s teams.

3.2 Procedure

Several steps are taken to increase the validity and reliability of this research which will be explained in this section. Before the interviews took place, the interviewees were informed that their

participation was on a voluntary basis and that the information was treated as confidential and would be processed anonymously and with care. Therefore, the interviewees were free to speak their minds since anonymity was assured and none of their statements could be traced back to a particular interviewee. Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted, with each interview taking between forty-five and sixty-five minutes. The interviews were conducted between the twenty-first of April 2013 and the seventeenth of May 2013. The interviews were audio taped to ensure that no details were missed and to increase the quality of the interviews and subsequent analysis. This also enabled the interviewer to focus on the conversation and to ask supplementary questions, while the interview could be typed out and transcribed afterwards. This subsequently improved the reliability and the quality of the analysis. The interviewees had the option to decide where the interview would take place; their own office or a booked office, this in order to ensure the interviewee‘s comfort and magnify the chance of open and honest answers to the interview questions. Also, the change situation was discussed in short before the interview, to make sure that the change process was clear to every respondent, both measures were taken to improve the reliability of the outcomes. Interviewing all change agents in this change project and multiple of their direct subordinates (recipients) gives a clear insight in the process of the change and the feelings and beliefs of the parties involved, which

improves the validity of the outcome.

3.3 Sample

(23)

Unit Support department varied from two years to seventeen years, and their level of education varied from Higher Professional Education (HBO) to a Masters Degree from University.

Tabel 1 The respondents

Change agent Department Number of Agents Number of Recipients

Unit Support Vermogen 1 4

Unit Support Hypotheken 1 4

Unit Support Dagelijkse Bankzaken 1 4

3.4 Measures

All the interviewees participating were interviewed by using semi-structured interviews with clear questions derived from the literature. The interview questions used for this study are enclosed in appendix A (Agent interview questions) and appendix B (Recipient interview questions).

Different quantitative measurement scales were applied to create the interview questions used in this study to measure the variables identified in this research. These quantitative measurement scales and the literature used have proven scientific validity and reliability in earlier studies. Table 2 provides an overview of the original quantitative measurements of each variable regarding the interview questions. In the following section a detailed elaboration on the measurements for each variable will be given.

Tabel 2 Measurement per variable

Variable Measurement per variable

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

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

Interaction process Participation, CATOCQ (Bennebroek Gravenhorst et al., 2005) Direct & Indirect participation (Locke et al., 1986)

Change outcome Satisfaction with change process & change outcome Armenakis et al. (1999)

3.4.1 Change agent behavior

(24)

characteristics were used in the development of the interview questions and will be used in the

analysis of the answers. The developed interview questions to measure the change agents behavior are included in appendix C1.

3.4.2 Change recipient behavior

The variable of Change recipient behavior will be measured using the measurement scales of Bouckenooghe (2009) regarding recipient readiness and Oreg (2006) regarding recipient resistance. Because of the fact that this study focuses on the change recipient‘s behavior, only the behavioral components will be used. In the research of Bouckenooghe (2009) and Oreg (2006) the scientific validity of these measurement scales has been shown, and they will be used in this research. The developed interview questions to measure the change recipients behavior are included in appendix C2

3.4.3 Interaction process

In this study, the variable interaction process is operationalized as participation . To measure the degree of participation, the study of Bouckenooghe (2009) and the CATOCQ survey(2008) based on the Communication and Organizational Change Questionnaire (COCQ) from the study of Bennebroek, et al., (2005) are used. By means of the interview questions of these studies, this study focuses on direct and indirect participation as defined by Locke et al. (1986). These questionnaires have proven their scientific validity in earlier research, which improves reliability and makes them appropriate for use in this study. In this study participation is divided into direct and indirect participation, and by means of this division this study measures the variable interaction process. The developed interview questions to measure the interaction process are included in appendix C3.

3.4.4 Change success

Satisfaction with the change results and satisfaction with the change process as outcomes are used to operationalize the dependent variable of this study; change success. These concepts match the ‗how‘ and ‗what‘ of organizational change as stated in the study of Self et al. (2007). These questions are based on the study of Armenakis & Bedeian (1999) and will shed light on whether the change outcome and the change process are perceived as a success, or as a failure by the change agents and the change recipients. Satisfaction with the content of the change is related to the satisfaction of the agent/recipient with the changes that came forth from the change project. Satisfaction with the interaction process is related to the agent‘s/recipient‘s satisfaction with the interaction behavior of the other party. So the agents state their (dis)satisfaction with the recipients‘ interaction process and the change recipients do the same regarding the change agents. So by looking at satisfaction with the change results and satisfaction with the interaction process from both an agent and a recipient

(25)

3.5 Data Analyses

As mentioned earlier, after audio taping the interviews the conducted interviews were transcribed. The transcribed interviews were then coded to find quantitative data to measure the chosen variables. This qualitative content analysis is a research method used to interpret interview data through the thorough and systematic classification process of coding themes and patterns (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Hsieh & Shannon (2005) agree with Ozcan and Eisenhardt (2009) who state that qualitative studies are especially useful for developing theoretical insights in area‘s that existing theories do not address well. Which in this study accounts for the way in which agent and recipient behavior influence the degree of participation and therefore the outcome of the change.

As explained, after transcribing the interviews the coding scheme was created and it was formed, and adjusted, during the analysis of the data. The purpose of this is to be able to give attention to findings and relationships that were discovered along the way and create a most accurate and complete coding scheme. The coding scheme contains the four variables as shown in the conceptual model in chapter 1.3. The interviews were coded according to these four variables and then coded into the

operationalizations of the variables.

By coding these interviews the type of behavior of the change agents and recipient participation could be determined. Concerning the type of behavior of the change agents the leadership styles as

described in Higgs and Rowland were used to determine if their behavior could be categorized as framing behavior, shaping behavior or creating capacity behavior. The recipients‘ participation was analyzed and labeled recipient readiness or recipient resistance after the research of Bouckenooghe (2006). The interaction process was measured by means of direct and indirect recipient participation and change outcome was measured by satisfaction and dissatisfaction with change results and satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the interaction process. Table 3 gives an overview of the coding scheme.

To give an example of the coding process some examples are shown in this section. First, a sentence of a recipient is analyzed for what the recipient is saying. Then the part of the sentence that discusses a certain variable, or certain variables, was selected, given a code, and saved in the coding document. An example of a recipients answer to one of the interview questions: “I‟m very satisfied with the

outcomes of the change, we became more professional, more independent, and the quality of our work has gone up”. This sentence is then given the code SCR, as it depicts the recipients satisfaction with

the change result. An agents‘ response to one of the interview questions was ―They went on

contributing more and more to the change process”. This sentence was given the code DP, as it

(26)

results section, attention is paid to patterns within these interviewee responses. Like on how many recipients state certain answers, and what do the agents say about the same subject.

Tabel 3 Coding Scheme

Variable Categories Codes

1 Change Agent Behavior Shaping Behavior SB

Framing Change Behavior FCB Creating Capacity Behavior CCB

2 Recipient behavior Readiness to Change REA

Resistance to change RES 3 Interaction Process

(Participation)

Direct Participation DP

Indirect Participation IP 4 Change Success Satisfaction with Change

Results

SCR

Dissatisfaction with Change Results

DCR

Satisfaction with Interaction Process

SIP

Dissatisfaction with Interaction Process

DIP

By these means conclusions about the relation between different aspects of behavior/style from both the agent and the recipient, the interaction process and recipient participation could be made. Conclusions could be drawn concerning the occurrence of specific behavior or of specific combinations of any of the variables, and the influence on change success.

(27)

4 Results

In this section the results of this qualitative research will be described in detail. To maintain a clear overview the results are presented per variable. As this study has recipients respondents and agent respondent, both their opinions and viewpoints will be addressed and elaborated on in this chapter of the study. This chapter addresses the variables change agent behavior , change recipient behavior, interaction process and finally, change success. Every section addressing a variable starts with the within-case analyses and is followed by a cross case analysis. Regarding the within-case analysis a

separation is made between the three different teams consisting of a change agent and four change recipients. The groups will be labeled case one, case two and case three and will be discussed individually in each section before the cross-case analysis.

4.1 Change Agent Behavior

The variable ‗change agent behavior‘ is discussed in the literature section and the three types of leadership behavior as stated by Higgs & Rowland (2005) have been used in this qualitative research to explore the influence of change agent behavior on the agent-recipient interaction process. We will discuss them again in short: Shaping behavior is defined by the communication and actions of leaders which are directly related to the change. These are leaders who make others accountable, keep control and use an individual focus and expect compliance with their actions and ideas. Shaping change is a more leader-centric top-down approach than the other two types of leadership behavior. Framing change is a style focused on giving directions and space to the followers, establishing the starting points for the change and manage the journey. The final type of leadership behavior is creating capacity behavior, which is a style focused on creating individual and organizational capabilities. It is about clear communication by straightforwardly explaining the change and giving recipients the opportunity to ask questions and it focuses on making connections with them.

In case one, the change agent describes his own behavior as mostly shaping with some aspects of framing behavior. He describes: I give clear frameworks to my employees and make sure that I am

clear about what I expect from my employees”and “By giving them some freedom to shape the

change, I made the change something of their own, which they could contribute to in their own way”.

However, three of this agent‘s recipients label the agents style as mostly framing, and the other recipient describes the agent‘s behavior as creating with some framing aspects. Two of the recipients who labeled the behavior as mostly framing also mentioned some shaping behavior coming from the agent, however the framing behavior was most evident according to them. A recipient about the framing behavior of the agent: “Our manager gave us a lot of freedom within the framework and the

(28)

In case two, the change agent describes her own behavior as being mostly shaping with some minor aspects of creating behavior. She explains: “ I did not really include them in the decision making, this

was the framework of the change that I was putting out there”. Three of the recipients clearly agree

on this and state that the agent exerts strong shaping behavior. The fourth recipient describes the agent‘s behavior as slightly more creating than the other two behaviors. One of the recipients, talking about the strong shaping behavior of the agent: “Her emotions stay neutral, but the message that she is

spreading is take it or lump it”. Another recipient on the agent‘s shaping behavior: “She did not try to consult us, that was the instructive part, she told us how things were going to be done”.

In the third case, the change agent‘s description of her own behavior differs from the other two agents, as she describes her own behavior as being mostly creating with some minor aspects of shaping behavior. She states: “I was making sure that my employees were assisted in their personal

development and that they were achieving even more than they expected from themselves. However,

only one of the recipients belonging to this agent labeled the agents behavior as creating and one other recipient mentions some creating behavior. The three other recipients are clear on the agent‘s behavior and label it as shaping behavior. A recipient on this behavior: “She has a very strong personality, she

knows what she wants and stands for it. That is something that has its influence on our contributions and on the space she leaves us for contributing”.

All three of the change agents mention that they took a leading role in setting up the change and that that was their task as given by the higher management. One agent argues that this task was: “To

concretize which tasks and responsibilities I expect from them in the new organization” (them being

his recipients). While they all state that they had this leading role in communicating the frameworks of the change, they also state the importance of involving the recipients in the change process. As another agent argues: “To involve the people in the process and make them accountable for it as a group” and another agent: “Laying the responsibility at them, to show me what they did instead of go and look for

it”.

Two of the three change agents focus mainly on keeping the framework clear for their employees, to make sure they keep a clear view on the change, an agent argues: “I always kept the main issues clear

and tight for the important decisions, but underneath that, they could give their input and

interpretation”. The third agent, even though she also kept the framework clear for her recipients,

focused more on improving the skills of her team and took a motivating approach and has a more creating style. She states: “But I strongly prefer to get the best from my employees, I love to focus on

(29)

The two agents mentioned earlier focused more strongly on keeping the rules and framework of the change clear and making sure that the recipients joined that vision, as one agent states: “I kept thinking

of the slogan of the Dutch tax institute; -I can‟t make it any more fun-, it came down to discipline and acceptance” and “because of the consistent way it was told to them they adapted to this”. These two

agents took a more shaping approach by expecting recipient compliance with the change and follow them in their behavior as a role model. The third agent took a slightly different approach after the common starting point of keeping the framework clear, as she states: “ I focus on the individual

development, in that I see myself as secondary and I don‟t want to be in people‟s way”. She was less

focused on compliance and acceptance, but more focused on creating capacity and stimulating her recipients. she states: “They pointed out that that way worked better, so I followed them in that” and

“In consultation we took a look at how we were going to design this and that worked out very well”.

Strange about this fact is that three of the four recipients of this agent are certain to label the agent‘s behavior as shaping, This is most clearly expressed by one of the recipients, stating: “I would not

describe her as a peoples‟ manager, if you wanted attention you had to take the initiative yourself, she was just focusing on goals and targets”.

All three agents said they took the different opinions of the recipients into consideration. As an agent argues: “I balanced every opinion carefully, even though it might have been only one person who had

that opinion”. Another agent states: “I took it into consideration and then went looking for creative solutions”. The recipients appear to have a slightly different opinion on this as seven of the twelve

label their agent‘s behavior as shaping behavior, as one recipient argues: “She decided that things

were going to be as they are, because she did this we had to sit back and accept it, there was no other possibility”. From two agents three of their four recipients mention this and from the other agent one

recipient does. The communication of the change gave some recipients the impression that they did not really have any influence, as one recipient argues: “A lot of things were already decided, the

communication to us was most of the time that something just was not possible even before we could bring our vision to the table”. Another recipient states: “Normally speaking she can be quite tight and strict in certain things, then there is only little place for discussion and openness, things are the way they are. That‟s it”. That the recipients have a different view on this is shown by the fact that agents

not adapting their style to the recipients‘ response, is a subject mentioned by five of the twelve recipients. These were three recipients belonging to one agent and two recipients belonging to another agent and they are all part of the earlier mentioned seven recipients who saw the behavior of their agent as shaping behavior. A recipient about this lack of flexibility: “To my opinion she did not try to

adapt her way of handling things to us, and she didn‟t communicate about it either”. The recipients

interpreted this as following her own way of working and not paying a lot of attention to the

recipients‘ reaction, as a recipients puts it: “She almost didn‟t do that, she forced it through, therefore

(30)

recipient argues. Two of the three agents acknowledge this and argue that they could not really adjust their approach; one states how: ―It was not really possible to adjust my approach and therefore I

almost did not do that”. An interesting detail in this is that from these two agents only one was labeled

shaping by most of his recipients, while the behavior of the other agent was more regarded as framing behavior.

The positive side of this dominant behavior mentioned earlier is also discussed by five of the twelve recipients as they argue: “She often gives the good example and expects us to follow her in that” and

“Because our manager kept the framework so clear and really stood for it, we opened up to it, because there was less uncertainty‖. The change agent‘s strictness gives the recipients something to

hold on to. These five recipients were all five part of the group of recipients who labeled their agent‘s behavior as shaping behavior and four of them were part of the five recipients who complained that their agent did not adapt his style to their response or complaints. The agent‘s strong focus on targets and goals is also something mentioned by three of the twelve recipients, one of each agent. A recipient about targets says: “She want to reach goals and targets and want these to be carried out following

the known concept‖. Another recipient states: ―There was an eternal focus on targets instead of on the goal itself”. The recipients relate this strong focus on targets to losing the clear view on the goal itself,

the numbers became the target instead of the performance improving itself. All three of these

recipients were part of the group who labeled their agents behavior as shaping, and two of them were also in the groups that stated that the agent did not adjust his style and approach to his recipients and was focused on targets.

Even though the recipients mention the agent‘s strong focus on goals and targets and dominant behavior in the former paragraph, eleven of the twelve recipients mention the possibility of speaking up and discussing subjects of the change without fear of consequences. “I had the idea that I could

give my opinion freely and could ask questions and that I didn‟t have to pander to people‟s opinions”,

says a recipient on this subject. The agents gave the opportunity of input and facilitated meetings with the group to discuss important change related subjects, a recipient on these opportunities: “ Our

manager tried to let us open up to the change by bringing us together and spending a lot of time talking about the change in depth, and to look for what is of importance to his recipients”. The

recipients experienced this as a consultative initiative from the change agents to be able to understand and implement their wishes and thoughts into the change. A recipient states: ―We did not have the idea

(31)

A framing approach, communicating guiding principles and keeping a clear vision for their recipients, is a style that all agents address. As one agent states: “Sharing vision was the most important thing I

did, making sure that people knew where we were going by means of good communication”. Another

agent adds “Next to that, I just love keeping the final vision clear for my employees‖.

Six of the twelve recipients mention this communicating of a clear vision, a recipient: ―Our manager

gave an especially clear vision and direction to us as employees and tried to make us see the bigger picture and keep it clear for us as the change progressed‖. Another recipient states: “She often pointed out to us why a vision that we have is good for us and for the ING and the customers, she creates a kind of overview with this”. The agent who was described as shaping by three of his

recipients only has one recipient who mentions this communication of a clear vision. The other agent who was described as more shaping has two recipients who state this, while of the agent who only had one recipient mentioning some shaping behavior, three recipients mention a more framing behavior style by means of communicating a clear vision and giving direction.

Several recipients do not mention the effort of the agents to communicate a clear vision and direction. Instead, they emphasize more on the managing aspect that the information, or orders, are given to them top-down and that the effort to show them the vision and to create support was not really there. A recipient on this process: “The communication was more top-down than the other way around, the

information came to me in a notifying way‖.

The pattern that emerges, shows that the agents are not always aware of how their leadership style is perceived by the recipients. Agents say that recipients‘ involvement is important and that they do consider the different opinions of the recipients, while the recipients argue that the way of

communicating gave them the idea that they did not have any influence. An example is the change agent of whom three recipients argue that she is a shaping leader, while she argues that she uses a creating capacity approach. The recipients argue that the agents do not adapt their style to the

arguments and opinions of the recipients and that the agents follow their own way of working. It also shows that shaping and framing behavior suppress each other in a certain way, an agent who is perceived more shaping is seen as less framing, and the other way around.

4.2 Change Recipient Behavior

This study makes use of the terms ‗change readiness‘ as the positive term and ‗change resistance‘ as the negative term for recipients‘ behavioral intentions. The most cited definition of readiness to change stated by Armenakis, Harris, and Mossholder (1993) is used in this study: Readiness ―as

(32)

In case one, the change agent describes the behavior of his recipients as strong readiness behavior and makes some remarks of some resistant behavior that occurred. The agent explains: ―They were very

much open to the change, they were happy with the responsibility that they were getting”. All four of

the recipients agree with the agents view on their behavior and show strong readiness behavior. A recipient about this readiness behavior: “I was enthusiastic about the change and I wanted to

contribute to it because I saw the benefits of it”. Three of the recipients however do mention some

resistance they noticed regarding their colleagues, as a recipient explains: ―Some of my colleagues

were resisting the change at first because they could not handle the freedom and rather had more structure in their work. Partially also because they were just risk averse and against real changes”.

In case two, the change agent describes the behavior of her recipients as being both ready and resistant. She explains: ―I think that my employees saw the change trough, that they wanted to make

the best of it” and “They did see the use of the framework of the change”. On the resistant part of

their behavior she says: “At the start their attitude had a tendency of resistance” and “There was also

resistance against the changes regarding the new wages for some, people were really fierce and indignant about that”. Three of her recipients however show strong resistant behavior regarding the

change, a recipient states: ―There were a lot of negative aspects that casted a shadow over the change

and made the ultimate goal look less appealing” and “With the whole group together we complained and protested”. This seems to be in contrast with the explanation of the fourth recipient, she says to

have shown strong readiness behavior regarding the change and explains: “Everyone wanted to

contribute because we saw the possibilities of the change”.

In the third case, the change agent describes the behavior of her recipients as readiness behavior and mentions the occurrence of only some minor resistance. The agent about the behavior of her

recipients: “The team had an open attitude towards the things that the change should achieve” and

“We barely had any trouble and almost no resistance”, “Only on the nuance level there were different views and opinions”. All four of her recipients show strong readiness behavior towards the

change, a recipient: “We certainly had an open attitude regarding the things that had to be achieved

by the change” and “Especially when the first benefits of the change became visible, there was no reason anymore for any kind of resistance”. The only resistance that three recipients mention is

resistance they noticed regarding other employees. Only one recipient mentions that, even though he showed readiness behavior, he also exerted some minor resistance behavior. He states: “I was not very

positive about the aspect of the change that my travelling time increased”.

The influence of agent and recipient behavior on the interaction process and change success