ARE YOU READY FOR CHANGE?

CREATING READINESS FOR CHANGE

AT DSM Engineering Plastics:

THE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNICATION

MAARTJE CRUL

Student number 1591215

University of Groningen

Faculty of Management and Organization

MSc Human Resource Management

Bottelroosstraat 33

5761 GD Bakel

Phone: +31 6 48154727

maartje_crul@hotmail.com

First Master thesis supervisor:

Drs. J. van Polen

Second Master thesis supervisor:

Dr. K.S. Prins

Company supervisor:

DSM Engineering Plastics

John Meijs

CREATING READINESS FOR CHANGE

AT DSM Engineering Plastics:

THE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNICATION

MAARTJE CRUL

Master Thesis Human Resource Management

University of Groningen

Abstract

Communication during times of change is a difficult process, especially in relation to the creation of readiness for change. The purpose of this research was to investigate how communication had influenced the creation of readiness for change among employees involved in a strategic redesign change project. Creating readiness for an organizational change entails communicating the change message which consists of five key components; discrepancy, appropriateness, self efficacy, principal support and personal valence. Communication of these components is a useful tool to prepare employees for an upcoming change, when used correctly. All these subjects were covered in 17 qualitative interviews. The main outcome of the research results regarding the change message was that perceptions of each of the five change components of readiness for change were influenced by communication, largely in a negative manner. However, the extent of this influence differed tremendously between components. The main reasons for negative or indifferent perceptions regarding readiness for change were related to lack of clearness and clarity, lack of unambiguous information, and the lack of alignment between top management. All these causes are indicated by employees as the key elements in demotivating and discouraging their readiness for the upcoming change. This has evolved in a lesser state of readiness than in principal could have been created among employees by the above mentioned five key components. Recommendations given in this research focus on face-to-face communication, involvement and alignment of line and top management, participation of employees, and clarity in communication.

Keywords: organizational change, communicating the change message, employee readiness for change, communication

Acknowledgements

INTRODUCTION

The role of communication during the implementation of an organizational change has long been accredited as being essential in success of the organizational change (Difonzo & Bordia, 1998; Kotter, 1995; Nelson & Coxhead, 1997). Numerous books and articles have been dedicated to communication in relation to organizational change (e.g. Anderson & Anderson, 2001; Bridges, 1991; Duck, 1998; Larkin & Larkin, 1994; Maurer, 1996). But even with this great amount of knowledge, guidelines, and tips, lack of successful communication is still one of the major reasons why change initiatives and the implementation of change end as failures (Kotter, 1995). Several subjects relating to the significance of communicating organizational change have been explored by researchers and scholars, such as the importance of internal communication (Kitchen & Daly, 2002), communication strategies used by managers (Clampitt, Dekoch & Cashman, 2000), choice of medium (Lewis, 1999), and resistance to change (Kotter, 1995; Okumus & Hemmington, 1998). Change communication has long been linked to resistance; for instance Kotter and Scheslinger (1979) referred to communication as the key tactic to overcome resistance. Nevertheless, within the implementation phases of the change, communication frequently turns out to be a top down sales pitch (Okumus & Hemmington, 1998) and this is said to cause cynicism about change (Reichers, Wanous & Austin, 1997; Wanous, Reichers & Austin, 2000). However, when implemented effectively, communication will prepare employees to be ready for the change at hand. As a counterpart of change resistance, this readiness for change has also been a popular topic in change literature over the last decades (e.g. Cunningham et al, 2002; Eby, Adams, Russell & Gaby, 2000; Madsen, Miller & John, 2005). According to theories about readiness for change, one of the essential roles in communicating change to create readiness is the content of the change message (Armenakis et al, 1999, 2001; Berneth, 2004; Kotter, 1995). This research analyses a communication exercise with respect to communicating the change message to create readiness for change in a case study company, DSM Engineering Plastics.

Swailes, 2004). Communication is an essential method to overcome resistance (see a.o Daly, Teague & Kitchen, 2003; DiFonzo & Bordia, 1998; Elving, 2005; Lewis, 1999). More specifically, the correct use of communication will create readiness for change (Armenakis et al, 1999). In case of the PTO redesign, a lot of attention is given to communication to the employees involved in the change. A huge amount of effort in communicating the vision of the PTO redesign has been made by bulletins, intranet, face-to-face communication, group presentations, conference, self-assessment tools, workshops and a kick-of meeting among other things. In other words, within the DEP PTO redesign, the change team was well aware of the notion that communication is a useful tool to prepare employees for a pending change and that without proper communication the change is likely to be resisted. Several modes of communication were brought into play; multiple communication channels were used; different communication media offered; and various communication methods were applied. Nevertheless, criticism regarding the communication of the change was expressed by the worker’s council as well as on the grapevine. Despite the effort and amount of communication used, numerous employees seemed to discourage or ignore the upcoming change and criticized communication surrounding the change. Management feared that the negative attitude towards the communication would harm employees’ readiness for change and eventually lead to barriers in the implementation and institutionalisation of the PTO redesign. This research is conducted in order to indicate how communication influenced employees’ readiness for change. Thus the research question is:

How has communication of the PTO redesign influenced employees’ perception on the created readiness for change?

The paper will be organized as follows. In the next section, a theoretical foundation by means of a brief conceptual overview of the literature concerning readiness for change, the change message, and communicating the change message will be provided. This will be followed by a description of the methodology and after that an overview of the research results will be given. The last section of this paper will attend to the discussion of the results including interpretations, recommendations, and limitations of the study, and will address the scientific and managerial implications.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

Creating Readiness for Change

and motivated for change. For this to happen, it is important that leaders and management be aware of how to create readiness for change.

Readiness for change can be defined as the extent to which employees hold positive views about the need for organizational change, as well as the extent to which employees believe that such changes are likely to have a positive implications for themselves and the wider organization (Armenakis, Harris, & Mossholder, 1993). Other researchers have provided additional conceptualisations of the definition of readiness for change. As said by Berneth (2004, p.40), ‘readiness is more than understanding the change, readiness is more than believing in the change, readiness is a collection of thoughts and intentions toward the specific change effort’. According to Backer (1995), readiness for change should not be considered as a fixed state within employees. It could by influenced by a change in external or internal circumstances, the type of change introduced, or the characteristics of the employee and change agent.

One of the reasons for organizations to alter the work environment of its employees could be because it is a powerful method to induce change in the behaviour of the employees (Bandura, 1997; Porter and Lawler, 1968). This notion is rooted in social cognitive models of behaviour, such as the model of Bandura (1997) and the model of Porter and Lawler (1968). From this perspective, ‘all effective intervention activities must generate change in the way targeted individuals actually behave on the job’ (Robertson, Roberts & Porras, 1993, p.622). Readiness for change is the cognitive precursor to the behaviours of either resistance to or support for, a change effort (Armenakis et al, 1993). Readiness is the cognitive state that comprises beliefs, attitudes, and intentions toward a change effort (Armenakis, Harris & Field, 1999). When readiness for change exists (cf Armenakis et al, 1993), the organizational members are primed to embrace change and resistance is reduced. Readiness reflects the extent to which an individual or individuals are cognitively and emotionally inclined to accept, embrace, and adopt a particular plan to intentionally alter the status quo. In this respect, the concept of readiness for change consists of both resistance to change and support for change as a continuum, with resistance to change and readiness for change at the extremes of the continuum (Elving, 2005). When readiness for change is low, an employee is likely to feel resistance to the pending change. Consequentially, when an employee feels a high level of readiness, he is prone to support the change. Naturally, change can occur under conditions of low readiness, but behavioural science research indicates that the probability of success is reduced when low readiness leads to low motivation to change or to active resistance (Backer, 2005).

The Change Message

The change message both conveys the nature of the change and shapes the sentiments that determine reactions to the change. Communicating this change message and its components can provide answers employees need to create and feel readiness for change. Armenakis et al (1999, 2002) identified five key components of a change message that must be communicated in the delivery of the change message. The model suggests that organizational leaders ought to communicate these components to ensure effective change implementation. Moreover, Armenakis and Harris (2002) feel that these five message components apply to all transformation efforts, regardless of the intervention model being followed by the change agent. The resulting sentiments created by the content of these message components come together to shape an employee’s motivation toward the change, whether positive (e.g. readiness and support) or negative (e.g. resistance). The five components are separate but equally important readiness elements and the model is based on the communication of the change message:

1. Discrepancy: A gap between the organization’s current state of performance and the ideal and desired end state.

This component refers to the question “Is change really necessary?”. This question is answered by communicating the discrepancy of the change, which entails information regarding the need for change as reflected in the discrepancy between the current and desired end state of the organization.

2. Appropriateness: The correct reaction to fix the gap identified by discrepancy.

This component refers to the question “Is the specific change being introduced as an appropriate reaction to the change?”. By communicating the appropriateness of the change this change message component is answered.

3. Self-efficacy: Confidence in individual and group’s ability to make the change succeed.

This component refers to the question “Can I successfully implement the change?” . The efficacy component of the change message answers this question by providing information and building confidence regarding the individual and collective ability to successfully implement the change. 4. Principal support: Key organizational leaders support this particular change.

This component refers to the question “ Does management support the upcoming change?”. The intention of the principal support component is to provide information and convince employees that formal and informal top management are committed to successful implementation and institutionalisation of the change.

5. Personal valence: Clarifies the intrinsic and extrinsic benefits of the change.

This final component answers the question “What is in it for me?”. By elucidating and clarifying the intrinsic and extrinsic benefits of the change, the personal valence component of the change message is addressed (Armenakis et al, 1999, Berneth, 2004)

questions, and thus the five readiness components, creates readiness for change. All components will be discussed in-depth in the next sections.

Discrepancy of Change

In order for a change to be accepted, employees need to be convinced of the necessity of the change. Discrepancy implies that a rationale should be apparent to employees involved with the change in terms of how the organization’s current performance differs from the desired end-state (Armenakis et al., 1993). The discrepancy message component is an effort by organizational leaders to show an explicit need for change. If employees perceive a compelling reason for the change, readiness for change is facilitated. According to Kotter (1995), the expressed sense of urgency should be one that makes the status quo seem more dangerous than launching into the unknown. In other words, discrepancy is based on the clarification of the organization concerning the present and desired state of performance (Katz and Kahn, 1978) In particular, change agents need to demonstrate a gap between the way things are and the way things could be. Employees cannot understand the need for organizational change if they do not see any problems with the situation as it currently is (Berneth, 2004). Employees will be motivated to change, if they belief that something is wrong and needs to change.

Appropriateness of Change

Discrepancy of change as a readiness component is often linked with the appropriateness of the change. It is not sufficient to understand that a discrepancy is present in the current situation and the desired situation. In addition to understanding that there is a gap, employees must also feel that the change at hand is the most appropriate solution to closing this gap (Armenakis et al, 1993, 1999). Alternative responses to the discrepancy should be clearly a less effective or less successful solution in reaching the desired end state. Even if employees are convinced of the necessity to change, the appropriateness of the change is significant. It could well be that employees agree with the need to change, but oppose to the specific change being proposed (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). If employees see the anticipated change as an incorrect answer to the gap as communicated in discrepancy, they will not be willing to commit to making the change work (Berneth, 2004). Their consequential resistance is unmistakably well intentioned and potentially advantageous for the reason that it is based on a disagreement about the appropriateness of a particular change (Waddell and Sohall, 1998). Another influence on appropriateness of the change is the history of successfully implementing organizational change within the organization. (Schneider, Brief & Guzzo, 1996). When in the past changes have failed for whatever reason, employees will be less likely to be enthusiastic about a pending change to come.

Efficacy of Change

motivation (e.g. Vroom, 1984), employees will only be motivated to attempt a change to the extent that they have confidence that they can succeed (Armenakis & Harris, 2002). Self-efficacy stems from a theory of Bandura and is the ‘belief in one’s capabilities to mobilize the motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action needed to meet given situational demands’ (Bandura, 1997, p. 77). The basis of Bandura’s (1982) efficacy theory lies within the general model of social learning theory. Social learning theory hypothesizes that the individual’s past behaviour and experiences triggers him to create expectations about his ability to perform a task even before actually making an attempt. In addition to this, the theory suggests there is little reason to be anxious of pending events in which one has been successful in the past. Employees learn from outcomes of past change efforts, and this learning creates a feedback loop in which results of previous change experiences serve to adjust beliefs and expectations of the future (Berneth, 2004). According to Dent and Goldberg (1999), employees do not necessarily resist change, but instead resist the loss of status, pay, or comfort associated with it (Chreim, 2002). A sense of self-efficacy facilitates in this behaviour and is considered as a helpful component to create readiness for change. It promotes the belief that the individual is able to succeed in the change process, because he has the ability to do so.

Principal Support

Berneth (2004), a theoretical foundation for principal support lies in justice theories and referent cognitions theory. He states that referent cognitions theory suggests that employees will look to managers for cues during times of change. Interaction and trust between manager and employee is essential for organizational change efforts to be accepted by employees, as concluded by justice theories. Understandably, employees will refer to their peers and managers when analysing the support of the change. If management and respected peers are not supporting the change initiative, referent cognitions theory and justice theories suggest that change will elicit greater resentment and resistance (Berneth, 2004).

Personal Valence

The fifth component of the change message model is personal valence. Before attempting a change, employees who are involved will evaluate how they may benefit from it (Huy, 1999). The perception or guarantee that the pending change will have a positive impact on the employee is a significant factor that helps creating readiness for change (Chreim, 2002). Armenakis et al. (1999) emphasizes that employees often ask the question “what is in it for me”, when they are involved in a change, which constitutes the notion of personal valence. According to Cobb (in Armenakis & Harris, 2002) employees will assess the distribution of positive and negative outcomes, the fairness of the change, and the manner in which individual employees are treated. Employees can believe that it is necessary for the organization to change; they can believe they can execute the change; they can believe there is support for the change, and they can even believe this is the right change for the organization. But if they do not see the personal benefit to them as an individual, they simply will not “buy in” to the change movement (Berneth, 2004). If the change is considered to be possibly damaging, employees are prone to not accept the change effort. On the other hand, if the change is considered as harmless or positive, employees will be more likely to accept and commit to the change.

Communicating the change message

By communicating the five components of the change message, readiness for change is created as the core sentiments of the change are addressed and answered. However, all components can be implemented and executed, but if the communication is not sufficiently addressed employees will not take all these efforts seriously. Poorly managed change communication will result in rumours, resistance to change, and uncertainty (Difonzo and Bordia, 1998; Elving, 2005). In the next section an overview will be given on how communication can contribute to preparing employees for a change by using change communication.

Organizational Change Communication

make the change successful. Communication is a useful tool to prepare employees for an upcoming change, however only when used correctly. According to Barrett (2002), change communication must ensure clear and consistent messages to educate employees in the company vision, strategic goals, and what the change means to them. Next to this, communication should motivate employee support for the company’s new direction and encourage higher performance and discretionary effort. It should also limit misunderstandings and rumours that might damage the change, and finally communication should align employees behind the organization’s strategic and overall improvement goals (Barrett, 2002). Klein (1996) emphasizes that communication needs in the unfreezing phase of the change to be focused on justifying the change. This can be done by taking some key principles in mind: redundancy and multimedia retention; effective face-to-face communication; effectiveness of line management as communications channel; direct supervisors and opinion leaders as key communicators; and, communication should be consistent and reinforcing (Klein, 1996).

METHODOLOGY Procedure

To obtain insight into how employees have perceived the creation of readiness for change and the contribution of communication regarding this creation, the design of the study is a field research (Neuman, 2003). The research has been presented to and approved by the management team and chairman of the worker’s council to gain support for the research. After this, all employees involved in the PTO redesign have received a notification of the research by email signed by the global HR director and the researcher. Data has been gathered by the use of semi-structured interviews. Conducting semi-structured interviews is an ideal method to explore opinions and experiences of people (Baarda & de Goede, 2001). As in this research the opinion and experience of the employees in regard to readiness for change and communication is the central issue, personal interviews have been selected as the data collection method. This has provided detailed and in-depth information based on individual experiences. In order to increase reliability and generalization, respondents from different functions, departments and locations have been selected for the interviews. Interviews have been pilot tested to check whether there was an ambiguity or confusion in the questions.

Participants

confidentiality and anonymity. The total number of interviews is 17, which covers 16% of the total PTO redesign population, and consisted of one product manager (PM), one Segment Sales manager(SSM), one R&T-manager, 5 Application Development Engineers (AD), 2 Innovation Project Managers (IPM), 5 Account managers (AM), and one Business Development manager (BDM). All interviewees were male (the total European PTO workforce has four female employees), with an average age of 44 years. In case of 5 interviews, it was not possible to do a face-to face interview, as the interviewees were located across Europe. Therefore, these interviews were held by telephone. In total, 6 nationalities were represented, and the duration of the interview was between 40 and 75 minutes, with an average of 50 minutes.

Measurements

In order to answer the research question, the interview covered two parts: firstly, the change message was addressed, which provided insight in how employees have perceived the creation of readiness for change; and secondly, the communication section in the interview dealt with the communication in general. The interview is included in Appendix C.

Change message

The first part of the interview was dedicated to the creation of readiness by use of the change message. Holt et al (2007) have developed a scale to measure readiness for change by the five components of the change message. This scale is used to formulate the interview questions, which are adapted to fit this research by making the questions qualitative. Each component was assessed by multiple questions.

Discrepancy was measured by questions referring to how the employee perceives the need for change (question 1, 2, 3, 4) .

Appropriateness was measured by questions referring to how the employee perceives that the PTO redesign is the most appropriate change (question 5, 6, 7).

Change-related self-efficacy was measured by questions referring to how confident the employee was in his own abilities to execute the change (question 9, 10, 11, 12).

Principal support was measured by questions that ask for the employee’s opinion regarding the support and commitment of management towards the PTO redesign (question 14, 15, 16, 17) .

Personal valence was measured by questions that identify how the employee perceives he or she will benefit from the implementation of PTO redesign (question 19, 20, 21).

Data analysis

With permission of the interviewees, all interviews have been recorded on tape and transcribed after the interview. This is done for two reasons; first of all, no information will be lost which will benefit the reliability of the interview. Secondly, this allowed the interviewer to be more involved in the interview. Data collected from the questions has been coded and analysed using qualitative techniques (Neuman, 2003). The coded data was put in a matrix which allowed the researcher to compare components and the views on the communication regarding the redesign.. Based on the data given, categories were formed comprising the perceptions and explanations of the interviewee and representing the attitudes of employees involved in the PTO redesign. For each component, specific categories were created. To draw conclusion, an analysis across the components and the communicative influences was executed. The next paragraph will show the outcome of this analysis.

RESULTS

The following section will present the results of the qualitative interviews. Each paragraph is dedicated to a specific component of the change message and will in detail provide the perceptions of the employees per topic. Next to this, the contribution of communication will be analysed, per component and overall.

Discrepancy

The first component of creating readiness for change by communicating the change message is discrepancy. This component illustrates the gap that is perceived between the old and new situation in relation to the change and to what extent there is a need for the change. The perceptions of the employees regarding these two elements are visualized in figure 1.

Figure 1. Discrepancy of change DISCREPANCY

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Employee perceptions regarding the gap between the old situation prior to the change and the new situation as it should be after the implementation could be summarized in three categories; no change between the old and new situation, a change on paper, but not in practice, and a small change between the old and new situation. One employee perceived the situation as that nothing changed. Except this person, every employee had perceived a difference between the old and the new situation. However, of those 17 interviewees, 7 regarded the redesign as a change on paper, but did not expect that in reality the responsibilities and accountabilities in their work would change. The reasons that created these perceptions are given in table 1.

DISCREPANCY: OLD VERSUS NEW

Perception Amount Reasons

No change at all 1 o There is no difference between the old and new situation Change on paper,

But not in practice

7 o Looks good on paper, but is not implementable o Too small a change in practice

o Too many grey areas in differences between old and new o Too unclear to implement

A small change 9 o Better communication between functions o More alignment between functions

o More clarity in accountability and responsibility o More customer-oriented

Table 1. Discrepancy: old vs. new

The second subject within this component was the need for the change. As figure 1 shows, in general the need for the PTO redesign was acknowledged by virtually all of the consulted DEP employees. As the DEP organization is strongly growing, the PTO organization needs more clarity and structure in cooperation and collaboration between all functions and disciplines. The PTO redesign aimed to provide in this clarity and structure and above that fulfil the ambition of increased innovative behaviour and efficiency. Table 2 summarizes the outcome of this element.

DISCREPANCY: NEED FOR CHANGE

Perception Amount Reasons

Yes 15 o provides more structure in process o provides more clarity in process o provides more control over process o more focus within process

o necessary for other discipline or product line No 2 o no change necessary

o will create confusion and unclarity

Contribution of communication

In the component discrepancy, the results show that communication was perceived mostly as a negative contributor to the creation of readiness. The most predominant remarks are summarized in table 3. More than 75% of the employees regarded the communication used to communicate the discrepancy of the PTO change as negative and unconstructive. Although the need for change was felt by the employees, the communication of the PTO redesign seemed not to have explained and clarified the gap between the current situation and the desired end-state.

DISCREPANCY: CONTRIBUTION OF COMMUNICATION

Perception Amount Reasons

Positive 4 o multiple communication methods o quality of the communication

Negative 13 o lack of clarity in communication and information o lack of unambiguous and unequivocal communication o communication as such was negative

o absence of necessity for communication, as nothing would change

Table 3 Discrepancy: contribution of communication

Appropriateness

However, even if a need and gap between situations exist, the chosen strategy should be an appropriate solution to fill the discrepancy. This perceived level of appropriateness of the change is the second element for creation of readiness for a change. In case of the PTO redesign, figure 2 shows the sentiments of the interviewees.

Figure 2: Appropriateness of change

A great amount of interviewees indicated that to their knowledge the PTO redesign seemed the appropriate solution. The main reason for this view was that the redesign does provide a clearer

APPROPRIATENESS

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

structure without moving away too much from the old organization. The mixed sentiments regarding this element come forth out of reactions that express that the appropriateness of the redesign is good, however not for all product lines or segments within PTO organization or in this particular framework. Table 4 summarizes the perceptions towards the subtopic whether it was the appropriate change.

APPROPRIATENESS: APPROPRIATE CHANGE

Perception Amount Reasons

Yes 12 o clearer structure without moving away too much from the old organization o appropriate, but could be more strict

o good solution, but still has to grow o optimisation of existing structure No 2 o No need for this new structure

o This change will not change will not create more innovation Mixed 3 o Not appropriate for all product lines

o Although of good use, not in this framework o Completely neutral to the change

Table 4: Appropriateness: appropriate change

The second subtopic within the component appropriateness is the perception on whether or not the employee felt that there was another (better) solution to diminish the gap between the current situation and the desired end state. For the large part, namely 8 employees, no other solution was at hand. However, 4 employees indicated that another solution would be more appropriate. They felt that a solution which had a bigger focus on innovation and new markets would be much more appropriate to reach the desired end state. According to one employee, a more appropriate solution should be less strict and more open for interpretation per case. And 5 employees indicated to have no idea whether or not other solutions were available. These findings are summarized in table 5.

APPROPRIATENESS: ANOTHER SOLUTION

Perception Amount Reasons

No 8 o No other or better solution available Yes 4 o More focus on innovation

o More focus on new markets o Much less strict

I don’t know 5 o I don’t know

Table 5: Appropriateness: another solution

Contribution of communication

however, believed that communication has played a positive role in grasping the appropriateness of the PTO redesign. One of them indicated that both the formal and informal communication had contributed to his positive perception on the appropriateness of the PTO redesign, as it clarified why this change was suitable. Two employees mentioned that communication did provide more insight into the appropriateness of the redesign, as any communication is better than none, therefore being of contribution. Nevertheless, they argued, change is a behavioural process and even with communication contributing to the readiness for the change, it takes time for employees to really see the appropriateness of the change and accept it as a step forward for the organization. Another employee considered communication of contribution based on the fact that in previous changes the communication was either much less or not available, and in this case both on paper and by line management the topic was addressed. It must be stated that the 4 employees who said communication contributed positively were also positive in regards of the appropriateness. The employee who felt that the contribution was negative did also believe that this redesign was not appropriate.

Self-efficacy

In creating readiness for an organizational change such as the PTO redesign, self efficacy of employees is important. Self efficacy refers to the sentiments regarding confidence in self, abilities and skills an employee has and may need for the pending change. The component of self-efficacy consists of three elements, namely whether the employee feels confident in himself and his skills and abilities to manage the changes in his job because of the PTO redesign, whether he believed new skills were necessary for the upcoming change, and whether he on forehand expected problems resulting from the implementation of the PTO redesign. Figure 3 shows the outcomes of these elements.

Figure 3: Self efficacy

The majority of the interviewees showed confidence in being successful in implementing the PTO redesign, mostly based on the availability and capability of the necessary skills. The four employees

SELF EFFICACY

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

who didn’t felt confident based this on lack of confidence in the implementation, a lack of confidence in every change related to personnel, and two employees expressed an overall disapproval of the PTO redesign.

All interviewees stated to have the necessary skills for their position, whether old or new. This was based on the belief that nothing would change for them personally, or that the change was so minor that everybody was capable of performing successfully in the new organization. According to all but two employees, there was no need for new skills to fulfill the job requirements in the new design of the PTO process, as the individual alterations in the jobs felt minor and feasible. The two interviewees that saw a need for new skills related this to the new role of BDM and IPM, the two newly developed job descriptions.

In relation to the extent interviewees had expected problems with adjustment to the new situation, 7 of the 17 employees answered this question positively. The reasons for this expectation were the following: two interviewees expected problems within sales, two interviewees based this on the lack of clarity of the information and content of the redesign, and three employees expressed their concern regarding timing of the change, lack of follow-up, and the redesign in itself respectively.

Contribution of communication

Although the overall efficacy is high, looking at the positive outcomes of the three elements of this section, it is remarkable that the contribution of communication on the perceived self efficacy is quite negative. Though people felt confident in the change, the communication was regarded as negative by over 41% of the interviewees. They based this judgment on the lack of face-to-face communication, the creation of unrest by communication, the lack of personal involvement, bad communication in general, and too much exposure for such a minor change. A positive contribution of communication was based on the level of confidence that was created by professional and qualitative communication.

Principal support

Figure 4: Principal support

This component is divided into three sub segments, namely attitude of management towards the change, support of management and commitment of management to the change. The attitude of management was considered positive by only 29,4 % of the interviewees. The entire R&T population graded management attitude as either negative or as an attitude of nothing will change, which caused ambiguity and trivialization of the change project. The sales force was divided in two equal parts. Reasons given for the negative perception of management attitude was that the support was too much and over the top, lack of knowledge about the content and consequences of the support, and the underestimation of employee perspective. On these grounds, the high percentage of management support and management commitment to the change seems not an honest perception, as only 29,4 % of the total interviewee population regarded the overall support attitude positive. Reasons given for these specific reactions towards the management attitude are summarized in table 6.

PRINCIPAL SUPPORT: MANAGEMENT ATTITUDE

Perception Amount Reasons

Nothing will change

5 o Attitude that nothing would change o Denial of change

Positive 5 o Positive attitude

Negative 7 o Management seemed not informed o Attitude was over the top positive

o Managerial lack of knowledge about content and consequences of the change o Underestimation of employee perspective

o Managerial lack of confidence in redesign

Table 6: Principal support: management attitude

The outcomes of the two other elements of principal support, management support and management commitment to change indicated that the 65 % of the employees perceive both the support and commitment of the change as positive, where respectively 18 % and 24% of the employees consider the support and commitment as negative. In both cases a small percentage stated that the support

and commitment was mixed, meaning that it differed between managers and product lines. This differentiation between managers and product lines is related to the top management involvement. Especially top management members of the change team contributed unconsciously in an unconstructive manner. Principal support by means of a change team was established by the existence of the PTO Redesign Steering Committee. This Steering Committee responsible for the guiding the implementation of the change showed the initial top management support of the PTO redesign. The Steering Committee consisted of the PTO project leader (as a fulltime change agent), Director R&T, Vice President Human Resources, Director Sales, and Business Unit Director Europe. The involvement of top members of the global and European management team was perceived as a clear notion of support for the upcoming change. However, the importance of this support diminished as incidents on the work floor, such as trivialization and denial of redesign by top managers and Steering Committee members in formal and informal meetings, undermined the perception that top management was completely aligned. Employees indicated that there seemed to be a political struggle between some members of the Steering Committee and that not all noses were in one direction. Employees felt that on several occasions there was no internal consistency in the individual messages communicated by members of the Steering Committee. Virtually all interviewees referred to ambiguous information and attitudes between Geleen (R&T location), and the other locations, Sittard (head office) and European sales offices. This lack of unambiguous information was considered the main cause of the unclear communication.

Contribution of communication

Personal Valence

The final component of readiness, personal valence, applies to the feeling that the change is beneficial for employees in career and job opportunities. The perception that the pending change will have a positive impact on the employee is a significant factor that helps creating readiness for change.

Figure 5: Personal valence

The personal valence is measured by questions that related to the impact of the redesign and new opportunities that might arise from it. Regarding the first question, 11 interviewees stated that they did not see any impact on their personal career or development by the change in the PTO structure. The reasons for this are given in table 7.

PERSONAL VALENCE: IMPACT ON CAREER

Perceptio

n Amount Reasons

No impact 11 o Too minor change

o Impact on others, but not on me Positive 5 o More clarity and recognition

o Challenge to cooperate more o Less diffuse and more transparent o Spotlight on innovation

Negative 1 o Redesign is strategically wrong, and thus eventually negative for me

Table 7: Personal Valence: impact on career

The second question is related to whether or not the new structure provides new opportunities for the employee. The leading answer was no (see table 8 for additional information). Mostly this was related to the feeling that the change was so minor that new opportunities were little or only for a few.

PERSONAL VALENCE

0

5

10

15

20

PERSONAL VALENCE: NEW OPPORTUNITIES

Perception Amount Reasons

No 13 o Too minor change o For others, but not for me o Not more or different than before Yes 4 o New job functions and roles

o More clarity o New career paths

Table 8: Personal Valence: new opportunities

Overall, the PTO redesign is regarded by most employees as either having no impact on future career steps or as positive, because of the absence of new opportunities within the redesigned structure. Both positive and neutral sentiments in this component have an affirmative effect on readiness. Contribution of communication

Communication was considered to be of no influence which was mainly based on the feeling that the redesign would be of no personal valence to the employees. Therefore communication was not seen as necessary. The ones who did perceive personal valence in this change project stated that communication was also of no influence, as the component did not come across in official communication. The interviewee who did rate the influence of communication as positive contributed this to the Personal Development Plan, an individual development plan that highlighted development needs of the employee because of the possible changes in work responsibilities.

The results suggest that personal valence and therefore the communication regarding this component played a very limited role in the perception on readiness for change. Although previous research provides evidence that personal valence is a significant part of the change message, the findings of the PTO redesign research imply that the question “what’s in it for me” is not considered as influential in the change process by the interviewees. One explanation could be that, as indicated in the results, according to employees the change is so minor, that they do not feel that it would either benefit or damage their career opportunities or change their work behavior.

Communication

disappointment. The content was too complicated, too unclear, and too little prepared. Nonetheless, regarding the management support, the Euromeeting was a major contribution. The effort in communicating was considered mostly professional and diverse, but the results also showed that despite quality of communication in general was considered positive, it did not energize the employees enough to be fully ready and willing to participate in the PTO redesign. The greatest improvement need regarding the PTO redesign and its communication lies in the clarity of the information. Virtually all interviewees referred to an unclearness or inconsistency in some of the information received. An often-mentioned example of this is the unclarity of the boundaries in accountability and responsibility between the new job descriptions. Next to this, some implementation flaws damaged the process, such as accessible unfinished job descriptions, modifications in job titles without proper explanation (AD manager to AD engineer), and misuse of Personal Development Plans. All these items, although not intentionally, created some unrest and did not provide an environment were employees felt triggered or educated sufficiently enough in the new structure. Table 9 shows a summary of the positive and negative elements of the communication used during the PTO redesign. These elements were the most mentioned remarks about communication.

COMMUNICATION:

POSITIVE ELEMENTS NEGATIVE ELEMENTS

o Bulletins

- professional - high quality - hard copy version

o Diversity of communication

- Dissemination of information - Lot of effort put in communicating

o Euromeeting

o Too unclear and vague information

- created confusion - created misunderstandings

o No clear borders between functions

- Too many grey areas

- Confusion in accountabilities and responsibilities

o Lack of unambiguous information o Lack of personal communication

Table 9. Positive and negative elements of communication

DISCUSSION

The question of this research was to analyze the influence of communication on the readiness of change as perceived by employees, taking in account the five separate components that create the communication message of a pending change. In the following paragraphs the results will be discussed, recommendations for DEP will be given, and implications and limitations of this research are presented.

Interpretation of results

to flaws in communicating clearly and consistently, and the mixed alignment of the change team. These flaws were predominantly related to two components of the change message, namely discrepancy and principal support. Although the communicative errors were present in every component, it did not influence the components appropriateness, self-efficacy, and personal valence as much as the other two. Next to this, the results show that the uncertainty and lack of clearness originated in the discrepancy component. Especially in this component, the lack of clarity damaged the attitude of employees. Because of unclear messages presented by management about the need for change and what the gap should be between the old and desired situation of the PTO redesign, readiness for change was undermined. Although the change team and top management put a lot of effort in informing, employees seemed not to fully grasp the discrepancy of the change. This indicated that not enough clear information was at hand. Lack of information makes it easier to conclude that the change effort is failing (Reichners et al., 1997). The employees indicated that the information provided and the communication in general was very vague and complex. The messages lacked clearness and clarity. When an organization does not communicate clearly what changes individual employees have to adapt to, uncertainty will expose (Elving, 2005). Uncertainty in this setting should be defined as the psychological state of doubt about what an event signifies or foretells (Difonzo, Bordia & Rosnow, 1994). Interviewees revealed various incidents during the implementation of the PTO redesign that nourished the uncertainty, such as unfinished documents or misleading information. Under conditions of uncertainty, rumors and other forms of informal communication are easily generated (Difonzo et al, 1994).

The lack of clarity within the discrepancy component of the change message affected eventually the other components as well. As discrepancy is closely linked to appropriateness, the underdeveloped perception of discrepancy affected appropriateness. Employees were not able to perceive the level of appropriateness of the change as communicated since the discrepancy was unclear. Consequently, appropriateness of the unclear change content was difficult to be judged by the employees. The unclearness of the discrepancy message did however not only affect appropriateness. For a large part, self-efficacy was marginally affected negatively by communication. As the results show, employees did not doubt whether or not they were capable of handling the upcoming change. They showed confidence in succeeding the change based on their own capabilities. Communication did not play a role in this part of the component. Nevertheless, the negative influence of communication was visible in the extent they expected problems. Again, the lack of clarity regarding the content of the change and subsequently its communication provided enough feeding ground to expect problems.

no employee will support it (Covin & Kilmann, 1990); employees are aware that it takes more than pronouncing the change to make it happen. They are smart enough to know that unless higher management and members of the change team are on the same page in terms of the execution of the change, no real change will take place. As Richardson and Denton (1996) state it, real communication comes from deeds, not from messages. Although general support and commitment of top management was felt by employees as the results show, the deeds created uncertainty and rejection of the redesign. Dissimilar messages by top managers (and even members of the change team) generated a lack of unambiguous information. Closely related to lack of unambiguous information is the lack of internal alignment. It is crucial for top management to promote a shared vision about the upcoming change (Kotter, 1995). In addition, Conger (2000) found that single-minded top management is an essential requirement for successful change. Actions and words of some members of the management team of DEP occasionally were not single minded, and thus hindered the change. Especially the trivialization and denial of consequences of the implementation by top management members have undermined the employees’ acceptance of and belief in the redesign.

and that communication is able to disrupt the creation of readiness by undermining the effect of the component by negative elements in communicating. Especially lack of clarity and lack of unambiguous behaviour seem to be major predators in killing readiness for change.

Recommendations

In order for the PTO redesign to become more successful by increasing the readiness for change, this paragraph will provide some specific recommendations for improvement of the current situation. The recommendations are all based on PTO redesign, but can be generalized to minimize inefficient communication in future change projects.

More Face-to-face communication

communication efforts. Therefore, even tough more attention should be given to face-to-face communication; also other forms of communication are still necessary.

More involvement of line management

Line and middle managers can be utilized as key communication links. If they are encouraged, trained, and hold responsible for keeping employees informed and providing a lot of interpersonal communication regarding the changes, this will benefit the attitude of employees towards the change (Richardson & Denton, 1996). Involvement of line management in the communication process creates more opportunities to share and discuss information with employees about the pending change, by both upward and downward communication. Next to this, line managers can translate the general goals of organizational change efforts into specific departmental objectives (Kanter et al., 1992). The structure of the PTO redesign allows line managers to easily be more involved. Especially the R&T managers, Segment Sales managers, and Product managers can fulfill a major role in this. If these line managers are capable of explaining the redesign to subordinates in a clear and unambiguous manner, much of the communication difficulties concerning uncertainty could be resolved. A prerequisite in this is that line managers do completely understand the change message. This could be accomplished by involving them earlier in the process. To use line management as an important communication channel, some preparations are at hand: first of all, line managers should be informed completely and have to get their own questions concerning the change settled. Next to this, they should be comfortable responding to employees’ questions, even without complete answers. And finally, they should develop their own picture of the changed future (Mann, 2000). This can be accomplished by leader preparation workshops or seminars. Manager’s comfort and confidence in dealing with tough questions builds their confidence in and support for the change itself. In case of the PTO redesign line management of all disciplines will take part in a multiple-day seminar to involve, guide, and align them in the new structure. If organized earlier in the process, this could have created more involvement by line management. Nevertheless, in present situation it still is valuable for the success of the institutionalization of the redesign.

More visible alignment of top management

aware of this notification. The alignment of the PTO change team has in recent management meetings been tackled and seems to be improved. Next to this, the awareness of the impact of misalignment has kicked in, and consequently top management is more conscious of their actions and words.

Simplify the language of the change message

Especially in an international organization such as DEP, it is important to use simplified language in the communication message. Language can be a barrier in communication (Hellriegel & Slocum, 1996), and in combination with a complex redesign, management should use words that others can understand. For most employees of DEP English is not the mother tongue. Every possibility to make the information easier to understand should be taken into account. The dense and convoluted messages in the bulletin could well be formulated in a sense that everybody throughout Europe can understand what is being stated. Also the use of examples, clear and well-formulated expectations, and an understandable vision may help.

Follow up the communication

As the results of the research specifically state that virtually all employees considered the change message to be unclear and vague, it is of utmost importance for DEP management to maintain and improve communication related to the discrepancy of the PTO redesign for the implementation and institutionalization of the change to become a success. As the PTO-bulletin was considered as a positive element of the communication, an option would be to hand out an extra bulletin. This bulletin could for example contain an extensive summary of the redesign in understandable and clear language and success stories of employees who already implemented the change. Also in general terms, follow up of communication after implementation allows the change to be communicated until institutionalization.

More participation in the change process

Create more clarity in roles, functions and job descriptions

To conclude, a specific recommendation concerning the PTO redesign. The research has clearly indicated that employees desired more clarity and insight in the redesigned PTO structure. It is highly recommended to invest in clarifying the alterations in job responsibilities and accountabilities. This will create more certainty and confidence for employees to feel comfortable in the new structure. A possible tool in this can be a solid RASCI-model, which contains all possible responsibilities, accountabilities of every function and job role. Also a new bulletin in which the redesign and new structure is re-explained within depth could be useful.

Implications

The recommendations already provide a list of managerial actions and implications that could be used as means to increase the readiness for change by communicating more effectively and by creating an environment in which employees feel comfortable in the PTO redesign. The research again confirms the importance of correct communication during times of change. Organizations should acknowledge that management, both top as line, are important drivers in creating readiness for change by communicating the change message accurately and efficiently. The outcome also showed that in a change message not all components rely on communication on a similar level. The negative influence of communication on the discrepancy of the change message was by far most damaging to the readiness for change. In association, the research implies that single components and their communicative contributors can affect other components. Although primarily discrepancy was weakly communicated, this eventually had an effect on all message components. This implies that, although being separate entities, communicative shortcomings within the components contaminate each other. The findings further imply that organizations should put effort in communicating the change message, because flaws in this process weaken employee’s readiness for change. The specific recommendations for the PTO redesign can be considered as general guidelines to managers involved in a complex change process.

Scientific implications that can be draw from this research are limited, as this was a practical research. In order to draw concrete scientific conclusions, conceptual replications in other organizations will be required. Because of the practical background, conclusions were specifically related to the organization, i.e. DSM Engineering Plastics and the specific organizational change, i.e. the PTO redesign. Nevertheless, this research provided interesting viewpoints on the influence of communication on change readiness by focusing specifically on the five components of the change message. Further research is necessary to support scientific contribution, but it is a noteworthy contribution on change literature and success/failure in organizational change processes.

Limitations

the research purpose, this research was focused on an explicit organizational change within one specific part of an organization. This resulted in single case-specific outcomes and thus limited the generalizability of the findings. Nevertheless, even though a case- study rates low on generalizability, it rates very high on data richness. In the case of the PTO redesign, the qualitative research design provided very specific and rich information concerning communication surrounding the readiness for the new PTO structure. The cross-sectional design is the second limitation. The data was collected at a single point in time; therefore, any causal implications of this research should be interpreted cautiously. It would have been better if there had been multiple measurement times, for example before, during and after the change implementation. A longitudinal study of the influence of communication on readiness for change might have better captured the causal relationship between these variables. Unfortunately, due to time and resource constraints, this was impossible.

Suggestions for future research

For future research, a few suggestions are recommended. First, in addition, to increase generalizability of the results for future research, the research could be expanded to a multiple case study. This could entail measurements of multiple organizational changes within one organization or of multiple cases representing organizations undergoing an organizational change. Next to this, generalizibility of the research could be enhanced by quantitative research. Moreover, it is highly likely that other variables play a significant role in how readiness for change is perceived and influenced by communication. One variable that is worth spending further research on is uncertainty. The results of the research indicate that uncertainty was a predominant source of unrest surrounding the change and the communication thereof. As a result of bad communication during organizational change, employees often feel a sense of uncertainty (Difonzo & Bordia, 1998). During organizational changes one of the most important goals of communications is to reduce and diminish uncertainty that is created by implementing a change (Schweiger & DeNisi, 1991) . Uncertainty in a organization can lead to lower productivity, decreased job satisfaction, and complete malfunctioning of employees, which is entirely opposite to the purpose and success of the organizational change (Buono & Bowditch, 1990). This shows how important good communication is during times of change, as bad communication can eventually lead to resistance to change (Difonzo et al, 1994). Future research could provide more insight in the relationship between readiness for change, communication and uncertainty.

REFERENCE LIST

Abell, P. (1996). A model of the informal structure (culture) of organizations: Help, trust, rivalry and team spirit abstract. Rationality & Society, 8, 433-452.

Anderson, A. L., & Anderson, D. (2001) The change leader’s roadmap: How to navigate your

organization’s transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2002). Crafting a change message to create transformational readiness. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 15 (2) 169-183.

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

in organizational change and development ,12, 97-128

Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for organizational change. Human Relations, 46, 681-703.

Beer, M., Russel, A. E., Spector, B. 1990. Why change programs don’t produce change. Harvard

Business Review, 68 (6) : 158-166.

Baarda, D.B., M.P.M de Goede (2001) Basisboek Methoden en technieken Houten: p/a Educatieve Partners Nederland BV

Backer, T. E. (1995). Assessing and enhancing readiness for change: Implications for technology transfer. In T. E. Backer, S. L. David, & G. Soucy (Eds.), Reviewing the behavioral science

knowledge base on technology transfer (pp. 21–41). Rockville, MD: National Institute on

Drug Abuse.

Barrett, D.J. (2002), Change communication: using strategic employee communication to facilitate major change, Corporate Communications, 7 (4), 219-31.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY. Berneth, J. (2004) Expanding our understanding of the change message Human Resource

Development Review , 3 (1), 36-52

Bridges, W. (1991) Managing transitions Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Buono, A.F. & Bowditch, J.L. (1990). Ethical considerations in merger and acquisition management: A human resource perspective. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal, 55 (4), 18-23.

Chreim, S. (2002). Influencing organizational identification during major change: A communication-based perspective. Human Relations, 55, 1117–1137

Clampitt, P.G., DeKoch, R.J. and Cashman, T. (2000) A strategy for communicating about uncertainty.

Academy of Management Executive, 14 (4), 41-57.

Conger, J.A. 2000. Effective change begins at the top. In: M. Beer and N. Nohria, Breaking the code

of change: 99-112. Boston: Harvard Business School Press

Cunningham, C., Woodward, C., Shannon, H.,MacIntosh, J., Lendrum, B., Rosenbloom, D. and Brown, J. (2002) Readiness for Organizational Change: a longitudinal study of workplace, psychological, and behavioural correlates, Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 75, 377–392.

Daft, R. L. (2001). Organization theory and design (7th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.

Daly, F., Teague, P., & Kitchen, P. (2003) Exploring the role of internal communication during

organizational change Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 8 (3), 153-162 D’Aprix, R. (1982), “The oldest (and best) way to communicate with employees”, Harvard Business

Review, September-October,. 30-2.

Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. 1999. Challenging "resistance to change." Journal of Applied

Behavioral Sciences, 35 (1): 25-41.

DeWalt, K. M., DeWalt, B. R., & Wayland, C. B. (1998). "Participant observation." In H. R. Bernard (Ed.) Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology. Pp: 259-299. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.

DiFonzo, N., & Bordia, P. (1998) A tale of two corporations: managing uncertainty during organizational change Human Resource Management, 37 (3-4), 295-303

DiFonzo, N., Bordia, P., & Rosnow, R.L. (1994). Reining in rumors. Organizational Dynamics, 23, 47-62.

Duck, J. D. (1998). Managing change: The art of balancing. In Harvard Business Review on Change (pp.55-83). Boston: Harvard Business School.

Eby, L. T., Adams, D. M., Russell, J.E.A., & Gaby, S. H. (2000). Perceptions of organizational readiness for change: Factors related to employees’ reactions to the implementation of teambased selling. Human Relations, 53 (3), 419–442.

Ellis, B. H. (1992). The effects of uncertainty and source credibility on attitudes about organizational change. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 34-57.

Elving, W.J.L. (2005) The role of communication in organizational change Corporate

Communications: an International Journal,10 (2), 129-138

Gioia, D.A. and Sims, H.P. (1986), “Cognitive-behavior connections: attribution and verbal behavior in leader-subordinate interactions”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 37, 197-229.

Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1998). Work, friendship, and media use for information exchange in a networked organization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49, 1101- 1114.

Hellriegel, D.,Slocum, J. & Woodman, R. (1996) Organizational Behavior, Eight Edition, St Paul, MN West Publishing.

Hinds, P., & Kiesler, S. (1995). Communication across boundaries: Work, structure, and use of communication technologies in a large organization. Organization Science, 6, 373-393. Huy, Q. N. (1999). Emotional capability, emotional intelligence, and radical change. Academy of

Management Review, 24(2), 325–345.

Jablin, F.M. (1979), “Superior-subordinate communication: the state of the art”, Psychological