THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGE AGENT POWER BASES FOR SUCCESSFUL EMERGENT CHANGE
A case study in the public sector
Master thesis, MSc BA Change Management
University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
2
ABSTRACT
In order to create more knowledge about the power bases of change agents and their influence on emergent change, a case study within a public organization is conducted. This study made a distinction between two emergent change phases based on the model of strategy as guided evolution: variation (generating new ideas or options for change) and selection/retention (deciding which new ideas or options for change will be tried out and which ideas will be continued on). An analysis of different power bases described in the literature, provided a list of nine power bases that can play a role during the emergent change phases. These power bases are: legitimate power, reward power, coercive power, information power, affiliation power, referent power, expert power, traditional power and network power. Twenty-one interviews were conducted within seven teams. Within all teams a different change content was analyzed by interviewing the change agent/team leader and two team members. During the interviews questions were asked about how the change agent used the power bases during the emergent change phases and what the effect was on the emergent change phases. Examples were asked that showed the use of the power bases of change agents and their effect on the emergent change phases. The interview fragments were coded and combined in a coding scheme. Results show that legitimate power and referent power, followed by expert power and information have the most influence on the emergent change phases. Next to that, the possession of the power bases enables the change agents to start the change, stimulate and motivate the team members, obtain realistic ideas and a desirable elaboration of this ideas, create support and understanding/overcome resistance and direct the change.
Key words: Emergent change, strategy as guided evolution, power bases, influence tactics, change
3
PREFACE
-Help people become more motivated by guiding them to the source of their own power- (Paul G. Thomas)
-Motivation is the art of getting people to do what you want them to do because they want to do it- (Dwight D. Eisenhower)
The last few year, I saw from a safe distance various political games taking place. That made me curious about the way I am going to achieve my personal ambition within my future career. The decision to write my MSc Thesis about power was therefore not ‘just’ a choice. I selected the quotes that are displayed above before I actually started with collecting data. These quotes are in line with my ambition to motivate people to use their talents in order to make together with this people a valuable difference within the world. Fortunately the results of this study confirmed that the above displayed quotes are absolutely useful within the complex, uncertain and ambiguous political arena of organizational change. I am pleased with the insights I get by investigating the influence of power bases of change agents on successful emergent change. The writing of this thesis was a valuable closure of my student years.
Acknowledgements
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ... 6
1.1 From planned to emergent change ... 6
1.2 Emergent change and political behavior ... 7
1.3 Power of change agents ... 8
1.4 Power bases compared ... 9
1.5 Analysis ... 12
1.6 List of power bases of change agents ... 13
1.7 Previous research about the use of power (bases) ... 14
1.7 Scientific and practical relevance ... 15
1.8 Research questions ... 16 2. METHODOLOGY ... 17 2.1 Research approach ... 17 2.3.1 Case description ... 17 2.3.3 Units of analysis ... 18 2.4 Data collection ... 20 2.6 Data analysis... 20 3. RESULTS ... 22 3.1 Legitimate power ... 22
3.1.1 The influence of legitimate power on the variation phase ... 22
3.1.2 The influence of legitimate power on the selection/retention phase ... 23
3.2 Reward power... 25
3.2.1 The influence of reward power on the variation phase ... 26
3.2.2 The influence of reward power on the selection/retention phase ... 26
3.3 Coercive power ... 27
3.3.1 The influence of coercive power on the variation phase ... 27
3.3.1 The influence of coercive power on the selection/retention phase ... 28
3.4 Information power ... 28
3.4.1 The influence of information power on the variation phase ... 29
3.4.2 The influence of information power on the selection/retention phase ... 30
3.5 Affiliation power ... 31
3.5.1 The influence of affiliation power on the variation phase ... 31
3.5.1 The influence of affiliation power on the selection/retention phase... 32
3.6 Referent power ... 33
3.6.1 The influence of referent power on the variation phase ... 33
5
3.7 Expert power ... 36
3.7.1 The influence of expert power on the variation phase ... 37
3.7.2 The influence of expert power on the selection/retention phase ... 38
3.8 Traditional power ... 38
3.9 Network power ... 38
3.9.1 The influence of network power on the selection/retention phase ... 39
4. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS ... 40
4.1 Discussion and conclusions ... 40
4.2 Limitations and further research ... 46
4.2 Theoretical and managerial implications ... 47
REFERENCES ... 49
APPENDIX 1. INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS ... 54
6
1. INTRODUCTION
Organizations often act irrationally and their goals and objectives emerge through a process of negotiation and influence and they are composed of competing and shifting coalitions of groups and individuals (Brown, 1995; Buchanan and Badham, 1999; Mintzberg et al, 1998; Robbins 1986, 1987). This perspective begun to emerge strongly in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Burnes, 2009). Before then, as Gandz and Murray (1980) discovered, there was very little interest in organizational politics and very few publications on it. From 1980s the emergent change has taken over the planned approach as the dominant approach for change. According to Burnes (2009) the importance of political behavior is the major point of departure between the proponent of emergent change and the proponents of planned change. Although the importance of political behavior nowadays is extremely emphasized, Buchanan and Badham (1999) argue that the academic literature does not adequately explore the shaping role of political behavior within emergent change. According to them, some scientists deny the role of political behavior within organizational change, some accept the role of political behavior without engagement and some recognize the importance of political behavior but offer little or no practical guidance (Buchanan and Badham, 1999). Therefore, the goal of this research is to respond on the need for more detailed knowledge and practical guidance about political behavior during emergent change. Questions like: ‘How can political behavior contribute to successful emergent change?’ and ‘How can change agents use their power in a pragmatic way to build support and overcome or avoid resistance during emergent change?’ are central to this research.
The next sections will discuss the rise of the emergent change approach and different phases within emergent change. Secondly, the different perspectives on political behavior within emergent change and the available practical guidance from previous researchers to manage emergent change effectively will be described. Subsequently, an analysis of different models of power bases will be conducted. This will provide an list of power bases of change agent that can play a role within emergent change and will be used for conducting the case study. Finally, this will lead to an clear explanation of the scientific and practical relevance and an introduction of the research questions that will be answered within this research.
1.1 From planned to emergent change
7 they disagree about whether the environment is a concrete reality or a socially constructed phenomenon. The environment impacts upon and affects the actions and decisions of organizations, but they also impact the environment.’
The proponents of emergent change come from a wide variety of backgrounds and each offer their own distinctive view. According to Burnes (2009) even complexity theory, as it has been applied to organizations, lies firmly within the emergent approach to change. However, the definition of Weick (2000) will be accepted by all proponents of emergent change, because this emphasized the appropriateness of emergent change to suit the turbulent and continually changing environment in which forms operate now. Weick (2000, p. 237) state that: ‘Emergent change consists of ongoing accomodations, adaptations and alterations that produce fundamental change without priori intentions to do so’. This definition refers to creating an optimum ‘fit’ between the organization and the environment it operates in. The concept of ‘fit’ is borrowed from the field of biology and specifically the Darwinian concept of evolution by natural selection. The principles of the Darwinian concept of evolution by natural selection are generic ones, applicable to social as well as biological systems. However, Hawley (1986) and Campbell (1969) were the pioneers in applying evolutionary and ecological perspectives to social science. Lovas & Ghoshal (2000) subsequently build a model of strategy as guided evolution on the findings of their studies. The model of strategy as guided evolution incorporates the role of top management in shaping the direction and outcomes of evolutionary processes within firms and the role of human and social capital as a critical unit of selection within such processes. The process of guided evolution can be described through showing how the sources of variation, the agents of selection, and the agents of retention function within the strategy process. By sources of variation they mean those who come up with and suggest new ways of doing things. By agents of selection they mean those who decide which of these suggestions will be acted on. By agents of retention they mean those who decide which of the existing ways will be continued, and which will be discontinued (Lovas & Ghoshal, 2000).
The model of Lovas & Ghoshal (2000) does not conflict with other organizational ecological models and incorporates the role of management during emergent change. Therefore, this model serves as base for this research. Because the retention phase is a repetition of the selected variations, the phases of selection and retention are combined. Within this research, the phase of variation is defined as the process of generating new ideas or options for change. The phase of selection/retention is defined as the process of deciding which new ideas or options for change will be tried out and which ideas will be continued on (also called: the institutionalization of the change).
1.2 Emergent change and political behavior
8 decision processes, individual perceptions, political struggles and coalition-building (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001). The Processualists reject prescriptive, recipe-driven approaches to change and are suspicious of single causes or simple explanations of events. Instead, when studying change, they focus on the interrelatedness of individuals, groups, organizations and society (Burnes, 2009). However, this has not prevented most of the proponents of emergent change to give suggestions about sequences of actions which organizations should follow. Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) propose a model for successful managing strategic and operational change that involves five interrelated factors. Subsequently, Dawson (1994) introduced fifteen major practical guidelines which can be drawn from a Processual analysis of managing organizational transitions.
According to Burnes (2009) the problem is that the advice from the Processualists is too general or cursory in nature and too difficult to apply. It can sometimes also appear almost as an afterthought (Caldwall, 2006). The prescriptive camp are more concerned with telling organizations what they should do with political behavior. Two of the leading exponents of change in this respect is Kotter’s Eight Steps to successful change (1996) and Carnall’s four competencies that are essential to the effective management of change. Kotter’s Eight Steps to successful change are: (1) Establish a sense of urgency, (2) Create a guiding coalition, (3) Develop a vision and strategy, (4) Communicate the vision, (5) Empower broad-based action, (6) Generate short-term wins, (7) Consolidate gains and producing more change, (8) Anchoring new approaches in the culture. Carnall’s four competencies are: (1) Decision making, (2) Coalition Building, (3) Achieving action, (4) Maintaining momentum and effort.
As can be seen, there are some similarities between Kotter’s Eight Steps to successful change (1996) and the four core competencies that are essential to the effective management of change according to Carnall (2003). Taken together, they provide guidance for implementing change. Since we know that the political behavior plays an important role within realizing these prescriptions, this research wants to respond on the need for more detailed knowledge about political behavior within these prescriptions of successful emergent change.
1.3 Power of change agents
9 in a pragmatic way to build support and overcome or avoid resistance (Burnes, 2009). Therefore, the power of change agents seems to play a significant role within the processes of emergent change.
Within this research, the power of the change agent is seen as a property of the relationship between the change agent and the followers. This perspective is attributed to the work of French and Raven (1958), who identified five main power bases which are described in table 1. Buchanan and Badham (1999, p. 49) explain a number of significant features of the power bases of French and Raven (1958): ‘Firstly, the power of the change agent depends on the belief of others. For example, a change agent may be able to control rewards and penalties, have superior knowledge and so on, but if others do not believe that he or she has these attributes, then they may be unwilling to comply with requests. Secondly, the power bases of a change agent are interrelated. For example, the change agent who resorts to coercive power, loses referent power. Thirdly, the change agent can operate from multiple bases of power. The same person may be able to use different bases, in different combinations, in different contexts, and at different times.’
The model of French and Raven (1958) is according to Mintzberg (1983) the best-known framework for studying social or interpersonal power. Within this research, we use this typology as the basis for analyzing different power bases described in the literature, to get subsequently a list of power bases of change agents that can play a role during emergent change.
Legitimate power Based on the belief of followers that the change agent has the authority to give instructions, within the boundaries of his or her formal position or rank within the organization.
Reward power Based on the belief of followers that the change agent has access to valued reward which will be dispensed in return for compliance with instructions.
Coercive power Based on the belief of followers that the change agent can administer penalties or sanctions that are considered to be unwelcome.
Referent power Based on the belief of followers that the change agents has desirable abilities and personality traits that can and should be copied.
Expert power Based on the belief of followers that the change agent has superior knowledge relevant to the situation and the task in hand.
Table 1. Power bases of French and Raven (1958)
1.4 Power bases compared
In the literature there are many models for identifying power bases which can be related to the five power bases of French and Raven (1958). It is valuable to analyze which additions these models have on the fundamental model of French and Raven (1958). Emans (1995) provided an table with power bases based on adjusted models of Mulder (1977) and Weber (1993). For this analysis, the table of Emans (1995) is expanded with the models of Benfari et al., (1986) and Robbins (2005). The result is displayed in table 2. The next sections describe the content of these models and how they are related with the model of French and Raven (1958).
French and Raven (1958)
Weber (1922) Mulder (1977) Benfari et al. (1986) Robbins (2005)
Legitimate power Rational-legal authority
10 Table 2. Models of power bases in literature related to the model of French and Raven (1958) (Based on Emans, 1995)
Weber (1922)
French and Raven (1958) introduced their model in the science of sociology and psychology in the late 1950’s. In 1922 Weber introduced the well-known theory of authority in the political-science and political sociology at an earlier time. Weber (1922) classified three types of legitimate authority. The first type is charismatic authority, which is legitimized through the leader’s particular qualities being valued and an inspiration to others (Senior & Swailes, 2010). This type of authority is strongly related to the referent power base of French and Raven (1958). The second type of authority, Weber (1922) called rational-legal authority. This type of authority characterizes the power held by people because of their position in some formal or understood hierarchy that has some independent standing with regard to the rules and procedures sustaining it (Senior & Swailes, 2010). This type of authority can be related to legitimate power of French and Raven (1958).
The last type of authority derives from tradition, which is an additional power base compared to the model of French and Raven (1958). This kind of authority is legitimized by custom and practice and a belief in the right of certain individuals to rule others (Senior & Swailes, 2010). There is no power base within the model of French and Raven (1958) that can be related to this kind of authority.
Mulder, 1997
Mulder (1997) developed a comparable framework like French and Raven (1958) for Dutch situations consisting of eight power bases. Mulder (1997) called the power bases influencing factors or influence types. Compared with the power bases of French and Raven (1958), Mulder (1997) adds three additional power bases. The first four power bases reference power, expert power, expertise power and formal power correspond with the eponymous powerbases of French and Raven (1958). Expert power
Reward power Sanction power Reward power
Coercive power Coercion power
Referent power Charismatic authority Reference power Referent power Personal power
Expert power Expert power/
Expertise power
Expert power Additional to
French & Raven
Traditional authority
Open consultation Information power Upward influence
Outward influence
Affiliation power
11 and expertise power in the model of Mulder (1997) derive both from superior knowledge which is relevant in a certain situation, so this is the same as expert power within de model of French and Raven (1958). Sanction power in the model of Mulder (1997) means the power to reward or punish. This power base, divided up into reward and coercion power, is also part of the model of French and Raven (1958).
Open consultation power is the first additional power base, compared with French and Raven (1958). This power base refers to the communicative skills of an actor to persuade others for a certain standpoint based on arguments. The value of the arguments and the expertise of the one that needs to be convinced determines the extent to which this power base works (Mulder, 1977). Another additional power bases are upward influence and outward influence. Mulder (1977) characterized these influences not as a power base. He argues that this influence derives from reference power, expert power and open consultation. Upward influence is the influence an actor has upwards in the hierarchy. For example, when someone has a good relation with a board member, the person can realize things faster. Outward influence is the influence someone has outside the department or organization. Through realizing attractive business outside the department or organization, arises dependency and power (Mulder, 1997).
Benfari et al. (1986)
Benfari et al. (1986) identified eight power bases. Compared with the model of French & Raven (1958), the first five power bases are the same. Information power, affiliation power and group power are additional power bases.
12
Robbins, 2005
Robbins (2005) drawing on French and Raven’s (1958) idea suggests two broad categories of power; formal power and personal power. Formal power relates to the position of the individual within the organization and incorporates legitimate power, reward power, and coercive power. Personal power derives from the unique characteristics of individuals such as their skills and expertise, their personalities and their favored associations with others from whom they gain status and other desirable resources (Senior & Swailes, 2010).
1.5 Analysis power bases
To determine which power bases of a change agent can play a role during emergent change, the power bases must be seen as a property of the relationship between a change agent and the followers. The power bases of French and Raven (1958) are recognizable in all models. Sometimes the powerbases are combined with each other, e.g. reward power and coercive power (French & Raven, 1958) into sanction power (Mulder, 1977), but they mean almost the same. Because the perspective to see power bases as a property of the relationship between the change agent and the followers is attributed to the work of French and Raven (1958), these power bases will definitely be added to the list of power bases that are relevant for this research. More interesting for this analysis are the additional power bases displayed in table 2. These power bases are analyzed in the next sections.
Firstly, traditional authority from Weber (1922) can be considered as a power base for people, because due to historically developed norms and habits, which are independent of the personality, the person can have respect (Emans, 1995). Komter (1985) called this ‘power of the obviousness’. She argues that the organizational culture determines which people, because of their background, have more rights than others (Emans, 1995). This power base can be seen as a property of the relationship between the change agent and the followers, because the followers can belief that the change agent has more rights than others because of his or her background. Within this research, this power base is called ‘traditional power.’
13 to information that is not public knowledge. Within this research, this power base is called ‘information power’.
Thirdly, according to Mulder (1977) upward influence and outward influence derives from reference power, expert power and open consultation. Mulder (1977) does not characterize this as a power base. Although we assume that upward influence can be related to referent power and expert power, outward influence can be an valuable concept during emergent change. More recently, other scientists refer to this concept as ‘network power’ (Emans, 1995) or ‘social capital’ (Taylor, 2000). Regarding to the open systems perspective, the power of a change agent to influence the environment with valuable connections seems to be relevant during emergent change. This power base can be seen as a property of the relationship between the change agent and the followers, because the followers can belief that the change agent has the ability to influence the environment with valuable connection outside the organization. Therefore, this power base will also be added to the list of power bases that will be investigated during this research. The power base is called ‘network power’.
Fourthly, compared with the model of French and Raven (1958), affiliation power from Benfari el al. (1986) cannot be related to any power base. This power base can be seen as a property of the relationship between the change agent and the followers, because the followers can belief that the change agent has power from an authority source where he or she is associated with. Within this research, this power base is called ‘affiliation power.’
Finally, group power is the last additional power base compared to the model of French and Raven (1958). This powerbase can be seen as a property between the change agent and the followers, because the followers can belief that the change agent has the ability to manage the group process of problem solving, conflict resolution or creative brainstorming. However, within this research we assume that emergent change is a group process. A change agent can use power bases to manage this group process successfully. In fact, this power base is the goal of this research, not a mean to reach that goal. Therefore, this power base is not appropriate to investigate within this research and will not be added to the list of power bases that will investigated during this research.
1.6 List of power bases of change agents
14 Positional power bases Legitimate power Based on the belief of followers that the change agent has the
authority to give instructions, within the boundaries of his or her formal position or rank within the organization.
Reward power Based on the belief of followers that the change agent has access to valued reward which will be dispensed in return for compliance with instructions.
Coercive power Based on the belief of followers that the change agent can administer penalties or sanctions that are considered to be unwelcome.
Information power Based on the belief of followers that the change agent has access to information that is not public knowledge.
Affiliation power Based on the belief of followers that the change agent has borrowed power from an authority source which he or she is associated with.
Personal power bases Referent power Based on the belief that the change agent has desirable abilities and personality traits that can and should be copied. Expert power Based on the belief of followers that the change agents has
superior knowledge relevant to the situation and the task in hand.
Traditional power Based on the belief of followers that the change agent has more rights than others because of his or her background. Network power Based on the belief of followers that the change agent has the
ability to influence the environment with valuable connection outside the organization.
Table 3. List of power bases of change agents that can play a role during emergent change
1.7 Previous research about the use of power (bases)
15 Becoming more specific about the use of power bases, some assumptions of influences of power bases on change in the current literature can be found. According to Burnes (2009) the use of knowledge power (within this research information power) is shown to be effective in gaining willing compliance and cooperation from those at whom it is directed. Benfari et al. (1986) argue that also reward power and referent power are typically regarded favorably by those on the receiving end. Coercive power is often seen as counterproductive, because those on the receiving end of such power tend to view it negatively and resent it (Benfari et al, 1986; Bachman et al, 1968; Robbins, 1986).
In order to clarify the influence of power bases on emergent change, it seems to be important to take the context of the change into consideration. Benfari et al. (1986) note that the perceptions of recipients of authority power, expert power, affiliation power and group power largely depend on how they are exercised regarding the circumstances. For example, the abuse of authority to bully and control others is usually scorned, but the exercise of strong leadership in a crisis is typically welcomed (Buchanan and Badham, 1999). Next to that, Burnes (2009) argues that irrespective of the source or type of power, it is perhaps the willingness to use power in certain situations which leads to the positive or negative consequences. Change agents have clear choices, with differential implications for their reputation, concerning the use of power (Buchanan and Badham, 1999).
Finally, more relevant knowledge about the use of power can be found with regard to influence tactics (e.g. Kipnis et al. 1980, 1984; Yukl et al., 1993; Bennebroek and Boonstra, 1998; Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001). According to Buchanan and Badham (1999) it is possible to make a distinction between power (drawing on sources, bases and resources) and influence (using interpersonal tactics), but the dividing line is vague. In order to get a better understanding of the influences of power bases, it is also relevant to consider the findings of previous research about influence tactics. Yukl et al. (1993) provides a clear model of influence tactics that can be used in order to persuade someone else to do what you want them to do. According to this researcher these influence tactics are: rational persuasion, inspiration appeals, consultation, ingratiation, personal appeals, exchange, coalition building, pressure and legitimating tactics (Yukl et al., 1993).
1.7 Scientific and practical relevance
16 (1999) recognize this discord and argue that the academic literature does not adequately explore the shaping role of political behavior in organizational change. Especially practical guidance is still missing. According to Buchanan and Badham (1999) there are three broad positions of researchers in the current literature about political behavior within organizations: ‘denial, acceptance without engagement and recognition without advice’. Also Hardy (1996) commented on the failure to incorporate the political nature into the traditional and prescriptive literature on change. He argues that the ‘aversion’ to discussing power has restricted our understanding of change and impeded our ability to manage change effectively (Burnes, 2009).
The central premise of this research is that political behavior plays on important role within organizational change. Therefore, this research wants to respond on the need for more detailed knowledge and practical guidance about political behavior within emergent change and will contribute on the prescriptive literature of emergent change. To realize this goal, this research focus on the role of change agents during emergent change. Hartley et al. (1997) observed that there has been relatively little research on the role of change agents during emergent change. As opposed to the Processualist, within this research we assume that change has to be managed. The change agents have to use their power in a pragmatic way to build support and overcome or avoid resistance (Burnes, 2009). Through investigating how the possession of the power bases enable a change agent to play a role in the emergent change phases of variation and selection/retention, this research will provide detailed knowledge and practical guidance for change agents to create successful emergent change.
1.8 Research questions
The research question of this research relates to the list of nine power bases of change agents that can be relevant during emergent change, as described in section 1.6. With regard to all of these power bases, the research question for this research will be:
17
2. METHODOLOGY
This section starts with explaining the research approach. Then a description of the case and the units of analysis will be provided. Finally, the data content, data collection method and the data analysis are explained.
2.1 Research approach
In order to investigate the influence of power bases of change agent on emergent change, a theory development method was used as described by Eisenhardt (1989). This research method was chosen, because the literature regarding the influence of power bases of change agent on emergent change is almost not addressed in academic literature. After conducting an analysis of different models of power bases, a list of power bases of change agent that can play a role during emergent change is provided. The influence of these power bases of change agents on emergent change is examined by doing an embedded case study (one case study with multiple units of analysis). This enables the researcher to do an in-depth analysis of the change process while keeping the main focus on the research question. The judgment for selecting the case was based on three criteria: the case is considered as an emergent change process, which consists of a variation and selection/retention phase (1), the emergent change process was observable within all units of analysis (2), and the emergent change process was guided by different change agents within all units of analysis (3).
2.3.1 Case description
The case selected for this research took place at RUD Drenthe. RUD Drenthe is an organization which executes the environmental legislation, regulations and enforcement within the province Drenthe. The customers of the organization are municipalities and the Provincie Drenthe. At May 2011 the government decided to establish a RUD for Drenthe. Economies of scale should provide the necessary quality improvements and the possibilities for working more efficiently and effective. At April 2013 the business plan was developed and at September 2013 all municipalities and the Provincie Drenthe approved the formation of the RUD Drenthe. RUD Drenthe is since January 2014 operational. A number of 110 employees from 12 municipalities and the Provincie Drenthe work since that time together within this organization.
18 customers. These customers also appointed one or two persons for contact with the RUD Drenthe. The team leaders are responsible for the agreements with their employees about the execution of the operational tasks and providing the correct information about their team. Next to that, they have a crucial role to involve the employees within organizational changes. In order to identify a desired culture for RUD Drenthe, all future employees were requested to fill in a questionnaire. Subsequently, twenty-five future employees were interviewed (equally distributed on the leaving organizations) and four workshops were done. The research resulted not in one clear desired image, but the focus was on a people-oriented and family culture. Important keywords were ‘respect’ and ‘trust.’ The agreements with the customers, the product handbook and the work processes were formally described, but this was not always known by all involved people.
Because the employees from the thirteen different organizations came from different cultures and did have different ways of working, one of the main challenges of the RUD Drenthe since the operational start at January 2014 was to create an uniform way of working. Regarding the criteria for selecting the case, the creation of an uniform way of working was an appropriate case for an in-depth analysis of the change situation. The creation of an uniform way of working consisted of variation and selection/retention processes and this emergent change process was observable within all teams of the RUD Drenthe. Next to that, the team leader played an important role during this change process. Every team was guided by one team leader during the creation of an uniform way of working. Within this research, the team leader served as change agent and the different teams formed the units of analysis. Within the text of this thesis, the team leader is consequently mentioned as: change agent.
2.3.3 Units of analysis
As described above, all employees from thirteen different organizations are divided in seven teams. All teams are highly involved within the emergent change process of creating an uniform way of working and all teams were guided by one change agent. Therefore, the seven teams are selected as units of analysis. These units of analyses are: team Advies, team Bedrijfsvoering, team Bodem, team Juridisch, team Toezicht en Handhaving Assen, team Toezicht en Handhaving Emmen, and team Vergunningverlening. Within all units of analysis, one change content with regard to the overarching case context of creating an uniform way of working was analyzed. A description of the key activities and the change contents of the different units of analysis/teams are displayed in table 4.
Unit of analysis/team name:
Key activities: Change content: Advies (AD) Supervising and
maintaining
environmental aspects
Creation of a common computer system
19 direction, but at a later moment he realized the necessity. At that moment the change agent and team members aimed for an common system. At the time that the interviews took place, this change was realized.
Bedrijfsbureau (BE) Advice about
environmental permits or notifications
Creation of an uniform process of reporting to the direction and customers
All teams have to report the justifications of their work activities to the direction of the RUD and the customers once a quarter. Since the operational start at January 2014, the change agent and team members of team Bedrijfsbureau were responsible for creating an uniform way of collecting the information and reporting about this information. Therefore, the change agent and team members worked the recent months on this process. At the time that the interviews took place, improvements were still carried out, but the conceived process was clearly visible. Bodem (BO) Tasks concerning soil
pollution
Creation of a team plan
Since the operational start at January 2014, the team leader and team members indicated that they need a vision and a plan for creating an uniform way of working within their team. Questions like: ‘Who are we?’, ‘What are we going to do?’, ‘What are our goals?’ ‘How are we going to work together?’ and ‘What is the added value of our team?’ were elaborated by the change agent and team members. At the time that the interviews took place, the plan was not completely finished, but the main lines were determined.
Juridisch (JU) Legal support for all teams within RUD Drenthe
Creation of uniform letters
Before the formation of RUD Drenthe, all team member used standardized letters of their latent organization. These letters are an important mean for the team members to execute their job, because these letters serve as protocols. Since the operational start at January 2014, the team members indicated that they need uniform letters which they all can use. The change agent and the team members worked on this. At the time that the interviews took place, this was realized.
Toezicht & Handhaving Assen (TA)
Supervising and maintaining
environmental aspects in the region of Assen
Creation of a good collaboration within the team
The team members within team Toezicht en Handhaving Assen derived from eight different organizations. Since the operational start at January 2014, there arose problems between the team members that derived from the governments and the team members that derived from the province. This obstructed an uniform way of working and good collaboration between the team members. In March there arose an escalation. Since that time, the change agent and team members worked on a better collaboration. At the time that the interviews took place, the collaboration was improved.
Toezicht & Handhaving Emmen (TE)
Supervising and maintaining
environmental aspects in the region of Emmen
Creation of an uniform digitally way of working
The team members within team Toezicht en Handhaving Emmen derived from five different organizations. Some team members were accustomed to work digitally in an extensive way, but others did almost everything on paper. Since the operational start at January 2014, the change agent and team members worked on an uniform way of digitally working. At the time that the interviews took place, the first improvements were realized. All team members used for example a digital checklist to execute controls.
Vergunningverlening (VV)
Handling applications for environmental permits
Creation of a team plan
Since the operational start at January 2014, the team leader and team members indicated that they need a vision and a plan for creating an uniform way of working within their team. Questions like: ‘Who are we?’, ‘What are we going to do?’, ‘What are our goals?’ ‘How are we going to work together?’ and ‘What is the added value of our team?’ were elaborated by the team leader and team members. At the time that the interviews took place, a comprehensive plan was realized.
20
2.4 Data collection
The list of power bases that is conducted for this research, consists of nine power bases of change agents that can play a role within emergent change: legitimate power, reward power, coercive power, information power, affiliation power, referent power, expert power, traditional power, network power and group power. These nine power bases were the independent variables within this research. The investigated change contents within the emergent change process of creating an uniform way of working consisted of a variation and selection/retention process. These variation and selection/retention processes were the dependent variables.
To obtain qualitative data about the influence of the nine independent variables on the two dependent variables, interviews were performed. The population sample targeted for investigation concerned twenty-one employees of the RUD Drenthe, consisting of seven change agents and fourteen team members. The interviews were set up to collect observations, experiences and understandings of the influence of the nine independent variables on the processes of variation and selection/retention. All employees of the RUD Drenthe were informed about the research by using intranet. Thereafter, the interviewees were invited by e-mail. In order to get a representative view, the interviewees were selectively chosen based on the organization they worked before the formation of the RUD Drenthe, function, gender and age. The interviews lasted on average one hour and took place at a soundproof room at the work location of the interviewees. All interviews were recorded on an electronic device, using the program Recorder Pro. Confidentiality and anonymity were guaranteed regarding the interviewees.
The interviews consisted of two parts and contained open-ended questions to enable probing deeper into the responses of the interviewees, which suits the explorative character of this research (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). In the first parts all interviewees were asked to describe the process of and the change achieved, with regard to the change content of their team. In the second part of the interview the interviewees were asked to provide practical examples of the separate independent variables and their influence on the processes of variation and selection/retention. The interview protocols for both the change agents and the team members can be found in appendix 1.
2.6 Data analysis
21 the correct text fragments. The researcher used the altered coding scheme to code the interviews a second time. The results of the first and second round were compared. Differences in coding were reconsidered, by clearly focusing on the descriptions in the coding scheme.
22
3. RESULTS
The results of the case analysis will be presented in this section. The number of examples of using the power base, the different ways a change agent can use the power bases and the effects of using the power base on the emergent change phases of variation and selection/retention are described within the sequence of the different power bases. The presentation of these results are supported with tables. Within these tables more examples of the influences are given based on quotations of the interviewees. These tables are parts of the coding scheme. The complete coding scheme can be found in appendix 2.
3.1 Legitimate power
The results of the interviews showed twenty-three examples from interviewees from all seven teams of using legitimate power during the phase of variation. Twenty-seven interviewees from all seven teams noticed that the change agent used his or her authority to give instructions within the boundaries of his or her formal position during the selection/retention process.
3.1.1 The influence of legitimate power on the variation phase
The results showed that the change agents used his or her legitimate power in two ways during the phase of generating ideas. Firstly, sixteen interviewees from all seven teams explained that the change agent requested the team members to participate within discussions. For example, one of the change agents started the process of generating ideas during a team meeting with all team members: ‘The team leader used his formal position for starting the process [of generating ideas].’ (TM) Eleven interviewees from also seven teams indicated that this way of using legitimate power positively contributed to the phase of variation, because they get the ability to come up with their ideas and opinions. One of the team members noticed: ‘Everyone can throw their opinion on the table.’ (TM) Others mentioned also that they felt stimulated to come up with their ideas during these discussions: ‘Everybody was supposed to participate actively and to think along.’ (TM)
23
Way of using power base: Example(s): Effect on variation phase: Example(s):
1. The change agent, making use of his or her authority to give instructions within the boundaries of his or her formal position, requested the team members to participate within discussions.
‘On a certain moment I realized that this was a serious issue. Then I could give the team members space to come up with their ideas.’ (CA)
‘I take the initiative to discuss the issues. From my position I can create the opportunity and setting.’ (CA)
‘The team leader used his formal position for starting the process [of generating ideas].’ (TM)
+ The team members get the ability and felt stimulated to come up with their problems, ideas and opinions.
‘We do not have a
hierarchical culture. This is done in consultation. There are enough people who come up with their ideas.’ (CA)
‘I simply told her my ideas.’ (TM)
‘I felt space to come up with my ideas.’ (TM)
‘Everyone can throw their opinion on the table.’ (TM) ‘Everybody was supposed to participate actively and to think along.’ (TM)
2. The change agent, making use of his or her authority to give instructions within the boundaries of his or her formal position, requested some team members to participate within a work group to generate ideas.
‘I brought some employees together; someone from the ICT department and two employees from my own team.’ (CA)
‘We discussed some parts in smaller groups. ’ (CA) ‘I made some pioneers responsible. (…) Actually they have no choice, they have to join.’ (CA)
+ The team members that participated within the work group felt stimulated to come up with ideas and elaborated their ideas for an certain degree.
‘They [team members within work group] explored the issue and subsequently put a proposal on paper.’ (CA)
‘They [team members within work group] explored what is going to work and what not.’ (CA) ‘Decisions are ‘pre-cooked’ by that group, so then we are going to discuss it with the whole group again.’ (CA)
Table 5. Codes and examples about the influence of legitimate power on the variation phase
3.1.2 The influence of legitimate power on the selection/retention phase
During the selection/retention phase, the change agent used legitimate power in three ways. Firstly, ten interviewees from all six teams indicated that the change agent used this power base by making decisions about which ideas will be selected to try out and continued on. Within all teams, the ideas come from the whole team, but the change agent made the final decisions. For example, one of the change agents explained that he first checked the conclusions by the team. When they confirmed these conclusions, he made the final decision about what they are going to do: ‘I made conclusions at the end of the day. [I said to the team members:] ‘So, we discuss these points and we get this picture about how we are going to work.’ Subsequently I get a confirmation [of the team members]. [Then I said:] Oke, then we are going to work like this.’ (CA) Three interviewees from three different teams indicated that this positively contributed to the selection/retention phase, because this gave clearness about which ideas they have to elaborate. One of the interviewed team members explained: ‘When the team leader is clear [about the decision made], you can get people on the right track.’ (TM)
24 tasks among the work groups. ‘He [change agent] instructed the secretariat to plan the meetings [for the work groups]. So, yes, then you instruct the employees actively to work on it.’ (TM) Eleven interviewees from five different teams indicated this way of using legitimate power. Subsequently, two effects on the selection/retention phase can be distinguished from the results regarding this way of using legitimate power. Nine interviewees from four different teams mentioned that the team members that participated within the work group decided together with the change agent about which ideas will be selected to elaborate. For example, one of the interviewed team members explained that they decided about some ideas together with the change agent: ‘And then we introduce: ’This is what we are going to bring in practice.’ That was decided in collaboration with the team manager.’ (TM) According to the interviewed change agent of that team, this should create support for the selected ideas: ‘I have to create support.(…) I leave the elaboration to the employees [within the workgroup]. They are the once who have to work that way.’ (CA) Two interviewed change agent explained another effect of this way of influencing. They noticed that this contributed to the process of selection/retention, because the ideas were elaborated by skilled team members and this resulted a good elaboration of the selected ideas: ‘They [team members within work group] share their knowledge with others and I facilitate them optimally. Then I get the best result. (…) When you have questions, you can ask them.’ (CA)
Thirdly, six interviewees from five teams mentioned that the change agent convinced the management board and director about which ideas should be selected to elaborate by using legitimate power. One of the change agents explained that this was an important part of realizing the change: ‘During the decision process I showed much persistence. (…) I promoted the proposal to the management board and emphasized that I found this important to happen, because the employees need this. So, I defend the proposal. ’ (CA) According to this change agent and one team member of this team, this influenced the selection/retention phase positively, because the management board was convinced to elaborate the selected ideas: ‘The outcome was positive, because this issue was positive assessed by the management board.’ (TM)
Way of using power base: Example(s): Effect on
selection/retention phase:
Example(s):
1. The change agent, making use of his or her authority to give instructions within the boundaries of his or her formal position, made decisions about which ideas will be selected to
elaborate.
‘We discuss the ideas within the team, but in the end I am the one who said how we are going to do it.’ (CA) ‘I made conclusions at the end of the day. [I said to the team members:] ‘So, we discuss these points and we get this picture about how we are going to work.’ Subsequently I get a confirmation [of the team members]. [Then I said:] Oke, then we are going to
+ This gave clearness to the team members about which ideas they have to elaborate.
25
work like this.’ (CA)
2. The change agent, making use of his or her authority to give instructions within the boundaries of his or her formal position, requested some team members to participate within a work group to elaborate selected ideas.
‘There is a work group who elaborate things.’ (TM) ‘He [change agent] made groups that helped him to develop the team plan.’ (TM)
‘He [change agent] instructed the secretariat to plan the meetings [for the work groups]. So, yes, then you instruct the employees actively to work on it.’ (TM)
+ The team members that participated within the work group decided together with the change agent about which ideas will be selected to elaborate. This created support for the selected ideas.
‘Finally you decide together what will work.’ (CA) ‘I have to create support.(…) I leave the elaboration to the employees [within the workgroup]. They are the once who have to work that way.’ (CA)
‘And then we introduce: ’This is what we are going to bring in practice.’ That was decided in
collaboration with the team manager.’ (TM)
‘They [team members within work group] made the decisions. Of course he [change agent] decides how it finally would look like, but this is based on the suggestions of the work team.’ (TM)
+ The selected ideas were elaborated by skilled team members.
‘They [team members within work group] share their knowledge with others and I facilitate them optimally. Then I get the best result. (…) When you have questions, you can ask them.’ (CA)
3. The change agent, making use of his or her authority to give instructions within the boundaries of his or her formal position, convinced the management board and director about which ideas should be selected to elaborate.
‘During the decision process I showed much persistence. (…) I promoted the proposal to the management board and emphasized that I found this important to happen, because the employees need this. So, I defend the proposal. ’ (CA) ‘When I give proposals within the management board , I can have influence on the decision making process. I explain them why we have to do it this way and I hope they will agree.’ (CA)
‘Within the management board, I can also determine which way we are going.’ (CA)
+ The change agent influenced the decision of the management board about which ideas should be selected to elaborate positively.
‘The outcome was positive, because this issue was positive assessed by the management board.’ (TM)
Table 6. Codes and examples about the influence of legitimate power on the selection/retention phase
3.2 Reward power
26 the change agent used his or her access to valued rewards in return for compliance with instructions during the selection/retention phase.
3.2.1 The influence of reward power on the variation phase
The result showed that the change agent used his or her access to valued rewards on one way during the variation phase. In return for commitment during the process of generating ideas or coming up with good ideas, the change agent gave the team members compliments. This was mentioned by ten interviewees from six different teams. For example, one of the change agents noticed: ‘I express my appreciation to the initiatives that people take.’ (CA) Four interviewees divided among two teams explained that this positively contributed to the motivation of the team members to come up with good ideas: ‘Not only when I ask to think along actively, they [team members] are also coming with their ideas by themselves’ (CA)
Way of using power base: Example(s): Effect on variation phase: Example(s):
1. The change agent, making use of his or her access to valued rewards, gave compliments to team members in return for good ideas or their commitment within the process of generating ideas.
‘I reward this kind of things. It can mean something for the whole team. Not really hard rewards, but giving attention to it and compliments’ (CA) ‘If you are doing well, he is simply saying that.’ (TM) ‘When we sit down in a group, I like it to appoint and give attention to an employee who come up with good idea. Hmm, is that a reward? Yes, actually I give someone a compliment.’ (CA)
‘When I felt that people are thinking along positively, I give them a compliment.’ (CA)
‘I express my appreciation to the initiatives that people take.’ (CA)
+ The team members get motivated to come up with their ideas.
‘I give compliments to stimulate good ideas.’ (CA) ‘When I hear I am doing well, that stimulates me. (…) I like it to generate ideas.’ (TM)
‘Not only when I ask to think along actively, they [team members] are also coming with their ideas by themselves’ (CA)
Table 7. Codes and examples about the influence of reward power on the variation phase
3.2.2 The influence of reward power on the selection/retention phase
27 meeting with the management board, I tell them: ’It was a good proposal, we were happy with it.’ I appreciated it by giving attention to it.’ (CA) Four interviewees from four teams explained that this contributed to the process of selection/retention, because the team members were motivated to elaborate the selected ideas further. One of the interviewed team members explained that you can see these compliments as a reward, but he emphasized that creating a more uniform way of working was simply a part of her job: ‘You can see it as a reward, but I see it as my daily job.’ (TM)
Secondly, five interviewees noticed that the change agent gave trust to the team members to elaborate (other) ideas further in return for good elaboration of selected ideas. One of the change agents mentioned: ‘Because if someone shows good work, I give him more trust.’ (CA) Three interviewees from three teams explained that this motivated the team members: ‘That was pleasurable, because now I know it is going to be alright.’ (TM)
Way of using power base: Example(s): Effect on
selection/retention phase:
Example(s):
1. The change agent, making use of his or her access to valued rewards, gave compliments to team members in return for good elaboration of selected ideas.
‘When I discussed the proposal during a meeting with the management board, I tell them [team members]:’It was a good proposal, we were happy with it.’ I appreciated it by giving attention to it.’ (CA)
+ The team members get more motivated to elaborate the selected ideas further.
‘When I hear I am doing well, that stimulates me.’ (TM)
‘It stimulates the employee to take responsibility [for elaborating the idea further].’ (CA)
‘You can see it as a reward, but I see it as my daily job.’ (TM)
2. The change agent, making use of his/her access to valued rewards, gave trust to the team members to elaborate (other) ideas further in return for good elaboration of selected ideas.
‘Because if someone shows good work, I give him more trust.’ (CA)
‘He [change agent] is giving you trust. He says: ‘I suppose that you have the skills. When there are exceptions, tell me.’ (…) I see that as a kind of reward.’ (TM)
+ The team members were motivated to elaborate (other) selected ideas further.
‘That was pleasurable, because now I know it is going to be alright.’ (TM) ‘They [team members] become more productive.’ (CA)
Table 8. Codes and examples about the influence of reward power on the selection/retention phase
3.3 Coercive power
The results of the interviews showed three examples from interviewees from three different teams of using coercive power during the phase of variation. Two interviewees from two teams noticed that the change agent used his or her access to penalties or sanctions that are considered to be unwelcome during the selection/retention process.
3.3.1 The influence of coercive power on the variation phase
28 considered to be unwelcome, exerted pressure to the team members to come up with their identified problems and ideas for solving this problems. One of the interviewed team members explained that the change agent exerted some pressure to create an uniform way of working: ‘There is pressure about getting the things of good quality as soon as possible.’ (TM) According to three interviewees from three different teams this contributed positively to the process of generating ideas, because the team members who resist the change to a certain degree were also stimulated to come up with their ideas more actively. For example, there were some team members that are not willing to create ideas. Therefore, the change agent exerted some pressure: ‘My experience is that when you exert some pressure, the group is willing to think along.’ (CA)
Way of using power base: Example(s): Effect on variation phase: Example(s):
1. The change agent, making use of his or her access to penalties or sanctions that are considered to be unwelcome, exerted pressure to the team members to come up with their identified problems and ideas for solving this problems.
‘There is pressure about getting the things of good quality as soon as possible.’ (TM)
‘I assume that they [team members] identify the problems from the working field. If they are not doing that, I address them.’ (CA) ‘During that team meeting I perceived that there arose an oppressive atmosphere. On that moment they [team members] have to persist, because this is going to happen.’ (CA)
+ The team members who resist the change for a certain degree felt also stimulated to identify problems and to come up with ideas for solving this problems.
‘It is fine that you feel this.’ (TM)
‘My experience is that when you exert some pressure, the group is willing to think along.’ (CA)
Table 9. Codes and examples about the influence of coercive power on the variation phase
3.3.1 The influence of coercive power on the selection/retention phase
Two interviewed team members from two different teams indicated also a way of using coercive power during the selection/retention phase. According to these interviewees, the change agent coerced a team member to elaborate selected ideas. For example, one of the team members noticed: ‘The team leader entered a dialogue with a employee. When the team leader gave clearness, the employee knew what he had to do.’ (TM) According to this interviewee, this stimulated the team member to elaborate the selected ideas in order to create an uniform way of working: ‘Sometimes he [change agent] needs to sanction, then you are getting employees on the right track.’ (TM)
3.4 Information power
29
3.4.1 The influence of information power on the variation phase
The results of the interviews showed that the change agent used the access to information that was not public knowledge on two different ways during the phase of generating ideas. Firstly, ten interviewees from six teams indicated that the change agent used information from the management board and the customers to communicate information, give suggestions and provide reports with valuable information to the team members. One of the change agents explained that he from the start of generating ideas communicated the thoughts of the management board: ‘I knew all the agreements with the management board. The employees who signaled this problem not. I helped them with making a good start and things they need to have attention for.’ (CA) This increased the chance to get permission from the management board to realize this change. With regard to the results of all interviews, this way of using information power effected the process of variation on two different ways. Firstly, five interviewees from four teams explained that the team members used the information to provide realistic idea from the team members. One of the interviewed team members explained that he needed the information of reports from earlier meetings of the management board in order to generate ideas: ‘I needed this, otherwise I come up with ideas that did not fit.’ (TM) Next to that, two interviewees from two different teams explained that the information stimulated the team members to think about the information and to come up with their ideas about it: ‘The effect is that I think about it and are prepared well to come up with ideas.’ (TM)
Another way of using information power was mentioned by five interviewees from three teams. They noticed that the change agent provided an example model of other organizations to the team members. One of the change agents mentioned that this helped to stimulate the team members to come up with their ideas about how this example model could be used within their organization: ‘You can use the experiences of others to stimulate the employees [to come up with their ideas].’ (CA) However, one of the change agents noticed that an example model also can influence the selection/retention phase more negatively. He explained that there was less space for generating ideas anymore about a part of the intended change: ‘What should be reported was already defined, so to that extent there was nothing anymore to think about.’ (CA)
Finally, one interviewee mentioned that the change agent deliberately withhold information to the team members to influence the phase of variation: ‘We get information from other teams, but our team leader did not told us this.’ (TM) This negatively influenced to the process of generating ideas, because according to this interviewee there arose unrest among the team members: ‘Employees from different teams talked with each other about what they have heard. It gave unrest.’ (TM)
Way of using power base: Example(s): Effect on variation phase: Example(s):
1. The change agent, making use of his or her access to information that is not public, used information
‘I knew all the agreements with the management board. The employees who signaled this problem not. I
+ The team members used the information to provide realistic ideas.
