THE ROLE OF CHANGE COMPLEXITY IN
AGENT-RECIPIENTS INTERACTION
By
MARIEKE M. H. DEKKER
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics & Business
ABSTRACT
In today’s business, complex change is occurring with more frequency than ever. The complexity of a change (project) impacts its shaping and therefore success. This change success is also influenced by other factors, such as the actions and reactions of managers (agents) and employees (recipients). However, so far, no research has indicated whether these antecedents of change success also influence each other. The purpose of this study therefore is to investigate how change complexity plays a role in the interaction between agent and
recipients during change. An adapted version of MacKechnie’s (1978) change complexity dimensions is used to operationalize the concept of change complexity, since these
dimensions are still relevant today. Because the extent to which change complexity
constraints or enables agent-recipients interaction is not evident yet, a multiple-case study, consisting of two cases at two different organizations, has been conducted. Both organizations were engaged, or had been engaged, in a complex change. Data was collected by means of in-depth interviews, with both change agent and –recipients of the organizations. All interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded in order to analyze the data. Both within-case analyses and a cross-case analysis were performed. From the results of the multiple-case study it can be concluded that change complexity does not necessarily play a role in agent-recipients interaction, but it does play a role in inter-recipients interaction. This inter-recipients interaction is positively influenced by change complexity. However, this influence is
moderated by the role that the agent or recipients play in change complexity; they are able to inhibit or enhance change complexity.
INTRODUCTION
In today’s business, complex change is occurring with more frequency than ever (Conner, 1998). However, managers often refer to the term complexity as “something undesirable that made a project unique, more complicated and more difficult to execute, manage and control” (Geraldi, 2009: 665). MacKechnie (1978: 24) argues that complexity “becomes an intervening variable affecting the relationship between the change strategy employed and the degree of success with which the change is implemented”. Geraldi (2009: 666) adds to this that if complexity shapes organizational structures, it “should have a predicting power, and capture elements that significantly impact the way projects would be (ideally) shaped”. Thus, it can be argued that the complexity of a change (project) impacts its shaping and therefore success. This change success is also influenced by other factors, such as the actions and reactions of managers and employees. In the change literature, these managers and employees are often referred to as change agents and change recipients. Concerning agents, there are many
articles, books and guides available which describe how they could influence change success; the current digital bookshelf of Amazon.com consists of 3.897 books on change management. On the other hand, change recipients have played a minor role in literature, but are becoming more important in the last years. This includes the importance of the influence of the
recipients on the success of change projects (Meier, Ben & Schuppan, 2013). Oreg, Vakola & Armenakis (2011: 462) endorse this by stating that “a main determinant of the extent to which any change can succeed, is how change recipients react to organizational change”.
So far, no research has indicated whether the above mentioned antecedents of change success (complexity, change agents (re)actions and change recipients (re)actions) also influence each other. Most research on change or project complexity stresses effects on and implications for managers (agents), but not for recipients. However, today’s change literature more and more provides a dualistic view on change; it looks at change from both the agent and recipients perspectives. Furthermore, according to Ford, Ford & d’Amelio (2008), the agent-recipient relationship shapes, and is shaped by, agent-recipient interactions. Neither the agent nor recipients can solely guarantee the success of a change; they are heavily dependent on each other. Hence, it might be interesting to find out if, and how these interactions are influenced by change complexity. The purpose of this study therefore is to investigate how change complexity plays a role in the interaction between agent and recipients during change. The corresponding research question of this study is as follows:
‘How does change complexity play a role in the interaction between agent and recipients during change?’
Particular by looking at the interaction, both agent and recipients’ views and (re)actions can be taken into account.
bold line indicates the focus of this study, which has not been researched yet. It should be mentioned that the factor change success will not be discussed in this study; it only shows the commonality of the other research variables. However, if change complexity does play a role in the interaction process, implications for change success can be of managerial relevance.
Figure 1: Research Focus
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The following section discusses literature about change complexity and change agent-recipients interaction and provides operational definitions. For change complexity, first the concept of complexity is discussed, secondly, an overview of literature about change complexity is provided and reviewed, thirdly, relevant theoretical issues are discussed and lastly, an operational definition is provided. For change agent-recipients interaction, literature is discussed and an operational definition is provided. At the end of this section, also the connection between the concepts will be discussed.
Change complexity The concept ‘complexity’
Complexity is a commonly used word, in particular in organizational life. Looking at the literature, there are different interpretations of the phenomenon complexity. In organizational literature complexity is often mentioned together with terms such as ‘uncertainty’,
‘incongruence’ and ‘ambiguity’ (MacKechnie, 1978; van Marrewijk, Clegg, Pitsis &
Veenswijk, 2008; Smets & Jarzabkowski, 2013), while in sociological literature there is more emphasis on the multiple components involved (Edmonds, Aerts & Gershenson, 2007). That is, it focusses more on the original meaning of the Latin word complexus: ‘entwined’ or ‘what is woven together’ (Morin, 2005).
to the many components and relations involved, which have “a high degree of
interrelatedness” (Hertogh & Westerveld, 2010: 187). The second type, dynamic complexity, exists due to the “potential to evolve over time”, which results in “limited understanding and predictability”, (Hertogh & Westerveld, 2010: 187). In other words, there is complexity because the effects over time of interventions are not obvious; it concerns the uncertainty-based aspects of complexity (Xia & Lee, 2004). According to Maylor et al. (2008: 20), “for every structural element there is a corresponding dynamic element”. For example the
structural complexity of having a large number of change stakeholders, can turn into dynamic complexity when these stakeholders have different meanings and perceptions, or their
interests change over time (Hertogh & Westerveld, 2010).
Zooming in on literature about complexity in the context of organizational change, also there different interpretations of complexity can be found. On the one hand complexity is being seen as described above; a change is complex due to interrelationships and elements of ambiguity and uncertainty. It is seen as a way to identify a certain change, in other words, it focuses on “the use of complexity as a contingency” (Geraldi, 2009: 666). On the other hand there are the so-called complexity theories, which became popular in the nineties. These theories are not about complexity as a way to identify a change, but are “increasingly being seen by academics and practitioners as a way of understanding organizations and promoting organizational change” (Burnes, 2005: 74). According to these advocates of complexity, “organizations, like complex systems in nature, are dynamic non-linear systems, and the outcomes of their actions are unpredictable but are governed by a set of simple order-generating rules” (Burnes, 2005: 74). These rules are the key to survival, keeping an
organization operating ‘on the edge of chaos’ (Stacey, Griffin & Shaw, 2002; Karp & Helgø, 2007). If organizations are too stable, nothing changes and the system dies; if too chaotic, the system will be overwhelmed by change. An important element of complexity theory is the emergent nature of change; in order to survive, organizations need to be adaptive and flexible (Stacey, 1995; Lissack, 1999; Burnes, 2005). Thus, in these theories complexity is seen in a broader organizational sense; it does not concern the uncertainty about the attributes or nature of changes, but more the uncertainty about the organization’s future and implementation of changes. Since the complexity theories do not focus on the complexity of specific changes, these theories are seen as irrelevant for this study and the literature on complexity theories will not be further discussed.
To conclude, this study focuses on complexity as a contingency, a way to indentify a certain change. Furthermore, it focuses on complexity in the context of planned change. Change complexity literature
Although this study is about change complexity, literature on change complexity and project complexity will be used interchangeably for the following reasons. Firstly, most
the focus of this study. Therefore project literature can add a more contemporary view on complexity to this study.
MacKechnie (1978) was one of the first to specifically define the complexity of a change. He provides eight dimensions to measure change complexity, namely
1. Degree of dispersal: A change may affect several or all parts of the operating system rather than a single administrative unit exclusively.
2. Degree of specialization: A change may introduce activities of some complexity, which cannot be understood easily by those not possessing the relevant specialized knowledge.
3. Degree of radicalness: A change may be far-reaching in its ultimate effects rather than evoke only limited consequences.
4. Degree of equivocality: A change may introduce the prospect of ambiguous and unclear consequences rather than predictable, straightforward consequences.
5. Degree of required reorientation: A change may involve a considerable reappraisal of basic working assumptions rather than require virtually no variation of current assumptions.
6. Degree of novelty: A change can be considered novel to the degree that it proposes activities outside the organization's previous repertoire.
7. Degree of divisiveness: A change may evoke differences of interest and values among those concerned.
8. Degree of forcefulness: A change may be of compelling importance for some or all of those involved.
Besides MacKechnie (1978), there is not much literature which really defines change complexity. At the same time, there is a need for a definition or measurement of complexity (Whitty & Maylor, 2008). Furthermore, literature on change or project complexity which does provide measures or dimensions of complexity, mostly presents dimensions which are more or less similar to those of MacKechnie.
Authors who provide more or less similar dimensions of change complexity as MacKechnie (1978) are Nadler & Tushman (1989), Ribbers & Schoo (2002), Maylor (2003) and Maylor, Vidgen & Carver (2008). Nadler & Tushman’s (1989) research is about change intensity. They argue that “intensity relates to the severity of the change and, in particular, the degree of shock, trauma or discontinuity created throughout the organization” (Nadler & Tushman, 1989: 196). However, it seems that their ‘change intensity’ is more similar to radical change than to complex change. Therefore change intensity could be designated to MacKechnie’s (1978) ‘degree of radicalness’. Ribbers & Schoo (2002) propose three measures of complexity: variety, variability and integration. Comparing these with
MacKechnie’s (1978) dimensions, variety can be allocated to ‘degree of dispersal’, because it is about the number of elements involved. Variability involves both the ‘degree of
‘degree of dispersal’: the number of factors involved. Resource complexity relates to the radicalness of the change, and technical complexity relates to the degree of novelty,
specialization and required reorientation. Maylor, Vidgen & Carver (2008) have developed the ‘MODeST model’, which provides five dimensions of perceived managerial complexity in projects: mission, organization, delivery, stakeholders and team. The first three dimensions correspond more or less to those of MacKechnie (1978), since they concern the parts and systems involved in the project. On the other hand, the fourth and fifth dimensions focus more on a human aspect; the stakeholders involved. However, the ‘degree of dispersal’ could also entail this human aspect since the affected parts of the organization consist of both systems and people.
There are also authors who propose additional dimensions of complexity. Conner (1998) for example, argues that the complexity of a change can be measured by the quantity, variety, and clarity of information needed to describe it. He states that complex change initiatives “involve an imposing allotment of written and spoken words to detail a large number of variables, many of which have multiple, possibly conflicting interpretations” (Conner, 1998: 115). This focus on information is, compared to MacKechnie (1978), an additional dimension of change complexity. It should be noted that Conner (1998) uses the term ‘magnitude of change’ interchangeably with complexity of change. However, comparing it with the earlier mentioned complexity dimensions of MacKechnie (1978), this would be the same as the ‘degree of dispersal’ and can thus be seen as a component of change complexity. Another example of additional dimensions can be found in Little’s (2005) study; he argues that a project’s structure determines its complexity. The variables he proposes as indicators for complexity are team size, mission criticality, team location, team maturity, domain
knowledge gaps and dependencies. He argues that the higher the scores on these variables, the higher the complexity of the project. Comparing them with MacKechnie’s (1978) dimensions, only one is truly new: the dependency aspect, which concerns the dependence on third parties or other within-company projects. It is likely that the internationalization and increased use of outsourcing in organizations in the last years are the reasons for this new variable. Also Remington & Pollack (2007) provide a similar dimension: temporal complexity. This complexity relates to change in external influences over time, which may occur at any time during the project life cycle. The other dimensions of Remington & Pollack (2007), or sources of complexity as they refer to them, are more or less similar to those of MacKechnie (1978). Structural complexity relates to the ‘degree of dispersal’ and ‘degree of novelty’; it rather concerns complication than complexity. Technical complexity, as seen earlier in Maylor’s (2003) study, relates to the ‘degree of novelty’, ‘degree of specialization’ and ‘degree of required reorientation’. Lastly, directional complexity relates to the ‘degree of equivocality’: “complexity stems from ambiguity related to multiple potential interpretations of goals and objectives” (Remington & Pollack, 2007: 7).
Author(s) Dimensions of change (or project) complexity
MacKechnie, 1978
1. Degree of dispersal: A change may affect several or all parts of the operating system rather than a single administrative unit exclusively.
2. Degree of specialization: A change may introduce activities of some complexity, which cannot be understood easily by those not possessing the relevant specialized knowledge.
3. Degree of radicalness: A change may be far-reaching in its ultimate effects rather than evoke only limited consequences. 4. Degree of equivocality: A change may introduce the prospect of
ambiguous and unclear consequences rather than predictable, straightforward consequences.
5. Degree of required reorientation: A change may involve a considerable reappraisal of basic working assumptions rather than require virtually no variation of current assumptions. 6. Degree of novelty: A change can be considered novel to the
degree that it proposes activities outside the organization's previous repertoire.
7. Degree of divisiveness: A change may evoke differences of interest and values among those concerned.
8. Degree of forcefulness: A change may be of compelling importance for some or all of those involved.
Nadler & Tushman, 1989
Degree of shock, trauma or discontinuity created throughout the organization
Conner, 1998 The quantity, variety, and clarity of information needed to describe the change
Ribbers & Schoo, 2002
1. Variety 2. Variability 3. Integration
Maylor, 2003 1. Organizational complexity (the number of people, departments, organizations, locations, nationalities, languages, and time zones involved, level of organizational buy-in, authority structure) 2. Resource complexity (the scale of the project, often indicated by
the size of the budget)
3. Technical complexity (the level of novelty of any technology, system, or interface, and uncertainty about the process or the requirements)
Little, 2005 1. Team size
2. Mission criticality
3. Team location (distribution) 4. Team maturity (capacity) 5. Domain knowledge gaps
Remington & Pollack, 2007 1. Structural complexity 2. Technical complexity 3. Directional complexity 4. Temporal complexity Maylor, Vidgen & Carver, 2008
1. Mission (objectives, scale, uncertainty, constraints) 2. Organization (time and space, organizational setting) 3. Delivery (process, resources)
4. Stakeholders (stakeholder attributes, inter-stakeholder relationships)
5. Team (project staff, project manager, group)
Table 1: Overview of literature on change complexity dimensions
Theoretical issues
Based on the literature review about change complexity above, there are some theoretical issues that need to be discussed, before an operationalization of the concept can be formulated.
The first issue that comes up when looking at change complexity in literature regards the terms ‘uncertainty’ and ‘ambiguity’, which are often mentioned in articles about change or project complexity. Most authors see uncertainty and ambiguity as elements of complexity (MacKechnie, 1978; Xia & Lee, 2004; van Marrewijk et al., 2007; Maylor et al., 2008), but some make a distinction between the concepts. Little (2005) for example sees complexity and uncertainty as opposites: “a project’s structure determines its complexity”, while “a project’s uncertainty depends on market conditions and project constraints” (Little, 2005: 29-30). For the purpose of this study, the dominant view will be followed; uncertainty and ambiguity will be seen as elements of complexity.
The second relevant issue concerns the difference (and overlap) between change complexity and organizational complexity. An example that these terms are sometimes used interchangeably can be found in Beckard & Harris’ (1987) book (while their title suggests that it is about change complexity, the content actually addresses a wider context, and rather relates to organizational complexity). On the other hand, other authors do make a distinction between change- and organizational complexity. Nadler & Tushman (1989) for example make a clear distinction between the characteristics of the change and of the organization by putting them in a matrix: change intensity vs. organizational complexity. Although change intensity is only a part of change complexity (see earlier), their distinction of the two concepts is
important since they indeed are different. The complexity of an organization comprises a wider context than the complexity of a specific change. Hence, for the purpose and clarity of this study, the concepts of change- and organizational complexity are kept separated, and the literature about organizational complexity will not be discussed.
dimension such as the ‘degree of dispersal’ seems structural because it concerns simple facts about the components involved. Furthermore, a dimension such as the ‘degree of
equivocality’ seems dynamic, because it is about ambiguous and uncertain aspects involved with the change. But for example the ‘degree of required reorientation’ could be structural, since it concerns a static fact about the change and the components involved, or it could be dynamic, since various employees could have a different opinion about this over time. Therefore, in the formulation of an operational definition of change complexity, the
distinction between the two types of complexity will not be made explicitly. However, this issue will be kept in mind for the discussion section.
The fourth, and last, issue that needs to be highlighted concerns the subjectivity of complexity. According to Remington & Pollack (2007: 17), complexity is “a matter of perception and ambiguity”. One person can perceive something as complex, while others do not. Also Maylor, Turner & Murray-Webster (2013) argue that complexity is a subjective notion. It is important to keep in mind that “perceptions and knowledge are intertwined with complexity” (Maylor et al., 2013: 46). In other words, the subjectivity and positions or roles of a certain person need to be taken into account in this study.
Operational definition
For the purpose of this study, an adapted version of MacKechnie’s (1978) change complexity dimensions will be used to operationalize the concept of change complexity, since the
literature review above showed that these dimensions are still relevant today. Furthermore, MacKechnie’s dimensions are more elaborated, and thus more detailed, than those of other authors. For example where Maylor (2003) sees ‘technical complexity’ as one dimension, MacKechnie (1978) describes the same in three dimensions: the ‘degree of novelty’, the ‘degree of specialization’ and the ‘degree of required reorientation’. Based on the literature review, two dimensions are added to the original dimensions. The ‘degree of information needed’ is added because although the influence of information on change complexity has not been acknowledged by many authors, for the purpose of this study the definition of
complexity has to be as complete as possible. Also the ‘degree of dependence on third parties or other within-organizational changes or projects’ is added because it provides a more contemporary view on complexity; more and more elements become involved through the movement of internationalisation in organizations. Furthermore, the ‘degree of dispersal’ is extended with the notion of both systems and people, because also the human aspect of complexity has to be acknowledged. Next to these additions, the sequence of the dimensions is adapted to a more logical order: first the characteristics of the change on an organizational level are mentioned, then the characteristics on a more personal level, and lastly possible external influences on change complexity. Noteworthy is that the division in levels does not concern personal interpretations or differences. The levels say something about the
dimension; whether it relates to the organization as a whole or to individuals. Due to the subjectivity of complexity, the perception of complexity at the organizational dimensions can still differ per person.
Level Dimension Description
Organizational 1) Degree of dispersal Parts of the organization involved (systems & people)
2) Degree of information needed
Quantity, variety and clarity of the information about the change 3) Degree of equivocality Prospect of ambiguous and unclear
consequences rather than predictable, straightforward consequences
4) Degree of forcefulness Voluntary vs. mandatory participation 5) Degree of novelty Proposed activities outside the
organization's previous repertoire 6) Degree of radicalness Far-reaching in its ultimate effects
(consequences) Personal 7) Degree of required
reorientation
Reappraisal of basic working assumptions
8) Degree of specialization Possessing required knowledge 9) Degree of divisiveness Differences of interest and values
among those concerned
External 10) Degree of dependency Dependence on third parties or other within-organizational changes or projects
Table 2: Dimensions of change complexity
Change agent-recipients interaction
For the purpose of this study, the following definitions of change agents and change recipients will be used: change agents are “responsible for creating and directing the implementation of change within an organization” (Higgs & Rowland, 2011), while change recipients are “responsible for carrying out or adapting to a change” (Ford et al., 2008). As mentioned before, recent change literature more and more provides a dualistic view on change; it looks at change from both the agent and recipients perspectives. Furthermore, according to Ford et al. (2008), the agent-recipient relationship shapes, and is shaped by, agent-recipient interactions. However, a fundamental understanding of this interaction remains an important gap in the current change literature; a clear definition of agent-recipients interaction is difficult to find. There are authors who extensively discuss elements of the agent-recipients interaction, but they do not give a clear definition of the concept. Bouckenooghe (2010: 519) for example, argues that “change recipients make sense of change and develop a certain attitude toward change not only through a process of individual reflection but also through collective sensemaking that comes from a series of interactions with colleagues and change agents”. Also other authors connect interaction processes to sensemaking (Balogun & Johnson, 2011; Ford et al., 2008). Other elements of change agent-recipients interaction that are discussed in literature are for example recipients’ reactions to change and agent’s corresponding
a change context, is about information giving and associated responses, and attitudes and associated reactions. In other words, interaction concerns both communications and actions. Therefore, for the purpose of this study, interaction will be defined by means of both
communications and (re)actions between agent and recipients.
Communication can be defined as “an interchange of ideas, facts and emotions, by two or more persons, with the use of words, letters and symbols” (Oliver, 1997: 64). Most
literature on change communications is rather one-sided; it focuses on the agents’ side (McClellan, 2011; Lies, 2012; Simoes & Esposito, 2014). However, there are some authors who call for a dualistic view, for example Bisel, Messersmith & Kelley (2012), whose research was intended to encourage business communication researchers to go beyond a uni-dimensional view of the workplace relationship. Nevertheless, this study concerns the agent as well as the recipients and thus does take both sides of the workplace relationship into account. As mentioned above, interaction also entails action. According to King (2003: 1206), “talk in organizations drives action within organizations”. An action can be defined as “a certain type of behavior which is governed by an intention in order to achieve certain desired effects” (Allwood, 1976: 16).
Thus, the definition of change agent-recipients interaction for the purpose of this study is as follows: ‘both the communication between change agent and –recipients, and the
(re)actions of change agent and –recipients’. As mentioned by Ford et al. (2008), meaning ascription connects information (communications) with associated responses (actions). This means that interpretation drives action. Therefore, personal interpretations need to be taken into account in studying change agent-recipients interaction.
The connection between the concepts
As mentioned in the introduction, both change complexity and the interaction between change agent and recipients influence change success. However, the relation between these
antecedents of change success has not been researched yet. Regarding the literature, it is likely that agent-recipients interaction is influenced by the complexity of a change. For example recipients’ reactions and agent’s associated responses might be different to a complex change than to a non-complex change, since there is more uncertainty and
ambiguity. But the extent to which change complexity constraints or enables agent-recipients interaction is not evident yet. According to Jay (2013), unintended consequences of
METHODOLOGY
Data collectionTo gain a better understanding of the role of change complexity in agent-recipients
interaction, a multiple-case study has been conducted, since literature falls short here. This is in line with Eisenhardt’s (1989) argument that case studies are performed when there is a business phenomenon that is not thoroughly explained in academic literature.
Study design
The multiple-case study consisted of two cases at two different organizations, where both organizations were engaged, or had been engaged, in a complex change. Data was collected by means of in-depth interviews, with both change agent and –recipients of the organizations. These interviews were semi-structured; an interview protocol ensured measurement reliability of the study. Furthermore, the interviews were held on an individual level in order to prevent the giving of social acceptable answers; personal perceptions needed to be visible since change complexity is a very subjective concept, and interpretations are important in agent-recipients interaction (see earlier). Furthermore, by holding the interviews individually, respondent reliability could be ensured.
The interview protocol for both agent and recipients can be found in Appendix 1. First a few introductory questions were asked, to let the interviewees start talking and feel
comfortable. Second, some questions were asked about the interaction between the agent and recipients, to find out how the relationship between them is. Thirdly, questions about the complexity of the change were asked. Here, first the interviewees were asked how they would assess the complexity of the change, to see if some of the dimensions set up for the purpose of this study came up, and then the dimensions were discussed one by one. The interviewees were also asked to answer the research question. The purpose of this was to find a direction for the analysis; did they think the complexity had a negative, positive or no effect?
An important selection criterion for the cases was that the organizations were engaged, or had been engaged, in a ‘complex’ change; they had to score high on the dimensions set up for this study. Another requirement for the selection of the cases was that the change had not taken place longer than four years ago, because then people would remember most of it.
Case 1: AM
AM is a municipality in the northern of the Netherlands, in a city of almost 200.000
inhabitants. In 2007, due to a financial scandal in the planning department, the municipality decided to bring about a cultural change in that department. From 2008 until 2011 an external change agent was hired to bring in his expertise, and form a vision and design for the change. In that time, it appeared that the whole organization was in need of a cultural change, and the change was expanded to cover each department in the municipality. It was decided that the change would be piloted in the planning department, where it all had started. This department, therefore, is the focus of the case study. In 2011, the external change agent left and the head of the department was designated to implement the cultural change. Therefore, in the case study, he is referred to as the change agent. Next to the agent, four recipients were
department changed, because all planning employees were brought together in one building. The change agent was assigned to another function in the department. Therefore, a
requirement for the interviewed recipients was that they must have worked with the change agent in the time that he was head of the ‘old’ department. The recipients were all planning employees, and were selected by the agent as being representative for the planning
department. One of them has the function of office manager, one is team leader, and the other two are part of the team under this team leader. They all had been working at the organization for more than five years.
Case 2: BF
BF is a production factory, also in the northern of the Netherlands. The organization has around 500 employees and is part of a worldwide enterprise. In 2011, the international headquarters decided to convert all ERP systems to one standard system. Consequently, in 2013 BF started the design of the change to this new system. The whole organization is involved in the change; adaptations need to be made in the production department, the storage department, the ICT department, the financing department and the logistics department. To make sure the change is guided in every department, so-called SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) and super-users were appointed. The new system is planned to go live this year (2014). BF has a unique position in the international enterprise; it produces different products than the other affiliates. Therefore, the new system needed to be adapted to their unique production process. Currently, most departments know what the change will entail for them, but the specific changes are still not all clear. Managers mostly know what is going on, but for the employees of the production department it is yet not always clear what the change will entail for them specifically. The change agent which was interviewed for the case study is an internal change agent, whose tasks are specifically targeted at the current change of the ERP system. Five recipients were interviewed, which were employees from different departments of the organization, namely IT, finance, storage and production. They were selected by the change agent as being representative. However, it needs to be noted that they all had the role of SME or super-user for their department; they were rather middle-managers than ‘ordinary’ employees in the organization. Their ages varied and therefore also their career lengths within the organization. While one recipient just worked at BF for 2 years, another had been working at the organization for 20 years.
Data analysis
All interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded in order to analyze the data. Both within-case analyses and a cross-within-case analysis were performed. At the within-within-case analyses, first a microanalysis was performed, which is “a line-by-line analysis to generate initial categories and to suggest relationships among categories” and involves open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998: 57). An example of this is the categorization of the collected quotes from the interviews into change complexity related quotes and agent-recipients interaction related quotes.
macro-level, where selective coding was used to conceptualize the findings. Selective coding can be described as “the process of integrating and refining categories” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998: 143). Hereby, for example, the quotes related to the change complexity dimensions were separated into quotes from the agent and quotes from the recipients. At the cross-case analysis, the focus was on comparing the two within-case analyses, and thus describing differences and similarities. Thereafter, the findings were theorized, which is described in the discussion and conclusions section of this study.
For the coding, a coding scheme was set up, with eleven codes which all represent a relevant part of the research question. The codes can be found in Table 3 below.
The codes are both deductive and inductive codes. Deductive codes are codes taken from research, for example the categorization of agent-recipients interaction into communications and (re)actions. Inductive codes are codes formed throughout the study, for example the sub-code ‘no effect’ at the role of change complexity in agent-recipients interaction, which was added to the coding scheme during the period of data collection. The reason for this was that it became clear that change complexity, besides a positive and negative effect, could also have no effect at all in the interaction. Another example concerns codes about change success, which were discarded from the coding scheme during the analysis process, since information about change success appeared to be irrelevant for this study.
According to Yin (2009), it is useful in case studies to examine rival explanations, that is, search for divergent or opposite patterns. Referencing to Figure 1 (see earlier), a rival pattern in this study could be that not only change complexity plays a role in agent-recipients interaction, but that change agents or –recipients also play a role in change complexity. Therefore, codes about these potential roles are included in the coding scheme.
In the coding scheme, first a definition of the code is given, secondly, the underlying elements (subcategories) are defined, and thirdly, associated quotes out of the interviews are given. A shortened version of the coding scheme is displayed in Table 3 below, with some examples of representative quotes. The full coding scheme can be found in Appendix 2.
Code Code name Definition Subcategories Quotes
1 Communicati ons agent
An interchange of ideas, facts and emotions, by the agent to the recipient(s), with the use of words, letters and symbols.
1. Information to recipients 2. Perceived information from recipients 3. Attitude/emotions to recipients 4. Perceived attitude/emotions from recipients
“I am very much a kind of radar; continuously
showing what things are important.” (1) “We are currently very focused on awareness.” (3) 2 Communicati
ons recipients
An interchange of ideas, facts and emotions, by the recipient(s) to the agent, with the use of words, letters and symbols. 1. Information to agent 2. Perceived information from agent 3. Attitude/emotions to agent 4. Perceived attitude/emotions from
agent see it like that, it just happens.” (4) 3 (Re)actions
agent
A certain type of behavior of the agent, which is governed by an intention in order to achieve certain desired effects.
1. (Re)actions to recipients 2. (Re)actions from
recipients
“You have to make sure there are contact moments, from behind the mailbox it doesn’t work.” (1) 4 (Re)actions recipients A certain type of behavior of the recipient(s), which is governed by an intention in order to achieve certain desired effects.
1. (Re)actions to agent 2. (Re)actions from agent
“Everyone has had an individual conversation with [agent]. He is very clear in what he wants, but there is room for input or ideas.” (1) 5 Change
complexity
Perceived complexity of the change defined by 10 dimensions (see cluster) or additional mentioned dimensions/factors. 1. Degree of dispersal 2. Degree of specialization 3. Degree of radicalness 4. Degree of information needed 5. Degree of equivocality 6. Degree of required reorientation 7. Degree of novelty 8. Degree of divisiveness 9. Degree of forcefulness 10. Degree of dependency 11. Additional dimensions/factors
“We are yet not sure what the impact of the changes is.” (5) “Changing people, that is almost unfeasible.” (6) “Several changes intermingle.” (10) 6 Role of change complexity (in interaction)
The extent to which change complexity constraints or enables agent-recipients interaction. 1. Constraining interaction 2. Enabling interaction 3. No effect “Through the complexity, people are forced to communicate with each other.” (2) 7 Role of agent (in complexity)
The extent to which the agent increases or decreases change complexity.
No subcategory “I think it really depends on the person.” 8 Role of
recipients (in complexity)
The extent to which the recipients increase or decrease change complexity.
No subcategory “Employees of a higher age are anxious.”
RESULTS
For the clarity of this study, the results are divided into facts and interpretations. Of every case, first the facts of the results about the study’s concepts will be described, and second, the interpretations of those facts will be discussed. Thereafter, the differences and similarities between both cases will be discussed in a cross-case analysis. To guarantee the anonymity of the interviewed agents and recipients, all individuals are referred to as males (‘he’).
Case 1: AM Change complexity
According to the agent of AM the cultural change in the municipality was (and is) a complex one. This was particularly due to the equivocality of change consequences, the novelty of the change and the dependence on other within-organizational changes or projects. The agent argued that not everything was clear at the beginning of the change process: “We were in a process of continuous improvement, it was change by doing”. In the interview, he also emphasized on “learning by doing” and “just start with it”. But thereby the path of changing and the consequences of the change were quite ambiguous. Furthermore, the agent mentioned that the degree of novelty was high: “What we ask from people is different competences”. However, the factor that enhanced change complexity the most, according to the agent, was the dependence on other within-organizational changes or projects: “What makes it complex is that, when more people become involved, more changes interweave”. Other changes such as IT changes and several municipality wide projects ran side-by-side with the cultural change. The multiplicity of this made the change more complex. The agent stated that “one project does not wait for the others”. The other dimensions of change complexity were, according to the agent, no factors of complexity. For example the information about the change: the quantity of the information was high, because a cultural change is difficult to grasp and describe, but according to the agent the information surely was all clear and
evident. Furthermore, the agent did mention one additional dimension of complexity, namely that due to the politics in the municipality, “you are also constantly occupied with strategy”.
On the other hand, the recipients differed in opinion about the complexity of the change. The factors that were judged differently among recipients were the degree of
and if you have had three, well, shoot me. The communication is extremely vague, the IT support extremely old-fashioned. And those are all instruments, conditions, which make that finding a new way costs a lot of effort and energy.” Thirdly, the equivocality of the change and consequences of the change was for three recipients a factor of complexity. Especially the concept ‘cultural change’ was difficult to understand: “Cultural change, I found it hard to grasp. And I know processes can help; you can say now we are going to work in a different way, but do you change culture with that?” Furthermore, for people outside the original department (who moved and became part of the new department), the equivocality was a bigger issue than for people who had already been working in the same building: “People who came from other departments, even from other buildings, it was a bigger step for them. Like, oh what do we have to do, where are we going? It was ‘the great unknown’.” Another factor of equivocality was that “it is an ongoing process; you can’t say we start here and we end there and then it is finished, because it is never finished.” Also the conditions created by higher management (the managers not only of the planning department, but of all departments) were mentioned as a factor of equivocality: “Some elements were poorly elaborated. (…) In my opinion the conditions were messy, and that is what makes it
complex”. On the other hand, this recipient also argued that “the ending point is not complex; there is a relatively clear ending point. We know where we want to go.” Another recipient mentioned that “it was a little bit searching, but not a wearing search. It was more like, how do we do it, how can we fix it together?” Fourthly, also the required reorientation that the change evoked was for some recipients a factor of complexity and for some not. There were two recipients who stated that “when people have to change, it is complex anyway. That is almost unfeasible” and “you constantly have to adapt and adjust yourself”, while another argued that “there were no old pains from people who started at new positions (…) we all started with a clean sheet, and that really matters”.
Factors that were perceived similar among recipients were the degree of novelty, -radicalness and -dependency. First, the novelty of the change was perceived as being low among recipients. One argued that “it is not that new, it is just how you handle it”. Another recipient stated that “I don’t think it is very new. I know, in content it is complex, but the movement itself not. It is like the economic cycle; you build something, and then break it, and then build something again.” Nevertheless, one recipient mentioned that “for the municipality, it was an unknown structure”. However, he argued that, during the change process, “when it got difficult, the system proved to be very clear”. Thus, according to this recipient the degree of novelty was high, but he did not perceive that as a factor for complexity. Secondly, also the radicalness of the change was perceived by all recipients as very low. They mentioned that “it just happened” and “radicalness was not that high”. Lastly, the dependence on third parties or other within-organizational changes or projects was perceived by all recipients as a major factor for complexity. Just as the agent mentioned, the recipients thought the multiplicity of within-organizational changes caused the complexity. One recipient stated that “there are a lot of changes inside the municipality, and that creates agitation.” But not only
always come first”. The recipients did not mention any additional dimensions of change complexity.
The table below provides an overview of the change complexity dimensions that were perceived as being high and thus as enhancing change complexity, by the agent and
recipients. In the ‘agent’ column the crosses indicate the dimensions that were perceived as being high by the agent. In the column ‘recipients’ the numbers indicate the amount of recipients that perceived the relevant dimension as being high.
Dimension Agent Recipients
Degree of dispersal - 2
Degree of specialization - 0
Degree of radicalness - 0
Degree of information needed - 1
Degree of equivocality x 3
Degree of required reorientation - 2
Degree of novelty x 0
Degree of divisiveness - 0
Degree of forcefulness - 0
Degree of dependency x 4
Table 4: Overview of the change complexity dimensions that were perceived as being high at AM
Interaction and the role of agent or recipients in change complexity
The agent had a leading style of ‘management by walking around’: “You have to make sure there are contact moments, from behind the mailbox it doesn’t work.” Some characteristic quotes from him were “I try to make connections between people”, “I contribute to the work, and I show my enthusiasm. In that way, I determine the group norm” and “you must set the tone, be quick and cooperate”. The recipients differed in how they saw the agent. One recipient mentioned that “I understand, he is the driver, but I don’t see it like that, it just happens.” This recipient also stated that “what really determinative is, is the mood people breathe; what they want and how they execute it.” Another recipient mentioned that he did not see the relationship as a leader-subordinate relationship: “Well, agent and recipient, it doesn’t feel that way. I know we are, but it never felt like that, because we did and invented things together.” The other two recipients did see the agent really as the leader: “it really had a lot to do with how [the agent] acted”, “he has to create an umbrella, under which we can perform. He has to point out the direction we are going” and “culture carriers are very important, and [the agent] is such one”. However, they also admitted that “he gives a lot of responsibility to people self” and “he gives it to you, like, do something, but he doesn’t say what. Just think of something, and when a decision has to be made, I will hear it.” Furthermore, they endorsed that the agent had a style of ‘just doing it’: “He is someone who doesn’t have the whole path clear, but he reacts on what happens. That is why it was a bit messy sometimes, incoherent, but he had a sharp vision, a clear end goal, and that was nice.”
in there?’ This was very appreciated by the recipients: “He is very clear in what he wants, but there is room for input or ideas.” The recipients were also involved in the formulation of the implementation plan for the integration of all sub-departments of planning. The agent
explained “we had sessions where all employees sat together, and every session was a chapter of the implementation plan”. However, one recipient mentioned that “in my opinion, the last six, seven years, there has been a lot of talk, but little tangible has happened.”
All recipients acknowledged that the agent and they themselves played a role in the complexity of the change, both positively and negatively. One recipient argued that “it all comes down to people; how people interact with each other and whether they trust each other”. According to the recipients the agent was able to reduce change complexity since “he is relatively quick enthusiastic for doing thing differently” and “he was very clear and
responsible for the structure”. This was also mentioned by the agent: “People called me a border collie: I made sure all the sheep went in the right direction, and I circled around them to make sure that at the end of the day, they were all at the other side of the fence” and “when people didn’t know what way to go, I always had an answer, because I kept the big picture in mind”. On the other hand, some recipients argued that certain employees enhanced the complexity of the change. One recipient stated that “people who are in a certain position or mood, or are of a certain age, or whatever, you can keep pulling them, but it is ‘flogging a dead horse’. That is what makes it complex”. However, another recipient mentioned that complexity “really depends on the department”. He did not perceive the cultural change as very complex, but stated “I dare say this doesn’t apply municipality wide”.
The role of change complexity in agent-recipients interaction
Concerning the role of the above described change complexity in the interaction between change agent and recipients, the agent thought the role of change complexity was a positive one: “through the complexity, people are forced to communicate with each other”. However, the recipients thought that the complexity did not have any effect on the interaction. They stated that “communication still is easy and clear, nothing has changed in that sense” and “I didn’t notice any changes in that [communication], it was like it was”. However one recipient argued that “inside the department it did not have any influence, but when you need someone or something from outside… You don’t know to whom you should go, or that things are not organized in the right way. I don’t think it has a structural negative influence, but it could have when more things go wrong.” On the other hand, the recipients argued that “people visit each other easier” and “it was like, how do we do it, how can we fix it together?”
Interpretations
complexity mentioned by the agent was politics; to win people over for the new culture, politics played a role.
The interaction between agent and recipients was perceived as going smoothly and positively. This was particularly due to the agent; apparently his leadership style was the right style for the recipients. Therefore he was able to reduce change complexity; his assertive personality and capability to get people to work and connect with each other made people feel comfortable about the change. Because of this, the recipients thought the complexity did not have an effect on their interaction with the agent. However, the agent thought the complexity had a positive influence on the interaction; people were forced to communicate more with each other. But this concerns more the inter-recipients interaction than the agent-recipients interaction. It should be noted that working more integrated was a goal of the cultural change. However, also change complexity made the recipients interact more with each other, since they were the pilot of the cultural change in the municipality and needed to work it out together.
Case 2: BF
Change complexity
Both the change agent and change recipients were of the opinion that the ERP system change is complex. The agent mentioned all of the constructed dimensions as factors that enhanced change complexity, except for the degree of divisiveness. Firstly, the degree of dispersal: the whole organization is involved in the change, every department has to change. However, according to the agent, “particularly the production department is influenced a lot”. About this group, he argued that “everyone behind the machines, our biggest population, you cannot involve them in everything. Because they will be involved later, content wise, they will be the most difficult target group”. Furthermore, the agent mentioned that “I think it [the change] is not that complex. In my opinion it is more the quantity that could be a factor”. Secondly, the degree of information about the change is very high, but the information is also quite
ambiguous. The agent argued that “we are not so sure yet what the change will bring us. So we communicate, but we are very conscious in what we communicate”. Furthermore, “in this project there are certain things which are hard to communicate to a certain group of people. They say things like we have to do this, and deliver this, but well, what is that then exactly?” This problem connects to a third dimension of change complexity, the degree of equivocality. The agent argues that “we still don’t know the exact impact of the changes, we are still investigating that. And that creates agitation, and it indeed is difficult, because you cannot start with the whole process of change”. Furthermore, he mentioned that “for production, it has an impact on the way of working, but it is still being investigated. Therefore we cannot tell people that much about it. So we are continuously trying to keep them up to date, and keep communicating. And sometimes that is difficult” and “sometimes it is still too
characteristic of our sector of industry; change on change on change”. However, he also argued that “it is a big change, but not for every department. For example finance, they also have changes, but they deal with it more easily”. Sixthly, the degree of radicalness, which according to the agent especially is high concerning the mentality of recipients: “It is not radical, these are little adjustments. Only for some departments there are a lot of little
adjustments. And I also think these are a lot of mental adjustments. (…) So in that sense it is radical; your mind set has to change”. The seventh dimension, the degree of required
reorientation, is an important factor according to the agent. He argued that “not all changes are an improvement and that is what makes it complex. Maybe in the long term they are an improvement. Processes are becoming clearer, but the way of working may be more devious”. Furthermore, “when you must rely on your colleague, while before you did the same on your own, and it is holding the process to continue, well that is frustration”. Also the eighth dimension, the degree of specialization, is an important one according to the agent, but more for the organization as a whole: “Our production process is very different from that of affiliates. So it really has to be figured out what is going to change here.” For this dimension on a more personal level, the agent mentioned that “not everyone has the same skills. The level of the target group [the recipients] quite differs, and the change does not have the same impact for everyone. That is what makes change management difficult”. The last dimension is the degree of dependency, which, according to the agent, is high and low. On the one hand he mentioned the dependence on a third party: “There has been a change in the supply chain, and I think that change, which is now present for two years, could have an impact on this change, regarding ambiguity”. On the other hand he mentioned the dependence on other within-organizational changes or projects: “A lot of things change; we are rebuilding, new machines are coming, the different way of working is introduced. Sometimes we switch from five to three team, well, then you sleep less, work differently, your schedule is differently. Those kinds of changes are continuously present”. However, the agent argued, “I think those changes are not tight to the system change”. The agent did not mention any additional dimensions of change complexity.
Concerning the recipients, the factors they all mentioned as enhancing change
complexity are the degree of dispersal, -information, -equivocality and –forcefulness. Firstly, about the degree of dispersal the recipients all mentioned things like “it is quite complex because it doesn’t concern one department, or one function, but the whole organization. So we will be three, five days out of running for all of this”, “so many systems around the world are replaced for one, which indeed is incredibly complex” and “in my opinion the change itself is not complex. It is the structure from the organization in which we need to work that is
really have to collect your information to see the change in a broader light. I now and then hear things from other departments, of which I think o my god… but you’re so busy with your own matters”, “it is not being communicated what is going to happen. Well, project leader, SMEs, they know what it is about. But still, certain subjects are completely unclear” and “during the process, we had to adapt this, adapt that. Like, oh, we also have this, and then we had to make the blueprint all over again”. Concerning the equivocality, some characteristic quotes from the recipients are: “It is not clear for me yet how the changed way of working affects our company”, “that is the difficulty in this story; you can easily sell a change when it is immediately clear that it is an improvement. But in this case, there are things you cannot simply explain, (…) therefore, for people ‘on the floor’ it is quite a distant reality”, “it still is vague for people. Me too, I cannot say to people this is how it is going to work, because many things are not clear yet, things can still change”, “some things still change, like oh we have to do it that way, and then change it again. And that impacts the forms we already filled in, the data we provided. That is what makes it difficult” and “it is like a moving target on which we are shooting. They ask something, we deliver that, and then they say no, it is not good. Why not? Well we missed this and this change. Yeah if we don’t hear that, then we won’t know! So we really notice that not everything is certain yet”. Fourthly, the recipients perceived the degree of forcefulness as being high, since they thought the change is forced. They all acknowledged that it is imposed top-down: “You really feel that it is top-down. We have to sell it to the employees and that is difficult, since the change is not always an improvement for everyone, and we have to accept that” and “for a long time, we could do our own things, but now we are forced to go with the standard process”. Furthermore, the time span of the change also felt forced: “It is severely put by the company, we begin here and end there and we do not tolerate delays” and “there is a time pressure, and everyone is getting to feel that”.
Factors that enhanced change complexity according to some, but not all, recipients, were the degree of novelty, -required reorientation, -specialization and -dependency. Firstly, according to two recipients the degree of novelty was high. They argued that “the protocol turns upside down, there are a lot of movements between the old and new system. And you all have to keep an eye on that” and “it is not only technical, but people also have to do their work differently”. However, they also mentioned that there have been many changes already: “As long as I work here, something has changed”. Therefore, for the other recipients,
within-organizational changes or projects, recipients had distinct opinions. On the one hand one recipient explained that “there are only changes here; new machines in the factory, searching a new place for the old ones, an investigation about production is running. When I only look at my department there are four, five projects to substitute all kinds of software and systems for new ones. And that has interfaces with this project. That is what makes it complex. Because when I want to do something here, then oh no it is not known yet by the other project, so I cannot continue. It all interweaves”. This was acknowledged by two other recipients. However, they also argued that “this project is the most important project. It always comes first, period. When other projects affect this change negatively, this project comes first”. On the other hand another recipient acknowledged that there are more projects running, but did not perceive that as enhancing complexity: “It is heavy, the change, your own work, and then the teams change, but I think it all stands apart”.
A dimension that all recipients perceived as being low is the radicalness of the change. They argued for example that “it is not radical. An organization which is centralizing is a normal step in my opinion” and “the kind of system stays the same, so I don’t think it is radical”. The recipients did mention additional factors that enhanced change complexity. One stated that complexity “has to do with the workload, all the other things I have to do. I do it next to my daily work”. Two other recipients mentioned the dependence on the amount of investment money the project entails: “You cannot say oh we postpone it a month. No, millions of dollars depend on it” and “at this moment, the risk has increased”.
Just as before, the table below provides an overview of the change complexity dimensions that were perceived as being high and thus as enhancing change complexity, by the agent and recipients.
Dimension Agent Recipients
Degree of dispersal x 5
Degree of specialization x 3
Degree of radicalness x 0
Degree of information needed x 5
Degree of equivocality x 5
Degree of required reorientation x 2
Degree of novelty x 2
Degree of divisiveness - 0
Degree of forcefulness x 5
Degree of dependency x 4
Table 5: Overview of the change complexity dimensions that were perceived as being high at BF
Interaction and the role of agent or recipients in change complexity
As the agent argued himself, he tries to focus on the soft side of management. Furthermore, he is very engaged in creating awareness at the employees. However, “we are really conscious in what we communicate about the process”. In his opinion, “despite all those changes, or maybe thanks to all those changes, people are much like ‘we will see what happens’, just let it
could give their opinion: “We had the chance to adjust the blueprint; we’ve had workshops about this is the change we are imposed to implement, but how can we get along? Do we have to make adjustments?” Furthermore, one recipient argued that "his [the agent’s] role is
determined by our roles. We deliver input, what is going to happen, and he has to make a concept of how it is going to happen, how we are going to do that.”
Concerning the information about the change, the agent explained that “every
Thursday we issue an organizational paper, and according to research it is read well. So a lot of things about the process we put in there. But when there is specific information, which we really want to share, we issue a special edition. Furthermore we have a management letter, which is for all the middle managers. Also there we give information about the process, the whole project, and they have to pass it on to their teams or departments. So in any case everyone gets to hear something from the project once a month. Next to this, we sometimes have pull-surveys, to see how people think. So in different ways we are able to see if people are aware of the change.” The recipients endorsed this; every one of them mentioned the existence of the paper, and three of them mentioned the management letter. Furthermore, the agent explained that “we try to use ‘layman’s terms’. It is very difficult, because we work with so many abbreviations, and we, as management, speak a lot of English. For most of the people English is not that hard, but for some it is”, where he referred to the less educated employees, especially those working in the production department. The recipients mentioned that every department has a weekly meeting about the change. Some found these meetings helpful: “with those weekly departmental sessions it is getting clearer”, while others did not really see the value of it: “We have a weekly meeting, and then there are presentations every so often, but in my opinion it is abundantly, it could be less”. Another recipient endorsed this by stating that “you can’t have missed it, also people who don’t have so much to do with the change are ‘thrown to death’ with it”. Those recipients have a more ‘just do it’ attitude: “that is with a lot of things, you just have to do it. In my opinion they [management] think too difficult about it”. Another added to this that “it is the novelty. When there is something new, most of the time people are like ah no I don’t want to. But I say, try it first, see if it works”. Concerning the interaction between agent and recipients, also here ambiguity is an issue. Two recipients argued that “these are all nice structures, the project has all nice names, but you don’t hear much. You work with your own small team. Well, I hear some things because I have contact in other departments, but for a lot of people it is all quite meaningless” and “the project team, in my opinion they have been too far away for a long time”.
According to both the agent and recipients, the agent did not play a role in the change complexity.
The role of change complexity in agent-recipients interaction
To both agent and recipients it is not very clear what kind of role change complexity plays in the interaction between these two parties. The agent mentioned factors for both enabling interaction, and having no effect on the interaction. He stated that “we really communicate a lot; short lines, we see each other often, walk easily to each other’s office, have a weekly meeting”, but also that “I give direction, but they have to do it. We work together a lot, but I feel more like the guiding factor and I don’t think that influences the interaction”. The
recipients gave arguments for change complexity having a constraining role, an enabling role, and no effect at all in the agent-recipients interaction. It is constraining because “you can say we have to involve people, but it doesn’t work like that. It is such a huge project, in this concept, that doesn’t work” and “a lot of decisions are being undone. We have added information to our sheets, and delivered it, but then we get it back because another decision has been made! Well we didn’t hear it!” It is enabling interaction because of the weekly departmental meetings: “these meetings are very useful and important”. Furthermore, another recipient argued that “compared with other changes, we communicate a lot more. (…) I have never seen it that extreme. That is also why it is such a big change.” However, another recipient stated that “I don’t think there is more communication”, thus arguing that change complexity has no effect on the interaction.
Interpretations
Looking at the complexity of the change, according to the agent it is a really complex change, especially since not everything is clear yet and not everyone knows the impact on his job. Also the recipients were of the opinion that it is a complex change, and also they mentioned ‘ambiguity about the change’ as the most important factor. This ambiguity is an aggregation of the dimensions ‘degree of dispersal’, ‘degree of information’ and ‘degree of equivocality’. The organization rather works in pillars, and therefore not everyone is acquainted with the work of others. Furthermore, the information is not clear for everyone, since there are so many different people working in the organization; they differ in interests, in skills, in age and in education. This is the reason why change complexity is enhanced by certain employees themselves; the way of communicating always has to be so that everyone can understand, and that is difficult. Next to that, ambiguity also stemmed from the change process: not all
